BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

AAAAND, you just separated His natures again. Both natures rest inside his body. Do you think that his divine nature just floats above him somewhere in the ether?

You are literally making this stuff up.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

No, actually, I would argue that you don't know what worshipping is. Worship is more than praise.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Your analogy is ludicrous and non-sensical.

FUNNY, you don't even realize that it IS the same. It is ALL in scripture!

Soloman bowed to give honor to a person deserving honor, the queen mother.
Individuals, that bow to a statue of Mary, are giving honor to an image of a person deserving honor, THE Queen Mother.

Soloman is asking his mother to interceded on his behalf to the king, David, for his request.
Individual are asking Mary (our Mother) to intercede on their behave to THE King, Jesus, for their request.

It is the SAME thing.

Sadly, your biases (and dare I say hatred) have blinded you to this fact. You cannot and will not accept what's right in front of you. Say a (honest) prayer to God asking him to reveal the truth to you.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

AAAAND, you just separated His natures again. Both natures rest inside his body. Do you think that his divine nature just floats above him somewhere in the ether?

You are literally making this stuff up.

---

If Jesus' divine nature was contained within the limits of his physical body inside the womb, then his nature was no longer omnipresent; which would make him no longer God. If so, then Mary would definitely not have been the Mother of God. So you're destroying your own argument.

Women can't give birth to omnipresent beings. If Mary gave birth to a being that was present everywhere in the entire universe, then wow, that must've been one helluva birth.

Still think I'm making stuff up now?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

No, actually, I would argue that you don't know what worshipping is. Worship is more than praise.

---

If I don't know what worship is, but you do, then how is that I can completely stump you on it with a simple question, a question that you are completely dodging? I mean, it would seem to me that someone who knows what worship is or isn't wouldn't have too difficult a time answering a question on whether something is or isn't worship. So can you finally tell us? If you do these things to <INSERT ANY ENTITY 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??

So educate me on what worship is. What's your answer?

I see a mistake here.

Solomon, David and their moms were all human. So the intercession was human speaking for human to human.

Mary was the human woman who gave birth to Jesus.

Jesus honored his mother, but never - even once - directed His disciples and followers to pray to her, or ever set Mary above His other servants.

Mary has no special authority.

This is an error, and can lead some to false beliefs.

Following up on this, consider how Paul reminded people that he refrained from some things which were permissable, in order not to confuse some who did not understand.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Following up on this, consider how Paul reminded people that he refrained from some things which were permissable, in order not to confuse some who did not understand.

---

Yes. When he was around them.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Your analogy is ludicrous and non-sensical.

FUNNY, you don't even realize that it IS the same. It is ALL in scripture!

Soloman bowed to give honor to a person deserving honor, the queen mother.
Individuals, that bow to a statue of Mary, are giving honor to an image of a person deserving honor, THE Queen Mother.

Soloman is asking his mother to interceded on his behalf to the king, David, for his request.
Individual are asking Mary (our Mother) to intercede on their behave to THE King, Jesus, for their request.

It is the SAME thing.

Sadly, your biases (and dare I say hatred) have blinded you to this fact. You cannot and will not accept what's right in front of you. Say a (honest) prayer to God asking him to reveal the truth to you.

---

So, since it was okay for Solomon to bow to the queen mother and ask for intervention.... then it was okay for the Israelites to makes statues of the queen mother, put it in the Temple, and do the same? It's okay for the Israelites to make a statue of Moses after he died, put it in the Temple, and bow and pray to it for intervention on their behalf?

Anyone who did anything close to these things would've been put to death.

You have absolutely no clue. The analogy I gave is EXACTLY what you're doing. You're trying to equate two things that are a universe apart. I'm not the one needing prayers for discernment on this.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Following up on this, consider how Paul reminded people that he refrained from some things which were permissable, in order not to confuse some who did not understand.

---

You're suggesting to him that it's permissible. It is not. It is pure idolatry. The second commandment clearly prohibits making an image of anything on earth or in heaven above and BOWING to it. I mean, it's right there in front of their faces in the Ten Commandments. I don't even know how this is even debatable.

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

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If Jesus' divine nature was contained within the limits of his physical body inside the womb, then his nature was no longer omnipresent; which would make him no longer God. If so, then Mary would definitely not have been the Mother of God. So you're destroying your own argument.

Women can't give birth to omnipresent beings. If Mary gave birth to a being that was present everywhere in the entire universe, then wow, that must've been one helluva birth.

Still think I'm making stuff up now?

---

Actually, yes.

While Jesus' divine and human natures are united in one Person hypostatically, his divine nature is not limited by space and time.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If Jesus' divine nature was contained within the limits of his physical body inside the womb, then his nature was no longer omnipresent; which would make him no longer God. If so, then Mary would definitely not have been the Mother of God. So you're destroying your own argument.

