Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You had said Christ's human nature had been "healed at the moment of conception". Imagine the implications of Him ever having a sick human nature. One would need to say their God was innately sick)If you imagine such implications then you have not understood my response.
The moment He took on our flesh, it was healed. He did not have flesh before that moment so He could not have previously had a fallen human nature. Honestly, you just want to find fault so you interpret what I post in a distorted manner. Perhaps you could ask for clarification rather than jumping to conclusions where you also throw your Eastern Catholic brethren under the bus.You had said Christ's human nature had been "healed at the moment of conception". Imagine the implications of Him ever having a sick human nature. One need to say their God was innately sick!
JoeT
The moment He took on our flesh, it was healed. He did not have flesh before that moment so He could not have previously had a fallen human nature. Honestly, you just want to find fault so you interpret what I post in a distorted manner. Perhaps you could ask for clarification rather than jumping to conclusions where you also throw your Eastern Catholic brethren under the bus.
Strawman. I've never suggested or implied any such thing.What is innately evil about the human nature?
More straw.And if it were how does God heal God?
This is the position of the Latin Church. As I have already pointed out it is circular. If Mary can be uniquely graced at her conception then Christ can be too, thus it is not necessary for Christ to be born of a woman without "original sin" in order not to inherit the same.Jesus is just like us in every way except sin, original sin or actual sin. We inherit original sin being 'born of woman', however being born of woman who is justified, right with God, i.e. righteous, Christ only inherits Mary's righteousness, she was uniquely and singularity graced at conception.
I have done no such thing. You are either deluded or delibrately lying. I see no point in continuing this conversation when you refuse correction.Your proposition is being restated here, how have I "jumped to conclusions"? You proposed clearly that God 'was' sick and needed to be healed, became whole.
Strawman. I've never suggested or implied any such thing.
More straw.
This is the position of the Latin Church. As I have already pointed out it is circular. If Mary can be uniquely graced at her conception then Christ can be too, thus it is not necessary for Christ to be born of a woman without "original sin" in order not to inherit the same.
I have done no such thing. You are either deluded or deliberately lying. I see no point in continuing this conversation when you refuse correction.
Christ's nature is uniquely and inseparably joined to the nature of God and the nature of man without mixing, mingling or confusion. "Healing" the human Christ would therefore entail "healing" the God Christ.
I'm not going to waste time restating my position since you continue to misrepresent it.
Yes.Didn't you say "The flesh that Christ assumed from His mother was instantly healed at the moment of His conception"?
How did you make the jump from "the flesh", to "the one"? Flesh is not personhood. The ovum in Mary's womb was the same flesh we have all shared in since the fall. The instant it was fertilised and united to the second person of the Holy Trinity it was healed of the fallen nature.If one is healed, then doesn't that mean he is or has been sick?
Not once have I implied such a thing. That is your own misinterpretation of my words.How is that a "strawman"? You are implying there is something wrong with the flesh of Christ which was "full of grace and truth," the "Logos"
This is simply false.The personification of human life starts at conception. The male role in procreation merely delivers the 'spark of life' - nothing more. This is the sole function of the male in creating new human life. No genetic material remains with the embryo.
I didn't jump to any conclusion, you said, "The flesh that Christ assumed from His mother was instantly healed at the moment of His conception". Seems straight forward to me.Yes.
How did you make the jump from "the flesh", to "the one"?
A human fetus (body and soul) is a person. Mothers don't bear flesh, they bear persons.Flesh is not person-hood.
"The flesh isn't what is fallen. It is the person that inherits original sign. Unless the mother is with original justice."The ovum in Mary's womb was the same flesh we have all shared in since the fall. The instant it was fertilized and united to the second person of the Holy Trinity it was healed of the fallen nature.
yes it is.I believe that Assumption of Mary is not R.C. dogma.
All creation was affected by the fall, flesh included."The flesh isn't what is fallen. It is the person that inherits original sign. Unless the mother is with original justice."
