Theology IV

[Mari]

Fourth thread, and the debate can continue.

The topic, as before, is religion.

Original thread starter was Ruinel.

The previous threads were Real debate thread for religion, Theological opinions, part II and Theology III.

Let us enjoy some more polite exchanging of thoughts on religion here

[Nurvingiel]

Don't forget Rian's "Why you believe what you believe" thread, which does not appear to exist anymore.

I've closed the old thread. Let me know if you want any posts from that thread moved over here.

[Azrael]

so Chap you wanted a few verse here yeah go....theres a verity.

mat. 12:46-50
and if i knew where to look I'd give you more but i usually just stuble on things. The reason Jesus is not stated in the "for all have sinned..." is because it says over and over in the bible that He has not sinned so why would they need to say it again. You keep on coming back to Adam and eve but they were not born they were created from the dirt and breath of life they were the first to sin so of course they did not have original sin as you call it for they were where it started. Mary I really don't know how to explain this anymore I've been clear with this and you must open your eyes Bro she was great yes, Mother of Jesus yes mother of the God head itself no because the God head was allready made and if Jesus did not have to be born to be human then she wouldn't have been in the picture...maybe not sure...but He was told to be born to a virgin of the david blood line so Mary fit both and found favor in the eyes of God and was chosen to have our savior. She was not sinless bro she was human and I don't mean both human and God like Jesus and she had a birth unlike Adam and eve that had sin in the birth....theres no more I can say bro you ether believe it or not thus not making it any less true..... as for prying to Mary why? the only way to God is through Jesus not Mary and that is said many times in the bible over and over.The ghosts (can't spell the other word) you are showing us, how do you know its real? Did you see close up how do you know it was not a illusion made by human or Satan for that matter.....sorry Bro I see no reason in Mary to come and walk around and float....do you honestly see a reason for God to have that happen? God does not do things to show off and thats what I think that was so I do not think that is the work of God.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Azrael

The reason I agree with and disagree is you are saying that Mary is the Mother of God but she was just the mother of Jesus so he could become human (yes God) but she knew she was not His mother she says it a few times (if i remember right) Back to elijah is John the Baptist.

I don't believe she says that she is not his mother, but Elizabeth says that she is, while filled with the Holy Spirit:

And it came about that Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. And she cried out with a loud voice, and said, "Blessed among women are you, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" [Luke 1:41-43; NASB]

I am assuming that "my Lord" in this context refers to Christ; if it does, then the Holy Spirit has spoken, the case is closed.

John was the fore told one of elijah not elijah himself...that would say there was recreation and you should know thats not true once in Heaven your there...

Do you mean reincarnation? That would be one possibility. Another would be resurrection.

why would you want to leave its super sweet up there.

I don't think you have to leave. In fact, you can't. Heaven is not a place, it is a spiritual state.

The woman in revelations is not a human woman but Israel, when it says the dragon is the Anti-christ and when it says he tries to eat the womans child it means the people fleeing Israel because of the mark of the beast

She gives birth to a man-child who rules with an iron rod. If the man-child is Christ (which I think few Christians would deny), then it would make most sense to say that the woman is the one who gives birth to Christ, would it not?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Azrael

so Chap you wanted a few verse here yeah go....theres a verity.

mat. 12:46-50

I actually already talked about that one in my previous post. I pointed out that other believers being his mother and brothers in a spiritual sense doesn't make him have no mother in a biological sense.

Originally Posted by Azrael

and if i knew where to look I'd give you more but i usually just stuble on things. The reason Jesus is not stated in the "for all have sinned..." is because it says over and over in the bible that He has not sinned so why would they need to say it again.

The point is that He was an exception that wasn't mentioned. If there's one exception, there could be two.

The idea that He isn't mentioned only because his sinlessness is referred to in other parts of the Bible is one possibility, but there could be plenty of other reasons. For instance, it could be (similarly) that His perfection was broadly accepted by the early Christians, so they didn't bother mentioning it. And it's possible Mary's perfection was likewise broadly accepted and so not mentioned for the same reason. Or maybe they just purposely were making a generally true statement and weren't bothering with exceptions to the rule. For instance, Jesus said sometimes, "whoever believes and is baptized will be saved." Does that mean that no one who isn't baptized will be saved? No . . . there are exceptions. There are many other passages where it makes broad statements, but there are exceptions it doesn't mention, because it's just talking about the general truth, not every single detail.

