Mother God vs Mother of God

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #7278
    IrenaeusFTW
    Participant

    fromtheotherside wrote:

    IrenaeusFTW wrote:

    Just seeing "mother god" written out infuriates me. What awful blasphemy. 

    Yeah so is praying to Mary, what a blasphemous deed, makes me wanna throw up

    First, its clear in scripture that God has a mother. It's Mary. Scripture says "all generations" will call her blessed, and she is indeed. Mary is praised by name in the inspired word of God. Zahng certainly isn't mentioned. 

    Catholics pray to saints asking for their prayers and intercession before God. We don't worship them. We are all united in the body of Christ, on heaven and earth. We are surrounded by a cloud heavnely witnesses who offer prayers to God on our behalf. (Hebrews 12:1, Rev 5:8) Christ spoke with the saints, we being part of His body, imitate Him.(Transfiguration)  It's an ancient Christian doctrine called the 'communion of saints,' not a modern concoction tricking poor souls into worshiping an old lady in Korea. 

    About prayer to saints from an Orthodox perspective: 

    http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/invocationofsaints.aspx

    About Mary from a Catholic perspective: 

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUdYeYy3NQA

  • #59274

    ttr
    Participant

    fromtheotherside wrote:

    And no thecatholic did not putthe bible together.

    Simon wrote:

    its unknown 

    It was put together by the Catholic Church at the Synod of Hippo in 393 and ratified at the Council of Carthage in 397 subject to approval from Rome.  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Hippo )  Many books which were being read in the churches at the time, as well as even letters from Popes that were being read did not become part of the canon.

    #59275

    Simon
    Participant

    nope the consensus predates that it more confirmed than established

    #59276

    Simon
    Participant

    emil wrote:

    The Early church was called the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic church AFAIK.

    The early church wasn't the Roman Catholic Church however

    #59277

    justasitis
    Participant

    Surely the early (christian) church was catholic = 'universal/pertaining to the whole christian body or church', not Catholic with a capital C or even Roman Catholic?

    #59278

    Simon
    Participant

    yep every church was part of the universal church

    #59279

    Sarah2013
    Participant

    fromtheotherside wrote:

    It iz not a contradition because we believe in ash he believes in Jesus so no not a contridiction.

    Wrong! Ahang cannot believe in what he knows. Believing and knowing are two different things. Either he was Jesus/God/Holy Spirit and knows (given we are speaking of him in present terms) that he is, or he doesn't. Not he believes, which implies he looks forward to knowing he is God. 

    #59280

    Simon
    Participant

    you can know and believe something at the same time

    #59281

    Sarah2013
    Participant

    Simon wrote:

    you can know and believe something at the same time

    You can, certainly! However, knowing and believing are not the same thing. To know is certainty, to believe is not. "Where is Mark?" "I believe he's upstairs mom." because the last time you checked or from what he said, he was or is upstairs. You do not know for sure. If the answer was "he is upstairs" then you are certain he is, even though it might turn out he isn't becuse you didn't know he left. Yet, you assumed you knew he was upstairs becuase that was where you saw him last – knowing.  This still doesn't make knowing and believing the same thing. Give it some thoughts, Simon. It isn't the same thing. If you are wearing glasses and I say to you, "do you believe those are glasses you are wearing?" the most accurate answer will be, "No, I know these are glasses I'm wearing." You know what you see and believe what you don't see, be it in dream or reality. Having said that, what is known doesn't have to be fact or actual. Just like what is believed doesn't have to be fact or actual. True statement vs statement of truth. 

    #59282

    IrenaeusFTW
    Participant

    justasitis wrote:

    Surely the early (christian) church was catholic = 'universal/pertaining to the whole christian body or church', not Catholic with a capital C or even Roman Catholic?

    People like to think so, but nobody seems to be able to put a finger on when that early Church morphed into the early Church. It's pretty easy to demonstrate the continuity of the teaching of the early Church Fathers with the teaching of the Catholic Church, because they are all part of the same Church. 

    Not that that debate will be settled in a single thread on a WMS forum, haha. But seriously, I don't think anyone can point to a date, event, or teaching that divides the early Church from the Catholic Church. At least no point that stands up to scrutiny. 

    #59283

    IrenaeusFTW
    Participant

    Simon wrote:

    nope the consensus predates that it more confirmed than established

    No, not at all. There is still no concensus, even among the ancient Churches. Church fathers were divided on whether or not certain books were inspired. Disputed books include certain Old Testament texts, like the Deuterocanonicals, and books like the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. To this day the Oriental Orthodox have more books in both Testaments than the Eastern Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox sometimes have more books than Catholics. The Catholics have more books than the Protestants. 

    Also, at certain times and places what was considered "canonical" was based on what was read as an official liturgical text, not necessarily if it was of inspired origin. So if it was the custom in hypothetical city 'A' to read from the Shepherd of Hermas it was considered canonical there, whereas James might not be read in their liturgy, so it wasn't considered canonical. In hypothetical city 'B' it could have been the opposite. The canon became established locally, based on liturgy in the early Church. Even the Councils of Hippo/Carthage were local councils for the West.

    This is all covered in the videos I posted earlier:    https://www.examiningthewmscog.com/forum/topic.php?id=4990

    My point is, Church authorities were deciding which books to use and ultimately which were inspired. They were basing their decisions on the traditions they had received, and ultimately the decisions were confirmed because of their authority as Bishops.  

     

     

    #59284

    Simon
    Participant

    Thats what you choose to believe there are collections identical to.todays new testament canon far too old to believe the official story

    #59285

    IrenaeusFTW
    Participant

    Simon wrote:

    Thats what you choose to believe there are collections identical to.todays new testament canon far too old to believe the official story

    There are ancient collections that are not identical as well. And the books that the Ethiopian, Coptic, and Armenian Churches use today show pretty conclusively that there wasn't a consensus. 

    #59286

    Simon
    Participant

    I don't think you know what consensus means

    #59287

    fromtheotherside
    Participant

    Sarah2013 wrote:

    fromtheotherside wrote:

    It iz not a contradition because we believe in ash he believes in Jesus so no not a contridiction.

    Wrong! Ahang cannot believe in what he knows. Believing and knowing are two different things. Either he was Jesus/God/Holy Spirit and knows (given we are speaking of him in present terms) that he is, or he doesn't. Not he believes, which implies he looks forward to knowing he is God. 

    I have no idea what you mean. So how've you been Sarah?  I've been reading some good books, so I haven't concentrated to much on this, I will get back to you when I'm finished.

    #59288

    WMS brother
    Participant

    "Church authorities were deciding which books to use"

    No, God was deciding which books to use. The people were just tools to get there, and some of them weren't even faithful. Yet still they were put together perfectly, and identically, all across the world, with only synonymous words even being allowed to be translated.

    God is in absolute control of the bible and you can trust its integrity, unless you do not believe in his omnipotence. The bible carries God's garauntee that not the least stroke of the pen will be removed from it.You will not find any missing words, there will be no missing pages, and there will be no missing books, where your salvation is concerned.

    The bible in its current incarnation is the perfect collection of all the information God wants us to have.

    Anything not in it, and anything not referenced by the forefather of faith, are completely irrelevant to salvation and only breeds an unhealthy intrerest in controversies and arguments.

    #59289

    IrenaeusFTW
    Participant

    Yes, God was using the Church authorities that HE ESTABLISHED and that HE MAINTAINS. 

    "The bible in its current incarnation is the perfect collection of all the information God wants us to have."

    Which Bible, the Catholic one? The Protestant Bible? The Ethiopian Tehawedo Bible? Pick a canon, and tell my why its better than any other. 

    #59290

    emil
    Participant

    WMS brother wrote:

     

    The bible in its current incarnation is the perfect collection of all the information God wants us to have.

    I addition to the "which version" question asked by Irenaeus, I want to ask "Why"

    Why the current incarnation? Why not the one in existence for 1200 years from 393 AD when the church closed the NT canon until the 16th century?

    Your statement that God was deciding… is rather ridiculous. You mean to say God did not know? He had to take hundreds of years to decide?

Viewing 17 replies - 21 through 37 (of 37 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.