All creation was affected by the fall, flesh included.
That does not follow. You've made the false assumption that flesh is merely genetics which is not remotely true. All you do is setup a strawman to knock down.If this were true then mankind could drive the bad genes out by genetic breeding - you know, like Hitler tried to do with his with his Übermensch.
Another man of straw. The fall did not make us evil and God most definitely did not make us evil. Nothing I've posted could be interpreted to suggest such a thing.As I've said elsewhere, if God made us evil then the fault and guilt of our sinful ways is God's.
This is what all your responses boil down to, a logical fallacy. I'm done with responding to you.Let me suggest another way which doesn't include Gnostic heresies.
Did God make human flesh evil or not?That does not follow. You've made the false assumption that flesh is merely genetics which is not remotely true. All you do is setup a strawman to knock down.
Yes, something you wrote made me think that the contention is that God made us evil, needing to be healed. As I recall you said that Christ's human flesh needed to be healed.Another man of straw. The fall did not make us evil and God most definitely did not make us evil. Nothing I've posted could be interpreted to suggest such a thing.
Not unless you believe the Doctor's of the Church and the Early Church Fathers writings are logical fallacy.This is what all your responses boil down to, a logical fallacy.
I don't see how I made you respond to start with, but OK.I'm done with responding to you.
It is my understanding that it is. In Lutheranism, it is considered "adiaphora".I believe that Assumption of Mary is not R.C. dogma.
As a Lutheran, I do agree that the Blessed Virgin Mary is to be honored. Historically and Biblically, Mary is indeed "Mother of God" or "Mother of our Lord"; our confessions uphold "her perpetual virginity"; the Assumption is considered Adiaphora; but we do not teach the immaculate conception. Luther did hold that Mary was sanctified by the annunciation, and bearing our perfect, sinless Lord that she was sinless from that point on (not doctrine or dogma either)<Snip>
The four Marian dogmas regarding Mary are the Mother of God, Immaculate Conception, perpetual virginity, and Assumption, I’m not sure if they came in that order. Nevertheless, each of these doctrines ‘magnify’ the Lord who is the Second Person of the Trinity, wholly Divine, wholly human without mixing or confusion, in unity uniquely and inseparably joined.
<Snip>
As a Lutheran, I do agree that the Blessed Virgin Mary is to be honored.
Historically and Biblically, Mary is indeed "Mother of God" or "Mother of our Lord"; our confessions uphold "her perpetual virginity";
the Assumption is considered Adiaphora;
but we do not teach the immaculate conception.
Luther did hold that Mary was sanctified by the annunciation, and bearing our perfect, sinless Lord that she was sinless from that point on (not doctrine or dogma either)
What does being Lutheran have to do with the honor we show someone? Does that mean you don’t hold Mary as the spiritual mother of the Church? Honor is the reverence and respect of a recognized excellence given to God or creature. Honor is also shown to those who have a special relationship to those we honor. Just how do you honor Mary?
Is this a begrudging acknowledgement, in that you must admit Mary as “Mother of God” because she is in the history books?
Cynicism? How do you get to choose what is true and not true?
No surprise here. My contention however there is a necessity of salvation to accept the 4 Marian doctrines, including the immaculate conception. Conjecture a reason why the immaculate conception is not required for us?
The discussion isn’t Luther’s error rather the Necessity of 4 Marian doctrines for salvation held only by the Catholic Church.
JoeT
I don't see any shame in saying there is only one Church that holds to all 4 Marian doctrine. It is a matter of fact. Can you list any other faith paradigm that holds to the 4 Marian doctrines.Since you feel it is important to shamelessly promote the Catholic position; I see no issue offering our position and the sound Biblical reasoning behind it.
