Coke Bear said:

---

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. ===> so, it's what I said. They didn't believe Baal was God, but just another deity. You're arguing back, but nothing you're saying refutes anything I'm saying.

Secondly, you have failed to show in the Catechism where Mary is considered part of the Trinity. ===> I failed to show in the catechism where cows fly, too. It simply isn't relevant. You don't have to consider Mary part of the Trinity in order to be worshiping her. The Israelite worshipers of Baal didn't consider Baal to be God, or part of the Trinity either. You have a very irritating deficiency in being able to understand your own argument and what is and what's not relevant.

Finally, the Catechism never refers to Mary as "god of this world." ===> Mary is called "god of this world" in a fully sanctioned and fully endorsed prayer of the Roman Catholic Church, which is authored by a Doctor of the Catholic Church, one of if not the highest honors bestowed in Roman Catholicism. It's your own Magisterium that approves of this. You simply can not run away from this. The simple fact is that your church teaches that Mary is the god of this world. Denying this is just gaslighting. So just own it.

---

Responses above in bold.

Coke Bear said:

---

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.

---

You're still not answering the question. And we all know why.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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...

---

Please refer to the BOLDED portion above. You stated that "Mary didn't give birth to Jesus' whole nature, only the human nature."

Please read your statement slowly. You have just separated his two natures with your claim.

This was refuted in Ephesus in 431.

When did Jesus get is "Divine nature"? What is not present with him at birth?

Coke Bear said:

---

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.

---

There's that usual equivocaton between "catholic" (little "c") church and "Catholic Church"....

Jesus founded his church which was "catholic" in that it was his "universal" body of believers. Jesus did NOT found the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is an apostate religion that compromised with the pagan world and which follows fallible man's tradition over the infallible word of God, which has inevitably led to damnable heresies and idolatry. I've made it painfully clear in this thread that the teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church are NOT from God. I'll say it again: if you are of at least average intelligence and you don't recognize this after all the extensive evidence given in this thread, then I firmly believe you do not have the Holy Spirit, and thus you are not a Christian. For anyone happening to be reading this thread who is Roman Catholic, and who actually is convicted of these things, then you are a real believer who is being told by the Holy Spirit to WAKE UP.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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...

---

Please refer to the BOLDED portion above. You stated that "Mary didn't give birth to Jesus' whole nature, only the human nature."

Please read your statement slowly. You have just separated his two natures with your claim.

This was refuted in Ephesus in 431.

When did Jesus get is "Divine nature"? What is not present with him at birth?

---

That is not separation of his two natures. That is making them distinct.

Question: in Jesus' personhood, did his divine nature ever exist apart from his human nature?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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...

---

When did Jesus get is "Divine nature"? What is not present with him at birth?

---

In Jesus' personhood, his divine nature was never "gotten". His divine nature has existed eternally. It was present with him at birth, when he became human. Mary birthed Jesus' humanity. His humanity has NOT existed in eternity like his divinity. Mary did NOT birth his divinity.

Quote:

---

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."

---

Casting out demons does not mean you are from God and not from Satan. That same important person you mentioned also said this:

"On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'"

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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.

---

You're still not answering the question. And we all know why.

---

It's multi-faceted, loaded question that contains your misinterpretations of Catholicism. I have repeated several times that I will discuss anyone of these topics ONE at a time to fully flush out the actual Catholic beliefs.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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...

---

When did Jesus get is "Divine nature"? What is not present with him at birth?

---

In Jesus' personhood, his divine nature was never "gotten". His divine nature has existed eternally. It was present with him at birth, when he became human. Mary birthed Jesus' humanity. His humanity has NOT existed in eternity like his divinity. Mary did NOT birth his divinity.

---

Was his divine nature present during conception and birth? Of course. Mary gave birth to the person of Jesus, who possessed the Hypostatic union. Mother of God.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

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."

---

Casting out demons does not mean you are from God and not from Satan. That same important person you mentioned also said this:

"On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'"

---

You left out the first part of the passage in Matthew that said, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only those that do the WILL of my Father in heaven."

Jesus is referring to keeping the commandments.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

That is not separation of his two natures. That is making them distinct.

