Coke Bear said:

---

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.

---

Or, maybe it's a twisting and misunderstanding of Scripture to call Mary the Mother of God when Jesus himself never even called her his "mother" in all of Scripture, and in fact downplayed that as he did in the verse referenced above.

Coke Bear said:

---

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.

---

Yes, or no. It isn't difficult. It is either worship, or it isn't. It is either okay with God, or it isn't. You are dancing. What you're doing is dancing defined.

We know why you can't/won't answer it. The reason is obvious. Giving the obviously correct answer would completely undermine your current belief system and the legitimacy of the authority behind your religion. Giving the incorrect answer would make you look completely outrageous. This is pretty much checkmate. The only other move is to keep dancing, but even with that, you lose. The best thing to do is just be intellectually honest and give the answer we ALL know is correct, and just face up to what that means.

Coke Bear said:

---

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.

---

Good grief, you need your superiors to tell you whether it's completely inappropriate or not to call any created being the "Boss of God"??

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Great points!!!

Veneration sure looks a lot like worship to us ordinary folks.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Veneration sure looks a lot like worship to us ordinary folks.

---

Revere: to very much respect and admire someone or something.

Veneration:
transitive verb
To regard with deep respect or reverence. synonym: revere.


It's the difference between Flag Day and Sunday.

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Veneration sure looks a lot like worship to us ordinary folks.

---

Revere: to very much respect and admire someone or something.

Veneration:
transitive verb
To regard with deep respect or reverence. synonym: revere.


It's the difference between Flag Day and Sunday.

---

Looks like worship, call it what you will.

And you might consider the relationship between revere and reverence, which belongs to God.

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

Oldbear83 said:

---

Veneration sure looks a lot like worship to us ordinary folks.

---

Fair enough. To a protestant, I suppose. Protestants are amazing at praising and sometimes, even thanksgiving to God. But that is not a complete form of worship.

Saint Augustine says that "A true sacrifice is every work which is done that we may be united to God and holy friendship, and which has a reference to that supreme good and end in which alone we can be truly blessed." (City of God, Book 10, Chapter 6). The Mass is the "source and summit" of Christian worship, where we unite our sacrifices with Christ's perfect sacrifice (CCC 1324).

Additionally, by baptism, our bodies become temples offering spiritual worship through self-sacrifice and charity (Romans 12:1; CCC 2030). Worship is thus both personal and communal, interior and exterior, always directed to God alone.

Let's specifically discuss kissing or bowing to a statue. I've seen many protestants bow and kneel to an empty cross. Why? To an outsider (Jew, Muslim, atheist) it sure looks a lot like they are worshipping a piece of wood/metal/plastic that is an ancient Roman torture and execution device.

What about Nativity sets? I've seen many Nativity scenes outside of protestant churches during advent. I'd be willing to wager that most of the protestants on this board have one (or more) in their house. Maybe those churches and people are worshipping those nativity sets?

In reality, NO, protestants are not worshipping a torture device or nativity sets. They are giving honor to what they represent.

Just like Catholics who bow or kiss a statue are NOT worshipping the statue. They are honoring what they represent.

There is nothing inherently wrong with kissing or bowing. I travel two weeks out of every 4 weeks. I'm gone a lot. I may kiss a picture of my wife and kids. It doesn't mean that I'm worshipping them. Soloman bowed before Bathsheba. Was he worshipping her? No, he was giving her honor as the Gebirah, the queen mother.

Some Catholics do the save of a statue of Mary. Giving honor to the most holy human person that walked the earth. St. Augustine beautifully wrote of Mary,

"Him whom the heavens cannot contain, the womb of one woman bore. She ruled our Ruler; she carried Him in whom we are; she gave milk to our Bread."

Yes, we may bow (and some) may even kiss a statue of Mary. It's not worship. It's to honor her. Honoring her honors Jesus, because HE is the reason that she is so great.

As I've said before, "Why does the moon shine? Because of the sun. Why does Mary shine? Because of the SON."

