Prayers to Mary in concerning Matthew

[Rion]

Ok then please post the verses you meant to post.

Luke 24:49 "I am going to send you what my Father has promised. But for now, stay in the city. Stay there until you have received power from heaven."

and

Matthew 17:9 They came down the mountain. On the way down, Jesus told them what to do. "Don't tell anyone what you have seen," he said. "Wait until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead."

I haven't used anything that needs a bibliography. I just find it hard to believe that a Catholic source would say such a thing. This is why I would like a link.

...I provided the source: The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. IX, p. 337) I'm sure if you don't want to go to a library or pay for it or borrow it, you can find it online, but I'm also pretty sure linking any kind of copyrighted material is bannable here.

What sources?

What sources are you claiming for the word? Mine's online dictionaries and such.

http://www.wordsources.info/refs-a-az.html
http://faculty.uca.edu/~benw/biol4402/roots.htm
http://www.maexamhelp.com/g_l_words.htm
http://www.interlingua.org/html/ied-preface.htm

I'm sorry, I assumed you would know what "ever virgin" was speaking of.

That's really an archaic use of ever in English.

 

[leothelioness]

And I believe I said.."And I believe Christ left men to lead His Church...what were the Apostles?"

My Church was started by the Apostles. I would much rather follow a Church founded by them, then "beliefs" founded 1600 years later..

You clearly believe that your church was started by men, but yet you're condemning me for following the beliefs supposedly started by a man. Can you say hypocrisy?

No your beliefs are based on false interpretations.

I see you edited your post to exclude the word "heresy".

Whatever the case may be you still believe us to follow heretical teachings. Look in the Bible and you will find no heresy. You will only see the teachings to which we hold fast.

If what we believe is heresy then God have mercy on the authors of the Bible.

So the man's who's ideas you believe in, said these things. Why don't you believe these beliefs?

Okay, so you say I believe in those beliefs and then you ask me why I don't believe in them???

 

[repentant]

and





...I provided the source: The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. IX, p. 337) I'm sure if you don't want to go to a library or pay for it or borrow it, you can find it online, but I'm also pretty sure linking any kind of copyrighted material is bannable here.



What sources are you claiming for the word? Mine's online dictionaries and such.

http://www.wordsources.info/refs-a-az.html
http://faculty.uca.edu/~benw/biol4402/roots.htm
http://www.maexamhelp.com/g_l_words.htm
http://www.interlingua.org/html/ied-preface.htm



That's really an archaic use of ever in English.

Ok now I see the verses and I looked them up in the Greek, and eos ou, is used. But eos ou, does not define "until". You can't make a blanket translation of eos ou as until.

Is there an online link to the Catholic Encyclopedia? It is ok to put copyrighted material here, as long as you provide a link. What you did, posting it without a link, is not ok.

Also, none of the links you provided are Orthodox/Catholic sources.

And it is not an archaeic used of the English language. That is the belief we are debating here, the Ever-Virginity of Mary. It is a translation of the Greek word aeiparthenos

 

[repentant]

You clearly believe that your church was started by men, but yet you're condemning me for following the beliefs supposedly started by a man. Can you say hypocrisy?

I never said it was founded by men, I said Christ left men to be in charge of the Church. Christ found the Church, the Apostles spread it, and led it.

I see you edited your post to exclude the word "heresy".

Yes I did..

Whatever the case may be you still believe us to follow heretical teachings. Look in the Bible and you will find no heresy. You will only see the teachings to which we hold fast.

I know the Bible speaks no heresy. The heresy comes from interpreting it wrong, and also from denying the Traditions handed down by the Apostles.

If what we believe is heresy then God have mercy on the authors of the Bible.

Your belief has nothing to do with what the Bible says.

Okay, so you say I believe in those beliefs and then you ask me why I don't believe in them???

I never said you believe in the ever virginity of Mary, which is what we are talking about. I said you follow the beliefs of a reformer, a man, who 1600 years after Christ started his own Church, or beliefs as you say. I quoted you something that he said concerning the virginity of Mary, and I ask why since you follow his other beliefs, you don't follow this one.

I think you need to work on reading comprehension..