---

A distinction without a difference.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Question: in Jesus' personhood, did his divine nature ever exist apart from his human nature?

---

Of course, but at the incarnation, the eternal Word made flesh (John1:14) uniting His divine nature with human nature in the one Person of Jesus Christ. From that moment, these two natures have been united inseparably. Mary gave birth to the Person of Christ with both natures.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

so, it's what I said. They didn't believe Baal was God, but just another deity. You're arguing back, but nothing you're saying refutes anything I'm saying.

---

A god and a deity are the same thing. They believed that Baal was a deity/god. Bless your heart, do you argue over 6 versus a half-dozen? I'm done responding to this portion of the thread.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I failed to show in the catechism where cows fly, too. It simply isn't relevant. You don't have to consider Mary part of the Trinity in order to be worshiping her. The Israelite worshipers of Baal didn't consider Baal to be God, or part of the Trinity either. You have a very irritating deficiency in being able to understand your own argument and what is and what's not relevant.

---

You still don't understand what worship is. You twist it into what you think it is. Honoring Mary is not worship. Worship evolves sacrifice. The Church has never sanctioned sacrifice to Mary.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mary is called "god of this world" in a fully sanctioned and fully endorsed prayer of the Roman Catholic Church, which is authored by a Doctor of the Catholic Church, one of if not the highest honors bestowed in Roman Catholicism. It's your own Magisterium that approves of this. You simply can not run away from this. The simple fact is that your church teaches that Mary is the god of this world. Denying this is just gaslighting. So just own it.

---

I have searched the internet and cannot find a prayer that states that Mary is "god of this world." Please cite the reference again.

If it turns out to be false or not an accurate representation of what a Doctor of the Church wrote, then I would expect an fully apology and retraction presented to the thread.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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.

---

You're still not answering the question. And we all know why.

---

It's multi-faceted, loaded question that contains your misinterpretations of Catholicism. I have repeated several times that I will discuss anyone of these topics ONE at a time to fully flush out the actual Catholic beliefs.

---

NO, it isn't.

It's a simple yes or no question. It's NOT EVEN A QUESTION ABOUT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. I said you can insert ANY ENTITY (Baal, Aphrodite, Buddha, Donald Trump, a tree, my dog, etc) into the question. It has NOTHING to do with Roman Catholicism.

So stop your obvious stalling and dancing, and answer the question. Here it is again:

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

• pray to it, BOW TO and kiss it's image in church;
• keep images and statues of it all over your home;
• sing hymns to it, in church;
• celebrate multiple festivals throughout the year for it;
• recite prayers over and over where you say it's name 10 times the number that you say God's;
• give it titles like "Advocate", "Co-Mediator", "THE ALL HOLY ONE";
• have prayers which call it "sovereign", "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;
• 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.

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

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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...

---

When did Jesus get is "Divine nature"? What is not present with him at birth?

---

In Jesus' personhood, his divine nature was never "gotten". His divine nature has existed eternally. It was present with him at birth, when he became human. Mary birthed Jesus' humanity. His humanity has NOT existed in eternity like his divinity. Mary did NOT birth his divinity.

---

Was his divine nature present during conception and birth? Of course. Mary gave birth to the person of Jesus, who possessed the Hypostatic union. Mother of God.

---

Was Jesus' divine nature present when he worked for his carpenter boss, "Tom"?
Does that make Tom the Boss of God?

No. The proper way to say it would be "Tom was the boss of Jesus, who is God (in the flesh)."

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

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."

---

Casting out demons does not mean you are from God and not from Satan. That same important person you mentioned also said this:

"On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'"

---

You left out the first part of the passage in Matthew that said, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only those that do the WILL of my Father in heaven."

Jesus is referring to keeping the commandments.

---

Look what else Jesus said about those who do the will of his Father:

"Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

By your reasoning, this means anyone who follows Jesus is the Mother of God. In fact, this would be more accurate than calling Mary the Mother of God, because Jesus never once called Mary his "mother" in all of Scripture, but in Scripture, he DOES call his followers his "mother".

"Jesus is referring to keeping the commandments." - so then, you're saying that salvation is by keeping the commandments? Good luck with that. That isn't the gospel.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

That is not separation of his two natures. That is making them distinct.

