[dwashbur]

There are several flaws in your reasoning. For starters, Mary didn't need to be sinless because the "stain of Adam" is passed through the father, not the mother. That's why Jesus had a human mother but a divine father. It's that simple.

Why don't you answer WG's question about Mary's mother? Why only Mary? And if God could do that with Mary, why bother? He could just do the miracle with Jesus, which of course is exactly what he did.

You admit there's no scriptural evidence, then appeal to some "saint" from centuries later for authority. That doesn't work for non-Catholics because we don't elevate church tradition to the level of Scripture the way the Catholic church does. Ever hear the phrase "sola scriptura"? It was the basis of a little ruckus back in the 1500's.

And Aquinas was wrong when he said there's time in eternity. The eternity in which God dwells, by definition, is outside of time and not subject to it.

So in answer to your question, why don't we honor "mother of salvation"? Because there's no such thing. Mary called herself a handmaid, basically an indentured servant. That's how we see her, which is to say, we see her the same way she saw herself: a supremely privileged individual who followed God's will. That's it.

[JudyKayTee]

"Its been a couple of years since I've posted. What do you suppose the significance in the number of threads concerning the Mother of God? "


If I knew the answer I wouldn't have asked you.

[joypulv]

'How many different TRUE religions do you think there are?'
Oh no, not this question...

[JudyKayTee]

Joy, see any other thread OP has started. It all comes down to the same thing.

You answer and you are the one being questioned.

[JoeT777]

There are several flaws in your reasoning. For starters, Mary didn't need to be sinless because the "stain of Adam" is passed through the father, not the mother. That's why Jesus had a human mother but a divine father. It's that simple.

Why don't you answer WG's question about Mary's mother? Why only Mary? And if God could do that with Mary, why bother? He could just do the miracle with Jesus, which of course is exactly what he did.

You admit there's no scriptural evidence, then appeal to some "saint" from centuries later for authority. That doesn't work for non-Catholics because we don't elevate church tradition to the level of Scripture the way the Catholic church does. Ever hear the phrase "sola scriptura"? It was the basis of a little ruckus back in the 1500's.

And Aquinas was wrong when he said there's time in eternity. The eternity in which God dwells, by definition, is outside of time and not subject to it.

So in answer to your question, why don't we honor "mother of salvation"? Because there's no such thing. Mary called herself a handmaid, basically an indentured servant. That's how we see her, which is to say, we see her the same way she saw herself: a supremely privileged individual who followed God's will. That's it.

Actually, the woman contributes flesh, only. The blood is made by the organisms of the fetus and never mingles with the mother's blood. The mother can have one blood type and the child another. The blood, on the other hand, is the life force.The father contributes DNA and the start of life triggering the growth of the embryonic cells.

Original sin is not contributed by the father because original sin is the absence of original justice. What one doesn't have can't be given. Original sin is not transferred by the parents in the same sense as a virus might be inherited or male pattern baldness. Rather original sin is a condition of being heir to Adam and Eve after the fall, that is being a member of the human race.

That's why we read in scripture "Word was made flesh," not 'blood', or not 'flesh and blood'. It is the flesh of the New Adam, with the presence of 'original justice' that was born by Mary. [St. Thomas Aquinas, translated by Richard Regan, "On Evil". pg. 164 - available on the internet (free)]. While Mary provided the flesh, the first cause of life force of Christ is the Holy Spirit who contributed His sperm. Thus, Christ being God/man had the flesh of the New Adam and the life force of the Eternal Spirit. A condition we can receive through redemption found in Baptism, we become 'born again' anew person.

JoeT

[JoeT777]

'How many different TRUE religions do you think there are?'
Oh no, not this question...

One, the Catholic Church.

JoeT

[JoeT777]

"Its been a couple of years since I've posted. What do you suppose the significance in the number of threads concerning the Mother of God? "


If I knew the answer I wouldn't have asked you.

This is the only thread I started with the 'Mother of God' that I started. Are you sensitive to the topic?