Women can't give birth to omnipresent beings. If Mary gave birth to a being that was present everywhere in the entire universe, then wow, that must've been one helluva birth.

Still think I'm making stuff up now?

---

Actually, yes.

While Jesus' divine and human natures are united in one Person hypostatically, his divine nature is not limited by space and time.

---

If his divine nature is not limited by space, then it could not have been contained within his physical body, as you asserted.

You're going against your argument now. Just admit that you were wrong.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I see a mistake here.

Solomon, David and their moms were all human. So the intercession was human speaking for human to human.

Mary was the human woman who gave birth to Jesus.

Jesus honored his mother, but never - even once - directed His disciples and followers to pray to her, or ever set Mary above His other servants.

Mary has no special authority.

This is an error, and can lead some to false beliefs.

---

Mary is still human and actually more alive in heaven than all of us here on earth. She is enjoying the Beatific Vision.

Why would he direct them to ask Mary for heavenly intercession when she was on earth?
Why would he place her "above His other servants" on earth? He gave the Keys to the Kingdom to Peter.

In heaven, however, she is glorified (see Revelation 12:1.) Also, Luke 1:48 records her words "all generations shall call me blessed".

The holy ones in heaven, united in the Body of Christ, have unlimited access to the Father. They have all the authority they need to bring petitions to Him.

"Our Lord ordained that no one shall obtain salvation except through [Mary's] intercession."

- Saint Alphonsus Ligouri, Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church

"At Mary's command, all obey, even God."

Alphonsus Ligouri, sainted and made Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If Jesus' divine nature was contained within the limits of his physical body inside the womb, then his nature was no longer omnipresent; which would make him no longer God. If so, then Mary would definitely not have been the Mother of God. So you're destroying your own argument.

Women can't give birth to omnipresent beings. If Mary gave birth to a being that was present everywhere in the entire universe, then wow, that must've been one helluva birth.

Still think I'm making stuff up now?

---

Actually, yes.

While Jesus' divine and human natures are united in one Person hypostatically, his divine nature is not limited by space and time.

---

If his divine nature is not limited by space, then it could not have been contained within his physical body, as you asserted.

You're going against your argument now. Just admit that you were wrong.

---

You missed have skipped over the part that says that they are united in Person and can't be separated.

Omnipresent means " present everywhere at the same time."

Which means that it was with him in his body at birth and everywhere at the same time.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If Jesus' divine nature was contained within the limits of his physical body inside the womb, then his nature was no longer omnipresent; which would make him no longer God. If so, then Mary would definitely not have been the Mother of God. So you're destroying your own argument.

Women can't give birth to omnipresent beings. If Mary gave birth to a being that was present everywhere in the entire universe, then wow, that must've been one helluva birth.

Still think I'm making stuff up now?

---

Actually, yes.

While Jesus' divine and human natures are united in one Person hypostatically, his divine nature is not limited by space and time.

---

If his divine nature is not limited by space, then it could not have been contained within his physical body, as you asserted.

You're going against your argument now. Just admit that you were wrong.

---

You missed have skipped over the part that says that they are united in Person and can't be separated.

Omnipresent means " present everywhere at the same time."

Which means that it was with him in his body at birth and everywhere at the same time.

---

Which means that his nature was not contained in one space, i.e. the womb.

His body being in one place, while his nature being present everywhere at the same time, is not separating them. Your thinking on this is too limited.

You're trying to argue an oxymoron, no matter how you slice it.

Coke Bear said:

---

While Jesus' divine and human natures are united in one Person hypostatically, his divine nature is not limited by space and time.

---

Correct. John 1:48-49, among others. But you simply cannot win an argument against someone who, in his pride, has determined that his opinions sit in judgement of 2,000 years of Christian history.

Realitybites said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

While Jesus' divine and human natures are united in one Person hypostatically, his divine nature is not limited by space and time.

---

Correct. John 1:48-49, among others. But you simply cannot win an argument against someone who, in his pride, has determined that his opinions sit in judgement of 2,000 years of Christian history.

---

The union of Jesus' divine and human nature, with his human body being limited in space and time, but while his divine nature is NOT, is EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING. CokeBear argued that both natures were contained in his body, and now is conceding that isn't true. So you're affirming that I'm correct, and that he is wrong.

You guys are so hell bent on trying to disprove me simply out of spite, that you don't even know what the argument being made actually is. You're now actually agreeing with me (NESTORIAN! Heretic!) And then you're having to resort to ad hominems (i.e, I'm being "prideful") and straw men (you lied about what I said) so you can dismiss my arguments. None of you will answer those syllogisms. So who's really the one blocking their understanding due to pride?

Realitybites said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

While Jesus' divine and human natures are united in one Person hypostatically, his divine nature is not limited by space and time.