---

A distinction without a difference. ===> this doesn't make any sense. There's no difference between a human nature and a divine nature?? You're spouting nonsense.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Question: in Jesus' personhood, did his divine nature ever exist apart from his human nature?

---

Of course, but at the incarnation, the eternal Word made flesh (John1:14) uniting His divine nature with human nature in the one Person of Jesus Christ. From that moment, these two natures have been united inseparably. Mary gave birth to the Person of Christ with both natures.

---

NO. Mary did NOT give birth to the Person of Jesus.
The Personhood of Jesus existed eternally with the Father, before his birth to Mary.

Motherhood is a term that involves the FLESH ONLY. Mothers only give birth to the PHYSICAL body of a person, not their personhood. Your mother gave birth to your physical body, NOT your soul. Your personhood is both your body and your soul. Your mother is not the mother of your soul. Your soul came from God and God only. He is the Father of your soul. You have no mother of your soul.

Saying Mary gave birth to Jesus' personhood is saying that Mary gave birth to Jesus' eternal divinity. That is about as heretical as a heresy can get.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

so, it's what I said. They didn't believe Baal was God, but just another deity. You're arguing back, but nothing you're saying refutes anything I'm saying.

---

A god and a deity are the same thing. They believed that Baal was a deity/god. Bless your heart, do you argue over 6 versus a half-dozen? I'm done responding to this portion of the thread.

---

What are you taking about? I said they didn't believe Baal was GOD, as in THE God, not that they didn't believe Baal was A god. Good grief, is your reading and comprehension really this bad? And you're making such pointless arguments. You've lost focus on the point - you made the claim that you're not worshiping Mary because you're not saying she is God, and I'm making the point that the Israelites didn't believe Baal was God either, but that certainly didn't mean that God didn't consider it worship. You don't have to believe something is God for you to be worshiping them. This is an absolutely ridiculous and stupid argument.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I failed to show in the catechism where cows fly, too. It simply isn't relevant. You don't have to consider Mary part of the Trinity in order to be worshiping her. The Israelite worshipers of Baal didn't consider Baal to be God, or part of the Trinity either. You have a very irritating deficiency in being able to understand your own argument and what is and what's not relevant.

---

You still don't understand what worship is. You twist it into what you think it is. Honoring Mary is not worship. Worship evolves sacrifice. The Church has never sanctioned sacrifice to Mary.

---

So, first you say worship is only when you're saying Mary is God, part of the Trinity, or the Savior - now, you're saying it has to involve sacrifice.

Ok, then, I'll just ask the same question again, the one you keep dodging, and I'll simply add "sacrifice" as one of the conditions:

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

• pray to it, BOW TO and kiss it's image in church;
• keep images and statues of it all over your home;
• sing hymns to it, in church;
• celebrate multiple festivals throughout the year for it;
• recite prayers over and over where you say it's name 10 times the number that you say God's;
• give it titles like "Advocate", "Co-Mediator", "THE ALL HOLY ONE";
• have prayers which call it "sovereign", "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;
• 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.

... but as long as you don't view your entity as GOD, part of the Trinity, or as Savior.... *or sacrifice to it - then all this is NOT worship, so it's okay with God??

The forum will be awaiting your answer.

Quote:

---

I have searched the internet and cannot find a prayer that states that Mary is "god of this world." Please cite the reference again.

If it turns out to be false or not an accurate representation of what a Doctor of the Church wrote, then I would expect an fully apology and retraction presented to the thread.

---

From The Glories of Mary, by St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church:

"Oh mistress of all things, saint of saints, our strength and refuge, God, as it were, of the world, glory of heaven, accept those who love thee ; hear us, for thy Son honors thee and denies thee nothing."

https://www.ecatholic2000.com/liguori/glories106.shtml


It's even worse than I presented - "god" is capitalized!
You wanted an apology and retraction presented to the thread, but instead you got your idolatry presented to the thread, in all it's "glory". I think you lost pretty big on this transaction.

Quote:

---

Motherhood is a term that involves the FLESH ONLY. Mothers only give birth to the PHYSICAL body of a person, not their personhood. Your mother gave birth to your physical body, NOT your soul. Your personhood is both your body and your soul. Your mother is not the mother of your soul. Your soul came from God and God only. He is the Father of your soul. You have no mother of your soul.

