BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Yet again, BTD, you are not Christ.

And yeah, you are radiating 'Caiaphas' far more than 'Holy Spirit' in your recent posts.

---

I'm really not surprised you perceive things this way.

---

I do have a predilection for honesty. Not often popular, but it's what I do.

---

Is that why you were caught lying in the other thread, where you accused me of attacking you in a private message, and so I posted the message verbatim which showed no attack? And everyone witnessed your lie? Do you want a link?

---

We both know I was not lying.

We both know you acted cruelly and dishonestly.

It would not be wise for you to try again here.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

In Catholicism, Mary is called the "Queen of Heaven".

Is the "queen of heaven" biblical? It sure is. Read Jeremiah 7:16-20:

"As for you, do not pray for this people, or lift up a cry or prayer for them, and do not intercede with me, for I will not hear you. Do you not see what they are doing in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven. And they pour out drink offerings to other gods, to provoke me to anger. Is it I whom they provoke? declares the Lord. Is it not themselves, to their own shame? Therefore thus says the Lord God: Behold, my anger and my wrath will be poured out on this place, upon man and beast, upon the trees of the field and the fruit of the ground; it will burn and not be quenched."

The "queen of heaven" was the goddess Ishtar, also known as Ashtoreth, which was an idol that the Israelites were worshiping, thus provoking God to anger and bringing upon themselves complete and utter destruction in judgement.

It's no accident or coincidence that Mary is called the "Queen of Heaven". Catholics have been led and deceived by the Devil into Mary worship, which is ancient pagan goddess worship reawakened. Please, Catholics, wake up and open your eyes, and see this for what it really is. STOP worshiping Mary and repent, and turn and worship Jesus only.

---

It's a metaphor. Man brought forth woman (both sinless) who brought sin into the world. Now a man born from a woman (both sinless) gave us our salvation.

Jesus is receiving the prayers from the saints. They are interceding for me.

This question is too vague do address. Please define it or narrow it.

In Isiah 14:12, Satan is called morning star and Lucifer. In Revelation 22:16, Jesus identifies himself as morning star.

By your analogy, Jesus and Satan are the same.

Jesus is the King of the kings. Mary being His mother would make her the Queen. Just like Bathsheba was the Queen when Solomon ruled. Biblically, we see in Revelation 12:1-2

"And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery"

In this imagery, Mary is in Heaven (she is standing on the moon and clothed with the sun." She is wearing a crown of 12 stars. She is the Queen of Heaven.

There is nothing unbiblical here except for you biased exegesis.

Finally, no one is worshiping Mary.

---

- Satan is called the "morning star". Jesus is called the "BRIGHT, morning star". Jesus is being elevated above Satan. No such thing is occurring with Mary and the "queen of heaven" in the bible.

- Nowhere in the bible is Mary ever referred to as "queen". The only reference to the "queen of heaven", a title given to Mary by Catholics, is a pagan godess whose worship of brought destruction on God's people. If God is ever giving you Catholics a warning, this is it.

- the earliest Christians and church fathers did NOT take the imagery of the "woman clothed with the sun" in Revelation as Mary, but as Israel. And notice something very important here: if you're saying that the woman is Mary, note that she had "cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish". Birth pains are the result of the curse on women for original sin. You are saying that Mary had original sin!

- again, God is not going to respect your ad hoc vocabulary inventions to get around "worship" as being just "veneration", or your artificial distinctions between "latria" and "hyperdulia".

---

Thanks for playing. I enjoy seeing pinheads like you with your reliance on hyperbolic fallacy get all wound up.

---

Excellent, thought provoking rebuttal! Kudos!

---

Learned long ago that casting my pearls before swine are a waste of my time and unedifying to the swine.

---

Except you might be getting the pearls and the swine mixed up.

---

You would think that. Thanks for making my point.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Are you going to address how the woman in Revelation is Mary, if the woman experienced anguish from birth pangs, which is the result of the curse of original sin?

---

Birth pangs were for all women after the fall. Remember Genesis 3:16 states:

To the woman [the Lord God] said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children."

Some birth pangs could have very been part of God's plan.

Revelation is filled with metaphors and birth pangs here could also be metaphors. It's quite possible that John was describing the agony that Mary would suffer with Jesus' arrest, torture, and crucifixion.

---

Yes, they were for all women after the fall - because it was the curse of original sin. All women who have original sin have anguishing birth pains - like the woman in Revelation.

No, the text quite clearly says the pain the woman suffered was from giving birth. Saying it is a metaphor for Mary's anguish at Jesus crucifixion is yet another ad hoc reach.

---

Love the way you sprinkle "ad hoc" around as if that was determinative of anything at all. Keep up the good work.

I appreciate the disposition of your post. You presented you case with your opinions without an accusatorial attitude.

I hope that my replies to your comments are received as an explanation of the Catholic faith, not lecture on Catholicism.

Oldbear83 said:

---

First, while I understand the concept of asking someone you know to pray for you, that is a person in this world speaking to someone else in this world. While I do believe that believers have eternal life in Christ, there is not even one instance in Scripture of anyone praying to someone besides God to help them, except for one notable instance. No good King or Prophet or Priest prayed to Abraham, to Moses, or any of the Judges, for example.

---

We Catholics believe that the saints in heaven are more alive today than we are on earth. We believe that, as exampled in Revelation, the 24 elders in heaven lying before the Lamb are holding the golden bowls with prayers from the people.

Oldbear83 said:

---

That exception, in case you wonder, was King Saul trying to reach Samuel. Of course in Saul's case he did not pray to Samuel (at least, Scripture does not say he does, and if he did it did not work), but instead commanded the Witch of Endor to raise up Samuel, and we all know that did not end well.
So there is nothing in Scripture to indicate we may pray to someone in Heaven other than God.

---

I understand your statement here. We Catholics see Saul doing two things here that are wrong. First, he consulted a medium. Second, he was trying to obtain information about the future from the dead. Catholics are just asking the saints to be our prayer partners.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Also, we have direct access to Christ. Why would we seek a different mediator when He is available to us? It makes even less sense to pray to someone to intercede on our behalf with Christ.

---

We can and do go directly to Christ. We also see merit in asking the righteous to pray for us as James wrote. No one is more righteous than those in heaven.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Also, I really am uncomfortable with the behavior used with regard to Mary. The 'Hail Mary' prayer in particular concern me, since we know from Scripture that God is not a respecter of persons. Consider, for example, the first chapter of Matthew, where we are reminded of the genealogy of Christ, including Abraham, Judah, Jesse, David, Asa, and so on all the way to Christ. Yet none of these is held to be the equal of Mary by the Catholics. The special rank seems extra-biblical at best.

---

Luke 1:28 Hail [Mary], full of grace; the Lord is with thee
Luke 1:42 Blessed art thou among women, and blessed are the fruit of thy womb [Jesus]
The next session was added during the Black Plague because people were dying at astonishing rate-
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.


The prayer is scripture and all about Jesus.

All of those people you mentioned have a special place in heaven, but Mary was chosen out of all the people to ever exist in the world to be His mother. The perfect mother. The perfect person. Similarly, God chose Joseph to be His earthly father. He would have been the perfect dad and husband.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Yet again, BTD, you are not Christ.

And yeah, you are radiating 'Caiaphas' far more than 'Holy Spirit' in your recent posts.

---

I'm really not surprised you perceive things this way.

---

I do have a predilection for honesty. Not often popular, but it's what I do.

---

Is that why you were caught lying in the other thread, where you accused me of attacking you in a private message, and so I posted the message verbatim which showed no attack? And everyone witnessed your lie? Do you want a link?

---

We both know I was not lying.

We both know you acted cruelly and dishonestly.

It would not be wise for you to try again here.

---

Here is the exchange again:

You:

And no, in no way were you 'considerate' or 'kind'. You are a bully and a would-be dictator. You attacked me then continued it here.


