whenever God speaks, we should listen, and not listen with our silly biases.it is would have been made an awfully lot clearer in scripture so that it didn't hinge on subtle linguistic analysis?
whenever God speaks, we should listen, and not listen with our silly biases.
no one is getting personal.No need to get personal
scripture is not a judgement call. To believe that is to believe a lie.It's a judgement call
not at all. It can be deduced from the teachings of the Church (which Jesus have authority to teach).Your bias tells you that Mariology can be deduced from pretty much a single word
thank you for your non Authoritative opinion.whereas mine tells me that that is not a rational position.
no one is getting personal.
scripture is not a judgement call. To believe that is to believe a lie.
not at all. It can be deduced from the teachings of the Church (which Jesus have authority to teach).
thank you for your non Authoritative opinion.
Where is this theory found in Scripture that original sin is passed down biologically from the father? Is it a DNA thing? Is it a gene? You speak as if it is a fact somehow that a mother does not pass sin on to her children. Do you really think Romans 5 is scientifically verifiable through the science of genetics?Jesus did not have a human father, so he did not have original sin. That is the difference with Jesus. No other person has been born without the seed of a man. It is the father who passes on sin to the children not the mother.
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--
Mary on the other hand did have a human father.
Considering Protestants argue all sorts of things, like how and when to baptize, and on and on, it's obvious that Scripture isn't crystal clear. You would think if baptism was important it would be a lot clearer than it is in Scripture. Let that settle for a few seconds.I'm sure it is interesting and worth the trouble but my point was simply that if Mary was saved in a different way than anyone else, i.e. from ever having sinned and from death itself rather than being saved from the consequences of sin, and if this is an important component of faith as it appears it is to the RCC then I would expect it to be made a lot clearer and amplified more than it is, even in translations. I'm not disputing the points you're making, just saying that if what you are saying is true then it is important and I'm surpt that the Bible isn't clearer. I take your point about translations but it doesn't sound like the theological point would be particularly clear even in the original Koine Greek.
Where on earth did this silly idea come from, that our fallen nature is only passed on from the male?Jesus did not have a human father, so he did not have original sin. That is the difference with Jesus. No other person has been born without the seed of a man. It is the father who passes on sin to the children not the mother.
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--
Considering Protestants argue all sorts of things, like how and when to baptize, and on and on, it's obvious that Scripture isn't crystal clear. You would think if baptism was important it would be a lot clearer than it is in Scripture. Let that settle for a few seconds.
Which is why we rely on the cumulative experience of the faithful over the centuries. We have engaged with the faith once delivered to the apostles and some of it actually gets clearer over time. For example, it took the contemplations of Duns Scotus to get to the point of seeing how Mary could be immaculate from the moment of her conception. We had always, in every generation, called her blessed, but we didn't have it figured out in all of the details. We mulled that over a few more centuries and then the pope polled all of the bishops and there was agreement. Theology is not just some guy who picks up a Bible and it all makes sense to him. Cause the guy next to him does the same thing and comes up with different answers. Theology is done on one's knees, and ever so slowly, always retaining the original teaching of the apostles and rarely ever going an inch beyond, cautiously.
I said "our", not "yours"Calling someone silly is not personal lol?
no,.you said judgement call, like it isnt clear. Now you use "discernment". Please make up your mind.We are supposed to use discernment when we interpret scripture.
I threw in the opinion of Christ's Church. That should clinch it, but as you have stated, people use their fallible, non authoritative judgement to interpret scripture in many different ways.We were talking about scripture and know you throw the viewpoint of your church into it as if that clinches the matter?
I believe scripture, "He who hears you hear Me" There is an authority, I know protestantism doesnt allow for it.Unfortunately there is no such thing as an authoritative opinion about God. We can only try to understand things the best we can.
you are free to turn the conversation from silly.This is getting very silly indeed tbh.
That is the difference with Jesus. No other person has been born without the seed of a man.
Mary on the other hand did have a human father.
No. I'm not making it into a Protestant vs Catholic thing. I pointed out that we would like Scripture to be clear on things that even people using the Bible alone cannot agree on. And that is because the Bible often does not have the clarity we would all want. So it works better to be very conservative in our approach, contemplating over generations, and only very slowly making advances in our cumulative understanding. We want to stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us, and we can maybe see a tiny bit farther than they did.Well, if you're going to make it a Protestant vs Catholic matter there's no debate to be had is there? It can only be debated on its merits.
We want to stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us, and we can maybe see a tiny bit farther than they did.
