How To Get To Heaven When You Die

214,231 Views | 2842 Replies | Last: 8 min ago by 4th and Inches
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Coke Bear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Realitybites said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

[Gonna have to disagree with Tertullian there. The blood of Jesus is the seed of the Church. He described himself as such in John 12:23-24. The blood of martyrs are the fertilizer of Jesus' Church.


Remember that time when some dude on the internet in 2024 argued about how to word something with this guy?



Me either. Seriously, you literally are the gnat strainer that Jesus warned us about.
It's always a whole lot easier to attack the man than to argue against the truth of what he's saying.

I never thought I'd ever see a professed Christian so offended at Jesus properly getting the glory over the saints. It really is telling.

The question is, am I straining gnats or are you really swallowing a camel?
I've never seen the creator jealous of those who admire the creation or the artist jealous of those who appreciate the art.
Let's get to the heart of the issue - do you agree or disagree with what I said, that JESUS' blood is the seed of the church, and the blood of martyrs is the fertilizer? If not, what's wrong about it?

Because no, the Creator God won't be jealous of simply admiring His creation.... as long as that's all you're doing. But if you are giving the creation the glory that is due solely to God and Jesus, then you've gone too far, way past admiration and towards idolatry. And if one gets angry or offended at someone disagreeing with church fathers in order to give the glory to JESUS over the saints, then one might be in that place in their heart where they've going too far.

Jesus even described himself as the seed in John 12:23-24. So what's your answer - am I wrong to call Jesus the seed of the church, not the martyrs?
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

I've Let's get to the heart of the issue - do you agree or disagree with what I said, that JESUS' blood is the seed of the church, and the blood of martyrs is the fertilizer? If not, what's wrong about it?

Because no, the Creator God won't be jealous of simply admiring His creation.... as long as that's all you're doing. But if you are giving the creation the glory that is due solely to God and Jesus, then you've gone too far, way past admiration and towards idolatry. And if one gets angry or offended at someone disagreeing with church fathers in order to give the glory to JESUS over the saints, then one might be in that place in their heart where they've going too far.

Jesus even described himself as the seed in John 12:23-24. So what's your answer - am I wrong to call Jesus the seed of the church, not the martyrs?
Dude, it's is NOT an either/or. It's a both/and.

I'll stand by Turtillian's quote in honor of those brave men and women that sacrificed their lives for Christ and his Church.

Idolatry is worshiping something as a god. No Catholic is doing that by honoring or venerating saints.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Coke Bear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

I've Let's get to the heart of the issue - do you agree or disagree with what I said, that JESUS' blood is the seed of the church, and the blood of martyrs is the fertilizer? If not, what's wrong about it?

Because no, the Creator God won't be jealous of simply admiring His creation.... as long as that's all you're doing. But if you are giving the creation the glory that is due solely to God and Jesus, then you've gone too far, way past admiration and towards idolatry. And if one gets angry or offended at someone disagreeing with church fathers in order to give the glory to JESUS over the saints, then one might be in that place in their heart where they've going too far.

Jesus even described himself as the seed in John 12:23-24. So what's your answer - am I wrong to call Jesus the seed of the church, not the martyrs?
Dude, it's is NOT an either/or. It's a both/and.

I'll stand by Turtillian's quote in honor of those brave men and women that sacrificed their lives for Christ and his Church.

Idolatry is worshiping something as a god. No Catholic is doing that by honoring or venerating saints.
"Both/and" is nonsensical. The Church is one body, therefore it can't originate from more than one seed. And the Church has to exist before there can be martyrs, so saying the blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church is putting the cart in front of the horse.

I'll take what Jesus' says about him being the seed over anything any church father says. Jesus >>>Tertullian.

Your view of idolatry is too limited. Jesus elevated all sins of the heart as being equal to sins of action - lust is adultery, hate is murder, etc. Similarly, we should view idolatry as any time you elevate something above (or equal) to God in importance in your heart. It doesn't have to involve worshiping something as a god. It can be your excessive devotion to money, wordly treasures, power, sex, etc. And it most certainly can be how you treat Mary and the saints, by praying to them them and conferring upon them qualities of divinity, the perfect example being those prayers to Mary in The Glories of Mary. When you honor saints for what you should honor Jesus for, like in this case martyred saints being the seed of the Church, you're making saints = Jesus in that respect. Whether you know it or not, or agree with it or not, God will view that as idolatry.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Coke Bear said:

Realitybites said:

Saint Anastasia the Roman (250 A D.)

The Martyr Anastasia the Roman lost her parents in infancy, and was then taken to be reared by the abbess of a women's monastery, named Sophia. She raised Anastasia in fervent faith, in the fear of God and obedience.