Originally Posted by Azrael

You keep on coming back to Adam and eve but they were not born they were created from the dirt and breath of life they were the first to sin so of course they did not have original sin as you call it for they were where it started.

Yes, and they were human, even while they were sinless. Weren't they?

Originally Posted by Azrael

Mary I really don't know how to explain this anymore I've been clear with this and you must open your eyes Bro she was great yes, Mother of Jesus yes mother of the God head itself no because the God head was allready made

All we Catholics mean when we call her "Mother of God" is that she's Mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, so she's Mother of God.

Originally Posted by Azrael

and if Jesus did not have to be born to be human then she wouldn't have been in the picture...maybe not sure...but He was told to be born to a virgin of the david blood line so Mary fit both and found favor in the eyes of God and was chosen to have our savior.

You were saying he couldn't have had any of Mary's flesh because nothing can be added to God, but why, if nothing can be added to God and this impossibility of addition includes Mary, did Jesus eat food while he was on Earth? That added to his body, by your definition of how that works.

Originally Posted by Azrael

She was not sinless bro she was human and I don't mean both human and God like Jesus and she had a birth unlike Adam and eve that had sin in the birth....

I agree she wasn't both human and God like Jesus. She was both human and pure like Adam and Eve, IMO.

Originally Posted by Azrael

theres no more I can say bro you ether believe it or not thus not making it any less true.....

How can you possibly know that? Nothing you're saying is from the Bible! It's all human conjecture. In your personal opinion, she was conceived with sin, in your opinion, Jesus didn't take any of her flesh, in your opinion, she wasn't his mother, in your opinion, "all have sinned," means "all have sinned except Jesus" but doesn't mean, "all have sinned except Jesus and Mary." That's all one interpretation. It's not the Bible. Only underlining this because it's such an important point, not because I'm mad . I'm truly finding this a very useful discussion, though I'm willing to stop any time you are.

The entire Protestant belief system on Mary being sinful is one interpretation of the Bible, but interpretations coming to the opposite conclusion make just as much sense in view of what the Bible says on the matter. The Protestant perspective here is really personal opinion and tradition dating back five hundred years or so.

Since the Bible doesn't have much to say on the matter, and we are in the realm of human traditions, why go with the tradition dating back only 500 or so years rather than the one dating 2,000 years back, to the very dawn of Christianity?

If the early Christians, those who knew the apostles and were their friends and companions, and their successors, all the original teachers of Christianity, if they believed that Mary was sinless, doesn't it make sense to pay more attention to their view than to views invented over a thousand years later? Because they were closer to the events that had happened. They knew more about Mary, because she had passed away more recently.

Originally Posted by Azrael

as for prying to Mary why? the only way to God is through Jesus not Mary and that is said many times in the bible over and over.

I agree that the only way to God is through Jesus. So we pray to Jesus, and we sometimes ask other Christians to pray with us to Jesus for various things. Praying to Mary is asking for her to pray to Jesus with us. It's the same as asking Christians on Earth to pray for us on various issues.

Originally Posted by Azrael

The ghosts (can't spell the other word) you are showing us, how do you know its real? Did you see close up how do you know it was not a illusion made by human

I already talked about that in previous posts. The Egyptian police did a thorough investigation because they thought it was probably an elaborate hoax, and they came up with nothing after searching the area in a five mile radius. Also, it couldn't really be a hoax because it would be so, so hard to fabricate with 1960s technology, even if the police weren't thoroughly investigating for such a possibility.

Originally Posted by Azrael

or Satan for that matter.....

Unlikely. The apparition resulted in vast numbers of people converting to Christianity. That doesn't seem like something the Devil would find useful.

Originally Posted by Azrael

sorry Bro I see no reason in Mary to come and walk around and float....do you honestly see a reason for God to have that happen? God does not do things to show off and thats what I think that was so I do not think that is the work of God.

There can be all kinds of possible reasons. Bringing a multitude of people to Christ is one good reason. Healing the sick and blind is another good reason (that also happened). Encouraging the Church in Egypt, which was about to go into an intensified period of persecution from Muslims, would be another good reason.

The Copts have given an explanation too- I don't know exactly what it is, as I haven't researched that point.

