Is Anybody There?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit,' says Yahweh Sabaoth" Zach 4:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dio di Signore, nella Sua volontà è nostra pace!" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin 1759

Saturday, May 07, 2011

He Trusted In Her. . . .

& changed the world!



11 Comments:

  • At 7/5/11 10:02 AM , Blogger Chris Largret said...

    "He trusted in her and changed the world."

    My dear sir, would you please read your Bible sometime and attempt to find the verses that call us to pray to Mary? There is not even a verse about enlisting dead saints to pray with us.

    The Rosary worries me a great deal.

     
  • At 8/5/11 12:33 AM , Blogger Al said...

    There is also no where in the Bible that tells us we cannot ask our fellow members of the Body of Christ who are already in Heaven to pray for us.
    As for the Rosary, given that the Our father is scriptural, as is the 1st half of the Hail Mary, & the Glory Be is a simple doxology like those in the Bible praiseing God, what is your problem with us praying Scripture. Something that IS Biblical?

     
  • At 9/5/11 4:07 PM , Blogger Chris Largret said...

    My problem with the Rosary comes from the saying of 10 "Hail Mary's" for every "Our Father."

    And the first half of the "Hail Mary" doesn't bother me. It is the part where we get to "Mother of God." I have not seen that presented anywhere in Scripture. "Mother of Jesus," yes, and an earthly mother at that. "Mother of God," no. (I have read "The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary" and "The History of Joseph the Carpenter" -- they don't even agree with each other. >_<)

    The orthodox explanation of the Trinity ought to be enough for me to rest my statement of "Jesus" vs. "God" on, unless you call that doctrine into question.

    There is also the small matter of Paul's words in 1st Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

     
  • At 10/5/11 12:27 AM , Blogger Al said...

    The phrase "mother of God" or in the Greek, Θεοτόκος (Theotokos) was defined at the Council of Ephesus to counter those denied that Jesus one person who was fully human as well as fully divine. It has little to do with Mary & everything to do with affirming that Jesus was & is God the Son as well as the fact of His incarnation. Apparently you agree with the heresy of nestorianism that that term was meant to counter.

    As for those 2 other books you quote, may I remind you that it was the Catholic Church that discerned they were not Scripture & was who discerned that the 27 books of the New Testament were Scrpture. Nowhere in Scripture itself does it say that those books made up the New Testament/Covenant. In fact the only mention of the New Covenant is in Luke 2220 where Jesus said at the Last Supper "This cup [is] the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." (King James) & is a reference to the Eucharist (communion) not the books we call the Nerw Testament.

     
  • At 10/5/11 8:30 AM , Blogger Chris Largret said...

    The Catholic church has rejected those two writings on the lives of the parents of Jesus? On what is the church basing its teachings of the immaculate conception?

    John points out in the first chapter of his gospel that all things were made through Jesus. Ergo, Jesus pre-dated Mary. She bore him into this world.

    Are you familiar with the Zoroastrian religion? It was centered around Babylon and the "mother" gave birth to a "god." This is another reason for my distinction.

    The counsel of Nice pretty much affirmed the books that were already in wide-spread distribution among the churches. Hebrews is the one exception to the rule that they be written by people who had physically met Jesus.

     
  • At 10/5/11 7:26 PM , Blogger Al said...

    In answer to your question about the Immaculate Conception. In part, it is based on the greeting of Mary by the angel Gabriel where he uses the term hail, full of grace, part of the Hail Mary.

    This is the quote from papal bull that defined the doctrine: "We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.
    —Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854".

    You can read the entire document here: http://www.ewtn.com/LIBRARY/PAPALDOC/P9INEFF.htm

    Yes, I am familiar with the Zoroastrian religion. & just because they have something that is a blasphemous mockery of the truth doesn't allow you to throw out the truth.

    & again, I repeat that the Council of Ephesus made it clear that you cannot be an orthodox Christian if you deny the fact that Mary is the Mother of God. So I have to ask you, are you denying that Jesus is God?

    I also have to ask you, have you ever bothered to look up & read the actual teaching that tells why the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, made the declaration that Mary is the Θεοτόκος (Theotokos)?

     
  • At 11/5/11 1:32 AM , Blogger Chris Largret said...

    I thought that I had read the origins of this teaching, albeit not from catholic.org (or ewtn.com) or the published Catechisms. Now I suppose I have?

    While the latter half of this document gives a good explanation (not proof, IMO) for your position, the first half could also be a good explanation for why this view is not historical/orthodox.