The persecution against Christians by the emperor Decius (249-251) began at that time. The city administrator, Probus, on the orders of the emperor commanded that Anastasia be brought to him. Blessed by her abbess to suffer for Christ, the young martyr Anastasia humbly came out to meet the armed soldiers. Seeing her youth and beauty, Probus first attempted flattery to make her deny Christ.

"Why waste your youth, deprived of pleasure? What is there to gain by enduring tortures and death for the Crucified? Worship our gods, marry a handsome husband, and live in glory and honor."

The saint steadfastly replied, "My spouse, my riches, my life and my happiness are my Lord Jesus Christ, and you will not turn me away from Him by your deceit!"

Probus subjected Anastasia to fierce tortures. The holy martyr bravely endured them, glorifying and praising the Lord. In anger the torturers cut out her tongue.

The people, seeing the inhuman and disgusting treatment of the saint, became indignant, and the ruler was compelled to end the tortures by beheading the martyr. In this manner, Saint Anastasia received the crown of martyrdom.

Saint Anastasia, pray for us.

Tertullian said, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church."
Gonna have to disagree with Tertullian there. The blood of Jesus is the seed of the Church. He described himself as such in John 12:23-24. The blood of martyrs are the fertilizer of Jesus' Church.
It's a work of literature, not a set of instructions for a Chia garden.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Coke Bear said:

Realitybites said:

Saint Anastasia the Roman (250 A D.)

The Martyr Anastasia the Roman lost her parents in infancy, and was then taken to be reared by the abbess of a women's monastery, named Sophia. She raised Anastasia in fervent faith, in the fear of God and obedience.

The persecution against Christians by the emperor Decius (249-251) began at that time. The city administrator, Probus, on the orders of the emperor commanded that Anastasia be brought to him. Blessed by her abbess to suffer for Christ, the young martyr Anastasia humbly came out to meet the armed soldiers. Seeing her youth and beauty, Probus first attempted flattery to make her deny Christ.

"Why waste your youth, deprived of pleasure? What is there to gain by enduring tortures and death for the Crucified? Worship our gods, marry a handsome husband, and live in glory and honor."

The saint steadfastly replied, "My spouse, my riches, my life and my happiness are my Lord Jesus Christ, and you will not turn me away from Him by your deceit!"

Probus subjected Anastasia to fierce tortures. The holy martyr bravely endured them, glorifying and praising the Lord. In anger the torturers cut out her tongue.

The people, seeing the inhuman and disgusting treatment of the saint, became indignant, and the ruler was compelled to end the tortures by beheading the martyr. In this manner, Saint Anastasia received the crown of martyrdom.

Saint Anastasia, pray for us.

Tertullian said, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church."
Gonna have to disagree with Tertullian there. The blood of Jesus is the seed of the Church. He described himself as such in John 12:23-24. The blood of martyrs are the fertilizer of Jesus' Church.
It's a work of literature, not a set of instructions for a Chia garden.
I'd say it's more important than just literature Sam, but I take your point and agree that a certain broader perspective would be useful here.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Coke Bear said:

Realitybites said:

Saint Anastasia the Roman (250 A D.)

The Martyr Anastasia the Roman lost her parents in infancy, and was then taken to be reared by the abbess of a women's monastery, named Sophia. She raised Anastasia in fervent faith, in the fear of God and obedience.

The persecution against Christians by the emperor Decius (249-251) began at that time. The city administrator, Probus, on the orders of the emperor commanded that Anastasia be brought to him. Blessed by her abbess to suffer for Christ, the young martyr Anastasia humbly came out to meet the armed soldiers. Seeing her youth and beauty, Probus first attempted flattery to make her deny Christ.

"Why waste your youth, deprived of pleasure? What is there to gain by enduring tortures and death for the Crucified? Worship our gods, marry a handsome husband, and live in glory and honor."

The saint steadfastly replied, "My spouse, my riches, my life and my happiness are my Lord Jesus Christ, and you will not turn me away from Him by your deceit!"

Probus subjected Anastasia to fierce tortures. The holy martyr bravely endured them, glorifying and praising the Lord. In anger the torturers cut out her tongue.

The people, seeing the inhuman and disgusting treatment of the saint, became indignant, and the ruler was compelled to end the tortures by beheading the martyr. In this manner, Saint Anastasia received the crown of martyrdom.

Saint Anastasia, pray for us.

Tertullian said, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church."
Gonna have to disagree with Tertullian there. The blood of Jesus is the seed of the Church. He described himself as such in John 12:23-24. The blood of martyrs are the fertilizer of Jesus' Church.
It's a work of literature, not a set of instructions for a Chia garden.
One literary sense can be more theologically (and logically) sound than another.
Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Even if you accept your view of idolatry as correct (which I do), no Orthodox Christian is elevating a saint to the level of Christ. The highest complement we ever give a saint, found in our hymns, is "equal to the apostles" and that too only in deeds, not authority.