You've always been fair and charitable in your posts. If you'd like to discuss this, or anything else, please let me know.

Peace.

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Veneration sure looks a lot like worship to us ordinary folks.

---

Revere: to very much respect and admire someone or something.

Veneration:
transitive verb
To regard with deep respect or reverence. synonym: revere.


It's the difference between Flag Day and Sunday.

---

It causes a lot of red flags to be raised on Sundays, that's for sure.

If you think that all the things I described above are merely "respect" and "admiration" for Mary, then you've lost your compass completely and you have absolutely zero discernment.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

I've stated that I don't care for the language. I've also stated that there are cultural and time differences concerning this writing. I've also stated that it's not magisterial teaching.

You don't like it. I get it. Everyone gets it. That one obscure line is not going to keep me or others from worshipping in the true Church that Jesus founded.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

You are separating body and soul. Anyone born without a soul is dead. Jesus was born with a soul. Mary is his mother and the Mother of God.

Why is your opinion right over 1600 years of teaching and at least three of the reformers? How did the Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli get it wrong?

Your beliefs are Nestorian in this matter. Keep digging you ditch deeper. I'll stand with history, theology, philosophy, and the Church that Jesus founded.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Or, maybe it's a twisting and misunderstanding of Scripture to call Mary the Mother of God when Jesus himself never even called her his "mother" in all of Scripture, and in fact downplayed that as he did in the verse referenced above.

---

You've mentioned that several times.

• Why is that important to you?
• Do you think that he never called his mother "Ima" or "mom" or "ma" or "mama" or any other word for mother?
• Why do you think the sacred author chose to write like this and what do you think he was trying to convey?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Yes, or no. It isn't difficult. It is either worship, or it isn't. It is either okay with God, or it isn't. You are dancing. What you're doing is dancing defined.

We know why you can't/won't answer it. The reason is obvious. Giving the obviously correct answer would completely undermine your current belief system and the legitimacy of the authority behind your religion. Giving the incorrect answer would make you look completely outrageous. This is pretty much checkmate. The only other move is to keep dancing, but even with that, you lose. The best thing to do is just be intellectually honest and give the answer we ALL know is correct, and just face up to what that means.

---

Is God OK with members of His Church using language like this towards Mary? ABSOLUTELY!

Toward others? No.

If you want to discuss any of these, let's discuss them one at time.

Me: "Who are all these pictures and statues of that you're praying and bowing to?"
Crowd: "Tom, of course. We are admiring and revering him."
Me: "What for? And why in church?"
Crowd: "Don't you know? He was the Boss of God."
Me: "HUH? God had no boss!"
Crowd: "Are you nuts? Of course he did. Jesus worked as a carpenter for Tom. Tom was the boss of Jesus. Jesus was God. Therefore Tom was the Boss of God."
Me: "No, that doesn't make him the "Boss of God", it only made him the earthly boss of the man Jesus, who is God, while he worked as a carpenter."
Crowd: "HERETIC!! NESTORIANISM!!"

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

I've stated that I don't care for the language. I've also stated that there are cultural and time differences concerning this writing. I've also stated that it's not magisterial teaching.

You don't like it. I get it. Everyone gets it. That one obscure line is not going to keep me or others from worshipping in the true Church that Jesus founded.

---

ONE Line?

There's an extremely long list, as has been clearly shown.

And even that one line is really, really bad. There isn't a single true Christian who would stay at a church if that church called a human being "God of this world". They would have much, much more concern with it than just "not caring for the language". There isn't any cultural or time period where that would be nothing short of pure idolatry. If that doesn't raise red flags for someone, then there is serious, serious doubt that person is a Christian.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Yes, or no. It isn't difficult. It is either worship, or it isn't. It is either okay with God, or it isn't. You are dancing. What you're doing is dancing defined.

