BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And you didn't answer MY question, which was first. You "answered" the question with a question. Isn't that indicating you're the one who's choosing to not understand?

Regardless, your question doesn't need an answer, because your question is completely irrelevant. Whether the person being worshiped is real or not, it doesn't have any impact on the answer whatsoever. Real or not, the answer is the exact same. Now insert whichever entity you want, real or unreal, into my original question and let's hear an answer. If you keep avoiding this by playing games, you're not being respectful, thus you're not going to get a respectful reply.

---

I'll explain it again ... Catholic know that Mary is NOT God or part of the Trinity.

The worshippers of Baal believed that Baal was a god.

There is nothing inherently wrong in have festivals, songs, etc. in honor of someone or event. History is full of them. In our culture alone, we have Presidents Day, Memorial Day, and Labor Day. We honor people with festivals and songs like Elvis, MLK, St. Patrick, Oktoberfest (started to celebrate a royal wedding), Harriet Tubman, and on, and on, and ON. No one believes that those people are God.

Just like no Catholics believe that Mary is God.

Pride or Satan has hardened your heart so much that you don't understand want to understand.

Maybe one of the other protestant posters on here can explain the difference to you so that you can better understand the difference.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Does Jesus need that evidence to know someone's faith? He didn't seem to, when he saved the thief on the cross and the sinful woman in Luke 7.

---

....

As far as Jesus wanting evidence, the parable of the talents demands it. Why? His reasons are his own. Perhaps it is only to solidifiy our testimony. Perhaps it is because idle hands to the devils work. Perhaps it is for reasons none of us know this side of heaven.

---

But how much evidence? How can you know you've got enough evidence to be saved? Why didn't God tell us something that important? If we don't know, then we can't know if we are saved or not... so then why did God tell us we can know we are saved?

(for the hundredth time)

---

DOCTOR: Everything looks good. Just remember to eat your vegetables and drink plenty of water to stay healthy.

BTD: Wait, what? How much water?

DOCTOR: Eight glasses a day is a good idea.

BTD: It's almost 5:00 in the afternoon! I can't drink that much before bedtime.

DOCTOR: Just drink a glass with dinner and one before bed.

BTD: But you said eight glasses a day.

DOCTOR: You can drink eight glasses tomorrow.

BTD: That makes no sense! How am I going to stay healthy?

DOCTOR: Relax. You're perfectly healthy.

BTD: But how do I KNOW I'm healthy? What if I drink four glasses and die in a car wreck tomorrow?

DOCTOR: It's not necessarily a literal eight glasses.

BTD: Ugh! All this medical double-talk! Let me ask you this. How many glasses of water do I need to drink in total?

DOCTOR: In total?

BTD: In my lifetime. Just give me a number.

DOCTOR: There's no specific number.

BTD: There you ago again! Is it zero?

DOCTOR: No.

BTD: Is it infinity?

DOCTOR: No. Listen...

BTD: Then it must be a certain number. That's what you doctors say.

DOCTOR: That's really not what we're saying.

BTD: But it MUST be what you're saying! It's basic logic! Why can't anyone give me an honest answer?

DOCTOR: I have a colleague you could talk to about this if you want. He's very good, completely confidential of course, and has a great record of helping patients with anxiety.

BTD: No thanks! Look, I don't know why you "experts" always complicate things. You said I'm perfectly healthy, right?

DOCTOR: Right.

BTD: Great! I never cared much for water anyway. Chicken fried steak and a Big-O, here I come!

DOCTOR: Just remember you're allergic to vegetable oil.

BTD: (puts fingers in ears) La-la-la!

DOCTOR: You could die.

BTD: I'm healthy, baby! Don't stop believing!

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Does Jesus need that evidence to know someone's faith? He didn't seem to, when he saved the thief on the cross and the sinful woman in Luke 7.

---

....

As far as Jesus wanting evidence, the parable of the talents demands it. Why? His reasons are his own. Perhaps it is only to solidifiy our testimony. Perhaps it is because idle hands to the devils work. Perhaps it is for reasons none of us know this side of heaven.

---

But how much evidence? How can you know you've got enough evidence to be saved? Why didn't God tell us something that important? If we don't know, then we can't know if we are saved or not... so then why did God tell us we can know we are saved?

(for the hundredth time)

---

DOCTOR: Everything looks good. Just remember to eat your vegetables and drink plenty of water every day to stay healthy.

BTD: Wait, what? How much water?

DOCTOR: Eight glasses a day is a good idea.

BTD: It's almost 5:00 in the afternoon! I can't drink that much before bedtime.

DOCTOR: Just drink a glass with dinner and one before bed.

BTD: But you said eight glasses a day.

DOCTOR: You can drink eight glasses tomorrow.

BTD: That makes no sense! How am I going to stay healthy?

DOCTOR: Relax. You're perfectly healthy.

BTD: But how do I KNOW I'm healthy? What if I drink four glasses and die in a car wreck tomorrow?

DOCTOR: It's not necessarily a literal eight glasses.

BTD: Ugh! All this medical double-talk! Let me ask you this. How many glasses of water do I need to drink in total?

DOCTOR: In total?

BTD: In my lifetime. Just give me a number.

DOCTOR: There's no specific number.

BTD: There you ago again! Is it zero?

DOCTOR: No.

BTD: Is it infinity?

DOCTOR: No. Listen...

BTD: Then it must be a certain number. That's what you doctors say.

DOCTOR: That's really not what we're saying.

BTD: But it MUST be what you're saying! It's basic logic! Why can't anyone give me an honest answer?

DOCTOR: I have a colleague you could talk to about this if you want. He's very good, completely confidential of course, and has a great record of helping patients with anxiety.

BTD: No thanks! Look, I don't know why you "experts" always complicate things. You said I'm perfectly healthy, right?

DOCTOR: Right.

BTD: Great! I never cared much for water anyway. Chicken fried steak and a Big-O, here I come!

DOCTOR: Just remember you're allergic to vegetable oil.

BTD: (puts fingers in ears) La-la-la!

DOCTOR: You could die.

BTD: I'm healthy, baby! Don't stop believing!

---

Brilliant. The Gospel of Journey 3:16.

How much doubt in the judgements of Christ someone must have to demand his inheritance today like the prodigal son blows the mind.

None of us knows what tomorrow holds.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And you didn't answer MY question, which was first. You "answered" the question with a question. Isn't that indicating you're the one who's choosing to not understand?