---

What you say here is correct insofar as your Mother doesn't create your soul, but it ignores the elephant in the room...we are not Jesus! We are born sinners. He was not. We are born with a damaged form of God's image and likeness without God's divine nature. He was born with God's divine nature in hypostatic union with his human nature.

This is precisely why Jesus as the God-Man had the authority to forgive sins during his earthly ministry (ie Luke 5:20-21, which absolutely scandalized his Jewish enemies) while you and I - even as Christians with the indwelling Holy Spirit - DO NOT.

You are literally repeating Nestorius' error verbatim. *Every* Christian church except Kenneth Copeland's has rejected the argument you are making, and I would not consider his prosperity ministry to be part of the faith.

I hope you see now why it is such a grievous error. In an effort to confront Mariolatry your line of reasoning has taken you to the place where you are impuning the nature of Christ. Repent of this!

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Motherhood is a term that involves the FLESH ONLY. Mothers only give birth to the PHYSICAL body of a person, not their personhood. Your mother gave birth to your physical body, NOT your soul. Your personhood is both your body and your soul. Your mother is not the mother of your soul. Your soul came from God and God only. He is the Father of your soul. You have no mother of your soul.

---

What you say here is correct insofar as your Mother doesn't create your soul, but it ignores the elephant in the room...we are not Jesus! We are born sinners. He was not. We are born with a damaged form of God's image and likeness without God's divine nature. He was born with God's divine nature in hypostatic union with his human nature.

This is precisely why Jesus as the God-Man had the authority to forgive sins during his earthly ministry (ie Luke 5:20-21, which absolutely scandalized his Jewish enemies) while you and I - even as Christians with the indwelling Holy Spirit - DO NOT.

You are literally repeating Nestorius' error verbatim. *Every* Christian church except Kenneth Copeland's has rejected the argument you are making, and I would not consider his prosperity ministry to be part of the faith.

I hope you see now why it is such a grievous error. In an effort to confront Mariolatry your line of reasoning has taken you to the place where you are impuning the nature of Christ. Repent of this!

---

We're not Jesus, and that is ALL THE MORE REASON why we shouldn't call Mary the "Mother of God". Jesus' personhood completely transcends the relationship in ways we can't. Mary has no standing to be called the Mother of GOD in the same way that "Tom" has no standing to be called the Boss of God. THERE IS A REASON WHY JESUS NEVER CALLED MARY HIS "MOTHER" IN ALL OF SCRIPTURE. Obviously, God, through his Holy Spirit in inspiring Scripture, did not want his people to make Mary's earthly, fleshly motherhood or any other blood familial relationship to Jesus something to be held in importance, because the flesh is of no benefit, and only the Spirit gives life (John 6:63). We believers in Jesus are his family in spirit. WE are his mother, brother, and sisters just as he told us. Jesus disavowed the significance of the earthly family completely and is directing our full attention and energy to the spiritual family.

Either you don't understand what Nestorianism is, or you don't understand what's being said here. If you did, you'd been able to state what the heresy is, give a specific quote of mine, and show and explain how they are the same. But none of you have even been able to do it. None of you have even been able to isolate just ONE single sentence I've said that is false. Which brings up the question - if nothing I've said is false, and assuming I'm repeating the Nestorian heresy.... then why is Nestorianism even a heresy??

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Motherhood is a term that involves the FLESH ONLY. Mothers only give birth to the PHYSICAL body of a person, not their personhood. Your mother gave birth to your physical body, NOT your soul. Your personhood is both your body and your soul. Your mother is not the mother of your soul. Your soul came from God and God only. He is the Father of your soul. You have no mother of your soul.

---

In an effort to confront Mariolatry your line of reasoning has taken you to the place where you are impuning the nature of Christ. Repent of this!

---

In an effort to elevate Mary to something that she never was, you're impugning the nature of GOD.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

From The Glories of Mary, by St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church:

"Oh mistress of all things, saint of saints, our strength and refuge, God, as it were, of the world, glory of heaven, accept those who love thee ; hear us, for thy Son honors thee and denies thee nothing."

https://www.ecatholic2000.com/liguori/glories106.shtml


It's even worse than I presented - "god" is capitalized!
You wanted an apology and retraction presented to the thread, but instead you got your idolatry presented to the thread, in all it's "glory". I think you lost pretty big on this transaction.