And if it doesn't seem like God because it's too big a display of power, I can mention all kinds of incidents in the Bible where God unleashed power in a public display. This falls right in line with those.


I think I'll add at this point that the Early Church really did see Mary as sinless. Their writings call her the "second Eve," repeatedly, and in the 4th century there are writings calling her completely pure and "spotless," "immaculate." That dates from very, very early in Church history.

Not to mention that the glorious image of Mary in Revelation 12 comes straight from the Bible. As Gwaimir pointed out, if the child who was snatched up to be with God and who would rule the nations with an iron scepter was Jesus (and virtually all Protestants agree that that's true), then the one who gave birth to the Christ-child in the vision would logically be his mother. The Messianic community or the Church are alternate explanations that also work, but interpreted literally, it would refer to his physical mother, Mary.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I actually already talked about that one in my previous post. I pointed out that other believers being his mother and brothers in a spiritual sense doesn't make him have no mother in a biological sense.

What's more, who are those who are his mother and brothers? Those who hear the Word of God and obey it. Sounds like, "Behold the handmaiden of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word." By that definition, sure SOUNDS like she's his mother....

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

What's more, who are those who are his mother and brothers? Those who hear the Word of God and obey it. Sounds like, "Behold the handmaiden of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word." By that definition, sure SOUNDS like she's his mother....

Though one could argue only in a spiritual sense .


Guys, you might like this article about the Early Church's claims about Mary. You'd like it anyway, Gwaimir . And you might at least find it interesting, Azrael! It has several interesting sections of available information from the beliefs of the first two centuries of Christians about the Virgin Mary.

Here's how it begins (I didn't know this part, so I found it particularly interesting:

As in Scripture, so too in the infant Church we see the attention of the faithful rightfully focused first and foremost on Jesus Christ. The divine primacy of Jesus Christ (with its appropriate worship of adoration) had to be clearly established before any subordinate corresponding devotion to his Mother could be properly exercised. Nonetheless, the beginnings of acknowledgement and devotion to the Mother of Jesus is present from apostolic times in the living Tradition of the early Church.

The first historic indications of the existing veneration of Mary carried on from the Apostolic Church is manifested in the Roman catacombs. As early as the end of the first century to the first half of the second century, Mary is depicted in frescos in the Roman catacombs both with and without her divine Son. Mary is depicted as a model of virginity with her Son; at the Annunciation; at the adoration of the Magi; and as the orans, the "praying one," the woman of prayer. (1)

A very significant fresco found in the catacombs of St. Agnes depicts Mary situated between St. Peter and St. Paul with her arms outstretched to both. This fresco reflects, in the language of Christian frescoes, the earliest symbol of Mary as "Mother of the Church." Whenever St. Peter and St. Paul are shown together, it is symbolic of the one Church of Christ, a Church of authority and evangelization, a Church for both Jew and Gentile. Mary's prominent position between Sts. Peter and Paul illustrates the recognition by the Apostolic Church of the maternal centrality of the Savior's Mother in his young Church.

It is also clear from the number of representations of the Blessed Virgin and their locations in the catacombs that the Mother of Jesus was also recognized for her maternal intercession of protection and defense. Her image was present on tombs, as well as on the large central vaults of the catacombs. Clearly, the early Christians dwelling in the catacombs prayed to Mary as intercessor to her Son for special protection and for motherly assistance. As early as the first century to the first half of the second century, Mary's role as Spiritual Mother was recognized and her protective intercession was invoked. (2)

Here's another good part I didn't know about:

As already referred to, the most complete ancient prayer to the Blessed Mother historically preserved is the Sub Tuum Praesidium (250 A.D.):

We fly to your patronage,
O holy Mother of God,
despise not our petitions
in our necessities,
but deliver us from all dangers.
O ever glorious and blessed Virgin.

Note that by the third century, our early Christian brothers and sisters already accepted Mary under the title of "Mother of God," even though this title would not be solemnly defined for another two hundred years. Further, the early Church realized that direct prayer to Mary did not consist of forms of idolatry or adoration, as is sometimes mistakenly interpreted in our day, but rather as a spiritual communication of love and petition to the Mother of Jesus, who continues to care for the Mystical Body of her Son by her intercession.