---

Correct. John 1:48-49, among others. But you simply cannot win an argument against someone who, in his pride, has determined that his opinions sit in judgement of 2,000 years of Christian history.

---

2000 years of Christian history has produced grossly unbiblical and even heretical and idolatrous beliefs and practices, as has been CLEARLY demonstrated in this thread. Can anyone here honestly argue against this?

The common denominator for all of them? Going away from Scripture as the only infallible authority and adding tradition as equally authoritative.

In Scripture, Jesus never called Mary his mother.... but tradition calls her his "Mother" with a capital "M". In scripture, Jesus downplays the significance of his earthly relationship to Mary and honors her no more than any other believer.... but tradition elevates that relationship and honor to the highest level, saying that Jesus does anything for her because she is his "Mother", even to where salvation rests upon her.

2000 years of church history has yielded such rank errors, many of them damnable. So needless to say, arguing that someone is wrong because they sit against two thousand years of church history is not a very convincing argument. You guys should stop using it.

Your problem remains, Coke Bear.

Jesus never said anything to support the Marian ... devotion.

At best it's ascriptural.

Still more pleasing to God than Joel Osteen, though.

Realitybites said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

While Jesus' divine and human natures are united in one Person hypostatically, his divine nature is not limited by space and time.

---

Correct. John 1:48-49, among others. But you simply cannot win an argument against someone who, in his pride, has determined that his opinions sit in judgement of 2,000 years of Christian history.

---

Uh-huh. Because human tradition matters more than Scripture.

Look, BTD has his ego and some other issues.


But playing up human behavior as the sine qua non for how to be Christian seems like a losing plan to me.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

While Jesus' divine and human natures are united in one Person hypostatically, his divine nature is not limited by space and time.

---

Correct. John 1:48-49, among others. But you simply cannot win an argument against someone who, in his pride, has determined that his opinions sit in judgement of 2,000 years of Christian history.

---

Uh-huh. Because human tradition matters more than Scripture.

Look, BTD has his ego and some other issues.


But playing up human behavior as the sine qua non for how to be Christian seems like a losing plan to me.

---

LOL. There is no more "ego" in any of my comments than any of yours or anyone else's in this thread. Speaking the truth isn't "ego". You guys project so much, it's ridiculous.

Why can't any of you engage the arguments, instead of always resorting to ad hominem?

Quote:

---

Still more pleasing to God than Joel Osteen, though.

---

Says who? Who are you to speak for God in what he is pleased more with?

Quote:

---

But playing up human behavior as the sine qua non for how to be Christian seems like a losing plan to me.

---

Actually, reading the lives of the Saints - particularly our modern ones - is incredibly beneficial for us. While Christ is obviously the standard, we all fail to live up to His example on a daily basis in all sorts of little and big ways.

The lives of the saints illustrate for us how others have fallen down, gotten up, and kept running the race.

Today, July 29th we remember Saint Callinicus of Gangra in Asia Minor - 250 AD

"Martyr Callinicus, a native of Cilicia, was raised from childhood in the Christian Faith. Grieving that many misguided people would perish for eternity because they worshiped idols, he went through the cities and villages to proclaim Jesus Christ and His teachings to the pagans, and with the Word of God he converted many to Christianity.

In the Galatian city of Ancyra the holy confessor was arrested and brought to trial before a governor named Sacerdonus, a fierce persecutor of Christians. The governor, threatening tortures and death, ordered the saint to offer sacrifice to the idols. The saint fearlessly declared that he was not afraid of martyrdom, since every believer in Christ receives from Him strength in ordeals, and through death inherits an eternal blessed life.

They cruelly beat the saint with ox thongs and tore at his body with iron hooks, but he endured everything with patience and calm. This aroused still greater fury in Sacerdonus, and he ordered that sandals with sharp nails be placed on the saint's feet, and that they should drive the martyr with whips to the city of Gangra to be burned.

The pathway was arduous, and the soldiers who accompanied the condemned man were weak from thirst. In despair they began to implore the saint to pray the Lord for water. The saint, taking pity on his tormentors, with the help of God caused a miraculous spring of water to gush forth from a stone. The astonished soldiers were filled with sympathy for their rescuer, and they wanted even to set him free. Fear of execution, however, compelled them to bring the martyr farther. In Gangra, Saint Callinicus joyfully offered thanks to the Lord, Who had vouchsafed him the crown of martyrdom. He went into the blazing fire and gave up his soul to God."

Saint Callinicus, pray for us and Christ's persecuted Church, specifically for the friends and families of the 43 martyrs for the faith at the hands of ISIS in Komanda, Congo two days ago.

https://catholiccourier.com/articles/at-least-43-dead-after-attack-at-congo-catholic-church/

My point stands. Follow Christ, not some famous human.

