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.
Only for those who don't understand it, or for those who don't want to understand it.
Ummmm..
Again....Judges 5:24
Most blessed of women be Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, of tent-dwelling women most blessed.
Second fact. Mary was born in Adam, which means she sinned, unless you can show me contrary to Rom 3:23, and where it says she was exempt from the "all' in Rom 5.
Third fact, she was lower than the angels, as a part of the Adamic creation. So until you can disprove the clear president of scripture, you will just be repeating but not disproving.
A woman.Please sir, I already answered that; do you see the word "Kecaritwmenh" (κεχαριτωμενη - one who is full of Grace) in the Judges passage?
Infants and the mentally handicapped cannot sin; they have original sin, but that is not a fault of their own; God can save mary from this inherited degradation if He wants to. In addition, as I pointed out, the "all" is still a conditional as in "all Israel will be saved." Or again, Romans 5:12 says "Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all," we must wonder about Elijah (1 Kings 2:11) and Enoch (Gen. 5:24) if "all" literally means "every single person without the possibility of exception." One cannot be "Full of Grace" and also a sinner.
I again point out that Jesus was man, and He was without sin; that's one exception to the "all" in Romans 3:3 because sin (original and otherwise) did not apply to him. Is it possibile that God could prevent another?
I will not be repeating if you would be kind enough to answer my questions as well. For the fourth time, what is it that makes "us" lower than the angels? Is it only a sort of legalism: we have bodies, therefore, we are lower than angels?
That has no relevance to my statement.
Brings home a point though, why didn't the "first pope" teach about dulia? Why nothing about Mary in his letters? John did not either..as a matter of fact, nor did Paul!
Gimmie scripture to show dulia please.
A woman.
It says this creation was lower than the angels.
Hebrews is quite clear, it also makes no exempt status for mary, does it? It WAS NOT ABOUT LEGALISM. It is about creation order being spoken of In Heb 1 and 2. Supremecy is the theme in that part of the book.
I need facts please, not conjecture.
It says all, in Rom 3:23, and both in 3:9.
All..in Rom 5. Why no exemption for Mary? Did paul not know about Mary's exempt status?
18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
I find your overuse of emoticons annoying.
Anyway, it's still irrelevant. Why didn't person X teach idea Y? It doesn't matter. There's a reason it's the Church, and not the Person. The Church is made up of many people, no one person has all the answers. When the Church comes together and exercises its authority, truth is determined. It produced the canon of the New Testament and has maintained the ancient Christian beliefs to this day.
Why no teachings or mention of Mary from the epistles? Paul talked about head coverings, why not hyperdulia?
It says that was the creation order in the text. Your adding, not me. Mary was part of that order. What other creation could she be in, but the humand Adamic creation?Yes, there is a woman, but do you see the word "κεχαριτωμενη" in the Judges passage?
It says which creation is lower than the angels? Angels are created beings too.
Sure sounds like legalism to me. I asked you what makes us lower than the angels, and you respond that "it is about creation order... supremecy." But, why? Why are we lower than angels?
I'm sorry sir, but though Romans 5 says "and so death spread to all," the fact of the matter is that not all men died (Enoch, Elijah, etc). "Why no exemption for Mary?" Because she is no more relevent to the point Paul is making than Enoch and Elijah; unless, of course, you are saying that they actually did die. So, why no exemption for Enoch and Elijah? Paul is addressing his congregation, all of which have sinned.
The fact of the matter is that the word "all" being used cannot mean "every person without the possibility of exception" or else Romans 5 contradicts 1 Kings and Genesis. If there is a possibility in one aspect, there are in others.
Indeed, and Mary knew this "my spirit rejoices in God, my savior." She needed salvation as well, she simply was saved from sin before the fact, instead of us, who are saved after.
Quite a bit of that may be because Mary was still in her earthly life while many of the epistles were composed...
Of course, Mary does show up in the Book of Revelation and such.
It says that was the creation order in the text. Your adding, not me. Mary was part of that order. What other creation could she be in, but the humand Adamic creation?
Enoch and Elijah would have died though.
Sorry, but those are imperative verses. It says all sinned, all were in Adam.
Does scripture call Mary a spotless lamb?[/quote]1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
Yes, and Mary was made alive by Christ, who created her "Full of Grace."
I would like to mention that while I was watching a show called "Angelica" on EWTN a couple days ago, she mentioned that everything the Church teaches either comes directly from scripture or it comes "indirectly" from Scripture, but non the less everything should have a SPOT in ScriptureThere was plent of time to mention Mary in the epistles. Mary in rev is highly debated, as surely you must know.
There was plent of time to mention Mary in the epistles.
Mary in rev is highly debated, as surely you must know.
Do you admit the clear text, that man is lower than the angels,like it says?Okay, and so it's legalism to you; it's because of the creation order and that's the end of it. My view is different; it is because of relationships with God. Angels have superior relationships with God, and hence they are "higher." It has always interested me the Seraphim - the angel spirits closest to God - means "the burning ones;" God, of course, seen as a fire in many parts of scripture.