Regardless, your question doesn't need an answer, because your question is completely irrelevant. Whether the person being worshiped is real or not, it doesn't have any impact on the answer whatsoever. Real or not, the answer is the exact same. Now insert whichever entity you want, real or unreal, into my original question and let's hear an answer. If you keep avoiding this by playing games, you're not being respectful, thus you're not going to get a respectful reply.

---

I'll explain it again ... Catholic know that Mary is NOT God or part of the Trinity.

The worshippers of Baal believed that Baal was a god.

There is nothing inherently wrong in have festivals, songs, etc. in honor of someone or event. History is full of them. In our culture alone, we have Presidents Day, Memorial Day, and Labor Day. We honor people with festivals and songs like Elvis, MLK, St. Patrick, Oktoberfest (started to celebrate a royal wedding), Harriet Tubman, and on, and on, and ON. No one believes that those people are God.

Just like no Catholics believe that Mary is God.

Pride or Satan has hardened your heart so much that you don't understand want to understand.

Maybe one of the other protestant posters on here can explain the difference to you so that you can better understand the difference.

---

The Israelite worshipers of Baal and other deities did not believe that they were THE God either, they believed they were simply other deities. Just like how Roman Catholicism has elevated Mary to deity, but not as THE God of the Bible. Isn't that obvious from all the quotes I've provided over and over again? Are you truly this blind and bewitched? I even showed you where she is called "god of this world".

Regardless, it's not even relevant. You're still not answering the question. Again - insert ANY entity you want into my original question, whether real or unreal, whether you believe it is GOD or not - it just doesn't matter - and then answer it. Let me rephrase the question:

If you do all these things to <INSERT ANY ENTITY YOU WANT HERE>:

• you pray to it, BOW TO and kiss it's image in church;
• you keep images and statues of it all over your home;
• you sing hymns IN CHURCH to it;
• celebrate multiple festivals throughout the year for it;
• you recite prayers over and over where you say it's name 10 times more than you say God's;
• you give it titles like "Advocate", "Co-Mediator", "THE ALL HOLY ONE";
• you have prayers which call it "peacemaker between sinners and God", "ruler of my house" and say that you "place our salvation in it's hands" and that you "give all your heart and soul" to it;
• you have psalms for it, where you take the original Psalms from the Old Testament and replace God with your entity, so that the praise being given to God in the Psalms is being given to your entity;
• you say that salvation is ONLY THROUGH IT.

... then are you saying that all this is okay with God, that it's not worship.... as long as you don't view your entity as GOD, part of the Trinity, or as Savior?? I say again - if I did all that for Baal, or Molech, or Mammon, Isis, Aphrodite, Buddha, Donald Trump, a tree, my dog, etc then as long as I'm not saying they are God, then it's not worship so it's okay??

Sorry - Satan is on your side on this one. The other protestants for some reason are too cowardly to say anything, but they won't agree with you because they know this is pure idolatry (if they truly are Christians with the Holy Spirit, that is). Your willfull blindness to this is one of the most astounding things I've ever beheld. It really speaks to the power of Satanic deception.

Realitybites said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Does Jesus need that evidence to know someone's faith? He didn't seem to, when he saved the thief on the cross and the sinful woman in Luke 7.

---

....

As far as Jesus wanting evidence, the parable of the talents demands it. Why? His reasons are his own. Perhaps it is only to solidifiy our testimony. Perhaps it is because idle hands to the devils work. Perhaps it is for reasons none of us know this side of heaven.

---

But how much evidence? How can you know you've got enough evidence to be saved? Why didn't God tell us something that important? If we don't know, then we can't know if we are saved or not... so then why did God tell us we can know we are saved?

(for the hundredth time)

---

DOCTOR: Everything looks good. Just remember to eat your vegetables and drink plenty of water every day to stay healthy.

BTD: Wait, what? How much water?

DOCTOR: Eight glasses a day is a good idea.

BTD: It's almost 5:00 in the afternoon! I can't drink that much before bedtime.

DOCTOR: Just drink a glass with dinner and one before bed.

BTD: But you said eight glasses a day.

DOCTOR: You can drink eight glasses tomorrow.

BTD: That makes no sense! How am I going to stay healthy?

DOCTOR: Relax. You're perfectly healthy.

BTD: But how do I KNOW I'm healthy? What if I drink four glasses and die in a car wreck tomorrow?

DOCTOR: It's not necessarily a literal eight glasses.

BTD: Ugh! All this medical double-talk! Let me ask you this. How many glasses of water do I need to drink in total?

DOCTOR: In total?

BTD: In my lifetime. Just give me a number.

DOCTOR: There's no specific number.

BTD: There you ago again! Is it zero?

DOCTOR: No.

BTD: Is it infinity?

DOCTOR: No. Listen...

BTD: Then it must be a certain number. That's what you doctors say.

DOCTOR: That's really not what we're saying.

BTD: But it MUST be what you're saying! It's basic logic! Why can't anyone give me an honest answer?

DOCTOR: I have a colleague you could talk to about this if you want. He's very good, completely confidential of course, and has a great record of helping patients with anxiety.

BTD: No thanks! Look, I don't know why you "experts" always complicate things. You said I'm perfectly healthy, right?

DOCTOR: Right.

BTD: Great! I never cared much for water anyway. Chicken fried steak and a Big-O, here I come!

DOCTOR: Just remember you're allergic to vegetable oil.

BTD: (puts fingers in ears) La-la-la!

DOCTOR: You could die.

BTD: I'm healthy, baby! Don't stop believing!

---

Brilliant. The Gospel of Journey 3:16.

How much doubt in the judgements of Christ someone must have to demand his inheritance today like the prodigal son blows the mind.

None of us knows what tomorrow holds.

---

You're stil not answering any of my questions. You're merely resorting to yukking it up at a ridiculous caricature that absolutely bears no resemblance to what's being said, in order to avoid answering them.

If you can't answer my questions, if they stump your belief system so easily, then don't you have things to think about??

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Does Jesus need that evidence to know someone's faith? He didn't seem to, when he saved the thief on the cross and the sinful woman in Luke 7.

---

....

As far as Jesus wanting evidence, the parable of the talents demands it. Why? His reasons are his own. Perhaps it is only to solidifiy our testimony. Perhaps it is because idle hands to the devils work. Perhaps it is for reasons none of us know this side of heaven.

