Mary as Co-Savior?

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!
 
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
 
Dor said:
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.

"......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 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
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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.:)
 
Bandit said:
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.:)
It is because she has, through here suffering and that suffering's connection to Christ’s, brought Grace from his suffering to someone, either herself or someone else. That Grace contributed in some way to that person’s acceptance of Christ and has thus contributed to their salvation. It is important to note that co doesn’t imply equality. The Latin implies something more like a helper. As a waiter is to a master chef.
 
JJM said:
It is because she has, through here suffering and that suffering's connection to Christ’s, brought Grace from his suffering to someone, either herself or someone else. That Grace contributed in some way to that person’s acceptance of Christ and has thus contributed to their salvation. It is important to note that co doesn’t imply equality. The Latin implies something more like a helper. As a waiter is to a master chef.
ok. i think i see what you mean. it is not the same as co pilot, where she could have literally taken his place. Jesus is the only one who could do it. I really do try to understand what others are seeing.:)
 
Bandit said:
ok. i think i see what you mean. it is not the same as co pilot, where she could have literally taken his place. Jesus is the only one who could do it. I really do try to understand what others are seeing.:)
Yes that is the concept:)
 
... we are all called to be co-redeemers with Christ. By uniting our sufferings with Christ we can receive Grace (the strength to do his will) from God for ourselves and others.
these things and more you shall do...
ok. i think i see what you mean. it is not the same as co pilot, where she could have literally taken his place. Jesus is the only one who could do it. I really do try to understand what others are seeing.:)
Not the only one who could do it but Jesus initiated the action for Christians?
 
why? she was not Son of God nor did she take on the sins of the world on the cross as Saviour.
 
why? she was not Son of God nor did she take on the sins of the world on the cross as Saviour.

Agreed. Mary was a wonderfully faithful woman, and truly a mentor for anyone who ends up facing a difficult task for the glory of God. However, in terms of redemption, Mary is as irrelevant as anybody else is, because she is just like the rest of us: a hundred percent human. When Mary died, she faced the same fate as everybody else: irreversible death, or eternal life through Jesus Christ. Mary did not receive a free pass to heaven for being the birth mother of Jesus, nor has she been given the power to forgive sins. Certainly, she above any of us knew God, and knew how to show love for him, and likely did an amazing job ministering to others after her son's murder. Mary was a great woman, but she was a woman, and not a saviour.
 
Agreed. Mary was a wonderfully faithful woman, and truly a mentor for anyone who ends up facing a difficult task for the glory of God. However, in terms of redemption, Mary is as irrelevant as anybody else is, because she is just like the rest of us: a hundred percent human. When Mary died, she faced the same fate as everybody else: irreversible death, or eternal life through Jesus Christ. Mary did not receive a free pass to heaven for being the birth mother of Jesus, nor has she been given the power to forgive sins. Certainly, she above any of us knew God, and knew how to show love for him, and likely did an amazing job ministering to others after her son's murder. Mary was a great woman, but she was a woman, and not a saviour.
Um, a "mother's love" can melt the coldest of hearts...any mother's love. This in turn has "saved" many of us. So Mary indeed has helped save folk. She just didn't do it all by herself...:eek:
 
Hi InLove,

Something missing ...

The prefix 'co' does not necessarily infer equality, which is how it is commonly read today, and from where the erroneous assumption derives. 'Co' derives from the Latin word '***' which means 'with', but not 'equal to'.

So the proper theological reading of the term is the Blessed Virgin is is foremost with Christ in the work of salvation, but He alone is the work ... and we were saved on the Cross, which is His alone to bear (eternally).

It is His Resurrection that assures eternal life for us, nothing else ... without that, as Paul said, our faith is in vain

By her assent, Christ came into the world, to save it. But be in no doubt that the Catholic Church is absolutely and dogmatically emphatic on the point that Christ alone is the Redeemer, that He alone saves, and that He alone is the source of grace.

Catholic doctrine states:
"Mary gave the Redeemer, the Source of all graces, to the world, and in this way she is the channel of all graces. (Sent. certa.)"
Ott "The Fundamentals of Christian Dogma" — 'sent certa' is shorthand for 'theologically certain', that is, we are theologically certain of the fact even though it is not stated explicitly in Scripture. Our certitude comes from the fact that had she said 'no', there would be no Incarnation.

As the statement says, she, by her motherhood, is 'the channel of all grace' because though her the Son came into the world, but she is not, nor has the Church ever claimed, she is the source of that grace, or any gifts and graces of the Blessed Virgin originate with her ... every gift and grace she distributes to her spiritual children come from Him.

In her own words she is, and remains "the handmaid of the Lord" (Luke 1:38) — but through His redemptive sacrifice, she does so eternally.

+++

Salve Regina:

Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy,
our life, our sweetness and our hope.
To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve;
to thee do we send up our sighs,
mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.

Turn then, most gracious advocate,
thine eyes of mercy toward us;
and after this our exile,
show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.

Pray for us O holy Mother of God,
that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

+++

If we understand her as the Mother of Mercy, and He as that Mercy personified, then everything else falls into its proper place.

Her assent to the Archangel Gabriel is absolutely crucial for Catholic anthropology ... for we believe that whilst Christ alone saves, it is God's will that we might co-operate in and act towards our own salvation, as she freely co-operated in His incarnation, a Gift by which we are saved and even though a gift which is entirely free, gratuitous and unmerited — nothing we can do can 'earn' us participation in the Interior Life of God (that is a 'good' that transcends every natural good to which we can by our nature lay claim), nothing except accept the gift with an open heart — it is God's will (as we see it) and His gift that He chooses to enoble His creature with the dignity of allowing it to saying 'yes.'

But no 'yes' of ours can ever match the yes of she who is the Theotokos, the God-Bearer ... every yes that humanity offers is subsequent to her yes to the angel, in that sense she is mother to Him, and mother of us all in Christ.

Hope that helps you understand the depth of our devotion to her (not worship of her), as His mother...

Pax et bonum,

Thomas
 
Hi InLove,

Something missing ...
Um, Thomas my friend. That was/is a wonderful explanation. But InLove...well, she has been gone for two years now. And I think she sees more than we...:eek:

v/r

Joshua
 
Back
Top