Discussion:
Graven Images - Strictly Forbidden
(too old to reply)
Stephen Korsman
2006-09-11 17:15:39 UTC
Permalink
Doesn't the Catholic church have statues of Jesus, Mary and various
other saints? These are known as "graven images" and I believe God
frowns upon that sort of thing.
Yes, you are correct. This is what the commandment says about bowing
down before images or statues in our worship. It is *strictly forbidden*..
"You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of any
thing
that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in
the water
under the earth. You shall NOT BOW DOWN to them, OR SERVE THEM."
Exodus 20:4-5
In making a list of the ten commandments that Catholics are told to
memorize,
the above commandment which references the issue of graven images and not
bowing down to them has been DELETED...and the last one has been broken
______________________________________________________
1. I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
3. Remember to keep holy the Lord's Day.
4. Honour your father and your mother.
5. You shall not kill.
6. You shall not commit adultery.
7. You shall not steal.
8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
9. You shall not covet your neighbour's wife.
10. You shall not covet your neighbour's goods.
http://www.catholic.org.uk/library/catechism/thecommandments.shtml
It is true that there is a Catechism which does mention the command that
forbids idolatry, but the commandment is essentially ignored. Otherwise
there would not be so many idols, icons and statues that they bow down
to..which the commandment strictly forbids!
So here our Catholic friends have a decision to make. Whether they will
obey our God who has given us His commandments - or not. Since He
is to be our Judge also, it would be wise for them to forsake idolatry and
to obey Him, through the grace that is freely offered to us through Christ
Jesus our Savior.
The use of statues, pictures, and other icons in worship

To me this is a fairly simple issue, and the problem lies in Protestant
misinterpretation of the second commandment and of what the Bible says. It
can be solved using the Bible alone, therefore I will deal with it first.
The way I see it, the second commandment is conditional - we may make
statues, pictures, etc., but we may not worship them. And since Catholics do
not worship the images in their churches and homes, they are not breaking
any of God's commandments by using those images.

For convenience, I will quote Exodus 20:4-5a (RSV) here: You shall not make
for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven
above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the
earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God
am a jealous God ...

This verse has been interpreted in two ways - no images may be made at all,
and images may be made but not worshipped.

Common sense and experience tells us that it is the second interpretation
that is the correct one - we may make images that are not worshipped. If the
second commandment were absolute, it would be a sin to make photographs, put
pictures in books, make statues of non-religious people. Most people (there
are exceptions) do not go to that extreme.

Some people say, okay, but religious statues, pictures and icons are not
allowed. Once again, most Protestants will disagree with that, at least in
practice. Most Protestant Churches allow illustrated Bibles - these contain
pictures of the prophets, saints, and even depictions of God like those
found in Daniel 7:9, and of course pictures of Jesus, the icon (eikwn) of
God in flesh - see I Cor 11:7. The Bible is also clear about the making of
such graven images - it is permissible. In fact God himself commanded it -
see Exodus 25:18-22, 26:1,31 (God commands statues and images of cherubim to
be made), Num. 21:8-9 (God commands a statue of a snake to be made for
religious purposes), I Kings 6:23-29,35, 7:25,29,36, I Chron 28:18-19, Ezek
41:15 (graven images of the sea, oxen, palm trees, cherubim, lions).

So all I can conclude from the above passages is that images are allowed,
even in a religious context such as the Temple, as long as they are not
worshipped.

Some objections can be made - the cherubim over the Ark would not be seen by
many people, and therefore would not be worshipped. But this ignores the
fact that while the ark was being carried around on the journeys of the
people of Israel before it came to rest in the Temple, many people would see
it. The images of oxen, lions, etc. would be seen by the average Israelite.
And finally, the image of the snake was an image that God said the general
public had to go to and look at in order to be healed of snake bite. The
common Protestant objection to that today would be that it is only an image,
it has no special powers, no faith in the image can save you, not even from
snake bite, and that to have such faith that looking to the image can indeed
save you would constitute idolatry. However, God believed differently. He
used this image to test the people's faith in him, not the image. Likewise
today, when we look to an image, it is not the image of Christ on the cross
we rely on or pray to or worship, but Christ himself. Same as with the
snake, the same sort of respect.

The fact is that the people of Israel at that time were very much tempted to
worship a piece of wood or brass that represented something, especially
calves. The commandment was designed to stop them replacing their true God
with false gods, and was not designed to keep their religious art forms
limited to abstract painting. That sort of temptation is no longer an issue
in modern culture - people don't want to worship a statue, they are aware
that it is just a piece of plaster or wood. They worship in front of the
statue, as the ancient Israelites showed their faith to God in front of a
statue.

An objection that still often comes up is that we bow in front of this
statue, and this appears to be forbidden by the second commandment. However,
a look into what the Bible says about bowing gives a different picture.

There are certain verses that show people bowing down to other people or
angels, and the person being honoured in this way stops the action, e.g. Rev
22:8-9. This is because the person realised that this person bowing down was
doing so in an unfit way - he was worshipping him, which was wrong. That is
why the action was stopped and corrected.

However, when bowing down to a person and not intending it as worship, but
only out of respect, one is not sinning at all. I Sam 25:41 shows a woman
bowing to David, and nowhere is this condemned. The LXX uses the Greek word
proskuneo (proskunho) for both this action of respect as well as worship of
God. See also the angels in Gen. 18:2-3 (LXX), and the master in Matt 18:26.

So we have concluded the following:
- The Bible condemns worship of images, but not the making of images
- The Bible condemns worship of angels and people, but not the honouring of
them by bowing to them

That leaves us with the fact that it is not a sin to bow to an angel or
saint in honour of him/her. And if we do not bow to their statue, but rather
to them, that is not sinful. In fact it is something the Bible is completely
silent on - i.e. bowing to saints in front of images of them. If the image
is not sinful, the bowing is not sinful, then what is the problem with what
Catholics do ?

One further thing to note is that Catholics often seem to think of certain
statues or other items as holy, to give them respect. Most notable of these
is the Turin Shroud, which some claim is the burial shroud of Jesus.
Protestants seem to think that honouring the bones of a holy man is wrong,
or that honouring the tomb or belongings or relics of a holy man is wrong.
To be more correct, Catholics worship God and honour the saints in the
presence of these holy items, and do not honour them directly - that would
be pointless. But Protestants still think it is as pointless to worship in
the presence of a saint's bones as it is to worship in the presence of a
sack of flour. However, that is where Catholics and the Bible see
differently to the Protestants.

The Protestants have fallen prey to the heresy of the 1st century Gnostics.
They believed that all that was physical was evil, and that good was found
only in the spiritual. Hence they rejected the use of icons and symbols -
physical, tangible means of worship (note: not objects of worship.) The
consequence of this was that they rejected the idea that Jesus the physical
man was actually God - the main heresy for which the Apostle John scolds
them in his epistles, found in the Bible.

Look at scriptures like II Kings 13:20-21 (Elisha's bones perform a
miracle), Matt 9:20-22 (the woman believed if she just touched Jesus'
clothes she would be cured - and was cured), Acts 5:15-16 (Peter's shadow is
seen as holy and miraculous), and Acts 19:11-12 (Paul's handkerchiefs are
sent around to perform miracles on their own). Here we can see cases where
physical objects carry with them miraculous power. Nowhere does the Bible
tell us that such events are wrong, that the use of miraculous bones or
objects is sacrilegious - in fact Acts 19:11-12 tells us that the miracles
were organised by God himself. So it is quite understandable why Catholics,
like the early Christians, see holiness on physical objects, and think it
appropriate to give thanks to God for letting such holiness touch their
lives by giving such items respect, and even a place to be seen and used in
the churches and homes of the faithful.
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Stephen Korsman
2006-09-11 17:16:17 UTC
Permalink
Doesn't the Catholic church have statues of Jesus, Mary and various
other saints? These are known as "graven images" and I believe God
frowns upon that sort of thing.
Yes, you are correct. This is what the commandment says about bowing
down before images or statues in our worship. It is *strictly forbidden*..
"You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of any
thing
that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in
the water
under the earth. You shall NOT BOW DOWN to them, OR SERVE THEM."
Exodus 20:4-5
In making a list of the ten commandments that Catholics are told to
memorize,
the above commandment which references the issue of graven images and not
bowing down to them has been DELETED...and the last one has been broken
______________________________________________________
1. I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
3. Remember to keep holy the Lord's Day.
4. Honour your father and your mother.
5. You shall not kill.
6. You shall not commit adultery.
7. You shall not steal.
8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
9. You shall not covet your neighbour's wife.
10. You shall not covet your neighbour's goods.
http://www.catholic.org.uk/library/catechism/thecommandments.shtml
It is true that there is a Catechism which does mention the command that
forbids idolatry, but the commandment is essentially ignored. Otherwise
there would not be so many idols, icons and statues that they bow down
to..which the commandment strictly forbids!
So here our Catholic friends have a decision to make. Whether they will
obey our God who has given us His commandments - or not. Since He
is to be our Judge also, it would be wise for them to forsake idolatry and
to obey Him, through the grace that is freely offered to us through Christ
Jesus our Savior.
Has anyone really removed anything from the 10 Commandments ?

Here is an actual question I received, written by a Seventh Day Adventist:
"NIV, KJV, NKJV, RSV etc. have all Gods Commandments intact. HOWEVER, the
Catholic Catechism has totally deleted the 2nd commandment, and split the
10th into 2 to make up 10 commandments. They CHANGED Gods Law!!!!"

Actually, that is far from true. The 2nd commandment was not deleted - it's
still very much there. The words that the Protestants call the 2nd
commandment, are found in the first commandment of the Catholics. Let me go
into a bit more detail here. A quick word before that - go and look at your
1st commandment - it says "I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other
gods before me." That command to have no other gods includes, obviously,
carved gods, painted gods. Why must Protestants split this up into 2
commandments ? I'll tell you why.

If you want to split up the commandments into the smallest commandments
possible, there are 11 commandments:

1. No other gods.
2. No idols.
3. No blasphemy.
4. Keep the Sabbath holy.
5. Honour your parents.
6. Do not kill.
7. Do not commit adultery.
8. Do not steal.
9. Do not lie.
10. Do not covet your neighbour's wife.
11. Do not cover your neighbour's goods.

Logically 10 and 11 can be fused into one commandment - "Do not covet."
Logically 1 and 2 can be fused into one commantment - "no false gods,
including idol gods which are also false gods."

(10 and 11 are one mixed together in Exodus, but listed separately in
Deuteronomy.)

Here is a quotation from the KJV showing exactly how Catholics divide up the
commandments:

Commandment #1
Exod 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of
Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Exod 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exod 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of
any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that
is in the water under the earth:
Exod 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the
LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the
children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exod 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my
commandments.

Commandment #2
Exod 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the
LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Commandment #3
Exod 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

So we can also have 11 commandments, or 9 commandments. It is interesting to
note that the number 10 was given in the Bible, but not precisely which
words went with each number. The Jews used a version of the commandments
that listed 10 and 11 together, while the early Christians chose to use a
different list used by another Jewish minority. Both lists came from
Judaism, the one was just more popular than the other. Both, however,
contained the full text of the commandments, not leaving any out.

Later the Catholic Church was divided on the issue. Origen used the
"Protestant" set, while Augustine favoured the "Catholic" set. Mainstream
Judaism adopted the Protestant set. Everyone kept the same commandments,
though.

Later, the Catholic Church decided to adopt BOTH versions as official
versions, and that is still the case today ... something not many people
know, but which can be verified by doing research into the Eastern Rite
Catholic Churches. To simplify things, it is the western (latin) part of the
Catholic Church that uses the "Catholic" or "Western" ten commandments, and
the eastern part of the Catholic Church that uses the "Protestant" or
"Eastern" ten commandments ... long before any Protestants came along. Both
parts of the Catholic Church - east and west - fall under the authority of
the pope - they are one denomination, although different patriarchates. It
is thus only in the west that Protestants have become upset by the different
order of the ten commandments. In the east, Catholics and Protestants and
Orthodox use exactly the same sequence of commandments !!!

So, no, we did not change God's law, we just list the wording differently to
what you do. And also, not all Catholics do that. Many Catholics use EXACTLY
the same ten commandments as you Adventists and Protestants do !

Not one of the ten commandments has been edited, rejected, or changed by the
Catholic Church. However, for the sake of making memorisation of the crux of
the commandment easier, the longer ones have been abbreviated. I have seen
SDA listings of the 10 commandments, including the 4th one - most of them
read "Keep the Sabbath day holy" or something like that. They do NOT list
the full 4th commandment, so it is very unfair and hypocritical to expect
the RCC to do what is not expected of the SDA Church.
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
N***@no.spam
2006-09-11 19:46:56 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:16:17 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
Post by Stephen Korsman
Has anyone really removed anything from the 10 Commandments ?
YES - you romanist infidels removed the verse which speaks of 'idols'
-- all the excuses in the world will NOT atone for it.
duke
2006-09-11 22:10:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by N***@no.spam
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:16:17 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
Post by Stephen Korsman
Has anyone really removed anything from the 10 Commandments ?
YES - you romanist infidels removed the verse which speaks of 'idols'
-- all the excuses in the world will NOT atone for it.
not at all, dos, we don't worship statues. But you're too stupid to know the
difference, or too unChristian.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
N***@no.spam
2006-09-11 19:48:15 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:16:17 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
Post by Stephen Korsman
11. Do not cover your neighbour's goods.
Logically 10 and 11 can be fused into one commandment - "Do not covet."
Logically 1 and 2 can be fused into one commantment - "no false gods,
including idol gods which are also false gods."
NO, IT CANNOT.
CALL IT YELLING IF YOU WILL - I DON'T CARE.


WHAT GOD [THE REAL HOLY FATHER] PLACED IN THE BIBLE, YOU ROMANISTS
HAVE NO BUSINESS TRYING TO ALTER.
Andrew
2006-09-11 21:01:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by Stephen Korsman
11. Do not cover your neighbour's goods.
Logically 10 and 11 can be fused into one commandment - "Do not covet."
Logically 1 and 2 can be fused into one commantment - "no false gods,
including idol gods which are also false gods."
WHAT GOD [THE REAL HOLY FATHER] PLACED IN THE BIBLE, YOU ROMANISTS
HAVE NO BUSINESS TRYING TO ALTER.
Here is the official Vatican source which emphatically proves that the second
commandment of the Decalogue has been REMOVED, and that the tenth has
been divided into two in order to fill the gap made by this most audacious and
unauthorized action.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm

This site lists -three- columns showing the Ten Commandments:

1. As given by God to Moses.

2. As rehearsed by Moses before entering the promised land.

3. As changed by the Catholic Church.

Notice in the third column that the second commandment has been ENTIRELY DELETED!

And the tenth commandment has been divided into two, in a vain attempt to cover their act!








Andrew
Mike Dundee
2006-09-11 21:39:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by Stephen Korsman
11. Do not cover your neighbour's goods.
Logically 10 and 11 can be fused into one commandment - "Do not covet."
Logically 1 and 2 can be fused into one commantment - "no false gods,
including idol gods which are also false gods."
WHAT GOD [THE REAL HOLY FATHER] PLACED IN THE BIBLE, YOU ROMANISTS
HAVE NO BUSINESS TRYING TO ALTER.
Here is the official Vatican source which emphatically proves that the second
commandment of the Decalogue has been REMOVED, and that the tenth has been
divided into two in order to fill the gap made by this most audacious and
unauthorized action.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm
1. As given by God to Moses.
2. As rehearsed by Moses before entering the promised land.
3. As changed by the Catholic Church.
Notice in the third column that the second commandment has been ENTIRELY DELETED!
And the tenth commandment has been divided into two, in a vain attempt to cover their act!
WOW.
Doesn't get any more brazen than that.
Hopefully, many catholics will see the light and get out of this cult.
duke
2006-09-11 22:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Dundee
WOW.
Doesn't get any more brazen than that.
Hopefully, many catholics will see the light and get out of this cult.
Nope, we follow Jesus, not andrew.


duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Mike Dundee
2006-09-11 22:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Mike Dundee
WOW.
Doesn't get any more brazen than that.
Hopefully, many catholics will see the light and get out of this cult.
Nope, we follow Jesus, not andrew.
People that alter the 10 commandments to suit their religious sect
are most certainly NOT following Jesus. And the RCC has indeed
altered the 10 commandments.
duke
2006-09-12 10:29:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by duke
Post by Mike Dundee
WOW.
Doesn't get any more brazen than that.
Hopefully, many catholics will see the light and get out of this cult.
Nope, we follow Jesus, not andrew.
People that alter the 10 commandments to suit their religious sect
are most certainly NOT following Jesus. And the RCC has indeed
altered the 10 commandments.
WHERE have we altered the 10 commandments? Do you actually think they are
numbered in the bible?

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
N***@no.spam
2006-09-12 23:10:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Dundee
WOW.
Doesn't get any more brazen than that.
Hopefully, many catholics will see the light and get out of this cult.
Hopefully, YES
The Kat
2006-09-11 22:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Notice in the third column that the second commandment has been ENTIRELY DELETED!
You moron! It's COMBINED with the First.




Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity...

Remove XYZ to email me
duke
2006-09-11 22:13:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Kat
Post by Andrew
Notice in the third column that the second commandment has been ENTIRELY DELETED!
You moron! It's COMBINED with the First.
He's either too stupid to know that, or he intends to lie about it.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Mike Dundee
2006-09-11 22:54:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by The Kat
Post by Andrew
Notice in the third column that the second commandment has been ENTIRELY DELETED!
You moron! It's COMBINED with the First.
He's either too stupid to know that, or he intends to lie about it.
Tell me, how do you combine them and end up with something that
is sooooo much shorter than what God gave to Moses?

From Exodus 20:

I am the LORD your God,
who brought you out
of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of bondage.

You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself a graven image,
or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above,
or that is in the earth beneath,
or that is in the water under the earth;
you shall not bow down to them or serve them;
for I the LORD your God am a jealous God,
visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children to the third and the fourth
generation of those who hate me,
but showing steadfast love to thousands of those
who love me and keep my commandments.

From the RCC Catechism

1. I am the LORD your God:
you shall not have
strange Gods before me.
_____________________________

How can you justify combining it, shortening it and
watering it down?? And don't read that and tell me that's
not a watered down version.
The Kat
2006-09-11 23:32:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Dundee
Tell me, how do you combine them and end up with something that
is sooooo much shorter than what God gave to Moses?
A) The Commandments were given to the JEWS, not Christians, and

B) There are MANY more 'laws' in other books of the Bible,
especially Deut., do you follow all THOSE?