---

Ah, The Glories of Mary. I didn't have that on my Bingo card today. You haven't played that one in a long time. Kudos for your recent restraint!

For those of you who weren't familiar with The Glories of Mary (I wasn't and many of the good Catholics that I know weren't either) is a book written in 1750, 275 years ago by a man, Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, near Naples, Italy in 1698. He was well-educated, brilliant, and a successful lawyer. He latter felt a call to the priesthood and eschewed the secular world for service to God and man. He was appointed Bishop Sant'Agata de' Goti. He tried to refuse the appointment due to his age and illnesses but ultimately bowed in humility and accepted it. He "addressed ecclesiastical abuses in the diocese, reformed the seminary and spiritually rehabilitated the clergy and faithful."

The Glories of Mary This is an 111 page book (link attached) that was written by an Italian in a completely different time for people that spoke completely differently from what our American ears are used to hearing. He wrote the book to defend against Jansenism, which downplayed Mary's importance.

He ABSOLUTELY uses flowery and poetic language and imagery. That was his love for Mary, her Son, and the Church. I'm I uncomfortable with some of the language at first pass? Yes, but upon further review and CONTEXT, I better understand it and the times in which it was written.

In the book, he explains the Salve Regina ( a beautiful hymn that glorifies Mary as the Mother of God), explores Mary's principal feasts, discusses the 7 sorrows and 10 virtues of Mary, contains theological proofs, and many prayers and devotions.

Now to the phrase in question, "… God, as it were, of the world …" This phrase is NOT present in the actual book itself.

It does appear at the bottom of a list that contains The Glories of Mary and other prayers and devotions in the section called "Ejaculations to the most holy Mary." An ejaculation is a Catholic (Church Latin) term that denotes a short, fervent prayer or exclamation.

I will assume that St Alphonse Liguori wrote it as it lists "ibid" at the end of the quotation.

My defense of the phrase.

First, as I mentioned, it was written in a completely different time, place, and language from our current American culture. It sounds strange to me too.

Second, researching this, it appears that is associated her with her heavenly glory.

Third, this prayer is NOT magisterial teaching. It is NOT meant to convey any specific doctrine concerning Mary.

Forth, the lay faithful are NOT required to pray or profess everything that is true in the prayer.

Fifth, St Alphonse Liguori is very clear that Mary is to be venerated, not worshipped.

Finally, if you want to hang your Catholic hate on an excerpt from an Italian book written 275 years ago, you do you, Boo Boo.

I will firmly stand by Christ, His Church, and her teachings in the Catechism.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So, first you say worship is only when you're saying Mary is God, part of the Trinity, or the Savior - now, you're saying it has to involve sacrifice.

Ok, then, I'll just ask the same question again, the one you keep dodging, and I'll simply add "sacrifice" as one of the conditions:

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

• pray to it, BOW TO and kiss it's image in church;
• keep images and statues of it all over your home;
• sing hymns to it, in church;
• celebrate multiple festivals throughout the year for it;
• recite prayers over and over where you say it's name 10 times the number that you say God's;
• give it titles like "Advocate", "Co-Mediator", "THE ALL HOLY ONE";
• have prayers which call it "sovereign", "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;
• 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.

... but as long as you don't view your entity as GOD, part of the Trinity, or as Savior.... *or sacrifice to it - then all this is NOT worship, so it's okay with God??

The forum will be awaiting your answer.

---

It's not an either/or. It's a both/and. Some of our protestant brothers struggle with that concept.

Catholics do NOT believe that Mary is God (or part of the Trinity) and we do not offer sacrifice to her.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So, first you say worship is only when you're saying Mary is God, part of the Trinity, or the Savior - now, you're saying it has to involve sacrifice.

Ok, then, I'll just ask the same question again, the one you keep dodging, and I'll simply add "sacrifice" as one of the conditions:

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

• pray to it, BOW TO and kiss it's image in church;
• keep images and statues of it all over your home;
• sing hymns to it, in church;
• celebrate multiple festivals throughout the year for it;
• recite prayers over and over where you say it's name 10 times the number that you say God's;
• give it titles like "Advocate", "Co-Mediator", "THE ALL HOLY ONE";
• have prayers which call it "sovereign", "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;
• 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.

