Mary as Co-Savior?

[brucegdc]

Precept, your posts have turned into attacks on fellow members. This is not permitted on this board in any form. I suggest you read the Code of Conduct carefully. While attacks on members are not permitted, neither is bashing another religion (or sub-group) - something else you have been doing repeatedly in this forum.

This is a discussion forum - not a pulpit to preach from. Repeated violations WILL result in removal from the board - not because you have been sniping at a moderator, but because that sort of behavior is not tolerated here against any member or by any member.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by precept

I have on just about every occasion provided support for my arguments quoting the many references of scripture or recognized scholarly authors. You name me once you have even bothered to refer to your sources quoting same to support your arguments.

Heed then your own admonition! Since you cannot provide, at the very least, not an iota of support for your positions...heed your own admonition!..."speak easy, or go away". When you can support your fictious imaginings with credible references, you may return!


precept

Isn't that the wonderful thing about Catholics?...they don't have to. But should I choose to, I will do so in my own time...not yours.


You don't get it do you...it's belief...that gets us there. Stop trying to trip up others in the race, and just run...

q

[JJM]

Originally Posted by precept

The sacrifices of the ancient Jews as practiced in the old testament were deliberately designed by God to teach humanity[through the ancient Jews} "that without the shedding of blood, THERE COULD BE NO REMISSION OF SINS" Hebrews 9:22

God knew that each sacrifice as brought to the priest by the sinning Israelites; that that sacrifice had no power in itself to forgive any sin; neither did the priest who offered the sacrifice had any power to authorize or guarantee that the sinner's sin had been forgiven.But while God knew this......the Israelites didn't! They were only told to do this practice when they sinned, and this they did.

Because the Israelites came to believe that they could only be forgiven of their sins via the medium of sacrifices; and hence only gain God's favor through this practice, they refused to believe that this practice was given them to prepare them for the real Sacrifice, the Son of God Himself. Fact is; they had completely lost the significance of the practice of sacrifices and disassociated the practice from God's original intent; so that when the Son of God came to earth to fulfill the original intent of the sacrifices, ie. to die once in the place of each and every animal sacrifice; and once in the place of each and every sinner who was so condemned to die for his own sins.... and so the ancient Israelites rejected God's original plan, by claiming that not only did God not have a son; but that God would not sanction the sacrifice of humans, seeing God himself condemned their ancient kings for practicing human sacrifices. They then orchestrated the killing of God's Son by arresting him and because they had no power to kill him; had the Romans do it through a mock trial.

The Romans condemned Jesus to death with the full participation of the Jewish leadership who could have put a stop to the trial if they had believed that indeed Jesus was the Son of God. So by proxy they were as guilty of His death as were the Romans and as is every sinner, you and me.

The Grace of God existed in the past as well as in the present; in that He doesn't demand the death of each sinner that sins against Him as His law demanded. The wicked that die in his/her sins is already condemned to eternal death, which is the just reward of every sinner who refuses to repent of his/her sins against God. The righteous or the sinner who repents, whether in the past as in the ancient Israelites or as in the present as you and me, will be forgiven, and hence is saved from eternal death; but only then through the Grace of God is such a sinner saved; past! or present!

So the "blood of animals"[eg the blood of a sheep] while not having any power to forgive sins; yet represented THE ETERNAL POWER OF THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB that did have the POWER TO FORGIVE NOT ONLY THE SINS OF THE INDIVIDUAL; BUT THE SINS OF EVERY HUMAN WHO EVER LIVED as long as such a human believed that the Eternal Son of God would one day die for such a complete and forever forgiveness of all sins; and thus eliminate the practice of animal sacrifices, now that the practice of animal sacrifices had been fulfilled as they were so intended in the first place.

Because the ancient Jews as well as present Judaism still refuse to believe that this was God's original intent; they still to this day believe that such sacrifices as designed by God should still be used by the sinner to ask forgiveness of God whenever any sinner sins [they do not believe that this concept is universally applicable-just to Jews it is, they believe].
It is this wrong belief that the apostle Paul addresses, when he says that "belief in the blood of animals to forgive sins" was never the intent; seeing that "no animal's blood as any such power". He by so saying; was not saying that the practice of offering animal sacrifices was wrong in any fashion; he though was saying that such a practice was now wrong it's having been fulfilled as was its original design in the first place. The practice, in other words, was now unnecessary and redundant, now that the Eternal sacrifice Himself had been offered up for the sins of entire humanity.

The Israelites then and now still refuse to accept this fact of God's original design to eradicate sin and sinners from His universe; but His Grace exhibited by proxy through the sacrifice of animals in the past and exhibited in the sacrifice of His Son for all who will accept Him in the present; is one and the same Grace God has always displayed for all humanty in every age since His creation of humans.



precept

I'd like to start by saying if you are going to quote something please say what you are quoting what I'm referring to is "no animal's blood as any such power" but in general it is a good Idea. You are right however the blood of animals doesn't have any power the only reason it does anything is because it is connected to Christ’s suffering and that sacrifice has power. However it is interesting that you quote Hebrews 9:22 in Hebrews 9:13-14 just 10 verses before it says :

For if the blood of goats and bulls and the sprinkling of a heifer's ashes can sanctify those who are defiled so that their flesh is cleansed, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works to worship the living God.

This is the NT and it says these sacrifices sanctified. I'm pretty sure that "no animal's blood as any such power" or something very similar is also in Hebrews but like I said before their grace comes from the connection to Christ's death. You are reading farther into the statement than is clearly there and then claiming that what you are saying is the only way it could be logically interpreted. However it can just as easily be interpreted my way.