C) The Roman Catholic Church is MUCH older than any other
popular Christian sect, why would you think YOU
know more than THEY do?
Post by Mike Dundee
I am the LORD your God,
who brought you out
of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of bondage.
You shall have no other gods before me.
What part of THAT says he/she/it is the ONLY God??
Post by Mike Dundee
You shall not make for yourself a graven image,
or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above,
or that is in the earth beneath,
or that is in the water under the earth;
Do you actually follow that?
Post by Mike Dundee
you shall not bow down to them or serve them;
for I the LORD your God am a jealous God,
visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children to the third and the fourth
generation of those who hate me,
but showing steadfast love to thousands of those
who love me and keep my commandments.
But Jesus came to CHANGE the law, so why do you think you can
follow the OLD Commandments, and still be a Christian?




Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity...

Remove XYZ to email me
Stephen Korsman
2006-09-12 17:45:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by duke
Post by The Kat
Post by Andrew
Notice in the third column that the second commandment has been
ENTIRELY
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by duke
Post by The Kat
Post by Andrew
DELETED!
You moron! It's COMBINED with the First.
He's either too stupid to know that, or he intends to lie about it.
Tell me, how do you combine them and end up with something that
is sooooo much shorter than what God gave to Moses?
It's called a summarised version, which is used for catechetical purposes,
just like what Protestants do. And, just as with Protestants, the full
version is there in the detailed explanations (e.g. the CCC) and the Bible.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Post by Mike Dundee
I am the LORD your God,
who brought you out
of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of bondage.
You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself a graven image,
or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above,
or that is in the earth beneath,
or that is in the water under the earth;
you shall not bow down to them or serve them;
for I the LORD your God am a jealous God,
visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children to the third and the fourth
generation of those who hate me,
but showing steadfast love to thousands of those
who love me and keep my commandments.
From the RCC Catechism
you shall not have
strange Gods before me.
_____________________________
How can you justify combining it, shortening it and
watering it down?? And don't read that and tell me that's
not a watered down version.
duke
2006-09-11 22:12:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
1. As given by God to Moses.
2. As rehearsed by Moses before entering the promised land.
3. As changed by the Catholic Church.
Notice in the third column that the second commandment has been ENTIRELY DELETED!
And the tenth commandment has been divided into two, in a vain attempt to cover their act!
Hey, 'drew, do you realize that the 10 commandments are not numbered in the
bible?


duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Mike Dundee
2006-09-11 22:47:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Andrew
1. As given by God to Moses.
2. As rehearsed by Moses before entering the promised land.
3. As changed by the Catholic Church.
Notice in the third column that the second commandment has been ENTIRELY DELETED!
And the tenth commandment has been divided into two, in a vain attempt to cover their act!
Hey, 'drew, do you realize that the 10 commandments are not numbered in the
bible?
So that gives you the right to alter them?
duke
2006-09-12 10:31:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by duke
Post by Andrew
1. As given by God to Moses.
2. As rehearsed by Moses before entering the promised land.
3. As changed by the Catholic Church.
Notice in the third column that the second commandment has been ENTIRELY DELETED!
And the tenth commandment has been divided into two, in a vain attempt to
cover their act!
Hey, 'drew, do you realize that the 10 commandments are not numbered in the
bible?
So that gives you the right to alter them?
Not altered.


duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Mike Dundee
2006-09-12 11:34:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by duke
Post by Andrew
1. As given by God to Moses.
2. As rehearsed by Moses before entering the promised land.
3. As changed by the Catholic Church.
Notice in the third column that the second commandment has been ENTIRELY DELETED!
And the tenth commandment has been divided into two, in a vain attempt to
cover their act!
Hey, 'drew, do you realize that the 10 commandments are not numbered in the
bible?
So that gives you the right to alter them?
Not altered.
From this in Exodus 20:

I am the LORD your God,
who brought you out
of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of bondage

You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself a graven image,
or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above,
or that is in the earth beneath,
or that is in the water under the earth;
you shall not bow down to them or serve them;
for I the LORD your God am a jealous God,
visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children to the third and the fourth
generation of those who hate me,
but showing steadfast love to thousands of those
who love me and keep my commandments.

To THIS in your Catechism:

1. I am the LORD your God:
you shall not have
strange Gods before me.
__________________________

That is so watered down it's pathetic. And watered down is
changed, altered.
•R L Measures
2006-09-12 08:56:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Andrew
1. As given by God to Moses.
2. As rehearsed by Moses before entering the promised land.
3. As changed by the Catholic Church.
Notice in the third column that the second commandment has been ENTIRELY DELETED!
And the tenth commandment has been divided into two, in a vain attempt to cover their act!
Hey, 'drew, do you realize that the 10 commandments are not numbered in the
bible?
*** Not only that but there were over a hundred according to Torah. As
to the charge of idolatry, in 1545AD the RCC announced that Anything it
came up with was equal to scripture and it was automatically approved by
God-Jesus, so RCC statues of the Blessed perpetual Virgin Mary and other
holy persons were now okay with the Big Boss.
duke
2006-09-12 10:32:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
Hey, 'drew, do you realize that the 10 commandments are not numbered in the
bible?
*** Not only that but there were over a hundred according to Torah.
Christ came to complete the old covenant and give us a new one. We are bound by
the 10 commandments, not the man made Jewish laws.



duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
•R L Measures
2006-09-12 14:57:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
Hey, 'drew, do you realize that the 10 commandments are not numbered in the
bible?
*** Not only that but there were over a hundred according to Torah.
Christ came to complete the old covenant and give us a new one. We are bound by
the 10 commandments, not the man made Jewish laws.
• According to Torah, these were commandments given by G-d to Moses on
Mount Sinai.
- note - The first 5 books of the OT came from Torah, a.k.a. the Pentatuch.
Stephen Korsman
2006-09-12 17:44:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by Stephen Korsman
11. Do not cover your neighbour's goods.
Logically 10 and 11 can be fused into one commandment - "Do not covet."
Logically 1 and 2 can be fused into one commantment - "no false gods,
including idol gods which are also false gods."
WHAT GOD [THE REAL HOLY FATHER] PLACED IN THE BIBLE, YOU ROMANISTS
HAVE NO BUSINESS TRYING TO ALTER.
Here is the official Vatican source which emphatically proves that the second
commandment of the Decalogue has been REMOVED, and that the tenth has
been divided into two in order to fill the gap made by this most audacious and
unauthorized action.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm
1. As given by God to Moses.
2. As rehearsed by Moses before entering the promised land.
3. As changed by the Catholic Church.
Notice in the third column that the second commandment has been ENTIRELY DELETED!
And the tenth commandment has been divided into two, in a vain attempt to cover their act!
That's just another dishonest attempt to make it seem as if Catholics
deleted something. In reality, it's showing how they are counted, and how
they are summarised for catechetical purposes.

If you get past that, your mind is obviously closed to anything that might
give Catholicism a fair trial.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
N***@no.spam
2006-09-12 23:09:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by Stephen Korsman
11. Do not cover your neighbour's goods.
Logically 10 and 11 can be fused into one commandment - "Do not covet."
Logically 1 and 2 can be fused into one commantment - "no false gods,
including idol gods which are also false gods."
WHAT GOD [THE REAL HOLY FATHER] PLACED IN THE BIBLE, YOU ROMANISTS
HAVE NO BUSINESS TRYING TO ALTER.
Here is the official Vatican source which emphatically proves that the second
commandment of the Decalogue has been REMOVED, and that the tenth has
been divided into two in order to fill the gap made by this most audacious and
unauthorized action.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm
1. As given by God to Moses.
2. As rehearsed by Moses before entering the promised land.
3. As changed by the Catholic Church.
Notice in the third column that the second commandment has been ENTIRELY DELETED!
And the tenth commandment has been divided into two, in a vain attempt to cover their act!
Andrew
AMEN, BROTHER.................. the romanist religion HAS indeed
changed the Ten Commandments TO SUIT THEIR OWN EVIL AGENDA.
The Kat
2006-09-13 00:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by N***@no.spam
AMEN, BROTHER.................. the romanist religion HAS indeed
changed the Ten Commandments TO SUIT THEIR OWN EVIL AGENDA.
You really are an ignorant ass, MORE ignorant than most Christians.,




Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity...

Remove XYZ to email me
N***@no.spam
2006-09-13 11:21:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Kat
Post by N***@no.spam
AMEN, BROTHER.................. the romanist religion HAS indeed
changed the Ten Commandments TO SUIT THEIR OWN EVIL AGENDA.
You really are an ignorant ass, MORE ignorant than most Christians.,
Thank you, and the same to you.
duke
2006-09-11 22:11:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by N***@no.spam
NO, IT CANNOT.
CALL IT YELLING IF YOU WILL - I DON'T CARE.
Yes, a very typical un-Christian act of yours.
Post by N***@no.spam
WHAT GOD [THE REAL HOLY FATHER] PLACED IN THE BIBLE, YOU ROMANISTS
HAVE NO BUSINESS TRYING TO ALTER.
You add and subtract to scripture, dos.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Stephen Korsman
2006-09-11 17:20:43 UTC
Permalink
Doesn't the Catholic church have statues of Jesus, Mary and various
other saints? These are known as "graven images" and I believe God
frowns upon that sort of thing.
Yes, you are correct. This is what the commandment says about bowing
down before images or statues in our worship. It is *strictly forbidden*..
"You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of any
thing
that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in
the water
under the earth. You shall NOT BOW DOWN to them, OR SERVE THEM."
Exodus 20:4-5
In making a list of the ten commandments that Catholics are told to
memorize,
the above commandment which references the issue of graven images and not
bowing down to them has been DELETED...and the last one has been broken
______________________________________________________
1. I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
3. Remember to keep holy the Lord's Day.
4. Honour your father and your mother.
5. You shall not kill.
6. You shall not commit adultery.
7. You shall not steal.
8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
9. You shall not covet your neighbour's wife.
10. You shall not covet your neighbour's goods.
http://www.catholic.org.uk/library/catechism/thecommandments.shtml
It is true that there is a Catechism which does mention the command that
forbids idolatry, but the commandment is essentially ignored. Otherwise
there would not be so many idols, icons and statues that they bow down
to..which the commandment strictly forbids!
So here our Catholic friends have a decision to make. Whether they will
obey our God who has given us His commandments - or not. Since He
is to be our Judge also, it would be wise for them to forsake idolatry and
to obey Him, through the grace that is freely offered to us through Christ
Jesus our Savior.
Andrew makes a habit out of deliberately misrepresenting Catholic teaching
and practice. It has been explained to him many times, and he still
continues. If people set aside the caricature of Catholicism painted by
anti-Catholics, and examine Catholicism objectively, they won't necessarily
agree with it, but they won't deliberately misrepresent it the way he does.

Honesty doesn't help his agenda.

http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/148/Andrew

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
N***@no.spam
2006-09-11 19:48:49 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:20:43 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
Post by Stephen Korsman
Andrew makes a habit out of deliberately misrepresenting Catholic teaching
and practice. It has been explained to him many times, and he still
continues. If people set aside the caricature of Catholicism painted by
anti-Catholics, and examine Catholicism objectively, they won't necessarily
agree with it, but they won't deliberately misrepresent it the way he does.
CAN the lies, romanist.

YOU ARE BRAINWASHED.
duke
2006-09-11 22:09:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by N***@no.spam
CAN the lies, romanist.
YOU ARE BRAINWASHED.
Satan has your tongue, dos.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Stephen Korsman
2006-09-11 17:34:55 UTC
Permalink
Doesn't the Catholic church have statues of Jesus, Mary and various
other saints? These are known as "graven images" and I believe God
frowns upon that sort of thing.
Yes, you are correct. This is what the commandment says about bowing
down before images or statues in our worship. It is *strictly
forbidden*..
No, both you and he are incorrect. There are statues of Jesus, Mary, and
various saints, but they are not "graven images". Graven images are idol,
something worshipped, and we do not worship these statues.
Main Entry:graven image
Function:noun
Etymology:graven, past participle of 1grave
Date:14th century
: an object of worship carved usually from wood or stone : IDOL
"You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of any
thing
that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in
the water
under the earth. You shall NOT BOW DOWN to them, OR SERVE THEM."
Exodus 20:4-5
And God mandated cherubim on the ARK of the covenant, and Moses had a
staff with
a carved snake (medical symbol) on it to give life no less.
In making a list of the ten commandments that Catholics are told to
memorize,
the above commandment which references the issue of graven images and not
bowing down to them has been DELETED...and the last one has been broken
Now, andy, God does not want you to lie about him.
______________________________________________________
1. I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
3. Remember to keep holy the Lord's Day.
4. Honour your father and your mother.
5. You shall not kill.
6. You shall not commit adultery.
7. You shall not steal.
8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
9. You shall not covet your neighbour's wife.
10. You shall not covet your neighbour's goods.
http://www.catholic.org.uk/library/catechism/thecommandments.shtml
It is true that there is a Catechism which does mention the command that
forbids idolatry, but the commandment is essentially ignored.
It is un-Chrisitan to lie that way, andy. And to boot, Commandment #1
above
covers all idolatry.
Otherwise
there would not be so many idols, icons and statues that they bow down
to..which the commandment strictly forbids!
It is un-Chrisitan to lie that way, andy.
He knows. But he also knows that telling the truth about Catholicism won't
get him anywhere. He needs to misrepresent our faith in order to keep
going.

It's a very sad case.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
duke
2006-09-11 19:00:56 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:15:39 +0200, "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za>
wrote:

People like doc and andrew prefer to lie rather than espouse the truth.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
N***@no.spam
2006-09-11 19:46:13 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:15:39 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
Post by Stephen Korsman
To me this is a fairly simple issue, and the problem lies in Protestant
misinterpretation of the second commandment and of what the Bible says.
NONSENSE
duke
2006-09-11 22:08:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:15:39 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
Post by Stephen Korsman
To me this is a fairly simple issue, and the problem lies in Protestant
misinterpretation of the second commandment and of what the Bible says.
NONSENSE
doc, you have no idea what the bible says. You actually think the ten
commandments are numbered in the bible, don't you.

The three village idiots - ikh, andrew, and doc - satan has all 3 tongues.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Stephen Korsman
2006-09-17 08:11:48 UTC
Permalink
He took on an earthly body to fulfill his plan, but he still
existed
since
eternity past. He has always been. He has no mother.
Jesus, son of man, does. It's Mary. You do believe in the dual
nature
of
Christ, don't you. You do know that only the antiChrist denies
Jesus'
human nature.
Of course I believe in his dual nature. He was fully God and fully
man.
When God was manifest in the flesh, ie Jesus Christ, he took on that
dual
nature. But He was still God. Again, God has always been. He created
earth, and the people on it.
But he was not fully man until his birth 2000 years ago. His mother
makes
him
son of man and his father makes him Son of God.
No argument there.
I gather you really didn't understand that Jesus selected Mary
specifically to
be his human mother.
I understand that. She gave birth to the human, Jesus Christ which
was
God
manifest in the flesh.
But once again, since God has always existed, he had no mother.
Come on mike, give it up. God became man, fully man, and Mary is his
earthly
mother.
Earthly yes. She played no role in His divine nature.
Mary being his earthly mother does not make her the mother of God.
The logic is that if she was indeed his mother, and he was indeed God,
then
she was the mother of God, because the person she was mother to was God.
"Earthly mother of God" is perhaps a more explanatory title. Theotokos
is
the most explanatory - she who carried God in her womb.
You guys want to blend his humanity with his divine nature for no other
reason than to elevate Mary to the status you do.
Actually, the original reason was to reinforce the divine nature of
Christ.
The idea arose that the person Mary gave birth to was not God, and only
later became God. If Mary was the mother of the human person of the
Christ
(Christotokos), but the divine person only came later, she could not be
Theotokos, but only Christotokos. Orthodox Christianity reinforced the
teaching that there was always only one person - not a human person that
later acquired a God person within him. The title Theotokos or Mother
of
God was simply to show that the person Mary was mother to was God, not a
non-divine person who later attained / acquired Godhood.
For Mary to be "mother of God" she would have to be a god herself.
In Catholic/Orthodox theology, it means she was mother to a person, and
that
person was God when he was in her womb.
Don't make the mistake of rejecting a teaching considered to be biblical
and
shared by virtually all Christians - Catholic, Orthodox, and
Protestant -
just because the title means something to you that is unacceptable
outside
of its original context. If you agree with the rest of Christianity on
the
divinity of Christ at the point when he was still in Mary's womb, you
can't
logically deny that she was the earthly human mother of a person who was
fully God in her womb. That is the meaning of the title, so you can't
logically deny the title. You can refuse to use it because of other
reasons, but not because it is contrary to your beliefs (if you do share
the
beliefs of most Protestants on that issue). If you refuse to use it
because, in some circles it seems to say that Mary is the originator of
Christ's deity, then you are still in agreement with Catholicism,
Orthodoxy,
and Protestantism, because they reject that idea as well. Your real
disagreement is not in a title, but in the way Mary is treated.
God bless,
Stephen
Stephen,
First, let me thank you for a polite, well thought out response. It's a
refreshing
change of what we usually see.
I am going to refrain from commenting for the time being, but I would like
to ask you a question.
At what point did the idea come forward that Jesus Christ was not God, but
later became God?
In the 2nd century we see the development of Adoptionism, teaching that
Jesus became God at the time of hs baptism.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodotus_of_Byzantium:
Theodotus claimed that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit
as a mortal man, and though later adopted by God upon baptism, was not
himself God until after his resurrection.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Samosata [Paul here = Paul of
Samosata]:
Paul's teaching is a form of Monarchianism, which emphasized the oneness of
God. Paul taught that Jesus was born a mere man, but that at his baptism he
was infused with the divine Logos or word of God. Hence, Jesus was seen not
as God-become-man but as man-become-God.

Also from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Samosata [quoting Paul of
Samosata]:
"Having been anointed by the Holy Spirit he received the title of the
anointed (i.e. Christos), suffering in accordance with his nature, working
wonders in accordance with grace. For in fixity and resoluteness of
character he likened himself to God; and having kept himself free from sin
was united with God, and was empowered to grasp as it were the power and
authority of wonders. By these he was shown to possess over and above the
will, one and the same activity (with God), and won the title of Redeemer
and Saviour of our race."

It was during the 300's AD that Nestorianism came about. Apollinarius was
one of the first to lay the groundwork for that idea. At the Council of
Ephesus in 431 AD Nestorius said, "I can never allow that a child of three
months old was God."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Ephesus:
Nestorianism emphasized the human nature of Jesus at the expense of the
divine. The Council denounced Patriarch Nestorius' teaching as erroneous.
Nestorius taught that Mary, the mother of Jesus gave birth to a man, Jesus,
not God, the Logos (The Word, Son of God). The Logos only dwelled in Christ,
as in a Temple (Christ, therefore, was only Theophoros, Greek for the
"Bearer of God".

