C
cc42
Guest
Cachonga:
Do you think that Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac is a type of Jesus’s sacrifice on the Cross?
Do you think that Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac is a type of Jesus’s sacrifice on the Cross?
- Status
C
Cachonga
Guest
Huiou Theou,
Actually, when I made this answer I looked back to an answer I had already given to you in which I used the word “appears”. In the original post to Randy, I used 2 words (certainly indicates), which I would say is much closer to “appears” than the single word “certainly”. But you are right, I did change from “certainly indicates” to “appears”, and for that I apologize and ask your forgiveness. I will try to be more diligent in accurately reporting what I said.
Actually, when I made this answer I looked back to an answer I had already given to you in which I used the word “appears”. In the original post to Randy, I used 2 words (certainly indicates), which I would say is much closer to “appears” than the single word “certainly”. But you are right, I did change from “certainly indicates” to “appears”, and for that I apologize and ask your forgiveness. I will try to be more diligent in accurately reporting what I said.
You’re being silent on her sin? So you think she was a sinner? The church has dogmatically declared her to be free of all stain of sin from her conception. I find no evidence of this in Scripture, and therefore conclude that she was a “normal” human being, complete with faults and sins.
I completely disagree. Furthermore, I don’t see that this discussion is of much value (it doesn’t seem that you can represent my words correctly, stating that I made a “boldface lie” by replacing “certainly” with “appears”, even though the original post clearly said “certainly indicates”). You are using a translation that I find questionable (RK, translated from Latin to English, and we have already seen the apparent discrepancies with the Law and the sacrifice required of those who give birth). I’m sure you (and others) will make a great deal of my refusal to answer any more of your questions (or charges), but that is not my concern. I have tried to be honest and represent myself and the Catholic position fairly.
C
Cachonga
Guest
What does this have to do with the topic?
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
I didn’t say she was a “sinner”, I didn’t say “actual sin”.
Nice sound bite, though…
If you can prove what kind of sin it is, real, vs. hypothetical, vs. not a real, vs. ritual, etc. Then yes, I admitted she has a sin – otherwise, No she doesn’t. Name the sin, correctly, and you win the debate.
There is EVIDENCE, just not “Proof”.
Besides – I am only arguing POST kecharitomenE; that has scripture to back it up. ALSO, I think you’re crazy – Normal women don’t get angels calling them “she-who-has-been-perfectly-Graced.” Your a normal man, right? How many angels have YOU seen?
I completely disagree. Furthermore, I don’t see that this discussion is of much value (it doesn’t seem that you can represent my words correctly, stating that I made a “boldface lie” by replacing “certainly” with “appears”, even though the original post clearly said “certainly indicates”).
Certainly! I indicated what your said. It seems I Certainly indicated what you said.
Here’s my indicative index finger, apparently representing your words…
:takethat: and now a bonus::crying:
It’s not strictly from Latin to English; Ronald Knox notes discrepancies in his footnotes and on the opening page it clearly says “Translated from the Latin Vulgate in the Light of the Hebrew and Greek originals”; However, I respect your concern.
The Greek itself of Luke 2:22-25: as I have noted, is here:
biblos.com/luke/2-22.htm
Luke 2:22 και οτε επλησθησαν αι ημεραι του καθαρισμου αυτων κατα τον νομον μωυσεως ανηγαγον αυτον εις ιεροσολυμα παραστησαι τω κυριω
It clearly says, cleansing (Catharsis/ismou) of-them (not her), and it says
“Him into Ierusolyma (Jerusalem), to-present to the Lord.”
biblos.com/luke/2-23.htm
Luke 2:23 καθως γεγραπται εν νομω κυριου οτι παν αρσεν διανοιγον μητραν αγιον τω κυριω κληθησεται
Here, it mentions the Law of the Lord (It doesn’t say Moses, interestingly) and then talks about the firstborn (eg: first out of the womb) being called holy to the Lord.
