Could someone explain?

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Frogman:
Dear Bill,
I will give to you that Scripture says Mary is blessed among women. But I cannot make her the center of Scripture. That is too far.

Bro. Dallas

Scripture says more then that, from her own mouth in her magnificat, which I give in my "tagline."

Bill+†+

My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior.
For he has looked upon his handmaid's lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages
call me blessed. (Luke 1:46-48)

God bless,

PAX

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
Froggie:

"I believe the Word of God is inspired. I believe Christ is its center. I do believe Mary is blessed among women, but I do not believe she is what you make of her. You say by her: 'yes' "she brought true life into the world" can you not see the place you exalt this woman to, a place above God."

Do you deny that she brought true life in to the world in the form of the Son of God, Jesus Christ.
Had she said no, would she have brought Jesus Christ, the savior of mankind in to the world? No and the statement would not be true. But it is true. The question of whether God would have saved mankind in a different way is moot because he knew from all eternity she would say yes. I simply do not see anything that is wrong with the statement you have put in our mouths. I will say it myself so you can quote me. MARY BROUGHT TRUE LIFE INTO THE WORLD. There now you have a Catholic Apologist to quote. The life she brought in to the world was Jesus Christ. Do you deny this?

For you info, Mary is not the center of our faith by any means. Do you not know that the Rosary is primarily a meditation on the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The mother points to her son. Have you heard of the Mass? Have you heard of the Eucharist? That is the summit of worship in the Catholic faith. And it is 100% Jesus!

Blessings

I believe God sent His only Begotten Son into the world--this is that true life you speak of.

I believe that had Mary said no, this would not have prevented God fulfilling His Purpose and Will. I believe Mary is blessed among women in all ages, but I do not count this blessing as warrant to worship Christ through her.

I understand the pretension you wish to be viewed in your sacraments, but still you admit none of this avails to the end, you yet must pray to the 'holy mother' in the hope that she will relay your prayer to her son. And not only to Mary but also to others. This is idolotry.

Here is what the Bible says about our prayers and who they are through and how they are directed....BTW, this is to the Roman church.

Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

Where is the holy mother?

Now, in your presentation of Mary, at the very least you exalt her to the position of the Third Person of the Godhead.

Scripture nowhere does this.

Bro. Dallas

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by neal4christ:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Perhaps you could show us where she sinned?

I don't want to get into an arguing match, but perhaps you could show where she was sinless, from Scripture. Why is she exempt from Romans 3:23? What is the warrant for saying she is sinless?

In Christ,
Neal </font>[/QUOTE]Round and round we go and all neal can say is "my opinion is no".

Scripture records no sin of Mary. It says she is "full of grace" in luke 1. You say, well that is not what that really means by my opinion. I say, I don't go by opinions.

The Catholic Church says Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. The evidence is clear from 2 Sam 6, Luke 1, Rev 11 and 12 that it is true. Neal says "my opinion is no". I say that's nice but I don't go by opinions. Romans 3:23? What is the all on that verse Neal? Every man, woman and child? Oh but wait, children below the age of reason cannot sin (though this age of reason is found nowhere in the scripture, I do agree with it) Neal says. And last I checked Baptists don't believe in Original sin (not that that would fit Pauls verse anyway) so all evidently is not an all encompassing all now is it. Then of course Jesus was a man and so "all have sinned" certainly does not include every single man or it would have to include him. Now why didn't Paul have to make these exceptions here. Are there other exceptions? I know of only one other (other than Adam and Eve before the fall of course. That verse would have been false before that time.). Surely the early Church knew of the parrellel's of Mary and the AOC and of her purity as compared to the Ark's purity. Paul had no reason to make such an exception to the Romans . So there you have it. You can strain away all you want Neal and say it is my opinion that it is not true. But it still is.

Blessings </font>[/QUOTE]Here is vss. 1 & 2

2 Sam. 6:

Again, David gathered together all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand. And David arose, and went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God, whose name is called by the name of the Lord of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubims.