The next three are quotes from Nestorius:

From
http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/nestorius_to_cyril.shtml:
Holy scripture, wherever it recalls the Lord's economy, speaks of the birth
and suffering not of the godhead but of the humanity of Christ, so that the
holy virgin is more accurately termed mother of Christ than mother of God.
Hear these words that the gospels proclaim: "The book of the generation of
Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham." It is clear that God the Word
was not the son of David. Listen to another witness if you will: "Jacob
begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called the
Christ. " Consider a further piece of evidence: "Now the birth of Jesus
Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to
Joseph, she was found to be with child of the holy Spirit." But who would
ever consider that the godhead of the only begotten was a creature of the
Spirit?

Also from
http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/nestorius_to_cyril.shtml:

(Hence also Christ calls himself the lord and son of David: " 'What do you
think of the Christ ? Whose son is he ?' They said to him, 'The son of
David.' Jesus answered and said to them, 'How is it then that David inspired
by the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, "The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my
right hand"?'". He said this as being indeed son of David according to the
flesh, but his Lord according to his godhead.) The body therefore is the
temple of the deity of the Son, a temple which is united to it in a high and
divine conjunction, so that the divine nature accepts what belongs to the
body as its own. Such a confession is noble and worthy of the gospel
traditions. But to use the expression "accept as its own" as a way of
diminishing the properties of the conjoined flesh, birth, suffering and
entombment, is a mark of those whose minds are led astray ...

Also from
http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/nestorius_to_cyril.shtml:
For it is necessary for such as are attracted by the name "propriety" to
make God the Word share, because of this same propriety, in being fed on
milk, in gradual growth, in terror at the time of his passion and in need of
angelical assistance.

It is debated whether or not Nestorius actually taught Nestorianism, but
whether or not he did, the concept of Nestorianism was rejected.

The outcome was that it was held that Mary gave birth to a person who was
fully man and fully God, so in that sense she could be called the mother of
God, because the person she was mother to was not separated from God the
Son. The next council clarified this more explicitly. In no way did the
originators of this definition believe that Mary was the source of any
aspect of Christ's divinity, and the title was intended to describe the
nature of Christ, not teach any sort of heretical notion of Mary existing
before Abraham like Christ did, or being an originator of divinity.

From:
http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/chalcedon_definition.shtml
Following the holy Fathers we teach with one voice that the Son [of God] and
our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same [Person], that
he is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man, of a
reasonable soul and [human] body consisting, consubstantial with the Father
as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood;
made in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father
before the worlds according to his Godhead; but in these last days for us
men and for our salvation born [into the world] of the Virgin Mary, the
Mother of God according to his manhood. This one and the same Jesus Christ,
the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures,
unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without
the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the
peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one
Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one
and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as
the Prophets of old time have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus
Christ hath taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers hath delivered to us.

Now may I ask you a few questions in exchange for the question you asked me?

1. What church do you attend, and what sort of denominational affiliations
does it have?
2. Do you believe that Jesus was God?
3. Do you believe that Jesus was God during the period he was in Mary's
uterus, e.g. when John the Baptist leapt in Elizabeth's uterus?

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Mike Dundee
2006-09-17 16:24:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Korsman
He took on an earthly body to fulfill his plan, but he still
existed
since
eternity past. He has always been. He has no mother.
Jesus, son of man, does. It's Mary. You do believe in the dual
nature
of
Christ, don't you. You do know that only the antiChrist denies
Jesus'
human nature.
Of course I believe in his dual nature. He was fully God and fully
man.
When God was manifest in the flesh, ie Jesus Christ, he took on that
dual
nature. But He was still God. Again, God has always been. He created
earth, and the people on it.
But he was not fully man until his birth 2000 years ago. His mother
makes
him
son of man and his father makes him Son of God.
No argument there.
I gather you really didn't understand that Jesus selected Mary
specifically to
be his human mother.
I understand that. She gave birth to the human, Jesus Christ which
was
God
manifest in the flesh.
But once again, since God has always existed, he had no mother.
Come on mike, give it up. God became man, fully man, and Mary is his
earthly
mother.
Earthly yes. She played no role in His divine nature.
Mary being his earthly mother does not make her the mother of God.
The logic is that if she was indeed his mother, and he was indeed God,
then
she was the mother of God, because the person she was mother to was God.
"Earthly mother of God" is perhaps a more explanatory title. Theotokos
is
the most explanatory - she who carried God in her womb.
You guys want to blend his humanity with his divine nature for no other
reason than to elevate Mary to the status you do.
Actually, the original reason was to reinforce the divine nature of
Christ.
The idea arose that the person Mary gave birth to was not God, and only
later became God. If Mary was the mother of the human person of the
Christ
(Christotokos), but the divine person only came later, she could not be
Theotokos, but only Christotokos. Orthodox Christianity reinforced the
teaching that there was always only one person - not a human person that
later acquired a God person within him. The title Theotokos or Mother
of
God was simply to show that the person Mary was mother to was God, not a
non-divine person who later attained / acquired Godhood.
For Mary to be "mother of God" she would have to be a god herself.
In Catholic/Orthodox theology, it means she was mother to a person, and
that
person was God when he was in her womb.
Don't make the mistake of rejecting a teaching considered to be biblical
and
shared by virtually all Christians - Catholic, Orthodox, and
Protestant -
just because the title means something to you that is unacceptable
outside
of its original context. If you agree with the rest of Christianity on
the
divinity of Christ at the point when he was still in Mary's womb, you
can't
logically deny that she was the earthly human mother of a person who was
fully God in her womb. That is the meaning of the title, so you can't
logically deny the title. You can refuse to use it because of other
reasons, but not because it is contrary to your beliefs (if you do share
the
beliefs of most Protestants on that issue). If you refuse to use it
because, in some circles it seems to say that Mary is the originator of
Christ's deity, then you are still in agreement with Catholicism,
Orthodoxy,
and Protestantism, because they reject that idea as well. Your real
disagreement is not in a title, but in the way Mary is treated.
Actually, it's in both. Not having encountered many self described
"Orthodox"
Christians, I know nothing of their beliefs, so I can't comment on it.
However, having grown up Protestant, and having known many many Catholics
in my life, I do have good idea of their beliefs.
More of my opinions are further down...
Post by Stephen Korsman
God bless,
Stephen
Stephen,
First, let me thank you for a polite, well thought out response. It's a
refreshing
change of what we usually see.
I am going to refrain from commenting for the time being, but I would like
to ask you a question.
At what point did the idea come forward that Jesus Christ was not God, but
later became God?
In the 2nd century we see the development of Adoptionism, teaching that
Jesus became God at the time of hs baptism.
Theodotus claimed that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit
as a mortal man, and though later adopted by God upon baptism, was not
himself God until after his resurrection.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Samosata [Paul here = Paul of
Paul's teaching is a form of Monarchianism, which emphasized the oneness of
God. Paul taught that Jesus was born a mere man, but that at his baptism he
was infused with the divine Logos or word of God. Hence, Jesus was seen not
as God-become-man but as man-become-God.
Also from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Samosata [quoting Paul of
"Having been anointed by the Holy Spirit he received the title of the
anointed (i.e. Christos), suffering in accordance with his nature, working
wonders in accordance with grace. For in fixity and resoluteness of
character he likened himself to God; and having kept himself free from sin
was united with God, and was empowered to grasp as it were the power and
authority of wonders. By these he was shown to possess over and above the
will, one and the same activity (with God), and won the title of Redeemer
and Saviour of our race."
It was during the 300's AD that Nestorianism came about. Apollinarius was
one of the first to lay the groundwork for that idea. At the Council of
Ephesus in 431 AD Nestorius said, "I can never allow that a child of three
months old was God."
Nestorianism emphasized the human nature of Jesus at the expense of the
divine. The Council denounced Patriarch Nestorius' teaching as erroneous.
Nestorius taught that Mary, the mother of Jesus gave birth to a man, Jesus,
not God, the Logos (The Word, Son of God). The Logos only dwelled in Christ,
as in a Temple (Christ, therefore, was only Theophoros, Greek for the
"Bearer of God".
From
Holy scripture, wherever it recalls the Lord's economy, speaks of the birth
and suffering not of the godhead but of the humanity of Christ, so that the
holy virgin is more accurately termed mother of Christ than mother of God.
Hear these words that the gospels proclaim: "The book of the generation of
Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham." It is clear that God the Word
was not the son of David. Listen to another witness if you will: "Jacob
begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called the
Christ. " Consider a further piece of evidence: "Now the birth of Jesus
Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to
Joseph, she was found to be with child of the holy Spirit." But who would
ever consider that the godhead of the only begotten was a creature of the
Spirit?
Also from
(Hence also Christ calls himself the lord and son of David: " 'What do you
think of the Christ ? Whose son is he ?' They said to him, 'The son of
David.' Jesus answered and said to them, 'How is it then that David inspired
by the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, "The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my
right hand"?'". He said this as being indeed son of David according to the
flesh, but his Lord according to his godhead.) The body therefore is the
temple of the deity of the Son, a temple which is united to it in a high and
divine conjunction, so that the divine nature accepts what belongs to the
body as its own. Such a confession is noble and worthy of the gospel
traditions. But to use the expression "accept as its own" as a way of
diminishing the properties of the conjoined flesh, birth, suffering and
entombment, is a mark of those whose minds are led astray ...
Also from
For it is necessary for such as are attracted by the name "propriety" to
make God the Word share, because of this same propriety, in being fed on
milk, in gradual growth, in terror at the time of his passion and in need of
angelical assistance.
It is debated whether or not Nestorius actually taught Nestorianism, but
whether or not he did, the concept of Nestorianism was rejected.
The outcome was that it was held that Mary gave birth to a person who was
fully man and fully God, so in that sense she could be called the mother of
God, because the person she was mother to was not separated from God the
Son. The next council clarified this more explicitly. In no way did the
originators of this definition believe that Mary was the source of any
aspect of Christ's divinity, and the title was intended to describe the
nature of Christ, not teach any sort of heretical notion of Mary existing
before Abraham like Christ did, or being an originator of divinity.
http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/chalcedon_definition.shtml
Following the holy Fathers we teach with one voice that the Son [of God] and
our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same [Person], that
he is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man, of a
reasonable soul and [human] body consisting, consubstantial with the Father
as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood;
made in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father
before the worlds according to his Godhead; but in these last days for us
men and for our salvation born [into the world] of the Virgin Mary, the
Mother of God according to his manhood. This one and the same Jesus Christ,
the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures,
unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without
the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the
peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one
Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one
and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as
the Prophets of old time have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus
Christ hath taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers hath delivered to us.
What I see is essentially this. You gave examples of 2 men, Paul of
Samosata,
and Nestorius, who came up with beliefs that were heresy. You don't give any
evidence that Paul of Samasota ever taught his theory and you stated that
it's
been "debated whether or not Nestorius actually taught Nestorianism, but
whether or not he did, the concept of Nestorianism was rejected."
So, we have 2 guys with screwy beliefs and the Church leaders of the time
over reacted.
They should have said Hey, this teaching is nonsense and you need to stop.
This
is the way it is and that's final. You can't argue with the obvious. Mary
was found
with child of the Holy Ghost. An angel of the Lord appeared to both Mary and
Joseph and said so, and the prophecies from old have been fulfilled. If you
choose
to reject the obvious, then take a hike. If they rejected his idea, that's
essentially
what they did. But they should have stopped there.

Instead, the Church leaders felt they needed to further explain things and
change
meanings and give a title to Mary she didn't deserve.
If these men held steadfast in their heresy, giving Mary the title of
"Mother of
God" was not going to change their minds.

Look what we have today. The Jehovah's Witnesses that don't believe that
Jesus was God at any point. Should we try and create new explanations to
show them they are wrong? No, we show them all the evidence that is needed
and they still choose to reject it. That's not our problem, it's theirs.

God could have sent Jesus any way He wanted. He chose the method He did.
No further explanation is needed.
You implied above that I can't logically deny the title if I share the
beliefs of most
Protestants on the issue. Most protestants reject the title while still
believing Jesus
was fully God from the point of conception.
And the reasons are simple.
1: God has always been. God wasn't born, so He has no mother.
2: God created everything and everyone. God created Adam and Eve so all
of us living or who have ever lived on this planet are descendants of Adam
and Eve. That includes Mary. So, by giving Mary the title "Mother of God",
you are placing the creature over the Creator, no matter how you try and
sugar coat it.
3: Scripture records Mary's role in the birth of Jesus. The only things
special
that Scripture records about Mary is she was highly favoured and all
generations
will call her blessed. That's it.

What has this title caused?
It has caused the RCC pope(s) to declare, while claiming it was revealed to
them
by the Holy Spirit, that Mary ascended into heaven and of course Mary's
immaculate
conception.
It has also caused people to pray to Mary, have statues of Mary, many of
which bow
to these statues. It has elevated Mary to a level above and beyond what our
Heavenly Father
ever intended.

I am not sure where you are from, but I am in the USA. I read the local
papers
frequently and have seen many many "prayers to Mary" published. They start
out "Hail Mary, Mother of God, Queen of Heaven and Earth." They go on to say
"you know my wish" and wrap up by saying "Say this prayer 10 times, have it
published
and your wish will be granted" (Catholics on this newsgroup say they don't
pray TO Mary,
but rather ask Mary to pray for them. Funny thing is, in these published
prayers
there is never a mention of Jesus, God or please pray for me. It's a direct
prayer.)

First, forget my obvious objection and the point of this discussion aside,
how would
Mary "know their wish or desire"? Only God knows that.
And "say this prayer 10 times?" The Scripture warns about "vain repetitions"
in
prayer and never states you have to repeat the same prayer 10 times.
And the whole publish nonsense, what did they do before newspapers were
readily
available? Did their prayers not get answered?

Do you see what I am getting at?
This human decision to call her Mother of God has lead to a domino effect to
where
Mary is now held in higher esteem than God Himself. Catholics deny this, but
actions speak louder than words.
Post by Stephen Korsman
Now may I ask you a few questions in exchange for the question you asked me?
Certainly.
Post by Stephen Korsman
1. What church do you attend, and what sort of denominational affiliations
does it have?
I currently attend an independant Baptist church. The church is a member
of some Baptist organization in my state, but for the life of me I can't
remember
what it is right now.
Post by Stephen Korsman
2. Do you believe that Jesus was God?
Absolutely.
Post by Stephen Korsman
3. Do you believe that Jesus was God during the period he was in Mary's
uterus, e.g. when John the Baptist leapt in Elizabeth's uterus?
Absolutlely. Jesus was God at the moment of conception (and before)