JoeT

[joypulv]

As JudyKayTee observed, "You answer and you are the one being questioned."
You start with a question but you already have the answers (your answers) ready.
You belong on a blog site of your own.

At least I learned a few things today. I've always been unclear about the reasons for the wars between Roman Catholics and Protestants, chalking it up all to such absurdity as fighting over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. A sad state for Christianity.

[JoeT777]

As JudyKayTee observed, "You answer and you are the one being questioned."
You start with a question but you already have the answers (your answers) ready.
You belong on a blog site of your own.

At least I learned a few things today. I've always been unclear about the reasons for the wars between Roman Catholics and Protestants, chalking it up all to such absurdity as fighting over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. A sad state for Christianity.

I don't recall asking about angels dancing on the head of a pin. I have an opinion about Catholicism but my question concerned 'other' faiths (I don't think I mentioned 'Protestantism' directly. Instead some of the responses seemed to address their dislikes and opinions of Catholicism; at least that's the way I took it.


How do you answer the question? I don't believe you ever said.



JoeT

[dwashbur]

Quote:
Originally Posted by joypulv View Post
'How many different TRUE religions do you think there are?'
Oh no, not this question...
One, the Catholic Church.

Nothing like assuming what you're trying to prove, eh? That's called circular reasoning, in case you're wondering. And there are plenty of us who disagree with you.

[dwashbur]

Actually, the woman contributes flesh, only. The blood is made by the organisms of the fetus and never mingles with the mother's blood. The mother can have one blood type and the child another. The blood, on the other hand, is the life force.The father contributes DNA and the start of life triggering the growth of the embryonic cells.

Seriously? What does this have to do with anything? In terms of what I said, it's meaningless. I have no idea what your point is.

Original sin is not contributed by the father because original sin is the absence of original justice. What one doesn't have can't be given. Original sin is not transferred by the parents in the same sense as a virus might be inherited or male pattern baldness. Rather original sin is a condition of being heir to Adam and Eve after the fall, that is being a member of the human race.

Again I have to say: seriously? I never mentioned "original sin" because as far as I'm concerned, there's no such thing. It's a Catholic invention that has no basis in the Bible, and I see no reason to buy it. You referred to the "stain of Adam." As Romans 5 tells us, in Adam all die. That's what this "stain" is. Not some speculative "original sin" that's separate from everything else; that's so much theological straw-grasping. It was through Adam that we were born fallible. Not Adam and Eve, just Adam. That's why Jesus could be sinless without Mary having to be anything special, because that "taint" comes through Adam, i.e. the father. Jesus didn't have a human father. QED. There's no need for Mary's human sinfulness to enter into it at all.

That's why we read in scripture "Word was made flesh," not 'blood', or not 'flesh and blood'. It is the flesh of the New Adam, with the presence of 'original justice' that was born by Mary. [St. Thomas Aquinas, translated by Richard Regan, "On Evil". pg. 164 - available on the internet (free)]. While Mary provided the flesh, the first cause of life force of Christ is the Holy Spirit who contributed His sperm. Thus, Christ being God/man had the flesh of the New Adam and the life force of the Eternal Spirit.

This whole thing collapses in on itself when we realize one simple fact: there is no such thing as a "new Adam."

And "original justice" is just as unbiblical as "original sin." Which is to say, there's no such thing. It's another Catholic invention that the rest of us reject. You are welcome to keep throwing your Catholic talking points at us, but very few are going to buy them.

Oh, and as for the whole "word made flesh" as opposed to "flesh and blood"? Have you ever read Luke 24:39? They're all perfectly good Greek figures of speech, and they all mean the same thing.

[joypulv]

I don't recall asking about angels dancing on the head of a pin. I have an opinion about Catholicism but my question concerned 'other' faiths (I don't think I mentioned 'Protestantism' directly. Instead some of the responses seemed to address their dislikes and opinions of Catholicism; at least that's the way I took it.

How do you answer the question? I don't believe you ever said.

JoeT

I said SUCH AS angels dancing, one of the standard examples for absurd arguments. I am a novice in regard to what all the differences are among all religions, including within Christianity. And that's why I didn't answer your title question.