So, the holy mother is called by the name of the Lord of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubims? Better were you to see the truth that this is the Lord Jesus and at best you might could make Mary the 'new cart' found in vs. 3. Again, you exhibit idolotry by making Mary the Lord of hosts and by making Mary the eternal one that dwelleth between the cherubims.

And this is only one of your proof texts.

Bro. Dallas

 

[neal4christ]

Round and round we go and all neal can say is "my opinion is no".

Huh? Where did I say this? Or are you bearing false witness again?

Scripture records no sin of Mary. It says she is "full of grace" in luke 1.

Okay. Did I say that it did? I asked you, why is she exempt from Romans 3:23? What is your warrant for saying she is exempt? Just answer the question and stop playing your inconsiderate dodge games. And by the way, is the Greek that Catholics translate as "full of grace" is reall "highly favored." But anywho, are you going to answer the question or just try to belittle me? Or maybe you will send me another hateful, disrespectful email like you did before.

I say, I don't go by opinions.

Then you fool yourself. Or you are a robot and not a human.

The evidence is clear from 2 Sam 6, Luke 1, Rev 11 and 12 that it is true.

According to who? Your opinion?

children below the age of reason cannot sin.....Neal says.

Show me where I said that or apologize for your false witness.

And last I checked Baptists don't believe in Original sin

If by original sin you mean that we all are guilty because of Adam's sin and we have sin in us, then I believe that.

Then of course Jesus was a man and so "all have sinned" certainly does not include every single man or it would have to include him.

Hmm...was there something special about Jesus that maybe Paul would figure that folks through some good common sense would understand?

Paul had no reason to make such an exception to the Romans . So there you have it.

There I have what? Your opinion and the silence of Scripture? If silence is your measure stick, then JW's are not necessarily wrong, nor Mormons, or Muslims, or, well, you get the picture, don't you? Silence is not a strong defense. For that matter, you have no proof that I fall under the Romans 3:23 statement. Talk about relativism.

You can strain away all you want Neal and say it is my opinion that it is not true. But it still is.

What is to strain away?

In Christ,
Neal

[ October 09, 2003, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

[Frogman]

The last I checked Baptists don't believe in original sin

This is a statement founded upon limited historical research. If someone tells you they do not believe in original sin but then tells you they are Baptist, you now know they do not know what a Baptist believes.

Baptists believe that all [except Christ] are conceived in sin. This makes thier birth impossible without possessing the original sin and therefore the sin nature. You are reflecting a teaching of 'an age of accountability' which has been embraced because of its tendency to not offend hearers. This teaching is not found in scripture. We believe that infants and others unable to understand the Gospel message will be eternally saved but only because they are of the elect and not because they have not sin. Their eternal salvation is by the same regeneration every believer experiences from the Holy Spirit. There is no mysterious 'God takes care of them because they did not have an opportunity to hear and understand and beleive the Gospel'. This is Arminian and may be proclaimed loud among Arminian baptists. But the truth of Scripture rests on the words of Christ in John 3 when he told Nicodemus 'Except ye be born again'. If men are not born with the sin nature then there is the possibility of man to live a righteous life apart from the sacrifice of the Son of God altogether. this is wholly impossible. It makes men to not be sinners until they sin and ignores the fact that all are sinners therefore they sin.

Bro. Dallas

 

[thessalonian]

Neal,

I am no longer going to dialogue with you as I had decided earlier. Your much to thin skinned. Besides I apologized for our previous incident and you keep raising it as an issue.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=001953;p=5#000061

Perhaps you should spend some time at the baptist only sections of this board.

I apologize once again for offending you but will not bother responding any more.

Blessings

 

[neal4christ]

Carson,

Could you respond to my post on October 08, 2003 03:51 PM on page two? It is a serious question. I don't know if you forgot, didn't see it, or didn't have time, but I would greatly appreciate your input, please. Thanks!

