Co-Redeemer?

[sunlover1]

I still don't see where Mary is co-redeemer. She has redeemed no one really. She couldn't even redeem herself. Only Christ can redeem us and it is through the blood that anyone can redeemed so I guess I don't understand..

No, there's no co-redeemer.
We're redeemed by the blood of Jesus.
Not by the blood of the lamb +.........

Why aren't you laying on the beach
or by the pool??

 

[Uphill Battle]

In light of the whole of Tradition which is what scripture is, Catholic Tradition, I say it is.

But how can we settle this? How can we know which one of us is reading the bible correctly (me, through the eyes of Tradition, you, through I dunno what eyes) and interpreting it correctly?

I laugh when "interpretation" comes up so often.... the vast majority of scripture is extremely straightforward.


Substituting the word "interpretation" for "Isogesis" seems to be the trendy thing to do.

 

[Benedicta00]

I laugh when "interpretation" comes up so often.... the vast majority of scripture is extremely straightforward.


Substituting the word "interpretation" for "Isogesis" seems to be the trendy thing to do.

Scripture is straightforward... then why do we have those who believe gays can marry?

Scripture's straightforwardness is not the issue, our subjectiveness is.





.

 

[Benedicta00]

But there is nothing that she can do
to ensure it, according to the Bible.
Christ alone.

she can't pray for us? .

 

[Benedicta00]

I still don't see where Mary is co-redeemer. She has redeemed no one really. She couldn't even redeem herself. Only Christ can redeem us and it is through the blood that anyone can redeemed so I guess I don't understand..

We don't think she redeems us, IAA. You believe error about us if you think we believe she does.

You dont have to correct us, we know. .

 

[Uphill Battle]

she can't pray for us? .

ok, even if she does pray for us, it doesn't explain a co-redemptrix title.

If, it as some have forwarded, that everyone is a Co-redeemer with Christ, because of what part they take, then attributing the title to Mary alone is problematic, it raises her above other "co-redeemers."

If, more appropriately, this is a term that we should not accept, knowing full well that what we do is nothing towards the redemptive process, then attributing the title to Mary is problematic, it assumes a far greater role than she actually has.

Either way, she should not be called so. there is ONE redeemer. Anything WE do, be it you, me, Mary, etc... is exactly nothing in the redemptive process.

 

[sunlover1]

she can't pray for us? .

I have no idea.
The Bible is silent there.
Either way, it's not redemtion, that's
intercession.

Huge difference.
She cannot redeem.

Why would you even want
to argue that she can?

Let God be God,
Let mary be mary.

 

[Benedicta00]

I have no idea.
The Bible is silent there.
Either way, it's not redemtion, that's
intercession.

Huge difference.
She cannot redeem.

Why would you even want
to argue that she can?

Let God be God,
Let mary be mary.

I'm not arguing that she redeems us. I thought me and you already cleared this up?

Co Redeemer is said in the capacity as you or me being a "co redeemer" whe we help lead ppl to Christ.

A pastor in a church is a "Co Redeemer" when he has one of those alter call things where he invites who ever it is to come up and accept Christ formally and be prayerd over.

Look Sunlover, if you disgree with the title- go for it- disagree with the use of the term, but do not tell me that I think Mary redeemed us from sin.

We do not believe this or teach this.

We only believe ad teach that she copperated with God by giving her assent to his will. She bore Jesus and that is no samall thing one would give their assent to.
.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I'm not arguing that she redeems us. I thought me and you already cleared this up?

Co Redeemer is said in the capacity as you or me being a "co redeemer" whe we help lead ppl to Christ.

A pastor in a church is a "Co Redeemer" when he has one of those alter call things where he invites who ever it is to come up and accept Christ formally and be prayerd over.

Look Sunlover, if you disgree with the title- go for it- disagree with the use of the term, but do not tell me that I think Mary redeemed us from sin.

We do not believe this or teach this.