As far as Tertullian's words, I think you are misunderstanding both what Christ said and what Tertullian said.

Let's look carefully at the verse you cited:

"The hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified. Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain."

This isn't a statement about what is the fundamental source of life of the Church like "I am the vine, you are the branches." It is rather a commentary on martyrdom and growth.

As an example when the blood of Stephen, Christianity's first martyr, was shed (Acts 7:54), one of the fiercest persecutors of early Christians stood by watching, agreeing with the killing (Acts 8:1; see also Acts 22:20). That man was Saul, who soon became the apostle Paul and eventually perhaps the single most influential Christian evangelist to ever live.

Or, to use an example from pop culture...

BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Coke Bear said:

Realitybites said:

Saint Anastasia the Roman (250 A D.)

The Martyr Anastasia the Roman lost her parents in infancy, and was then taken to be reared by the abbess of a women's monastery, named Sophia. She raised Anastasia in fervent faith, in the fear of God and obedience.

The persecution against Christians by the emperor Decius (249-251) began at that time. The city administrator, Probus, on the orders of the emperor commanded that Anastasia be brought to him. Blessed by her abbess to suffer for Christ, the young martyr Anastasia humbly came out to meet the armed soldiers. Seeing her youth and beauty, Probus first attempted flattery to make her deny Christ.

"Why waste your youth, deprived of pleasure? What is there to gain by enduring tortures and death for the Crucified? Worship our gods, marry a handsome husband, and live in glory and honor."

The saint steadfastly replied, "My spouse, my riches, my life and my happiness are my Lord Jesus Christ, and you will not turn me away from Him by your deceit!"

Probus subjected Anastasia to fierce tortures. The holy martyr bravely endured them, glorifying and praising the Lord. In anger the torturers cut out her tongue.

The people, seeing the inhuman and disgusting treatment of the saint, became indignant, and the ruler was compelled to end the tortures by beheading the martyr. In this manner, Saint Anastasia received the crown of martyrdom.

Saint Anastasia, pray for us.

Tertullian said, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church."
Gonna have to disagree with Tertullian there. The blood of Jesus is the seed of the Church. He described himself as such in John 12:23-24. The blood of martyrs are the fertilizer of Jesus' Church.
It's a work of literature, not a set of instructions for a Chia garden.
I'd say it's more important than just literature Sam, but I take your point and agree that a certain broader perspective would be useful here.
I absolutely agree with you, a broader perspective is needed. But it seems only one of us here is demonstrating it. Only a broader view will allow one to recognize the theologically unsound logical paradox of that quote.
Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Saint John Kochurov (1871-1917)

"Father John Kochurov was born on July 13, 1871, in the village of Bigildino-Surky of the district of Danky in the Ryazan region, to a pious family of many children. His parents were the priest Alexander Kochurov and his wife Anna. Father Alexander Kochurov served almost all his life in the Church of Theophany in Bigildino-Surky village in the Diocese of Ryazan from the moment of his ordination on March 2, 1857, and having combined all those years of service in the parish with the fulfillment of his obligations as a teacher of the God's Law in the Bigildin's public school, imprinted in the consciences of his sons, and particularly in that of John, the most spiritually sensitive of them, a radiant image of the parish priest, full of deep humility and high inspiration.

His education included attendance at the Ryazan Theological Seminary before continuing at the St Petersburg Theological Academy. He excelled at his studies at both the seminary and academy.

After graduating in 1895, father John married and then entered his life's work when he was ordained deacon. On August 27, 1895, he was ordained a priest at the Saint Alexander Nevsky Lavra in St Petersburg by Bishop Nicholas (Ziorov) of the Diocese of the Aleutians and Alaska.

Having expressed the desire to be a missionary priest in the United States, father John was soon transferred and became the first permanent priest at St Vladimir's Church in Chicago. This parish was later to become the Holy Trinity Cathedral. As St Vladimir's parish did not yet have their own building, his first major project was construction of the church building. Under the guidance of Bishop Tikhon, later Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow and saint, father John enlisted the services of the noted architect Louis Sullivan to design the church. To finance the project, father John sought and obtained donations from Tsar Nicholas II as well as from a few Americans, notably Harold Fowler McCormick and Charles R Crane who was the American ambassador to China. Construction of the church began in April 1902 and was completed the next year for the consecration by Bishop Tikhon.

Father John devoted much effort to aiding the establishment of other parishes in the Chicago area. He performed the first service for the future Archangel Michael Orthodox Church in southwest Chicago. In the Chicago area he was active in the formation of the parishes in Madison, Streator, and Joliet (all in Illinois), as well as aiding the parishes in Buffalo, NY, and Hartshorne, OK.

Father, John returned to Russia in 1907 where he was assigned to Estonia. Here he put to use the skills he had learned in the United States teaching catechism in the schools.