Remember what Jesus said. "Before Abraham was, I am"
Stephen Korsman
2006-09-17 19:44:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
He took on an earthly body to fulfill his plan, but he still
existed
since
eternity past. He has always been. He has no mother.
Jesus, son of man, does. It's Mary. You do believe in the dual
nature
of
Christ, don't you. You do know that only the antiChrist denies
Jesus'
human nature.
Of course I believe in his dual nature. He was fully God and fully
man.
When God was manifest in the flesh, ie Jesus Christ, he took on that
dual
nature. But He was still God. Again, God has always been. He created
earth, and the people on it.
But he was not fully man until his birth 2000 years ago. His mother
makes
him
son of man and his father makes him Son of God.
No argument there.
I gather you really didn't understand that Jesus selected Mary
specifically to
be his human mother.
I understand that. She gave birth to the human, Jesus Christ which
was
God
manifest in the flesh.
But once again, since God has always existed, he had no mother.
Come on mike, give it up. God became man, fully man, and Mary is his
earthly
mother.
Earthly yes. She played no role in His divine nature.
Mary being his earthly mother does not make her the mother of God.
The logic is that if she was indeed his mother, and he was indeed God,
then
she was the mother of God, because the person she was mother to was God.
"Earthly mother of God" is perhaps a more explanatory title.
Theotokos
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
is
the most explanatory - she who carried God in her womb.
You guys want to blend his humanity with his divine nature for no other
reason than to elevate Mary to the status you do.
Actually, the original reason was to reinforce the divine nature of
Christ.
The idea arose that the person Mary gave birth to was not God, and only
later became God. If Mary was the mother of the human person of the
Christ
(Christotokos), but the divine person only came later, she could not be
Theotokos, but only Christotokos. Orthodox Christianity reinforced the
teaching that there was always only one person - not a human person that
later acquired a God person within him. The title Theotokos or Mother
of
God was simply to show that the person Mary was mother to was God,
not
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
a
non-divine person who later attained / acquired Godhood.
For Mary to be "mother of God" she would have to be a god herself.
In Catholic/Orthodox theology, it means she was mother to a person, and
that
person was God when he was in her womb.
Don't make the mistake of rejecting a teaching considered to be biblical
and
shared by virtually all Christians - Catholic, Orthodox, and
Protestant -
just because the title means something to you that is unacceptable
outside
of its original context. If you agree with the rest of Christianity on
the
divinity of Christ at the point when he was still in Mary's womb, you
can't
logically deny that she was the earthly human mother of a person who was
fully God in her womb. That is the meaning of the title, so you can't
logically deny the title. You can refuse to use it because of other
reasons, but not because it is contrary to your beliefs (if you do share
the
beliefs of most Protestants on that issue). If you refuse to use it
because, in some circles it seems to say that Mary is the originator of
Christ's deity, then you are still in agreement with Catholicism,
Orthodoxy,
and Protestantism, because they reject that idea as well. Your real
disagreement is not in a title, but in the way Mary is treated.
Actually, it's in both.
I don't understand how you can say that the title is wrong if you believe
Jesus was God in Mary's womb. That is what the title means.
Post by Mike Dundee
Not having encountered many self described
"Orthodox"
Christians, I know nothing of their beliefs, so I can't comment on it.
However, having grown up Protestant, and having known many many Catholics
in my life, I do have good idea of their beliefs.
More of my opinions are further down...
Post by Stephen Korsman
God bless,
Stephen
Stephen,
First, let me thank you for a polite, well thought out response. It's a
refreshing
change of what we usually see.
I am going to refrain from commenting for the time being, but I would like
to ask you a question.
At what point did the idea come forward that Jesus Christ was not God, but
later became God?
In the 2nd century we see the development of Adoptionism, teaching that
Jesus became God at the time of hs baptism.
Theodotus claimed that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit
as a mortal man, and though later adopted by God upon baptism, was not
himself God until after his resurrection.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Samosata [Paul here = Paul of
Paul's teaching is a form of Monarchianism, which emphasized the oneness of
God. Paul taught that Jesus was born a mere man, but that at his baptism he
was infused with the divine Logos or word of God. Hence, Jesus was seen not
as God-become-man but as man-become-God.
Also from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Samosata [quoting Paul of
"Having been anointed by the Holy Spirit he received the title of the
anointed (i.e. Christos), suffering in accordance with his nature, working
wonders in accordance with grace. For in fixity and resoluteness of
character he likened himself to God; and having kept himself free from sin
was united with God, and was empowered to grasp as it were the power and
authority of wonders. By these he was shown to possess over and above the
will, one and the same activity (with God), and won the title of Redeemer
and Saviour of our race."
It was during the 300's AD that Nestorianism came about. Apollinarius was
one of the first to lay the groundwork for that idea. At the Council of
Ephesus in 431 AD Nestorius said, "I can never allow that a child of three
months old was God."
Nestorianism emphasized the human nature of Jesus at the expense of the
divine. The Council denounced Patriarch Nestorius' teaching as erroneous.
Nestorius taught that Mary, the mother of Jesus gave birth to a man, Jesus,
not God, the Logos (The Word, Son of God). The Logos only dwelled in Christ,
as in a Temple (Christ, therefore, was only Theophoros, Greek for the
"Bearer of God".
From
Holy scripture, wherever it recalls the Lord's economy, speaks of the birth
and suffering not of the godhead but of the humanity of Christ, so that the
holy virgin is more accurately termed mother of Christ than mother of God.
Hear these words that the gospels proclaim: "The book of the generation of
Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham." It is clear that God the Word
was not the son of David. Listen to another witness if you will: "Jacob
begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called the
Christ. " Consider a further piece of evidence: "Now the birth of Jesus
Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to
Joseph, she was found to be with child of the holy Spirit." But who would
ever consider that the godhead of the only begotten was a creature of the
Spirit?
Also from
(Hence also Christ calls himself the lord and son of David: " 'What do you
think of the Christ ? Whose son is he ?' They said to him, 'The son of
David.' Jesus answered and said to them, 'How is it then that David inspired
by the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, "The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my
right hand"?'". He said this as being indeed son of David according to the
flesh, but his Lord according to his godhead.) The body therefore is the
temple of the deity of the Son, a temple which is united to it in a high and
divine conjunction, so that the divine nature accepts what belongs to the
body as its own. Such a confession is noble and worthy of the gospel
traditions. But to use the expression "accept as its own" as a way of
diminishing the properties of the conjoined flesh, birth, suffering and
entombment, is a mark of those whose minds are led astray ...
Also from
For it is necessary for such as are attracted by the name "propriety" to
make God the Word share, because of this same propriety, in being fed on
milk, in gradual growth, in terror at the time of his passion and in
need
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
of
angelical assistance.
It is debated whether or not Nestorius actually taught Nestorianism, but
whether or not he did, the concept of Nestorianism was rejected.
The outcome was that it was held that Mary gave birth to a person who was
fully man and fully God, so in that sense she could be called the mother of
God, because the person she was mother to was not separated from God the
Son. The next council clarified this more explicitly. In no way did the
originators of this definition believe that Mary was the source of any
aspect of Christ's divinity, and the title was intended to describe the
nature of Christ, not teach any sort of heretical notion of Mary existing
before Abraham like Christ did, or being an originator of divinity.
http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/chalcedon_definition.shtml
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Following the holy Fathers we teach with one voice that the Son [of God] and
our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same [Person], that
he is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man,
of
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
a
reasonable soul and [human] body consisting, consubstantial with the Father
as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood;
made in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father
before the worlds according to his Godhead; but in these last days for us
men and for our salvation born [into the world] of the Virgin Mary, the
Mother of God according to his manhood. This one and the same Jesus Christ,
the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures,
unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without
the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the
peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one
Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one
and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as
the Prophets of old time have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus
Christ hath taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers hath delivered to us.
What I see is essentially this. You gave examples of 2 men, Paul of
Samosata,
and Nestorius, who came up with beliefs that were heresy. You don't give any
evidence that Paul of Samasota ever taught his theory
Apart from history and his own words, that is.
Post by Mike Dundee
and you stated that
it's
been "debated whether or not Nestorius actually taught Nestorianism, but
whether or not he did, the concept of Nestorianism was rejected."
So, we have 2 guys with screwy beliefs and the Church leaders of the time
over reacted.
They should have said Hey, this teaching is nonsense and you need to stop.
Yes, that's what they did. It's a bit hard to describe the nature of Jesus
in Mary's womb and at his birth without bringing Mary into the discussion.
Post by Mike Dundee
This
is the way it is and that's final. You can't argue with the obvious. Mary
was found
with child of the Holy Ghost. An angel of the Lord appeared to both Mary and
Joseph and said so, and the prophecies from old have been fulfilled. If you
choose
to reject the obvious, then take a hike. If they rejected his idea, that's
essentially
what they did. But they should have stopped there.
Instead, the Church leaders felt they needed to further explain things and
change
meanings and give a title to Mary she didn't deserve.
None of us deserve anything. It's called the grace of God. But I still
don't understand why Mary is not the Mother of God if Jesus was God in her
womb. Unless you're Nestorian.
Post by Mike Dundee
If these men held steadfast in their heresy, giving Mary the title of
"Mother of
God" was not going to change their minds.
Look what we have today. The Jehovah's Witnesses that don't believe that
Jesus was God at any point. Should we try and create new explanations to
show them they are wrong? No, we show them all the evidence that is needed
and they still choose to reject it. That's not our problem, it's theirs.
And that is what the council did. It explained the facts - that Mary gave
birth to a person who was God.
Post by Mike Dundee
God could have sent Jesus any way He wanted. He chose the method He did.
No further explanation is needed.
You implied above that I can't logically deny the title if I share the
beliefs of most
Protestants on the issue. Most protestants reject the title while still
believing Jesus
was fully God from the point of conception.
And the reasons are simple.
1: God has always been. God wasn't born, so He has no mother.
In his divinity, yes. "According to his manhood" Jesus Christ, who was God,
had a mother. That's all we believe. I don't understand how you can object
to that, unless you believe that Jesus had no mother, or that Jesus was not
God.
Post by Mike Dundee
2: God created everything and everyone. God created Adam and Eve so all
of us living or who have ever lived on this planet are descendants of Adam
and Eve. That includes Mary. So, by giving Mary the title "Mother of God",
you are placing the creature over the Creator, no matter how you try and
sugar coat it.
3: Scripture records Mary's role in the birth of Jesus. The only things
special
that Scripture records about Mary is she was highly favoured and all
generations
will call her blessed. That's it.
What has this title caused?
[snipped - what it caused does not determine whether or not it was true.]
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Now may I ask you a few questions in exchange for the question you asked me?
Certainly.
Post by Stephen Korsman
1. What church do you attend, and what sort of denominational affiliations
does it have?
I currently attend an independant Baptist church. The church is a member
of some Baptist organization in my state, but for the life of me I can't
remember
what it is right now.
Post by Stephen Korsman
2. Do you believe that Jesus was God?
Absolutely.
Post by Stephen Korsman
3. Do you believe that Jesus was God during the period he was in Mary's
uterus, e.g. when John the Baptist leapt in Elizabeth's uterus?
Absolutlely. Jesus was God at the moment of conception (and before)
Remember what Jesus said. "Before Abraham was, I am"
Then if Jesus was God, was Mary his mother? Or was she not his mother, but
merely the mother of his human nature? I.e. Nestorianism?

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Mike Dundee
2006-09-18 00:01:29 UTC
Permalink
<snip for brevity>
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Your real
disagreement is not in a title, but in the way Mary is treated.
Actually, it's in both.
I don't understand how you can say that the title is wrong if you believe
Jesus was God in Mary's womb. That is what the title means.
That is what the title means to Catholics. The apostles never called her
that,
Jesus never called her "Mother of God".
It's nowhere to be found in Scripture.


<snip for brevity>
Post by Stephen Korsman
http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/chalcedon_definition.shtml
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Following the holy Fathers we teach with one voice that the Son [of
God]
and
our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same [Person], that
he is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man,
of
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
a
reasonable soul and [human] body consisting, consubstantial with the Father
as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood;
made in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of his
Father
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
before the worlds according to his Godhead; but in these last days for
us
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
men and for our salvation born [into the world] of the Virgin Mary, the
Mother of God according to his manhood. This one and the same Jesus Christ,
the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures,
unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without
the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather
the
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one
Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but
one
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus
Christ,
as
the Prophets of old time have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord
Jesus
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Christ hath taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers hath delivered
to
us.
What I see is essentially this. You gave examples of 2 men, Paul of
Samosata,
and Nestorius, who came up with beliefs that were heresy. You don't give
any
Post by Mike Dundee
evidence that Paul of Samasota ever taught his theory
Apart from history and his own words, that is.
Right. From what I gathered from your post, he believed it, but you didn't
mention any evidence that he taught this theory, unless I missed something.
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
and you stated that
it's
been "debated whether or not Nestorius actually taught Nestorianism, but
whether or not he did, the concept of Nestorianism was rejected."
So, we have 2 guys with screwy beliefs and the Church leaders of the time
over reacted.
They should have said Hey, this teaching is nonsense and you need to stop.
Yes, that's what they did. It's a bit hard to describe the nature of Jesus
in Mary's womb and at his birth without bringing Mary into the discussion.
I don't see it that way.
1: It was recorded that an angel appeared to both Mary and Joseph and
explained the child was of the Holy Ghost.
2: What Jesus did before he was crucified, the miracles, the teachings, etc.

If that's not enough to believe, adding a title to a woman isn't going to
convince a person if they are set in their beliefs.
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
This
is the way it is and that's final. You can't argue with the obvious. Mary
was found
with child of the Holy Ghost. An angel of the Lord appeared to both Mary
and
Post by Mike Dundee
Joseph and said so, and the prophecies from old have been fulfilled. If
you
Post by Mike Dundee
choose
to reject the obvious, then take a hike. If they rejected his idea, that's
essentially
what they did. But they should have stopped there.
Instead, the Church leaders felt they needed to further explain things and
change
meanings and give a title to Mary she didn't deserve.
None of us deserve anything. It's called the grace of God. But I still
don't understand why Mary is not the Mother of God if Jesus was God in her
womb. Unless you're Nestorian.
I explained why I feel that way, and you didn't respond.
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
If these men held steadfast in their heresy, giving Mary the title of
"Mother of
God" was not going to change their minds.
Look what we have today. The Jehovah's Witnesses that don't believe that
Jesus was God at any point. Should we try and create new explanations to
show them they are wrong? No, we show them all the evidence that is needed
and they still choose to reject it. That's not our problem, it's theirs.
And that is what the council did. It explained the facts - that Mary gave
birth to a person who was God.
1Tm:3:16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels,
preached
unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

She was the vessel God chose to carry the Christ child. Yes, that person
was God in the flesh, but again, since God always has been and has existed
in eternity past, he can't and doesn't have a mother.
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
God could have sent Jesus any way He wanted. He chose the method He did.
No further explanation is needed.
You implied above that I can't logically deny the title if I share the
beliefs of most
Protestants on the issue. Most protestants reject the title while still
believing Jesus
was fully God from the point of conception.
And the reasons are simple.
1: God has always been. God wasn't born, so He has no mother.
In his divinity, yes. "According to his manhood" Jesus Christ, who was God,
had a mother. That's all we believe. I don't understand how you can object
to that, unless you believe that Jesus had no mother, or that Jesus was not
God.
You take the "according to his manhood" and make her mother of God.
We don't.
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
2: God created everything and everyone. God created Adam and Eve so all
of us living or who have ever lived on this planet are descendants of Adam
and Eve. That includes Mary. So, by giving Mary the title "Mother of God",
you are placing the creature over the Creator, no matter how you try and
sugar coat it.
3: Scripture records Mary's role in the birth of Jesus. The only things
special
that Scripture records about Mary is she was highly favoured and all
generations
will call her blessed. That's it.
What has this title caused?
[snipped - what it caused does not determine whether or not it was true.]
You don't like reading it any more than any other Catholic. You don't want
to admit
that's what it has lead to. Such a long post, of which you left everything
else intact,
but you snip that.
Fascinating.
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Now may I ask you a few questions in exchange for the question you
asked
me?
Certainly.
Post by Stephen Korsman
1. What church do you attend, and what sort of denominational
affiliations
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
does it have?
I currently attend an independant Baptist church. The church is a member
of some Baptist organization in my state, but for the life of me I can't
remember
what it is right now.
Post by Stephen Korsman
2. Do you believe that Jesus was God?
Absolutely.
Post by Stephen Korsman
3. Do you believe that Jesus was God during the period he was in Mary's
uterus, e.g. when John the Baptist leapt in Elizabeth's uterus?
Absolutlely. Jesus was God at the moment of conception (and before)
Remember what Jesus said. "Before Abraham was, I am"
Then if Jesus was God, was Mary his mother? Or was she not his mother, but
merely the mother of his human nature? I.e. Nestorianism?
Answered already. (See # 2 qbove) Not going to repeat it. Explained and you
didn't comment
on it, just asked again. Why? Because the facts are obvious.
Stephen Korsman
2006-09-19 18:38:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Dundee
<snip for brevity>
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Your real
disagreement is not in a title, but in the way Mary is treated.
Actually, it's in both.
I don't understand how you can say that the title is wrong if you believe
Jesus was God in Mary's womb. That is what the title means.
That is what the title means to Catholics.
But it's truth. You yourself admit that he was God in Mary's womb, and she
was his mother.
Post by Mike Dundee
The apostles never called her
that,
Jesus never called her "Mother of God".
It's nowhere to be found in Scripture.
Nor is the word "Trinity." The concept, however, is there in both
instances.
Post by Mike Dundee
<snip for brevity>
http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/chalcedon_definition.shtml
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Following the holy Fathers we teach with one voice that the Son [of
God]
and
our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same
[Person],
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
that
he is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man,
of
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
a
reasonable soul and [human] body consisting, consubstantial with the Father
as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood;
made in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of his
Father
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
before the worlds according to his Godhead; but in these last days for
us
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
men and for our salvation born [into the world] of the Virgin Mary, the
Mother of God according to his manhood. This one and the same Jesus Christ,
the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures,
unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without
the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather
the
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one
Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but
one
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus
Christ,
as
the Prophets of old time have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord
Jesus
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Christ hath taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers hath delivered
to
us.
What I see is essentially this. You gave examples of 2 men, Paul of
Samosata,
and Nestorius, who came up with beliefs that were heresy. You don't give
any
Post by Mike Dundee
evidence that Paul of Samasota ever taught his theory
Apart from history and his own words, that is.
Right. From what I gathered from your post, he believed it, but you didn't
mention any evidence that he taught this theory, unless I missed something.
I thought his statement was clear enough.
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
and you stated that
it's
been "debated whether or not Nestorius actually taught Nestorianism, but
whether or not he did, the concept of Nestorianism was rejected."
So, we have 2 guys with screwy beliefs and the Church leaders of the time
over reacted.
They should have said Hey, this teaching is nonsense and you need to stop.
Yes, that's what they did. It's a bit hard to describe the nature of Jesus
in Mary's womb and at his birth without bringing Mary into the discussion.
I don't see it that way.
1: It was recorded that an angel appeared to both Mary and Joseph and
explained the child was of the Holy Ghost.
2: What Jesus did before he was crucified, the miracles, the teachings, etc.
If that's not enough to believe, adding a title to a woman isn't going to
convince a person if they are set in their beliefs.
Did it technically start off as a title? Or a description? The latter, if
we read closely.
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
This
is the way it is and that's final. You can't argue with the obvious. Mary
was found
with child of the Holy Ghost. An angel of the Lord appeared to both Mary
and
Post by Mike Dundee
Joseph and said so, and the prophecies from old have been fulfilled. If
you
Post by Mike Dundee
choose
to reject the obvious, then take a hike. If they rejected his idea, that's
essentially
what they did. But they should have stopped there.
Instead, the Church leaders felt they needed to further explain things and
change
meanings and give a title to Mary she didn't deserve.
None of us deserve anything. It's called the grace of God. But I still
don't understand why Mary is not the Mother of God if Jesus was God in her
womb. Unless you're Nestorian.
I explained why I feel that way, and you didn't respond.
You explained in terms of things I consider to be an irrational response,
abandoning logic in order to achieve a theology where logical conclusions
don't count. I did address that aspect.
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
If these men held steadfast in their heresy, giving Mary the title of
"Mother of
God" was not going to change their minds.
Look what we have today. The Jehovah's Witnesses that don't believe that
Jesus was God at any point. Should we try and create new explanations to
show them they are wrong? No, we show them all the evidence that is needed
and they still choose to reject it. That's not our problem, it's theirs.
And that is what the council did. It explained the facts - that Mary gave
birth to a person who was God.
God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels,
preached
unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
She was the vessel God chose to carry the Christ child. Yes, that person
was God in the flesh, but again, since God always has been and has existed
in eternity past, he can't and doesn't have a mother.
But even the Bible says Mary was Jesus' mother. So, in his incarnate form,
he must have had a mother. And in his incarnate form, he was God. So God,
in his incarnate form, had a human mother. Nobody thinks he had an eternal
mother ... which is why half your arguments can happily be ignored by
Catholics, because you're trying to convince us of something we already
believe.
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
God could have sent Jesus any way He wanted. He chose the method He did.
No further explanation is needed.
You implied above that I can't logically deny the title if I share the
beliefs of most
Protestants on the issue. Most protestants reject the title while still
believing Jesus
was fully God from the point of conception.
And the reasons are simple.
1: God has always been. God wasn't born, so He has no mother.
In his divinity, yes. "According to his manhood" Jesus Christ, who was God,
had a mother. That's all we believe. I don't understand how you can object
to that, unless you believe that Jesus had no mother, or that Jesus was not
God.
You take the "according to his manhood" and make her mother of God.
We don't.
Why not? That would be splitting him into two persons - one with a mother,
and one without. That's Nestorianism, not Protestantism, Catholicism, or
Orthodoxy.
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
2: God created everything and everyone. God created Adam and Eve so all
of us living or who have ever lived on this planet are descendants of Adam
and Eve. That includes Mary. So, by giving Mary the title "Mother of God",
you are placing the creature over the Creator, no matter how you try and
sugar coat it.
3: Scripture records Mary's role in the birth of Jesus. The only things
special
that Scripture records about Mary is she was highly favoured and all
generations
will call her blessed. That's it.
What has this title caused?
[snipped - what it caused does not determine whether or not it was true.]
You don't like reading it any more than any other Catholic. You don't want
to admit
that's what it has lead to. Such a long post, of which you left everything
else intact,
but you snip that.
Fascinating.
No ... it's just a red herring that is not relevant to the concept behind
the title.
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Now may I ask you a few questions in exchange for the question you
asked
me?
Certainly.
Post by Stephen Korsman
1. What church do you attend, and what sort of denominational
affiliations
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
does it have?
I currently attend an independant Baptist church. The church is a member
of some Baptist organization in my state, but for the life of me I can't
remember
what it is right now.
Post by Stephen Korsman
2. Do you believe that Jesus was God?
Absolutely.
Post by Stephen Korsman
3. Do you believe that Jesus was God during the period he was in Mary's
uterus, e.g. when John the Baptist leapt in Elizabeth's uterus?
Absolutlely. Jesus was God at the moment of conception (and before)
Remember what Jesus said. "Before Abraham was, I am"
Then if Jesus was God, was Mary his mother? Or was she not his mother, but
merely the mother of his human nature? I.e. Nestorianism?
Answered already. (See # 2 qbove) Not going to repeat it. Explained and you
didn't comment
on it, just asked again. Why? Because the facts are obvious.
What is obvious is that God, in his incarnate form, had a mother. What is
obvious is that Jesus and God the Son were the same person. So it must
follow that since he was God, and Mary was his mother, that is what she was
mother to.