    The entire document does not address why "Immaculate Conception" was necessary. Jesus touched sinners, so the need for a "barrier" to protect the "holy god" from touching sinful humanity is defeated by this supposed proof that Mary was sinless after being born of corruptible flesh.

    Tertullian condemns the idea that the womb was too corrupt for our Christ in his books against Marcion.

    I would respond in kind that simply because of heretical views about the deity of Jesus, we do not have to make statements that will be taken to include the whole of the trinity.

    I affirm that there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.

     
  • At 11/5/11 4:32 PM , Blogger Al said...

    Chris,
    That document was not the origin but the declaration of what has been believed by the Church.
    I want to get back for a moment to your claim that the term "Mother of God" is not presented in Scripture. In particular I want to pgo to Luke 1:28 out where Elizabeth calls Mary "the mother of My Lord." Unless someone is being intelectually dishonest, they will admit that Lord in the context IS refering to God, not an Earthly Lord. Besides the fact that Elizabeth was the wife of a Jewish priest, the term Lord was usually used at that time by the Jews to mean God since they could not utter His name YHWH.
    So Scripture does call Mary the mother of God.
    For more on this I recommend the following from "A Catholic Response" : http://users.binary.net/polycarp/mary.html
    Aditionally, I woould suggest you read "Hail Holy Queen" by Scott Hahn. I recommend it for 2 reasons.
    1st: It provides an excellent overview of the Catholic teachings on Mary.
    2nd: Dr. Hahn was an ordained Presbyterian minister who was anti-Catholic. he converted to Catholicism in 1986. & in the book he is honest about his struggles with Mary & the Church's teachings on it. & he answers those objections in the book.

     
  • At 14/5/11 12:23 AM , Blogger Al said...

    I do not know what all went wrong with Blogger on Wed & Thur, but for some reason it put Chris' latest back into the "moderate comments" box even though I had posted it. It also deleted my response which I now put back in below:

    Chris,
    That document was not the origin but the declaration of what has been believed by the Church.
    I want to get back for a moment to your claim that the term "Mother of God" is not presented in Scripture. In particular I want to pgo to Luke 1:28 out where Elizabeth calls Mary "the mother of My Lord." Unless someone is being intelectually dishonest, they will admit that Lord in the context IS refering to God, not an Earthly Lord. Besides the fact that Elizabeth was the wife of a Jewish priest, the term Lord was usually used at that time by the Jews to mean God since they could not utter His name YHWH.
    So Scripture does call Mary the mother of God.
    For more on this I recommend the following from "A Catholic Response" : http://users.binary.net/polycarp/mary.html
    Aditionally, I woould suggest you read "Hail Holy Queen" by Scott Hahn. I recommend it for 2 reasons.
    1st: It provides an excellent overview of the Catholic teachings on Mary.
    2nd: Dr. Hahn was an ordained Presbyterian minister who was anti-Catholic. he converted to Catholicism in 1986. & in the book he is honest about his struggles with Mary & the Church's teachings on it. & he answers those objections in the book.

    I want to add, that he does so from his strong Biblical background.

     
  • At 23/5/11 5:49 PM , Blogger Chris Largret said...

    Hey Al,

    Sorry for the late reply. As you noted, Blogger goofed and then I was out of town for a few days.

    The article makes a good argument that the human nature cannot be separated from person. The problem is that this fails to take into account that we have separate body, soul and spirit (ie. Hebrews 4:12). The origins of each the soul and spirit is not clearly defined in the Scriptures and there has been much argument over them.

    I still hold my reservations about the term "Mother of God" but will take a look at the book you recommend.

    With the Magnificat elevating Mary to the title of "Mother of God," what does the Catholic church do with Mary's statement in verse 47 (Luke 1) that she needs a savior?

     
  • At 24/5/11 1:19 AM , Blogger Al said...

    Chris,
    I suspected the problems with blogger might have a part in why the delay.
    In answer to your line about what does the Catholic Church do about Mary Mary's statement in verse 47 (Luke 1) that she needs a savior?
    For that I refer you back to my quote from the papal bull that defined the doctrine: "We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.
    —Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854".
    To put it in simple terms, she was saved from the stain of original sin because of Jesus' death & resurrection. Thus there is no conflict.

    In addition to the Scott Hahn book I recommended, I would add a 2nd book of his, Signs of Life: 40 Catholic Customs and Their Biblical Roots.

     

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

LifeSiteNews.com Headlines

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Get this widget!
Visit the Widget Gallery
FaithMouse