Then in 1916, he was transferred to Saint Catherine's Cathedral in Tsarskoye Selo, just outside St Petersburg. At Saint Catherine's, he established himself as a popular priest who was skilled in presenting moving sermons. Then in October 1917 the Bolshevik uprising in St Petersburg spilled over quickly into Tsarskoye Selo as the town was attacked by Bolshevik elements. The people thronged to the churches where the clergy held prayer services and led processions throughout the town praying for peace.

On October 31, 1917, the Bolsheviks entered Tsarskoe Selo in force and arrested father John. He was taken by the Bolsheviks out of town where he was summarily shot. By this act, father John became the proto-hieromartyr of the Bolshevik revolution and the Soviet yoke. Father John was buried several days later in the crypt of Saint Catherine's Cathedral.

In December 1994, father John was glorified by the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, in session at St Daniel's Monastery, Moscow, Russia, as the first of the new martyrs of the 20th century."

Saint John, pray for us, particularly in this season of chosing that our nation would be spared the demonic yoke that yours suffered under.
joseywales
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Your wasting your time and breath on a self delusional make belive entity. Take a step back and examine actual evidence and you will discover that there is zero evidence for a soul or a personal god .regilous books written for that purpose are not evidence. This goes for all the belief systems in the world not just Christianity. Christianity is a religion that evolved through the years and all it's basic beliefs are borrowed from previous faith beliefs long before Christianity itself ever came into existence. There is a reason all these faiths were born thousands of years ago, it was during a time when mankind knew nothing about the science we know today. We know how we got here how the world works at a molecular level and really the only mystery left is how did this universe come onto existence at all. And we are pretty close to knowing that. You and I are mammals just like any other mammal on the earth. When you die you will be dead no longer exist and you won't care. All the ghost the goblins the nde stuff has been explained by scientific research. We can experience an nde when fainting and it can be induced in a lab. I just don't get how anyone can think at this point on our knowledge of who we are and how we got here you actually have a soul. We can actually see what happens to people when parts of the brain malfunction so what happens when it ceases to function. Your gone.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Realitybites said:

Even if you accept your view of idolatry as correct (which I do), no Orthodox Christian is elevating a saint to the level of Christ. The highest complement we ever give a saint, found in our hymns, is "equal to the apostles" and that too only in deeds, not authority.

As far as Tertullian's words, I think you are misunderstanding both what Christ said and what Tertullian said.
If you go to a saint for intercession/help and for the needs/wants in your heart instead of going to Jesus, then yes, you are elevating that saint to the level of Jesus. At the very least, praying to/venerating/iconography of saints is unbiblical and at worst, it's idolatrous. You do realize, don't you, that nowhere in the New Testament is this practiced or taught; and what's much worse, it's origins come from pagan god worship in Rome when Christianity became their official religion and their gods had to be refigured as Christian saints in order for their pagans to convert over to Christianity easier? I would think that any true believer in Jesus would RUN from something that even has the slightest smell of pagan idolatry like that.

I'd take your claim that I've misunderstood Jesus' words a lot more seriously had you not completely fumbled your interpretation of Jesus saying "THIS IS my body". Regarding Tertullian's words, whether I misunderstood his meaning or not really doesn't change the point - his words, whether intentional or not, convey a wrong theological idea. If that means my disagreement is over his wording, then so be it. I would like to hear your answer to my question I asked someone else, though - isn't it better to say that JESUS' blood is the seed of the Church, rather than the martyrs'? If not, then why not?
Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

If you go to a saint for intercession/help and for the needs/wants in your heart instead of going to Jesus, then yes, you are elevating that saint to the level of Jesus.


So you've never asked someone to pray for you?

Quote:

isn't it better to say that JESUS' blood is the seed of the Church, rather than the martyrs'? If not, then why not?


I explained that in my previous post. You are misinterpreting the use of the seed analogy as the source of life of the church as it was in the vine and branches analogy. This analogy has to do with how martyrdom propagates the church going forward, not what the source of life of the church is. Again, quite clear if you simply read the Bible verse and take it at face value without trying to shoehorn it into Evangelical theology. Your interpretation of it twists the plain text of scripture.

Quote:

At the very least, praying to/venerating/iconography of saints is unbiblical and at worst, it's idolatrous. You do realize, don't you, that nowhere in the New Testament is this practiced or taught; and what's much worse, it's origins come from pagan god worship in Rome


Unfortunately, your knowledge of Christian history and what constitutes idolatry with regards to iconography is flawed.



Here's a picture of the iconography in Dura-Europas Synagogue that predates the 1st century AD. It looks very different from the sterile Evangelical auditoriums you envison Jesus preaching in.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You work very hard to deny something a great many people find as real as their own identity and more important than any physical condition.