 

[Rion]

Ok now I see the verses and I looked them up in the Greek, and eos ou, is used. But eos ou, does not define "until". You can't make a blanket translation of eos ou as until.

Then we agree! It could mean either one, which was my point.

Is there an online link to the Catholic Encyclopedia? It is ok to put copyrighted material here, as long as you provide a link.

The only encyclopedia that is online is the older edition, not the one I quoted, because it's still for sale. Hence they do not have it online.

What you did, posting it without a link, is not ok.

..I provided you with everything you need to verify it. If you don't want to bother going to a library, you can google the Bibliography info. I'm sure a few dozen matches will come up.

Also, none of the links you provided are Orthodox/Catholic sources.

Because I said that only orthodox/catholic insist it can be used in such a way...

 

[repentant]

Then we agree! It could mean either one, which was my point.

Well your first point, and everyone elses was that "until" automatically means that after whatever until is, things would change. I quoted a few verses which says otherwise.

The only encyclopedia that is online is the older edition, not the one I quoted, because it's still for sale. Hence they do not have it online.

Ok

..I provided you with everything you need to verify it. If you don't want to bother going to a library, you can google the Bibliography info. I'm sure a few dozen matches will come up.

I didn't say you didn't. But I am not going to the library to get a book, just to see what it says. ANd what I mean was, posting things from site needs a link to verify it. But since there isn't one...

Because I said that only orthodox/catholic insist it can be used in such a way...

That because the Orthodox Church compiled the Bible and it was in Greek. Greek is one of the main, if not the main language of the Orthodox Church. We know what Greek words mean, and how they are used. Not to mention the same applies in English with brother. People call someone brother all the time, without any blood connection.

Also I posted earlier that James who was called the Lord's brother, was not the son of Mary and Joseph..

 

[Rion]

Well your first point, and everyone elses was that "until" automatically means that after whatever until is, things would change. I quoted a few verses which says otherwise.

No, my point was that it COULD mean it. You seemed to insist that it definitely could not.

I didn't say you didn't. But I am not going to the library to get a book, just to see what it says. ANd what I mean was, posting things from site needs a link to verify it. But since there isn't one...

I didn't post it from a site.

 

[repentant]

No, my point was that it COULD mean it. You seemed to insist that it definitely could not.



I didn't post it from a site.

No I insisted that until does not mean after things would change. I said that because it said "she knew not a man, until she brought forth her firstborn son" that doesn't mean that after Jesus was born, she knew a man. And I said that the Greek word eos ou is not looked at like that.

I know you I didn't post it from a site.

 

[leothelioness]

Ok now I see the verses and I looked them up in the Greek, and eos ou, is used. But eos ou, does not define "until". You can't make a blanket translation of eos ou as until.

Hmm. Interesting. Weren't you saying that Eos ou meant "until"?

 

[leothelioness]

But Gabriel did not tell her that she would conceive by the Holy Spirit, until after she said, "how, I know now a man". So your arguement that she thought it would be by the Holy Spirit is pointless.


What I was getting it is..After Gabriel said she would conceive a Son, she reacted with "I know not a man". This implies she had never known a man sexually or will ever know a man sexually, because Gabriel said "You will conceive". To conceive, or conception is the point when a sperm fertilizes an egg. She would not have reacted with "I know not a man", if her future virginity was not in question. Her answer "I know not a man" would make sense in the present sense if Gabriel had told her she was already pregnant.

Gabriel-You have conceived a Son.
Mary-How can this be, I know not a man?

But Gabriel did not say "you have conceived" he said "you will conceive".

Understand?

You are completely twisting the whole verse around to fit your interpretation of it. Gabriel said that she would conceive, she reacted with (we'll put it in modern terms), "How can this be seeing as I have never had sex with any man?" He then proceeded to tell her that the Holy Spirit would impregnate her.

However, the implication that she would stay a virgin forever was never given because it says that Joseph did not have sexual relations with her until after the birth and days of purification were fulfilled. It is there written in the plainest words. Only a blind man would read that and then proceed to deny it. And an equally foolish one would twist it to mean a different thing.

To use the words of Martin Luther, "I am the biggest fool of all for wasting time and words on something that is clearer to see than the sun."

