I wonder if Elizabeth was Mary's favorite relative. She is her cousin, but I imagine she could have been more like a big sister/cool aunt/mother figure type to her.
A child leaping in a womb is a curious turn of phrase for a male author to employ. One is mindful of the code of chivalry being written by the ladies of the Salic court in France. Further, one notes the author of the first laws, and moral stories, of any known literature, the priestess Enheduanna, who was the daughter of Sargon of Akkad.
As far as Mary is concerned, "there is none righteous, no not one". The only sinless one is Jesus Christ, II Corinthians 5:21. Why did it take the Roman Catholics until the 19th century to establish the immaculate conception?
I have always appreciated your lessons and perspectives and thought that the learnings were bible-based. But about Mary... the idea that the Roman catholic church got it right is just not biblical. The immaculate conception is not found in the immutable word of God. How do you reconcile that doctrine with what Paul said "ALL have sinned?" and "No not one?" If your learnings lean towards being historical and not biblical then I guess mixing truth with error is palatable, however if the idea is to be true to the biblical text then that is another thing altogether.
@@GoreBruce Wow I appreciate your avknowledge ment of my comment to your teaching. And you are correct, I mis- understood and therefore misconstrued your statement on the immaculate conception. When I listened to the lecture again I realized that I was half listening. You stated that the Catholic Church got it half right and I may have removed my thinking at that point. I You did not endorse the immaculate conception I rescind my original comment and owe you an apology. Thank you for responding and for allowing me to thoroughly listen to your lecture I am grateful.
That is not a correct interpretation of the immaculate conception dogma. Mary too is saved by our Lord Jesus Christ in a retroactive sense (God is not subject to time, He transcends time). The Thing is, Jesus is born without original Sin, BUT for Him to be born without original sin, His mother (because He is perfectly human too) need not have the original sin at the moment she gave birth. If she had original sin, then the question is, how Jesus was born without original sin? God "Clean the house" of a womb of a woman, to be born in a clean place, and her, like any other human being, are saved by Jesus, in his sacrifice on the Cross, but in the case of her, she is saved retroactively. All Marian dogmas are centered in Christ. The question is about Jesus and our salvation, not about Mary by itself. In fact, this could be put in a deductive argument: P1) Christ was born without original sin. P2) The Children of a person with original sin, have original sin (i.e. all the descendants of Adam have original sin). P3) Everybody was saved by the sacrifice of our Lord, Jesus. We need to put this 3 premises together. If Mary had original sin, by P2 Christ would be born with original sin, and P3 would never happen. So, since Christ do not had original sin (P1), it follows necessarily that His mother did not have original sin in the moment she gave birth or He was born without original sin, from a person with original sin (witch violates P2). So, the solution Duns Scotus proposed, was that Mary WAS saved retroactively by Jesus (since the argument of retroactive could not be applied to Himself), and in this sense Mary was born without the original sin, as a consequence of P3, and not because she is special or something more. Thomas Aquinas, when he wrote the suma theologica, had his doubts about how to solve this problem, and he proposed that she was cleaned of original sin AFTER she was born, and this dabete had centuries about the "time problem" involved in this question, but later in his life he realised (as put by Garrigou Lagrange) that this would lead to some problems. P.S. sorry my bad English and for the long post, i'm not a native speaker. In any case, good lecture, i like your work, and i think that we need more of this kind of material in youtube.
"Immaculate Conception"? Really...? Roman Catholics ("Roman Catholicism") is just full of erroneous garbage. Read what the Holy Bible have to say about Roman Catholicism (modern-day Babylon): Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto Heaven, and Almighty GOD hath remembered her iniquities; Revelation 18:4-5.
Indeed, on most occasions when your obedience to God puts you in a position most people wouldn't understand. Great encouragement!
Luke has changed my life (with Bruce's phenomenal teaching) more than any gospel.
Thank you too. Opened my eyes of understanding. Learned the lessons given here.
Thank you
Thanks Bruce!