So, even in the original Greek (skip the Latin!) – it never says Mary came to offer the doves for sin, and Luke is explicitly referencing a Law of the Lord…
You need to look in Exodus 13:2 and the word match to Luke is only found down at Exodus 13:12-15
I already quoted 13:12-15, but I wasn’t talking to you, so here’s a link.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9498622&postcount=167
In the LXX, The same words appear, with a slight reordering, but the sentence means exactly the same thing:
Exodu 13:12 και αφελεις παν διανοιγον μητραν τα αρσεν-ικα τω κυριω παν διανοιγον μητραν εκ των βουκολιων η εν τοις κτηνεσιν σου οσα εαν γενηται σοι τα αρσενικα **αγιασεις τω κυριω
**
So, what’s your argument again – Mary had to fulfill Leviticus 12:4-6?
There, the Greek reads:
Levit 12:5 εαν δε θηλυ τεκη και ακαθαρτος εσται δις επτα ημερας κατα την αφεδρον και εξηκοντα ημερας και εξ καθεσθησεται **εν αιματι ακαθαρτω αυτης
**So, it says " In blood un-cleanness of her…" which is about blood loss…
eg: Cathartic means to cleanse by expelling.
Levit 12:6 και οταν αναπληρωθωσιν αι ημεραι καθαρσεως αυτης εφ’ υιω η επι θυγατρι προσοισει αμνον ενιαυσιον αμωμον εις ολοκαυτωμα και νεοσσον περιστερας η τρυγονα περι αμαρτιας επι την θυραν της σκηνης του μαρτυριου προς τον ιερεα
THen the law mentions a “bird about sin” (a sin offering…)
and finally,
Levit 12:7 … και εξιλασεται περι αυτης ο ιερευς και καθαρισθησεται
The whole purpose of the sin offering is to cleanse her again.
I’m not going to bother, silence is golden.
To sum up:
- Luke references the time period of cleansing, (2:22) but does not apply it definitely to Mary. He avoids the wording of the Law for some reason and applies it to THEM (inclusive of Jesus).
- The sin offering in Leviticus 12, is on account of being un-clean by virtue of blood loss (vv. 12:5/6) and the purpose of the offering is so the priest can make her clean again. (vv. 12:7)
- Luke, HOWEVER, does not mention this sacrifice in the appropriate place – but instead mentions the dedication and implicit mandatory sacrifice of Exodus before doing anything else;
- It is at this point, that Luke mentions a sacrifice – in conjunction with the dedication. It is the sacrifice of those who can’t afford a lamb.
- There is only enough sacrifice to satisfy Exodus or Leviticus, not both.
I think it crazy to say it has to be for sin – when the son is included in the “cleansing” when he is obviously clean – and the “purification” period is for “them”. Either sin isn’t committed sin, or the whole thing doesn’t apply to this particular case.
C
cc42
Guest
Cachonga:
It has to do with the nature of typology and what we can theologically establish by applying it. So do you accept it as a type?
It has to do with the nature of typology and what we can theologically establish by applying it. So do you accept it as a type?
C
Cachonga
Guest
cc42,
I can see this as a type of the sacrifice Jesus made (although, obviously, Isaac wasn’t sacrificed). It is an excellent type of how Jesus took our (the Elect’s) place on the cross (as Abraham told Isaac, “God will provide Himself a Lamb”, and that is exactly what Jesus was in our place).
Keep in mind, just because I accept this type does not mean I will accept any conclusions of parallels as valid types. I do acknowledge that there are types within Scripture.
I can see this as a type of the sacrifice Jesus made (although, obviously, Isaac wasn’t sacrificed). It is an excellent type of how Jesus took our (the Elect’s) place on the cross (as Abraham told Isaac, “God will provide Himself a Lamb”, and that is exactly what Jesus was in our place).
Keep in mind, just because I accept this type does not mean I will accept any conclusions of parallels as valid types. I do acknowledge that there are types within Scripture.
C
cc42
Guest
Cachonga:
Right it is obvious that Abraham’s sacrific of Isaac was a type of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. It isn’t stated anywhere in scripture but we can use our reason to see the connections. I think that the parallels are there because God inspired the Bible and authored scripture. So now my question is do you think that God inspired all of the parallels between Mary and the types such as Eve, the Ark, and the uncursed ground?