Me:

I will copy and paste my exact message to you here, so those here can decide for themselves:

"BusyTarpDuster2017

9:44a, 8/26/23

Brother, I don't think you meant it, but this comment is insensitive and makes it look like you are calling black people apes. It's going to anger a lot of people and damage your Christian witness. I say this out of concern for you."


*****************

The whole board witnessed your lie. And they're witnessing you lying again here.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Are you going to address how the woman in Revelation is Mary, if the woman experienced anguish from birth pangs, which is the result of the curse of original sin?

---

Birth pangs were for all women after the fall. Remember Genesis 3:16 states:

To the woman [the Lord God] said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children."

Some birth pangs could have very been part of God's plan.

Revelation is filled with metaphors and birth pangs here could also be metaphors. It's quite possible that John was describing the agony that Mary would suffer with Jesus' arrest, torture, and crucifixion.

---

Yes, they were for all women after the fall - because it was the curse of original sin. All women who have original sin have anguishing birth pains - like the woman in Revelation.

No, the text quite clearly says the pain the woman suffered was from giving birth. Saying it is a metaphor for Mary's anguish at Jesus crucifixion is yet another ad hoc reach.

---

Love the way you sprinkle "ad hoc" around as if that was determinative of anything at all. Keep up the I

---

I'm not surprised that someone who says it is "Pharisee" to believe Christians should believe in Christianity would not find them determinative.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Yet again, BTD, you are not Christ.

And yeah, you are radiating 'Caiaphas' far more than 'Holy Spirit' in your recent posts.

---

I'm really not surprised you perceive things this way.

---

I do have a predilection for honesty. Not often popular, but it's what I do.

---

Is that why you were caught lying in the other thread, where you accused me of attacking you in a private message, and so I posted the message verbatim which showed no attack? And everyone witnessed your lie? Do you want a link?

---

We both know I was not lying.

We both know you acted cruelly and dishonestly.

It would not be wise for you to try again here.

---

It's interesting how certain people claim to be full of the Holy Spirit, yet act fleshly.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Yet again, BTD, you are not Christ.

And yeah, you are radiating 'Caiaphas' far more than 'Holy Spirit' in your recent posts.

---

I'm really not surprised you perceive things this way.

---

I do have a predilection for honesty. Not often popular, but it's what I do.

---

Is that why you were caught lying in the other thread, where you accused me of attacking you in a private message, and so I posted the message verbatim which showed no attack? And everyone witnessed your lie? Do you want a link?

---

We both know I was not lying.

We both know you acted cruelly and dishonestly.

It would not be wise for you to try again here.

---

Here is the exchange again:

You:

And no, in no way were you 'considerate' or 'kind'. You are a bully and a would-be dictator. You attacked me then continued it here.


Me:

I will copy and paste my exact message to you here, so those here can decide for themselves:

"BusyTarpDuster2017

9:44a, 8/26/23

Brother, I don't think you meant it, but this comment is insensitive and makes it look like you are calling black people apes. It's going to anger a lot of people and damage your Christian witness. I say this out of concern for you."


*****************

The whole board witnessed your lie. And they're witnessing you lying again here.

---

You are seriously delusional, not to mention malicious.

Repeating a lie does not change you to innocent. You would have been wise to just let that die, but you cannot recognize when you have self-owned.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Yet again, BTD, you are not Christ.

And yeah, you are radiating 'Caiaphas' far more than 'Holy Spirit' in your recent posts.

---

I'm really not surprised you perceive things this way.

---

I do have a predilection for honesty. Not often popular, but it's what I do.

---

Is that why you were caught lying in the other thread, where you accused me of attacking you in a private message, and so I posted the message verbatim which showed no attack? And everyone witnessed your lie? Do you want a link?

---

We both know I was not lying.

We both know you acted cruelly and dishonestly.

It would not be wise for you to try again here.

---

It's interesting how certain people claim to be full of the Holy Spirit, yet act fleshly.

---

A confession from Frodo, there?

nah, that would involve humility.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Are you going to address how the woman in Revelation is Mary, if the woman experienced anguish from birth pangs, which is the result of the curse of original sin?

---

Birth pangs were for all women after the fall. Remember Genesis 3:16 states:

To the woman [the Lord God] said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children."

Some birth pangs could have very been part of God's plan.

Revelation is filled with metaphors and birth pangs here could also be metaphors. It's quite possible that John was describing the agony that Mary would suffer with Jesus' arrest, torture, and crucifixion.

---

Yes, they were for all women after the fall - because it was the curse of original sin. All women who have original sin have anguishing birth pains - like the woman in Revelation.

No, the text quite clearly says the pain the woman suffered was from giving birth. Saying it is a metaphor for Mary's anguish at Jesus crucifixion is yet another ad hoc reach.

---

Love the way you sprinkle "ad hoc" around as if that was determinative of anything at all. Keep up the I

---

I'm not surprised that someone who says it is "Pharisee" to believe Christians should believe in Christianity would not find them determinative.

---

I'm not surprised that someone who keeps repeating stupid straw man arguments re "Pharisee" is too dense to grasp that his whole Sola Scriptura is a form of ad hoc.

Thanks Coke Bear, will respond when I can. AC was out yesterday, got got it back on now.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Good day, everyone.

I can't help but wonder what some members hope to accomplish with their posts. There is really no chance that anyone is going to admit they were wrong and their opponent right on an issue. And no one likes being the target of a personal attack, yet those posts are depressingly common. It would be better if we could all make our points and accept that there is going to be some disagreement.

With that said, I will repeat that I believe it's a mistake to pray to Mary, the mother of Christ. I have several reasons for this position:

First, while I understand the concept of asking someone you know to pray for you, that is a person in this world speaking to someone else in this world. While I do believe that believers have eternal life in Christ, there is not even one instance in Scripture of anyone praying to someone besides God to help them, except for one notable instance. No good King or Prophet or Priest prayed to Abraham, to Moses, or any of the Judges, for example.

That exception, in case you wonder, was King Saul trying to reach Samuel. Of course in Saul's case he did not pray to Samuel (at least, Scripture does not say he does, and if he did it did not work), but instead commanded the Witch of Endor to raise up Samuel, and we all know that did not end well.
So there is nothing in Scripture to indicate we may pray to someone in Heaven other than God.

Also, we have direct access to Christ. Why would we seek a different mediator when He is available to us? It makes even less sense to pray to someone to intercede on our behalf with Christ.

Also, I really am uncomfortable with the behavior used with regard to Mary. The 'Hail Mary' prayer in particular concern me, since we know from Scripture that God is not a respecter of persons. Consider, for example, the first chapter of Matthew, where we are reminded of the genealogy of Christ, including Abraham, Judah, Jesse, David, Asa, and so on all the way to Christ. Yet none of these is held to be the equal of Mary by the Catholics. The special rank seems extra-biblical at best.

Further, in an earlier post I observed that Christ went out of His way to name common men to be His disciples. Peter, whom the Catholics consider to be their first pope, was a simple fisherman, after all. Christ had a plain and clear message, and in my opinion we should look for plain and clear explanations when sorting out these disputes.

I have read the explanations about Mary from our Catholic friends, but they really do seem like circular arguments.

But after making that argument, I dispute the implication that praying to Mary to reach Jesus will send you to hell. Falling back again on plain reading of Scripture, confession of sins and belief in Christ are what God wants, and John 3:16 makes the matter clear.

So how to deal with this behavior? I have written before than while I am sure of God's mercy through Jesus Christ, I also know that if there was a ranking of Christians I would be near the bottom of that assembly. That means that I have zero intention of playing judge about someone's standing, especially when that person believes in Christ and in the main lives by the Word of God.

Some will say you cannot be a Christian and be in error of doctrine. Certainly both Catholics and Protestants have persecuted people on that theory, sometimes to violence. To my mind we must never forget that Christ commanded us to pray for our enemies, and bless those who curse us. If we are to do that for enemies, how much better should we treat a brother or sister in Christ, even if we believe they are in error?