Oldbear83 said:

---

My point stands. Follow Christ, not some famous human.

---

Following Christ is sort of the definition of being a Christian. Learning from the mistakes and successes of others so you don't have to make all the mistakes yourself and are encouraged by their success is also wise.

You can't really say that it is ok to have "Just As I Am" on the bookshelf and not the Synaxarion.

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

My point stands. Follow Christ, not some famous human.

---

Following Christ is sort of the definition of being a Christian. Learning from the mistakes and successes of others so you don't have to make all the mistakes yourself and are encouraged by their success is also wise.

You can't really say that it is ok to have "Just As I Am" on the bookshelf and not the Synaxarion.

---

Learning from previous Christians is one thing.

Making images of them and putting them in church, and praying, kissing, and bowing to their images in church is ENTIRELY another. That is nothing other than ancestor worship. Other cultures have exactly this practice, and they make no bones about it being "worship". Your "veneration" label is just semantics, and semantics isn't going to fool God.

In Revelation 22:8-9, John and the angel clearly consider bowing or falling prostrate, particularly to a heavenly being, an act of "worship":

"I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.""

Did John believe that the angel was God, or part of the Trinity, or the Savior? No. Did he make a sacrfice to the angel? No. Does Scripture still call this "worship"? Yes.

" You can't really say that it is ok to have "Just As I Am" on the bookshelf and not the Synaxarion."

Actually, you can.

No one is obligated to have the same interests as you, let alone rank books the same way.

But back to the point ...

There are some great Christian authors, and three of my favorite are Tolkien, Lewis, and Chesterton. But as much as like their writing and intellect, I would never conflate any of those authors into someone whose doctrine should drive my own.

Your problem, RealityBites, is that you take some wise men and turn them into idols. I say 'idols' because these men, who were simply believers like many others, have been inflated to exemplars and the RC leaders proclaim them authorities, in many cases equal to Scripture.

That is Pride, with all that brings.

Since some here hold Augustine in very, very high regard, let's hear what he says about the authority of "2000 years of church history":


"As regards our writings, which are not a rule of faith or practice, but only a help to edification, we may suppose that they contain some things falling short of the truth.... Such writings are read with the right of judgement, and without any obligation to believe." (Against Faustus, Book XI Chapter 5)

"There is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments." (Against Faustus, Book XI Chapter 5)

"Do not follow my writings as Holy Scripture. When you find in Holy Scripture anything you did not believe before, believe it without doubt; but in my writings, you should hold nothing for certain." (On the Trinity, Book 3)


^^^ You see what he's saying here? Augustine believed in SOLA SCRIPTURA.
So why do you guys reject it?

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

Oldbear83 said:

---

" You can't really say that it is ok to have "Just As I Am" on the bookshelf and not the Synaxarion."

Actually, you can.

No one is obligated to have the same interests as you, let alone rank books the same way.

But back to the point ...

There are some great Christian authors, and three of my favorite are Tolkien, Lewis, and Chesterton. But as much as like their writing and intellect, I would never conflate any of those authors into someone whose doctrine should drive my own.

Your problem, RealityBites, is that you take some wise men and turn them into idols. I say 'idols' because these men, who were simply believers like many others, have been inflated to exemplars and the RC leaders proclaim them authorities, in many cases equal to Scripture.

That is Pride, with all that brings.

---

My point about the Synaxarion vs "Just As I Am" specifically, was that it is inconsistent to criticize reading the lives of the Saints in the Synaxrion while simultaneously reading Billy Graham's biography or those of modern day evagelical leaders.

The Saints in Orthodoxy are not considered infallable or equal to scripture. They are valuable examples for us.

I like this.

A Catholic deacon teaching an RCIA csse once said, " We don't worship saints any more than you worship the photogtaphs in your wallet."

I think it would be "the pictures in your phone" today.

Having one side of my family Catholic and one Protestant have taught me that the majority of differences are either misunderstanding or politics.

Talk about substitutes for Jesus.

Love one another.

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" You can't really say that it is ok to have "Just As I Am" on the bookshelf and not the Synaxarion."

Actually, you can.

No one is obligated to have the same interests as you, let alone rank books the same way.

But back to the point ...

There are some great Christian authors, and three of my favorite are Tolkien, Lewis, and Chesterton. But as much as like their writing and intellect, I would never conflate any of those authors into someone whose doctrine should drive my own.

Your problem, RealityBites, is that you take some wise men and turn them into idols. I say 'idols' because these men, who were simply believers like many others, have been inflated to exemplars and the RC leaders proclaim them authorities, in many cases equal to Scripture.

That is Pride, with all that brings.

---

....

The Saints in Orthodoxy are not considered infallable or equal to scripture. They are valuable examples for us.

---

Then why do you reject sola scriptura?