You also keep repeating unproven claims over and over, Josey, almost like your own secular mantra. Just seems odd

BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:


So you've never asked someone to pray for you?

I don't why you keep repeating this same flawed argument.

- No, I never PRAYED TO a living person to pray for me. That'd be idolatrous.
- No, I never solely ask someone to pray for me, in lieu of going to Jesus myself.

Be honest - have you ever gone to a saint for something, rather than going directly to Jesus for it?

Quote:

I explained that in my previous post. You are misinterpreting the use of the seed analogy as the source of life of the church as it was in the vine and branches analogy. This analogy has to do with how martyrdom propagates the church going forward, not what the source of life of the church is. Again, quite clear if you simply read the Bible verse and take it at face value without trying to shoehorn it into Evangelical theology. Your interpretation of it twists the plain text of scripture.

You're not answering the question - do you agree it's better and more fitting to say that JESUS is the seed of the Church, rather than martyrs? If not, why not?
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Unfortunately, your knowledge of Christian history and what constitutes idolatry with regards to iconography is flawed.



Here's a picture of the iconography in Dura-Europas Synagogue that predates the 1st century AD. It looks very different from the sterile Evangelical auditoriums you envison Jesus preaching in.

I think you'll find my knowledge of church history to be pretty good. Iconography is not just religious artwork - Orthodox iconography involves the veneration of pictures for liturgical purposes, which was not only NOT a practice of the early church, it was universally rejected by them. The veneration of icons has its earliest origin around the 6th century AD and was the result of accretion over time. Let's look at what a prominent historian, Richard Price, Professor Emeritus of the History of Christianity, Heythrop College and Honorary Research Fellow, Royal Holloway, University of London, says about this history:

"The iconoclast [those who were against icons] claim that reverence towards images did not go back to the golden age of the fathers, still less to the apostles, would be judged by impartial historians today to being simply correct. The iconophile [those who were FOR icons] view of the history of Christian thought and devotion was virtually a denial of history." (Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), 43.)
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Quote:



You doubt all this, but you can't tell me by what authority that I should believe your interpretation that is contra to the bible actual intentions.

This is the saddest thing of all that you have argued. It doesn't take "authority" to be able to behold the evidence of our eyes, ears, and mind, and think rationally and honestly. This is what the nobel Bereans did in Acts (Acts 17:11) And Jesus even said "And why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57). So in a way, I guess you can say my authority is Jesus and the bible.

What's really sad about it, is that it's the mentality of people in a cult - they're not allowed to decide for themselves what's right, but rather they need to submit to an authority to tell them what to think, even though it's against the evidence of their own eyes and mind, and you are kept in line because they threaten hell on you if you refuse. It's truly disheartening. Stop going by church authority to tell you what to think, and judge for yourself whether the reasoning and logic I'm presenting to you is correct and sound, or not.


How do we know when two people differ? I also have Jesus and the Bible. I have his literal words which you reject.

You have no more authority to determine what scripture means than OldBear83, xfrottobagginsx, or even joseywales.

Jesus us tells us that when your brother sins against you, go to him in private. If he doesn't listen, take two or three others. Still if he doesn't listen, to take it to the Church.

Which Church? Your church? You won't even admit what church you belong to. Some non-dom church? Do we take it to OldBear83's church? What about xfrotto's church? How do two Protestants choose which church to obtain the resolution?

No offense to any of the churches listed, but Jesus created only one Church and that is the Catholic Church.

So I absolutely reject your independent interpretation of John 6, and stand confidently with Jesus' words and the 2000 tradition of the Church.
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

"Both/and" is nonsensical. The Church is one body, therefore it can't originate from more than one seed. And the Church has to exist before there can be martyrs, so saying the blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church is putting the cart in front of the horse.

I'll take what Jesus' says about him being the seed over anything any church father says. Jesus >>>Tertullian.
.One final comment about seeds, Matthew and Luke both talk about the seeds that fall on to different grounds. We are the seeds. So apparently there can be other seeds than Jesus.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Your view of idolatry is too limited. Jesus elevated all sins of the heart as being equal to sins of action - lust is adultery, hate is murder, etc. Similarly, we should view idolatry as any time you elevate something above (or equal) to God in importance in your heart. It doesn't have to involve worshiping something as a god. It can be your excessive devotion to money, wordly treasures, power, sex, etc. And it most certainly can be how you treat Mary and the saints, by praying to them them and conferring upon them qualities of divinity, the perfect example being those prayers to Mary in The Glories of Mary. When you honor saints for what you should honor Jesus for, like in this case martyred saints being the seed of the Church, you're making saints = Jesus in that respect. Whether you know it or not, or agree with it or not, God will view that as idolatry.
There it is!!! "The Glory of Mary" I was waiting for you to call that number again. Did anyone else have that on their Bingo card?