As an aside but relevant to this question, I have wondered from time to time why there is a thousand-year reign of Christ before the final heavenly kingdom. The reasons, I believe, include the need for us all to transition from the person we were in our earthly life, to fully become the person we are meant to become. For some that may be a short work, and for others it may take a very long time. I believe that a person who truly accepts Christ as Lord but who is wrong on some matter of doctrine, will make correction during the millennial reign of Christ. And anyone who imagines he or she will not need that correction in their own life, will find quite the surprise when Christ speaks to them on their entry into the Kingdom.

Well, that's it for now. I expect to hear how wrong I am (and one who insists I am a coward) for my thoughts and opinions, but I did post this in hope of advancing the discussion, or at least seeking some peace between the two sides on this issue.

Thanks for reading.

---

Thanks for taking the time and effort with sharing your thoughts. I understand most of your points and their origins as I shared most of those views having grown up Southern Baptist but also having been greatly influenced in my teens by a bible church whose pastor was heavily into Dispensationalism. I still have my heavily underlined and annotated Schofield Bible in loose leaf form from the early '70s. FWIW, I entered Baylor as a vocal ed major with the intention of going into music ministry. I served as an interim Music & Youth Director for a couple of summers during my Baylor days, but quickly realized I would most likely never develop the keyboard skills necessary to graduate so changed to Business. Was good enough as a freshman to be invited by Euell Porter to sing in the A Cappella Choir. I remained in the choir even after switching to business.

The next huge influence on my early thoughts about theology was Francis Schaeffer. First heard him speak at Chapel at Baylor and was intrigued enough to follow him afterward to a small group meeting where he graciously shared his time and thoughts. Bought his book, "How Should We Then Live" shortly thereafter which I commend to all. Subsequently heard him speak several times in the '70s at various churches. Always made it a point to attend when possible.

Probably around 1980-81 finally got around to CS Lewis' "Mere Christianity". Had not read any Lewis prior to that. That lead to "God in the Dock". Following that I developed an amateur interest in apologetics that I pursued off and on for much of my thirties and into my forties. Always trying to reason my way to God and faith.

Ultimately parted ways with the Baptist Church and was confirmed in the Episcopal Church in '97 having grown weary of the worship wars (trivia note: was on the music committee at Park Cities Baptist, Dallas at the time). Had never had any exposure to Anglican thought or practice prior to enrolling our children in an Episcopal school. Through attending various events and services there developed an interest in the Anglican via media. We were invited by a couple who had also grown up Baptist and graduated from Baylor to visit with them at their parish. We accepted their invitation. We were so impressed and moved by the liturgy and music. Felt as if we were truly worshipping. Well, one thing led to another and we changed denominations. Almost goes without saying that as an orthodox Trinitarian there is much within TEC that makes me crazy. Nevertheless, I fully believe true Anglicanism represents the best biblical fit for me. Properly understood, we ought to look to Holy Scripture first, but it does not stand alone and is not self-interpreting. We must follow that with the historic beliefs held by the church and by the use of reason; the so called three legged stool.

As to your points, I believe Coke Bear has those covered so I won't bother to duplicate them here. Will say that I have abandoned Dispensationalism along with premillennialism. I lean toward amillennialism but consider any eschatological views as mostly speculative and rightly categorized as adiaphora in any event. I note your point re the need for some sort of purgation. This might be fulfilled by the Catholic conception of purgatory. Again, I'm agnostic about this. I also hold the very speculative view that there may be some form of post mortem salvation in which each person will encounter the living Christ, be confronted with their sins, and be offered the chance to ultimately accept or reject Christ. Regardless, I live in hope of my salvation and continue to work it out in fear and trembling while striving yet often failing to worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Yet again, BTD, you are not Christ.

And yeah, you are radiating 'Caiaphas' far more than 'Holy Spirit' in your recent posts.

---

I'm really not surprised you perceive things this way.

---

I do have a predilection for honesty. Not often popular, but it's what I do.

---

Is that why you were caught lying in the other thread, where you accused me of attacking you in a private message, and so I posted the message verbatim which showed no attack? And everyone witnessed your lie? Do you want a link?

---

We both know I was not lying.

We both know you acted cruelly and dishonestly.

It would not be wise for you to try again here.

---

Here is the exchange again:

You:

And no, in no way were you 'considerate' or 'kind'. You are a bully and a would-be dictator. You attacked me then continued it here.


Me:

I will copy and paste my exact message to you here, so those here can decide for themselves:

"BusyTarpDuster2017

9:44a, 8/26/23

Brother, I don't think you meant it, but this comment is insensitive and makes it look like you are calling black people apes. It's going to anger a lot of people and damage your Christian witness. I say this out of concern for you."


*****************

The whole board witnessed your lie. And they're witnessing you lying again here.

---

You are seriously delusional, not to mention malicious.

Repeating a lie does not change you to innocent. You would have been wise to just let that die, but you cannot recognize when you have self-owned.

---

Your lie above is plain as day. It was in clear view of all who saw it. And a lot of people got on you for it. And I'm delusional? I'm repeating a lie?

You are delusional. Delusional is someone who claims a "predilection for honesty" but who outright lies in front of witnesses, and even then he still claims he did not lie even though the evidence is right in front of his face, but rather he claims it's the other person that's lying about his lie.

It absolutely astounds me how virtually every criticism you make of others, you are guilty of. You've done this repeatedly in this forum. You have absolutely no self-awareness, and it is truly disheartening.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Are you going to address how the woman in Revelation is Mary, if the woman experienced anguish from birth pangs, which is the result of the curse of original sin?

---

Birth pangs were for all women after the fall. Remember Genesis 3:16 states:

To the woman [the Lord God] said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children."

Some birth pangs could have very been part of God's plan.

Revelation is filled with metaphors and birth pangs here could also be metaphors. It's quite possible that John was describing the agony that Mary would suffer with Jesus' arrest, torture, and crucifixion.

---

Yes, they were for all women after the fall - because it was the curse of original sin. All women who have original sin have anguishing birth pains - like the woman in Revelation.

No, the text quite clearly says the pain the woman suffered was from giving birth. Saying it is a metaphor for Mary's anguish at Jesus crucifixion is yet another ad hoc reach.

---

Love the way you sprinkle "ad hoc" around as if that was determinative of anything at all. Keep up the I

---

I'm not surprised that someone who says it is "Pharisee" to believe Christians should believe in Christianity would not find them determinative.

---

I'm not surprised that someone who keeps repeating stupid straw man arguments re "Pharisee" is too dense to grasp that his whole Sola Scriptura is a form of ad hoc.

---

I really don't think you're in a position to call others "dense" when you said that it's "Pharisee" to believe that Christians should believe in Christianity.

You can't even get the concept of "ad hoc" right. Sola Scriptura is not a form of ad hoc. I would love to hear your explanation as to why you think it is, though.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Are you going to address how the woman in Revelation is Mary, if the woman experienced anguish from birth pangs, which is the result of the curse of original sin?

---

Birth pangs were for all women after the fall. Remember Genesis 3:16 states:

To the woman [the Lord God] said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children."

Some birth pangs could have very been part of God's plan.

Revelation is filled with metaphors and birth pangs here could also be metaphors. It's quite possible that John was describing the agony that Mary would suffer with Jesus' arrest, torture, and crucifixion.

---

Yes, they were for all women after the fall - because it was the curse of original sin. All women who have original sin have anguishing birth pains - like the woman in Revelation.

No, the text quite clearly says the pain the woman suffered was from giving birth. Saying it is a metaphor for Mary's anguish at Jesus crucifixion is yet another ad hoc reach.