... but as long as you don't view your entity as GOD, part of the Trinity, or as Savior.... *or sacrifice to it - then all this is NOT worship, so it's okay with God??

The forum will be awaiting your answer.

---

It's not an either/or. It's a both/and. Some of our protestant brothers struggle with that concept.

Catholics do NOT believe that Mary is God (or part of the Trinity) and we do not offer sacrifice to her.

---

Both/And?? Something like this can NOT be both worship and NOT worship, and both okay with God and NOT okay with God.

You simply have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about.

You're avoiding the question and we all know why.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

if nothing I've said is false, and assuming I'm repeating the Nestorian heresy.... then why is Nestorianism even a heresy??

---

I believe we have reached a Matthew 10:14 impasse.

Have a nice day.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What are you taking about? I said they didn't believe Baal was GOD, as in THE God, not that they didn't believe Baal was A god. Good grief, is your reading and comprehension really this bad? And you're making such pointless arguments. You've lost focus on the point - you made the claim that you're not worshiping Mary because you're not saying she is God, and I'm making the point that the Israelites didn't believe Baal was God either, but that certainly didn't mean that God didn't consider it worship. You don't have to believe something is God for you to be worshiping them. This is an absolutely ridiculous and stupid argument.

---

I have no clue as to why I am responding to this except that I don't understand your distinction between a deity and a god. They are essentially the same thing.

I am merely stating that the worshippers of Baal were worshipping "him" Baal. A deity, which is a god.

People (cultures) worship deities or gods. Egyptians, Assarians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, etc. None of them were worshipping the GOD.

No, Baal is NOT the God. I am not arguing that. Mary is NOT a God, or the God, or part of the Trinity.

I would appreciate another protestant helping me understand the point that BTD17 is trying to make.
Also, please let me know if my point is confusing to one of you.

Finally, I am really done responding to this line of questioning unless another protestant can help me better understand what your are trying to say.

Thanks.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

NO. Mary did NOT give birth to the Person of Jesus.
The Personhood of Jesus existed eternally with the Father, before his birth to Mary.

Motherhood is a term that involves the FLESH ONLY. Mothers only give birth to the PHYSICAL body of a person, not their personhood. Your mother gave birth to your physical body, NOT your soul. Your personhood is both your body and your soul. Your mother is not the mother of your soul. Your soul came from God and God only. He is the Father of your soul. You have no mother of your soul.

Saying Mary gave birth to Jesus' personhood is saying that Mary gave birth to Jesus' eternal divinity. That is about as heretical as a heresy can get.

---

Dude, you are twisting yourself philosophically and linguistically.

The body (a person) is a hylomorphic being - comprised of BOTH body and soul. Death is the ONLY thing that separates body and soul.

So yes, Mary did give birth to Jesus, who was (IS) a person comprised of both Body and Soul.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Look what else Jesus said about those who do the will of his Father:

"Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

By your reasoning, this means anyone who follows Jesus is the Mother of God. In fact, this would be more accurate than calling Mary the Mother of God, because Jesus never once called Mary his "mother" in all of Scripture, but in Scripture, he DOES call his followers his "mother".

---

This silly syllogism reflects a twisting or completely misunderstanding of scripture.

Jesus here elevates those that do his will to equate with his family.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Jesus is referring to keeping the commandments." - so then, you're saying that salvation is by keeping the commandments? Good luck with that. That isn't the gospel.

---

No, I'm saying that by NOT keeping the commandments, one can lose salvation. That absolutely is scripture.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Was Jesus' divine nature present when he worked for his carpenter boss, "Tom"?
Does that make Tom the Boss of God?

No. The proper way to say it would be "Tom was the boss of Jesus, who is God (in the flesh)."

---

Well, I suppose that it is technically true. Having said that, I have reached out to a theologian/apologist for clarity.

I will humbly punt on this until I get a better answer.

It may take a few days for him to respond.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

NO, it isn't.