We know why you can't/won't answer it. The reason is obvious. Giving the obviously correct answer would completely undermine your current belief system and the legitimacy of the authority behind your religion. Giving the incorrect answer would make you look completely outrageous. This is pretty much checkmate. The only other move is to keep dancing, but even with that, you lose. The best thing to do is just be intellectually honest and give the answer we ALL know is correct, and just face up to what that means.

---

Is God OK with members of His Church using language like this towards Mary? ABSOLUTELY!

Toward others? No.

If you want to discuss any of these, let's discuss them one at time.

---

You're still dodging. Do those things I listed constitute worship if done to any entity that you want to name?

And if it isn't worship, then why wouldn't God be okay with it for people other than Mary?

Why did you use the term "we"?
How is he dodging the question when he indicates that he does want to respond to them, just separately?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

ONE Line?

There's an extremely long list, as has been clearly shown.

And even that one line is really, really bad. There isn't a single true Christian who would stay at a church if that church called a human being "God of this world". They would have much, much more concern with it than just "not caring for the language". There isn't any cultural or time period where that would be nothing short of pure idolatry. If that doesn't raise red flags for someone, then there is serious, serious doubt that person is a Christian.

---

You are looking for anything that odd to our modern ears. I've already said that I didn't care for the language of that specific ejaculation. The other phrases are much more understandable in the light of their culture and time period.

It's a 275-year old book of devotion. That phrase is not even found in the main pages of the book. As I said, It's NOT part of magisterial teaching. If you really want to complain about the Catholic faith, please go to the Catechism of the Catholic Church pick any topic. I'll happily discuss it with you.

Better yet, start at the beginning of the Catechism. We can go line by line with every point that you disagree with. At least you would be refuting what Catholics ACTUALLY believe.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You're still dodging. Do those things I listed constitute worship if done to any entity that you want to name?

And if it isn't worship, then why wouldn't God be okay with it for people other than Mary?

---

If those items that you listed are directed to a holy Saint in heaven, there is nothing wrong with honoring them.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Good grief, you need your superiors to tell you whether it's completely inappropriate or not to call any created being the "Boss of God"??

---

I don't have superiors in this regard. Why do you feel that it was necessary to phrase it like that?

I emailed individuals who have more theological expertise to help me ensure that my answer was correct.

He did confirm my answer. It is technically true.

Jesus in his human nature would have "submitted rightly to authority - whether that was his parents, religious teachers, or someone is a position like a carpenter foreman - so long as their directives aligned with the will of his Father."

"His obedience was not because that person had authority over Jesus' divine nature, but rather because Jesus humbled himself in all ways making himself subject even to other men in obedience to his Father."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Me: "Who are all these pictures and statues of that you're praying and bowing to?"
Crowd: "Tom, of course. We are admiring and revering him."
Me: "What for? And why in church?"
Crowd: "Don't you know? He was the Boss of God."
Me: "HUH? God had no boss!"
Crowd: "Are you nuts? Of course he did. Jesus worked as a carpenter for Tom. Tom was the boss of Jesus. Jesus was God. Therefore Tom was the Boss of God."
Me: "No, that doesn't make him the "Boss of God", it only made him the earthly boss of the man Jesus, who is God, while he worked as a carpenter."
Crowd: "HERETIC!! NESTORIANISM!!"

---

Once again, you are separating his natures.

Also, if Tom, Jesus' boss, is a saint in heaven, then it would be absolutely fine to ask for Tom's intercession.

BUDOS said:

---

Why did you use the term "we"?
How is he dodging the question when he indicates that he does want to respond to them, just separately?

---

"We" doesn't have to include you.

There is nothing about the yes or no question that requires addressing each individual point. You either believe it's worship when you do all those things (for any entity that you want to name), or you believe it isn't. Let me demonstrate for you and all others here who are frequent dodgers just how easy it is:

"Yes, it would be worship."

Making it any more difficult than it is, is dodging and obfuscation. Here, let me illustrate: what's your answer to the question?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

ONE Line?