God bless,
Stephen
--
--
Stephen Korsman
***@theotokos.co.za
www.theotokos.co.za

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA
Mike Dundee
2006-09-19 19:14:03 UTC
Permalink
Stephen,
I suggest we just agree to disagree. We are doing nothing but going
in circles.
Stephen Korsman
2006-09-17 20:38:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Dundee
You implied above that I can't logically deny the title if I share the
beliefs of most
Protestants on the issue. Most protestants reject the title while still
believing Jesus
was fully God from the point of conception.
Most Protestants reject the title because of the results of the title ...
they don't use it for that reason. They don't reject the logic behind the
concept ... just the way the title is used. What is the reasoning behind
the rejection of the concept?

You've stated that you object to the results of the title. I accept that,
although I don't agree that the results were bad. But just because the
results were bad, doesn't mean that the title is. There must be a different
reason for the title being wrong. Just as the end does not justify the
means, so the end doesn't invalidate it either.

What I fail to understand is your objection to the title itself.

You say that you believe Jesus was God in Mary's uterus. There you and
Catholicism share the same belief.

The Bible is quite clear that Mary was Jesus' mother, and Catholicism
believes that, and it appears that you do as well.

You say that Mary did not pre-exist her conception (not in those words, but
you believe that.) On that issue, you and Catholicism agree.

You say that Mary in no way was a mother to the Godhead, or a god herself.
On that issue, you and Catholicism agree.

Catholicism uses the title "Mother of God" to describe the fact that Jesus
was conceived and born both man and God, and the fact that Mary was Jesus'
mother. If Jesus was God at birth, and Mary was his mother, why is she not
the mother of God, in the sense of being mother to the person who was truly
God, NOT in the sense that she was mother of God the Son as he existed
within the Godhead, which both you and Catholicism regard as heresy?

Do you believe she was the mother to the person, Jesus, who was also truly
God? If not, which part of that do you disagree with, and why do you
disagree with it?

Do you disagree with the title "Theotokos"? Meaning "giver of birth to
God" - again in the sense that the person she gave birth to was truly God,
NOT in the sense that she originated the divinity?

If you disagree, what exactly did she give birth to?

I see no logical reason why, if she was his mother, and he was God, she was
not the mother of God, as far as the humanity of the person Jesus was
concerned. We both agree that she was not the source of his divinity ...
but as a person, he was God, and as a person, he had a mother.

In that sense, do you disagree that Mary's mother was the grandmother of
God? That John the Baptist was the cousin of God? If not, what where they
grandmother and cousin to? A Jesus who was man only? I don't think you'll
say that, because you already said that you believe Jesus was God from
conception. Then what, apart from God incarnate, could they be grandmother
and cousin to? And what, apart from God incarnate, was Mary mother to?

I fail to understand the logic there. I do understand the objection to
Catholic practices that appear to use the title as a form of honour that you
object to. But misuse of something that is true doesn't make it untrue -
the misuse of the Bible to condone slavery, oppression of black people, or
other false teachings doesn't invalidate the Bible. So there must be some
logic behind your view on the subject, if it is to make sense. As far as I
can see, it's based on a reaction to Catholicism, not on logic. When I
discuss this with most Protestants, they agree that it is logical that Mary
is the Mother of God, but continue to object to the resulting honour given
to her. What are they missing, and what am I missing?

If Jesus is God incarnate, and Mary is his mother, then why is she not the
mother of the incarnate God? (Note: we both agree that she is not the
mother of the eternal Godhead, and did not originate Jesus' divinity. The
issue is whether she was mother of God in his incarnate form.)

I'm trying to understand how someone can resist something that appears so
logical to most people. So far you've objected to the consequences, and
things Catholicism doesn't teach - that Mary pre-existed Jesus in the way he
pre-existed Abraham, and that Mary must be a god of sorts if she gave birth
to God. But all we believe is that she was truly the mother of the
incarnate God - not the divinity itself. I haven't yet seen an
understandable reason why that is incorrect.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
***@theotokos.co.za
www.theotokos.co.za

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA
Mike Dundee
2006-09-18 01:36:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
You implied above that I can't logically deny the title if I share the
beliefs of most
Protestants on the issue. Most protestants reject the title while still
believing Jesus
was fully God from the point of conception.
Most Protestants reject the title because of the results of the title ...
they don't use it for that reason. They don't reject the logic behind the
concept ... just the way the title is used. What is the reasoning behind
the rejection of the concept?
I explained this in the other response.
Post by Stephen Korsman
You've stated that you object to the results of the title. I accept that,
although I don't agree that the results were bad. But just because the
results were bad, doesn't mean that the title is.
The title to me is wrong either way. But what the title has lead to is
heresy.
Satan is very tricky and deceptive. Start out small and work it up slowly.
Start out by tricking men into giving mary the title "mother of God". Then
slowly build off of that.
Give one pope the "revelation" of the "immaculate conception" of Mary,
that she was conceived without sin.Give another pope the "revelation"
that Mary ascended into Heaven. Both of these "revelations" make Mary
an equal to God. Catholics deny this of course.
Then comes the title "Queen of Heaven". Ridiculous, but hey, why not,
we're already calling her "mother of God."
Start praying to her. Why not? We're already calling her "mother of
God" and "Queen of heaven."

The closest analogy I can come up with here is the old boiling frog
analogy.
Drop a frog into a pot of water and turn on the stove. The frog will
die but won't know it because he warms with the water.
Drop a frog into a pot of boiling water and he will fight.

What do we have on this planet now? Catholics are essentially
the largest sect in the world. Satan has succesfully duped the largest
sect on the planet.

What does Jesus say about people accepting true salvation?

Mt:22:14: For many are called, but few are chosen.

Read the 17th chapter of Revelation to get a grasp on what's going
happen to the RCC.
Post by Stephen Korsman
There must be a different
reason for the title being wrong. Just as the end does not justify the
means, so the end doesn't invalidate it either.
What I fail to understand is your objection to the title itself.
You say that you believe Jesus was God in Mary's uterus. There you and
Catholicism share the same belief.
The Bible is quite clear that Mary was Jesus' mother, and Catholicism
believes that, and it appears that you do as well.
You say that Mary did not pre-exist her conception (not in those words, but
you believe that.) On that issue, you and Catholicism agree.
You say that Mary in no way was a mother to the Godhead, or a god herself.
On that issue, you and Catholicism agree.
Catholicism uses the title "Mother of God" to describe the fact that Jesus
was conceived and born both man and God, and the fact that Mary was Jesus'
mother. If Jesus was God at birth, and Mary was his mother, why is she not
the mother of God, in the sense of being mother to the person who was truly
God, NOT in the sense that she was mother of God the Son as he existed
within the Godhead, which both you and Catholicism regard as heresy?
I am not alone in this. I have never talked to a Protestant that agreed with
that
title. We see it as belittling God.
I find it unecessary and the reasons for it weak at best.
Post by Stephen Korsman
Do you believe she was the mother to the person, Jesus, who was also truly
God? If not, which part of that do you disagree with, and why do you
disagree with it?
It's not matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It's a matter of respecting the
God
I read about in the Scripture.
Post by Stephen Korsman
Do you disagree with the title "Theotokos"? Meaning "giver of birth to
God" - again in the sense that the person she gave birth to was truly God,
NOT in the sense that she originated the divinity?
See, I can't see how you can say "giver of birth to God" and still claim it
has nothing to do with His divinity.
Post by Stephen Korsman
If you disagree, what exactly did she give birth to?
I think way too much emphasis is put on Mary. As I said, the Bible says
2 important things about Mary. She was highly favoured by God and all
generations will call her blessed. Since the Scripture is inspired by the
Holy
Spirit, and that is the limit of praise given to Mary, that's enough for me.
I don't like extra-Biblical teachings.

I stated above the reason given for coming up with the title was weak at
best, and I also believe far too much attention is given to Mary which takes
away from God.
Post by Stephen Korsman
I see no logical reason why, if she was his mother, and he was God, she was
not the mother of God, as far as the humanity of the person Jesus was
concerned. We both agree that she was not the source of his divinity ...
but as a person, he was God, and as a person, he had a mother.
In that sense, do you disagree that Mary's mother was the grandmother of
God? That John the Baptist was the cousin of God? If not, what where they
grandmother and cousin to? A Jesus who was man only? I don't think you'll
say that, because you already said that you believe Jesus was God from
conception. Then what, apart from God incarnate, could they be grandmother
and cousin to? And what, apart from God incarnate, was Mary mother to?
The humanity of Christ.
Post by Stephen Korsman
I fail to understand the logic there. I do understand the objection to
Catholic practices that appear to use the title as a form of honour that you
object to. But misuse of something that is true doesn't make it untrue -
the misuse of the Bible to condone slavery, oppression of black people, or
other false teachings doesn't invalidate the Bible. So there must be some
logic behind your view on the subject, if it is to make sense. As far as I
can see, it's based on a reaction to Catholicism, not on logic. When I
discuss this with most Protestants, they agree that it is logical that Mary
is the Mother of God, but continue to object to the resulting honour given
to her. What are they missing, and what am I missing?
I have never met a Protestant that agreed with that.
Post by Stephen Korsman
If Jesus is God incarnate, and Mary is his mother, then why is she not the
mother of the incarnate God? (Note: we both agree that she is not the
mother of the eternal Godhead, and did not originate Jesus' divinity. The
issue is whether she was mother of God in his incarnate form.)
All right. I am going to say it again, and am getting annoyed having to
repeat
myself.

God has always existed. He has no mother or father.
God created everything, the earth, the animals and Adam and Eve.
Like all of us, Mary was a decendent of Adam and Eve, which God
created.
In calling her "mother of God", you are placing the creature over the
Creator
no matter what way you try and sugar coat it.
Post by Stephen Korsman
I'm trying to understand how someone can resist something that appears so
logical to most people. So far you've objected to the consequences, and
things Catholicism doesn't teach - that Mary pre-existed Jesus in the way he
pre-existed Abraham, and that Mary must be a god of sorts if she gave birth
to God. But all we believe is that she was truly the mother of the
incarnate God - not the divinity itself. I haven't yet seen an
understandable reason why that is incorrect.
That's because you don't want to. You want to use logic to describe God.

How do you logically explain how God has always existed?

Everything is not black and white, especially not when it comes to God.

You want to use logic to say Jesus was God, Mary gave birth to Jesus,
therefore Mary is the mother of God.

I say (again) that God has always been. He created Mary (by her being
a descendent of Adam and Eve like we all are) She, like us is a creature.
God is the creator. You call her the mother of God, you place the creature
above the Creator. I don't.

How much sense does this the following sentence make?

God created Mary so He could have someone give birth to Himself.

Does that make sense? No. But it can be made by following your logic.
GentleOwlSpirit
2006-09-18 02:00:15 UTC
Permalink
"Mike Dundee" wrote in message >
"Stephen Korsman" wrote in message
"Mike Dundee" wrote in message
Post by Mike Dundee
You implied above that I can't logically deny the title if I share the
beliefs of most
Protestants on the issue. Most protestants reject the title while still
believing Jesus
was fully God from the point of conception.
Most Protestants reject the title because of the results of the title ...
they don't use it for that reason. They don't reject the logic behind the
concept ... just the way the title is used. What is the reasoning behind
the rejection of the concept?
I explained this in the other response.
You've stated that you object to the results of the title. I accept that,
although I don't agree that the results were bad. But just because the
results were bad, doesn't mean that the title is.
The title to me is wrong either way. But what the title has lead to is
heresy.
Satan is very tricky and deceptive. Start out small and work it up slowly.
Start out by tricking men into giving mary the title "mother of God". Then
slowly build off of that.
Give one pope the "revelation" of the "immaculate conception" of Mary,
that she was conceived without sin.Give another pope the "revelation"
that Mary ascended into Heaven. Both of these "revelations" make Mary
an equal to God. Catholics deny this of course.
Then comes the title "Queen of Heaven". Ridiculous, but hey, why not,
we're already calling her "mother of God."
Start praying to her. Why not? We're already calling her "mother of
God" and "Queen of heaven."
The closest analogy I can come up with here is the old boiling frog
analogy.
Drop a frog into a pot of water and turn on the stove. The frog will
die but won't know it because he warms with the water.
Drop a frog into a pot of boiling water and he will fight.
What do we have on this planet now? Catholics are essentially
the largest sect in the world. Satan has succesfully duped the largest
sect on the planet.
What does Jesus say about people accepting true salvation?
Mt:22:14: For many are called, but few are chosen.
Read the 17th chapter of Revelation to get a grasp on what's going
happen to the RCC.
There must be a different
reason for the title being wrong. Just as the end does not justify the
means, so the end doesn't invalidate it either.
What I fail to understand is your objection to the title itself.
You say that you believe Jesus was God in Mary's uterus. There you and
Catholicism share the same belief.
The Bible is quite clear that Mary was Jesus' mother, and Catholicism
believes that, and it appears that you do as well.
You say that Mary did not pre-exist her conception (not in those words, but
you believe that.) On that issue, you and Catholicism agree.
You say that Mary in no way was a mother to the Godhead, or a god herself.
On that issue, you and Catholicism agree.
Catholicism uses the title "Mother of God" to describe the fact that Jesus
was conceived and born both man and God, and the fact that Mary was Jesus'
mother. If Jesus was God at birth, and Mary was his mother, why is she not
the mother of God, in the sense of being mother to the person who was truly
God, NOT in the sense that she was mother of God the Son as he existed
within the Godhead, which both you and Catholicism regard as heresy?
I am not alone in this. I have never talked to a Protestant that agreed
with that
title. We see it as belittling God.
I find it unecessary and the reasons for it weak at best.
Do you believe she was the mother to the person, Jesus, who was also truly
God? If not, which part of that do you disagree with, and why do you
disagree with it?
It's not matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It's a matter of respecting
the God
I read about in the Scripture.
Do you disagree with the title "Theotokos"? Meaning "giver of birth to
God" - again in the sense that the person she gave birth to was truly God,
NOT in the sense that she originated the divinity?
See, I can't see how you can say "giver of birth to God" and still claim it
has nothing to do with His divinity.
If you disagree, what exactly did she give birth to?
I think way too much emphasis is put on Mary. As I said, the Bible says
2 important things about Mary. She was highly favoured by God and all
generations will call her blessed. Since the Scripture is inspired by the
Holy
Spirit, and that is the limit of praise given to Mary, that's enough for me.
I don't like extra-Biblical teachings.
I stated above the reason given for coming up with the title was weak at
best, and I also believe far too much attention is given to Mary which takes
away from God.
I see no logical reason why, if she was his mother, and he was God, she was
not the mother of God, as far as the humanity of the person Jesus was
concerned. We both agree that she was not the source of his divinity ...
but as a person, he was God, and as a person, he had a mother.
In that sense, do you disagree that Mary's mother was the grandmother of
God? That John the Baptist was the cousin of God? If not, what where they
grandmother and cousin to? A Jesus who was man only? I don't think you'll
say that, because you already said that you believe Jesus was God from
conception. Then what, apart from God incarnate, could they be grandmother
and cousin to? And what, apart from God incarnate, was Mary mother to?
The humanity of Christ.
I fail to understand the logic there. I do understand the objection to
Catholic practices that appear to use the title as a form of honour that you
object to. But misuse of something that is true doesn't make it untrue -
the misuse of the Bible to condone slavery, oppression of black people, or
other false teachings doesn't invalidate the Bible. So there must be some
logic behind your view on the subject, if it is to make sense. As far as I
can see, it's based on a reaction to Catholicism, not on logic. When I
discuss this with most Protestants, they agree that it is logical that Mary
is the Mother of God, but continue to object to the resulting honour given
to her. What are they missing, and what am I missing?
I have never met a Protestant that agreed with that.
If Jesus is God incarnate, and Mary is his mother, then why is she not the
mother of the incarnate God? (Note: we both agree that she is not the
mother of the eternal Godhead, and did not originate Jesus' divinity.
The
issue is whether she was mother of God in his incarnate form.)
All right. I am going to say it again, and am getting annoyed having to
repeat
myself.
God has always existed. He has no mother or father.
God created everything, the earth, the animals and Adam and Eve.
Like all of us, Mary was a decendent of Adam and Eve, which God
created.
In calling her "mother of God", you are placing the creature over the
Creator
no matter what way you try and sugar coat it.
I'm trying to understand how someone can resist something that appears so
logical to most people. So far you've objected to the consequences, and
things Catholicism doesn't teach - that Mary pre-existed Jesus in the way he
pre-existed Abraham, and that Mary must be a god of sorts if she gave birth
to God. But all we believe is that she was truly the mother of the
incarnate God - not the divinity itself. I haven't yet seen an
understandable reason why that is incorrect.
That's because you don't want to. You want to use logic to describe God.
How do you logically explain how God has always existed?
Everything is not black and white, especially not when it comes to God.
You want to use logic to say Jesus was God, Mary gave birth to Jesus,
therefore Mary is the mother of God.
I say (again) that God has always been. He created Mary (by her being
a descendent of Adam and Eve like we all are) She, like us is a creature.
God is the creator. You call her the mother of God, you place the creature
above the Creator. I don't.
How much sense does this the following sentence make?
God created Mary so He could have someone give birth to Himself.
Does that make sense? No. But it can be made by following your logic.
I really do dislike interrupting this conversation, but I just have to..LOL.
I am a protestant. I DO NOT believe Mary is divine.
1. She was chosen by God because she, as the one chosen she had to come
through the lineage of King David.
2. She did not give birth to GOD...in the flesh. No one could look upon the
face of GOD and live!!!
3. She is NOT the mother of God. God always was, is and always shall be.
That is man's doctrine and is heretical teaching.
4. She is definately not the queen of heaven...that is not biblical. That
is man's doctrine and is heretical.