---

But how much evidence? How can you know you've got enough evidence to be saved? Why didn't God tell us something that important? If we don't know, then we can't know if we are saved or not... so then why did God tell us we can know we are saved?

(for the hundredth time)

---

DOCTOR: Everything looks good. Just remember to eat your vegetables and drink plenty of water to stay healthy.

BTD: Wait, what? How much water?

DOCTOR: Eight glasses a day is a good idea.

BTD: It's almost 5:00 in the afternoon! I can't drink that much before bedtime.

DOCTOR: Just drink a glass with dinner and one before bed.

BTD: But you said eight glasses a day.

DOCTOR: You can drink eight glasses tomorrow.

BTD: That makes no sense! How am I going to stay healthy?

DOCTOR: Relax. You're perfectly healthy.

BTD: But how do I KNOW I'm healthy? What if I drink four glasses and die in a car wreck tomorrow?

DOCTOR: It's not necessarily a literal eight glasses.

BTD: Ugh! All this medical double-talk! Let me ask you this. How many glasses of water do I need to drink in total?

DOCTOR: In total?

BTD: In my lifetime. Just give me a number.

DOCTOR: There's no specific number.

BTD: There you ago again! Is it zero?

DOCTOR: No.

BTD: Is it infinity?

DOCTOR: No. Listen...

BTD: Then it must be a certain number. That's what you doctors say.

DOCTOR: That's really not what we're saying.

BTD: But it MUST be what you're saying! It's basic logic! Why can't anyone give me an honest answer?

DOCTOR: I have a colleague you could talk to about this if you want. He's very good, completely confidential of course, and has a great record of helping patients with anxiety.

BTD: No thanks! Look, I don't know why you "experts" always complicate things. You said I'm perfectly healthy, right?

DOCTOR: Right.

BTD: Great! I never cared much for water anyway. Chicken fried steak and a Big-O, here I come!

DOCTOR: Just remember you're allergic to vegetable oil.

BTD: (puts fingers in ears) La-la-la!

DOCTOR: You could die.

BTD: I'm healthy, baby! Don't stop believing!

---

There IS a minimum amount of water a person needs to drink to avoid renal failure and death. Thus, in your analogy, our "works" (i.e. amount of water we drink) is absolutely necessary for our salvation (health).

If this is the case, then how can the doctor tell us then, that we can KNOW we will be healthy, if he doesn't tell us what that minimum amount is that we need to drink? We might not drink enough, and then die, which would mean the doctor lied or at least misled us. And it would be sheer malpractice.

Quote:

---

There IS a minimum amount of water a person needs to drink to avoid renal failure and death. Thus, in your analogy, our "works" (i.e. amount of water we drink) is absolutely necessary for our salvation (health).

---

That amount changes from person to person, from child to adult.

You know, Luke 12:48 and all.

All your questions have been answered multiple times by multiple people. We have used scripture, logic, and the writings of the church fathers. If you want to continue to adhere to and preach a baptismless, fruitless, incantational instasave faith that is your choice.

- Original Sin
- Once Saved Always Saved
- Rejecting Infant Baptism
- All kids go to heaven till an arbitrary age of accountabilty.

Logically, it is impossible to hold all four of these positions at once for obvious reasons.

Think about it.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

There IS a minimum amount of water a person needs to drink to avoid renal failure and death. Thus, in your analogy, our "works" (i.e. amount of water we drink) is absolutely necessary for our salvation (health).

---

That amount changes from person to person, from child to adult.

You know, Luke 12:48 and all.

All your questions have been answered multiple times by multiple people. We have used scripture, logic, and the writings of the church fathers. If you want to continue to adhere to and preach a baptismless, fruitless, incantational instasave faith that is your choice.

---

What difference does it make that the amount changes? Whatever it is, if you don't know what that amount is, then you can't know whether you're drinking enough. But the doctor said you CAN know. You guys keep avoiding the main point.

No, you have NOT answered the question. Now you're trying to gaslight in addition to the usual straw man ad hominems. I've been asking you this question for the last few pages at least, and there isn't one sngle answer. If you think you answered it, then go ahead an point to where. I'll be waiting....

Please take the time to read this first pose if you haven't yet

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If Paul is saying in Galatians 5:19-21 that anyone who commits sins of the flesh is not saved, then salvation is impossible. Virtually every Christian who has ever lived has commited a sin of the flesh after they became a Christian. Paul would even be excluding himself from the kingdom, because he admits to struggling with sins of the flesh in Romans chapter 7. Obviously, your understanding of these verses isn't correct.

---

The Galatians were already Christians (saved). Some of them failed to live up to the teachings that Paul gave them. The whole Letter is a call to return to the True Gospel. This IS Repentance. Paul stated that their actions would not allow them to enter the Kingdom of God.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Yes, in "my system" (which is what Scripture teaches), one can know if one is saved - if you know you're putting all your trust in Jesus for your salvation (not on your own works/performance) then you can know you are saved. You can know this, because you CAN know your own heart if you are honest with yourself and pray for guidance. It isn't an unsolvable mystery.

---

Your system doesn't make sense ...

What about a mid-life crisis husband and father, who is a devoted Christian (goes every week, teaches Sunday school class, and volunteers with the elderly) goes on a business trip and in a moment of weakness, is seduced by a co-worker from another state. They end up sleeping together twice during the trip. She ghosts him and he goes back home and never hears from her again. He never says anything to his wife or family and continues with his normal life. He committed adultery, but he's a believer. Is he still saved even though Paul stated that adulterers will not enter the kingdom of heaven?

What about the emotionally neglected and abused wife (yet devout Christian, goes to church every week, plays piano in the church choir, and helps with Meals on Wheels weekly) who finds comfort in the neighbor next door for a for a month until he moves to another town. She feels bad but goes back to her normal life. She's committed adultery, but she's a believer. Is she still saved even though Paul stated that adulteresses will not enter the kingdom of heaven?

Finally, even Paul states that he is getting judged:

1 Cor 4:4 -

I am not conscious of anything against me, but I do not thereby stand acquitted; the one who judges me is the Lord.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Jesus, the Son of God, was born to a very specific mother...." - and do you also see the problem with this? No, Jesus the Son of God existed eternally with the Father and was not ever BORN to a created being. Rather, Jesus the MAN was born in the flesh to a created being. Saying Mary is the "Mother of God" blurs this distinction, and opens the way to the rank idolatry of her that we're seeing now. The more appropriate title would be "Mother of the man Jesus, who was God become flesh".