There's an extremely long list, as has been clearly shown.

And even that one line is really, really bad. There isn't a single true Christian who would stay at a church if that church called a human being "God of this world". They would have much, much more concern with it than just "not caring for the language". There isn't any cultural or time period where that would be nothing short of pure idolatry. If that doesn't raise red flags for someone, then there is serious, serious doubt that person is a Christian.

---

You are looking for anything that odd to our modern ears. I've already said that I didn't care for the language of that specific ejaculation. The other phrases are much more understandable in the light of their culture and time period.

It's a 275-year old book of devotion. That phrase is not even found in the main pages of the book. As I said, It's NOT part of magisterial teaching. If you really want to complain about the Catholic faith, please go to the Catechism of the Catholic Church pick any topic. I'll happily discuss it with you.

Better yet, start at the beginning of the Catechism. We can go line by line with every point that you disagree with. At least you would be refuting what Catholics ACTUALLY believe.

---

Your "time period" defense is simply ridiculous and laughable. In ANY TIME PERIOD, calling any human being anything CLOSE to "God of this world" is a major red flag. If you really don't understand this, then you are lost.

You're trying desperately to defend the completely indefensible. If your Magisterium were truly from God, then this would have been disavowed many, many years ago. But for 275 years, all they've done is print it over and over in EIGHT HUNDRED editions without batting an eye. I say again - NO TRUE CHRISTIAN would attend a church where the church leaders fully endorse and sanction a book that not only called a human being "God of this world", but also:

• "sovereign";
• "peacemaker between sinners and God";
• "ruler of my house";
• "our strength and our refuge";
• "Queen of Heaven" (in the Old Testament, the queen of heaven was a pagan goddess);
• "Mediatrix";
• "salvation of the universe";
• "grant that we go to heaven";
• "I give you my heart and soul";
• "Every prayer of yours is an established Law of our Lord";

...and many, many other absolutely heretical and idolatrous things. If you really don't see the problem with these, then there is SERIOUS, SERIOUS doubt you are a Christian.

It's obvious why the Roman Catholic Church does this. They are trying to lead you to the real object of their worship - Mary. You don't get to the point where you call Mary "THE ALL HOLY ONE" in your catechism and bow and pray to her image in church without first warming up gullible and easily deceived people to the idea in all your literature.

I've said it before, I'll say it again - I'm absolutely astounded how people can be shown all this, and defend it. It truly goes to show how powerful Satanic deception really is. It truly is one of the saddest things I've ever beheld in my life.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You're still dodging. Do those things I listed constitute worship if done to any entity that you want to name?

And if it isn't worship, then why wouldn't God be okay with it for people other than Mary?

---

If those items that you listed are directed to a holy Saint in heaven, there is nothing wrong with honoring them.

---

Dodge.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Good grief, you need your superiors to tell you whether it's completely inappropriate or not to call any created being the "Boss of God"??

---

I don't have superiors in this regard. Why do you feel that it was necessary to phrase it like that?

I emailed individuals who have more theological expertise to help me ensure that my answer was correct.

He did confirm my answer. It is technically true.

Jesus in his human nature would have "submitted rightly to authority - whether that was his parents, religious teachers, or someone is a position like a carpenter foreman - so long as their directives aligned with the will of his Father."

"His obedience was not because that person had authority over Jesus' divine nature, but rather because Jesus humbled himself in all ways making himself subject even to other men in obedience to his Father."

---

it is completely inappropriate to call any human being the "Boss of God".

It's not surprising at this point that you can't discern this.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Me: "Who are all these pictures and statues of that you're praying and bowing to?"
Crowd: "Tom, of course. We are admiring and revering him."
Me: "What for? And why in church?"
Crowd: "Don't you know? He was the Boss of God."
Me: "HUH? God had no boss!"
Crowd: "Are you nuts? Of course he did. Jesus worked as a carpenter for Tom. Tom was the boss of Jesus. Jesus was God. Therefore Tom was the Boss of God."
Me: "No, that doesn't make him the "Boss of God", it only made him the earthly boss of the man Jesus, who is God, while he worked as a carpenter."
Crowd: "HERETIC!! NESTORIANISM!!"

