Rejection of Mary as your mediator (2)

[sunlover1]

How so?

Sorry Gregory, I was teasing.
I didnt actually see the syllogism
Please forgive me.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I've heard further!

Back to seriousness, why would Christ be born from a sinner?

I missed this. Why wouldn't he? I've never seen a good reason why not.

Being that there would be no salvation had Mary said "no" to God, I would answer an emphatic YES!

Love,
Christina

ugh. not this "Mary could have stopped God's plan of redemption" thing again.

 

[sunlover1]

I missed this. Why wouldn't he? I've never seen a good reason why not.

Would it matter either way?
Or wouldnt it even make more
sense (since the whole idea was
God as man) for Him to be born
of a natural normal woman?
(Which imo He was)

ugh. not this "Mary could have stopped God's plan of redemption" thing again

It's a diversion

 

[Hentenza]

Being that there would be no salvation had Mary said "no" to God, I would answer an emphatic YES!

Love,
Christina

Hey Christina,

I am relatively sure that God already knew that Mary would say yes, dont cha think?

 

[Asinner]

Hey Christina,

I am relatively sure that God already knew that Mary would say yes, dont cha think?

Hey Hentenza

He also knew that without her, there could be no Incarnation.

Love,
Christina

 

[Asinner]

ugh. not this "Mary could have stopped God's plan of redemption" thing again.

Who is Christ?

 

[Albion]

Hey Hentenza

He also knew that without her, there could be no Incarnation.

Love,
Christina

None of this makes Mary "our mediator," immaculately conceived, ever-virgin, or any of the other honors heaped upon her by believers over time.

 

[Thekla]

Are you serious?

sin is not a moral concept. it can be understood as "distance from God".

 

[Asinner]

None of this makes Mary "our mediator," immaculately conceived, ever-virgin, or any of the other honors heaped upon her by believers over time.

It does make her significant.
(The Orthodox do not hold the doctrine of IC. )

Love,
Christina

 

[Thekla]

taint gonna find nothin saying she didnt sin, and personally i dont believe she NEVER sinned.

but she is the most blessed woman as the angel Gabriel tells us.

as for her being the Ark of the New Covenant, I can lay out for you the parallels, but i dont know all the Scriptural references.

So in the OT the Philistines kidnapped the Ark of the Covenant, and the Jews go to get it back:

1. -The Ark is taken to a hilly town near Jerusalem to Obed-Edom's house
-Mary goes to visit Elizabeth in a hilly town near Jerusalem

2. - The Ark remains at his house for 3 months
- Mary remains at Elizabeth's house for 3 months

3. -King David says something along the lines of "who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?"
- Elizabeth says "who am I that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?"

4. - the Ark contained the tablets of the Law, a jar of manna, and Aaron's rod, signifying the priesthood.
- Mary's womb contained the fulfillment of the Law, the Bread of Life, and our High Priest

5. - the glory of the Lord overshadowed the Ark
- the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary

6. - God spoke to the Jews from between the angels on the Ark
- The Word of God came from Mary's womb

7. Also, in Revelation 11 John sees the Ark of the Covenant, and then immediately following he sees the woman who gave birth to the Messiah -- Mary.

Elizabeth's greeting to Mary is one of two uses of this term in the Bible; the other instance is at the return of the ark.

 

[Albion]

It does make her significant.
(The Orthodox do not hold the doctrine of IC. )

Love,
Christina

But EVERYONE considers her to be significant. What I was cautioning about was kiting or linking these things together and then proclaiming that the one requires a belief in the next.

Yes, I know that the EO do not accept the IC, so you can see that one truth about Mary does not logically lead to whatever nice speculation about her mankind can think up in its desire to honor her.

 

[Thekla]

But EVERYONE considers her to be significant. What I was cautioning about was kiting or linking these things together and then proclaiming that the one requires a belief in the next.

Yes, I know that the EO do not accept the IC, so you can see that one truth about Mary does not logically lead to whatever nice speculation about her mankind can think up in its desire to honor her.

Its Luke's fault

(see post #50, which includes Jackstraw's summary)

 

[Asinner]

But EVERYONE considers her to be significant.

This has not been my observation as a former protestant and a CF member.

 

[Albion]

This has not been my observation as a former protestant and a CF member.

Well, there's no answer to that since I have no way of knowing whom you've observed. But I'd say that if there are some who do not consider Mary to be significant, they are very few.

For instance, how many Protestants do not believe in the virgin birth? It's a must with all fundamentalists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Reformed, and most others. And who says that she was not selected by God to be the mother of Jesus, since the Annunciation is straight out of the Gospel? No one I know. And if that is not to be considered "significant," I don't know what else it would be called.

 

[GregoryTurner]

Tis ok sunlover

 

[Athanasias]

Is accepting "Mary as your personal Mother" a condition for salvation?:o

In one sense no but in another sense yes.

 

[katherine2001]

This has not been my observation as a former protestant and a CF member.

! I have seen people say that she just provided the womb and Jesus obtained nothing from Mary. I've seen people argue that God didn't have to have Mary's consent for her to conceive Christ. Does God have the power to do that? Certainly, but it would totally go against His nature to force Mary to carry a baby that she didn't want to. Also, Mary provided Jesus with His humanity. As I've said, I've seen many people on this board deny that. According to many, God just used her womb.

 

[jckstraw72]

But EVERYONE considers her to be significant. What I was cautioning about was kiting or linking these things together and then proclaiming that the one requires a belief in the next.

id say its quite prevalent in Evangelicalism to NOT think she's important. as an Evangelical i thought she was just another girl that God randomly picked and it could have been anyone. furthermore, according to the soteriology i had then, the Incarnation itself had literally nothing to do with salvation. so basically she was just a tool used by God that put aside when no longer needed.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Who is Christ?

that can't be answered in a one off. And I'm really not sure where you're going with this. Better to speak your piece, instead of a word game.

 

[Uphill Battle]

In one sense no but in another sense yes.

explain.