|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 11/4/2009 4:52:31 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5092
Status: offline
|
quote:
P.S. Someone had been arguing that if Is 66:7—about the painless birth of Jesus Christ—was about Mary, then Rev 12:2 cannot be about Mary. That is correct, Mary cannot be in view in both passages. The RC "interpretation" is simply one of eisegesis - its main method of "interpretation".
quote:
1. Some say that Is 66:7 cannot be referring to Mary if Rev 12:2 is referring to Mary.
2.they say this because the woman in Is 66:7 gives birth without pain, and the woman in rev 12:12 gives birth with pain.
3.but these same people agree that Is 66:7 is referring to the New Zion, and that Rev 12:2 is referring to the New Zion. Nope, not true as to what these "same people" agree upon....simply assuming and asserting what is not in evidence.
Rev 12:2 is definitely referring to the "travails" of the church. However, it is not the fulfillment of Isa 66:7 but rather that of Gen 3:15.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 11/4/2009 10:41:34 AM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 598
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: online
|
"CATHOLIC: Granted, a life of complete abstinence is not the recommended way for ordinary married couples to interact. But Mary and Joseph were not an ordinary married couple. They were entrusted with raising the Son of God. This circumstance was so unusual that their marriage could not have been an ordinary one, because the child they nurtured was no ordinary child.
"OBJECTOR: I still don’t see why the Church requires Catholics to believe that Mary remained a virgin instead of allowing them to have their own opinions. Does it really matter if Mary had other children?
CATHOLIC: Actually, it does matter. Every doctrine about Mary tells us something about Christ or something about ourselves or the Church. Mary’s perpetual virginity demonstrates her purity of heart and total love for God. In 388, St. Ambrose of Milan wrote that Mary’s virginity was "so great an example of material virtue" because it demonstrated her total devotion to Jesus. In Mary, we see an example of the purity our own hearts must have in total dedication to God. Her virginity also tells us something about the Church, which, like Mary, is both mother to the faithful and "pure bride to her one husband" (2 Cor. 11:2)."
For the whole of this copyrighted online article from This Rock magazine:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512sbs.asp
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 11/4/2009 10:50:49 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 11/9/2009 7:03:15 AM
|
|
|
rawr.ben
Posts: 2745
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: online
|
I am curious if Mark 3 comes into play here.
"20Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind.""
Mary, in all her sinlessness, thought that the HaMoshiach was "out of his mind" and she traveled from Nazareth to Capernum to drag him away from his ministry.
Gosh, that sounds like . . . unbelief in Yeshua?
She LATER put on the shoes of discipleship, but clearly at this point, she did not accept him for who he was, despite the message angels had given her years before.
_____________________________
rawr.ben
Facebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 11/9/2009 10:08:15 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1175
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
I am curious if Mark 3 comes into play here.
"20Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind.""
Mary, in all her sinlessness, thought that the HaMoshiach was "out of his mind" and she traveled from Nazareth to Capernum to drag him away from his ministry.
Gosh, that sounds like . . . unbelief in Yeshua?
His mother and his brothers did not "arrive" until verse 31. The "relatives" of verse 21 were somebody else - who we don't know. Obviously, Jesus had cousins or other relations - no doubt from Joseph's family.
Sounds like a case of errant Scriptural discernment to me...best leave the task of discerning to the Church...
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 11/9/2009 12:15:23 PM
|
|
|
rawr.ben
Posts: 2745
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
quote:
I am curious if Mark 3 comes into play here.
"20Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind.""
Mary, in all her sinlessness, thought that the HaMoshiach was "out of his mind" and she traveled from Nazareth to Capernum to drag him away from his ministry.
Gosh, that sounds like . . . unbelief in Yeshua?
His mother and his brothers did not "arrive" until verse 31. The "relatives" of verse 21 were somebody else - who we don't know. Obviously, Jesus had cousins or other relations - no doubt from Joseph's family.
Sounds like a case of errant Scriptural discernment to me...best leave the task of discerning to the Church...
I would say that that would be a faulty way of viewing the Scripture and trying really hard to not see the obvious in order to defend your already assumed theology.
Fact is, it was not some "separate family," and v21 to v31 are not separate stories.
"then the went . . . " leads into " . . . then they arrived."
Also, I am assuming as a Scholar, you are familiar with the Markan Sandwich?
All throughout the book of Mark we see this technique used where he starts a story, and in the middle includes something, then comes back and finishes the story.