BTW, you never answered my question. What does Eos ou literally translate as?

 

[leothelioness]

I never said it was founded by men, I said Christ left men to be in charge of the Church. Christ found the Church, the Apostles spread it, and led it.

Oh? I have evidence that proves otherwise.

The Orthodox Church is the Church of the Apostles, and the Apostles started the Orthodox Church.

So you never said that did you?

I know the Bible speaks no heresy. The heresy comes from interpreting it wrong,

Which is exactly what you are doing, my friend.

and also from denying the Traditions handed down by the Apostles.

The traditions that were taught by the Apostles were communion, baptism, the belief in Jesus as our Lord and Saviour. To my knowledge neither I nor any other Protestants deny those.

Your belief has nothing to do with what the Bible says.

Oh really? Well I shall quote the words of Christ which you seem to have not heeded. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

BTW, which belief of mine has nothing to do with the Bible? I'm sure I could find a few of your beliefs that contradict the Bible.

I never said you believe in the ever virginity of Mary, which is what we are talking about. I said you follow the beliefs of a reformer, a man, who 1600 years after Christ started his own Church, or beliefs as you say. I quoted you something that he said concerning the virginity of Mary, and I ask why since you follow his other beliefs, you don't follow this one.

As much as I admire and agree with Mr. Calvin I don't agree with him on this one. I also don't agree with his belief in infant baptism. I will not agree with everything Mr. Calvin says since I know him to be a fallible human who has the ability to believe in wrong things.

Unfortunately you refuse to do the same in regard to your church (which is indeed corrupt and prone to apostacy ). If you could recognise human depravity and if you had not allowed you church to indoctrinate you you would be in a lot better position now.

I think you need to work on reading comprehension..

I think you need to work on kindness and Christian charity.

BTW, you didn't write your question clearly which initially confused me.

 

[repentant]

Hmm. Interesting. Weren't you saying that Eos ou meant "until"?

No.

You are completely twisting the whole verse around to fit your interpretation of it. Gabriel said that she would conceive, she reacted with (we'll put it in modern terms), "How can this be seeing as I have never had sex with any man?" He then proceeded to tell her that the Holy Spirit would impregnate her.

However, the implication that she would stay a virgin forever was never given because it says that Joseph did not have sexual relations with her until after the birth and days of purification were fulfilled. It is there written in the plainest words. Only a blind man would read that and then proceed to deny it. And an equally foolish one would twist it to mean a different thing.

I already explained. Gabriel used future tense, she replied with present tense.

To use the words of Martin Luther, "I am the biggest fool of all for wasting time and words on something that is clearer to see than the sun."

To use the words of Martin Luther..

[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures. (Sermon, Christmas, 1531).

One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God. (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521).

Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .

Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . .

BTW, you never answered my question. What does Eos ou literally translate as?

It can't be rally litterally translated. It can be translated as until, but does not imply the same thing. Even the english word until, doesn't have implications behind it.

Which is exactly what you are doing, my friend.

No, sorry, I don't have personal interpretations. I use the Church's interpretation which has been the same since Scripture existed.

The traditions that were taught by the Apostles were communion, baptism, the belief in Jesus as our Lord and Saviour. To my knowledge neither I nor any other Protestants deny those.

And there is no more?

Oh really? Well I shall quote the words of Christ which you seem to have not heeded. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

BTW, which belief of mine has nothing to do with the Bible? I'm sure I could find a few of your beliefs that contradict the Bible.

Go ahead..you'll be looking a looooong time.

As much as I admire and agree with Mr. Calvin I don't agree with him on this one. I also don't agree with his belief in infant baptism. I will not agree with everything Mr. Calvin says since I know him to be a fallible human who has the ability to believe in wrong things.

Yeah he is falliable, but he is just one man. One man always is. I guess you like to pick and choose what beliefs of his you follow. I don't think you realize that the denial of the ever virginity of Mary is very new, and pretty much only believed by American Protestants. Even most European Prost. won't deny she was.

Unfortunately you refuse to do the same in regard to your church (which is indeed corrupt and prone to apostacy ). If you could recognise human depravity and if you had not allowed you church to indoctrinate you you would be in a lot better position now.

