really not praying to Mary???

[mike1reynolds]

Mike you have to catch up here lol

Catch up to what, the snake veneration business?

 

[Trento]

Mike, you like most people around here sadly confuse apostolic practice and late 2nd, 3rd and 4th century practices.

From the very first years of the Church, Christians used such symbols as the cross, the fish, the peacock, the shepherd, and the dove. And early Christian tombs and catacombs bear paintings which are representations of biblical scenes.


The fourth century church historian Eusebius tells us that outside the house of the woman in the Gospels with a hemorrhage cured by Christ was "a bronze statue of a woman, resting on one knee and resembling a suppliant with arms outstretched. Facing this was another of the same material, an upright figure of a man with a double cloak draped neatly over his shoulders and his hand stretched out to the woman . . . ." Eusebius goes on to say, "This statue, which was said to resemble the features of Jesus, was still there in my own time, so that I saw it with my own eyes" (Church History, Book 7, Chapter 18). He tells us further that portraits of the Savior and of Peter and Paul had been preserved, and that he had examined these with his own eyes as well. In that very same century the famous bishop and theologian, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, tells of being deeply moved by an icon of the sacrifice of Isaac: "I have seen a painted representation of this passion, and have never passed by without shedding tears, for art brings the story vividly to the eyes." His friend and contemporary, Saint Gregory Nazianzen, writes of the persecution of Christians by the cruel Emperor Julian the Apostate: "The images venerated in public places still bear scars of that plague." The witness of many other great early Church writers bears out the same truth. Icons were known and venerated in the earliest centuries of the Church. All right. So the early Church made and possessed images-or icons, as we call them in a transliteration of the Greek word for images. And the Christian faithful honored or venerated them.

 

[mike1reynolds]

Mike, you like most people around here sadly confuse apostolic practice and late 2nd, 3rd and 4th century practices.

If Apostolic Tradition bit the dust in the 2nd century then the Bible is a worthless piece of trash. I simply don't buy that. If Apostolic Tradition was totally invalid by the time they compiled the anthology of the Bible then the 90% of the material that was destroyed most likely contained all the good stuff and the 10% that was preserved would be most likely all garbage. Your statement is an attack on your own faith, and all of Christendom.

 

[Trento]

We Apostolic Christians must be mindful of "of false brethren secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage [of the law]" (Galations 2:4). More specifically, "to the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted" (Titus 1:15). Such self-righteousness judges (Romans 2:1, Luke 18:9-14) "accuse us saints day and night" (Revelation 12:10) of idolatry and blasphemy. In short they "desire to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make assertions" (1st Timothy 1:5-7). We need not fear such accusations and assertions:

Romans 8:
15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, "Abba! Father!"
16 it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God​

Indeed, armed with right knowledge in the use of these devotions (Hosea 4:6), we glorify God and show forth His freedom. "Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom" (2Corinthians 3:17).

 

[mike1reynolds]

Tonks, that is the most powerful and hard hitting rebuttal that I have EVER seen!!!

 

[simonthezealot]

To those puffed up with the wisdom of this world,

Is this your description of non-catholic christians.

the sight of the Son of God hanging from a cross is a stumbling block, a sign of offense. But to those of us who are being saved, it is the power of God, the wisdom of God, the love of God.

I AM saved and I understand that Christ being hung on the cross meant nothing unless he also arose.

And since His strength is made perfect in weakness, the crucifix is the still life caricature of the triumph of Holy love over selfish sin.

His death and resurrection

Far from being the low point of Christ’s life and something to be brushed aside or forgotten, the crucifixion is the pinnacle of the Glory of God in Christ Jesus.

Rather, the Resurrection is!

This crucifix keeps my heart focused on the lover of my soul; it keeps me submitted to the cross I must take up daily to follow Him; it reminds me how much he loves the rest of the world and how much he wants me to give to reach them.

I understand, though Christ and his word and the Holy spirit is what keeps me focused.

 

[mike1reynolds]

I AM saved and I understand that Christ being hung on the cross meant nothing unless he also arose.

Do you think you are talking to a Muslim or an atheist? Who denies this obvious fact? And should one focus exclusively on the ressurection and totally ignore the crucifixion? What is it that you are attempting to advise us with here?