This is what hermeneutics will teach you.
_____________________________
rawr.ben
Facebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 11/9/2009 3:56:28 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1175
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
Also, I am assuming as a Scholar, you are familiar with the Markan Sandwich?
I am no scholar. Thankfully, I am not required to be to participate in a right-relationship with God, through Jesus. I have a Church to help me...and that Church, to whom I farm-out the work of scholarship and discernment, says Mary was sinless.
Along with a lot of other great Christians who were more "scholarly" than posting on an Internet website.
Okay - verse 21, they "set out", verse 31, they "arrived". Mark makes me dizzy if I read him too fast - one breathless roll of event upon event.
What was the point - Mary sinned in saying Jesus was out of His head? I don't know, you think Jesus had opportunity to call this out in this situation. Anything else is simply conjecture, isn't it?
Not to change the subject, but...
I believe the Gospel takes care to spell out the state of Mary's soul in Luke through the use of "Kecharitomene". There is nothing subsequent to this statement that "un-does" or "revokes" a state of grace that was put into effect and remains in effect. One would have to believe that charisms expire or wear out (or are revoked) to explain the lack of this charis, in absence of statements explaining its expiration or revocation, without that charis being specifically rejected. If charis can be revoked, all Christians are in deep trouble.
If you are a scholar (and it sounds like you might be - more so than I), then what's the deal with the Greek usage of "charis" being translated in Luke to mean "favor"? Even in secular use, "charis" ends being more like "grace" in that a good bottle of wine, or a good play or theater - can be considered "charis" - a "blessing" or "goodness", for want of a better term.
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 11/9/2009 4:53:56 PM
|
|
|
rawr.ben
Posts: 2745
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: online
|
If showed lack of faith and lack of belief in who He was and an attempt to pull him away from his ministry.
_____________________________
rawr.ben
Facebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 11/9/2009 7:14:48 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3711
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
patricius79,
quote:
"CATHOLIC: Granted, a life of complete abstinence is not the recommended way for ordinary married couples to interact. But Mary and Joseph were not an ordinary married couple. They were entrusted with raising the Son of God. This circumstance was so unusual that their marriage could not have been an ordinary one, because the child they nurtured was no ordinary child.
"OBJECTOR: I still don’t see why the Church requires Catholics to believe that Mary remained a virgin instead of allowing them to have their own opinions. Does it really matter if Mary had other children?
CATHOLIC: Actually, it does matter. Every doctrine about Mary tells us something about Christ or something about ourselves or the Church. Mary’s perpetual virginity demonstrates her purity of heart and total love for God. In 388, St. Ambrose of Milan wrote that Mary’s virginity was "so great an example of material virtue" because it demonstrated her total devotion to Jesus. In Mary, we see an example of the purity our own hearts must have in total dedication to God. Her virginity also tells us something about the Church, which, like Mary, is both mother to the faithful and "pure bride to her one husband" (2 Cor. 11:2)."
For the whole of this copyrighted online article from This Rock magazine:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512sbs.asp
Contradictions!
Granted, a life of complete abstinence is not the recommended way for ordinary married couples to interact............Mary’s perpetual virginity demonstrates her purity of heart and total love for God............Mary’s virginity was "so great an example of material virtue" because it demonstrated her total devotion to Jesus. In Mary, we see an example of the purity our own hearts must have in total dedication to God.
Besides.......how devoted is a mother that leaves her 12 year old son behind and goes on a journey and does not even know he is missing for a whole day and he is not found for three? I know my mom would have yanked me by the ears if I would have tried to stay behind on some trip.
Every year Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem for the Passover festival. When Jesus was twelve years old, they attended the festival as usual. After the celebration was over, they started home to Nazareth, but Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents didn’t miss him at first, because they assumed he was among the other travelers. But when he didn’t show up that evening, they started looking for him among their relatives and friends. When they couldn’t find him, they went back to Jerusalem to search for him there. Three days later they finally discovered him in the Temple, sitting among the religious teachers, listening to them and asking questions.
Is that how Roman Catholics practice total devotion to their children?
If Roman Catholics were visiting a California theme park, and left the theme park to go to their home in Nevada, and they left their 12 year old children in the theme park and for a whole day of travel and did not even know they had left them, should we call that total devotion?
Try that and see if CPS and the police call it "total devotion".
That is more like a call for an Amber Alert and maybe even a call for charges of neglect.