Nope, sorry. Church as a whole can never be wrong. Christ said so. We have lasted 2000 years believing the same thing. It is sad you boast about yourself by what you say here, instead of humbling yourself to Christ and His Church. I don't think you realize how prideful you sound here. Yea I may sound prideful, but what I say is not from me, so I really can't be. What you say is from yourself, and your interpretations.

 

[leothelioness]

I already explained. Gabriel used future tense, she replied with present tense.

But that still doesn't mean that she never had sexual relations.

To use the words of Martin Luther..

[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures. (Sermon, Christmas, 1531).

One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God. (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521).

Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .

Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . .

Mr. Luther afterall was a monk and died with a rosary in his hands all the while claiming himself to be a Catholic. It's not surprising that he believed this.

It can't be rally litterally translated. It can be translated as until, but does not imply the same thing.

What does it imply? I hope to gain a better understanding of it.

No, sorry, I don't have personal interpretations. I use the Church's interpretation which has been the same since Scripture existed.

So you've been told. I'm sure there have been a few teachings here and there that have been added.

And there is no more?

TO my knowledge of the Scriptures, no. Would you like to add some to the list?

Go ahead..you'll be looking a looooong time.

Not really. I can think of a few right now. Bowing to idols and paintings, praying to dead people, worshipping relics, confessing to priests, worshipping Mary, calling men "Holy Father", believing in a temporary hell. None of these things is found in the Bible.

Yeah he is falliable, but he is just one man.

All men are fallible.

One man always is.

All men always are.

I guess you like to pick and choose what beliefs of his you follow.

First of all I don't pick and choose. Secondly, I don't follow any of his beliefs (seeing as those beliefs are not his and were being taught way before he came along). I follow the things that were taught in the Bible. I just think Mr. Calvin applied those teachings in very good ways. He was a great apologist.

I could just as easily say that you follow Ignatius, Polycarp and Irenaeus. But you don't. You, just like myself, believe them to be very good apologists and very good examples of the Christian faith.

So, contrary to your belief Mr. Calvin is not my leader just as Ignatius is not yours. God is our leader. We just both use faithful men as reference points.

Nope, sorry. Church as a whole can never be wrong.

Individuals of that church, however can.

It is sad you boast about yourself by what you say here, instead of humbling yourself to Christ and His Church. I don't think you realize how prideful you sound here.

What exactly have I said that sounds prideful? And I do humble myself to Christ's authority. That's why the church isn't my authority. I am part of the church. I help make up the church. In effect I would be submitting to myself.

Yea I may sound prideful, but what I say is not from me, so I really can't be.

I could just as easily say the same thing. BTW, that was a good one. Gave me a laugh.

Seriously though. God made you say everything?

What you say is from yourself, and your interpretations.

Au contraire, my friend. What I say is from the Bible and the interpretations of the Holy Spirit.

 

[repentant]

But that still doesn't mean that she never had sexual relations.

So are you now saying that Mary had sexual relations to conceive Jesus? We are talking about Gabriel telling MAry she will conceive a Son here..

Mr. Luther afterall was a monk and died with a rosary in his hands all the while claiming himself to be a Catholic. It's not surprising that he believed this.

I quoted him because you did..

What does it imply? I hope to gain a better understanding of it.

It does not imply that after the point, something else happened. (eos ou)

So you've been told. I'm sure there have been a few teachings here and there that have been added.

I have been told what? That I use 2000 years of Church interpretations over my own? OK I guess I been told that..

TO my knowledge of the Scriptures, no. Would you like to add some to the list?

So yo uare saying that the Scriptures contain all that was ever taught?

Not really. I can think of a few right now. Bowing to idols and paintings, praying to dead people, worshipping relics, confessing to priests, worshipping Mary, calling men "Holy Father", believing in a temporary hell. None of these things is found in the Bible.

Bowing to idols? No sorry, we do not worship anyone but God. That is what an idol is afterall, something viewed and worshipped as God. We worship the One True God, and worship Him only. "To you we describe all Glory, Honor and Worship"..Divine Liturgy.

Praying to dead people? No we ask for the Saints who are alive in Christ to pray for us. Do you say that those who have died in Christ are dead? Or are they alive? Do you not ask someone to pray or you? Does the prayers of a righteous man avail much?