Am I "adding" anything with that view?
Mary was human, yes, did I ever say differently? But she has a relationship that is unique among all of creation; she is Christ's own mother. Jesus created her, and he honored her perfectly; I honor her imperfectly, but still I try to pay her the honor Jesus gave her.
My question: did Jesus honor his mother?
Heb 2:7 You made him for a little while lower than the angels;
you have crowned him with glory and honor,
Genesis has an odd way of saying that, then; especially since all the others on the list are recorded "then he died."
And "All Israel will be saved."
Does scripture call Mary a spotless lamb?
I would like to mention that while I was watching a show called "Angelica" on EWTN a couple days ago, she mentioned that everything the Church teaches either comes directly from scripture or it comes "indirectly" from Scripture, but non the less everything should have a SPOT in Scriptureso if its not a direct reference I would assume that could at least give you the "Alluded" part of Scripture that helps support it.
Does that include the interpretations of the ECFs?There was also plenty of time to mention the word "Trinity" but it doesn't appear either...
Which would make it a matter of interpretation, not of Scripture itself, so to say that we don't have scriptural support for what we believe is disingenuous.
There was also plenty of time to mention the word "Trinity" but it doesn't appear either...
Which would make it a matter of interpretation, not of Scripture itself, so to say that we don't have scriptural support for what we believe is disingenuous.
The same goes for "gehenna"There are plenty of trinity verses though, where when read the obvious presumption can be known. Why no mention of her in the epistles?
Not even indirectly.
Excellent argument. I subscribe to it myself, except on some of the details at the bottom, namely, the assumption, although I do not deny the piety of it or condemn those who hold it as pious opinion. My objection is purely on the grounds that one must believe it in order to be in communion with a billion Catholics. It seems to me that whatever the merits of and safeguards built into Vatican I's statement on papal infallibility, the two 'infallible' of the pope- both on Mary- served no purpose than to institutionalize personal piety and thus put up further barriers between the church and its erstwhile sympathizes (myself first among them).
But I digress.
Your excellent argument, as you state it, does not show (because it cannot show?) why, however much we acknowledge and perhaps even venerate the Theotokos as the Queen of Heaven, we ought to pray for her intercession in various matters. Prayer venerating her is one thing, but prayer for her intercession is quite another.
Now, Scott Hahn argues in his book Hail, Holy Queen (which I thoroughly enjoyed, by the way) along these precise lines. He writes, in particular, that the Davidic Queen-Mother of Israel received intercessions on behalf of the Israelite people and took these petitions before the king. As with Bathsheba (an unfortunate example susceptible to Protestant polemic, much like the Queen of Heaven in light of Jer 44), so with the Blessed Virgin.
Now, I'm going to skip over a common Protestant argument even though I think it holds some weight. That argument is that we have direct access to God the Father through the theoanthropos and sole mediator, Jesus Christ. I would merely note two things about it: first, contra the Protestants, the Catholics do hold that Christ is the sole mediator, but make a distinction between mediator and intermediary (the merits of that distinction, which has implications for everything from prayers to the saints to the nature of the three-fold ordinate, can be explored elsewhere). But second, contra the Catholics, I would note that, Jesus Christ, truly hearing our prayers, and the Father, truly receiving them from the Son, does undercut the pragmatic nature of the ancient Israelite arrangement. After all, aggrieved persons could not always petition before the king, so the queen-mother was sought after as an intercessor precisely because the king did not have their ear (he was, after all, busy being a king and being entertained by his harem). This pragmatic arrangement is severely undercut by the most basic affirmation about the incarnation: that in Christ all the fullness of divinity- including omniscience- dwells bodily.
Well, that was less of a skipping over than I would have liked...
Nonetheless, I want to grant you that however much the position of a queen-mother intercessor is unnecessary, the arrangement may still stand. Standing, then, are we able to pray to the Queen of Heaven?
Now, the other Protestant argument that I am not just going to skip over, but expressly deny, is that the saints cannot hear us. Well, the saints in general may very well be unable to hear us. Who knows? But if the queen-mother's role as royal intercessor for the aggrieved still stands, than it only stands to logic that she can hear us.
However, this is the limits of what we can know by Scripture and logic, and however much I love holy tradition, that rarely convinces me on a matter, especially when the development of a tradition is not genuinely ecumenical and is fairly late.
So how far has the logic taken us?
First, I contend that this logic only really takes us to corporate intercessory prayer. Individual prayers are unwarranted by the reasoning.
Second, I contend that these corporate prayers are only applicable (perhaps even only heard!) within the context of Mary's role as the Davidic king, and therefore only in the cases of the specific, corporate grievances of the people of God.
Thus prayers for Marian intercession, inasmuch as they should be practiced, should take the form of public and corporate liturgical prayers for corporate and particular grievances, namely, disasters that have befallen Christian communities, especially persecution. That is all I find warranted by the argument.
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?