---

Love the way you sprinkle "ad hoc" around as if that was determinative of anything at all. Keep up the I

---

I'm not surprised that someone who says it is "Pharisee" to believe Christians should believe in Christianity would not find them determinative.

---

I'm not surprised that someone who keeps repeating stupid straw man arguments re "Pharisee" is too dense to grasp that his whole Sola Scriptura is a form of ad hoc.

---

I really don't think you're in a position to call others "dense" when you said that it's "Pharisee" to believe that Christians should believe in Christianity.

You can't even get the concept of "ad hoc" right. Sola Scriptura is not a form of ad hoc. I would love to hear your explanation as to why you think it is, though.

---

ad hoc = for this. Sola Scriptura created for the particular purpose of countering Roman Catholic theology. Very simple. Might have thought even you could grasp that. If not, then density confirmed.

Your repeated "it's "Pharisee" to believe that Christians should believe in Christianity" nonsense is a classic ad nauseum fallacy built on top of a straw man, moron.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Are you going to address how the woman in Revelation is Mary, if the woman experienced anguish from birth pangs, which is the result of the curse of original sin?

---

Birth pangs were for all women after the fall. Remember Genesis 3:16 states:

To the woman [the Lord God] said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children."

Some birth pangs could have very been part of God's plan.

Revelation is filled with metaphors and birth pangs here could also be metaphors. It's quite possible that John was describing the agony that Mary would suffer with Jesus' arrest, torture, and crucifixion.

---

Yes, they were for all women after the fall - because it was the curse of original sin. All women who have original sin have anguishing birth pains - like the woman in Revelation.

No, the text quite clearly says the pain the woman suffered was from giving birth. Saying it is a metaphor for Mary's anguish at Jesus crucifixion is yet another ad hoc reach.

---

Love the way you sprinkle "ad hoc" around as if that was determinative of anything at all. Keep up the I

---

I'm not surprised that someone who says it is "Pharisee" to believe Christians should believe in Christianity would not find them determinative.

---

I'm not surprised that someone who keeps repeating stupid straw man arguments re "Pharisee" is too dense to grasp that his whole Sola Scriptura is a form of ad hoc.

---

I really don't think you're in a position to call others "dense" when you said that it's "Pharisee" to believe that Christians should believe in Christianity.

You can't even get the concept of "ad hoc" right. Sola Scriptura is not a form of ad hoc. I would love to hear your explanation as to why you think it is, though.

---

ad hoc = for this. Sola Scriptura created for the particular purpose of countering Roman Catholic theology. Very simple. Might have thought even you could grasp that. If not, then density confirmed.

Your repeated "it's "Pharisee" to believe that Christians should believe in Christianity" nonsense is a classic ad nauseum fallacy built on top of a straw man, moron.

---

Christianity had from its beginning depended solely on first hand witness testimonies of Jesus' disciples and apostles, in the form of the 4 Gospels, and Paul's letters to Churches. Catholicism was breaking away from this by adding their tradition and papal claims of infallibility. "Sola Scriptura" was merely the belief in returning Christian belief and practice back to relying on scripture only, the way it was from the beginning. This is NOT an "ad hoc" argument.

An "ad hoc" argument/explanation is one that is developed, usually without any real evidence at all, to explain away certain inconsistencies. A clear example is seen in the Catholic dogma of the sinlessness of Mary. Her sinlessness is contradicted by Mary calling the Lord her "Savior". So what the Catholic Church had to do, was create the belief that Mary was "saved" from sin before conception, in order to solve that problem. But there is absolutely no indication from scripture or any historical reference that this was even an idea among the first Christians. Another example is Mary's perpetual virginity. Catholics believe that if Mary birthed Jesus through the normal process, i.e. through the birth canal, then Mary could not have been perpetually a virgin. So they create the belief, again without any evidence, that Jesus sort of miraculously "beamed" out of Mary's womb.

Your tremendously oversimplified definition of "ad hoc" as meaning "for this" would qualify virtually EVERYTHING as ad hoc - Copernicus' theory of the earth going around the sun was made for the particular purpose of countering the prevailing view that the the sun went around the earth, the study of physics was developed for the particular purpose of understanding the workings of the universe, Jesus' apostles preached the gospel for the particular purpose of spreading the good news, etc., therefore they are all "ad hoc". This would make it meaningless.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Who's "twisting data"? I'm quoting you directly what the bible says! Why are you IGNORING the data, i.e. bright morning star?

---

Brother, you are spooled over one word. My simple point is a term can be used for good and evil. The Church using the term Queen of Heaven in a positive context. Nothing wrong with that.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Everywhere in the bible is Jesus called Lord and Savior, and he is characterized as personal ("If anyone opens the door to me, I will dine with him, and he with me"). Therefore, Jesus as one's personal Savior is completely biblical. However, there is NOTHING in the bible that even comes close to calling Mary as "Queen".

---

No where in the bible does it call Jesus "Personal Savior". Revelation shows Mary in Heaven. She is the mother of the King; therefore, she is the queen. Is it a sin to give someone a title that factually true?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- check the dates of those quotations - 5th century. And nowhere did I say I did not respect the Church fathers and opinions. The point here, is that the idea that the woman in Revelation is Mary was not even in the minds of the earliest Christians, a point that you so effectively illustrated.

---

If I found something from the 200's, would just move the goalposts again. During the 400's and into the 700's, Church was still fighting heresies.

The earliest Marian prayer that exists is from 300 AD called - Sub Tuum Praesidium Prayer:

We turn to you for protection,
Holy Mother of God.
Listen to our prayers
and help us in our needs.
Save us from every danger,
glorious and blessed Virgin.

Apparently, she's been held in high regard for a long time. This prayer also pre-dates the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD which declared the Mary of Theotokos not just Christotokos.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- any ad hoc explanations yet for the woman in Revelation having the curse of birth pangs, if she is supposed to be a sinless Mary without that curse? Or why the Catholic church REMOVED the part of the Ten Commandments from the bible that prohibited bowing to graven images?

---

No, it's not removed. It's considered part of the 1st Commandment. If Protestants kneel or bow in front of a cross, is that idolarty?

If you notice, the 10 Commandments are never numbered. In fact, if you count them "thy all shall not's" and the two positive statements, 13 commandments exist. Their numbering is inconsequentially (with the exception of the first commandment.)

Why do Protestants put their wives in the same category as their property?

With all due respect, history is NOT on your side. You have interpreted the bible based on YOUR beliefs. Why should I listed to your interpretation?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Are you going to address how the woman in Revelation is Mary, if the woman experienced anguish from birth pangs, which is the result of the curse of original sin?

---

Birth pangs were for all women after the fall. Remember Genesis 3:16 states:

To the woman [the Lord God] said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children."

Some birth pangs could have very been part of God's plan.

Revelation is filled with metaphors and birth pangs here could also be metaphors. It's quite possible that John was describing the agony that Mary would suffer with Jesus' arrest, torture, and crucifixion.

---

Yes, they were for all women after the fall - because it was the curse of original sin. All women who have original sin have anguishing birth pains - like the woman in Revelation.

No, the text quite clearly says the pain the woman suffered was from giving birth. Saying it is a metaphor for Mary's anguish at Jesus crucifixion is yet another ad hoc reach.

---

Love the way you sprinkle "ad hoc" around as if that was determinative of anything at all. Keep up the I

---

I'm not surprised that someone who says it is "Pharisee" to believe Christians should believe in Christianity would not find them determinative.

---

I'm not surprised that someone who keeps repeating stupid straw man arguments re "Pharisee" is too dense to grasp that his whole Sola Scriptura is a form of ad hoc.

---

I really don't think you're in a position to call others "dense" when you said that it's "Pharisee" to believe that Christians should believe in Christianity.

You can't even get the concept of "ad hoc" right. Sola Scriptura is not a form of ad hoc. I would love to hear your explanation as to why you think it is, though.