Peace, Sioux
duke
2006-09-18 10:43:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by GentleOwlSpirit
I really do dislike interrupting this conversation, but I just have to..LOL.
I am a protestant. I DO NOT believe Mary is divine.
Absolutely. Catholics deny any divinity in Mary.
Post by GentleOwlSpirit
1. She was chosen by God because she, as the one chosen she had to come
through the lineage of King David.
Uh, no. She came thru it, and thus it was subsequently recorded.
Post by GentleOwlSpirit
2. She did not give birth to GOD...in the flesh. No one could look upon the
face of GOD and live!!!
OT man-made words. NO ONE has ever seen the face of God except for he that came
from God.
Post by GentleOwlSpirit
3. She is NOT the mother of God. God always was, is and always shall be.
That is man's doctrine and is heretical teaching.
She is the mother of Jesus, who has a dual nature - being both fully man and
fully divine. Hence she is the mother of God. Luke 1:43.
Post by GentleOwlSpirit
4. She is definately not the queen of heaven...that is not biblical. That
is man's doctrine and is heretical.
Revelation 12. Think of ruling the world with an iron rod.


duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
•R L Measures
2006-09-18 14:34:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by GentleOwlSpirit
I really do dislike interrupting this conversation, but I just have to..LOL.
I am a protestant. I DO NOT believe Mary is divine.
Absolutely. Catholics deny any divinity in Mary.
Post by GentleOwlSpirit
1. She was chosen by God because she, as the one chosen she had to come
through the lineage of King David.
Uh, no. She came thru it, and thus it was subsequently recorded.
Post by GentleOwlSpirit
2. She did not give birth to GOD...in the flesh. No one could look upon the
face of GOD and live!!!
OT man-made words. NO ONE has ever seen the face of God except for he that came
from God.
Post by GentleOwlSpirit
3. She is NOT the mother of God. God always was, is and always shall be.
That is man's doctrine and is heretical teaching.
She is the mother of Jesus, who has a dual nature - being both fully man and
fully divine. Hence she is the mother of God. Luke 1:43.
• Dual ? Would not Jesus-G-d-Holy Spirit be Triple? Are you denying
that the Holy Spirit impregnated the Blessed Virgin Mary ?
Post by duke
...
duke
2006-09-18 18:53:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
She is the mother of Jesus, who has a dual nature - being both fully man and
fully divine. Hence she is the mother of God. Luke 1:43.
• Dual ? Would not Jesus-G-d-Holy Spirit be Triple? Are you denying
that the Holy Spirit impregnated the Blessed Virgin Mary ?
No.


duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
•R L Measures
2006-09-18 20:13:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
She is the mother of Jesus, who has a dual nature - being both fully man and
fully divine. Hence she is the mother of God. Luke 1:43.
• Dual ? Would not Jesus-G-d-Holy Spirit be Triple? Are you denying
that the Holy Spirit impregnated the Blessed Virgin Mary ?
No.
• Then we agree it's three?
duke
2006-09-18 22:19:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
She is the mother of Jesus, who has a dual nature - being both fully
man and
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
fully divine. Hence she is the mother of God. Luke 1:43.
• Dual ? Would not Jesus-G-d-Holy Spirit be Triple? Are you denying
that the Holy Spirit impregnated the Blessed Virgin Mary ?
No.
• Then we agree it's three?
Dual what and triple what?

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
•R L Measures
2006-09-19 03:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
She is the mother of Jesus, who has a dual nature - being both fully
man and
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
fully divine. Hence she is the mother of God. Luke 1:43.
• Dual ? Would not Jesus-G-d-Holy Spirit be Triple? Are you denying
that the Holy Spirit impregnated the Blessed Virgin Mary ?
No.
• Then we agree it's three?
Dual what and triple what?
• Personalities
duke
2006-09-19 19:16:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
She is the mother of Jesus, who has a dual nature - being both fully
man and
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
fully divine. Hence she is the mother of God. Luke 1:43.
• Dual ? Would not Jesus-G-d-Holy Spirit be Triple? Are you denying
that the Holy Spirit impregnated the Blessed Virgin Mary ?
No.
• Then we agree it's three?
Dual what and triple what?
• Personalities
Nope on both counts. Dual nature and 3 persons.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
•R L Measures
2006-09-22 08:41:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
She is the mother of Jesus, who has a dual nature - being both fully
man and
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
fully divine. Hence she is the mother of God. Luke 1:43.
• Dual ? Would not Jesus-G-d-Holy Spirit be Triple? Are you denying
that the Holy Spirit impregnated the Blessed Virgin Mary ?
No.
• Then we agree it's three?
Dual what and triple what?
• Personalities
Nope on both counts. Dual nature and 3 persons.
• Damn. I had no idea that the guy was bi -- not that there's anything
wrong with that.


"If you understand it, it is not God."
- - Saint Augustine (354 - 430), Sermon 117
duke
2006-09-18 10:38:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Dundee
Give one pope the "revelation" of the "immaculate conception" of Mary,
that she was conceived without sin.
Mary's sin was removed by her son at her own conception. Definitely no divinity
there.
Post by Mike Dundee
Give another pope the "revelation"
that Mary ascended into Heaven. Both of these "revelations" make Mary
an equal to God. Catholics deny this of course.
Mary did not ascend on her own. She was raised by God. Definitely no divinity
there.
Post by Mike Dundee
Then comes the title "Queen of Heaven". Ridiculous, but hey, why not,
we're already calling her "mother of God."
Scriptural. LUke 1:43. She is the mother of the Lord.
Post by Mike Dundee
Start praying to her. Why not? We're already calling her "mother of
God" and "Queen of heaven."
You clearly don't understand the definition of prayer.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Mike Dundee
2006-09-18 11:59:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Mike Dundee
Give one pope the "revelation" of the "immaculate conception" of Mary,
that she was conceived without sin.
Mary's sin was removed by her son at her own conception. Definitely no divinity
there.
And no Scripture to back that stupid anti-christ claim that her sin was
removed.
Post by duke
Post by Mike Dundee
Give another pope the "revelation"
that Mary ascended into Heaven. Both of these "revelations" make Mary
an equal to God. Catholics deny this of course.
Mary did not ascend on her own. She was raised by God. Definitely no divinity
there.
And no Scripture to back that stupid anti-christ claim that mary was raised
up.
Post by duke
Post by Mike Dundee
Then comes the title "Queen of Heaven". Ridiculous, but hey, why not,
we're already calling her "mother of God."
Scriptural. LUke 1:43. She is the mother of the Lord.
Post by Mike Dundee
Start praying to her. Why not? We're already calling her "mother of
God" and "Queen of heaven."
You clearly don't understand the definition of prayer.
I do, but you don't understand you have been duped by Satan.
duke
2006-09-18 18:57:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by duke
Mary's sin was removed by her son at her own conception. Definitely no divinity
there.
And no Scripture to back that stupid anti-christ claim that her sin was
removed.
Wow, mad dog. Do you realize that you are now denying scripture that your sin
is removed from your soul? Remember, being forgiven is not sufficient to stand
before almighty God. For scripture says that "nothing unclean will enter
heaven". Rev 21:27. Your sin nature must go. And that happens in Purgatory.

Remember, if it didn't happen to Mary, it won't happen to you.
Post by Mike Dundee
And no Scripture to back that stupid anti-christ claim that mary was raised
up.
You're a protest_ant. You have no idea what NT scripture says.


duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Mike Dundee
2006-09-18 19:17:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by duke
Mary's sin was removed by her son at her own conception. Definitely no divinity
there.
And no Scripture to back that stupid anti-christ claim that her sin was
removed.
Wow, mad dog. Do you realize that you are now denying scripture that your sin
is removed from your soul? Remember, being forgiven is not sufficient to stand
before almighty God. For scripture says that "nothing unclean will enter
heaven". Rev 21:27. Your sin nature must go. And that happens in Purgatory.
No such thing as purgatory.
Post by duke
Remember, if it didn't happen to Mary, it won't happen to you.
Mary died like every other human and Mary's sins were forgiven like every
other
human who asked for it.
Lk:1:47: And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

If Marys sins were removed at her conception she had no need of a Saviour.
Post by duke
Post by Mike Dundee
And no Scripture to back that stupid anti-christ claim that mary was raised
up.
You're a protest_ant. You have no idea what NT scripture says.
I know what it says, and I know what the RCC spins it into. Anti-christ
garbage.
But that's not my problem, it's yours.
duke
2006-09-18 22:21:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by duke
Wow, mad dog. Do you realize that you are now denying scripture that your sin
is removed from your soul? Remember, being forgiven is not sufficient to stand
before almighty God. For scripture says that "nothing unclean will enter
heaven". Rev 21:27. Your sin nature must go. And that happens in Purgatory.
No such thing as purgatory.
You best hope there's a purgatory in your future.
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by duke
Remember, if it didn't happen to Mary, it won't happen to you.
Mary died like every other human and Mary's sins were forgiven like every
other human who asked for it.
Lk:1:47: And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
And Jesus took care of that at her conception. She didn't know it, but he did.

You and I have to wait for purgatory.
Post by Mike Dundee
If Marys sins were removed at her conception she had no need of a Saviour.
Of course she did. It's what the savior does.
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by duke
Post by Mike Dundee
And no Scripture to back that stupid anti-christ claim that mary was
raised up.
You're a protest_ant. You have no idea what NT scripture says.
I know what it says, and I know what the RCC spins it into. Anti-christ
garbage.
But that's not my problem, it's yours.
No, it's **your** problem because your spin says "no" to the words of Christ.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Mike Dundee
2006-09-19 00:52:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by duke
Wow, mad dog. Do you realize that you are now denying scripture that
your
sin
is removed from your soul? Remember, being forgiven is not sufficient
to
stand
before almighty God. For scripture says that "nothing unclean will enter
heaven". Rev 21:27. Your sin nature must go. And that happens in Purgatory.
No such thing as purgatory.
You best hope there's a purgatory in your future.
There is no purgatory. It's another anti-christ doctrine straight from
the pits of hell.
Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay the penalty for my sins.
I accepted the wonderful gift of salvation. That ends it.
Post by duke
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by duke
Remember, if it didn't happen to Mary, it won't happen to you.
Mary died like every other human and Mary's sins were forgiven like every
other human who asked for it.
Lk:1:47: And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
And Jesus took care of that at her conception. She didn't know it, but he did.
You and I have to wait for purgatory.
another anti-christ doctrine straight from the pits of hell.
Post by duke
Post by Mike Dundee
If Marys sins were removed at her conception she had no need of a Saviour.
Of course she did. It's what the savior does.
If she was sin free, she had no need for a Saviour.
Post by duke
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by duke
Post by Mike Dundee
And no Scripture to back that stupid anti-christ claim that mary was
raised up.
You're a protest_ant. You have no idea what NT scripture says.
I know what it says, and I know what the RCC spins it into. Anti-christ
garbage.
But that's not my problem, it's yours.
No, it's **your** problem because your spin says "no" to the words of Christ.
Once again, when backed in a corner that's your cut and paste answer.
It's pathetic.
duke
2006-09-19 19:20:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by duke
Post by Mike Dundee
No such thing as purgatory.
You best hope there's a purgatory in your future.
There is no purgatory. It's another anti-christ doctrine straight from
the pits of hell.
Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay the penalty for my sins.
I accepted the wonderful gift of salvation. That ends it.
Purgatory is for the saved. It's to remove the sin nature from your soul, which
is definitely removed in forgiveness.
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by duke
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by duke
Remember, if it didn't happen to Mary, it won't happen to you.
Mary died like every other human and Mary's sins were forgiven like every
other human who asked for it.
Lk:1:47: And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
And Jesus took care of that at her conception. She didn't know it, but he did.
You and I have to wait for purgatory.
another anti-christ doctrine straight from the pits of hell.
Get ready for it, or be unfortunately enough in your actions towards God to go
to hell instead. It's well defined in the NT.
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by duke
Post by Mike Dundee
If Marys sins were removed at her conception she had no need of a Saviour.
Of course she did. It's what the savior does.
If she was sin free, she had no need for a Saviour.
Wow, what a dumb statement. She is sin free BECAUSE her savior Jesus took them
away. In our case, that happens after physical death. In her case, it happened
at her conception.
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by duke
No, it's **your** problem because your spin says "no" to the words of Christ.
Once again, when backed in a corner that's your cut and paste answer.
It's pathetic.
Yes you are pathetic the way you tell God "no" to his words. Just like A&E did.


duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Mike Dundee
2006-09-19 21:58:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by duke
Post by Mike Dundee
No such thing as purgatory.
You best hope there's a purgatory in your future.
There is no purgatory. It's another anti-christ doctrine straight from
the pits of hell.
Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay the penalty for my sins.
I accepted the wonderful gift of salvation. That ends it.
Purgatory is for the saved. It's to remove the sin nature from your soul, which
is definitely removed in forgiveness.
I would ask for chapter and verse, but I know you won't provide, so
I won't bother.
Post by duke
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by duke
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by duke
Remember, if it didn't happen to Mary, it won't happen to you.
Mary died like every other human and Mary's sins were forgiven like every
other human who asked for it.
Lk:1:47: And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
And Jesus took care of that at her conception. She didn't know it, but
he
did.
You and I have to wait for purgatory.
another anti-christ doctrine straight from the pits of hell.
Get ready for it, or be unfortunately enough in your actions towards God to go
to hell instead. It's well defined in the NT.
My salvation is secured. I know it, God knows it.
Post by duke
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by duke
Post by Mike Dundee
If Marys sins were removed at her conception she had no need of a Saviour.
Of course she did. It's what the savior does.
If she was sin free, she had no need for a Saviour.
Wow, what a dumb statement. She is sin free BECAUSE her savior Jesus took them
away. In our case, that happens after physical death. In her case, it happened
at her conception.
And no scripture to back that ridiculous claim either.
Post by duke
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by duke
No, it's **your** problem because your spin says "no" to the words of Christ.
Once again, when backed in a corner that's your cut and paste answer.
It's pathetic.
Yes you are pathetic the way you tell God "no" to his words. Just like A&E did.
Like I said duke. Claim it all you want. Shout it from the rooftops if you
wish.
It doesn't make it true.
•R L Measures
2006-09-18 14:30:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Mike Dundee
Give one pope the "revelation" of the "immaculate conception" of Mary,
that she was conceived without sin.
Mary's sin was removed by her son at her own conception. Definitely no divinity
there.
Post by Mike Dundee
Give another pope the "revelation"
that Mary ascended into Heaven. Both of these "revelations" make Mary
an equal to God. Catholics deny this of course.
Mary did not ascend on her own. She was raised by God. Definitely no divinity
there.
Post by Mike Dundee
Then comes the title "Queen of Heaven". Ridiculous, but hey, why not,
we're already calling her "mother of God."
Scriptural. LUke 1:43. She is the mother of the Lord.
Post by Mike Dundee
Start praying to her. Why not? We're already calling her "mother of
God" and "Queen of heaven."
You clearly don't understand the definition of prayer.
• "If you understand it, it is not God."
- - Saint Augustine (354 - 430), Sermon 117
duke
2006-09-18 18:58:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
You clearly don't understand the definition of prayer.
• "If you understand it, it is not God."
- - Saint Augustine (354 - 430), Sermon 117
The definition of prayer is definitely not God.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
•R L Measures
2006-09-18 20:15:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
You clearly don't understand the definition of prayer.
• "If you understand it, it is not God."
- - Saint Augustine (354 - 430), Sermon 117
The definition of prayer is definitely not God.
• Does anybody know what he's smoking?
duke
2006-09-18 22:23:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
You clearly don't understand the definition of prayer.
• "If you understand it, it is not God."
- - Saint Augustine (354 - 430), Sermon 117
The definition of prayer is definitely not God.
• Does anybody know what he's smoking?
Who, rl? No, rl, rl doesn't understand what he said.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
•R L Measures
2006-09-19 03:06:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
You clearly don't understand the definition of prayer.
• "If you understand it, it is not God."
- - Saint Augustine (354 - 430), Sermon 117
The definition of prayer is definitely not God.
• Does anybody know what he's smoking?
Who, rl? No, rl, rl doesn't understand what he said.
• what, nor who,
duke
2006-09-19 19:21:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
You clearly don't understand the definition of prayer.
• "If you understand it, it is not God."
- - Saint Augustine (354 - 430), Sermon 117
The definition of prayer is definitely not God.
• Does anybody know what he's smoking?
Who, rl? No, rl, rl doesn't understand what he said.
• what, nor who,
You're a "what"?