It's a simple yes or no question. It's NOT EVEN A QUESTION ABOUT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. I said you can insert ANY ENTITY (Baal, Aphrodite, Buddha, Donald Trump, a tree, my dog, etc) into the question. It has NOTHING to do with Roman Catholicism.

So stop your obvious stalling and dancing, and answer the question. Here it is again:

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

• pray to it, BOW TO and kiss it's image in church;
• keep images and statues of it all over your home;
• sing hymns to it, in church;
• celebrate multiple festivals throughout the year for it;
• recite prayers over and over where you say it's name 10 times the number that you say God's;
• give it titles like "Advocate", "Co-Mediator", "THE ALL HOLY ONE";
• have prayers which call it "sovereign", "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;
• 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.

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

---

I'm not dancing (I'm not a good dancer) or stalling. I have (repeatedly) stated that I will discuss any of these issues ONE at a time to better explain them to someone on the outside.

Your constant repetition doesn't make them true.

You have NO interest in learning. It seems to me (and maybe others) that you are hell-bent on proofing the Catholic Church is wrong. She isn't. It was the Church established by Jesus and the gates of hades will not prevail against it.

Again, I'll ask you (or anyone else) if they'd like to discuss any of these issues (or any other issue) that concerns them as a non-Catholic. I'm not hiding. I'm right here.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

From The Glories of Mary, by St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church:

"Oh mistress of all things, saint of saints, our strength and refuge, God, as it were, of the world, glory of heaven, accept those who love thee ; hear us, for thy Son honors thee and denies thee nothing."

https://www.ecatholic2000.com/liguori/glories106.shtml


It's even worse than I presented - "god" is capitalized!
You wanted an apology and retraction presented to the thread, but instead you got your idolatry presented to the thread, in all it's "glory". I think you lost pretty big on this transaction.

---

Ah, The Glories of Mary. I didn't have that on my Bingo card today. You haven't played that one in a long time. Kudos for your recent restraint!

For those of you who weren't familiar with The Glories of Mary (I wasn't and many of the good Catholics that I know weren't either) is a book written in 1750, 275 years ago by a man, Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, near Naples, Italy in 1698. He was well-educated, brilliant, and a successful lawyer. He latter felt a call to the priesthood and eschewed the secular world for service to God and man. He was appointed Bishop Sant'Agata de' Goti. He tried to refuse the appointment due to his age and illnesses but ultimately bowed in humility and accepted it. He "addressed ecclesiastical abuses in the diocese, reformed the seminary and spiritually rehabilitated the clergy and faithful."

The Glories of Mary This is an 111 page book (link attached) that was written by an Italian in a completely different time for people that spoke completely differently from what our American ears are used to hearing. He wrote the book to defend against Jansenism, which downplayed Mary's importance.

He ABSOLUTELY uses flowery and poetic language and imagery. That was his love for Mary, her Son, and the Church. I'm I uncomfortable with some of the language at first pass? Yes, but upon further review and CONTEXT, I better understand it and the times in which it was written.

In the book, he explains the Salve Regina ( a beautiful hymn that glorifies Mary as the Mother of God), explores Mary's principal feasts, discusses the 7 sorrows and 10 virtues of Mary, contains theological proofs, and many prayers and devotions.

Now to the phrase in question, "… God, as it were, of the world …" This phrase is NOT present in the actual book itself.

It does appear at the bottom of a list that contains The Glories of Mary and other prayers and devotions in the section called "Ejaculations to the most holy Mary." An ejaculation is a Catholic (Church Latin) term that denotes a short, fervent prayer or exclamation.

I will assume that St Alphonse Liguori wrote it as it lists "ibid" at the end of the quotation.

My defense of the phrase.

First, as I mentioned, it was written in a completely different time, place, and language from our current American culture. It sounds strange to me too.

Second, researching this, it appears that is associated her with her heavenly glory.

Third, this prayer is NOT magisterial teaching. It is NOT meant to convey any specific doctrine concerning Mary.

Forth, the lay faithful are NOT required to pray or profess everything that is true in the prayer.

Fifth, St Alphonse Liguori is very clear that Mary is to be venerated, not worshipped.

Finally, if you want to hang your Catholic hate on an excerpt from an Italian book written 275 years ago, you do you, Boo Boo.