No Catholic worships a saint on confers divine qualities onto a saint.

You keep beating the same broken drum. We've explained it to you (multiple times), but we can't make you understand it.

But hey, if that makes you feel better about your version of Christianity (that was made up less than 500 years ago), "then, you do you, Boo Boo."

Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Be honest - have you ever gone to a saint for something, rather than going directly to Jesus for it?


No. If I am in need of prayer, I pray directly to God and call in support from everyone else in the family of God. There has never been a situation in which I've asked other Christians to pray for me and I have not prayed directly to God for my need as well.
Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Let's look at what a prominent historian, Richard Price, Professor Emeritus of the History of Christianity, Heythrop College and Honorary Research Fellow, Royal Holloway, University of London, says about this history:


...and why would I care what a modern Roman Catholic priest in the 20th-21st century has to say about a religious movement (iconoclasm) that arose 700-800 years after Christ?
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Coke Bear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Quote:



You doubt all this, but you can't tell me by what authority that I should believe your interpretation that is contra to the bible actual intentions.

This is the saddest thing of all that you have argued. It doesn't take "authority" to be able to behold the evidence of our eyes, ears, and mind, and think rationally and honestly. This is what the nobel Bereans did in Acts (Acts 17:11) And Jesus even said "And why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57). So in a way, I guess you can say my authority is Jesus and the bible.

What's really sad about it, is that it's the mentality of people in a cult - they're not allowed to decide for themselves what's right, but rather they need to submit to an authority to tell them what to think, even though it's against the evidence of their own eyes and mind, and you are kept in line because they threaten hell on you if you refuse. It's truly disheartening. Stop going by church authority to tell you what to think, and judge for yourself whether the reasoning and logic I'm presenting to you is correct and sound, or not.


How do we know when two people differ? I also have Jesus and the Bible. I have his literal words which you reject.

You have no more authority to determine what scripture means than OldBear83, xfrottobagginsx, or even joseywales.

Jesus us tells us that when your brother sins against you, go to him in private. If he doesn't listen, take two or three others. Still if he doesn't listen, to take it to the Church.

Which Church? Your church? You won't even admit what church you belong to. Some non-dom church? Do we take it to OldBear83's church? What about xfrotto's church? How do two Protestants choose which church to obtain the resolution?

No offense to any of the churches listed, but Jesus created only one Church and that is the Catholic Church.

So I absolutely reject your independent interpretation of John 6, and stand confidently with Jesus' words and the 2000 tradition of the Church.
If you have Jesus and his literal words, then why do you reject his literal words when he says "Whoever eats my flesh HAS eternal life"??

I have clearly shown how the literal interpretation is biblically and logically untenable. I have also shown how it contradicts even your own Catholic beliefs. Neither you, nor Realitybites have argued anything valid to rebut this. You can't, it's impossible. The only way for you to do it is either employ a pick-and-choose method of interpretation, or to employ a level of intellectually honesty that approaches the level of ridiculousness like Realitybites did when he was forced to argue that "THIS IS my body" is NOT referring to the bread that Jesus was holding at that very moment. I know you saw that, and I know you know that was ridiculous. And I know that you know you'll run the risk of arguing something just as ridiculous if you try to justify your interpretation. So why not just concede the logic of my argument? THINK FOR YOURSELF. Why let "tradition" override your own sense of reason and rationality? Talking to you truly is like talking to someone whose mind is brainwashed in a cult.

You don't stand confidently with Jesus' words, you stand confidently with your tradition's interpretation of them, and you'll shun your own sense of logic and reason to do so. And you're putting all your trust in 2000 years of human fallibility.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Coke Bear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

"Both/and" is nonsensical. The Church is one body, therefore it can't originate from more than one seed. And the Church has to exist before there can be martyrs, so saying the blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church is putting the cart in front of the horse.

I'll take what Jesus' says about him being the seed over anything any church father says. Jesus >>>Tertullian.
.One final comment about seeds, Matthew and Luke both talk about the seeds that fall on to different grounds. We are the seeds. So apparently there can be other seeds than Jesus.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Your view of idolatry is too limited. Jesus elevated all sins of the heart as being equal to sins of action - lust is adultery, hate is murder, etc. Similarly, we should view idolatry as any time you elevate something above (or equal) to God in importance in your heart. It doesn't have to involve worshiping something as a god. It can be your excessive devotion to money, wordly treasures, power, sex, etc. And it most certainly can be how you treat Mary and the saints, by praying to them them and conferring upon them qualities of divinity, the perfect example being those prayers to Mary in The Glories of Mary. When you honor saints for what you should honor Jesus for, like in this case martyred saints being the seed of the Church, you're making saints = Jesus in that respect. Whether you know it or not, or agree with it or not, God will view that as idolatry.
There it is!!! "The Glory of Mary" I was waiting for you to call that number again. Did anyone else have that on their Bingo card?