---

ad hoc = for this. Sola Scriptura created for the particular purpose of countering Roman Catholic theology. Very simple. Might have thought even you could grasp that. If not, then density confirmed.

Your repeated "it's "Pharisee" to believe that Christians should believe in Christianity" nonsense is a classic ad nauseum fallacy built on top of a straw man, moron.

---

Catholics believe that if Mary birthed Jesus through the normal process, i.e. through the birth canal, then Mary could not have been perpetually a virgin. So they create the belief, again without any evidence, that Jesus sort of miraculously "beamed" out of Mary's womb.

---

Huh?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Christianity had from its beginning depended solely on first hand witness testimonies of Jesus' disciples and apostles, in the form of the 4 Gospels, and Paul's letters to Churches. Catholicism was breaking away from this by adding their tradition and papal claims of infallibility. "Sola Scriptura" was merely the belief in returning Christian belief and practice back to relying on scripture only, the way it was from the beginning. This is NOT an "ad hoc" argument.

---

You are making a claim with NO proof. The Church can demonstrate an unbroken line of 267 popes with dates starting with the 1st Pope Peter.

Sola Scriptura is completely unbiblcal.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

An "ad hoc" argument/explanation is one that is developed, usually without any real evidence at all, to explain away certain inconsistencies. A clear example is seen in the Catholic dogma of the sinlessness of Mary. Her sinlessness is contradicted by Mary calling the Lord her "Savior". So what the Catholic Church had to do, was create the belief that Mary was "saved" from sin before conception, in order to solve that problem. But there is absolutely no indication from scripture or any historical reference that this was even an idea among the first Christians. Another example is Mary's perpetual virginity. Catholics believe that if Mary birthed Jesus through the normal process, i.e. through the birth canal, then Mary could not have been perpetually a virgin. So they create the belief, again without any evidence, that Jesus sort of miraculously "beamed" out of Mary's womb.

---

I've provided several biblical verses for these. You choose to not accept them. Your anti-Catholic bias is strong here.

I give you this, you have been trained well in this regard. I also appreciate the fact that you have not resulted to ad hominin attacks on the faith and keep the discussion, for the most part, about scripture.

If you'd like, I will send you a book (at my cost) called The Early Church Was the Catholic Church, by Joe Heschmeyer. If you want it and will read it, PM me. If not, no worries. I am happy to send it to someone else. You make not agree with the book, but you will at least understand our historical basis for the Catholic Church.

I did not lie.


That bears repeating,

I won't waste time rebutting the rest of your post. Others, valid 'witnesses' since you seem so keen to have them, have rebuked you for errors verging on malicious rage.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Are you going to address how the woman in Revelation is Mary, if the woman experienced anguish from birth pangs, which is the result of the curse of original sin?

---

Birth pangs were for all women after the fall. Remember Genesis 3:16 states:

To the woman [the Lord God] said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children."

Some birth pangs could have very been part of God's plan.

Revelation is filled with metaphors and birth pangs here could also be metaphors. It's quite possible that John was describing the agony that Mary would suffer with Jesus' arrest, torture, and crucifixion.

---

Yes, they were for all women after the fall - because it was the curse of original sin. All women who have original sin have anguishing birth pains - like the woman in Revelation.

No, the text quite clearly says the pain the woman suffered was from giving birth. Saying it is a metaphor for Mary's anguish at Jesus crucifixion is yet another ad hoc reach.

---

Love the way you sprinkle "ad hoc" around as if that was determinative of anything at all. Keep up the I

---

I'm not surprised that someone who says it is "Pharisee" to believe Christians should believe in Christianity would not find them determinative.

---

I'm not surprised that someone who keeps repeating stupid straw man arguments re "Pharisee" is too dense to grasp that his whole Sola Scriptura is a form of ad hoc.

---

I really don't think you're in a position to call others "dense" when you said that it's "Pharisee" to believe that Christians should believe in Christianity.

You can't even get the concept of "ad hoc" right. Sola Scriptura is not a form of ad hoc. I would love to hear your explanation as to why you think it is, though.

---

ad hoc = for this. Sola Scriptura created for the particular purpose of countering Roman Catholic theology. Very simple. Might have thought even you could grasp that. If not, then density confirmed.

Your repeated "it's "Pharisee" to believe that Christians should believe in Christianity" nonsense is a classic ad nauseum fallacy built on top of a straw man, moron.

---

Catholics believe that if Mary birthed Jesus through the normal process, i.e. through the birth canal, then Mary could not have been perpetually a virgin. So they create the belief, again without any evidence, that Jesus sort of miraculously "beamed" out of Mary's womb.

---

Huh?

---

Virginitas in partu.

"The Church has traditionally understood Mary's virginity in partu (during birth) as meaning that Jesus passed from His Mother's womb into the light of day without the womb being opened and consequently without the destruction of the physical signs of virginity possessed by one who is virgin in conception. Secondly, Mary's virginity in partu involves the absence of labor pains and usual infirmities (e.g., rupturing, bleeding, etc.) involved in gestation. It was, in reality, a miraculous birth, which relates more to her role in the New Creation (and thus her Immaculate Conception and Assumption) rather than her virginity before and after." https://catholicexchange.com/how-did-mary-remain-a-virgin-with-the-birth-of-jesus/

Oldbear83 said:

---

I did not lie.


That bears repeating,

I won't waste time rebutting the rest of your post. Others, valid 'witnesses' since you seem so keen to have them, have rebuked you for errors verging on malicious rage.

---

The lie is in front of everyone's face. You are truly unbelievable.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Are you going to address how the woman in Revelation is Mary, if the woman experienced anguish from birth pangs, which is the result of the curse of original sin?

---

Birth pangs were for all women after the fall. Remember Genesis 3:16 states:

To the woman [the Lord God] said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children."

Some birth pangs could have very been part of God's plan.

Revelation is filled with metaphors and birth pangs here could also be metaphors. It's quite possible that John was describing the agony that Mary would suffer with Jesus' arrest, torture, and crucifixion.

---

Yes, they were for all women after the fall - because it was the curse of original sin. All women who have original sin have anguishing birth pains - like the woman in Revelation.

No, the text quite clearly says the pain the woman suffered was from giving birth. Saying it is a metaphor for Mary's anguish at Jesus crucifixion is yet another ad hoc reach.

---

Love the way you sprinkle "ad hoc" around as if that was determinative of anything at all. Keep up the I

---

I'm not surprised that someone who says it is "Pharisee" to believe Christians should believe in Christianity would not find them determinative.

---

I'm not surprised that someone who keeps repeating stupid straw man arguments re "Pharisee" is too dense to grasp that his whole Sola Scriptura is a form of ad hoc.

---

I really don't think you're in a position to call others "dense" when you said that it's "Pharisee" to believe that Christians should believe in Christianity.

You can't even get the concept of "ad hoc" right. Sola Scriptura is not a form of ad hoc. I would love to hear your explanation as to why you think it is, though.

---

ad hoc = for this. Sola Scriptura created for the particular purpose of countering Roman Catholic theology. Very simple. Might have thought even you could grasp that. If not, then density confirmed.

Your repeated "it's "Pharisee" to believe that Christians should believe in Christianity" nonsense is a classic ad nauseum fallacy built on top of a straw man, moron.

---

Catholics believe that if Mary birthed Jesus through the normal process, i.e. through the birth canal, then Mary could not have been perpetually a virgin. So they create the belief, again without any evidence, that Jesus sort of miraculously "beamed" out of Mary's womb.

---

Huh?

---

Virginitas in partu.

"The Church has traditionally understood Mary's virginity in partu (during birth) as meaning that Jesus passed from His Mother's womb into the light of day without the womb being opened and consequently without the destruction of the physical signs of virginity possessed by one who is virgin in conception. Secondly, Mary's virginity in partu involves the absence of labor pains and usual infirmities (e.g., rupturing, bleeding, etc.) involved in gestation. It was, in reality, a miraculous birth, which relates more to her role in the New Creation (and thus her Immaculate Conception and Assumption) rather than her virginity before and after." https://catholicexchange.com/how-did-mary-remain-a-virgin-with-the-birth-of-jesus/

---

Hm, never heard that before. Looks like it's subject to debate.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Virginitas in partu.