So it works better to be very conservative in our approach, contemplating over generations, and only very slowly making advances in our cumulative understanding.
I pointed out that we would like Scripture to be clear on things that even people using the Bible alone cannot agree on. And that is because the Bible often does not have the clarity we would all want.
On this I half agree. If we stand on the shoulders of giants we still need to be looking in the right direction. It is unhelpful to stand on the shoulders of giants and be looking in the wrong direction. What we need is a long faithfulness in the right direction.While that sounds like it should be true I don't think it always is. Sometimes we have to abandon an idea or way of thinking if a better one comes along. This happens in science all the time. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, for example, did not cumulatively build on Newton's laws of gravity, it completely overthrew it. This doesn't mean that Newton's laws are wrong but just that they are limited to objects of everyday size and speed such as aeroplanes or rockets.
I think churches should learn from this humiliy of science and sometimes be prepared to take a second look at something and admit that it got it wrong. Otherwise a whole body of dogma can only grow over time and become more unwieldy and wrong in places. Religion isn't science but it is still subject to learning from scholarship and discerned revelation.
Probably beause of people like you, eastern orthodox, catholics and similar, who are trying to make Mary to be somebody supernatural.
That leads to reactions like "is there something in the Bible that disproves that?".
We are happy that you agree with us, yet you always push a negative view of the Orthodox Church. You want to present us as haters of Catholicism when in fact we are lovers of truth.The Orthodox have similar ideas about Mary though they would be unhappy to actually agree with Catholics.
Thanks Brother, I gave a definition of the error committed and an example of JW's reading the meaning of one from John 17 into John 10:30
Reading a meaning into the text that is not there.
What else did you want?
Did Adam ever walk the earth? Eve? Neither was born with a 'sin nature'. Both were sinless at least for a while.
That's a mangling of the Catholic position. Mary would not have gone to heaven on her own because on her own she would have fallen and sinned and deserved hell. She was saved from that, through no merit of her own, so that she didn't fall and didn't sin. Her Son needed to die for her too. And Catholics know that. Every priest, bishop, cardinal, and pope, along with a chunk of the laity recite Luke 1 every day. So they know Mary had and needed a savior. It's not a surprise to us, as you may think.
For the most part you have presumed your conclusion. Of the many ways Mary could have been saved by Jesus you presume the one way that requires her to be a sinner while ignoring that she could have been saved from ever sinning.
It's Augustine. Augustus was a Roman Emperor. And nobody pretends Augustine was sinless. In fact his sinful life is well documented.
Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,"
This includes every single human ever born since Cain and includes Mary. if she didn't sin then you are claiming that she wasn't of human decent and wasn't human.
I think someone wrote that Jesus was the only exception. Luke 1:25
On this I half agree. If we stand on the shoulders of giants we still need to be looking in the right direction. It is unhelpful to stand on the shoulders of giants and be looking in the wrong direction. What we need is a long faithfulness in the right direction.
You may be surprised that I am a proponent of 'ecclesia semper reformanda'. And that the Catholic Church is actually for it too. The issue for me is whether changes are made with a hermenutic of rupture or one of continuity. Any reform contains a bit of rupture. That is inherent. But it should be a reform that points us back to a particular trajectory we were already on. And this is how it has to differ from Kuhn's 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions'. For in science we delve into unknowns at every turn and we operate on guesses until better guesses come along. The faith differs in that we have Jesus teaching his disciples, choosing apostles who would teach their successors who would teach their successors. While not everything is figured out, everything that the apostles knew was golden. Everything their early successors knew was argent. So we want to see where they stood and see who stood on their shoulders and where they stood. The term for that is 'ressourcement' and it is a going back to sources in the Bible and the Church Fathers. It can be done with a hermeneutic of continuity allowing the Church to reform, to stand on the shoulders of giants, and to look around but point in the right direction again.
The contemporary best well known example of this way of thinking is pope emeritus Benedict XVI. He didn't dump the past. But he wasn't static either. He went back to earlier sources, and we know those sources were on track because we know Jesus was on track. Not everything, especially the newest things, are on track. Particularly it is the newest things where time has not tested them, where we will need to change, to get back on track. It's only after a few hundred years that things even begin to clarify.
What does this have to do with Mary? The idea that Mary was a sinner is actually a new idea. We should look carefully at the Fathers to see what they thought of it. In that we might see how we got to where we are. The Orthodox have similar ideas about Mary though they would be unhappy to actually agree with Catholics. What is the common ground? What are their sources? Does that all make sense? What is the entire history? Are current ideas in concert with the older ones, the oldest ones, or a rupture?
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?