In Christ,
Neal

[ October 09, 2003, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Stephen III:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> You say by her: 'yes' "she brought true life into the world" can you not see the place you exalt this woman to, a place above God.

Is it not through Jesus that we have Life everlasting? -True Life. Was not God dependent on Mary's free will assent to His divine will in order for Christ to be conceived in her virginal womb. How can someone whose soul magnifies the Lord and whose admonition to us is: to do as her Divine son says, deign to accept such exaltation as to place her above God? The answer is that she doesn't . And we do not seek to do so. In a family everyone knows there proper role. How is it to be received by her son when we refer to her as "this woman"?! Did Jesus follow the commandment to honor his Mother? Do you think by our God honoring his own Mother, that he placed her above Himself. And we in emulating our savior by honoring his mother do we do God one better? Of course not.

We simply look to her as a most blessed example and advocate of Christian commune. If it takes on exalted-like terms perhaps those who do not quite understand the context of this honor bestowed on our Blessed Mother are the ones who should strive to understand the basis for this deep respect and spirtual communion.

Now you are going to tell me some Papal Bull declares 'me' to be Mary? See, Jesus did not hold his mother in the regard you do. He no where put her in the center of worship. No where.

If "woman behold your son and son behold your mother" is placing her in the center of Christian worship then so be it. I think that's quite a reach and a quite a bit exaggerated.

There is but one mediator between God and Man. And for some bigoted (to borrow the definition previously supplied) reason, people accuse Catholics as believing that to be Mary. When Mary clearly and plainly says: Do as my son says. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Thank God for Mary pointing to the Way the Truth and the Life! If you choose to "exalt" the Bible over Christ's own mother as being the sole means to direct us to God that is certainly your respected perogative. If Catholics prefer the Bible and the Blessed Mother how is that so offensive to you?


Blessings </font>[/QUOTE]You did no more than more exaltation of a woman. The statement I made from John 5.39 is Christ speaking of himself. What you reference to is Christ giving Mary into the care of the Apostle John. How do you conclude Mary's words in John 2 are a 'message from Mary' She did not at that time say 'Jesus is the way the truth and the Life' Jesus said that of himself. What did Jesus say in John 2? "Woman what have I to do with thee?" I do not doubt that Jesus obeyed his mother and honored her in accordance with the Law of God. But to put her in a place that separated himself from those for whom He suffered and died, he did not do that, you have.

Bro. Dallas

 

[neal4christ]

I am no longer going to dialogue with you as I had decided earlier.

Why? Thin-skinned? Because I want the truth to be spoken? What a convenient way for you to bear false witness, belittle people, and dodge tough questions by simply saying "I am no longer going to dialogue with you." You called me a relativist and a bigot publically, without one ounce of support or proof. You say I assassinated your character without ever showing me where I did such a thing. And you say "I am no longer going to dialogue with you?" You misrepresent my beliefs and put words in my mouth and you say "I am no longer going to dialogue with you?" You send hateful emails and say "I am no longer going to dialogue with you?" You are the epitome of the incosistency that I was talking about in the like-named thread I started. I know I should not let it, but you have most definitely tinged my view of Catholics and my interest in finding out what they truly believe. I have no clue as to what you have apologized for because all you say is "I apologize." For what? You never said that I did not assassinate your character, or that you had no real reason for calling me a bigot or a relativist. You post things that are misrepresentations and misundertandings of beliefs (as recently as this thread concerning original sin and children's sin) without saying, "Oops, I was wrong." You say I do not speak up when Protestants post misinformation or hateful things, yet that is plain out false, but you do not acknowledge it. Nothing! You tried to paint me as just another Catholic hating Baptist, when the truth of the matter was that I merely wanted you, personally, to speak the truth and be consistent. Do you know what a bigot is? It is not someone who simply disagrees with you!

bigot: n. an obstinate and intolerant believer in a religion, political theory, etc. Synonymns: dogmatist, partisan, sectionalist, intransigent.