No Catholic worships a saint on confers divine qualities onto a saint.

You keep beating the same broken drum. We've explained it to you (multiple times), but we can't make you understand it.

But hey, if that makes you feel better about your version of Christianity (that was made up less than 500 years ago), "then, you do you, Boo Boo."


The bible says we believers are also seeds; but never as THE seed of the Church. You keep avoiding my question - do you agree that it's better and more fitting to say that JESUS is the seed of the Church, rather than martyrs? You and Realitybites have continually avoided answering this question, and it is very curious. It is very curious as to why you and him are so resistant to exalt Jesus above the saints in this way. No true Christian should have any problem with that whatsoever, in fact, they'd likely agree wholeheartedly with a resounding "Amen!".

I will keep beating that drum until it is adequately answered. You only explained your deification of saints by simply denying that you're doing it. That isn't an explanation. If I were to show adoration of another woman other than my wife, throw festivals for her, call her often, give her gifts, have pictures of her all around the house, kiss her, and go through her to ask you things instead of ask you directly myself - my wife would rightfully be jealous and be correct in saying I am elevating that other woman up to her level, that I'm even being unfaithful as a husband. If my "explanation" is simply "no, I keep telling you, I'm not doing that - quit beating that drum!" then it's quite obvious to any rational person that my defense is insanely inadequate. You ARE dong that, whether you realize it or not, or whether you want to admit it or not. This is what you're dong with Mary and the saints.

Question for you: do you agree with King Solomon when he declared in I Kings 8:39 "then hear in heaven your dwelling place and forgive and act and render to each whose heart you know, according to all his ways (for you, you only, know the hearts of all the children of mankind)," ??

You obviously have a sore spot about The Glories of Mary. I don't blame you. You should. It remains as the most egregious example of the errors of the Roman Catholic Church. It is obvious to any honest rational person that the contents of those prayers equal idolatry and blatant heresy. Any person who claims to be a Christian who does not have a BIG problem with those prayers, I seriously question that they are truly a Christian. Your response to my bringing it up was to mock that I even brought it up. I think this shows you KNOW how wrong those prayers are, but you have to fight against me in a way without actually admitting it.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Realitybites said:

Quote:

Be honest - have you ever gone to a saint for something, rather than going directly to Jesus for it?


No. If I am in need of prayer, I pray directly to God and call in support from everyone else in the family of God. There has never been a situation in which I've asked other Christians to pray for me and I have not prayed directly to God for my need as well.
Do you bow, kiss, prostrate yourself before images?

Do you agree with King Solomon when he declared in I Kings 8:37-40:

"If there is famine in the land, if there is pestilence or blight or mildew or locust or caterpillar, if their enemy besieges them in the land at their gates, whatever plague, whatever sickness there is, whatever prayer, whatever plea is made by any man or by all your people Israel, each knowing the affliction of his own heart and stretching out his hands toward this house, then hear in heaven your dwelling place and forgive and act and render to each whose heart you know, according to all his ways (for you, YOU ONLY, know the hearts of all the children of mankind), that they may fear you all the days that they live in the land that you gave to our fathers."
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Realitybites said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Let's look at what a prominent historian, Richard Price, Professor Emeritus of the History of Christianity, Heythrop College and Honorary Research Fellow, Royal Holloway, University of London, says about this history:


...and why would I care what a modern Roman Catholic priest in the 20th-21st century has to say about a religious movement (iconoclasm) that arose 700-800 years after Christ?
"Remember that time when some dude on the internet in 2024 argued about how to word something Christian history with this guy a prominent Professor Emeritus of Christian History? Me neither."


BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Realitybites said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Let's look at what a prominent historian, Richard Price, Professor Emeritus of the History of Christianity, Heythrop College and Honorary Research Fellow, Royal Holloway, University of London, says about this history:


...and why would I care what a modern Roman Catholic priest in the 20th-21st century has to say about a religious movement (iconoclasm) that arose 700-800 years after Christ?
The better question is why do you care about a religious belief and practice that arose also 700-800 years after Christ.
xfrodobagginsx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet thank you
xfrodobagginsx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Church Tomorrow, find a good Bible Believing Church and attend.
Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Question for you: do you agree with King Solomon when he declared in I Kings 8:39 "then hear in heaven your dwelling place and forgive and act and render to each whose heart you know, according to all his ways (for you, you only, know the hearts of all the children of mankind)," ??

Yes.

Of course, this verse has absolutely nothing to do with asking someone to pray for you.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Realitybites said:


Question for you: do you agree with King Solomon when he declared in I Kings 8:39 "then hear in heaven your dwelling place and forgive and act and render to each whose heart you know, according to all his ways (for you, you only, know the hearts of all the children of mankind)," ??

Yes.