Again, no worshipping of relics. We Worship only God, sorry.

Confessing to Priests? So when James said confess your sins to one another, what did he mean?

Yea again, sorry, no worship of Mary in the EOC..

Calling men father? I think you need to reread in context and see what Jesus meant and was talking about when he said, "Call no man father". I also suspect you object to the Apostles calling Abraham, "Our Father Abraham"? BTW Holy Father is a term used by the RCC for the Pope. Has nothing to do with me..

And what is temporary hell? This is new to me. Never heard of it.

I think you should really know what people believe and do, before you spew your lies about them..

All men are fallible.

Correct, no one man is infalliable

All men always are.

Like I said..

First of all I don't pick and choose. Secondly, I don't follow any of his beliefs (seeing as those beliefs are not his and were being taught way before he came along). I follow the things that were taught in the Bible. I just think Mr. Calvin applied those teachings in very good ways. He was a great apologist.

Yes you do. Your faith icon claims "Calvinist" therefore you proclaim you are a follower of Calvin. Calvin believed in the ever virginity of Mary, and you don't. Therefore you pick and choose what you believe. Also, if you don't agree with his view on Mary and consider it wrong, how do you knonw his other teachings are right?

I could just as easily say that you follow Ignatius, Polycarp and Irenaeus. But you don't. You, just like myself, believe them to be very good apologists and very good examples of the Christian faith.

Actually I do. They are what we call "Church Father's" They preserved the faith after the Apostles. They were appointed to do this, same as the Apostles themselves were. We look to them to learn what the early Church believed.

So, contrary to your belief Mr. Calvin is not my leader just as Ignatius is not yours. God is our leader. We just both use faithful men as reference points.

Yes God is my leader. God appointed men to lead His Church on earth. Ignatius is one of them. He was appointed to help lead the Church after the Apostles. The difference is, I don't disagree with Ignatius of anything, but you disagree with Calvin, who's beliefs you profess.

Individuals of that church, however can.

Never said otherwise. This is why we look to the Church to determine what is Truth, and what isn't.

What exactly have I said that sounds prideful? And I do humble myself to Christ's authority. That's why the church isn't my authority. I am part of the church. I help make up the church. In effect I would be submitting to myself.

Church=Body of Christ. If you claim that the Church is not your authority, then how can you say that Christ is? Did Christ not leave the Church as his authority?

What is prideful is..you look at what you think something means, as opposed to what has been taught for 2000 years, and you don't even agree with your own founder of your "beliefs".

I could just as easily say the same thing. BTW, that was a good one. Gave me a laugh.

Seriously though. God made you say everything?

Well what I say is what the Church says. This is what I mean by it is not me saying it..

Au contraire, my friend. What I say is from the Bible and the interpretations of the Holy Spirit.

You have said nothing from the Bible. More like you twist what the Bible says, and think you say what the Bible says. So your "Holy Spirit" inspired interpretations are correct, and 2000 years of agreement by millions of people are wrong? I wonder where the Holy Spirit was hiding before the reformation..?

 

[Rion]

I don't think you realize how prideful you sound here. Yea I may sound prideful, but what I say is not from me, so I really can't be. What you say is from yourself, and your interpretations.

2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?
5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

I know the Bible speaks no heresy. The heresy comes from interpreting it wrong, and also from denying the Traditions handed down by the Apostles.

Your belief has nothing to do with what the Bible says.

You judge and condemn us as heretics. You say that Tradition is superior, but what worth is Tradition if you cannot follow Christ's commands to not judge and to love your neighbors, especially your siblings in Christ?

17Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God;
18if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law;
19if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark,
20an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth—
21you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal?
22You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?
23You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?
24As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."
25Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised.
26If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised?
27The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.
28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.

If we do not follow Tradition, does that mean our praise and love of Christ is any less? Is our worship meaningless to Him? Are the ones who have been killed following Him any less martyrs because they were Protestants?

Perhaps Tradition is superior or more correct, but do you think Christ is more pleased with a Protestant who strives to follow Him and who does not condemn his brothers and sisters for following different traditions, or an Orthodox whose heart is cold towards a full third of his fellow believers?

