Search results

The argument is missing a step. Presuming that kecharitomenel = without sin, why should we assume that Gabriel's calling Mary "full of grace" when he appeared to her as a teenager necessarily means she was likewise "full of grace" at her conception? Cannot grace have been bestowed by God in...

I know this was addressed to @Pearl, but if you'll permit me: It's absolutely true that God, in advance, could have or could have not thought of creating -- not to mention could have or could have not actually created -- the soul that was to be the soul of the Mother of God Incarnate sinless...

The only way Psalm 5:4 (God cannot dwell with sinfulness) and John 1:14 (God Incarnate dwelt with sinful man) can both be true is if we qualify one or the other of them as being inapplicable to a particular setting. And that is exactly what you did. You declared John 1:14 inapplicable to Jesus...

@Soulx3 is a she, not a he. See Post # 305. (I made the same mistake.) But I suspect she would concede that she needs Jesus more than she needs Mary. The RCC doesn't view Mary as a savior; it views her as an intercessor.

I agree. I write separately only to stress how unfortunate it is that you were compelled to add "Scripture says" to the argument. It should be obvious to any right-thinking person that not everything Christ did and taught is found in Scripture. That you needed to add, for the benefit of the...

I'm not sure. But whether it has been fulfilled or not plays no role in my belief that armies won't be marching on Jerusalem any time soon.

Actually, I said they are different in lots of ways (see my Post # 291). The only sameness relevant here is the "dwelling" aspect. I'm "fighting" (your word) you only to suggest that if both are "dwelling," Psalm 5:4 adds nothing to your argument. I have to tease your statement apart here...

I wish you'd quoted my entire post ahead of your answer. By invoking Psalm 5:4 you're the one who claimed that Jesus's gestation was "dwelling" which could not occur with a sinful human. And I'm suggesting that if you're right about gestation counting as "dwelling," then John 1:14 shows that...

I presume that those angels appeared other than in human form so that they could better communicate to their audience, even though they actually possessed no flesh and blood bodies. Call it duping if you wish.

Actually, I am suggesting that God Incarnate being formed in the womb, and God Incarnate living among sinful human beings, both count as "dwelling." I got the first from you (Post # 234). I got the second from John 1:14.

Jesus's post-resurrection instruction to Mary Magdalene not to touch Him explicitly hinges on the imminent ascension of His glorified body to the Father. The same cannot be said of His gestation period. So the analogy you are trying to draw between the two limps. If, indeed, "it's illogical...

No armies will be marching into Jerusalem any time soon.

Well, I don't share your view about Jesus lacking his true physical body. Neither did Aquinas. He wasn't trying to dupe his followers! If he didn't have his true physical body but wanted it to appear that way, then he would have been trying to dupe them.

You are equating Jesus's gestation period with the period of Jesus's "glorified state" in John 20:17. From the time He was born to the time He adopted that post-resurrection "glorified state," you are fine with His being in contact with sinful human flesh -- but while IN the womb, you declare...

Let's grant that the post-resurrection, pre-(first)ascension God Incarnate could not have contact with human flesh. He could, and did, have such contact before His resurrection. He could, and did, after His (first) ascension. But not in between those two events. The Mary Magdalene incident...

My apologies again, miss.

My apologies, ma'am.

I don't mind debating with Catholics. I used to be one. And I've said several times that I don't know whether Mary was conceived without sin, although I'm leaning against it. I actually see the argument for it, even though it's not persuasive to me. My only objection to @Soulx3 was that...

Then He intentionally tried to dupe His disciples into thinking otherwise, Luke 24:39. That's hard to swallow.

The notion of the body of Christ as his "bride class," or as the church, is not something I'm questioning at all. The only issue I thought we were discussing is whether or not Christ's physical body left the tomb and walked the earth for another 40 days or so. If it did (as I believe), then...