Right it is obvious that Abraham’s sacrific of Isaac was a type of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. It isn’t stated anywhere in scripture but we can use our reason to see the connections. I think that the parallels are there because God inspired the Bible and authored scripture. So now my question is do you think that God inspired all of the parallels between Mary and the types such as Eve, the Ark, and the uncursed ground?
C
Cachonga
Guest
cc42,
Sure. I can agree that God inspired the parallels you speak of (just as He also inspired the parallels between Abraham/Isacc and the crucifixion, and the parallels between President’s Lincoln and Kennedy. God is in control of all of human history). I don’t think I ever really challenged the parallels, only the conclusions. Even if I grant that Mary is the “New Eve” or “New Ark”, that still doesn’t give evidence for the immaculate conception from Scripture. The conclusions of the parallels are speculative (even if reasonable), and the conclusions drawn from the conclusions (that is - if Mary is the “New Eve”, then, like Eve, she was without sin from her very conception) are even farther removed, depending more on “because the Church says so” and questionable, human philosophy (which the Apostle Paul warned us to beware of in Col 2:8) than Scripture.
Sure. I can agree that God inspired the parallels you speak of (just as He also inspired the parallels between Abraham/Isacc and the crucifixion, and the parallels between President’s Lincoln and Kennedy. God is in control of all of human history). I don’t think I ever really challenged the parallels, only the conclusions. Even if I grant that Mary is the “New Eve” or “New Ark”, that still doesn’t give evidence for the immaculate conception from Scripture. The conclusions of the parallels are speculative (even if reasonable), and the conclusions drawn from the conclusions (that is - if Mary is the “New Eve”, then, like Eve, she was without sin from her very conception) are even farther removed, depending more on “because the Church says so” and questionable, human philosophy (which the Apostle Paul warned us to beware of in Col 2:8) than Scripture.
V
Vahva98
Guest
I just think it is so silly to argue with Catholics because they don’t believe the Bible is 100% true, (this post proves it:forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9516369#post9516369 read BOTH posts by me), while Lutherans (me) (certain groups, not the ELC) believe the Bible is 100% true. There have been no passages saying that Mary was perfect, simply assumptions that she was, while there are tons of passages saying that no one was perfect except Christ. But, the Catholics don’t agree with the Bible, and thats that (why is everyone still arguing, when the main point has already been proven that there is no proof for Mary being perfect?)
And instead of arguing with sinful human beings, why don’t you just read the Bible and see for yourself if any passages say Mary was perfect
(none do)
And instead of arguing with sinful human beings, why don’t you just read the Bible and see for yourself if any passages say Mary was perfect
(none do)
F
fames
Guest
For example ?
C
cc42
Guest
Cachonga:
Of course God is in control of all of history but that doesn’t mean that every connection and fact that can be made is theologically inspired. The Bible is a closed book that we believe is inspired. I am not saying that there are a bunch of coincidental things about Mary and Eve, like if you add the number of passages they equal the same number or something ridiculous like that, I am saying that there are thoelogical reasons for believing that Mary is the New Eve because there would have to be a New Eve and Mary fits the role. Otherwise like I saids before the Old Testament is left unfufilled.
Of course God is in control of all of history but that doesn’t mean that every connection and fact that can be made is theologically inspired. The Bible is a closed book that we believe is inspired. I am not saying that there are a bunch of coincidental things about Mary and Eve, like if you add the number of passages they equal the same number or something ridiculous like that, I am saying that there are thoelogical reasons for believing that Mary is the New Eve because there would have to be a New Eve and Mary fits the role. Otherwise like I saids before the Old Testament is left unfufilled.
C
cc42
Guest
Vahva98:
I have provided a number of scriptural arguments for why Mary must be sinless such as typological connections between her and things in the Old Testament and the fact that she is hailed as full of grace before conceiving Christ. Martin Luther tended to believe that Mary was immacualte as well.
I have provided a number of scriptural arguments for why Mary must be sinless such as typological connections between her and things in the Old Testament and the fact that she is hailed as full of grace before conceiving Christ. Martin Luther tended to believe that Mary was immacualte as well.