I will firmly stand by Christ, His Church, and her teachings in the Catechism.

---

You've repeatedly tried running away from this, but you just can't. The fact remains, and always will remain, that you have a prayer written by a Doctor of the Catholic Church that is fully sanctioned and endorsed by your Magisterium that calls Mary "God of this world". And that is FAR from being the only idolatrous heresy coming from that book.

If your Church authority was truly from God, then there is NO WAY something like that would have been endorsed, sanctioned, printed, and re-printed in EIGHT HUNDRED editions without batting an eye at something like that. I think that is clearly obvious to any Christian reading this.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

if nothing I've said is false, and assuming I'm repeating the Nestorian heresy.... then why is Nestorianism even a heresy??

---

I believe we have reached a Matthew 10:14 impasse.

Have a nice day.

---

Right, just as I suspected. You don't know what you're talking about.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What are you taking about? I said they didn't believe Baal was GOD, as in THE God, not that they didn't believe Baal was A god. Good grief, is your reading and comprehension really this bad? And you're making such pointless arguments. You've lost focus on the point - you made the claim that you're not worshiping Mary because you're not saying she is God, and I'm making the point that the Israelites didn't believe Baal was God either, but that certainly didn't mean that God didn't consider it worship. You don't have to believe something is God for you to be worshiping them. This is an absolutely ridiculous and stupid argument.

---

I have no clue as to why I am responding to this except that I don't understand your distinction between a deity and a god. They are essentially the same thing.

I am merely stating that the worshippers of Baal were worshipping "him" Baal. A deity, which is a god.

People (cultures) worship deities or gods. Egyptians, Assarians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, etc. None of them were worshipping the GOD.

No, Baal is NOT the God. I am not arguing that. Mary is NOT a God, or the God, or part of the Trinity.

I would appreciate another protestant helping me understand the point that BTD17 is trying to make.
Also, please let me know if my point is confusing to one of you.

Finally, I am really done responding to this line of questioning unless another protestant can help me better understand what your are trying to say.

Thanks.

---

Are you really this dense?? Who's making a distinction between a deity and a god?

You're now admitting that they worshiped Baal as a god, not THE God, therefore you're saying that you don't have to be saying that something is God for it to be considered worship. You've just conceded that even though you're not saying Mary is God, it is still worship.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

NO. Mary did NOT give birth to the Person of Jesus.
The Personhood of Jesus existed eternally with the Father, before his birth to Mary.

Motherhood is a term that involves the FLESH ONLY. Mothers only give birth to the PHYSICAL body of a person, not their personhood. Your mother gave birth to your physical body, NOT your soul. Your personhood is both your body and your soul. Your mother is not the mother of your soul. Your soul came from God and God only. He is the Father of your soul. You have no mother of your soul.

Saying Mary gave birth to Jesus' personhood is saying that Mary gave birth to Jesus' eternal divinity. That is about as heretical as a heresy can get.

---

Dude, you are twisting yourself philosophically and linguistically.

The body (a person) is a hylomorphic being - comprised of BOTH body and soul. Death is the ONLY thing that separates body and soul.

So yes, Mary did give birth to Jesus, who was (IS) a person comprised of both Body and Soul.

---

There's no twisting, it's just your inability to process and understand what's being said.

Mothers don't birth souls, they only birth physical bodies who God gives a soul. Your mother is not the mother of your soul, she is the mother of your body, i.e. your human nature. So, since your PERSON is BOTH body and soul (as you just acknowledged), then your mother did NOT birth your PERSON, because she only birthed your body, but not your soul, and your PERSON is both your body and your soul.

In the same way, Mary did not birth Jesus' "soul" (his eternal, divine spirit), she only birthed his physical body (his human nature). She did not birth his divine nature. So Mary did not give birth to the PERSON of Jesus Christ (as you asserted) because his PERSON is BOTH his body and "soul", and Mary only birthed his body, not his soul. And since Jesus is God ONLY in that he was both human AND divine, then it follows that since Mary only birthed his humanity but not his divinity, it means Mary did NOT give birth to GOD. Therefore, Mary is not the "Mother of God". Rather, she is earthly mother of the man Jesus, who IS God. That is the more appropriate declaration.