We only believe ad teach that she copperated with God by giving her assent to his will. She bore Jesus and that is no samall thing one would give their assent to.
.

compared to what Christ did, it IS a small thing.

In fact, according to scripture, it would be considered an act of human righteousness, which is as filthy rags.

But you don't believe that about Mary's "yes" do you? That it was filthy rags?

 

[Rick Otto]

"Scripture's straightforwardness is not the issue, our subjectiveness is."

And that is why none of us can ever be infallable, becuse of our subjectiveness.

But an ECF, Jerome , would take issue with your assertion of the scripture's straightforwardness.

He asserted that Paul, "stealthily and with sidling moves picks his way from covert to covert"(PL26.310).
Jerome can't allow the blunt words of Gal2:11-14 to BE straightforward because that would allow anyone "to brand Peter as erring and Paul as crowing over him, saying that we hold made-up doctrines and our church founders were at loggerheads"(310-11).
Jerome cannot efface disagreement so he imagines Peter & Paul to put on a false show, each to please opposing factions until they could come to a more advanced view of their relations:
"Peter's feigned observance of Jewish law (which was offensive to gentile believers) was countered by Paul's feigned rebuke, so that both camps would be kept safe - those favoring circumcision would follow Peter, and those resisting it would praise the liberty preached by Paul"(339)
Jerome calls it "profitable dissemblance" (utilis simulatio) by which "one dissembles for a time, in order to work out one's own & another's salvation."(340)
Augustine spent over ten years addressing Jerome's errors.
One begins to wonder just how much time is spent on the traditions of the ECF by one who claims them as reliable as scripture.

 

[Benedicta00]

ok, even if she does pray for us, it doesn't explain a co-redemptrix title.

If, it as some have forwarded, that everyone is a Co-redeemer with Christ, because of what part they take, then attributing the title to Mary alone is problematic, it raises her above other "co-redeemers."

If, more appropriately, this is a term that we should not accept, knowing full well that what we do is nothing towards the redemptive process, then attributing the title to Mary is problematic, it assumes a far greater role than she actually has.

Either way, she should not be called so. there is ONE redeemer. Anything WE do, be it you, me, Mary, etc... is exactly nothing in the redemptive process.

I agree and disgree.

No, none of us are "R" Redeemers is the strict sense.

We are however one in Christ, with Christ and through Christ we act as his ambassorders.

The only way a perosn may ever see Jesus is through me. This is something me and the Lord have been disscussing, how I represent Christianity but that another story.


So we, though many are one in the one body and as being one with him- what did he come to do if not to save?

I just see the title in a lesser sense then what you do. And I see how you all have blown it all way out of perspective.

.

 

[lionroar0]

He asserted that Paul, "stealthily and with sidling moves picks his way from covert to covert"(PL26.310).
Jerome can't allow the blunt words of Gal2:11-14 to BE straightforward because that would allow anyone "to brand Peter as erring and Paul as crowing over him, saying that we hold made-up doctrines and our church founders were at loggerheads"(310-11).
Jerome cannot efface disagreement so he imagines Peter & Paul to put on a false show, each to please opposing factions until they could come to a more advanced view of their relations:
"Peter's feigned observance of Jewish law (which was offensive to gentile believers) was countered by Paul's feigned rebuke, so that both camps would be kept safe - those favoring circumcision would follow Peter, and those resisting it would praise the liberty preached by Paul"(339)
Jerome calls it "profitable dissemblance" (utilis simulatio) by which "one dissembles for a time, in order to work out one's own & another's salvation."(340)
Augustine spent over ten years addressing Jerome's errors.
One begins to wonder just how much time is spent on the traditions of the ECF by one who claims them as reliable as scripture.

Facts not in evidence.

Peace

 

[Uphill Battle]

I agree and disgree.

No, none of us are "R" Redeemers is the strict sense.

We are however one in Christ, with Christ and through Christ we act as his ambassorders.

The only way a perosn may ever see Jesus is through me. This is something me and the Lord have been disscussing, how I represent Christianity but that another story.