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
•R L Measures
2006-09-22 08:47:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
You clearly don't understand the definition of prayer.
• "If you understand it, it is not God."
- - Saint Augustine (354 - 430), Sermon 117
The definition of prayer is definitely not God.
• Does anybody know what he's smoking?
Who, rl? No, rl, rl doesn't understand what he said.
• what, nor who,
You're a "what"?
• toked
duke
2006-09-22 15:45:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
Who, rl? No, rl, rl doesn't understand what he said.
• what, nor who,
You're a "what"?
• toked
Hot sauce.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
•R L Measures
2006-09-22 21:29:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
Who, rl? No, rl, rl doesn't understand what he said.
• what, nor who,
You're a "what"?
• toked
Hot sauce.
• ___
Mike Dundee
2006-09-19 00:22:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by duke
You clearly don't understand the definition of prayer.
. "If you understand it, it is not God."
- - Saint Augustine (354 - 430), Sermon 117
The definition of prayer is definitely not God.
. Does anybody know what he's smoking?
He's been becoming delusional the last several days, saying
things that make no sense whatsoever.
•R L Measures
2006-09-19 03:06:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by duke
Post by duke
You clearly don't understand the definition of prayer.
. "If you understand it, it is not God."
- - Saint Augustine (354 - 430), Sermon 117
The definition of prayer is definitely not God.
. Does anybody know what he's smoking?
He's been becoming delusional the last several days, saying
things that make no sense whatsoever.
agreed
duke
2006-09-19 19:22:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by duke
Post by duke
You clearly don't understand the definition of prayer.
. "If you understand it, it is not God."
- - Saint Augustine (354 - 430), Sermon 117
The definition of prayer is definitely not God.
. Does anybody know what he's smoking?
He's been becoming delusional the last several days, saying
things that make no sense whatsoever.
agreed
It's scriptural.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
•R L Measures
2006-09-22 08:53:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by duke
Post by duke
You clearly don't understand the definition of prayer.
. "If you understand it, it is not God."
- - Saint Augustine (354 - 430), Sermon 117
The definition of prayer is definitely not God.
. Does anybody know what he's smoking?
He's been becoming delusional the last several days, saying
things that make no sense whatsoever.
agreed
It's scriptural.
• So's the Lot daughters humpin' their dad (Genesis) and Moses inspecting
the Midianite girls' vaginas (Numbers 31).
duke
2006-09-22 15:46:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
Post by Mike Dundee
agreed
It's scriptural.
• So's the Lot daughters humpin' their dad (Genesis) and Moses inspecting
the Midianite girls' vaginas (Numbers 31).
Old and worn out.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
•R L Measures
2006-09-22 21:30:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by •R L Measures
Post by duke
Post by Mike Dundee
agreed
It's scriptural.
• So's the Lot daughters humpin' their dad (Genesis) and Moses inspecting
the Midianite girls' vaginas (Numbers 31).
Old and worn out.
• history
duke
2006-09-19 19:21:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Dundee
He's been becoming delusional the last several days, saying
things that make no sense whatsoever.
It comes from God.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Mike Dundee
2006-09-19 21:59:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Mike Dundee
He's been becoming delusional the last several days, saying
things that make no sense whatsoever.
It comes from God.
Blaming your delusional nonsense on God? Ouch.
Stephen Korsman
2006-09-19 18:39:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
You implied above that I can't logically deny the title if I share the
beliefs of most
Protestants on the issue. Most protestants reject the title while still
believing Jesus
was fully God from the point of conception.
Most Protestants reject the title because of the results of the title ...
they don't use it for that reason. They don't reject the logic behind the
concept ... just the way the title is used. What is the reasoning behind
the rejection of the concept?
I explained this in the other response.
Not really. You explained why you rejected the title ... not the concept.
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
You've stated that you object to the results of the title. I accept that,
although I don't agree that the results were bad. But just because the
results were bad, doesn't mean that the title is.
The title to me is wrong either way. But what the title has lead to is
heresy.
Satan is very tricky and deceptive. Start out small and work it up slowly.
Start out by tricking men into giving mary the title "mother of God". Then
slowly build off of that.
Give one pope the "revelation" of the "immaculate conception" of Mary,
that she was conceived without sin.Give another pope the "revelation"
that Mary ascended into Heaven. Both of these "revelations" make Mary
an equal to God. Catholics deny this of course.
Then comes the title "Queen of Heaven". Ridiculous, but hey, why not,
we're already calling her "mother of God."
Start praying to her. Why not? We're already calling her "mother of
God" and "Queen of heaven."
The closest analogy I can come up with here is the old boiling frog
analogy.
Drop a frog into a pot of water and turn on the stove. The frog will
die but won't know it because he warms with the water.
Drop a frog into a pot of boiling water and he will fight.
What do we have on this planet now? Catholics are essentially
the largest sect in the world. Satan has succesfully duped the largest
sect on the planet.
What does Jesus say about people accepting true salvation?
Mt:22:14: For many are called, but few are chosen.
Read the 17th chapter of Revelation to get a grasp on what's going
happen to the RCC.
Post by Stephen Korsman
There must be a different
reason for the title being wrong. Just as the end does not justify the
means, so the end doesn't invalidate it either.
What I fail to understand is your objection to the title itself.
You say that you believe Jesus was God in Mary's uterus. There you and
Catholicism share the same belief.
The Bible is quite clear that Mary was Jesus' mother, and Catholicism
believes that, and it appears that you do as well.
You say that Mary did not pre-exist her conception (not in those words, but
you believe that.) On that issue, you and Catholicism agree.
You say that Mary in no way was a mother to the Godhead, or a god herself.
On that issue, you and Catholicism agree.
Catholicism uses the title "Mother of God" to describe the fact that Jesus
was conceived and born both man and God, and the fact that Mary was Jesus'
mother. If Jesus was God at birth, and Mary was his mother, why is she not
the mother of God, in the sense of being mother to the person who was truly
God, NOT in the sense that she was mother of God the Son as he existed
within the Godhead, which both you and Catholicism regard as heresy?
I am not alone in this. I have never talked to a Protestant that agreed with
that
title. We see it as belittling God.
I find it unecessary and the reasons for it weak at best.
Post by Stephen Korsman
Do you believe she was the mother to the person, Jesus, who was also truly
God? If not, which part of that do you disagree with, and why do you
disagree with it?
It's not matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It's a matter of respecting the
God
I read about in the Scripture.
In short, it seems as if you admit the logic, but just don't like it. At
least that is how it appears. In other words, you object to the use of the
title, not the concept itself, because your Christology is orthodox, and
other things prevent you from completing the final step.
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Do you disagree with the title "Theotokos"? Meaning "giver of birth to
God" - again in the sense that the person she gave birth to was truly God,
NOT in the sense that she originated the divinity?
See, I can't see how you can say "giver of birth to God" and still claim it
has nothing to do with His divinity.
The mere fact that God became man and was birthed explains that.
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
If you disagree, what exactly did she give birth to?
I think way too much emphasis is put on Mary. As I said, the Bible says
2 important things about Mary. She was highly favoured by God and all
generations will call her blessed. Since the Scripture is inspired by the
Holy
Spirit, and that is the limit of praise given to Mary, that's enough for me.
I don't like extra-Biblical teachings.
I stated above the reason given for coming up with the title was weak at
best, and I also believe far too much attention is given to Mary which takes
away from God.
Post by Stephen Korsman
I see no logical reason why, if she was his mother, and he was God, she was
not the mother of God, as far as the humanity of the person Jesus was
concerned. We both agree that she was not the source of his divinity ...
but as a person, he was God, and as a person, he had a mother.
In that sense, do you disagree that Mary's mother was the grandmother of
God? That John the Baptist was the cousin of God? If not, what where they
grandmother and cousin to? A Jesus who was man only? I don't think you'll
say that, because you already said that you believe Jesus was God from
conception. Then what, apart from God incarnate, could they be grandmother
and cousin to? And what, apart from God incarnate, was Mary mother to?
The humanity of Christ.
But you do believe she was his mother, and not merely his humanity's mother.
Just like your mother is your mother, not merely your human nature's mother.

Catholics and Protestants both believe that Christ's humanity came from
Mary.

Catholics and Protestants both believe that Christ's divinity did not come
from Mary.

But Catholics and Protestants also both believe that Mary was the mother of
*Christ* ... the person, not just his nature.
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
I fail to understand the logic there. I do understand the objection to
Catholic practices that appear to use the title as a form of honour that you
object to. But misuse of something that is true doesn't make it untrue -
the misuse of the Bible to condone slavery, oppression of black people, or
other false teachings doesn't invalidate the Bible. So there must be some
logic behind your view on the subject, if it is to make sense. As far
as
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
I
can see, it's based on a reaction to Catholicism, not on logic. When I
discuss this with most Protestants, they agree that it is logical that Mary
is the Mother of God, but continue to object to the resulting honour given
to her. What are they missing, and what am I missing?
I have never met a Protestant that agreed with that.
Post by Stephen Korsman
If Jesus is God incarnate, and Mary is his mother, then why is she not the
mother of the incarnate God? (Note: we both agree that she is not the
mother of the eternal Godhead, and did not originate Jesus' divinity.
The
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
issue is whether she was mother of God in his incarnate form.)
All right. I am going to say it again, and am getting annoyed having to
repeat
myself.
God has always existed. He has no mother or father.
God created everything, the earth, the animals and Adam and Eve.
Like all of us, Mary was a decendent of Adam and Eve, which God
created.
In calling her "mother of God", you are placing the creature over the
Creator
no matter what way you try and sugar coat it.
Post by Stephen Korsman
I'm trying to understand how someone can resist something that appears so
logical to most people. So far you've objected to the consequences, and
things Catholicism doesn't teach - that Mary pre-existed Jesus in the
way
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
he
pre-existed Abraham, and that Mary must be a god of sorts if she gave birth
to God. But all we believe is that she was truly the mother of the
incarnate God - not the divinity itself. I haven't yet seen an
understandable reason why that is incorrect.
That's because you don't want to. You want to use logic to describe God.
How do you logically explain how God has always existed?
"God has always existed" is only one statement. If we added another, such
as "the Holy Spirit is God" then we have a second, from which we can draw
the conclusion, "The Holy Spirit has always existed." It is exactly that
sort of logic that you're throwing out the window, confusing it with a
limited understanding of what is greater than us, something entirely
different. By your argument, we could abandon logic and have God always
existing, the Holy Spirit being God, and the Holy Spirit being created, and
there would be no problem there, because logic doesn't count.
Post by Mike Dundee
Everything is not black and white, especially not when it comes to God.
But, as you said, Mary is not God.
Post by Mike Dundee
You want to use logic to say Jesus was God, Mary gave birth to Jesus,
therefore Mary is the mother of God.
That, you seem to admit, is logical. The only escape is to reject logic ...
and then there is no rational basis for any theology. By rejecting logic,
one could claim that Jesus was a vegetarian and ate fish. There is no
contradiction there, because we have abandoned logic. In the same way we've
ignored the contradiction in the concept that although Jesus is God
incarnate, his mother is not the mother of God incarnate. Abandoning reason
and logic in order to interpret the Bible one specific way is, by
definition, an irrational response, and in this case, an irrational response
to Catholicism.
Post by Mike Dundee
I say (again) that God has always been.
So do we.
Post by Mike Dundee
He created Mary (by her being
a descendent of Adam and Eve like we all are) She, like us is a creature.
God is the creator. You call her the mother of God, you place the creature
above the Creator. I don't.
How much sense does this the following sentence make?
God created Mary so He could have someone give birth to Himself.
Does that make sense? No. But it can be made by following your logic.
God created Mary so that he could be become incarnate. Yes, it's logical,
and biblical.

I respect the fact that you don't want to use the title, and still reject
it. But I think it's clear from your response that your objection is based
on an irrational to something that seems too Catholic to you, rather than
any serious biblical or theological objection to it.

God bless,
Stephen
--
--
Stephen Korsman
***@theotokos.co.za
www.theotokos.co.za

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA
Mike Dundee
2006-09-19 19:25:09 UTC
Permalink
<snip>

Another situation where I think we need to agree to disagree.

In short we have this...

Catholic view: Jesus is God, Mary gave birth to Jesus, so Mary
is the mother of God.

Protestant view: God has always existed so therefore He has no
mother.
And since God created Mary in the sense that her ancestry goes back
to Adam and Eve just like the rest of us, you are saying God created
Mary to give birth to Himself.

We'll never agree Stephen.
Stephen Korsman
2006-09-20 06:12:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Dundee
<snip>
Another situation where I think we need to agree to disagree.
In short we have this...
Catholic view: Jesus is God, Mary gave birth to Jesus, so Mary
is the mother of God.
That is the one that makes sense.
Post by Mike Dundee
Protestant view: God has always existed so therefore He has no
mother.
Catholics believe that completely. You seem to think we don't.
Post by Mike Dundee
And since God created Mary in the sense that her ancestry goes back
to Adam and Eve just like the rest of us, you are saying God created
Mary to give birth to Himself.
In his incarnate form - you believe that Mary gave birth to the incarnated
God as well.
Post by Mike Dundee
We'll never agree Stephen.
It would be nice to know why. Thus far I see only rejection of rational
theology in order to avoid agreement with something too Catholic to
tolerate.

God bless,
Stephen
--
--
Stephen Korsman
***@theotokos.co.za
www.theotokos.co.za

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA
Mike Dundee
2006-09-20 11:32:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
<snip>
Another situation where I think we need to agree to disagree.
In short we have this...
Catholic view: Jesus is God, Mary gave birth to Jesus, so Mary
is the mother of God.
That is the one that makes sense.
Post by Mike Dundee
Protestant view: God has always existed so therefore He has no
mother.
Catholics believe that completely. You seem to think we don't.
Post by Mike Dundee
And since God created Mary in the sense that her ancestry goes back
to Adam and Eve just like the rest of us, you are saying God created
Mary to give birth to Himself.
In his incarnate form - you believe that Mary gave birth to the incarnated
God as well.
Post by Mike Dundee
We'll never agree Stephen.
It would be nice to know why. Thus far I see only rejection of rational
theology in order to avoid agreement with something too Catholic to
tolerate.
No, too anti-biblical to tolerate.
Mike Dundee
2006-09-20 12:28:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
<snip>
Another situation where I think we need to agree to disagree.
In short we have this...
Catholic view: Jesus is God, Mary gave birth to Jesus, so Mary
is the mother of God.
That is the one that makes sense.
Post by Mike Dundee
Protestant view: God has always existed so therefore He has no
mother.
Catholics believe that completely. You seem to think we don't.
In some cases one has to look at the evidence, not the claim.
I see and hear how much catholics revere Mary. From debating in
this newsgroup alone, it's obvious catholics pray to Mary more than
they do to God.
You have statues for her, you pray to her, you call her "Queen of
Heaven." "mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven" are two very
strong indicators that you think of her as something much more than
what you verbally claim.