---

For the love of everything holy, please repent of this! You are literally commenting the Nestorian Heresy that was rejected at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD.

The lengths that you will go to deny anything Marian drives you into heresy of Christianity.

Nestorius, like you, believed in a division of Christ into two persons.

The Council declared that Jesus is ONE person with TWO natures - fully divine and fully human. This doctrine is called the Hypostatic Union.

Women give birth to persons, not natures. Mary gave birth to Jesus, a divine person who is God. Therefor, she is the Mother of God.

No one is claiming that she is the progenitor of God.

Please repent and open your heart.

I see some very strong emotions being displayed here.

It's just my opinion, but just maybe we should each pay more attention to making sure we are personally right with God, than let anger lead us into constant accusation and division.

Even if the other person is completely wrong, this is not the way to convince someone to reconsider his beliefs.

[Realitybites]"However, the concept of "works" in this context should be understood as the outward manifestation of an inward faith, rather than works as the means of salvation."
Absolutely correct. Salvation is by grace, through faith, evidenced by works."

Sounds good to me.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Jesus, the Son of God, was born to a very specific mother...." - and do you also see the problem with this? No, Jesus the Son of God existed eternally with the Father and was not ever BORN to a created being. Rather, Jesus the MAN was born in the flesh to a created being. Saying Mary is the "Mother of God" blurs this distinction, and opens the way to the rank idolatry of her that we're seeing now. The more appropriate title would be "Mother of the man Jesus, who was God become flesh".

---

For the love of everything holy, please repent of this! You are literally commenting the Nestorian Heresy that was rejected at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD.

The lengths that you will go to deny anything Marian drives you into heresy of Christianity.

Nestorius, like you, believed in a division of Christ into two persons.

The Council declared that Jesus is ONE person with TWO natures - fully divine and fully human. This doctrine is called the Hypostatic Union.

Women give birth to persons, not natures. Mary gave birth to Jesus, a divine person who is God. Therefor, she is the Mother of God.

No one is claiming that she is the progenitor of God.

Please repent and open your heart.

---

There is absolutely nothing for me to repent from here. No one is saying anything about Jesus having two persons. Everything I have said on this is true and/or straight from Scripture. Show me just ONE sentence of what I've said about this that is false - JUST ONE. Go ahead. I'll be waiting.....

And I'm STILL waiting for you to answer my question about worship. It's clearly what you're doing to Mary.... and you think I'M the one in need of repentance?? WOW.

BUDOS said:

---

[Realitybites]"However, the concept of "works" in this context should be understood as the outward manifestation of an inward faith, rather than works as the means of salvation."
Absolutely correct. Salvation is by grace, through faith, evidenced by works."

Sounds good to me.

---

If your belief is completely stumped by my questions, then how good can it really be? Doesn't it mean you have things to think about?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If Paul is saying in Galatians 5:19-21 that anyone who commits sins of the flesh is not saved, then salvation is impossible. Virtually every Christian who has ever lived has commited a sin of the flesh after they became a Christian. Paul would even be excluding himself from the kingdom, because he admits to struggling with sins of the flesh in Romans chapter 7. Obviously, your understanding of these verses isn't correct.

---

The Galatians were already Christians (saved). Some of them failed to live up to the teachings that Paul gave them. The whole Letter is a call to return to the True Gospel. This IS Repentance. Paul stated that their actions would not allow them to enter the Kingdom of God.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Yes, in "my system" (which is what Scripture teaches), one can know if one is saved - if you know you're putting all your trust in Jesus for your salvation (not on your own works/performance) then you can know you are saved. You can know this, because you CAN know your own heart if you are honest with yourself and pray for guidance. It isn't an unsolvable mystery.

---

Your system doesn't make sense ...

What about a mid-life crisis husband and father, who is a devoted Christian (goes every week, teaches Sunday school class, and volunteers with the elderly) goes on a business trip and in a moment of weakness, is seduced by a co-worker from another state. They end up sleeping together twice during the trip. She ghosts him and he goes back home and never hears from her again. He never says anything to his wife or family and continues with his normal life. He committed adultery, but he's a believer. Is he still saved even though Paul stated that adulterers will not enter the kingdom of heaven?

What about the emotionally neglected and abused wife (yet devout Christian, goes to church every week, plays piano in the church choir, and helps with Meals on Wheels weekly) who finds comfort in the neighbor next door for a for a month until he moves to another town. She feels bad but goes back to her normal life. She's committed adultery, but she's a believer. Is she still saved even though Paul stated that adulteresses will not enter the kingdom of heaven?

Finally, even Paul states that he is getting judged:

1 Cor 4:4 -

I am not conscious of anything against me, but I do not thereby stand acquitted; the one who judges me is the Lord.

---

You are stuck in the thinking that commiting a sin removes one's salvation. Again, if that were the case, then no one would be saved, because every believer in the history of the world has sinned even after they became a believer. If you say you are without sin, then you are deceiving yourself, and the truth is not in you (1 John 1:8). It would mean that Paul wasn't saved even as he was writing his letter to the Romans, because he admitted he struggled with sin.

You're just not addressing any of these points.

Jesus said that committing adultery is simply looking at a woman lustfully - therefore, in your example, the guy didn't even have to literally sleep with her. He could've just looked at her lustfully ONCE and for a short time, and in your system he LOSES HIS SALVATION because of that one, brief moment of sin. Do you really think that is the gospel??

When Paul is speaking of being "judged" in 1 Cor 4:4, is he talking about being judged for his salvation?? You and others here are constantly getting this wrong and equivocating between two meanings. No one is saying that Christians won't be judged for their works. The question is whether they will be judged by their works for their salvation, which is clearly not the case as Jesus himself tells us in John 5:24: " Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life."

Oldbear83 said:

---

I see some very strong emotions being displayed here.

It's just my opinion, but just maybe we should each pay more attention to making sure we are personally right with God, than let anger lead us into constant accusation and division.

Even if the other person is completely wrong, this is not the way to convince someone to reconsider his beliefs.

---

Here's a better idea: why don't we actually consider contending for the truth against evil instead of quietly avoiding it.