And no, I will not stay in the Baptists Only section. Unlike you, I am actually concerned with what others believe.

In Christ,
Neal

[ October 09, 2003, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Neal,

Sure, I'd be happy to respond. I didn't see your initial post, to which you would like a reply.

Could you please give me your warrant for going from the fact that Christ gave Mary to John to your assertion that Jesus asks that we return to him through Mary?

Well, first of all, Jesus didn't give Mary to John. The text reads that Jesus gave Mary to the beloved disciple.

John's Gospel is mystical on numerous accounts. He narrates history in a theological manner wherein his words, phrases, and structure has an explicit intention to convey truths that are not verbally expressed as we would have them.

John begins his Gospel by presenting the redemption as a New Creation wherein Christ is the bridgegroom and the Church is the Bride - and we enter into this marriage through the sacrament of baptism.

The famous Protestant exegete Oscar Cullman has written a great commentary on the Gospel of John entitled Early Christian Worship. I wholly encourage you to check it out from your seminary library (or get it on an inter-library loan) and see what he has to say. It's also available through Amazon.com and other booksellers.

Essentially, a careful analysis of the Gospel of John and the Synoptics would lead you to see that the beloved disciple is John the Apostle (not conclusively, but convincingly enough), but that is besides the point. John has a reason for describing this particular character as "the beloved disciple". It is part of his intention in affirming theological truth - not a random coincidence to be cast aside.

As long as one reads the text on the surface without understanding the deep allusions John is making, one will fail to comprehend the height, breadth, and depth of John's Gospel, and so this remains true for what happens at the Crucifixion.

With all of that said, I propose to you that John demonstrates how Mary is the New Eve, the mother of the humanity of the New Creation (essentially, Christians), Jesus is the New Adam, and the Church is born through Eucharist (blood) and Baptism (water) from the side of Christ as Eve was born through the side of Adam as Adam slept (so Christ slept on the Cross). At least, this is how the Early Church Fathers read John's Gospel. These interpretations are not new; they're "apostolic".

Mary is, essentially, the archetype of the Church as New Eve. What can be said of Mary can be said of the Church and vice versa. This is drawn out in Revelation 12 where one would think the woman is Israel, no.. the Church, no.. Mary. Which is it? In a sense, all three - because Mary's person and character is a very sign of the nature of the Church. She is an eschatological sign. Her assumption prefigures our share in the resurrection. Her queenship prefigures our heavenly reign with Christ as his saints.

If Mary is our mother, then in what sense? This is where Marian mediation comes to the fore, which is a whole other subject. I believe - in accord with the Apostolic Tradition - that Mary has a role in heaven that corresponds to the Queen Mother's role in the Old Testament now that she is the Queen Mother who rules alongside her divine son, the Christos.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Dallas,

You asked, "What did Jesus say in John 2? "Woman what have I to do with thee?""

Have you ever heard of the theology of "The Hour" in John's Gospel or done a study on it?

If you would be so kind as to email your mailing address to me at carsonweber@boerne.com - I will gladly mail you a short article on this.

 

[neal4christ]

At least, this is how the Early Church Fathers read John's Gospel. These interpretations are not new; they're "apostolic".

Thank-you for your response, Carson. First, could you give me some of the names of these ECFs that understood the gospel of John in this way? And second, I am still unclear as to how you arrive at the assertion that Jesus asks us to return to him through Mary. How do you arrive at this mindset of Christ?

Thanks!

In Christ,
Neal

 

[thessalonian]

Neal
Accuses me of avoiding the hard questions (as he did before) and then says he does not assassinate my character. I have a limited amount of time and so do not answer everything presented to me on these boards and you feel free to poke at my character as some sort of a coward (which is what started this whole mess). I have answered a host of hard questions (including many of yours) on this board as I am currently doing with frogman. Neal, you need to read that verse about the plank.