I do not judge you, I simply condemn you with your own words. God Himself will straighten out what is Right in the end, and although we can discuss this sort of issue, it should be to explain and learn from each other, not to condemn one another for our differences. Unless someone denies Christ's divinity, His Resurrection, or the Son as the Only Way to God, you have no right to call them a heretic, or imply as much. I pray that you stop seeing us as enemies, but as younger siblings.

 

[leothelioness]

So are you now saying that Mary had sexual relations to conceive Jesus? We are talking about Gabriel telling MAry she will conceive a Son here..

I think you are the one who needs to work on reading comprehension.

I never said that nor did I imply that.

What I was saying is that Gabriel told her that she would conceive a son without the help of man, but that doesn't mean that she never had sexual relations AFTER the birth of Christ. It simply means that she did not have sex TO CONCEIVE Christ.

It does not imply that after the point, something else happened. (eos ou)

Yes, but what does it imply?

I have been told what? That I use 2000 years of Church interpretations over my own? OK I guess I been told that..

No. That all the doctrines that are taught in your church have been taught since the very beginning (which is likely untrue).

So yo uare saying that the Scriptures contain all that was ever taught?

How did you even arrive at this conclusion? No, I'm not saying that, so stop putting words in my mouth.

What I said was to my knowledge of the Scriptures the most important traditions that were handed down to us were communion, baptism and belief in Christ as Lord and Saviour.

You never answered my question. Would you like to add more to the list (in case I have forgot some)? I don't think it should be that hard.

Bowing to idols? No sorry, we do not worship anyone but God.

I've seen plenty of Orthodox bow to paintings and idols.

Praying to dead people?

Dead as in passed on from this world. We can only communicate with those of this world and of course God and His Son. Communicating with spirits of the dead is impossible. Not to mention it is necromancy.

Again, no worshipping of relics. We Worship only God, sorry.

There is a fine line between veneration and worship.

Confessing to Priests? So when James said confess your sins to one another, what did he mean?

Don't people ask the priests to forgive them for their sins? Correct me if I am wrong.

Yea again, sorry, no worship of Mary in the EOC..

Praying to Mary is worshipping her. Saying that we gain salvation through her is deifying her and thus worshipping her. Venerating her is worshipping her. You may not see it that way, but then again you couldn't see it any other way if you tried.

Calling men father? I think you need to reread in context and see what Jesus meant and was talking about when he said, "Call no man father".

Oh, believe me I know in what context it was. Jesus said, "Call no man your father, for only one is your father; He who is in heaven." The Pharisees had engaged in the practice of calling men father. Christ also condemned calling men rabbi.

I also suspect you object to the Apostles calling Abraham, "Our Father Abraham"?

They refered to Abraham as father in a genetic sense. They were all descendants of Abraham and genetically he was their father.

And what is temporary hell? This is new to me. Never heard of it.

The whole concept of purgatory. Supposedly no one is going to suffer in hell forever, but all will eventually enter heaven after suffering for a time in purgatory. In a sense there is no eternal hell or suffering.

Yes you do.

No I don't.

That's a rather bold statement to say to someone you've never met nor know of their beliefs.

I shall use your own words against you. "I think you should really know what people believe and do, before you spew your lies about them."

Your faith icon claims "Calvinist" therefore you proclaim you are a follower of Calvin.

First of all let's have a little history lesson. The term Calvinist was used as a mockery towards those who were associated with Calvin. The term Calvinist never meant anything then and it still doesn't now. The only thing it does mean is that I am of a different theology than most.

I do not follow the man seeing as the beliefs he taught were taught before his existance. They were not his doctrines, but the doctrines of the Bible.

Calvin believed in the ever virginity of Mary, and you don't.

So? To each his own.

Therefore you pick and choose what you believe.

Wherever did you get that idea?

Also, if you don't agree with his view on Mary and consider it wrong, how do you knonw his other teachings are right?

It's called testing doctrines with the Scriptures. He checks out in most other areas.

Actually I do.

Very interesting. You say that you follow the beliefs of men, but yet you are sitting here accusing me of the same thing! Welcome, my friend to the world of hypocrisy.