Thank you for explaining this thing about Mary..."that she too needed a savior just as I do. Hum! Should I stop saying the rosary?
Luke's author INTERVIEWED mother Mary! Think about it
I wonder if Elizabeth was Mary's favorite relative. She is her cousin, but I imagine she could have been more like a big sister/cool aunt/mother figure type to her.
A child leaping in a womb is a curious turn of phrase for a male author to employ.
One is mindful of the code of chivalry being written by the ladies of the Salic court in France. Further, one notes the author of the first laws, and moral stories, of any known literature, the priestess Enheduanna, who was the daughter of Sargon of Akkad.
As far as Mary is concerned, "there is none righteous, no not one". The only sinless one is Jesus Christ, II Corinthians 5:21. Why did it take the Roman Catholics until the 19th century to establish the immaculate conception?
I have always appreciated your lessons and perspectives and thought that the learnings were bible-based. But about Mary... the idea that the Roman catholic church got it right is just not biblical. The immaculate conception is not found in the immutable word of God. How do you reconcile that doctrine with what Paul said "ALL have sinned?" and "No not one?" If your learnings lean towards being historical and not biblical then I guess mixing truth with error is palatable, however if the idea is to be true to the biblical text then that is another thing altogether.
Thank you for the feedback, although I'm not quite sure where I said that I endorse the immaculate conception?
@@GoreBruce Wow I appreciate your avknowledge ment of my comment to your teaching. And you are correct, I mis- understood and therefore misconstrued your statement on the immaculate conception. When I listened to the lecture again I realized that I was half listening. You stated that the Catholic Church got it half right and I may have removed my thinking at that point. I You did not endorse the immaculate conception I rescind my original comment and owe you an apology. Thank you for responding and for allowing me to thoroughly listen to your lecture I am grateful.
That is not a correct interpretation of the immaculate conception dogma. Mary too is saved by our Lord Jesus Christ in a retroactive sense (God is not subject to time, He transcends time). The Thing is, Jesus is born without original Sin, BUT for Him to be born without original sin, His mother (because He is perfectly human too) need not have the original sin at the moment she gave birth. If she had original sin, then the question is, how Jesus was born without original sin? God "Clean the house" of a womb of a woman, to be born in a clean place, and her, like any other human being, are saved by Jesus, in his sacrifice on the Cross, but in the case of her, she is saved retroactively. All Marian dogmas are centered in Christ. The question is about Jesus and our salvation, not about Mary by itself. In fact, this could be put in a deductive argument:
P1) Christ was born without original sin.
P2) The Children of a person with original sin, have original sin (i.e. all the descendants of Adam have original sin).
P3) Everybody was saved by the sacrifice of our Lord, Jesus.
We need to put this 3 premises together. If Mary had original sin, by P2 Christ would be born with original sin, and P3 would never happen. So, since Christ do not had original sin (P1), it follows necessarily that His mother did not have original sin in the moment she gave birth or He was born without original sin, from a person with original sin (witch violates P2). So, the solution Duns Scotus proposed, was that Mary WAS saved retroactively by Jesus (since the argument of retroactive could not be applied to Himself), and in this sense Mary was born without the original sin, as a consequence of P3, and not because she is special or something more.
Thomas Aquinas, when he wrote the suma theologica, had his doubts about how to solve this problem, and he proposed that she was cleaned of original sin AFTER she was born, and this dabete had centuries about the "time problem" involved in this question, but later in his life he realised (as put by Garrigou Lagrange) that this would lead to some problems.
P.S. sorry my bad English and for the long post, i'm not a native speaker. In any case, good lecture, i like your work, and i think that we need more of this kind of material in youtube.
"Immaculate Conception"? Really...?
Roman Catholics ("Roman Catholicism") is just full of erroneous garbage.
Read what the Holy Bible have to say about Roman Catholicism (modern-day Babylon):
Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto Heaven, and Almighty GOD hath remembered her iniquities; Revelation 18:4-5.