I apologize for sending you an email that to you was hateful. From my perspective it was blunt but I did not hate you when I wrote it.
I apologize to you for your thinking in one of my posts that I said that you were a formal relativist. I said you were a material relativist and stand by that even if you are offended by it because Protestantism is material relativism and you cannot avoid it no matter how much you want to. I see now you feel justified in calling me a relativist above. Perhaps a bit of consistency is lacking in your posts or does my perceieved error give you license in your own mind to do the same.
I apologize if I have misrepresented your beliefs in any way. Though of course up above you have taken the liberty to do the same of me.
"If silence is your measure stick".
I did not give you silence as you claimed.
I apologize for calling you a biggot.
I apologize for being angry with you.
I apologize for lumping you in with DHK and Bob.
If there is anything else I need to apologize for I do.



Blessings though.

Thess

[ October 09, 2003, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

[thessalonian]

This is the phrase that started this whole mess Neal. It is similar to the one above in which you accused me of being cowardly in a manner of speaking.

"You have dodged the question over and over: "

I belive I explained in an earlier post why I did not repost what I thought I had already posted.
Somehow you feel justified in doing this over and over. You set yourself up as a moral authority on this board and yet you have some planks in your own eyes.

Blessings though.

 

[Frogman]

Carson, Check your email.

thessalonian, forgive me for butting in, but I think what is meant by silence is not personal silence, but presenting the argument from the silence of Scripture on a matter. If you already understood this, then ignore my post. I find that I myself sometimes claim Scriptural silence. I do not always think it is proper to claim this a weak proof.

If I have jumped in unneeded forgive me.

Bro. Dallas

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by Frogman:
Carson, Check your email.

thessalonian, forgive me for butting in, but I think what is meant by silence is not personal silence, but presenting the argument from the silence of Scripture on a matter. If you already understood this, then ignore my post. I find that I myself sometimes claim Scriptural silence. I do not always think it is proper to claim this a weak proof.

If I have jumped in unneeded forgive me.

Bro. Dallas

I appreciate your comment but in the context of my post in which he accused me of arguing from silence I did not. In the case of Romans 3:23, it does not mention Jesus. So is it an arguement of silence to say that he didn't need to. No, because elsewhere the scriptures say "he who was without sin took on sin.". I presented my case about the Ark of the Covenant and "hail full of grace". He says these aren't true and I am arguing from silence. From my perspective I am not.

 

[Frogman]

then I have jumped in uninformed, but, do you expect any less from a frog . I have not been following all the posts. So forgive me for hopping too quickly.

Bro. Dallas

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by WPutnam:
One important fact is, she almost lived to the end of the apostolic era (scholars think.) She probably did die before John, the last apostle to live and who wrote the book of Revelation, in exile, on the island of Patmos, but for the most part, out of pure respect for the Mother of Jesus, what was to become New Testament scripture will not elaborate on her sanctity while she was still alive!

Convenient. We'll leave off the fact that you're predating the Cult of Mary by a couple of centuries, and just look at this interesting fact: Nothing was written concerning the "sanctity" of Mary while she was alive. Well, nothing was written about the sanctity of my 2001 Grand Am in the apostolic era, either.

Coincidence?

 

[tragic_pizza]

Carson, you're still making Olympic-class logical leaps. Did you ever address my other post? If so, apologies for bringing it up. But "with all of that said" does nothing to lay a foundation for leaping from "the beloved disciple" to Marian theology. I say again, it just ain't there.

 

[thessalonian]

"Convenient. We'll leave off the fact that you're predating the Cult of Mary by a couple of centuries, and just look at this interesting fact: Nothing was written concerning the "sanctity" of Mary while she was alive. Well, nothing was written about the sanctity of my 2001 Grand Am in the apostolic era, either."

I'm looking through the NT to see if anyone writes about the sanctity of Jesus before he died and having a little trouble finding a verse (though I see there are a few after he died). I am sure the Jews would have the same reaction to this as you ("convenient"). If someone were without sin their whole life how could this be claimed before they died?