"..constant accusation and division" - After everything you've been shown about Roman Catholicism that is pure, evil idolatry, blasphemy, and heresy - you think that we should not be dividing ourselves from that??

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Jesus, the Son of God, was born to a very specific mother...." - and do you also see the problem with this? No, Jesus the Son of God existed eternally with the Father and was not ever BORN to a created being. Rather, Jesus the MAN was born in the flesh to a created being. Saying Mary is the "Mother of God" blurs this distinction, and opens the way to the rank idolatry of her that we're seeing now. The more appropriate title would be "Mother of the man Jesus, who was God become flesh".

---

The Council declared that Jesus is ONE person with TWO natures - fully divine and fully human. This doctrine is called the Hypostatic Union.

Women give birth to persons, not natures. Mary gave birth to Jesus, a divine person who is God. Therefor, she is the Mother of God.

---

NO, Mary did NOT give birth to Jesus' personhood. Jesus' personhood has existed through all eternity with the Father (John 1:1). Mary only gave birth to the human aspect of Jesus' personhood, which did not exist for all eternity, but only began to exist a little over two thousand years ago with his birth to Mary. Mary did NOT give birth to the divine aspect of Jesus' personhood. But it's his divine aspect that makes him God, not his human aspect. Therefore, Mary is not the Mother of God. She is merely the mother of the man Jesus.

This is what you guys are always getting wrong. If anything is a heresy, it's saying that Jesus' divine personhood began only two thousand years ago starting with his birth to Mary.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

NO, Mary did NOT give birth to Jesus' personhood. Jesus' personhood has existed through all eternity with the Father (John 1:1). Mary only gave birth to the human aspect of Jesus' personhood, which did not exist for all eternity, but only began to exist a little over two thousand years ago with his birth to Mary. Mary did NOT give birth to the divine aspect of Jesus' personhood. But it's his divine aspect that makes him God, not his human aspect. Therefore, Mary is not the Mother of God. She is merely the mother of the man Jesus..

---

What you have described in your clarification is exactly the Nestorian heresy and denial of the hypostatic union.

Here's a protestant source describing why your Christology is wrong.

https://learn.ligonier.org/devotionals/nestorian-heresy

You need to repent of this, as you have created a Jesus who cannot save.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

NO, Mary did NOT give birth to Jesus' personhood. Jesus' personhood has existed through all eternity with the Father (John 1:1). Mary only gave birth to the human aspect of Jesus' personhood, which did not exist for all eternity, but only began to exist a little over two thousand years ago with his birth to Mary. Mary did NOT give birth to the divine aspect of Jesus' personhood. But it's his divine aspect that makes him God, not his human aspect. Therefore, Mary is not the Mother of God. She is merely the mother of the man Jesus..

---

What you have described in your clarification is exactly the Nestorian heresy and denial of the hypostatic union.

Here's a protestant source describing why your Christology is wrong.

https://learn.ligonier.org/devotionals/nestorian-heresy

You need to repent of this, as you have created a Jesus who cannot save.

---

All these calls for me to repent, and yet NONE of you can actually show me exactly how I'm committing the Nestorian heresy, or even point to one thing I've said that is false. Not even one.

Go ahead and try. Anyone. I'm waiting, just as I've been waiting and waiting for all of you to answer all the other questions.

Maybe get the log out of your eyes, and you can see better.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Jesus, the Son of God, was born to a very specific mother...." - and do you also see the problem with this? No, Jesus the Son of God existed eternally with the Father and was not ever BORN to a created being. Rather, Jesus the MAN was born in the flesh to a created being. Saying Mary is the "Mother of God" blurs this distinction, and opens the way to the rank idolatry of her that we're seeing now. The more appropriate title would be "Mother of the man Jesus, who was God become flesh".

---

For the love of everything holy, please repent of this! You are literally commenting the Nestorian Heresy that was rejected at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD.

The lengths that you will go to deny anything Marian drives you into heresy of Christianity.

Nestorius, like you, believed in a division of Christ into two persons.

The Council declared that Jesus is ONE person with TWO natures - fully divine and fully human. This doctrine is called the Hypostatic Union.

Women give birth to persons, not natures. Mary gave birth to Jesus, a divine person who is God. Therefor, she is the Mother of God.

No one is claiming that she is the progenitor of God.

Please repent and open your heart.

---

There is absolutely nothing for me to repent from here. No one is saying anything about Jesus having two persons. Everything I have said on this is true and/or straight from Scripture. Show me just ONE sentence of what I've said about this that is false - JUST ONE. Go ahead. I'll be waiting.....

And I'm STILL waiting for you to answer my question about worship. It's clearly what you're doing to Mary.... and you think I'M the one in need of repentance?? WOW.

---

Separating the "man Jesus" from the "God made flesh" is creating two persons.

If one agrees with the Hypostatic union, then one accepts the title as Mother of God. If one rejects the Hypostatic union, then one is in heresy (Nestorian).

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Jesus, the Son of God, was born to a very specific mother...." - and do you also see the problem with this? No, Jesus the Son of God existed eternally with the Father and was not ever BORN to a created being. Rather, Jesus the MAN was born in the flesh to a created being. Saying Mary is the "Mother of God" blurs this distinction, and opens the way to the rank idolatry of her that we're seeing now. The more appropriate title would be "Mother of the man Jesus, who was God become flesh".

---

The Council declared that Jesus is ONE person with TWO natures - fully divine and fully human. This doctrine is called the Hypostatic Union.

Women give birth to persons, not natures. Mary gave birth to Jesus, a divine person who is God. Therefor, she is the Mother of God.

---

NO, Mary did NOT give birth to Jesus' personhood. Jesus' personhood has existed through all eternity with the Father (John 1:1). Mary only gave birth to the human aspect of Jesus' personhood, which did not exist for all eternity, but only began to exist a little over two thousand years ago with his birth to Mary. Mary did NOT give birth to the divine aspect of Jesus' personhood. But it's his divine aspect that makes him God, not his human aspect. Therefore, Mary is not the Mother of God. She is merely the mother of the man Jesus.

This is what you guys are always getting wrong. If anything is a heresy, it's saying that Jesus' divine personhood began only two thousand years ago starting with his birth to Mary.

---

You are Nestorius. He argued the same. One cannot separate person and nature. She gave birth to a person with two natures (human and divine.)