The question of cynicism was question put to you? Its my understanding adiaphora is a Greek word used to express cynicism, meaning something like, "it makes no difference if it does or doesn't".Cynicism? Chose what is true or not? It seems to me that there have been a number of so called doctrines and dogmas that have been "chosen" by erring human popes that are not supported by Scripture, and that in some cases, the so called "tradition" came about centuries after the Apostles left this world.
There is nothing new, nothing innovative, all doctrine is a revelation of the Holy Spirit.What about the Catholics who died in the faith prior to these innovative new mandatory doctrines;
I suppose the Church could have, but never has proclaimed individuals will "roast in hell". Nevertheless, the Church does have the authority to bind and loose. [Matthew 18:18]are they all roasting in Hell eternally because of it???
Why?Such would not be an unreasonable presumption considering that these "doctrines" are now required.
As I've said, these four Doctrines magnify the Lord, we come to know Him through Mary. Hence, person we know we can love, otherwise we have no trust in His humanity, Christ becomes a demigod, or an enigma, or a phony Rabbi, a mystic charlatan. All of these gods produce a weak faith.Manmade doctrines, while well intentioned, often become stumbling blocks to developing a proper relationship with the Trinity, and in some cases actually becomes idolatrous.
You can have a shore bet on that.Mary is important, she is mentioned many times in God's Word, and she points us to Jesus Christ;
Not if he cannot be known, otherwise you have either a false faith or a very weak faithbut faith in Christ is the ultimate intent of the Scriptures. Remembering, venerating, and rejoicing in the saints must always remain but a tributary to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.
When Church History is viewed with blinders on, the need for reformation and restoration that Luther began remains unfinished, and the need for reformation remains. Your citing of binding and loosing is evidence of such misapplication in that the authority given to the Church is to forgive the sins of those who repent and to retain the sins of those who do not, it does not confer inerrancy to frail, sinful humans.I don't see any shame in saying there is only one Church that holds to all 4 Marian doctrine. It is a matter of fact. Can you list any other faith paradigm that holds to the 4 Marian doctrines.
The question of cynicism was question put to you? Its my understanding adiaphora is a Greek word used to express cynicism, meaning something like, "it makes no difference if it does or doesn't".
That's funny you complain that 'truth' came centuries after the Apostles, didn't Luther come 15 centuries after the Apostles. Yet, his focus wasn't Christ but to bring down the Catholic Church.
Hence, the truth of the 4 Marian doctrines existed in the first century as it existed in the First Century when Scripture describes Mary as the Mother of God as proclaimed in Scripture; just as the doctrine of the Mary's perpetual virginity was first century truth when proclaimed by the Council of Ephesus, the truth of the immaculate conception existed in the 1st. century as Pope Pius IX in proclaimed in Inefabilis Deus know that truth is immutable as God is immutable and the truth of the Dormition of the Most Holy Mother of God was present in the first century as proclaimed by Pope Pius XII. The date of the Church's proclamation only implies how slow some Catholics are at recognizing truth.
There is nothing new, nothing innovative, all doctrine is a revelation of the Holy Spirit.
I suppose the Church could have, but never has proclaimed individuals will "roast in hell". Nevertheless, the Church does have the authority to bind and loose. [Matthew 18:18]
Why?
If 'truth' were like an anvil anchored in the middle of a one-way narrow road the day it was built, does it not lie in the roadway there after? When navigating down this road do we ignor the anvil in our selection of speed and direction? Do we simply deny the anvil exists? The Marian doctrines is that anvil of truth identifying Christ. We do not love what we do not know, these four Marian doctrines magnify the Lord.
As I've said, these four Doctrines magnify the Lord, we come to know Him through Mary. Hence, person we know we can love, otherwise we have no trust in His humanity, Christ becomes a demigod, or an enigma, or a phony Rabbi, a mystic charlatan. All of these gods produce a weak faith.
You can have a shore bet on that.
Not if he cannot be known, otherwise you have either a false faith or a very weak faith
JoeT
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?