Co-Redeemer?

[HisBelovedMelody]

Assuming what? You are stating there is a difference between being told personally by God, and being told by someone else what God said. That it would matter more if God told us personally.

NO, but the blame isn't directly on Eve as was being stated. It was proven by the Word, that Eve wasn't given the word directly. That is obviously making some mad....she was still wrong...But hey, lets put some blame on Adam. HE should of been man enough to say..Eve..God said no..and been there to protect her...instead..he stood by and watched it happen. THAT is sad. BUT the way it went. NONE of it was a surprise to God. He knew all along how it was going to play out. Don't get mad cause the Word pointed out one of your believes was wrong.

 

[repentant]

NO, but the blame isn't directly on Eve as was being stated. It was proven by the Word, that Eve wasn't given the word directly. That is obviously making some mad....she was still wrong...But hey, lets put some blame on Adam. HE should of been man enough to say..Eve..God said no..and been there to protect her...instead..he stood by and watched it happen. THAT is sad. BUT the way it went. NONE of it was a surprise to God. He knew all along how it was going to play out. Don't get mad cause the Word pointed out one of your believes was wrong.

And it didn't..

So you are making a difference between being told by God Himself, and being told by someone else what God said? Like I said, Eve said "God said", not "Adam said" or "Adam say's that God said"...

And are you saying that Adam was around and watched Eve being decieved by the serpent?..

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

And it didn't..

So you are making a difference between being told by God Himself, and being told by someone else what God said? Like I said, Eve said "God said", not "Adam said" or "Adam say's that God said"...

And are you saying that Adam was around and watched Eve being decieved by the serpent?..

he appears to be close enough to take the fruit and eat it too...OR she could of taken it to him....I wasn't there...but...

Look, it was you guys that said all this stuff about Eve. That God told her. I JUST pointed out she wasn't there when God gave ADAM the command. Even if Adam did tell her...she should of still listened...but that isn't the way it went down. Adam stood by and let Eve sin...so it WAS through Adam SIN came into the world..not Eve. Is Eve innocent? NOPE.

 

[repentant]

Would Adam have eaten the fruit of Eve didn't give it to him?

 

[IamAdopted]

Would Adam have eaten the fruit of Eve didn't give it to him?

Did he know how to say no? Did He know how to stand on Gods word? Would all of men kind be in sin if He had not of eaten? For it is through the man that the egg is fertilized.. Women only produce eggs.. It is men that fertilize the egg and determine if this child will be male or female. Would God have kicked Adam out of the Garden had He not eaten?

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

Guess we will never know will we? Why speculate on something like that...The fact is, it happened the way it did...and NONE of it took God by surprise.

 

[repentant]

Moral of the story...Women (besides one) are evil...









But on a note that has nothing to do with this (kind of)...my spiritual father once told me that if I was walking down the street, and walking toward me I saw a beautiful woman on one side, and the devil on the other side...he said it would be better pass on the side of the devil, because at least I know who was tempting me..

 

[Uphill Battle]

The whole argument of when/who/what/where Eve received the command is irrelevant.

The assertion was made that the curse of sin entered the world through Man and Woman, and that Man and Woman both had to participate in it's removal. Regarding Adam and Eve, that isn't really a disputable point, regardless of how the command was given, or how it all went down, Adam and Eve BOTH screwed up.

However, I see no reason why "Man and Woman" had to participate in it's removal.

Christ defeated death, the result of sin, on the cross. It did not happen at the incarnation, it happened at the crucifixion.

so then, where is the reasoning that "man and woman" had to participate in the removal of the curse?

 

[repentant]

The whole argument of when/who/what/where Eve received the command is irrelevant.

The assertion was made that the curse of sin entered the world through Man and Woman, and that Man and Woman both had to participate in it's removal. Regarding Adam and Eve, that isn't really a disputable point, regardless of how the command was given, or how it all went down, Adam and Eve BOTH screwed up.

However, I see no reason why "Man and Woman" had to participate in it's removal.

Christ defeated death, the result of sin, on the cross. It did not happen at the incarnation, it happened at the crucifixion.

so then, where is the reasoning that "man and woman" had to participate in the removal of the curse?

Because a woman had to say yes in conceiving Christ, and bringing Him into the world, so that He may defeat death. It all falls into the Prophecy God told Adam and Eve..

And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."

The seed of the woman, not the man, will crush the serpents head.

 

[Rick Otto]

An Angel HAD TO ASK HER!

So our salvation came thru the angel that asked her.
It must be the angel is the co-redeemer of mankind.
And what about the Grandmothers of God?
A woman had to HAVE a girl that would say yes to God, shouldn't that count for something? How easy IS it to keep a teenage girl blameless?!

 

[Uphill Battle]

Because a woman had to say yes in conceiving Christ, and bringing Him into the world, so that He may defeat death. It all falls into the Prophecy God told Adam and Eve..

And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."

The seed of the woman, not the man, will crush the serpents head.

right, but then that brings us back to the question is that is the "yes" the important part of the equation... Which it is not.