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Jesus, the Son of God, was born to a very specific mother...." - and do you also see the problem with this? No, Jesus the Son of God existed eternally with the Father and was not ever BORN to a created being. Rather, Jesus the MAN was born in the flesh to a created being. Saying Mary is the "Mother of God" blurs this distinction, and opens the way to the rank idolatry of her that we're seeing now. The more appropriate title would be "Mother of the man Jesus, who was God become flesh".

---

For the love of everything holy, please repent of this! You are literally commenting the Nestorian Heresy that was rejected at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD.

The lengths that you will go to deny anything Marian drives you into heresy of Christianity.

Nestorius, like you, believed in a division of Christ into two persons.

The Council declared that Jesus is ONE person with TWO natures - fully divine and fully human. This doctrine is called the Hypostatic Union.

Women give birth to persons, not natures. Mary gave birth to Jesus, a divine person who is God. Therefor, she is the Mother of God.

No one is claiming that she is the progenitor of God.

Please repent and open your heart.

---

There is absolutely nothing for me to repent from here. No one is saying anything about Jesus having two persons. Everything I have said on this is true and/or straight from Scripture. Show me just ONE sentence of what I've said about this that is false - JUST ONE. Go ahead. I'll be waiting.....

And I'm STILL waiting for you to answer my question about worship. It's clearly what you're doing to Mary.... and you think I'M the one in need of repentance?? WOW.

---

Separating the "man Jesus" from the "God made flesh" is creating two persons.

---

Sorry, no. The man Jesus IS God made flesh. It's talking about the same person.

You're only trying to see what you need to see.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Jesus, the Son of God, was born to a very specific mother...." - and do you also see the problem with this? No, Jesus the Son of God existed eternally with the Father and was not ever BORN to a created being. Rather, Jesus the MAN was born in the flesh to a created being. Saying Mary is the "Mother of God" blurs this distinction, and opens the way to the rank idolatry of her that we're seeing now. The more appropriate title would be "Mother of the man Jesus, who was God become flesh".

---

The Council declared that Jesus is ONE person with TWO natures - fully divine and fully human. This doctrine is called the Hypostatic Union.

Women give birth to persons, not natures. Mary gave birth to Jesus, a divine person who is God. Therefor, she is the Mother of God.

---

NO, Mary did NOT give birth to Jesus' personhood. Jesus' personhood has existed through all eternity with the Father (John 1:1). Mary only gave birth to the human aspect of Jesus' personhood, which did not exist for all eternity, but only began to exist a little over two thousand years ago with his birth to Mary. Mary did NOT give birth to the divine aspect of Jesus' personhood. But it's his divine aspect that makes him God, not his human aspect. Therefore, Mary is not the Mother of God. She is merely the mother of the man Jesus.

This is what you guys are always getting wrong. If anything is a heresy, it's saying that Jesus' divine personhood began only two thousand years ago starting with his birth to Mary.

---

You are Nestorius. He argued the same. One cannot separate person and nature. She gave birth to a person with two natures (human and divine.)

---

No one is separating the person from his nature. What's being said is Mary did not birth Jesus' whole nature, only his human nature. But Jesus is God ONLY because of his divine nature, NOT his human nature. Therefore, Mary is not the Mother of God.

Let me illustrate why the syllogism - "Mary is the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, so Mary is the Mother of God" - is problematic:

Suppose while Jesus was a carpenter, he worked for a guy named Tom.

• Tom was the boss of Jesus;
• Jesus is God;
• Therefore, Tom was the Boss of God.

See the problem there? Note the capitalized "boss" too. I mean, if you guys really want something, why go to Mary? You should go to God's BOSS, right?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You are stuck in the thinking that commiting a sin removes one's salvation. Again, if that were the case, then no one would be saved, because every believer in the history of the world has sinned even after they became a believer. If you say you are without sin, then you are deceiving yourself, and the truth is not in you (1 John 1:8). It would mean that Paul wasn't saved even as he was writing his letter to the Romans, because he admitted he struggled with sin.

---

John was referring to the fact that we are all affected by sin. It is the natural human condition the concupiscence that exists in us due to the fall of man.

Back to 1 John 1:8 you left out what he said in the next verse 1 John 1:9

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness".

Once we commit a mortal sin, we must confess our sins for forgiveness. This restores our friendship with God.

With respect to Paul, he didn't say that he "wasn't saved". He said that even though nothing was on his conscience, he didn't judge himself. He said that God would judge him.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus said that committing adultery is simply looking at a woman lustfully - therefore, in your example, the guy didn't even have to literally sleep with her. He could've just looked at her lustfully ONCE and for a short time, and in your system he LOSES HIS SALVATION because of that one, brief moment of sin. Do you really think that is the gospel??

---

Yes, that is what Jesus said. Do you doubt the words of Jesus?

Jesus tell us in this John 15:6

" If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. "

Abide doesn't mean "believe". It means "to remain, dwell, or continue in a state of being, often relating to a relationship with God or His word."

Jesus affirms that we have to OBEY the commandments a few passages later in John 15:10

" If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commands and remain in his love."

This shows that my breaking the commandments, we can separate ourselves from God.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

When Paul is speaking of being "judged" in 1 Cor 4:4, is he talking about being judged for his salvation?? You and others here are constantly getting this wrong and equivocating between two meanings. No one is saying that Christians won't be judged for their works. The question is whether they will be judged by their works for their salvation, which is clearly not the case as Jesus himself tells us in John 5:24: " Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life."

---

I and other aren't "getting this wrong." You keep reading your own meaning into this (again). That should be a clue to you.

Two things here:

First, Paul doesn't say his WORKS will be judged. He says that HE will be judged by the LORD.

Second, I've mentioned a few times here that in John 5:24, you are reading your misinterpretation into the word "judged". The Greek here is 'Condemnation.' That is referring to the judgement of one's soul.

I've even provided translations from the KJV that say the same. This misinterpretation is skewing your soteriology.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Jesus, the Son of God, was born to a very specific mother...." - and do you also see the problem with this? No, Jesus the Son of God existed eternally with the Father and was not ever BORN to a created being. Rather, Jesus the MAN was born in the flesh to a created being. Saying Mary is the "Mother of God" blurs this distinction, and opens the way to the rank idolatry of her that we're seeing now. The more appropriate title would be "Mother of the man Jesus, who was God become flesh".