"The Church has traditionally understood Mary's virginity in partu (during birth) as meaning that Jesus passed from His Mother's womb into the light of day without the womb being opened and consequently without the destruction of the physical signs of virginity possessed by one who is virgin in conception. Secondly, Mary's virginity in partu involves the absence of labor pains and usual infirmities (e.g., rupturing, bleeding, etc.) involved in gestation. It was, in reality, a miraculous birth, which relates more to her role in the New Creation (and thus her Immaculate Conception and Assumption) rather than her virginity before and after." https://catholicexchange.com/how-did-mary-remain-a-virgin-with-the-birth-of-jesus/

---

Are you stating that God cannot do this? Just nine months as she was impregnated with no human assistance other than her fiat?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I did not lie.


That bears repeating,

I won't waste time rebutting the rest of your post. Others, valid 'witnesses' since you seem so keen to have them, have rebuked you for errors verging on malicious rage.

---

The lie is in front of everyone's face. You are truly unbelievable.

---

The only lies here are yours, BTD.

And you seem to have no shame posting the same false claims on multiple threads, even after members have told you to give it a rest.

Again, you will not come out of this with anything but shame (excepting Frodo, who seems to relish the idea of harassing anyone with a different opinion).

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Are you going to address how the woman in Revelation is Mary, if the woman experienced anguish from birth pangs, which is the result of the curse of original sin?

---

Birth pangs were for all women after the fall. Remember Genesis 3:16 states:

To the woman [the Lord God] said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children."

Some birth pangs could have very been part of God's plan.

Revelation is filled with metaphors and birth pangs here could also be metaphors. It's quite possible that John was describing the agony that Mary would suffer with Jesus' arrest, torture, and crucifixion.

---

Yes, they were for all women after the fall - because it was the curse of original sin. All women who have original sin have anguishing birth pains - like the woman in Revelation.

No, the text quite clearly says the pain the woman suffered was from giving birth. Saying it is a metaphor for Mary's anguish at Jesus crucifixion is yet another ad hoc reach.

---

Love the way you sprinkle "ad hoc" around as if that was determinative of anything at all. Keep up the I

---

I'm not surprised that someone who says it is "Pharisee" to believe Christians should believe in Christianity would not find them determinative.

---

I'm not surprised that someone who keeps repeating stupid straw man arguments re "Pharisee" is too dense to grasp that his whole Sola Scriptura is a form of ad hoc.

---

I really don't think you're in a position to call others "dense" when you said that it's "Pharisee" to believe that Christians should believe in Christianity.

You can't even get the concept of "ad hoc" right. Sola Scriptura is not a form of ad hoc. I would love to hear your explanation as to why you think it is, though.

---

ad hoc = for this. Sola Scriptura created for the particular purpose of countering Roman Catholic theology. Very simple. Might have thought even you could grasp that. If not, then density confirmed.

Your repeated "it's "Pharisee" to believe that Christians should believe in Christianity" nonsense is a classic ad nauseum fallacy built on top of a straw man, moron.

---

Christianity had from its beginning depended solely on first hand witness testimonies of Jesus' disciples and apostles, in the form of the 4 Gospels, and Paul's letters to Churches. Catholicism was breaking away from this by adding their tradition and papal claims of infallibility. "Sola Scriptura" was merely the belief in returning Christian belief and practice back to relying on scripture only, the way it was from the beginning. This is NOT an "ad hoc" argument.

An "ad hoc" argument/explanation is one that is developed, usually without any real evidence at all, to explain away certain inconsistencies. A clear example is seen in the Catholic dogma of the sinlessness of Mary. Her sinlessness is contradicted by Mary calling the Lord her "Savior". So what the Catholic Church had to do, was create the belief that Mary was "saved" from sin before conception, in order to solve that problem. But there is absolutely no indication from scripture or any historical reference that this was even an idea among the first Christians. Another example is Mary's perpetual virginity. Catholics believe that if Mary birthed Jesus through the normal process, i.e. through the birth canal, then Mary could not have been perpetually a virgin. So they create the belief, again without any evidence, that Jesus sort of miraculously "beamed" out of Mary's womb.

Your tremendously oversimplified definition of "ad hoc" as meaning "for this" would qualify virtually EVERYTHING as ad hoc - Copernicus' theory of the earth going around the sun was made for the particular purpose of countering the prevailing view that the the sun went around the earth, the study of physics was developed for the particular purpose of understanding the workings of the universe, Jesus' apostles preached the gospel for the particular purpose of spreading the good news, etc., therefore they are all "ad hoc". This would make it meaningless.

---

You insist on your own definitions of many terms being the only "correct" ones while you continue to rely on an infinite regression. Your type is to Protestants/Evangelicals as the Inquisitors were to Roman Catholicism.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Who's "twisting data"? I'm quoting you directly what the bible says! Why are you IGNORING the data, i.e. bright morning star?

---

Brother, you are spooled over one word. My simple point is a term can be used for good and evil. The Church using the term Queen of Heaven in a positive context. Nothing wrong with that.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Everywhere in the bible is Jesus called Lord and Savior, and he is characterized as personal ("If anyone opens the door to me, I will dine with him, and he with me"). Therefore, Jesus as one's personal Savior is completely biblical. However, there is NOTHING in the bible that even comes close to calling Mary as "Queen".

---

No where in the bible does it call Jesus "Personal Savior". Revelation shows Mary in Heaven. She is the mother of the King; therefore, she is the queen. Is it a sin to give someone a title that factually true?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- check the dates of those quotations - 5th century. And nowhere did I say I did not respect the Church fathers and opinions. The point here, is that the idea that the woman in Revelation is Mary was not even in the minds of the earliest Christians, a point that you so effectively illustrated.

---

If I found something from the 200's, would just move the goalposts again. During the 400's and into the 700's, Church was still fighting heresies.

The earliest Marian prayer that exists is from 300 AD called - Sub Tuum Praesidium Prayer:

We turn to you for protection,
Holy Mother of God.
Listen to our prayers
and help us in our needs.
Save us from every danger,
glorious and blessed Virgin.

Apparently, she's been held in high regard for a long time. This prayer also pre-dates the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD which declared the Mary of Theotokos not just Christotokos.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- any ad hoc explanations yet for the woman in Revelation having the curse of birth pangs, if she is supposed to be a sinless Mary without that curse? Or why the Catholic church REMOVED the part of the Ten Commandments from the bible that prohibited bowing to graven images?

---

No, it's not removed. It's considered part of the 1st Commandment. If Protestants kneel or bow in front of a cross, is that idolarty?

If you notice, the 10 Commandments are never numbered. In fact, if you count them "thy all shall not's" and the two positive statements, 13 commandments exist. Their numbering is inconsequentially (with the exception of the first commandment.)

Why do Protestants put their wives in the same category as their property?

With all due respect, history is NOT on your side. You have interpreted the bible based on YOUR beliefs. Why should I listed to your interpretation?

---

There is no "spooling" over one word. That one word is what makes the difference. You have to be exact and precise when dealing with Scripture, otherwise you'll miss something. You clearly are missing it here.

Saying that even though Jesus is constantly referred to as "Lord" and "Savior", and that he is characterized as a personal God, the phrase "personal Savior" is invalid because that exact phrase isn't in the bible, is ridiculous and wholly misses the point. There IS scriptural backing to say that. There ISN'T any scriptural backing to claim Mary is the "Queen of Heaven". You have to infer that fact from an interpretation of Revelation which virtually no early Christian even though about, let alone believed. And then you have to explain why the woman in Revelation had birth pangs, if she is supposed to be a sinless Mary. The way you explain it is by using an ad hoc explanation, saying the pains represent her anguish at her son's crucifixion. Do you see what I mean? No scripture, just ad hoc inference and explanation. If God didn't clearly tell us Mary is "Queen", then He doesn't want you to think that, let alone build a whole system of worship around it.