 

[repentant]

right, but then that brings us back to the question is that is the "yes" the important part of the equation... Which it is not.

Well, it's the fact Jesus came and died...but...the end justifies the means.

And if you look at it this way, is Eve being decieved and giving the fruit to Adam, as important as Adam eating the fruit? Eve gave him the fruit to eat so then what happened happened...Mary said yes so then what happened happened..

 

[Rick Otto]

"whew"... what a leap!
...the end justifies the means?
Could we build a "Master Religion" on that?

Sorry, it just sounds scary to me. I thought the end was justified BY the means, but then I believe in predestination & eternal security, so how reliable am I, right?

Maybe she said yes, but realy meant no. Your spiritual father sounds like a candidate for "The He-Man Women Hater's Cub" with Spanky & Alfalfa from Our Gang.

But realy, that fear of women is ancient and entrenched in patriarchal priesthoods. Women are seen as a source of ritual uncleaness. The Victorian stereotype is relatively modern. Classic antiquity regarded women as sexualy voracious.

 

[Benedicta00]

How is it that Mary can hold this title? She had nothing to do with redeeming man from sin?

We know...

You are a co redeemer and I am a co redeemer, anytime we lead someone to Christ, we co redeem, no? yes.

Stop over analyzing stuff. You make too a big a deal out of stuff the Church teaches.

 

[sunlover1]

We know...

You are a co redeemer and I am a co redeemer, anytime we lead someone to Christ, we co redeem, no? yes.

Stop over analyzing stuff. You make too a big a deal out of stuff the Church teaches.

No, we are not co-redeemers.
There is one redeemer.
Look at the definition of redeem.

It's never a bad thing to analyze these
things.
In fact, just the opposite.

 

[Benedicta00]

No, we are not co-redeemers.
There is one redeemer.
Look at the definition of redeem.

It's never a bad thing to analyze these
things.
In fact, just the opposite.

Well what are we then?

Co does not have to mean equal too or greater than.. it can mean with.

Here is what I don't get. We say we mean X,Y, or Z when we say what ever it is we say and someone will give us a definition of what ever word we used, means.

So what?

If Webster says that co redeemer means what ever... but I am telling you what I mean when I use the term, then what does what Webster say matters?

It may be the official definition of the word but I am here to tell you that co does not mean equal too or better then, but means, with.

Mary with Jesus had a part in our salvation. It was not in a strict sense but in a lesser sense like when I preach and share and pray for a person and the finally come around.

I did have a part in their conversion but I am not the reason they would be saved. But I am instrumental.

 

[sunlover1]

Well what are we then?

Co does not have to mean equal too or greater than.. it can mean with.

Here is what I don't get. We say we mean X,Y, or Z when we say what ever it is we say and someone will give us a definition of what ever word we used, means.

So what?

If Webster says that co redeemer means what ever... but I am telling you what I mean when I use the term, then what does what Webster say matters?

It may be the official definition of the word but I am here to tell you that co does not mean equal too or better then, but means, with.

Mary with Jesus had a part in our salvation. It was not in a strict sense but in a lesser sense like when I preach and share and pray for a person and the finally come around.

I did have a part in their conversion but I am not the reason they would be saved. But I am instrumental.

Yes, I am talking about the definition
of redeem not co.

It does matter what the definition is because
the OP wasn't about your (Bene's) definition.

Redeem means to purchase, buy back.

Jesus can have no co in that, not even
when we share the good news.

But that's just my opinion.
I wanted to share that.

love,
sunlover

 

[Benedicta00]

Yes, I am talking about the definition
of redeem not co.

It does matter what the definition is because
the OP wasn't about your (Bene's) definition.

Redeem means to purchase, buy back.

Jesus can have no co in that, not even
when we share the good news.

But that's just my opinion.
I wanted to share that.

love,
sunlover

Well no, she didn't purchase us back from the jaws of death. Christ did that.

We do not mean what the word defined by Webster means.

When we say Co Redeemer, we just mean she played a role in God's plan to save mankind but not the role where her merits won for us salvation but we believe there is a bit of a mystery here where God put himself in this position, knowing she would cooperate with him, but he still made her necessary.

 

[Iollain]

Yes, the redeeming happened at the Cross by Christ alone.

So why the title? I'd be afraid God would strike me dead for attempting to call any human 'co-redeemer'.

 

[sunlover1]

Well no, she didn't purchase us back from the jaws of death. Christ did that.

We do not mean what the word defined by Webster means.

When we say Co Redeemer, we just mean she played a role in God's plan to save mankind but not the role where her merits won for us salvation but we believe there is a bit of a mystery here where God put himself in this position, knowing she would cooperate with him, but he still made her necessary.

The church and the saints greet her thus: "You, O Mary, together with Jesus Christ, redeemed us."

God has ordained that no grace will be granted to us except through Mary. It is a doctrine preached by all the saints that no grace will come to us from heaven without passing through Mary's hands. No one will be saved nor obtain mercy except through You, O' heavenly lady. Remember this well, no one will enter heaven without passing through Mary as one would pass through a door. O' Mary, our salvation is in your hands.

Well sort of.