---

The Council declared that Jesus is ONE person with TWO natures - fully divine and fully human. This doctrine is called the Hypostatic Union.

Women give birth to persons, not natures. Mary gave birth to Jesus, a divine person who is God. Therefor, she is the Mother of God.

---

NO, Mary did NOT give birth to Jesus' personhood. Jesus' personhood has existed through all eternity with the Father (John 1:1). Mary only gave birth to the human aspect of Jesus' personhood, which did not exist for all eternity, but only began to exist a little over two thousand years ago with his birth to Mary. Mary did NOT give birth to the divine aspect of Jesus' personhood. But it's his divine aspect that makes him God, not his human aspect. Therefore, Mary is not the Mother of God. She is merely the mother of the man Jesus.

This is what you guys are always getting wrong. If anything is a heresy, it's saying that Jesus' divine personhood began only two thousand years ago starting with his birth to Mary.

---

You are Nestorius. He argued the same. One cannot separate person and nature. She gave birth to a person with two natures (human and divine.)

---

No one is separating the person from his nature. What's being said is Mary did not birth Jesus' whole nature, only his human nature. But Jesus is God ONLY because of his divine nature, NOT his human nature. Therefore, Mary is not the Mother of God.

---

Your word games are still trying to separate the natures of Jesus. They certainly are distinct natures, but they are in union, the Hypostatic union. Denying this is Nestorianism. This was settled nearly 1600 years ago.

Even Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli agreed with the Hypostatic union and that Mary is the Mother of God.

It is (some) modern-day protestants that have to deny this to further separate themselves from the Catholic Church. They, like you, don't even know that they are in heresy.

Dude, punt on this one.

In the end if "me, my bible, and I thinking" leads you to a place where you reject the testimony of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant churches and the conclusion you have drawn has you accusing the 2,000 years of Christians who preceeded you of heresy maybe the only thing you need to do to find your god is look in a mirror.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You are stuck in the thinking that commiting a sin removes one's salvation. Again, if that were the case, then no one would be saved, because every believer in the history of the world has sinned even after they became a believer. If you say you are without sin, then you are deceiving yourself, and the truth is not in you (1 John 1:8). It would mean that Paul wasn't saved even as he was writing his letter to the Romans, because he admitted he struggled with sin.

---

John was referring to the fact that we are all affected by sin. It is the natural human condition the concupiscence that exists in us due to the fall of man.

Back to 1 John 1:8 you left out what he said in the next verse 1 John 1:9

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness".

Once we commit a mortal sin, we must confess our sins for forgiveness. This restores our friendship with God.

With respect to Paul, he didn't say that he "wasn't saved". He said that even though nothing was on his conscience, he didn't judge himself. He said that God would judge him.

---

If we sin, our fellowship with Jesus is broken and we need forgiveness to restore our fellowship, NOT our relationship, with Jesus. For the true believer, their relationship with Jesus is set. You are a "new creature" once you believe. You receive the Holy Spirit which is a SEAL and GUARANTEE of this relationship. You are bound to Jesus as in marriage. It is a covenantal relationship, a relationship that stays as long as you believe. You don't get divorced from Jesus because you mess up in sin. If that were so, then the gospel message is a lie. Because God tells us that if we believe in him, we are saved. But if someone who sins while yet still believing loses their salvation because of it, then God lied to us because contrary to what he told us, you can still believe, and NOT be saved. But God didn't lie to us. You don't lose your salvation by sinning. You don't go to Hell if you are a true believer and you happen to die right after sinning and before you are able to repent and ask for forgiveness. This is not the Gospel. This is a false gospel of works/merit, which Paul calls an anathema. It is is a frightening, horrifying mesage. And it's saying that Jesus' death wasn't sufficient payment for sin for all time, which is a damnable lie. And according to what you're saying, you can never know if you are saved, but the Bible clearly and explicitly says that we can. Your view is in opposition to Scripture. According to your view, Paul wasn't saved when wrote the book of Romans.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus said that committing adultery is simply looking at a woman lustfully - therefore, in your example, the guy didn't even have to literally sleep with her. He could've just looked at her lustfully ONCE and for a short time, and in your system he LOSES HIS SALVATION because of that one, brief moment of sin. Do you really think that is the gospel??

---

Yes, that is what Jesus said. Do you doubt the words of Jesus? ===> HUH? I'm saying that Jesus said it. Why would I be doubting it?

Jesus tell us in this John 15:6

" If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. "

Abide doesn't mean "believe". It means "to remain, dwell, or continue in a state of being, often relating to a relationship with God or His word." ===> through continued faith. Our relationship is through faith.

Jesus affirms that we have to OBEY the commandments a few passages later in John 15:10 ===> if this means that we have to obey the commandments to be saved, then no one would be saved.

" If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commands and remain in his love."

This shows that my breaking the commandments, we can separate ourselves from God. ===> " For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 8:38-39

You're also forgetting that Jesus here in John's gospel is telling this to the Jews, who are still under the Law because Jesus has not died for all sin yet. That's why he even tells the rich young ruler that to have eternal life, he must perfectly obey the Law. Is that the Gospel? Obviously not. Jesus' disciples at this time have absolutely no idea that Jesus was supposed to die for all sin, and be raised from the dead. It was after this happened, that the gospel was preached. A new relationship with God through Jesus Christ is now available, one where we are imputed Jesus' righteousness through faith. We are no longer justified by our own merit and keeping commandments, but rather by the completed work of Jesus Christ. Thank the Almighty God for this!

---

Responses in bold above.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

When Paul is speaking of being "judged" in 1 Cor 4:4, is he talking about being judged for his salvation?? You and others here are constantly getting this wrong and equivocating between two meanings. No one is saying that Christians won't be judged for their works. The question is whether they will be judged by their works for their salvation, which is clearly not the case as Jesus himself tells us in John 5:24: " Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life."

---

I and other aren't "getting this wrong." You keep reading your own meaning into this (again). That should be a clue to you.

Two things here:

First, Paul doesn't say his WORKS will be judged. He says that HE will be judged by the LORD.===> judged for his SALVATION? That's what you keep getting wrong.

Second, I've mentioned a few times here that in John 5:24, you are reading your misinterpretation into the word "judged". The Greek here is 'Condemnation.' That is referring to the judgement of one's soul.===> are you even reading the verse and what you're writing? That verse is precisely making my point - Jesus is saying that a believer is NOT going to be judged this way!