[InLove]

Thanks to all who have enlightened me on this subject. I would like to reiterate that the first word I wrote when I inquired about it was "Peace." .

I know that some issues are very controversial, and that is exactly why I come here to ask about them, instead of arguing from ignorance at my local backyard barbecue or cocktail party.

I NEED this forum! I need a place where we come together in peace to enlighten and to be enlightened.

InPeace,
InLove

[Quahom1]

Eight bells, and all is well.


v/r

Q

[Dor]

Precept you seem to like to quote scripture, every so often at least, so here are a couple for you.

Mat 7:1Judge not,that ye be not judged.

Luk 6:37Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

Jam 4:11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.

Rom 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.

Discussion tends to go further than blatant condemning someone. Its one thing to disagree with someone and try to sway there opinion using good reasoning and thoughts but it is quite another to think you know enough to condemn anyone!

[KnightoftheRose]

Please don't feed the trolls.

[bananabrain]

precept:

how about "i'm jewish and have some knowledge of these things, whereas *you* know sod-all about judaism apparently"? your posts are riddled with ignorance of the worst sort. i'm happy to discuss your misconceptions about judaism if you like, but do be aware that if your basic position is that i am, by remaining a religious jew, refusing to recognise a basic truth, it's likely to be a short conversation.

for a start, are you aware that paul, in his "how much more so the blood of the lamb" argument, is using a type of talmudic reasoning known as kal ve-chomer, but basing it on a theologically faulty premise?

b'shalom

bananabrain

[precept]

Originally Posted by Dor

[size=3]Precept you seem to like to quote scripture, every so often at least, so here are a couple for you.

Jam 4:11 "Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother,...."
The quoted text, highlighted to your attention, is self-explanatory. But for your consumption, I'll explain. Judgement in the obvious context is that of one Christian brother that "speaks evil of another Christian brother".
"Evil" as you will also note in the quoted text is defined as breaking God's laws. In other words the brother that accuses another brother falsely; or the brother that judges his own brother falsely[/b]; is in fact breaking the law of God that commands against "bearing false witness against your neighbor".

The rest of the text in James 4:11 makes the point that if as one who proclaims himself godly...hence thus described you become a child of God that obeys His laws; but yet falsely accuses your brother as in "speaking evil" or lying about the deeds of your brother, you by so exhibiting evil behaviour, does instead of upholding the laws you presume to honor do make those laws a travesty-or you by so behaving..."speaketh evil of the law". Since in your behaviour you are "speaking evil of the law"; you also by your hypocritical behaviour, "judge the law" as being of no value, seeing you who are supposed to uphold the law and who proclaims the law as "perfect; converting the soul", disregards and breaks said law with impunity.

[b]"......speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge".
Highlighted again to your attention; and for emphasis.


"Let's therefore not judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in a brother's way."
You ought to see in context how the above text follows the explanation of [b]evil judgement on the part of one brother against another brother.

Discussion tends to go further than blatant condemning someone. Its one thing to disagree with someone and try to sway there opinion using good reasoning and thoughts but it is quite another to think you know enough to condemn anyone!

Follow the reasoning. Let's see if you are right re the understanding of judging falsely another, as against "condemning someone" justlyfor an "evil act".

"By your words you will be justified; by your words you will be condemned". Jesus....Matthew 12:37.

Your argument is with Jesus! Not with me!


precept

[bananabrain]

one thing that patently is *not* self-explanatory is the "OT" sacrificial system. i've met very few people who understand it but i'll tell you one thing - it's certainly not intended to confer either "salvation" or "grace", as such concepts rely upon an interpretation of the garden of eden story which has nothing to do with judaism. therefore, the "blood of the lamb" is not a substitute for the blood of animals as used in the sacrificial system. paul is simply taking a jewish theme which would have been well-known to his, er, public and riffing on it to support his own theological position. tuma and tahara, the statuses usually mistranslated as "unclean/impure" and "clean/pure", are related to eligibility to participate in the Temple's cultic system, not to one's portion in the world-to-come. this means that *my* quarrel is particularly with paul's wilful misappropriation of the structure of cultic holiness in order to supplant it with salvation theology. jesus, by contrast, always seemed like a fairly sensible chap to me, even if he wasn't moshiach.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Abogado del Diablo]

bananabrain,

Thanks. That was informative . . . as it always is with you.

Perhaps you could explain the difference in purpose and procedure between Tevilah and Christian Baptism - when is the Jewish rite performed?, for what reasons?, by whom? and how? What is its meaning?

"Thanks", in advance.

[Quahom1]

Ok, I've been nice. Now I see that was a mistake. This thread has gone way off course.

Can we either get back to the concept of Mary being a co-savior, or is this thread set for deep sixing?

Your call.

v/r

Q

[bananabrain]

i'll take the tevilah question over to judaism.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[JJM]

I promised a biblical explanation of redemptive suffering and I think this give a pretty good one. Sorry I've been really busy lately so I haven't read over the whole thing but If I wait till I have the time to write my own response or read this whole thing It will be a while so I'm simply goona post it and go over it in a bit this weekend (hopefully ) and say if there is anything I think is wrong in it.


http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/offeringitup.html

[Bandit]

yes, after reading some of this i see where this was deeply off topic & deep sixing. Jesus most certainly IS moshiach & not just some sensible chap.!.
It looks like some think they are the only ones capable of interpretation of the bible & do not have the curse of death upon them.

More so, Jesus is King Of Kings, Lord of Lords, Ruler of all nations & God manifested in the flesh. & I have been washed in the blood of the Lamb.

I still do not understand how Mary is co savior. That is ok, I guess others do.