According to Roman Catholics, Mary only had one child to look after and left without the poor guy.
I dont recall my mother ever doing that to me.
Mary had a sin nature just like everybody else.
KJB
_____________________________
Vote out Socialism/Communism and modern day "Robbing Hoods".
Constitutional principles like those found in the Constitution Party will help to build a "Constitutional" Republican Party.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 11/9/2009 9:12:00 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 598
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: online
|
quote:
If showed lack of faith and lack of belief in who He was and an attempt to pull him away from his ministry.
Actually, Mark 3:21 does not necessarily say “relatives” or “family”. Apparently it can be translated as “friends.”
http://bible.cc/mark/3-21.htm
It never occurred to me, in reading this passage--Mk 3:21-31--that this would suggest that Mary didn't believe in her Son's mission....seems like a conjecture.... Mary was told from the beginning that her child would be the Messiah. (Cf. Luke 1:28etc)....
...I don’t know about the "Markan Sandwich." Will have to look that up if I can....
Mk 3:31 says that Mary and Jesus's close male relatives "arrived" or "came", so apparently they weren't there before.
The early Church saw Mary as the New Eve who believed where Eve had doubted...
It seems implausible to me that she would have fallen into the older-eve-iler patterns...
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 11/9/2009 9:31:30 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 11/9/2009 9:41:46 PM
|
|
|
rawr.ben
Posts: 2745
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: patricius79
quote:
If showed lack of faith and lack of belief in who He was and an attempt to pull him away from his ministry.
Actually, Mark 3:21 does not necessarily say “relatives” or “family”. Apparently it can be translated as “friends.”
http://bible.cc/mark/3-21.htm
I think that would be a poor translation that ignores the actual context of what is going on.
Here is the most likely scenario:
Since Joseph seems to disappear out of the story, it is probably safe to assume that sometime after Yeshua was 12, he died.
Yeshua, being the oldest, more than likely took over the family trade in order to support and feed his mother, brother, and sisters.
It is probable that this is what is taking place during the "silent years" of Yeshua's life . . . he is working in his hometown, making a living to take care of his family.
What we see here in this story is Yeshua spending time, hanging out in homes, eating and drinking, in Capernum, and his family seemed to think it was a waste of time. They wanted him to come back home, to do his duty.
Yeshua clarified that it was time to be with his "new family", aka, his disciples.
quote:
It never occurred to me, in reading this passage--Mk 3:21-31--that this would suggest that Mary didn't believe in her Son's mission....seems like quite a stretch, especially since Mary was told from the beginning that her child would be the Messiah. (Cf. Luke 1:28etc)
Nazareth was a small community, and most were from the bloodline of David. In fact, it is possible that Yeshua was related to much of the town.
Every male child born there was potentially the Messiah.
However, as Yeshua stated, "a prophet is never welcomed in his own hometown." Basically, these people saw him live his life, as a carpenter, making a liviing, feeding his family. While there was much hype that he could be "the one," his life surely did not indicate such. So, what it seemed was that he ended up just being another regular guy.
Fastfowarding to Capernum, he is hanging out with a crude group of "disciples," eating and drinking and carrying on.
It would seem it was even more dishonorous. If he was suppose to be the Messiah, why is he just wasting time? He should be raising up against the gov't as a new king, as most thought the Messiah would. He simply did not fit the mold.
So, his mother, and other family, came to get him out of Capernum, for being "out of his mind." He clearly wasn't the Messiah that was promised. He was just a carpenter, and they needed him at home!
Despite the promise to Mary, she didn't always seem to get it. However, in the end, she DID put on the shoes of discipleship and follow Him.
We can see the same with his brothers, as they bicker and make fun of him at times, but in the end for them, they too follow him, and instead of indicating themselves just as his brother, were the bondservants to the Messiah.
quote:
I don’t know about the "Markan Sandwich." Will have to look that up if I can.
http://ordinand.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/literary-tecnique-the-markan-sandwich/
http://chrysaliscom.blogspot.com/2007/10/whats-markan-sandwich-aka-chiasm.html
Those aren't the most "official" of links, they were just a couple quickies that I grabbed, but it does show that I am not just making things up, at least :)
I studied the Markan Sandwich relatively in-depth when I was taking classes studying the Synoptic Gospels.
quote:
Mk 3:31 sas that Mary and Jesus's close male relatives "arrived" or "came", so apparently they weren't there before.
They arrived to Capernum from Nazareth.