The difference is, I don't disagree with Ignatius of anything, but you disagree with Calvin, who's beliefs you profess.

How many times must I say this? I do not profess the beliefs of Calvin. I profess the beliefs of the Bible which he also professed. I believe the man to be a great apologist and theologian. That is all. And don't start on the whole "but you're a Calvinist" thing.

Never said otherwise. This is why we look to the Church to determine what is Truth, and what isn't.

As I said, there are individuals of the church who are corrupt and teach poisonous doctrines. How do you know that this poisonous doctrine started by one man hasn't infested the church as a whole?

Church=Body of Christ. If you claim that the Church is not your authority, then how can you say that Christ is?

Simple. The church is not Christ. The church submits itself to the authority of it's leader.

Did Christ not leave the Church as his authority?

Christ never gave up His authority. He still has it and uses it.

and you don't even agree with your own founder of your "beliefs".

Once again, Mr. Calvin is not the founder of my beliefs. The Bible is the founder of my beliefs. Calvinist is simply a name used to distinguish people with a specific theology.

You have said nothing from the Bible. More like you twist what the Bible says, and think you say what the Bible says.

Oh? And this coming from someone who tries to twist a Bible verse to mean Mary did not have sexual relations after the birth. Don't look now, but I think the pot is calling the kettle black.

So your "Holy Spirit" inspired interpretations are correct, and 2000 years of agreement by millions of people are wrong?

I can clearly tell that you do not believe that I have been inspired by the Holy Spirit. That's quite a bold thing to proclaim when you know not that person's relationship with God nor what God does in that person's life. In a sense you are saying you know my soul. Sitting in God's seat of judgement are we? Those that exalt themselves shall be abased.

I wonder where the Holy Spirit was hiding before the reformation..?

Oh, He wasn't hiding, but He allowed sin to creep into the church in direct fulfillment of prophecy.

 

[repentant]

You judge and condemn us as heretics. You say that Tradition is superior, but what worth is Tradition if you cannot follow Christ's commands to not judge and to love your neighbors, especially your siblings in Christ?



If we do not follow Tradition, does that mean our praise and love of Christ is any less? Is our worship meaningless to Him? Are the ones who have been killed following Him any less martyrs because they were Protestants?

Perhaps Tradition is superior or more correct, but do you think Christ is more pleased with a Protestant who strives to follow Him and who does not condemn his brothers and sisters for following different traditions, or an Orthodox whose heart is cold towards a full third of his fellow believers?

I do not judge you, I simply condemn you with your own words. God Himself will straighten out what is Right in the end, and although we can discuss this sort of issue, it should be to explain and learn from each other, not to condemn one another for our differences. Unless someone denies Christ's divinity, His Resurrection, or the Son as the Only Way to God, you have no right to call them a heretic, or imply as much. I pray that you stop seeing us as enemies, but as younger siblings.

This is about the ever virginity of Mary, and peoples wrong interpetations of Scripture. It angers me when someone speaks ill of the Mother of My Lord. If I sound harsh and judgemental, so be it. Sometimes people need to hear the Truth straight up, as opposed to having it sugar coated.

 

[GregoryTurner]

This is about the ever virginity of Mary, and peoples wrong interpetations of Scripture. It angers me when someone speaks ill of the Mother of My Lord. If I sound harsh and judgemental, so be it. Sometimes people need to hear the Truth straight up, as opposed to having it sugar coated.

Would Jesus be angered? Or would He pray to His Father which art in Heaven that their eyes may be opened...

 

[repentant]

I hate the internet. I replied to everything, and when I went to submit it, it said this page cannot be diplayed. I am not doing it again, so I am done here. Not worth repeating my slef over and over, people will believe what they want. I only suggest you actually look into what people believe, and who they worship and stop believing everything you see on the net, and listening to Pastors who have no clue what they are saying.

 

[GregoryTurner]

These are the types pf responses that make me be very weary of catholic/orthodox. Brother, people ARE worth it. If you have to repeat yourself over and over 100 fold, it is worth it. Compassion on people should be, in my opinion, one of the greatest displays of love that Jesus examplified while He was here. If my compassion for people, when I am not in the flesh, means my having to say something 1000 times, I must do it.