[JoeT777]

Seriously? What does this have to do with anything? In terms of what I said, it's meaningless. I have no idea what your point is.

It has to do with identifying the Real Christ by looking at His mother's new species of humanity who bore a new species of Adam.

Again I have to say: seriously? I never mentioned "original sin" because as far as I'm concerned, there's no such thing. It's a Catholic invention that has no basis in the Bible, and I see no reason to buy it. You referred to the "stain of Adam." As Romans 5 tells us, in Adam all die. That's what this "stain" is. Not some speculative "original sin" that's separate from everything else; that's so much theological straw-grasping. It was through Adam that we were born fallible. Not Adam and Eve, just Adam. That's why Jesus could be sinless without Mary having to be anything special, because that "taint" comes through Adam, i.e. the father. Jesus didn't have a human father. QED. There's no need for Mary's human sinfulness to enter into it at all.

Roman 5 teaches that sin entered the world which by extension brought death. It is explicit in Romans 5:12, ". . . sin entered into this world, and by sin death" The first cause of death is sin. Death didn't enter the world and cause sin. If we don't include Eve in the equation how do we get from Adam to you? Obviously, the natural laws require Eve. Sin isn't transmitted through bodily like a genetic defect, rather it is transmitted generationally. Sin transmitted by genetic material could be done away with by creating an antibody, an anti-sin serum.

John Eck writes of the lack of original justice:

Original Sin is that men are born without the fear of God and without trust in God, is to be entirely rejected, since it is manifest to every Christian that to be without the fear of God and without trust in God is rather the actual guilt of an adult than the offence of a recently-born infant, which does not possess as yet the full use of reason, as the Lord says "Your children which had no knowledge between good and evil," Deut 1:39. (Johann Eck, The Confutatio Pontificia, 1530)

At one time Adam and Eve communed with God, Adam spoke to God and God spoke to Adam, like Moses, they spoke "face to face". Adam having freewill was one with God (oneness such expressed in John 6:57 and John 17:21-22). "God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good." God did not, and does not, make evil. Expulsion from Eden is God's justice for original sin was done through a privation of abiding in God and God abiding in us.

The transmission isn't through the blood, it is not physically inheritance. That's because we bear the fault of sin as a member of the community of humans:

"An individual can be considered either as an individual or as part of a whole, a member of a society . . . . Considered in the second way an act can be his although he has not done it himself, nor has it been done by his free will but by the rest of the society or by its head, the nation being considered as doing what the prince does. For a society is considered as a single man of whom the individuals are the different members (St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 12). Thus the multitude of men who receive their human nature from Adam is to be considered as a single community or rather as a single body . . . . If the man, whose privation of original justice is due to Adam, is considered as a private person, this privation is not his 'fault', for a fault is essentially voluntary. If, however, we consider him as a member of the family of Adam, as if all men were only one man, then his privation partakes of the nature of sin on account of its voluntary origin, which is the actual sin of Adam" (De Malo, 4, 1).

That is to say, if we were members of a kingdom and the king unjustly makes war against the emperor and loses. The entire kingdom suffers a just retribution of atonement and contrition. The small children of the kingdom who were incapable of making war have an atonement levied against them, as well as a contrite attitude toward the emperor or they are expelled. Quod Erat Faciendum

This whole thing collapses in on itself when we realize one simple fact: there is no such thing as a "new Adam."

And "original justice" is just as unbiblical as "original sin." Which is to say, there's no such thing. It's another Catholic invention that the rest of us reject. You are welcome to keep throwing your Catholic talking points at us, but very few are going to buy them.

I've shown otherwise.

Oh, and as for the whole "word made flesh" as opposed to "flesh and blood"? Have you ever read Luke 24:39? They're all perfectly good Greek figures of speech, and they all mean the same thing.

In the cited passage of Luke is found the Person of Christ risen. The same body hung on the Cross with the same Divine Soul, the Second Person of the Trinity who is wholly God and wholly man, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity the Real Christ.