C
Cachonga
Guest
cc42,
I have said many times that God COULD have made Mary sinless at any point in her life. It seems that the only Scriptural “evidence” presented has to do with κεχαριτωμένη from Luke 1:28 (which does not say anything about being sinless, and there is nothing in the word or text to cause one to think this was from conception), and some alleged typologies concerning Mary as the “New Eve” or “New Ark”. I acknowledge the parallels exist, but I find no reason to accept the conclusions being put forth. I definitely do not accept your conclusion that the OT is unfulfilled if Mary is not the “New Eve”.
As far as what the Reformers believed (like Luther or Calvin), they are about 1,500 years removed from any eye-witnesses and were raised in a totally Catholic environment. You might also keep in mind, though, that when they were alive, the immaculate conception was NOT a defined dogma of the church (that came about 300 years later, and I think they would have come against that just as strongly as they came against the abuses of their day).
I have said many times that God COULD have made Mary sinless at any point in her life. It seems that the only Scriptural “evidence” presented has to do with κεχαριτωμένη from Luke 1:28 (which does not say anything about being sinless, and there is nothing in the word or text to cause one to think this was from conception), and some alleged typologies concerning Mary as the “New Eve” or “New Ark”. I acknowledge the parallels exist, but I find no reason to accept the conclusions being put forth. I definitely do not accept your conclusion that the OT is unfulfilled if Mary is not the “New Eve”.
As far as what the Reformers believed (like Luther or Calvin), they are about 1,500 years removed from any eye-witnesses and were raised in a totally Catholic environment. You might also keep in mind, though, that when they were alive, the immaculate conception was NOT a defined dogma of the church (that came about 300 years later, and I think they would have come against that just as strongly as they came against the abuses of their day).
P
Prieldedi
Guest
Your argument is what non Christians use when they say: there isn’t a single passage in the Old Testament that says that Jesus is the Messiah. Is there? They use against believers like you your own argument. They don’t see what you see and you might wonder why, and you don’t see what we see and we wonder why. As a believer you would call them blind, yet you are also blind. Now that I mention Jesus name as the Messiah in the OT, depending on the version of the Bible, do you know the name “Jesus” appears once (or twice) in the OT? Do you know were?I just think it is so silly to argue with Catholics because they don’t believe the Bible is 100% true, (this post proves it:forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9516369#post9516369 read BOTH posts by me), while Lutherans (me) (certain groups, not the ELC) believe the Bible is 100% true. There have been no passages saying that Mary was perfect, simply assumptions that she was, while there are tons of passages saying that no one was perfect except Christ. But, the Catholics don’t agree with the Bible, and thats that (why is everyone still arguing, when the main point has already been proven that there is no proof for Mary being perfect?)
And instead of arguing with sinful human beings, why don’t you just read the Bible and see for yourself if any passages say Mary was perfect
I don’t consider what we do here arguing, to me is a high level conversation in which we listen what you say and we expect you to listen what we say. And we say that what you believe was invented in the 1500’s. We say that your protestant ancestor, Martin Luther, believed in Mary Ever Virgin and Mary Sinless. Cachonga says that the reformers (Luther included) needed to be reformed. The problem is that the reformers’ reformers were also reformed, and the reformers’ reformers’ reformers were also reformed, and it hasn’t stopped. When will it end?
Perhaps you’re right, you should not be arguing with sinful human beings. Instead ask the intercession of The Sinless Human Being who is right now sitting next to Her Son, Jesus, and ask Her to intercede for you so Jesus allows you to see why He decided to protect His own Mother from sin.
… and we have seen for ourselves, in the Bible, the passages that say that Mary IS sinless, and we believe them because “With God nothing is impossible.” Luke 1:37
C
Cachonga
Guest
Prieldedi,
Not that it’s part of the topic of this thread, but where did I ever say, “that the reformers (Luther included) needed to be reformed”? Rather than make bold assertions about Mary’s sinlessness, perhaps you could contribute something to the dialog (keeping the topic in mind).
BTW - Luke 1:37 proves there is nothing impossible with God (which I agree with). Can you show how this “provess” Mary was imacculately conceived?
Not that it’s part of the topic of this thread, but where did I ever say, “that the reformers (Luther included) needed to be reformed”? Rather than make bold assertions about Mary’s sinlessness, perhaps you could contribute something to the dialog (keeping the topic in mind).