You guys confess your sins to a priest and pray to a woman who has
departed. You talk more about your church leaders and and Mary than
you do about God.
What are we supposed to think?
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
And since God created Mary in the sense that her ancestry goes back
to Adam and Eve just like the rest of us, you are saying God created
Mary to give birth to Himself.
In his incarnate form - you believe that Mary gave birth to the incarnated
God as well.
Post by Mike Dundee
We'll never agree Stephen.
It would be nice to know why. Thus far I see only rejection of rational
theology in order to avoid agreement with something too Catholic to
tolerate.
See above, I'm tired of repeating it.
Stephen Korsman
2006-09-20 15:20:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
<snip>
Another situation where I think we need to agree to disagree.
In short we have this...
Catholic view: Jesus is God, Mary gave birth to Jesus, so Mary
is the mother of God.
That is the one that makes sense.
Post by Mike Dundee
Protestant view: God has always existed so therefore He has no
mother.
Catholics believe that completely. You seem to think we don't.
In some cases one has to look at the evidence, not the claim.
On the other hand, sometimes one has to try to understand the beliefs of
others, instead of reading into them what you think they mean.
Post by Mike Dundee
I see and hear how much catholics revere Mary. From debating in
this newsgroup alone, it's obvious catholics pray to Mary more than
they do to God.
No, it's not. In forums like this, differences tend to be discussed more.
That's why Mary gets discussed more.
Post by Mike Dundee
You have statues for her, you pray to her, you call her "Queen of
Heaven." "mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven" are two very
strong indicators that you think of her as something much more than
what you verbally claim.
Only if you misunderstand what is meant.
Post by Mike Dundee
You guys confess your sins to a priest and pray to a woman who has
departed. You talk more about your church leaders and and Mary than
you do about God.
What are we supposed to think?
The reasonable man will ask why, not assume he knows why.
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
And since God created Mary in the sense that her ancestry goes back
to Adam and Eve just like the rest of us, you are saying God created
Mary to give birth to Himself.
In his incarnate form - you believe that Mary gave birth to the incarnated
God as well.
Post by Mike Dundee
We'll never agree Stephen.
It would be nice to know why. Thus far I see only rejection of rational
theology in order to avoid agreement with something too Catholic to
tolerate.
See above, I'm tired of repeating it.
So far, little of relevance has been said, other than to confirm the
obvious - that the objections are irrational reactions to Catholicism.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Mike Dundee
2006-09-20 19:50:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
<snip>
Another situation where I think we need to agree to disagree.
In short we have this...
Catholic view: Jesus is God, Mary gave birth to Jesus, so Mary
is the mother of God.
That is the one that makes sense.
Post by Mike Dundee
Protestant view: God has always existed so therefore He has no
mother.
Catholics believe that completely. You seem to think we don't.
In some cases one has to look at the evidence, not the claim.
On the other hand, sometimes one has to try to understand the beliefs of
others, instead of reading into them what you think they mean.
I have heard the explanations and 9 times out of 10, the excuses are a bad
joke.
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
I see and hear how much catholics revere Mary. From debating in
this newsgroup alone, it's obvious catholics pray to Mary more than
they do to God.
No, it's not. In forums like this, differences tend to be discussed more.
That's why Mary gets discussed more.
Post by Mike Dundee
You have statues for her, you pray to her, you call her "Queen of
Heaven." "mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven" are two very
strong indicators that you think of her as something much more than
what you verbally claim.
Only if you misunderstand what is meant.
Well let's see. You call God, "God". You call Jesus, "Jesus." You call the
Holy Spirit the "Holy Spirit"
Yet you call Mary "mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven".
That nonsense speaks for itself since Scripture
states all generations will call her blessed, nothing more.
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
You guys confess your sins to a priest and pray to a woman who has
departed. You talk more about your church leaders and and Mary than
you do about God.
What are we supposed to think?
The reasonable man will ask why, not assume he knows why.
I have asked and found the answers are more often than not, "tradition" and
the rest of the time Scripture that is interpreted incorrectly.
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
And since God created Mary in the sense that her ancestry goes back
to Adam and Eve just like the rest of us, you are saying God created
Mary to give birth to Himself.
In his incarnate form - you believe that Mary gave birth to the
incarnated
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
God as well.
Post by Mike Dundee
We'll never agree Stephen.
It would be nice to know why. Thus far I see only rejection of rational
theology in order to avoid agreement with something too Catholic to
tolerate.
See above, I'm tired of repeating it.
So far, little of relevance has been said, other than to confirm the
obvious - that the objections are irrational reactions to Catholicism.
Not irrational at all. Completely justified.
Stephen Korsman
2006-09-20 20:47:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
<snip>
Another situation where I think we need to agree to disagree.
In short we have this...
Catholic view: Jesus is God, Mary gave birth to Jesus, so Mary
is the mother of God.
That is the one that makes sense.
Post by Mike Dundee
Protestant view: God has always existed so therefore He has no
mother.
Catholics believe that completely. You seem to think we don't.
In some cases one has to look at the evidence, not the claim.
On the other hand, sometimes one has to try to understand the beliefs of
others, instead of reading into them what you think they mean.
I have heard the explanations and 9 times out of 10, the excuses are a bad
joke.
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
I see and hear how much catholics revere Mary. From debating in
this newsgroup alone, it's obvious catholics pray to Mary more than
they do to God.
No, it's not. In forums like this, differences tend to be discussed more.
That's why Mary gets discussed more.
Post by Mike Dundee
You have statues for her, you pray to her, you call her "Queen of
Heaven." "mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven" are two very
strong indicators that you think of her as something much more than
what you verbally claim.
Only if you misunderstand what is meant.
Well let's see. You call God, "God". You call Jesus, "Jesus." You call the
Holy Spirit the "Holy Spirit"
Yet you call Mary "mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven".
That nonsense speaks for itself since Scripture
states all generations will call her blessed, nothing more.
That's a good example of what I meant.
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
You guys confess your sins to a priest and pray to a woman who has
departed. You talk more about your church leaders and and Mary than
you do about God.
What are we supposed to think?
The reasonable man will ask why, not assume he knows why.
I have asked and found the answers are more often than not, "tradition" and
the rest of the time Scripture that is interpreted incorrectly.
I find it unlikely, considering that you keep showing us that you don't
understand what Catholic teaching really is. And who says one
interpretation is better than another - yours better than Catholicism's?
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
And since God created Mary in the sense that her ancestry goes back
to Adam and Eve just like the rest of us, you are saying God created
Mary to give birth to Himself.
In his incarnate form - you believe that Mary gave birth to the
incarnated
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
God as well.
Post by Mike Dundee
We'll never agree Stephen.
It would be nice to know why. Thus far I see only rejection of rational
theology in order to avoid agreement with something too Catholic to
tolerate.
See above, I'm tired of repeating it.
So far, little of relevance has been said, other than to confirm the
obvious - that the objections are irrational reactions to Catholicism.
Not irrational at all. Completely justified.
Yet you need to slam the use of logic in order to achieve such justification
for your objection. That sort of defines it as irrational - rejecting
rational argument in order to make your point stick.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Mike Dundee
2006-09-20 22:10:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
<snip>
Another situation where I think we need to agree to disagree.
In short we have this...
Catholic view: Jesus is God, Mary gave birth to Jesus, so Mary
is the mother of God.
That is the one that makes sense.
Post by Mike Dundee
Protestant view: God has always existed so therefore He has no
mother.
Catholics believe that completely. You seem to think we don't.
In some cases one has to look at the evidence, not the claim.
On the other hand, sometimes one has to try to understand the beliefs of
others, instead of reading into them what you think they mean.
I have heard the explanations and 9 times out of 10, the excuses are a bad
joke.
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
I see and hear how much catholics revere Mary. From debating in
this newsgroup alone, it's obvious catholics pray to Mary more than
they do to God.
No, it's not. In forums like this, differences tend to be discussed
more.
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
That's why Mary gets discussed more.
Post by Mike Dundee
You have statues for her, you pray to her, you call her "Queen of
Heaven." "mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven" are two very
strong indicators that you think of her as something much more than
what you verbally claim.
Only if you misunderstand what is meant.
Well let's see. You call God, "God". You call Jesus, "Jesus." You call the
Holy Spirit the "Holy Spirit"
Yet you call Mary "mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven".
That nonsense speaks for itself since Scripture
states all generations will call her blessed, nothing more.
That's a good example of what I meant.
You didn't answer it. Explain it. I mean, you are suggesting we are the
dummies
here who don't really understand what is meant.
But as I said before. The explanations have been coming regularly and
more often than not, they make no sense or are completely against
Scripture.
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
You guys confess your sins to a priest and pray to a woman who has
departed. You talk more about your church leaders and and Mary than
you do about God.
What are we supposed to think?
The reasonable man will ask why, not assume he knows why.
I have asked and found the answers are more often than not, "tradition"
and
Post by Mike Dundee
the rest of the time Scripture that is interpreted incorrectly.
I find it unlikely, considering that you keep showing us that you don't
understand what Catholic teaching really is. And who says one
interpretation is better than another - yours better than Catholicism's?
I take the Bible for what it is. I don't twist it around to make it say
something
it doesn't.
FOR EXAMPLE: One of your catholic friends claims that when Mary told
Jesus they were out of wine at the wedding feast, that she was "interceding
for the guests" and that proves she intercedes for us and therefore the
reason to pray to her.
Another of your Catholic friends has suggested that Mary "has
more pull" with Jesus, therefore making praying to her a good idea.
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
And since God created Mary in the sense that her ancestry goes back
to Adam and Eve just like the rest of us, you are saying God created
Mary to give birth to Himself.
In his incarnate form - you believe that Mary gave birth to the
incarnated
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
God as well.
Post by Mike Dundee
We'll never agree Stephen.
It would be nice to know why. Thus far I see only rejection of rational
theology in order to avoid agreement with something too Catholic to
tolerate.
See above, I'm tired of repeating it.
So far, little of relevance has been said, other than to confirm the
obvious - that the objections are irrational reactions to Catholicism.
Not irrational at all. Completely justified.
Yet you need to slam the use of logic in order to achieve such
justification
for your objection. That sort of defines it as irrational - rejecting
rational argument in order to make your point stick.
I have yet to see a rational argument made by a catholic.
Stephen Korsman
2006-09-21 18:11:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
<snip>
Another situation where I think we need to agree to disagree.
In short we have this...
Catholic view: Jesus is God, Mary gave birth to Jesus, so Mary
is the mother of God.
That is the one that makes sense.
Post by Mike Dundee
Protestant view: God has always existed so therefore He has no
mother.
Catholics believe that completely. You seem to think we don't.
In some cases one has to look at the evidence, not the claim.
On the other hand, sometimes one has to try to understand the beliefs of
others, instead of reading into them what you think they mean.
I have heard the explanations and 9 times out of 10, the excuses are a bad
joke.
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
I see and hear how much catholics revere Mary. From debating in
this newsgroup alone, it's obvious catholics pray to Mary more than
they do to God.
No, it's not. In forums like this, differences tend to be discussed
more.
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
That's why Mary gets discussed more.
Post by Mike Dundee
You have statues for her, you pray to her, you call her "Queen of
Heaven." "mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven" are two very
strong indicators that you think of her as something much more than
what you verbally claim.
Only if you misunderstand what is meant.
Well let's see. You call God, "God". You call Jesus, "Jesus." You call the
Holy Spirit the "Holy Spirit"
Yet you call Mary "mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven".
That nonsense speaks for itself since Scripture
states all generations will call her blessed, nothing more.
That's a good example of what I meant.
You didn't answer it. Explain it. I mean, you are suggesting we are the
dummies
here who don't really understand what is meant.
No ... it is fairly clear that you're too biased against Catholicism to
consider what she has to say.
Post by Mike Dundee
But as I said before. The explanations have been coming regularly and
more often than not, they make no sense or are completely against
Scripture.
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
You guys confess your sins to a priest and pray to a woman who has
departed. You talk more about your church leaders and and Mary than
you do about God.
What are we supposed to think?
The reasonable man will ask why, not assume he knows why.
I have asked and found the answers are more often than not, "tradition"
and
Post by Mike Dundee
the rest of the time Scripture that is interpreted incorrectly.
I find it unlikely, considering that you keep showing us that you don't
understand what Catholic teaching really is. And who says one
interpretation is better than another - yours better than Catholicism's?
I take the Bible for what it is. I don't twist it around to make it say
something
it doesn't.
FOR EXAMPLE: One of your catholic friends claims that when Mary told
Jesus they were out of wine at the wedding feast, that she was
"interceding
Post by Mike Dundee
for the guests" and that proves she intercedes for us and therefore the
reason to pray to her.
Another of your Catholic friends has suggested that Mary "has
more pull" with Jesus, therefore making praying to her a good idea.
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
And since God created Mary in the sense that her ancestry goes back
to Adam and Eve just like the rest of us, you are saying God created
Mary to give birth to Himself.
In his incarnate form - you believe that Mary gave birth to the
incarnated
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
God as well.
Post by Mike Dundee
We'll never agree Stephen.
It would be nice to know why. Thus far I see only rejection of rational
theology in order to avoid agreement with something too Catholic to
tolerate.
See above, I'm tired of repeating it.
So far, little of relevance has been said, other than to confirm the
obvious - that the objections are irrational reactions to
Catholicism.
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
Not irrational at all. Completely justified.
Yet you need to slam the use of logic in order to achieve such justification
for your objection. That sort of defines it as irrational - rejecting
rational argument in order to make your point stick.
I have yet to see a rational argument made by a catholic.
Yet you need to reject logic in order to avoid making one yourself. And you
admit that the Catholic position is logical, but not biblical - "But it can
be made by following your logic."

If you could explain why our reasoning is not logical, or biblical, or even
tell us who the person was whom Mary was mother to (was that person God?),
it would be a nice step to further this discussion. All you've done is
disagree with things Catholicism also disagrees with, and objected to the
way the title is used ... not given any logical reason to reject the title
itself.

Was Mary mother to a person who was God? You already state that Jesus was
God. Mary was his mother. That makes her the mother of .... ? If all you
can say is that God is eternal, and had no mother, then you don't understand
the premises of the logic.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Stephen Korsman
2006-09-20 20:47:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
<snip>
Another situation where I think we need to agree to disagree.
In short we have this...
Catholic view: Jesus is God, Mary gave birth to Jesus, so Mary
is the mother of God.
That is the one that makes sense.
Post by Mike Dundee
Protestant view: God has always existed so therefore He has no
mother.
Catholics believe that completely. You seem to think we don't.
In some cases one has to look at the evidence, not the claim.
On the other hand, sometimes one has to try to understand the beliefs of
others, instead of reading into them what you think they mean.
I have heard the explanations and 9 times out of 10, the excuses are a bad
joke.
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
I see and hear how much catholics revere Mary. From debating in
this newsgroup alone, it's obvious catholics pray to Mary more than
they do to God.
No, it's not. In forums like this, differences tend to be discussed more.
That's why Mary gets discussed more.
Post by Mike Dundee
You have statues for her, you pray to her, you call her "Queen of
Heaven." "mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven" are two very
strong indicators that you think of her as something much more than
what you verbally claim.
Only if you misunderstand what is meant.
Well let's see. You call God, "God". You call Jesus, "Jesus." You call the
Holy Spirit the "Holy Spirit"
Yet you call Mary "mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven".
That nonsense speaks for itself since Scripture
states all generations will call her blessed, nothing more.
That's a good example of what I meant.
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
You guys confess your sins to a priest and pray to a woman who has
departed. You talk more about your church leaders and and Mary than
you do about God.
What are we supposed to think?
The reasonable man will ask why, not assume he knows why.
I have asked and found the answers are more often than not, "tradition" and
the rest of the time Scripture that is interpreted incorrectly.
I find it unlikely, considering that you keep showing us that you don't
understand what Catholic teaching really is. And who says one
interpretation is better than another - yours better than Catholicism's?
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Mike Dundee
And since God created Mary in the sense that her ancestry goes back
to Adam and Eve just like the rest of us, you are saying God created
Mary to give birth to Himself.
In his incarnate form - you believe that Mary gave birth to the
incarnated
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
God as well.
Post by Mike Dundee
We'll never agree Stephen.
It would be nice to know why. Thus far I see only rejection of rational
theology in order to avoid agreement with something too Catholic to
tolerate.
See above, I'm tired of repeating it.
So far, little of relevance has been said, other than to confirm the
obvious - that the objections are irrational reactions to Catholicism.
Not irrational at all. Completely justified.
Yet you need to slam the use of logic in order to achieve such justification
for your objection. That sort of defines it as irrational - rejecting
rational argument in order to make your point stick.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
Al Smith
2006-09-21 05:23:16 UTC
Permalink
So what about stamped images? Are they forbidden too?
Andrew
2006-09-22 05:23:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Smith
So what about stamped images? Are they forbidden too?
God prohibits the veneration of images in worship. The second
commandment that prohibited the use of images in worshipping
God in the OT remains in force throughout all time. God would
not have us to venerate other ~gods~ beside Him in our worship.

This is clearly specified in His commandment. Those who will-
fully transgress His law will incur guilt and must answer to Him
on the final day.



Andrew
Al Smith
2006-09-23 03:19:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Smith
So what about stamped images? Are they forbidden too?
God prohibits the veneration of images in worship. The second commandment that prohibited the use of images in worshipping God in the OT remains in force throughout all time. God would not have us to venerate other ~gods~ beside Him in our worship.
This is clearly specified in His commandment. Those who will-
fully transgress His law will incur guilt and must answer to Him
on the final day.
Andrew
But does the original text specifically refer to "graven" images?
Not all images are engraved or carved. Some are painted. Some are
stamped, such as those on coins. Some are modeled in clay.


Duteronomy 5:7 reads:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0505.htm#1

[quote]
7 Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, even any manner of
likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the
earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
[end quote]

I wonder if this means not to make a graven image in any manner of
likeness to angels, beasts or fish? Or does it mean, not to make a
graven image, or any other kind of image, of any angel, beast or fish?

And what about fabulous creatures that do not resemble any living
thing, such as Dagon, who is part man and part fish? Dagon is not
in the likness of anything on the earth, but maybe God considered
Dagon to reside in heaven?
•R L Measures
2006-09-23 10:28:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Smith
Post by Andrew
Post by Al Smith
So what about stamped images? Are they forbidden too?
God prohibits the veneration of images in worship. The second
commandment that prohibited the use of images in worshipping God in the OT
remains in force throughout all time. God would not have us to venerate
other ~gods~ beside Him in our worship.
Post by Al Smith
Post by Andrew
This is clearly specified in His commandment. Those who will-
fully transgress His law will incur guilt and must answer to Him
on the final day.
Andrew
But does the original text specifically refer to "graven" images?
Not all images are engraved or carved. Some are painted. Some are
stamped, such as those on coins. Some are modeled in clay.
...
• Damn good point, Al. Every statue of the Blessed perpetual Virgin Mary
statue that I've seen in the last decade has been made of molded A. B. S.
(acrylonitrile butadiene styrene) plastic, so there's nothing graven about
'em.
Andrew
2006-09-23 13:36:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Smith
Post by Andrew
Post by Al Smith
So what about stamped images? Are they forbidden too?
God prohibits the veneration of images in worship. The second
commandment that prohibited the use of images in worshipping
God in the OT remains in force throughout all time. God would
not have us to venerate other ~gods~ beside Him in our worship.
This is clearly specified in His commandment. Those who will-
fully transgress His law will incur guilt and must answer to Him
on the final day.
Andrew
But does the original text specifically refer to "graven" images?
Not all images are engraved or carved. Some are painted. Some are
stamped, such as those on coins. Some are modeled in clay.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0505.htm#1
[quote]
7 Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, even any manner of
likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the
earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
[end quote]
I wonder if this means not to make a graven image in any manner of
likeness to angels, beasts or fish? Or does it mean, not to make a
graven image, or any other kind of image, of any angel, beast or fish?
And what about fabulous creatures that do not resemble any living
thing, such as Dagon, who is part man and part fish? Dagon is not
in the likness of anything on the earth, but maybe God considered
Dagon to reside in heaven?
Dagon was the pagan fish god of the Philistines. A false god in satanic
opposition to the worship of the only true God who made heaven and
earth (Judges 16:23, I Chron 10:10, I Sam 5).

"The fish-head mitre worn by the ranking clergy of the Catholic Church
is derived directly from the mitres of the ancient pagan fish-god Dagon,
and the goddess Cybele. The papal mitre represents the head of Dagon
with an open mouth, which is the reason for the pointed shape and split
top." http://www.biblelight.net/dagon.htm


http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/YAHWEHFrank/SomethingFishy.html




Andrew
N***@no.spam
2006-09-23 15:12:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Dagon was the pagan fish god of the Philistines. A false god in satanic
opposition to the worship of the only true God who made heaven and
earth (Judges 16:23, I Chron 10:10, I Sam 5).
"The fish-head mitre worn by the ranking clergy of the Catholic Church
is derived directly from the mitres of the ancient pagan fish-god Dagon,
and the goddess Cybele. The papal mitre represents the head of Dagon
with an open mouth, which is the reason for the pointed shape and split
top." http://www.biblelight.net/dagon.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/YAHWEHFrank/SomethingFishy.html
Andrew
How true.

http://www.crystalinks.com/cybeledagon.html

http://www.aryan-nations.org/holyorder/DAGON.htm

http://www.godsonlygospel.com/Pagan%20Connection2.htm
Stephen Korsman
2006-09-23 08:27:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Al Smith
So what about stamped images? Are they forbidden too?
God prohibits the veneration of images in worship.
He prohibits the worship of other gods. Not the use of images.
Post by Andrew
The second
commandment that prohibited the use of images in worshipping
God in the OT remains in force throughout all time. God would
not have us to venerate other ~gods~ beside Him in our worship.
This is clearly specified in His commandment. Those who will-
fully transgress His law will incur guilt and must answer to Him
on the final day.
Remember the commandment that says "Do not bear false witness."

http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/148/Andrew
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za
•R L Measures
2006-09-23 11:05:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Andrew
Post by Al Smith
So what about stamped images? Are they forbidden too?
God prohibits the veneration of images in worship.
He prohibits the worship of other gods. Not the use of images.
• Why would He prohibit the worship of bullshit?
Mike Dundee
2006-09-23 11:20:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Andrew
Post by Al Smith
So what about stamped images? Are they forbidden too?
God prohibits the veneration of images in worship.
He prohibits the worship of other gods. Not the use of images.
What part of THOU SHALT NOT MAKE UNTO THEE **ANY** GRAVEN IMAGE and
any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above do you not understand?
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Andrew
The second
commandment that prohibited the use of images in worshipping
God in the OT remains in force throughout all time. God would
not have us to venerate other ~gods~ beside Him in our worship.
This is clearly specified in His commandment. Those who will-
fully transgress His law will incur guilt and must answer to Him
on the final day.
Remember the commandment that says "Do not bear false witness."
He's being accurate.
Stephen Korsman
2006-09-23 22:21:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Andrew
Post by Al Smith
So what about stamped images? Are they forbidden too?
God prohibits the veneration of images in worship.
He prohibits the worship of other gods. Not the use of images.
What part of THOU SHALT NOT MAKE UNTO THEE **ANY** GRAVEN IMAGE and
any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above do you not understand?
Probably the same part that enabled the Israelites to make graven images
with God's permission. The issue is not the presence of a statue, it's the
worship of it. Only legalists claim otherwise.
Post by Mike Dundee
Post by Stephen Korsman
Post by Andrew
The second
commandment that prohibited the use of images in worshipping
God in the OT remains in force throughout all time. God would
not have us to venerate other ~gods~ beside Him in our worship.
This is clearly specified in His commandment. Those who will-
fully transgress His law will incur guilt and must answer to Him
on the final day.
Remember the commandment that says "Do not bear false witness."
He's being accurate.
Nope.

God bless,
Stephen
--
--
Stephen Korsman
***@theotokos.co.za
www.theotokos.co.za

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA
•R L Measures
2006-09-23 10:11:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Al Smith
So what about stamped images? Are they forbidden too?
God prohibits the veneration of images in worship. The second
commandment that prohibited the use of images in worshipping
God in the OT remains in force throughout all time. God would
not have us to venerate other ~gods~ beside Him in our worship.
• Then this "God" person really must have created man in his own image
because it is widely known that we humans have a definite propensity
toward jealousy.
Post by Andrew
This is clearly specified in His commandment. Those who will-
fully transgress His law will incur guilt and must answer to Him
on the final day.
• Like go Straight to Hell to be tortured forever ?
cheers, Andrew
Andrew
2006-09-23 13:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Al Smith
So what about stamped images? Are they forbidden too?
God prohibits the veneration of images in worship. The second
commandment that prohibited the use of images in worshipping
God in the OT remains in force throughout all time. God would
not have us to venerate other ~gods~ beside Him in our worship.
. Then this "God" person really must have created man in his own image
because it is widely known that we humans have a definite propensity
toward jealousy.
Post by Andrew
This is clearly specified in His commandment. Those who will-
fully transgress His law will incur guilt and must answer to Him
on the final day.
. Like go Straight to Hell to be tortured forever ?
True, that the punishment of those who are lost will be eternal, but it
will be eternal death - not life in Dante's hell or a Catholic purgatory.

"And these [the lost] shall go away into everlasting punishment [not
punishing]: but the righteous into life eternal." Matthew 25:46

"For the wages of sin is death [not tortured forever]; but the gift of
God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23
cheers, Andrew
Cheers, God does not torture forever.


Andrew
Loading...