[classyT]

Joe,

Because Mary was a mere woman who needed to be saved too. There is NO verse in the bible that suggests we worship her. There is no verse in the bible that suggests she had any part in salvation. Salvation is OF the Lord. He did it all.

We honor her because the Lord chose her to be Jesus mother. That is special but other than that... she was just another woman. And NO the Lord had no stain of Adam. He is fully God, and fully man. What I find interesting is you want to reason this out that somehow because she was a sinner that the Lord Jesus would be stained. Hey! His Father is GOD. What you need to reason out is how in the world Mary was anything more than a sinner in need of salvation. God is no respecter of persons. He can't zap her and make her special. If he could have done that for her he could have done that for all of us and Jesus wouldn't have had to die.

[dwashbur]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
Seriously? What does this have to do with anything? In terms of what I said, it's meaningless. I have no idea what your point is.
It has to do with identifying the Real Christ by looking at His mother's new species of humanity who bore a new species of Adam.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. What is "the Real Christ" and why do we need to identify him? He told us who he was. He told us it was real and proved it by the resurrection. And this "new species of Adam" is plainly unbiblical. There is not a single passage that ever calls Jesus a new Adam. If you disagree, show me.

Quote:
This whole thing collapses in on itself when we realize one simple fact: there is no such thing as a "new Adam."
Quote:
And "original justice" is just as unbiblical as "original sin." Which is to say, there's no such thing. It's another Catholic invention that the rest of us reject. You are welcome to keep throwing your Catholic talking points at us, but very few are going to buy them.

I've shown otherwise.

Where? I've seen a lot of speculative theology and a handful of quotes from Catholic theologians of centuries later. That shows nothing. You have not "shown otherwise." You have said otherwise, nothing more. There's a huge difference.

To answer your original question: we reject the Catholic ideas about Mary because we reject Catholic tradition. We reject the authority of the centralized Church structure, we reject the authority of any Pope or council, and we reject the idea that anything besides faith in the risen Christ is required for salvation. You're welcome to embrace your Catholic views if you want to, and as a patriotic American I will support your right to do so as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights. But if you're going to ask a question like this one, you've got to be prepared for the answer. That means doing a little thinking outside the Catholic box yourself, if you really want to understand us.

[Wondergirl]

According to Martin Luther, humans are the Old and New Adam.

From his Large Catechism:

"Baptism, which is nothing else than putting to death the old Adam, and after that the resurrection of the new man [the new Adam], both of which must take place in us all our lives, so that a truly Christian life is nothing else than a daily baptism, once begun and ever to be continued. For this must be practised without ceasing, that we ever keep purging away whatever is of the old Adam, and that that which belongs to the new man come forth. But what is the old man? It is that which is born in us from Adam, angry, hateful, envious, unchaste, stingy, lazy, haughty, yea, unbelieving, infected with all vices, and having by nature nothing good in it. Now, when we are come into the kingdom of Christ, these things must daily decrease, that the longer we live we become more gentle, more patient more meek, and ever withdraw more and more from unbelief, avarice, hatred, envy, haughtiness."

From his Small Catechism:

"What does such baptizing with water signify?

It signifies that the old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, again, a new man daily come forth and arise; who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever."

[Wondergirl]

And this "new species of Adam" is plainly unbiblical. there is not a single passage that ever calls Jesus a new Adam. If you disagree, show me.

What about 1 Corinthians 15:45 (English Revised Version), "So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit."

[JoeT777]

According to Martin Luther, humans are the Old and New Adam.

From his Large Catechism:

"Baptism, which is nothing else than putting to death the old Adam, and after that the resurrection of the new man [the new Adam], both of which must take place in us all our lives, so that a truly Christian life is nothing else than a daily baptism, once begun and ever to be continued. For this must be practised without ceasing, that we ever keep purging away whatever is of the old Adam, and that that which belongs to the new man come forth. But what is the old man? It is that which is born in us from Adam, angry, hateful, envious, unchaste, stingy, lazy, haughty, yea, unbelieving, infected with all vices, and having by nature nothing good in it. Now, when we are come into the kingdom of Christ, these things must daily decrease, that the longer we live we become more gentle, more patient more meek, and ever withdraw more and more from unbelief, avarice, hatred, envy, haughtiness."