Just because certain beliefs about Mary have been around a long time, it doesn't mean they aren't false beliefs. Again, this is an argument from tradition fallacy. The bottom line is, beliefs about Mary's sinlessness, perpetual virginity, assumption into heaven, etc. were not held by the early Christians, nor did they even enter their minds. These were slowly developed over time without any real witness or historical evidence, incorporated as tradition, and later dogmatized, then reinforced using the circular argument of the authority of the Church to decide what is true and what isn't, and using the power of anathematizing anyone who dares to go against it.

Catholics CLEARLY remove the part about bowing to idols in the Ten Commandments in their teaching. That isn't debatable. The numbering issue is not what's relevant here, it's the removing of that part in their teaching. Bowing and kneeling to the cross, which I already explained before, is not idolatry if they consider the cross a symbol of Jesus, and therefore they're really bowing to Jesus. Although, I do believe Christians should not do it, because we shouldn't even make an appearance of idolatry. If, however, they were bowing to the cross because they are attributing special significance and power to that cross, and they are making appeals/prayers to it, then YES, that would be idolatry.

I know of no Protestant that puts wives in the category of property, nor do I know of any Scriptural reference that says to do this.

I believe what the first Christians believed, so yes, history IS on my side. I am wary of "tradition" so I weigh it against Scripture, and if it fails, I discard it. That's all I'm asking you to do. Which interpretation of mine regarding scripture do you think is unfaithful or errant?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Virginitas in partu.

"The Church has traditionally understood Mary's virginity in partu (during birth) as meaning that Jesus passed from His Mother's womb into the light of day without the womb being opened and consequently without the destruction of the physical signs of virginity possessed by one who is virgin in conception. Secondly, Mary's virginity in partu involves the absence of labor pains and usual infirmities (e.g., rupturing, bleeding, etc.) involved in gestation. It was, in reality, a miraculous birth, which relates more to her role in the New Creation (and thus her Immaculate Conception and Assumption) rather than her virginity before and after." https://catholicexchange.com/how-did-mary-remain-a-virgin-with-the-birth-of-jesus/

---

Are you stating that God cannot do this? Just nine months as she was impregnated with no human assistance other than her fiat?

---

God can do anything. But we should not assert that He did something because of that fact, without any evidence, especially from scripture. Scripture explicitly tells us Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived, so we can believe that.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I did not lie.


That bears repeating,

I won't waste time rebutting the rest of your post. Others, valid 'witnesses' since you seem so keen to have them, have rebuked you for errors verging on malicious rage.

---

The lie is in front of everyone's face. You are truly unbelievable.

---

The only lies here are yours, BTD.

And you seem to have no shame posting the same false claims on multiple threads, even after members have told you to give it a rest.

Again, you will not come out of this with anything but shame (excepting Frodo, who seems to relish the idea of harassing anyone with a different opinion).

---

NO ONE in any other thread said it is a false claim that you lied.

How you can deny that you lied, when it is clearly documented, is about the most intellectually dishonest things I've ever witnessed in my life.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Are you going to address how the woman in Revelation is Mary, if the woman experienced anguish from birth pangs, which is the result of the curse of original sin?

---

Birth pangs were for all women after the fall. Remember Genesis 3:16 states:

To the woman [the Lord God] said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children."

Some birth pangs could have very been part of God's plan.

Revelation is filled with metaphors and birth pangs here could also be metaphors. It's quite possible that John was describing the agony that Mary would suffer with Jesus' arrest, torture, and crucifixion.

---

Yes, they were for all women after the fall - because it was the curse of original sin. All women who have original sin have anguishing birth pains - like the woman in Revelation.

No, the text quite clearly says the pain the woman suffered was from giving birth. Saying it is a metaphor for Mary's anguish at Jesus crucifixion is yet another ad hoc reach.

---

Love the way you sprinkle "ad hoc" around as if that was determinative of anything at all. Keep up the I

---

I'm not surprised that someone who says it is "Pharisee" to believe Christians should believe in Christianity would not find them determinative.

---

I'm not surprised that someone who keeps repeating stupid straw man arguments re "Pharisee" is too dense to grasp that his whole Sola Scriptura is a form of ad hoc.

---

I really don't think you're in a position to call others "dense" when you said that it's "Pharisee" to believe that Christians should believe in Christianity.

You can't even get the concept of "ad hoc" right. Sola Scriptura is not a form of ad hoc. I would love to hear your explanation as to why you think it is, though.

---

ad hoc = for this. Sola Scriptura created for the particular purpose of countering Roman Catholic theology. Very simple. Might have thought even you could grasp that. If not, then density confirmed.

Your repeated "it's "Pharisee" to believe that Christians should believe in Christianity" nonsense is a classic ad nauseum fallacy built on top of a straw man, moron.

---

Catholics believe that if Mary birthed Jesus through the normal process, i.e. through the birth canal, then Mary could not have been perpetually a virgin. So they create the belief, again without any evidence, that Jesus sort of miraculously "beamed" out of Mary's womb.

---

Huh?

---

Virginitas in partu.

"The Church has traditionally understood Mary's virginity in partu (during birth) as meaning that Jesus passed from His Mother's womb into the light of day without the womb being opened and consequently without the destruction of the physical signs of virginity possessed by one who is virgin in conception. Secondly, Mary's virginity in partu involves the absence of labor pains and usual infirmities (e.g., rupturing, bleeding, etc.) involved in gestation. It was, in reality, a miraculous birth, which relates more to her role in the New Creation (and thus her Immaculate Conception and Assumption) rather than her virginity before and after." https://catholicexchange.com/how-did-mary-remain-a-virgin-with-the-birth-of-jesus/

---

Hm, never heard that before. Looks like it's subject to debate.

---

Catholics don't all believe the same things. But the point was about ad hoc explanations, and this one did come from Catholics.

I deny the claim because it is a false claim. And Rawhide specifically pointed out your opinion does not become the rule for what is true or not. So you have spewed yet another false claim.

I don't know what defect is going on with you, that you find it necessary to demonize me with every vile imagination you can spew.

I can only say that you are a Christian in the same manner as Torquemada.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Are you going to address how the woman in Revelation is Mary, if the woman experienced anguish from birth pangs, which is the result of the curse of original sin?

---

Birth pangs were for all women after the fall. Remember Genesis 3:16 states:

To the woman [the Lord God] said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children."

Some birth pangs could have very been part of God's plan.

Revelation is filled with metaphors and birth pangs here could also be metaphors. It's quite possible that John was describing the agony that Mary would suffer with Jesus' arrest, torture, and crucifixion.

---

Yes, they were for all women after the fall - because it was the curse of original sin. All women who have original sin have anguishing birth pains - like the woman in Revelation.

No, the text quite clearly says the pain the woman suffered was from giving birth. Saying it is a metaphor for Mary's anguish at Jesus crucifixion is yet another ad hoc reach.

---

Love the way you sprinkle "ad hoc" around as if that was determinative of anything at all. Keep up the I

---

I'm not surprised that someone who says it is "Pharisee" to believe Christians should believe in Christianity would not find them determinative.

---

I'm not surprised that someone who keeps repeating stupid straw man arguments re "Pharisee" is too dense to grasp that his whole Sola Scriptura is a form of ad hoc.

---

I really don't think you're in a position to call others "dense" when you said that it's "Pharisee" to believe that Christians should believe in Christianity.

You can't even get the concept of "ad hoc" right. Sola Scriptura is not a form of ad hoc. I would love to hear your explanation as to why you think it is, though.

