Do you agree with this statement?

Fireinfolding · Dec 9, 2015

patricius79 said:
I think it's a mystery that God chose to do it--to save us--through Mary.

I am recconciled to God through the death of His Son even as I am saved by His life

Panevino · Dec 9, 2015

Thinking-Out-Loud said:
I dont think its much of a mystery at all, thats an easy thing for God to do. Even as he said to Sarah who laughed being beyond child bearing years, "Is anything too hard for the LORD"?

No but that sign of Sarah/Isaac points to Mary/Jesus.
Isaacs place in salvation history pales to the Jesus and yet Sarah is considered a mother to a people
Isaiah 51:2
Look unto Abraham your father,
and unto Sarah that bare you:
for I called him alone,
and blessed him, and increased him.

Genesis 17:16
And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.

Yet try to relate any sense of motherhood to Mary for the followers of Jesus and somehow it's unreasonable.

Fireinfolding · Dec 9, 2015

I will have to do that better thanks

Panevino · Dec 9, 2015

Thinking-Out-Loud said:
I am recconciled to God through the death of His Son even as I am saved by His life

It's important /critical to know that Patricius is not bypassing the son by saying through Mary.
It would be like saying a tap is sufficient to fill a bath without the water. He is just acknowledging a key (though subordinate)role she played that is undeniable. It's just that Catholics have confidence to say it without fearing that it negates the actual source of salvation. Because that's not what is intended/taught.(regardless if it may be misinterpreted by some , which is a confidence that underlies most controversial Catholic doctrine/dogma(i.e. Mother of god for example)

Fireinfolding · Dec 9, 2015

Sounds good, thanks

justinangel · Dec 9, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
Here you go again, plucking verses out of context and misinterpreting them for us.

Here is I John 4:1-6. Please observe that at no time does he define "us" in the manner which you assert. Rather, the us refers to the ones he is writing to - believers. He calls them "beloved" and "little children" and includes them with himself as "us".

4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. 4 You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. 5 They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them. 6 We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

The problem is you can't read. John is drawing a distinction between the true ministers of the Church and the false teachers who deny the Incarnation. He is enjoining the faithful not to pay heed to them, but to hold on to the tradition that was taught by the apostles and their appointed associates.

bbbbbbb · Dec 10, 2015

justinangel said:
The problem is you can't read. John is drawing a distinction between the true ministers of the Church and the false teachers who deny the Incarnation. He is enjoining the faithful not to pay heed to them, but to hold on to the tradition that was taught by the apostles and their appointed associates.

Oddly enough, in reading I John 4:6 which you posted there is no mention at all of "drawing a distinction between the true ministers of the Church and the false teachers who deny the Incarnation. He is enjoining the faithful not to pay heed to them, but to hold on to the tradition that was taught by the apostles and their appointed associates." Perhaps somebody has been reading beween the lines here. Unfortunately, you failed to post those salient bits of information that fall between the lines of your Bible. Had you done so I would surely have been able to read it.

Instead, John refers to "us" as including "beloved" and "little children". "Beloved" can be applied to any and all Christians irrespective of their role in the Church and I sincerely doubt that he would call ministers of the church "little children", which, in fact, he does not in the same letter.

patricius79 · Dec 10, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
Do you think that the "us" in I John 1:3 is the same as the "us" in I John 4? If so, then you can rightly conclude that they are the "beloved" of I John 4 and the "little children" of I John 4.

In your last sentence, is the "we" in reference to the same "beloved" and "little children" as in I John 4 or is it possible that you might have another group in mind? You have not made yourself clear as to who it is that depends on the historic Church and her ministers, nor, for that matter, what exactly constitutes the historic Church and who those ministers might be. I can assure you that my Church and its ministers do not depend on the Blessed Virgin.

I just asked: What do you think of 1 John 1:3? Who does the "us" refer to there?

As far as "your Church"... what Church is that?

bbbbbbb · Dec 10, 2015

patricius79 said:
I just asked: What do you think of 1 John 1:3? Who does the "us" refer to there?

As far as "your Church"... what Church is that?

The text of John 1 does not define for the reader who "us" is. Various people have speculated as to who that work might entail. I prefer not to engage in such speculation.

I thought "your Church" is the Roman Catholic Church. Am I mistaken about that?

patricius79 · Dec 10, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
The text of John 1 does not define for the reader who "us" is. Various people have speculated as to who that work might entail. I prefer not to engage in such speculation.

I thought "your Church" is the Roman Catholic Church. Am I mistaken about that?

I'm a member of the historic Church, yes.

I heard you state: "my Church and its ministers do not depend on the Blessed Virgin"

I'm just wondering what Church you are referring to.

bbbbbbb · Dec 10, 2015

patricius79 said:
I'm a member of the historic Church, yes.

I heard you state: "my Church and its ministers do not depend on the Blessed Virgin"

I'm just wondering what Church you are referring to.

It is the Church founded by Jesus Christ and composed of all those He has saved through His grace by faith in Him.

patricius79 · Dec 10, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
It is the Church founded by Jesus Christ and composed of all those He has saved through His grace by faith in Him.

That is the historic Church (the Catholic Church), which depends on the Mother of God, through whom Christ comes to us.

Rick Otto · Dec 13, 2015

patricius79 said:
That is the historic Church (the Catholic Church), which depends on the Mother of God, through whom Christ comes to us.

No need to be disingenuous. We can agree to disagree.

patricius79 · Dec 13, 2015

Rick Otto said:
No need to be disingenuous.

Did Mary have a free will to decide whether she would accept the proposal of the Holy Spirit at the Annunciation?

Rick Otto · Dec 13, 2015

patricius79 said:
Did Mary have a free will to decide whether she would accept the proposal of the Holy Spirit at the Annunciation?

What difference does that make?

patricius79 · Dec 13, 2015

Rick Otto said:
What difference does that make?

Did Mary have have a free will to decide whether she would become the Mother of God?

Rick Otto · Dec 13, 2015

Panevino said:
It's important /critical to know that Patricius is not bypassing the son by saying through Mary.
It would be like saying a tap is sufficient to fill a bath without the water.

Not at all. It would be like crediting the tap for filling the tub when it was actually the water that filled the tub and God could've used rain or a bucket.
The reason it is important to know he is not bypassing the Son, because he IS bypassing the Son.
If you can embrace doublespeak, you are ready for catholicism.

Rick Otto · Dec 13, 2015

patricius79 said:
Did have have a free will to decide whether she would become the Mother of God?

What difference does that make?

patricius79 · Dec 13, 2015

Rick Otto said:
What difference does that make?

Did Mary have a free will decide whether she would become the Mother of God?

patricius79 · Dec 13, 2015

Rick Otto said:
Not at all. It would be like crediting the tap for filling the tub when it was actually the water that filled the tub and God could've used rain or a bucket.
The reason it is important to know he is not bypassing the Son, because he IS bypassing the Son.
If you can embrace doublespeak, you are ready for catholicism.

How is anyone bypassing Mary's Son?

Do you agree with this statement?

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Well-Known Member

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Well-Known Member

Called to Jesus Through Mary

The Dude Abides

Called to Jesus Through Mary

The Dude Abides

Called to Jesus Through Mary

The Dude Abides

The Dude Abides

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency