Let us venerate the Virgin Mary, /his/!
And discuss her.
So can someone explain how Protestants could think she isn't the Mother of God without implying Nestorianism?
Also, what is wrong with kissing an icon of her? Spiritually, it is like kissing her reflection in a mirror.
It was probably also pretty common to ask her for favors after her own death.
Wait, why am I being sarcastic? Ancestor worship actually was incredibly common in the ancient world, that and other pagan practices were what got syncretized into all this saint business in the first place.
>If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
What in the New Testament overturns this? It is made explicitly clear that a rapist must mary his victim as she is no longer eligible to mary anyone else.
I think worship of Mary is still worshipping God. It is likely the apparitions of Mary was God revealing Himself in the most righteous feminine form. The Rosary is just a meditation / prayer to help assist us in the guiding of lost souls.
Preservation of Virginity and the Mother of Jesus, it is essentially worshipping the Holy Spirit of God.
Then don't worship Mary. Worship the Godhead while acknowledging its feminine side. Mary was just human and deserves no worship (and would probably be horrified at people focusing in her rather than the worship of the true God.)
Theotokos is my waifu.
I can feel her watching me fap sometimes, with a disapproving and embarrassed disposition, but she can't help but look on 2bh.
Can't do it. You can worship and consult with God, and nobody else. He can send angels, but if you consult angels before consulting him you are committing idolatry (and likely communicating with an entirely different sort of angel than the one you intended.)
As for the second point, that is a very beautifully poetic interpretation but doesn't actually answer the question. The Bible mentions circumcised and uncircumcised hearts. Where is the equivalent?
do you think she ever gets turned on
maybe she'll "punish" you once you get to heaven
sorry i'll stop
Patriarchal values and matriarchal values in religion can lead to destruction if one is without the other. Feminism gets carried away... and so doesn't a male dominated society that is at war with itself.
If you believe in God, do you not believe He is transcendental enough to be Feminine?
We need a certain "woman's touch" so we can love God as if we are a wife to a very honourable man.
Through Mary, she isn't claiming to be some goddess, she just intercedes prayer for us. She is the embodiment of the most righteous feminine virtues.
I don't disagree with any of your first three points. The problem is externalizing these qualities onto a decidedly human woman instead of understanding them as part of God's nature. I would argue that feminine apparitions were not Mary herself, rather they were a feminine manifestation of God that was interpreted as Mary due to cultural expectations.
O-oh my, that's what I look forward to the most.
Step on me, Mary~
The thing is, the fact that those experiences were interpreted as coming from Mary is still a problem. It's like someone seeing a blessing from God and going out and thanking Baal for his kindness. Direct worship and thankfulness where it belongs.
If you'd like, when you pray to God you can ask Jesus to thank Mary for giving birth to him. He is in the position to pass along such a message.
do you think mary ever sees stories about women getting forcibly impregnated by gods, like in comic books or something, and gets a little hot under her veil
and tries to hide it from jesus because he know he finds it gross but she can't help herself
The only one outside the material realm who can hear prayers is God. What Jesus chooses to communicate to his mother is his own business. Your prayers will never be heard by Mary herself, only if God chooses to reveal them to her.
So going through life, you never consult with anyone but God directly?
Virginity is also of the heart. Is a woman who blows a lot of guys a virgin, if she has her hymen intact? No. Is a woman whose been raped but never done anything consensually, a virgin? Yes.
There's no problem, God is the One doing all the work anyway. People pray to little gods and some people pray to saints and or angels and they just have a lesser intelligence because they believe God is completely impersonal.
That would be like saying "Don't worship Jesus because teachnically..." no. Mary, gives us the Rosary for a reason, and if it is a manifestation of God then yeah, I am going to worship "Mary" and as for the living Mary God bless her soul, for she would understand "oh they worship me, but they really worship God"
Not all Christians would see the same stance. Some would be super literal and it just leads to conflict, which Christians don't need to be enemies amongst each other
>i-it's not like i enjoy these kinds of stories or anything...they just remind me of myself, t-that's all...
>the Mother of God can be defiled
They're only defiling themselves, m8. The Mother of God is completely pure and cannot be defiled. She is immaculate.
Also forgive my wording.
I meant to word it a little different, people worship lesser entities because they believe they will "recieve something" and don't believe God will answer their prayers directly.
"Oh goddess of wealth" or "oh saint nick, help me be generous" or "oh angel of health, please.."
Worship Jesus and Mary isn't like this, because through the Holy Spirit there is a direct link to God. Jesus, lived and died, and resurrected, and is One with God through the Holy Spirit
Nobody dead, no. I imagine what my grandfather might have wanted me to do, given what he told me and the stories other people tell me about him. However, he is dead, and thus I cannot know anything about what he actually wants me to do.
The second point is valid under the "circumsised vs uncircumcised heart" logic, but still needs actual scriptural support.
Jesus is part of the Godhead, and thus worship of him is entirely valid. But God is a jealous god. He does not tolerate worship of anyone else. There is nothing inherently wrong with the rosary as a feminine prayer, for example, other than the fact that the prayer is directed to someone other than God. It is directed to Mary, not God. Mary would likely understand what your actual intention was, but God the Father is not so forgiving.
I don't think so. God is very forgiving and understanding. I understand the "fury" God might have, but I doubt God leading me to the Rosary is going to make Him jealous. I am sure He tolerates it. I am also sure He tolerates people who don't worship Mary because people just want to focus on God in the first place
It's like, I know I worship God when I pray to Mary, I honor the life Mary lived and the aspect she represented, and this is why God would reveal Himself as apparitions of Mary.
If the time and place calls for it, and the only way to redeem the sinners is by some crazy mysterious way, God knows what he is doing to bring His people back to Him
God is forgiving and understanding, within certain limits. If an uncontacted tribesman looks around and realizes creation is of a single mind, God will listen to and answer his prayers no matter what word he uses to address the creator of the universe. But the decedent of such a tribesmen with access to knowledge and knows of specific Christian ideas and rejects them, he may not be afforded the same mercy. You using the Rosary does not make God jealous (a word he uses to describe himself) until the moment you direct it to "Mary" at which point it becomes polytheism (and thus adulterous.) If you honor Mary in the secular sense of the word, the way some people honor Washington or Lincoln, that is fine. Mary was chosen for some reason, she must be special in some way. But to be honoured in a supernatural domain is strictly for God, and nobody else. How would any husband feel if his wife admired other men in anything other than a platonic sense?
How is Elias dead?
It has plenty of doctrinal support apart from the Bible. And you really have no choice but to agree with it unless you are suggesting either that virginity is not a moral concern, or that morality is carnal.
>Saying God would be jealous over honoring Mary is like saying a painter would get jealous if you honor his greatest painting.
If an artist was told that their paintings were worth more than them, they woukd be furious. We see this in contemporary times often, as an artist becomes upset that one of their works is loved more than themselves. Mary is a work of God, same as the cultures that worship false idols are works of God. You cannot worship Baal, even though the concept of Baal is one of God's creations. Mary herself is obviously not as evil as Baal, but honoring her above God is as evil as honoring Baal above God, even if you dress it up in other language.
Elijah was born after the fall. Even assuming he lived the full post-Edenic lifespan, he is dead.
Mortality in the way the term is regularly used is carnal, by the way. The death of the body is the first death, the death of the soul is the second death.
I think worship of anyone in a secular sense is what would make God jealous, especially US offices.
Mary, in Spirit, with God, would intercede with God, and God knows it already, even if I single-handedly worshipped Mary without recognizing God, if He is all knowing, He already knows.
So "worship" / "veneration" of Mary, and Mary is the limit, is beneficial for those who need it and or are interested in the Rosary, which the first prayer is the Apostles Creed, so you recognize God first.
Well that one specifically was just told she is going to be the vessel of God's doomed baby/God himself, without a choice in the matter, and that she has to cuck her husband before they even get a taste of that honeymoon action. So you can't expect her to be all smiles.
What's your favorite Marian apparition, /his/?
Being an American, I have a soft spot for Guadalupe.
>If an artist was told that their paintings were worth more than them
You really like to exaggerate this don't you. No idea why you have a hateboner for Mary, but every post you make gets more ridiculous.
First you say worshipers elevate her to near-God status, now you're claiming they elevate her ABOVE God status.
There is an actual difference between honoring and worship/"veneration", though. With honor, you one-sidedly appreciate the qualities or actions of your self-constructed idealized image of another. With worship/"veneration" you believe the real person is somehow able to listen to you and affect your life. If a president looked to Lincoln's letters to help him write an important speech, that is simple honour. If a president asked Lincoln for help in writing a speech, that would be inappropriate worship/"veneration."
Mary cannot intercede, by the way. While she may be superior to Jesus, she is inferior to the Logos, and especially the rest of the Trinity. If an uncontacted tribe were presented with Marian worship, they would be exempt from the Jealousy clause, but as they developed a deeper understanding of scripture they would be subject to it.
At this I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said, "No, don't worship me. I am a servant of God, just like you and your brothers and sisters who testify about their faith in Jesus. Worship only God. For the essence of prophecy is to give a clear witness for Jesus." Rev 19:10
>Nobody says Mary is worth more than God though, doing so would make no sense.
If you pray to Mary, you are elevating her above your Jealous God.
Elevating a human to God's status is elevating a human above God's status, as God's status is singular. Mary herself was likely better than many humans, given God's choice to incarnate, but worship of her is as misguided as worship of Adam.
She isn't superior to Jesus. You pray to Mary, likely through the Rosary, and essentially it's practice is to help the lost souls back into grace.
You start off this prayer by calling upon God first, this is just God's "feminine" side.
You really don't worship her, she just intercedes on our behalf.
It is fairly simple. God personally demands His status be singular. If you elevate anyone else to His status, you are violating His wishes, and therefore denying one of his demands. Therefore, you, in actual fact, are actually elevating something beyond His status, as you care about them more than you care about Him.
>Therefore, you, in actual fact, are actually elevating something beyond His status, as you care about them more than you care about Him.
This is where your leap of logic comes in. Sorry m8 but that's just nonsensical by anyone's definition.
If someone asked me to not punch them the face, and later someone else asked me to punch that first person in the face , and then I do punch, I am valuing the second person over the first. God tells us to not worship anyone but him. Satan asks us to worship literally anyone or anything but He who Is I Am. If you follow Satan's inclusive advice over God's exclusive orders, you are putting something above God.
>Uh, he was assumed into heaven, fully alive.
What was the lifespan of holy prophets in his time? If you consulted him during this lifespan, congratulations, you got off on the ambiguous case. If you consulted him after, you are guilty of idolatry
Bowing to someone and kissing their hand it not worshiping them, you only think it is because of modernism. You'll notice that venerating saints was never, ever a topic of controversy in the Church until iconoclasm, and even then it was over *icons* (including of Christ), not the veneration itself. Our attitude toward our elders had to become modernist before Protestants could be offended by veneration of saints.
God's "exclusive orders" never say anything about not being allowed to venerate Mary or ask her to pray for us. If we are able to ask our friends and family to pray on our behalf, there is literally no reason to not ask Mary for that same favor, especially considering she is alive and well after her Assumption.
>Bowing to someone and kissing their hand it not worshiping them
That is entirely correct. It is believing they can hear yu or consulting with them that is evil. If you kiss the icon of St. PaganGod/dess because you hope to be a better person, go ahead. If you kiss that icon because you believe they will help you be a better person, you are an idolatrer.
He physically died either when he ascended to heaven or when his body passed the post-fall limit of Old Age during his time.
If "veneration" matched the secular definition of honour, it woukd not be a problem.
According to Josephus (Antiquities Of The Jews 9:2:2), Elijah and Enoch disappeared from the people so that nobody knew of their death
Jesus says that no man has ever entered heaven but He Himself.
“And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.”
>ask our friends and family to pray on our behalf, there is literally no reason to not ask Mary for that same favor,
If Mary were alive today, you would be able to ask her for all sorts of favors. Mary is, however, dead, and unable to hear prayers.
Where is the scriptural support for Marty ascending to heaven?
Some people ask for their friends to pray with them, hoping that extra prayers will result in extra answers. The truth f the matter is, God knows even before you pray whether he will answer a prayer or not, and even knows before you pray. Saints never come into it except with pagan theologies.
>He physically died
No, he did not. You can't die in heaven.
>It is believing they can hear yu or consulting with them that is evil.
No, it is not, because they aren't in Hades (which is where all the righteous dead were before Christ), they are in heaven. They are carnally dead, but not spiritually dead. And prayers are not carnal things
Elias ascended to heaven, it's made abundantly clear.
The heaven Christ is talking about is the full heaven, that is, the one that Christians will go to after the Final Judgement. The heaven Elias entered is the "foretaste" that precedes the Final Judgement.
He will return, though, and die a martyrs death.
>You can't die in heaven.
You also cannot have a fallen physical body in heaven, which means Elijah did not maintain his body while ascending, which means he died. Silent prayers are part of the carnal mind, which only you and God have access to.
You can obviously have a fallen body in the foretaste of heaven
If prayers were carnal, they wouldn't do anything. Prayers are of the spirit. They can be integrated with the material, however, in which case they become corporeal, but not carnal.
>If prayers were carnal, they wouldn't do anything
Prayers do not do anything. Souls pious enough to go through the ritual of prayer are rewarded, whereas souls un-pious enough to not bother with such a ritual are not. At best, you can change a prayer you thought was empty into one that is full, but scb an evaluation comes from God long before the prayer is acutely made.
Prayers do something. They might not on their own achieve anything, but they do something in the sense that they are most assuredly a spiritual act. If they were purely carnal, then how would angels pray?
The actual prayers themselves do nothing. It is the act of humbling one's self before God and asking for Him to do something the self cannot that is important. If the ritual was completely opposite, that would still be useful given that it was God's command. Meanwhile, millions of prayers go unanswered because the prayers follow a ritual but not its spiritual meaning. Angels can formulate an unvoiced thought they send to God, but that is it.
There is no problem asking live friends to pray with you. But directly asking dead friends to pray with you is absolutely sinful.
Angels pray the same way the dead pray. If you die the first death and go to heaven , you can pray the same way. But someone praying to you would be vomiting idolatry.
No matter what the actual effects of ascending into heaven were, it would be impossible to outlive the first death while being human. Thus, while it was entirely possible people were sinning while praying to Elijah shortly after his ascension, it was unlikely, and there is a hard limit with the old age calculated from his birth.
>idolizing a mere person
>calling her the "mother of God" because her son would end up having divine qualities 30 years later
>saying she was always a virgin when Jesus had at least one brother
What the fuck is this fucking paganshit idolatry bullshit
ok i'm calm now
Which Churches consider Mary to be the "mother of God" anyway?
And, doesn't it become a problem when the interpretation of the Bible goes so far off that it effectively contradicts the Bible?
The most prominent Mother Goddess cultists are the Catholics and Orthodox. Unfortunately, they wiped out most the early churches and Protestant denominstions are merely offshoots of a corrupted tradition.
Our Lady of Fatima
Our Lady of Lourdes
Our Lady of Akita
Our Lady of Guadalupe
Marian Apparitions are definitely strange and wondrous.
Mary really is just Goddess worship.
Let's test the idea that she is only being venerated because she raised Jesus. Well Joseph did so as well and the veneration for him is practically non-existant. I don't even know if Christians actually do that. So clearly the official explanation is an excuse.
Have you read Jung? According to his theories we programmed to seek out goddess figures through thousands of years of conditioning and it's a command built right into our subconscious. Mary is just one of many different expressions of this urge. While the conscious mind may come try to rationalize what is really going on below the surface is that Mary is a Goddess.
It's not that she raised Jesus, it's that she physically bore him into earthly existence. She's a major catalyst in the whole salvation thing.
What did Joseph do exactly? Teach his son how to make furniture?
The whole "but we don't pray to them, we pray to what they represent!" thing is just mental gymnastics to justify idolatry though.
>2. What do you mean "30 years later"? Christ wasn't God until 30 years later?
Yes? Did we both read the Bible? God called Jesus his Son when he was baptized by John. Jesus then had to be tested by the Satan. Jesus couldn't do miracles before that and did not spread the gospel either, until being baptized and effectively becoming infused with divine knowledge and abilities. There's a reason we don't have much knowledge of what Jesus really was up to until then.
Why do Protestants even bother trying to talk theology in these threads?
Sola scriptura isn't going to get you very far at all. There's a reason Christology was debated for half a millennium among experts, because it can't be definitively solved by a random person's cherrypicked interpretation.
* but it doesn't disqualify Jesus as the Son of God though, since those were God's divine plans from the beginning, and his very birth was miraculous. But he didn't become more than a man until being baptized.
Not a protestant but
- why isn't sola scriptura good enough?
- what else is there to consider then? and why is it even considered as much as scripture itself?
Just take a look at your fucking art. Mary being pregnant is never a theme. The physical act is never depicted. Is Mary's role to give birth and than leave the scene? No, she's supposed to raise the child because that's what mothers do. In theory Joseph would have also had a significant role as he was physically there with him. And yes teaching Jesus how to earn a trade would have been important, unless Jesus was never going to work (which defeats the purpose of God becoming human if he doesn't learn to live like a human)
The thing is Joseph as a father figure doesn't fit the arch-type of the myth. There are many stories of male Gods going to female humans and giving them children, Zeus being one of the more obvious ones. These are patterns in stories that were just part of culture.
>The whole "but we don't pray to them, we pray to what they represent!" thing is just mental gymnastics to justify idolatry though.
We pray to the saint. We don't pray to the icon. The icon is just a reflection of the saint, like a mirror.
The heck denomination are you?
Sssh sssh let them have their delusions.
The blood that coursed through Mary's veins also coursed through the veins of the Godhead incarnate for 9 months.
If Christ is the Godhead incarnate; then you cannot deny her elevated status. There is no relationship more intimate than the relationship between mother and unborn infant.
No, I do not subscribe to a Catholic (or its offshoot, Orthodox) heresy. I subscribe to the truth, which may or may not resemble a philosophy Catholics (or their Orthodox offshoots) dislike within the context of their own philosophies.
>We pray to the saint. We don't pray to the icon. The icon is just a reflection of the saint, like a mirror.
I know that, but why is Christianity the only Abrahamic religion to treat idolatry like that?
>The heck denomination are you?
Just read what I said (and replied to myself as well). I have the same question, since I'm a relatively new convert.
I'm not religious but isn't Neostianism the only way your religion can make any sense?
Did Jesus physically exist, in flesh and blood before the universe began? If not than there had to be a point where his physical form was created, this means Jesus is created and not eternal. Since he is part of the trinity it also means God is created and not eternal.
If his physical body did exist before the universe began than Mary did not give birth to him and you have a strange paradox of something physical existing before the physical plane exists.
The only way to resolve this paradox is to say Jesus's human nature and divine nature are two separate natures. I think the Jesus story that makes the most sense is the idea that his body was a shell to hold his spirit.
So those same people who decided upon the nature of Christ, the Trinity, etc. aren't pagan? Glad we agree. So why don't you accept their creeds about theological matters? You can't pick and choose to agree with them on one matter and not the other.
Ancient Jews did not "venerste" the Ark, they avoided defiling it as God commanded. Had God commanded such a thing for all your idols, they would rightfully be worshiped the same treatment.
Of cpurse I can. I don't subscribe to the infallibility of the church, because why would someone described as tending towards adultery be infallible, just that they made a few correct desicions.
Christ was uncreated (though he was begotten), but he was also conceived at a point in time, by the Holy Spirit. This is a paradox, you are correct. It is a mystery. The Trinity itself is also a paradox and a mystery.
>The only way to resolve this paradox is to say Jesus's human nature and divine nature are two separate natures
They are two separate natures. The only major branches that disagree are Miaphysites and Monophysites.
Difference is that The Big Guy Himself told them to do so, and specifically in that way. Jesus and Paul advocated idolizing God in one's heart though. Any physical representation of something holy that is being prayed to (or at least that is seen as anything more than a chunk of stone in the shape of a thing) immediately becomes reminescent of the golden calf, doesn't it? Especially with Christianity being, right now, the only religion out of the three main Abrahamic ones that considers it to be fine.
somebody pls reply
Yes, given they all agreed with a set of canonical books thst propagated to real churchws, but not necessarily on a nature that similarly propogated. Again, a human cannot be infallible, or else you wouldn't be this close from declaring Francis an Anti pope.
Not every sect. Just the pagan ones. A simple test to whether or not you are again is whether you use loopholes to avoid saying you worship other gods while happily engaging in the actual practice.
Not him, but the Bible's canon was decided at one point and never truly challenged, while Jesus' nature is interpreted differently over time due to cultures changing. Jesus can be God in the flesh or just a prophet dude or a different God from the OT's God depending on how politically convenient it is and how it works with contemporary philosophies. And a newer factor is the historicity of Jesus himself.
>why isn't sola scriptura good enough?
Because there were tons of christian scriptures floating around and a guy decided sometime in the 4th century that his collection is the best and truest one.
>Rabbinic Judaism, descended from Pharisaic Judaism
Well there's a certain amount of mystery involved in all religion's God but some of it is understandable. I don't think the trinity is very paradoxical. I could desribe myself of beign composed of seperate but united parts. For instance my conscious and unconscious mind. They even talk to each much like Jesus talks to his Father who is also himself. Trinity is not a very difficult concept unless you have a very simple view of identity.
I really don't see any sense with Jesus's physical body being God-like. If his soul or mind was God like that would make sense. Jesus isn't exactly comparable to the Hindu concept of an avatar is he?
Paul's epistles are some of the best documents we have though, isn't one of them the earliest Christian text we have too?
The four gospels are pretty damn close to Jesus' lifetime (between 20 to 100 years after it happened, which is honestly pretty nice even if it doesn't help much on a modern historical level), and some others that might have been good were poisoned with different doctrines (such as gnosticism).
Effectively, most of the NT's canon is really not debatable, which is one of the reason it's solid. Again, I say most - we have 4 canon gospels so it's not like it's easy, and a couple of Paul's epistles probably aren't really his, and the book of Revelations had a hard time getting a room in the canon too.
>and some others that might have been good were poisoned with different doctrines (such as gnosticism)
not gonna get into this argument, but there are many scholars who believe the gospel of thomas was written at least as early as mark.
So, I have a question
Why has the trinity been a hot debate for centuries now?
From my own understanding ot the gospels: Jesus was born miraculously but was nothing more than a man until he was baptized by John and God appointed him as his Son and gave him divine knowledge and powers. Jesus was fully man (because he was a dude, who was born and who would die and who had fears, hunger, etc) and fully God (he started doing his major stuff in his 30's but he was always part of God's plan, and God is timeless and so was Jesus (the divine, not the mortal)). So you have God the Father and God the Son, and the Holy Spirit was a necessary part of the theology to link all Christians (if not all people) to both. So there, you have the Trinity.
So what problems does it cause to be one of Christianity's biggest issues? You have one God (YHWH) showing himself in three ways we can understand and that have different but closely connected purposes (Father gives divine order and punishment, Son gives divine teaching to man, Spirit is the communication way between man and God, and God is love). Where's the big issue here?
Yeah, that's the one I was thinking of when I mentionned gnosticism. But it's also debated that Thomas' gospel was influenced by the other canonical gospels as well as gnostic theology, possibly later on.
What do you mean by separate and distinct? If those words are as meaningful as any other mundane word in the English language, the answer will depend on the interstitial between my personal definition of those malleable definitions and yours. If you mean ten as proxies to your pagan religion, my answer is whatever is opposite to the one Satan had provided to you.
I have answered him. Does his definition of != (and yours) come from Satanic paganism or from the Holy Spirit? It is identical to the word "veneration, a word that may come from a genuine split between honour and worship or from a Satanic impulse to prevent worship of the true jealous God.
it comes from the dictionnary
not equal as in, not the same, is what i mean
regardless of how different or the status of either, just, is it one thing or two
if you have a different view entirely (such as "they're separate yet the same" or something) then say so
the tennis game you're playing with that anon is making me angry, he's not asking a particularly deep question
Give me your definition of equal to, and my answer will be different than my answer to >>525648 if he gives me a different definition of equal to. For example, how relevant is "getting tired" to "nature"? I will say outright though, that "The Word" and "Joshua of Nazareth" have different designations for a reason.
If you want to continue to worship Mary and Isis that is your personal desicion and not something anyone but God can take away from you. Just do not expect mercy for it in the hereafter.
Of course you shouldn't. But you shold be equally wary of placing your faith in the baseless opinion of an anonymous poster as you should be in placing your faith in an anonymous money-lender. You are welcome to question me. Why not question "authorities" the same way? If they are correct, they will survive the investigation.
Not free inquiry. It is difficult to question someone who can deny communion to you for disagreeing with them, until you realize communion is a tool to control people and the eurachrist is a symol of fellowship to anyone who is willing to believe/humble themselves.
>"the abode of the dead"
Can't have a second death if the first one didn't count. Of all the "saints" had resurrected the way Christ did, you might have an argument. They didn't, thus, you don't.
I said what I meant. If the person you are sending your "prayer request" to is receiving it by eardrum vibration, telegram, email, or something along those lines, great. You are otherwise praying into a demon if not addressing your prayer directly to God.
Of course saints have bodies.
> We grow weary in our present bodies, and we long to put on our heavenly bodies like new clothing. For we will put on heavenly bodies; we will not be spirits without bodies.
Wrong, you get the physical body that it talks about as soon as you die.
>For we know that when this earthly tent we live in is taken down (that is, when we die and leave this earthly body), we will have a house in heaven, an eternal body made for us by God himself and not by human hands
>Are you suggesting that spirits who have been made perfect are unable to known when they are addressed from earth?
A perfect human spirit doesn't imply omnipotence or omniscience. Unless you're suggesting that "made perfect" means "made into God" then no, no such power has been granted to them.
Okay, but that's probably a spiritual body. After all, how would you have a Resurrection of the Dead if they already have live material bodies?
By perfect I mean freed of the plagues of the fall, which include physical limitations. Heaven is not a separate realm, after all, it is merely another dimension of reality that intersects with the material.
>which include physical limitations
Yeah, everyone remembers that famous bible verse where a pre-fall Adam is able to throw fireballs and fly faster than the speed of light because he was beyond physical limitations
Before they were removed from Eden, Adam at least had a brow. Thst's much more evidence than assuming they were gods when the scripture quite directly says only eating from the tree of life would make them as gods.
>The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
So "working" something and "taking care of it" is considered total power beyond physical limitations and omniscience? Wow, I can't believe he ate that fruit.
Also, are you aware that Adam never existed? It's evolution, baby. I don't think there were any prehistoric men flying around with super powers.
Eating the fruit of knowledge meant that he became so enraptured with carnal good and evil (pleasure and pain) that he became subordinated to it, and "knew" it (which means sexual congress in Hebrew). Pretty much all the Church Fathers commenting about how God said man has become "like us", say that God is being ironic (as in man knows better than God what is best for him).
As for Adam and Eve, they were probably real people that others are descendants from in this beginning (Genesis literally says in "a beginning", so there was a different material order before this one (the second to last). The Flood is probably about the last material order getting rekt by God.
Not necessarily omniscience. But would he know if Eve were dressing him, without her actually saying anything, or being within what we'd now consider hearing distance? I'd think so.
I'm just going to let the stupidity of this post stand on its own.
Good night anons.
>As for Adam and Eve, they were probably real people that others are descendants from in this beginning
That is, in lineage lines, they were historical people, in this material order, but also figuratively the first humans from the first material order. All this of course was drastically simplified in poetic style because no one in ancient times could comprehend it otherwise, it would just be gobblygook.
Nope. Assuming his hearing was completely ideal, he would still be limited by the range of vibrations in an air medium (regardless of what the composition of air was pre-fall.) He certainly couldn't hear Eve having evil thoughts implanted into her by the snake.
Kissing your mother's statue however would be quite retarded if not outright idolatrous.
Mary is not there when you bow to her statues. Not in spirit, not in flesh, not in any way, it's just you "paying respects" to a lifeless, antropomorphous slab of stone.
Someone does want to have a talk about sons and daughters of the Virgin of Mary?
The Early Churches venerate Mary and the martyrs. We know this due to the Protoevangelium and this. If any, the Protestants are the ones who oppose Early Christianity with their blatant innovations
The canon's "skeleton" was only decided upon. It is still fluid in the sense that there are minor differences here and there. We also know that for quite some time, the Church only had Tradition which became enscripturated. The oral aspect becomes the lens to read the written parts. This is why Sola Scriptura is a stupid doctrine and an innovation. Take it from Reformed scholar ANS Lane for example
Bad news for you, that never happened. They were cousins of Jesus which the original Aramaic only have the word "brother" to describe. Naturally this would be rendered as "brother" in Greek. After all why would Jesus get John instead of his own biological brothers to take care of his mother? Think about that for a second and see how inconsistent this argument is >>526154
No we're bloody not. By faith alone are we justified and all our works are made pure in the world through the spirit. Now admittedly we haven't assassinated many lutherians recently, but our past history demonstrates that we aren't protestant in the least.
We are the pure original apostolic church and these are the end days.