_____________________________
rawr.ben
Facebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 11/10/2009 2:25:03 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 598
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: online
|
BEN WROTE:
quote:
I think that would be a poor translation that ignores the actual context of what is going on.
Maybe, but both Catholic (some of them) and non-Catholic Bibles (some of them) translate Mk 3:21 as “friends”:
http://bible.cc/mark/3-21.htm
quote:
What we see here in this story is Yeshua spending time, hanging out in homes, eating and drinking, in Capernum, and his family seemed to think it was a waste of time. They wanted him to come back home, to do his duty.
Yeshua clarified that it was time to be with his "new family", aka, his disciples.
I can’t say based on Scripture alone that this interpretation is impossible.. But the text doesn’t say that Mary thought he was out of his mind or the like. As you know, for me the main test of questionable interpretations is the tradition of the Church.
I feel like if I begin to make a lot of conjectures like this—apart from the history of Christ’s Body—then I could end up like Bruce Chilton, running wild with my imagination.
Ben wrote:
quote:
[pat said:]"Mk 3:31 sas that Mary and Jesus's close male relatives "arrived" or "came", so apparently they weren't there before."
They arrived to Capernum from Nazareth.
I don't see this in the text...
quote:
So, his mother, and other family, came to get him out of Capernum, for being "out of his mind." He clearly wasn't the Messiah that was promised. He was just a carpenter, and they needed him at home!
I honestly don't see this in the text. Someone reading Mk 3:21-31 could wonder, 'I wonder if his own mother thought he was crazy'. I don't see how they could be sure that these "friends" or "relatives" of verse 21 must have included Mary.
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 11/10/2009 3:07:25 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 11/10/2009 2:36:07 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1175
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
If you are a scholar (and it sounds like you might be - more so than I), then what's the deal with the Greek usage of "charis" being translated in Luke to mean "favor"? Even in secular use, "charis" ends being more like "grace" in that a good bottle of wine, or a good play or theater - can be considered "charis" - a "blessing" or "goodness", for want of a better term.
Ben, if you get a chance, I'd like your thoughts on this post. Even my NAB has Luke 1:28 translated as "favored", and I believe that the secular usage of this term from the time is a bit different, i. e. my example of a great bottle of wine, or a highly skilled actor performing magnificently in a play. Not exactly "favored", but more like "graced", or "blessed" or "gifted".
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 11/10/2009 4:26:13 PM
|
|
|
SamsonUSA
Posts: 2082
Joined: 10/5/2008
From: Laguna Beach. Presently an Arizona desert dweller
Status: offline
|
Greetings Doghouse,
quote:
Ben, if you get a chance, I'd like your thoughts on this post. Even my NAB has Luke 1:28 translated as "favored", and I believe that the secular usage of this term from the time is a bit different, i. e. my example of a great bottle of wine, or a highly skilled actor performing magnificently in a play. Not exactly "favored", but more like "graced", or "blessed" or "gifted".
I am not attempting to answer for Ben but perhaps you will find this helpful. Our Seminary professor who teaches the New Testament Survey Gospels course I am taking is a Greek Exegete, and instructs the class from his translation of the NT. He translates Luke 1:28 as follows:
And coming [the Angel] said to her: "Rejoice, favored one - the Lord is with you! [Blessed are you among women!]
A footnote to this text in our study notes reads....Favored one or "graced" to cause to be the recipient of a benefit Baur W., F.W. Danker, W.F. Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. Chicago 1999.
The verb is used in the NT only for God's agency. (Ephesians 1:6)
< Message edited by SamsonUSA -- 11/10/2009 4:32:19 PM >
_____________________________
If you can't be thankful for what you receive, be thankful for what you escape.
We are the objects of God's grace. Let Him be the object of our gratitude.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 11/10/2009 9:14:00 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 598
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: online
|
quote:
That is correct, Mary cannot be in view in both passages.
Why? In Rev 12, we may be dealing with an allegory. Why couldn't her labor pains be allegorical of her spiritual suffering?
quote:
The RC "interpretation" is simply one of eisegesis - its main method of "interpretation".
I don't think so. I think the Catholic Church interprets the Scriptures exegetically.
quote:
but these same people agree that Is 66:7 is referring to the New Zion, and that Rev 12:2 is referring to the New Zion.
That's what I said. I think it's correct.
quote:
Nope, not true as to what these "same people" agree upon....simply assuming and asserting what is not in evidence.