From his Small Catechism:

"What does such baptizing with water signify?

It signifies that the old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, again, a new man daily come forth and arise; who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever."

I agree with your understanding of men being of the Old Adam and 'reborn' as the New Adam in Baptism. Luther is recalling parts of his Catholic teaching regarding the identity of Christ. Christ is, as you rightly pointed out in your next post, the Adam that became a living Spirit. However, only one Baptism is made, to be re-baptized is to re-crucify Christ a second time.

JoeT

[paraclete]

I agree with your understanding of men being of the Old Adam and 'reborn' as the New Adam in Baptism. Luther is recalling parts of his Catholic teaching regarding the identity of Christ. Christ is, as you rightly pointed out in your next post, the Adam that became a living Spirit. However, only one Baptism is made, to be re-baptized is to re-crucify Christ a second time.

JoeT

Joe I don't know where you got that idea from, biblically those who had undergone John's baptism were rebaptised. Baptism is a ritual acknowledgement of redemption and rebirth, are you suggesting that I re-crucified Christ when I underwent full immersion baptism even though I had been "baptised" as a child. Adam did not become a living spirit by being baptised but by being faithful to the father's plan and giving his life for us. We become that living spirit when we accept Christ, baptism is a public confirmation, quite literally the; " if you admit me before men I will admit you before my Father who is in heaven"

[JoeT777]

Joe,

Because Mary was a mere woman who needed to be saved too. There is NO verse in the bible that suggests we worship her. There is no verse in the bible that suggests she had any part in salvation. Salvation is OF the Lord. He did it all.

We honor her because the Lord chose her to be Jesus mother. That is special but other than that...she was just another woman. And NO the Lord had no stain of Adam. He is fully God, and fully man. What i find interesting is you want to reason this out that somehow because she was a sinner that the Lord Jesus would be stained. Hey! His Father is GOD. What you need to reason out is how in the world Mary was anything more than a sinner in need of salvation. God is no respecter of persons. He can't zap her and make her special. If he could have done that for her he could have done that for all of us and Jesus wouldn't have had to die.

You must have Catholicism confused with some other faith, Catholics do not worship Mary as one worships God. And you are very correct to point out that there is no Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture that suggest we do so. The grace of Salvation is caused by, and given freely in love by God to all the faithful.

You seem to contradict yourself saying Mary is mere woman, yet it is said you honor her. What attributes is it you honor? There are no Scriptural indications she was a good housewife; she even misplaced her only child.

I know that you and I listen to and read the opinions of differing groups. Even still there are renown within your community that hold Mary above the opinion described as 'mere'. I once met the late Dr. Adrian Rogers who aired a program where he said, "Jesus had to be born through a virgin birth because he could not be corrupted by original sin of Adam." (CHRI Radio, Dec 23, 2006). Why would the former president of the SBC suggest that Christ "had to be born through a virgin" if she was 'mere' woman. And, why would Adrian Rogers suggest that the Person of Christ was protected from the corruption of original sin? I believe Adrian Rogers was a Southern Baptist preacher.

Then there is Luther who said

"... so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin ... And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin." (Martin Luther's Works, vol 4, pg 694)

And:

"God has formed the soul and body of the Virgin Mary full of the Holy Spirit, so that she is without all sins, " (ibid. vol 52, pg 39)

And:

". . . she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her." (Ref: Luther's Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968)

Are these praises being sung of 'mere' woman, one whose soul is cleansed of original sin, who formed the Body of Christ, and who was 'filled by grace and devoid of 'all evil'?

Catholics teach that Mary did indeed need the hand of God for her salvation, just as you and I need the salvific graces. If Mary was anything else but free of sin there would have been an enmity between her and her Son. The Word of God made stone (the Decalogue) was placed in the purest of Arks Exodus 25:10-22. Why then would you expect the Word made Flesh to be any less pure?