Reading that article was wonderfully illuminating for me . I already knew about many of the statements of the Early Church Fathers on the matter, but these were things I wasn't aware of. And so early!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Indeed. The very earliest Fathers, really, who made any attempt at a whole account of Christianity, proclaim the glorious mystery of the Virgin. I think perhaps an even better argument for Marian devotion is the effects it has on a civilization, as mentioned in your article.
Also, there is this: We have a Father in God, but without the Virgin, where is a mother? What family is complete lacking that?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Indeed. The very earliest Fathers, really, who made any attempt at a whole account of Christianity, proclaim the glorious mystery of the Virgin. I think perhaps an even better argument for Marian devotion is the effects it has on a civilization, as mentioned in your article.

"By their fruit, you shall know them." They are certainly both good arguments.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Also, there is this: We have a Father in God, but without the Virgin, where is a mother? What family is complete lacking that?

True.

[GrayMouser]

Among the witnesses were Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants, Moslems, Jews and non-religious people from all walks of life. The sick were cured and blind persons received their sight, but most importantly large numbers of unbelievers were converted...

Who were the people being converted, and what were they being converted from?

[GrayMouser]

As for the sick being cured and the blind being able to see, I'm reminded of Emile Zola's reply at being shown the pile of crutches of those cured of lameness at Lourdes,

"And where do they keep the piles of wooden legs?"

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Indeed. The very earliest Fathers, really, who made any attempt at a whole account of Christianity, proclaim the glorious mystery of the Virgin. I think perhaps an even better argument for Marian devotion is the effects it has on a civilization, as mentioned in your article.
Also, there is this: We have a Father in God, but without the Virgin, where is a mother? What family is complete lacking that?

I like this, because it presents the case for Gardnerian Wicca so succinctly.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Well, when the son and the consort are the same thing, it gets a bit confusing...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Who were the people being converted, and what were they being converted from?

If they were considered "unbelievers," presumably they were non-Christian.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

As for the sick being cured and the blind being able to see, I'm reminded of Emile Zola's reply at being shown the pile of crutches of those cured of lameness at Lourdes,

"And where do they keep the piles of wooden legs?"

I presume people with wooden legs often don't have the faith to be healed. More stupendous miracles tend to require more faith than smaller miracles. Not that the miracles of Lourdes are in any way "small" . It's just that regrowing a limb is much bigger.

Your argument is rather similar to one Coffeehouse was posing earlier. He said that an apparition of the Virgin Mary shining with light and hovering in the sky, surrounded by angels and doves and stars forming circles around her, with white smoke smelling of incense rising from the Earth, in the dead of night without any explanation the police could find after an extensive search, seen by millions of people including the international press (who photographed and documented what they saw) and the president of Egypt, wasn't enough, because if God really wanted to prove himself, he could have done something even bigger!

That's true of anything. Anything "could be bigger." But that's irrelevant. It doesn't mean what exists is not stupendous.

There are actually accounts in Christian history of people with wooden legs getting their leg restored. I can also give you a well documented account where a child born with two heads (one dead and slimy) had the bad one shrink and disappear through the power of prayer. My grandmother has seen with her own eyes people with legs of differing lengths experience miracles because of prayer. She saw the extra short or long legs shrinking or growing longer before her eyes to match the normal-length ones.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If they were considered "unbelievers," presumably they were non-Christian.

Or, it could refer to conversion of life. Probably some of both went on.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Or, it could refer to conversion of life.

What's that?

Probably some of both went on.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

What does it mean to convert? To turn to something. Basically, it means turning one's life towards Christ, or more towards Christ, even if one is already a Christian.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

What does it mean to convert? To turn to something. Basically, it means turning one's life towards Christ, or more towards Christ, even if one is already a Christian.

Oh, I see. I'm sure a lot of that happened too, but when these various sites and articles use the word "convert," about the people at Zeitoun, it undoubtedly means they've converted from other faiths or non-faiths to Christianity. That is the normal meaning. I never even had heard of the other meaning for "convert" (derived from the root) before you just explained it to me.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

It's used that way in Scripture: "Repent, and be converted". It's a pretty common phrase. Popes call people to it a lot.

[Lief Erikson]

I can see how using the term that way makes sense, in view of the word root. I'm just saying I don't think it's commonly used that way. At least not where I come from or in any of the articles I've ever read .

The popes and Sacred Scripture are perfectly entitled to use the broader meaning, of course. As I said, that makes sense in view of the word root.