BTW - Luke 1:37 proves there is nothing impossible with God (which I agree with). Can you show how this “provess” Mary was imacculately conceived?
C
cc42
Guest
Cachonga:
The Reformers grew up in a Catholic environment, but you live in probably a more non-Catholic environment. The Reformers saw it as at least theologically justified to argue for the Immaculate Conception. This could have been in part due to historical development but so is your stance against it.
I think that it is a logical conlusion that if there was no second Eve then there was no second Eve to undo what the second Eve did, in role. I also think that it is very obvious that the Commandments were the Word of God made in stone and that Christ is the Word of God made flesh so the Ark and New Ark work in similar fashion. And then the uncursed ground. But we have been over that.
Perhaps though it is because you are not Catholic that you don’t accept these understandings, which is obviously true at least in part. Even if there are not good reasons to scripturally believe in the Immaculate Conception (even though I think that there are) I think that there are good enough reasons to believe in the authority of the Catholic Church and Her teachings overall in order to accept it as a true belief.
The Reformers grew up in a Catholic environment, but you live in probably a more non-Catholic environment. The Reformers saw it as at least theologically justified to argue for the Immaculate Conception. This could have been in part due to historical development but so is your stance against it.
I think that it is a logical conlusion that if there was no second Eve then there was no second Eve to undo what the second Eve did, in role. I also think that it is very obvious that the Commandments were the Word of God made in stone and that Christ is the Word of God made flesh so the Ark and New Ark work in similar fashion. And then the uncursed ground. But we have been over that.
Perhaps though it is because you are not Catholic that you don’t accept these understandings, which is obviously true at least in part. Even if there are not good reasons to scripturally believe in the Immaculate Conception (even though I think that there are) I think that there are good enough reasons to believe in the authority of the Catholic Church and Her teachings overall in order to accept it as a true belief.
P
Prieldedi
Guest
You wrote “As far as what the Reformers believed (like Luther or Calvin), they are about 1,500 years removed from any eye-witnesses and were raised in a totally Catholic environment.”
I interpreted (pun intended) this as you saying that Luther and the reformers believed in the Immaculate Conception just because they were “raised in a totally Catholic environment”, so they had to be reformed by others to get rid of all traces Catholicism from them and their doctrines, a procedure that continues to the present day with the denial of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. See, I had the topic in mind.
You’ve seen (I’m sure you have) our references to Genesis 3:15, Luke 1:28&30, Exodus 25:11-21 which are the passages that prove what the Church teaches about the Immaculate Conception.
I’ll comment on Genesis 3:15, where GOD says: “I will make you enemies, you and the woman”. The woman is Mary because Her offspring (Jesus) will crush Satan’s head, unless you know of someone else capable of crushing Satan’s head. And one becomes “friends” with Satan through sin. GOD gave us a PROPHESY that He would make sure “the woman” (Mary) will remain “enemies” (sinless) with Satan forever, which means from Her Conception to eternity. No original sin, no venial sin, no mortal sin, no sin at all. This was God’s prophesy and I believe in Him because “With God nothing is impossible.”
C
Cachonga
Guest
CC42,
My point about the Reformers was that they didn’t deal with the dogma of the immaculate conception because it wasn’t a dogma for about 300 years after they were dead (maybe closer to 200 years after they were dead, but the point is there was no dogma for them to deal with, regardless of what they believed about Mary).
I suspect one of your “second Eve” notations was supposed to be “first Eve”, which would make more sense as far as context goes. I’m still unconvinced of the conclusions about the parallels used, but even if I accepted the conclusions (that Mary is the “New Eve” and the “New Ark”), there is still no reason I can see to cause me to believe Mary was sinless, or that she needed to be sinless (much less that she was sinless from conception). As you say, we’ve been over that.
As far as my not being Catholic, I was born and raised Roman Catholic, and received 6 of the 7 sacraments by the time I was 30. I married a widow with 3 children, and, during our engagement, I trained them so that the same day their mother and I married, they received their first communion. I do have an understanding of Catholic teachings, and I hope that I do a good job in representing the catholic position (I admit I get a bit “abrasive” at times, but I’m working on that). I fully understand that Catholics will (generally speaking) always find the Scriptural evidence presented by the church to be sufficient, although I contend it is more because you accept the authority of the church without question than because of any compelling evidence within the Scriptures themselves.