---

Once again, you are separating his natures.

Also, if Tom, Jesus' boss, is a saint in heaven, then it would be absolutely fine to ask for Tom's intercession.

---

If I'm saying "the man Jesus... who IS GOD", I'm saying he has both natures that are distinct, yet united. If they aren't distinct, but rather fused into a new, combined nature, then Jesus doesn't have the human nature anymore to pay for sin with his sacrifice.

You're only seeing what you HAVE TO see in order to defend calling Mary the "Mother of God" so you can deify her.

Bowing to and praying to Tom's image in church is far, far more than merely "asking for his intercession". It's pure idolatry. Again, I'm not surprised at this point that you can't discern this. You are completely LOST.

More fun with syllogisms:

God created the heavens and the Earth;
Jesus is fully God, so Jesus created the heavens and the earth;
Jesus is also fully human;
Therefore, a human created the heavens and the earth.

See the problem?

God is three persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit;
Therefore, God is NOT ONLY the Father, or NOT ONLY the Son, or NOT ONLY the Holy Spirit;
But ONLY the Son became incarnate in human flesh and was born to Mary.
Therefore, Mary birthed ONLY the incarnate Son.
Therefore, Mary did not birth God, because God is NOT ONLY the Son;
Therefore Mary is not the mother of God.

Anyone disagree with this logic? Is so, what is wrong with it?

How about this one:

Tom poisoned the food of one hundred people and killed them;
Twenty years later, Tom got a job at McDonald's (assume he is able to get a job after such a crime);
Thus, a McDonald's employee poisoned the food of one hundred people and killed them.

See the problem?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If I'm saying "the man Jesus... who IS GOD", I'm saying he has both natures that are distinct, yet united. If they aren't distinct, but rather fused into a new, combined nature, then Jesus doesn't have the human nature anymore to pay for sin with his sacrifice.

---

You're actually half right. Jesus has two distinct natures united and inseparable in the hypostatic union. She birthed both natures. She is Mary, the Mother of God, the Son.

I'm not sure why you continue to argue with history and three of the leading reformers (Luther, Calvin, & Zwingli.) I suppose it lies with the nature of protestantism - the further away from the "reformation", the more protestants have to separate themselves from Christ's Church.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You're only seeing what you HAVE TO see in order to defend calling Mary the "Mother of God" so you can deify her.

---

Catholics can't deify her. She is not God. She is a mere creature (granted the greatest creature ever created).

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Bowing to and praying to Tom's image in church is far, far more than merely "asking for his intercession". It's pure idolatry. Again, I'm not surprised at this point that you can't discern this. You are completely LOST.

---

Was it a sin for Bathsheba to bow to David or Soloman to bow to Bathsheba?

What is inherently sinful in bowing?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If I'm saying "the man Jesus... who IS GOD", I'm saying he has both natures that are distinct, yet united. If they aren't distinct, but rather fused into a new, combined nature, then Jesus doesn't have the human nature anymore to pay for sin with his sacrifice.

---

You're actually half right. Jesus has two distinct natures united and inseparable in the hypostatic union. She birthed both natures. She is Mary, the Mother of God, the Son.

I'm not sure why you continue to argue with history and three of the leading reformers (Luther, Calvin, & Zwingli.) I suppose it lies with the nature of protestantism - the further away from the "reformation", the more protestants have to separate themselves from Christ's Church.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You're only seeing what you HAVE TO see in order to defend calling Mary the "Mother of God" so you can deify her.

---

Catholics can't deify her. She is not God. She is a mere creature (granted the greatest creature ever created).

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Bowing to and praying to Tom's image in church is far, far more than merely "asking for his intercession". It's pure idolatry. Again, I'm not surprised at this point that you can't discern this. You are completely LOST.