I've even provided translations from the KJV that say the same. This misinterpretation is skewing your soteriology.

---

Responses in bold above.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Jesus, the Son of God, was born to a very specific mother...." - and do you also see the problem with this? No, Jesus the Son of God existed eternally with the Father and was not ever BORN to a created being. Rather, Jesus the MAN was born in the flesh to a created being. Saying Mary is the "Mother of God" blurs this distinction, and opens the way to the rank idolatry of her that we're seeing now. The more appropriate title would be "Mother of the man Jesus, who was God become flesh".

---

The Council declared that Jesus is ONE person with TWO natures - fully divine and fully human. This doctrine is called the Hypostatic Union.

Women give birth to persons, not natures. Mary gave birth to Jesus, a divine person who is God. Therefor, she is the Mother of God.

---

NO, Mary did NOT give birth to Jesus' personhood. Jesus' personhood has existed through all eternity with the Father (John 1:1). Mary only gave birth to the human aspect of Jesus' personhood, which did not exist for all eternity, but only began to exist a little over two thousand years ago with his birth to Mary. Mary did NOT give birth to the divine aspect of Jesus' personhood. But it's his divine aspect that makes him God, not his human aspect. Therefore, Mary is not the Mother of God. She is merely the mother of the man Jesus.

This is what you guys are always getting wrong. If anything is a heresy, it's saying that Jesus' divine personhood began only two thousand years ago starting with his birth to Mary.

---

You are Nestorius. He argued the same. One cannot separate person and nature. She gave birth to a person with two natures (human and divine.)

---

No one is separating the person from his nature. What's being said is Mary did not birth Jesus' whole nature, only his human nature. But Jesus is God ONLY because of his divine nature, NOT his human nature. Therefore, Mary is not the Mother of God.

---

Your word games are still trying to separate the natures of Jesus. They certainly are distinct natures, but they are in union, the Hypostatic union. Denying this is Nestorianism. This was settled nearly 1600 years ago.

Even Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli agreed with the Hypostatic union and that Mary is the Mother of God.

It is (some) modern-day protestants that have to deny this to further separate themselves from the Catholic Church. They, like you, don't even know that they are in heresy.

Dude, punt on this one.

---

No one is saying that the two natures of Christ aren't in union.

You're either just not reading and comprehending very well, or you're trying to make me say something I am not out of necessity.

There's no need to punt here. There hasn't even been a second down. There still has not been anyone able to point to ONE sentence that I've said that is false regarding this topic. Not ONE. Go ahead. Point to anything I wrote about this topic, and explain where it is wrong. I'm still waiting...

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Israelite worshipers of Baal and other deities did not believe that they were THE God either, they believed they were simply other deities. Just like how Roman Catholicism has elevated Mary to deity, but not as THE God of the Bible. Isn't that obvious from all the quotes I've provided over and over again? Are you truly this blind and bewitched? I even showed you where she is called "god of this world".

---

Actually, they believed that Baal was a major deity. They didn't have a highest deity.

Secondly, you have failed to show in the Catechism where Mary is considered part of the Trinity.

Finally, the Catechism never refers to Mary as "god of this world."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Regardless, it's not even relevant. You're still not answering the question. Again - insert ANY entity you want into my original question, whether real or unreal, whether you believe it is GOD or not - it just doesn't matter - and then answer it. Let me rephrase the question:

If you do all these things to <INSERT ANY ENTITY YOU WANT HERE>:

• you pray to it, BOW TO and kiss it's image in church;
• you keep images and statues of it all over your home;
• you sing hymns IN CHURCH to it;
• celebrate multiple festivals throughout the year for it;
• you recite prayers over and over where you say it's name 10 times more than you say God's;
• you give it titles like "Advocate", "Co-Mediator", "THE ALL HOLY ONE";
• you have prayers which call it "peacemaker between sinners and God", "ruler of my house" and say that you "place our salvation in it's hands" and that you "give all your heart and soul" to it;
• you have psalms for it, where you take the original Psalms from the Old Testament and replace God with your entity, so that the praise being given to God in the Psalms is being given to your entity;
• you say that salvation is ONLY THROUGH IT.

... then are you saying that all this is okay with God, that it's not worship.... as long as you don't view your entity as GOD, part of the Trinity, or as Savior??

---

God is OK with the veneration of Mary. Jesus is OK with the veneration of Mary. My Jesus doesn't get jealous of his mom or any attention that is given to her. They know that honoring her, it actually honoring THEM because THEY are the reason she is great.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I say again - if I did all that for Baal, or Molech, or Mammon, Isis, Aphrodite, Buddha, Donald Trump, a tree, my dog, etc then as long as I'm not saying they are God, then it's not worship so it's okay??

---

I had partially responded to this, but I've decided to simply say that you have once AGAIN misrepresented, distorted, and misconstrued what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary.

I am happy to discuss any of these topics (again), but only one at a time. I have offered this before; however, I don't remember you taking me up on this.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sorry - Satan is on your side on this one. The other protestants for some reason are too cowardly to say anything, but they won't agree with you because they know this is pure idolatry (if they truly are Christians with the Holy Spirit, that is). Your willfull blindness to this is one of the most astounding things I've ever beheld. It really speaks to the power of Satanic deception.

---

Jesus founded the Catholic Church. It would be impossible for Satan to be on her side. This is why only some demons can be cast out by Catholic priests (this is the basis for the movie The Exorcist." The real story is about a boy that was possessed and a Lutheran pastor was brought in to help. He saw what happening and told them to call a Catholic priest. A priest was brought in, exorcised the demons possessing the boy, and the family ultimately converted to Catholicism.

Someone important once asked, "How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand."

As to why some of your protestant brothers are speaking up, I can only conjecture that a)they don't care, b) maybe some of the may not agree the teaching, but understand the Catholic position and realize that it's not idolatry, c) maybe your aggressive attitude keeps them from speaking up.

In several posts, I have requested that if any protestants have any HONEST questions or concerns about Marian dogmas or any Catholic doctrine to reach out. A few have. I'm happy to entertain any honest question of the faith.

3 months ago:

"You're the heretic!"

"No, YOU are the heretic!"


Today:

"You're the heretic!"

"No, YOU are the heretic!"


[ offscreen, Jesus holds his head in His hands and asks for another Tylenol ]