Of course, this verse has absolutely nothing to do with asking someone to pray for you.
Of course it does. Do you "ask" saints to pray for you by communicating to them silently in your heart?

And why are you avoiding this question: do you bow to, prostrate yourself in front of, or kiss icons?
Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:


Of course it does. Do you "ask" saints to pray for you by communicating to them silently in your heart?



No, as I said, the verse has nothing to do with asking someone to pray for you.

Quote:


And why are you avoiding this question: do you bow to, prostrate yourself in front of, or kiss icons?


Personally? No...but that's a cultural thing from the east. I don't kiss people on the cheek to greet them either as prescribed in 1st Corinthians 13:13). Women in eastern churches also cover their heads, as prescribed by scripture. Those in western churches who have embraced feminism don't. So it goes when you live in a part of the world steeped in 1,000 years of Christian heresy.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Realitybites said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:


Of course it does. Do you "ask" saints to pray for you by communicating to them silently in your heart?



No, as I said, the verse has nothing to do with asking someone to pray for you.

Quote:


And why are you avoiding this question: do you bow to, prostrate yourself in front of, or kiss icons?


Personally? No...but that's a cultural thing from the east. I don't kiss people on the cheek to greet them either (1st Corinthians 13:13). Women in eastern churches also cover their heads, as prescribed by scripture. Those in western churches who have embraced feminism don't. So it goes.
The verse has everything to do with "asking" saints or Mary to pray for you, if you do so in your mind and not vocally. Do you always "ask" saints vocally?

You say you don't personally bow to, prostrate yourself in front of, or kiss icons... do you realize you are anathematized to hell according to the very Council that your tradition considers infallible?
Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Do you always "ask" saints vocally?


Sometimes I'll send them a text message. Of course I always ask them vocally, in the same way I'd ask someone in a small group or Sunday School Class. They can't read minds.

Quote:

You say you don't personally bow to, prostrate yourself in front of, or kiss icons... do you realize you are anathematized to hell according to the very Council that your tradition considers infallible?


Yeah, no.

"From apostolic times, Christians have been guided by general rules so that the worship of God should be ordered fittingly and reverently, and our acting in concert in church is a confession of our unanimity of Faith, and so naturally there are directions about the making of prostrations. Having said this, two things must be borne in mind. First, although in general we act in concert, within Orthodox worship there is no straitjacketting. Not everyone in church behaves in exactly the same manner. On a given day, one person might prostrate more than another, or be moved to do so at slightly different points in the service. Secondly, we must remember that some are old or infirm, and may not be able to make prostrations; we should not judge them."

Look, I spent 34 years carrying the King James as a Baptist before becoming Orthodox. I know where all the skeletons are buried. Western Christianity is pointed straight at the ground and is getting ready to bore a smoking hole in it. It already has in Europe, Canada, and the UK. You'll see eventually.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Realitybites said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Do you always "ask" saints vocally?


Sometimes I'll send them a text message. Of course I always ask them vocally, in the same way I'd ask someone in a small group or Sunday School Class. They can't read minds.

Quote:

You say you don't personally bow to, prostrate yourself in front of, or kiss icons... do you realize you are anathematized to hell according to the very Council that your tradition considers infallible?


Yeah, no.

"From apostolic times, Christians have been guided by general rules so that the worship of God should be ordered fittingly and reverently, and our acting in concert in church is a confession of our unanimity of Faith, and so naturally there are directions about the making of prostrations. Having said this, two things must be borne in mind. First, although in general we act in concert, within Orthodox worship there is no straitjacketting. Not everyone in church behaves in exactly the same manner. On a given day, one person might prostrate more than another, or be moved to do so at slightly different points in the service. Secondly, we must remember that some are old or infirm, and may not be able to make prostrations; we should not judge them."
Does the Orthodox Church teach that you can "ask" saints by communicating to them in your mind? Or is it doctrine that you can only text them or vocalize it?

And do you agree, then, that the Council of Niceae II, which anathematizes those who do not kiss the icons, is wrong and NOT infallible?
BUDOS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Okay, I am obviously not an expert in this area, but it seems to me that if the kissing of the icon is a sign of worship then it could be in conflict with the first amendment. ( hey if my comment is not relevant just move on)
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BUDOS said:

Okay, I am obviously not an expert in this area, but it seems to me that if the kissing of the icon is a sign of worship then it could be in conflict with the first amendment. ( hey if my comment is not relevant just move on)
I have no idea what you're talking about. How would it conflict with the first amendment?
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

BUDOS said:

Okay, I am obviously not an expert in this area, but it seems to me that if the kissing of the icon is a sign of worship then it could be in conflict with the first amendment. ( hey if my comment is not relevant just move on)
I have no idea what you're talking about. How would it conflict with the first amendment?
I think he means the First Commandment (No Gods Except God)
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.