So you are saying that you do not see Is 66:7 as referring to the New Zion? Interesting.
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 11/11/2009 9:56:43 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 11/10/2009 10:52:39 PM
|
|
|
rawr.ben
Posts: 2745
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: patricius79
quote:
That is correct, Mary cannot be in view in both passages.
Why? In Rev 12, we may be dealing with an allegory. Why couldn't her labor pains be allegorical or her spiritual suffering?
Do you think Rev 12 has even happened yet?
_____________________________
rawr.ben
Facebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 11/11/2009 9:59:13 AM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 598
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: online
|
BEN WROTE:
quote:
Do you think Rev 12 has even happened yet?
I'm reading it again.......I tend to think it has all happened, including the Assumption of Mary (verse 1), which is a doctrine related to Mary's sinlessness.
By the way, does anyone know what verse 16 means?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 11/11/2009 12:23:58 PM
|
|
|
rawr.ben
Posts: 2745
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: patricius79
BEN WROTE:
quote:
Do you think Rev 12 has even happened yet?
I'm reading it again.......I tend to think it has all happened, including the Assumption of Mary (verse 1), which is a doctrine related to Mary's sinlessness.
By the way, does anyone know what verse 16 means?
Since Revelations is quite chronological, then we must assume that chapters 1-11 have already happened as well? Certainly some has, but specifically 6-11?
All the scrolls have been opened, the seals broken, and the trumpets sounded?
That seems unlikely.
_____________________________
rawr.ben
Facebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 11/11/2009 12:59:30 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 598
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: online
|
quote:
Since Revelations is quite chronological, then we must assume that chapters 1-11 have already happened as well? Certainly some has, but specifically 6-11?
This is way beyond me, Ben.
I can say that I think the Christians and Jews at the first century did not have the same understanding of chronology that we do.
I think that Revelation 12 is referring to Mary, as well as the Church, because the Church reads it this way.
If Rev 12:2 is referring to the Church then it is an allegory, and may be an allegory of Mary’s suffering under the Cross.
If this is true, then the document such as Is 66:7—like some of the very early Christian documents which likewise say that Mary gave birth (in Luke 2) without labor pains-- could be accurately referring to Mary.
This could mean that Mary wasn’t under the curse of Gen 3:16.
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 11/11/2009 1:41:43 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 11/11/2009 1:15:23 PM
|
|
|
rawr.ben
Posts: 2745
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: patricius79
quote:
Since Revelations is quite chronological, then we must assume that chapters 1-11 have already happened as well? Certainly some has, but specifically 6-11?
This is way beyond me, Ben.
It is pretty simple. Read through Revelation and see the word "then" over and over. THEN this happened, THEN that happened . . .
It is describing an order of events from beginning to end.
Revelations 12 happens to fall dab in the middle.
For the record, prior to Revelations 12 are the chapters that refer to the Great Tribulation. Since we certainly haven't faced that yet, and Revelations 12 follows . . . I am bound to say that Revelations 12 has not happened yet, and therefore it is impossible for it to be about Mary.
_____________________________
rawr.ben
Facebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 11/11/2009 1:37:13 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 598
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: online
|
quote:
It is pretty simple. Read through Revelation and see the word "then" over and over. THEN this happened, THEN that happened . . .
It is describing an order of events from beginning to end.
Revelations 12 happens to fall dab in the middle.
For the record, prior to Revelations 12 are the chapters that refer to the Great Tribulation. Since we certainly haven't faced that yet, and Revelations 12 follows . . . I am bound to say that Revelations 12 has not happened yet, and therefore it is impossible for it to be about Mary.
I'll look again, but why couldn't this be a chronology of what John saw, rather than the order in which these things actually happen?
I find it unlikely that God would have formed his Son from the womb of a sinful mother, when even the first Adam was formed from an immaculate earth.
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 11/11/2009 1:56:53 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 11/11/2009 3:05:39 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1175
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
to cause to be the recipient of a benefit
...fine...lets run with this a minute...
What's the benefit? As it applies to "charitoo" as used in Luke 1:28? I mean - we are talking a charism of God - what specifically is the action that results from or is caused by the application of this charism?
"rejoice, favored one" ("most favored", "fully favored", "highly favored") - no adjective related to the form of "charitoo" being specified by Luke as "kecharitomene"?
We simply get "favored" out of "kecharitomene"?