---

ad hoc = for this. Sola Scriptura created for the particular purpose of countering Roman Catholic theology. Very simple. Might have thought even you could grasp that. If not, then density confirmed.

Your repeated "it's "Pharisee" to believe that Christians should believe in Christianity" nonsense is a classic ad nauseum fallacy built on top of a straw man, moron.

---

Christianity had from its beginning depended solely on first hand witness testimonies of Jesus' disciples and apostles, in the form of the 4 Gospels, and Paul's letters to Churches. Catholicism was breaking away from this by adding their tradition and papal claims of infallibility. "Sola Scriptura" was merely the belief in returning Christian belief and practice back to relying on scripture only, the way it was from the beginning. This is NOT an "ad hoc" argument.

An "ad hoc" argument/explanation is one that is developed, usually without any real evidence at all, to explain away certain inconsistencies. A clear example is seen in the Catholic dogma of the sinlessness of Mary. Her sinlessness is contradicted by Mary calling the Lord her "Savior". So what the Catholic Church had to do, was create the belief that Mary was "saved" from sin before conception, in order to solve that problem. But there is absolutely no indication from scripture or any historical reference that this was even an idea among the first Christians. Another example is Mary's perpetual virginity. Catholics believe that if Mary birthed Jesus through the normal process, i.e. through the birth canal, then Mary could not have been perpetually a virgin. So they create the belief, again without any evidence, that Jesus sort of miraculously "beamed" out of Mary's womb.

Your tremendously oversimplified definition of "ad hoc" as meaning "for this" would qualify virtually EVERYTHING as ad hoc - Copernicus' theory of the earth going around the sun was made for the particular purpose of countering the prevailing view that the the sun went around the earth, the study of physics was developed for the particular purpose of understanding the workings of the universe, Jesus' apostles preached the gospel for the particular purpose of spreading the good news, etc., therefore they are all "ad hoc". This would make it meaningless.

---

You insist on your own definitions of many terms being the only "correct" ones while you continue to rely on an infinite regression. Your type is to Protestants/Evangelicals as the Inquisitors were to Roman Catholicism.

---

I believe my definition was more correct than yours, and I explained my reasoning. If you believe my reasoning is wrong, it would be a much more fruitful discussion if you'd explain why, instead of making rather weak attempts at insults.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I deny the claim because it is a false claim. And Rawhide specifically pointed out your opinion does not become the rule for what is true or not. So you have spewed yet another false claim.

I don't know what defect is going on with you, that you find it necessary to demonize me with every vile imagination you can spew.

I can only say that you are a Christian in the same manner as Torquemada.

---

I don't understand what you're saying about Rawhide. As far as I know, he hasn't claimed that you did not lie. So how is what he said indicative of me "spewing yet another false claim"? You make no sense at all.

If you don't want to be called out for your hypocrisy, then don't be a hypocrite. It's that simple.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I deny the claim because it is a false claim. And Rawhide specifically pointed out your opinion does not become the rule for what is true or not. So you have spewed yet another false claim.

I don't know what defect is going on with you, that you find it necessary to demonize me with every vile imagination you can spew.

I can only say that you are a Christian in the same manner as Torquemada.

---

I don't understand what you're saying about Rawhide. As far as I know, he hasn't claimed that you did not lie. So how is what he said indicative of me "spewing yet another false claim"? You make no sense at all.

If you don't want to be called out for your hypocrisy, then don't be a hypocrite. It's that simple.

---

Son, the only hypocrite in this matter is you. I've made my share of screw-ups in various times and places, but all the lies here are yours, all the malice and hatred ooozing from posts are yours, and every post that epitomizes hypocrisy in this thread has come from your posts.

You are the one who attacked and attacks brother Christians for not obeying your personal opinion .

You are the one who intimated that not supporting your attacks on other Christians was abandoning Christ.

You are the one who dragged arguments into and from other threads solely to bully and defame.

You have acted shamefully, yet all you can do is double down on it.

God help you son, you have gone full hysterical in this thread and you don't even see it!

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Are you going to address how the woman in Revelation is Mary, if the woman experienced anguish from birth pangs, which is the result of the curse of original sin?

---

Birth pangs were for all women after the fall. Remember Genesis 3:16 states:

To the woman [the Lord God] said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children."

Some birth pangs could have very been part of God's plan.

Revelation is filled with metaphors and birth pangs here could also be metaphors. It's quite possible that John was describing the agony that Mary would suffer with Jesus' arrest, torture, and crucifixion.

---

Yes, they were for all women after the fall - because it was the curse of original sin. All women who have original sin have anguishing birth pains - like the woman in Revelation.

No, the text quite clearly says the pain the woman suffered was from giving birth. Saying it is a metaphor for Mary's anguish at Jesus crucifixion is yet another ad hoc reach.

---

Love the way you sprinkle "ad hoc" around as if that was determinative of anything at all. Keep up the I

---

I'm not surprised that someone who says it is "Pharisee" to believe Christians should believe in Christianity would not find them determinative.

---

I'm not surprised that someone who keeps repeating stupid straw man arguments re "Pharisee" is too dense to grasp that his whole Sola Scriptura is a form of ad hoc.

---

I really don't think you're in a position to call others "dense" when you said that it's "Pharisee" to believe that Christians should believe in Christianity.

You can't even get the concept of "ad hoc" right. Sola Scriptura is not a form of ad hoc. I would love to hear your explanation as to why you think it is, though.

---

ad hoc = for this. Sola Scriptura created for the particular purpose of countering Roman Catholic theology. Very simple. Might have thought even you could grasp that. If not, then density confirmed.

Your repeated "it's "Pharisee" to believe that Christians should believe in Christianity" nonsense is a classic ad nauseum fallacy built on top of a straw man, moron.

---

Christianity had from its beginning depended solely on first hand witness testimonies of Jesus' disciples and apostles, in the form of the 4 Gospels, and Paul's letters to Churches. Catholicism was breaking away from this by adding their tradition and papal claims of infallibility. "Sola Scriptura" was merely the belief in returning Christian belief and practice back to relying on scripture only, the way it was from the beginning. This is NOT an "ad hoc" argument.

An "ad hoc" argument/explanation is one that is developed, usually without any real evidence at all, to explain away certain inconsistencies. A clear example is seen in the Catholic dogma of the sinlessness of Mary. Her sinlessness is contradicted by Mary calling the Lord her "Savior". So what the Catholic Church had to do, was create the belief that Mary was "saved" from sin before conception, in order to solve that problem. But there is absolutely no indication from scripture or any historical reference that this was even an idea among the first Christians. Another example is Mary's perpetual virginity. Catholics believe that if Mary birthed Jesus through the normal process, i.e. through the birth canal, then Mary could not have been perpetually a virgin. So they create the belief, again without any evidence, that Jesus sort of miraculously "beamed" out of Mary's womb.

Your tremendously oversimplified definition of "ad hoc" as meaning "for this" would qualify virtually EVERYTHING as ad hoc - Copernicus' theory of the earth going around the sun was made for the particular purpose of countering the prevailing view that the the sun went around the earth, the study of physics was developed for the particular purpose of understanding the workings of the universe, Jesus' apostles preached the gospel for the particular purpose of spreading the good news, etc., therefore they are all "ad hoc". This would make it meaningless.

---

You insist on your own definitions of many terms being the only "correct" ones while you continue to rely on an infinite regression. Your type is to Protestants/Evangelicals as the Inquisitors were to Roman Catholicism.

---

I believe my definition was more correct than yours, and I explained my reasoning. If you believe my reasoning is wrong, it would be a much more fruitful discussion if you'd explain why, instead of making rather weak attempts at insults.

---

Ah, "more correct". Lol. You've demonstrated repeatedly the impossibility of having "fruitful discussion" and you show no real interest in bearing fruit. I'm sticking with my label of Pharisee for you. Res ipsa loquitur.