What. You're saying he had not spiritual sense? He had enormous spiritual sense, ours is impaired by our sinful state, but Adam's would be completely unimpaired. And prayers are spiritual.
No worse than kissing her reflection or her skype image.
According to the Gospel of James, Joseph was married before and quite old when he became engaged to Mary, Christ's siblings (pr cousins, the word is the same in Greek) were all from his prior marriages.
Yeah, one is the same whether you're baby or an adult.
Why already 2016 years elapsed and into West no new prophets, no new childs of god?
They would be worth of worship in Hebrew terms (which uses the term "worship" to describe even the veneration of elders), but in English the word "worship" today means latreia (just like "adore" used to mean it, and it would be considered reasonable to call a superior "your worship" but to say you adore someone would be considered blasphemous), so it wouldn't be
God is an eternal Trinity, there is and always was only one "God the Son".
As for prophets, it depends on what you mean by that, but in Orthodox terminology, a prophet is a title applied to heralds of Christ from the old covenant. John the Baptist is seen as the last prophet.
I mean that in Hebrew, the term we generally translate as "worship" was used much more broadly than it is in English today, more like how it was back in the 18th Century
See Johnson's Dictionary
The term "worship" today is almost exclusively used to mean latria
There's nothing meritorious about it either.
Being full of the spirit and killing knights is meritorious. Choosing Christ for oneself in the knowledge of good and evil and receiving baptism in the spirit is meritorious. There is no fullness in any ritual.
Back in the 18th Century. Not so much anymore. The equivalent back then to "worship" now was "adore"
See "adoration" and "adore"
The Old Testament is the Word of God in the sense of rhéma inspired by God. Not the sense of logos.
The Law doesn't change, but what it means to us does. An eye for an eye, for instance, one had a carnal meaning, but fulfilled the morality is the golden rule, both it positive version (expressed in the Gospels) and it's negative version (expressed in the Didache). Once we had the Spirit, then we no longer understood God through carnal terms.
Yeah, which a tribe was won, they writings of priests did as "words of god".
God and His Word are One, there is no changing that.
I would agree that we recieved deeper insights into the Law over time, but the deeper understandings do not contradict the literal meaning of the Law and it's statutes.
If you would have read it you would realize that it does not prove your point.
All you saw was "new covenant", but you didn't pay attention to the part where God says He will put His Law within them and write it on their hearts, meaning the rules of the New Covenant are exactly the same as the previous one.
Yes, God and His Word are one, so you have to very careful about applying the phrase "Word of God" to the Bible, because it is most definitely not the Word of God as in the Logos of God. It is an icon of the Logos, but to say it were the Logos Himself would be idolatry. The Bible is the rhéma of God, inspired by His Spirit, but they both translate as "word" in English yet are not the same thing, so let's not get confused here.
The Word of God is the Word of God, and this Word was in the beginning with God, and this Word was God.
The Word of God (Christ) and the Word of God (the Bible - not the book cover or the binding, but the words within it) are One.
This is clear because everything Christ did was in accordance with the Word of God (the Bible), making it clear that He is the living Word of God.
>not calling her the black madonna
>nobody posting the original black madonna
I want all these psuedo religious fags to leave
>hurr muslims coming to europe, better pretend im christian, muh roots hurr
God and His Word are One, and He is present in every sentence, every word, and every letter of the Bible. What is written inside a book can be written anywhere, so obviously it is not the book that is being worshipped.
You practically just did it again! I can replicate the entire Harry Potter on a different medium but it's still the same Harry Potter. You still worship a book who cannot agree with itself
why are protestants so literal and stupid?
is it that relying on a literal reading of every passage stunts the growth in understanding human concepts like metaphor and allegory? or is it that simplistic ideas like sola scripture just happen to attract the lowest common denominator of brain dead people to its cause?
truly a chicken and egg scenario
>since the beginning of time.
My intuition and faith said me, time is infinite.
a written or printed work consisting of pages glued or sewn together along one side and bound in covers.
"a book of selected poems"
synonyms: volume, tome, publication, title; More
a bound set of blank sheets for writing or keeping records in.
"an accounts book"
synonyms: notebook, notepad, pad, memo pad, exercise book, workbook; More
Either way, the device used to read the Bible whether it be an electronic device or a traditional book, is not sacred. It is the Word within it that is sacred and divine. The medium is not.