So we, though many are one in the one body and as being one with him- what did he come to do if not to save?

I just see the title in a lesser sense then what you do. And I see how you all have blown it all way out of perspective.

.

If the title is less, as you say, then it is unneccessary, superfluous, and simply applied to Mary for the sake of adding titles to Mary.

There is no other way to view it, as the RCC does not attribute the title to any other, despite the assertion that we are "all co-redeemers."

 

[sunlover1]

I'm not arguing that she redeems us. I thought me and you already cleared this up?

Co Redeemer is said in the capacity as you or me being a "co redeemer" whe we help lead ppl to Christ.

Redeem means to buy back, purchase.
We didn't help Jesus in redemption.
He alone redeemed us.

Your analogy, like you, is sweet and sounds
nice, but it's not the same thing, bene.

I will say that mary obeyed God,
believed God,
was higly favored,
was blessed,
was
virtuous,
was the mother of Jesus,
was full of grace even.
But I won't say that you or I or even
mary helped Jesus redeem us.

Look at what He did to redeem us.
He did it alone. No one was with Him.
No one could help Him do this:

Hebrews 9:12
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves,
but by his own blood he entered in
once into the holy place,
having obtained eternal redemption for us.

We can't help Him obtain that.
He did it.
It was something that was done.

Read this one slowly (if you would):

Colossians 1:13-15
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness,
and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood,
even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God,
the firstborn of every creature:

Here's another very cool passage:

Luke 21:27-28
27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming
in a cloud with power and great glory.
28 And when these things begin to come to pass,
then look up,
and lift up your heads;
for your redemption draweth nigh.

 

[lionroar0]

I just see the title in a lesser sense then what you do. And I see how you all have blown it all way out of perspective.

BINGO!!!!!

The whole thing about Mary being called co-redemeer is that we can call her that with the correct understanding.

Not that we have to. Like we can call her Tower of Ivory. We can call her Virgins of Virgins, ect.... so on and so forth.


Peace

 

[lionroar0]

If the title is less, as you say, then it is unneccessary, superfluous, and simply applied to Mary for the sake of adding titles to Mary.

There is no other way to view it, as the RCC does not attribute the title to any other, despite the assertion that we are "all co-redeemers."

Like adding titles to Jesus for the sake of adding titles to Jesus???

Peace

 

[Rick Otto]

Facts not in evidence.

Like I said,
"One begins to wonder just how much time is spent on the traditions of the ECF by one who claims them as reliable as scripture. "

And of course,"correct understanding" is the sole property of your infallable celebate?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Like adding titles to Jesus for the sake of adding titles to Jesus???

Peace

name a title of Jesus that he is not.

 

[Benedicta00]

compared to what Christ did, it IS a small thing.

I'm not arguing against that but if it weren't for Christmass day there would be no savation for any of us- no?

In fact, according to scripture, it would be considered an act of human righteousness, which is as filthy rags.

Be honest with me... Just why do we celebrate Christmass and honer this day? What are we honering? The incarnation prehaps?

You have to watch that you do not fall into error or heresy. It is easy to do whe you try to cut out Mary from the eqation. This is why she is important. Becuase of the mystery that lies with in the incarnation.

You can not deny certain aspects of Mary, it leads to denying certain aspects of Christ and the incarnation.

But you don't believe that about Mary's "yes" do you? That it was filthy rags?

No, becuase it wasn't... oooh... no way would I ever believe that. That is a horrible thing to believe... that God could have cared less that Mary gave her fiat...said, "Let it be done to me according to your word."

You don't agree that God is pleased with us when we serve him and do his will?

I mean my goodness... Jesus even said when we follow him and keep his word, he calls us freinds.

You think our conforming to God's will is dirty rags to him?

Wow... wow.

.

 

[lionroar0]

Like I said,
"One begins to wonder just how much time is spent on the traditions of the ECF by one who claims them as reliable as scripture. "

Nope I declared the non-evidence that has been presented as non evidence.

Peace