---

Was it a sin for Bathsheba to bow to David or Soloman to bow to Bathsheba?

What is inherently sinful in bowing?

---

Women can't birth a divine nature. Birthing only involves the physical. Jesus' divine nature is not a physical substance that can be contained in a three-dimensional space like inside a womb. It is an eternal spirit. Therefore it wasn't birthed.

You don't have to say that Mary is God in order to be deifying her. You have a far, far too limited idea of "deifying" and "worshiping". God isn't going to buy into your semantics and loopholes.

Did Bathsheba and David bow to each other believing they were a supernatural, glorified being in heaven from whom they seek supernatural intervention? You are so short sighted about this, that is blows my mind. What you're arguing, is something like this: a married man undresses another woman and kisses her. His wife says to him, "You're being unfaithful and sinning!". To which the man replies "How is that a sin? You undress and kiss our little baby, don't you? Is that a sin?"

Your arguments are just so ridiculous, that I just can't believe that anyone would even try to pass them off.

BUDOS said:

---

Why did you use the term "we"?
How is he dodging the question when he indicates that he does want to respond to them, just separately?

---

The point I checked out of the discussion was "if I agree with Nestorius, then Nestorius was right!" There is no profit in such discussions with someone who worships their own reason.

As Orthodox, we have a a term called the "Royal Path".

"The teaching of this "royal path" is set forth, for example, in the tenth of St. Abba Dorotheus' Spiritual lnstructions, where he quotes especially the Book of Deuteronomy: Ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left, but go by the royal path (Deut. 5:32, 17:11), and St. Basil the Great: "Upright of heart is he whose thought does not turn away either to excess or to lack, but is directed only to the mean of virtue."

In the case of the Theotokos, it is recognizing the entirely unique role she played in God's plan, and honoring her for her cooperation (Luke 1:38) in it. We do not turn aside to attribute an immaculate conception or position as a co-redemptrix to her. We do not roll her out in December so we can sing "Mary did you know" at a Christmas week service and put her in the attic with the tree for the remaining 11 months of the year.

As the Mandalorian said, "This is the way."

Gotcha. Thanks for the explanation.

Realitybites said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Why did you use the term "we"?
How is he dodging the question when he indicates that he does want to respond to them, just separately?

---

The point I checked out of the discussion was "if I agree with Nestorius, then Nestorius was right!" There is no profit in such discussions with someone who worships their own reason.

As Orthodox, we have a a term called the "Royal Path".

"The teaching of this "royal path" is set forth, for example, in the tenth of St. Abba Dorotheus' Spiritual lnstructions, where he quotes especially the Book of Deuteronomy: Ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left, but go by the royal path (Deut. 5:32, 17:11), and St. Basil the Great: "Upright of heart is he whose thought does not turn away either to excess or to lack, but is directed only to the mean of virtue."

In the case of the Theotokos, it is recognizing the entirely unique role she played in God's plan, and honoring her for her cooperation (Luke 1:38) in it. We do not turn aside to attribute an immaculate conception or position as a co-redemptrix to her. We do not roll her out in December so we can sing "Mary did you know" at a Christmas week service and put her in the attic with the tree for the remaining 11 months of the year.

As the Mandalorian said, "This is the way."

---

Why do you LIE?

I specifically said THIS: "*If nothing I've said is false*, and assuming I'm repeating the Nestorian heresy.... then why is Nestorianism even a heresy?? "

^^^This question is CLEARLY NOT "if I agree with Nestorius, then Nestorius was right". That is a complete straw man. Clearly, the question was pointing out that true statements or statements that can't be falsified can't be "heresy", so the onus is on YOU to falsify them, otherwise ironically you'd in effect be agreeing with the heresy yourself.

Once again, we have someone having to resort to ad hominen games so they can dismiss what I'm saying and not have to deal with it. Is there ANY intellectually honest person out there that can discuss all this with me?