My point about the Reformers was that they didn’t deal with the dogma of the immaculate conception because it wasn’t a dogma for about 300 years after they were dead (maybe closer to 200 years after they were dead, but the point is there was no dogma for them to deal with, regardless of what they believed about Mary).
I suspect one of your “second Eve” notations was supposed to be “first Eve”, which would make more sense as far as context goes. I’m still unconvinced of the conclusions about the parallels used, but even if I accepted the conclusions (that Mary is the “New Eve” and the “New Ark”), there is still no reason I can see to cause me to believe Mary was sinless, or that she needed to be sinless (much less that she was sinless from conception). As you say, we’ve been over that.
As far as my not being Catholic, I was born and raised Roman Catholic, and received 6 of the 7 sacraments by the time I was 30. I married a widow with 3 children, and, during our engagement, I trained them so that the same day their mother and I married, they received their first communion. I do have an understanding of Catholic teachings, and I hope that I do a good job in representing the catholic position (I admit I get a bit “abrasive” at times, but I’m working on that). I fully understand that Catholics will (generally speaking) always find the Scriptural evidence presented by the church to be sufficient, although I contend it is more because you accept the authority of the church without question than because of any compelling evidence within the Scriptures themselves.
C
Cachonga
Guest
Prieldedi,
Sorry for the confusion. As I explained to cc42, my point about the Reformers was that they didn’t deal with the dogma of the immaculate conception because it wasn’t a dogma when they were alive. In regards to their being raised in a “Catholic” environment, I don’t think there’s a great deal of disagreement that there weren’t a lot of church options in their day. I don’t think we need to continue this, especially since it’s not on topic.
I have seen the references to Gen 3:15 and others, but there is nothing there to convince me that Mary even needed to be sinless to be the mother of Jesus, let alone being sinless from conception. It still seems to me to come down to the claimed authority of the church. If you accept it, then you find the evidence overwhelming. If not, then the evidence is not as strong.
Sorry for the confusion. As I explained to cc42, my point about the Reformers was that they didn’t deal with the dogma of the immaculate conception because it wasn’t a dogma when they were alive. In regards to their being raised in a “Catholic” environment, I don’t think there’s a great deal of disagreement that there weren’t a lot of church options in their day. I don’t think we need to continue this, especially since it’s not on topic.
I have seen the references to Gen 3:15 and others, but there is nothing there to convince me that Mary even needed to be sinless to be the mother of Jesus, let alone being sinless from conception. It still seems to me to come down to the claimed authority of the church. If you accept it, then you find the evidence overwhelming. If not, then the evidence is not as strong.
P
Prieldedi
Guest
It didn’t matter that it was not a dogma, it was believed by all so there was no point in defining it as such. The Church defines a dogma when what has been taught is challenged. The reformers didn’t challenge Mary’s purity, there was no need to define it then.
There weren’t a lot of church options in their day? Are you saying that Jesus failed in leaving us with several options to choose from?
The authority of the Church is the Authority of Jesus. It’s not a matter that I have to decide or choose to accept or not. If the smallest human institution, the family, has an authority, the husband, why would I think that God would give us a big institution, now that the mustard seed became a big tree, and give us a decapitated institution? No one better than God knows human nature, accordingly he saw it necessary to establish an authority at the head of the Church, the Pope and the Bishops.
You have nailed it, all this division in Christianity can be resumed in one word: authority. You reject the Pope’s and Bishops’ authority. But I believe the first Christians when they said that these things were taught to them by the Apostles. I believe Jesus when He told His Apostles, “When he, the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into the whole truth.” And I believe His Church when She tells me that Mary’s purity IS important in God’s plan, and She had to be pure, as was the Ark of the Covenant, in order to receive the Living God in Her womb. There is nothing strange in this, God wanted the purest person in creation to be the Mother of His Son. He made sure She would remain pure forever. Nothing difficult to believe here, unless one rejects God’s message because one doesn’t like the messenger.
- Status