 

[Debi1967]

He had to die first in order to be Resurrected therefore I guess that teh Cross and the meaning of it means that His DEATH means something as well because it is repeated throughout the Bible that He died for the sins of all men..... That His resurrection means we have assurabce that through His Death and the coverage that then we also have life....

Therefore both are equally significant!

 

[simonthezealot]

From the very first years of the Church, Christians used such symbols as the cross, the fish, the peacock, the shepherd, and the dove. And early Christian tombs and catacombs bear paintings which are representations of biblical scenes.


The fourth century church historian Eusebius tells us that outside the house of the woman in the Gospels with a hemorrhage cured by Christ was "a bronze statue of a woman, resting on one knee and resembling a suppliant with arms outstretched. Facing this was another of the same material, an upright figure of a man with a double cloak draped neatly over his shoulders and his hand stretched out to the woman . . . ." Eusebius goes on to say, "This statue, which was said to resemble the features of Jesus, was still there in my own time, so that I saw it with my own eyes" (Church History, Book 7, Chapter 18). He tells us further that portraits of the Savior and of Peter and Paul had been preserved, and that he had examined these with his own eyes as well. In that very same century the famous bishop and theologian, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, tells of being deeply moved by an icon of the sacrifice of Isaac: "I have seen a painted representation of this passion, and have never passed by without shedding tears, for art brings the story vividly to the eyes." His friend and contemporary, Saint Gregory Nazianzen, writes of the persecution of Christians by the cruel Emperor Julian the Apostate: "The images venerated in public places still bear scars of that plague." The witness of many other great early Church writers bears out the same truth. Icons were known and venerated in the earliest centuries of the Church. All right. So the early Church made and possessed images-or icons, as we call them in a transliteration of the Greek word for images. And the Christian faithful honored or venerated them.

Anyone who reads through and past the feelgood aspect of this story understands that you only support the POV I am speaking of.

 

[mike1reynolds]

Then why do the bad guys in those verses make accusations identical to your own? Your analysis of those verse is only one of dismissal, none of them support your position in the slightest.

 

[Peaceful Dove]

Anyone who reads through and past the feelgood aspect of this story understands that you only support the POV I am speaking of.

You are wrong. It is so obvious but you just cannot see it.

Trento is speaking in power and in Truth. It is so simple.

 

[Debi1967]

Anyone who reads through and past the feelgood aspect of this story understands that you only support the POV I am speaking of.

That is because you fail to see the true work of God in the story. Is God so feel good when he preforms such things? Is that how you view Him? That when miracles are preformed you see them only as feel good stories and not the act of God Himself?

I see God there ........

 

[simonthezealot]

Do you think you are talking to a Muslim or an atheist?

NO I don't. I hope followers, all of Christ!
Not humans, not Muhammed, not Darwin.

Who denies this obvious fact??

The obvious fact his resurrection should be denied by none.

And should one focus exclusively on the ressurection and totally ignore the crucifixion? What is it that you are attempting to advise us with here?

The Death and resurrection

 

[mike1reynolds]

The Death and resurrection

You are the master of the obvious.

 

[Debi1967]

BTW The Cross reminds me not only of His death but what He died to achieve for all men and if someone cannot see that in the Cross then I truly wish for them to see it's Truth and Significance.... Christ is in it and we are ever reminded of the Pain of which HE Endured for us to save our souls....

"Forgive them Father, for they know NOT what they do!"

 

[simonthezealot]

You are wrong. It is so obvious but you just cannot see it.

Trento is speaking in power and in Truth. It is so simple.

Baseless comment, show your points.

 

[Debi1967]

Baseless comment, show your points.

They have been shown simon, what we are to keep repeating ourselves simply because you CHOOSE not to see what is there already?

 

[simonthezealot]

You are the master of the obvious.

Thanks Mike!

 

[Debi1967]

Thanks Mike!

Well I think he meant that it was obvious to everyone else but we seemed to be having a hard time figuring out if it was to you....

Mike has a way with words sometimes

 

[simonthezealot]

That is because you fail to see the true work of God in the story. Is God so feel good when he preforms such things? Is that how you view Him? That when miracles are preformed you see them only as feel good stories and not the act of God Himself?

I see God there ........

No, I mentioned apostolic tradition as you guys following 2-3-4th century practices not NT practices, and his feel good story reitirated it. I see miracles from our creator daily. No miracles are not feel good stories they are the truth.