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 11/11/2009 9:05:12 PM
|
|
|
rawr.ben
Posts: 2745
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: patricius79
quote:
It is pretty simple. Read through Revelation and see the word "then" over and over. THEN this happened, THEN that happened . . .
It is describing an order of events from beginning to end.
Revelations 12 happens to fall dab in the middle.
For the record, prior to Revelations 12 are the chapters that refer to the Great Tribulation. Since we certainly haven't faced that yet, and Revelations 12 follows . . . I am bound to say that Revelations 12 has not happened yet, and therefore it is impossible for it to be about Mary.
I'll look again, but why couldn't this be a chronology of what John saw, rather than the order in which these things actually happen?
Why would God reveal to John the eschaton, but completely out of order?
quote:
I find it unlikely that God would have formed his Son from the womb of a sinful mother, when even the first Adam was formed from an immaculate earth.
I don't see why it couldn't happen. Is God too small to be born to just a regular lady, and then not be able to remain God?
_____________________________
rawr.ben
Facebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 11/12/2009 2:17:40 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5092
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rawr.ben
I am curious if Mark 3 comes into play here.
"20Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind.""
Mary, in all her sinlessness, thought that the HaMoshiach was "out of his mind" and she traveled from Nazareth to Capernum to drag him away from his ministry.
Gosh, that sounds like . . . unbelief in Yeshua?
She LATER put on the shoes of discipleship, but clearly at this point, she did not accept him for who he was, despite the message angels had given her years before.
This is another example where the Lord distances Himself from His biological relationship with Mary. He is telling us here that it is the spiritual relationship which is of importance - not the physical. We see a similar theme throughout all His teachings.
Some of the ECFs recognized that Mary sinned - Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, A Treatise On Re-Baptism, Apostolic Constitutions, Augustine, Origen, Chrysostom, etc. Luke 2:48-50 or "lack of virtue" and "superfluous vanity" is cited by ECFs as examples.
Even seven different RC bishops discounted Mary's "sinlessness" as seen in The Creeds of Christendom by historian Philip Schaff. The RC scholar Michael O'Carroll cites Innocent III saying that Mary was "begotten in guilt", that she needed "cleansing of the flesh from the root of sin" (Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], p. 185).
So much for the RC slogan ”everywhere, always, and by all”.
< Message edited by kelman -- 11/12/2009 2:25:01 AM >
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 11/12/2009 2:21:50 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5092
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SamsonUSA
Greetings Doghouse,
quote:
Ben, if you get a chance, I'd like your thoughts on this post. Even my NAB has Luke 1:28 translated as "favored", and I believe that the secular usage of this term from the time is a bit different, i. e. my example of a great bottle of wine, or a highly skilled actor performing magnificently in a play. Not exactly "favored", but more like "graced", or "blessed" or "gifted".
I am not attempting to answer for Ben but perhaps you will find this helpful. Our Seminary professor who teaches the New Testament Survey Gospels course I am taking is a Greek Exegete, and instructs the class from his translation of the NT. He translates Luke 1:28 as follows:
And coming [the Angel] said to her: "Rejoice, favored one - the Lord is with you! [Blessed are you among women!]
A footnote to this text in our study notes reads....Favored one or "graced" to cause to be the recipient of a benefit Baur W., F.W. Danker, W.F. Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. Chicago 1999.
The verb is used in the NT only for God's agency. (Ephesians 1:6)
And we might ask when does the word kecharitomen ever imply "sinlessness"?....never. Otherwise, we have all those in Eph 1 also being forever sinless.
No, this whole business of assigning unwarranted and ungrammatical definitions to a word is just another example of grasping at straws in an attempt to defend the indefensible - an unbiblical doctrine.
They don't realize how silly they sound with what is essentially a very weak argument, in fact, no argument at all, for one of RC's most important doctrines.
< Message edited by kelman -- 11/12/2009 2:28:52 AM >
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 11/12/2009 2:41:39 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5092
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
to cause to be the recipient of a benefit
...fine...lets run with this a minute...
What's the benefit? As it applies to "charitoo" as used in Luke 1:28? I mean - we are talking a charism of God - what specifically is the action that results from or is caused by the application of this charism?
"rejoice, favored one" ("most favored", "fully favored", "highly favored") - no adjective related to the form of "charitoo" being specified by Luke as "kecharitomene"?
We simply get "favored" out of "kecharitomene"? Well, for sure we don't get "forever sinless" from kecharitomene!
....seems a little more "running" is needed.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
