Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Beside the point:But was she the womb that carried the incarnate Logos?
It's blasphemy to elevate a mere human being to the status of divinity. Blasphemy. JESUS IS THE ARK. NOT your godessActually the revelation has not be yet fullfilled...thus you do not know...Pure speculation...
Beside the point:
Luke 11:27-28 27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. 28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it. <
Youre not suggesting a contradiction are you...?
28And the angel came in unto her and said, "Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women."
42And she spoke out with a loud voice and said, "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
pax
She gave birth to our Lord And Savior Jesus Christ, she was his mother she must have had a life that exceeded her widest dreams. Then she died but she had her memory's just the same as you and me. Chosen by God his Father to give birth to his Son Praise God, but then your church follows Babylonian tradition the doctrines of men, making her the Queen of Heaven, and then give her the glory that belongs to the Almighty, its a shame a crying shame and after what he did on that cross.
Thanks,
hogndog
no one did elevate her to the status of divinity. I am not RC. It is a matter of interpretation....like calling Rome the harlot. You do not know who is the that...you speculate .....She is not my godess.... Only ignorant people do think that or spread that for their own convenience... If she was not important in the incarnation narrative why would she be called blessed in ALL generations? Can you be called blessed in all generations? Was she not included amond the Apostles when the Holy Spirit descended upon them? Why do the scripture mentions her is she was not important? Why would Christ tell her that John would take care of her?It's blasphemy to elevate a mere human being to the status of divinity. Blasphemy. JESUS IS THE ARK. NOT your godess
And anyone can say that the teachings in the NT are not the authentic teachings of Christ and the apostles. Absent verifiable authenticity (unless you have some) there is no way to be objectively conclude that what the NT records are indeed the authentic teachings.
and you adhere to particular teachings because (afaik) they occur in the NT. So I am asking of you what you ask of the RC - as you appeal to the NT, I am asking you to prove that the teachings recorded in the NT can be verified to actually be those of Christ and the apostles.
Again....
Our Catholic friend posted that the teaching is correct because Jesus and the Apostles taught it.
The apologetic is that Jesus and the Apostles (2 or more it seems) taught it.
Therefore, I asked the relevant question: where?
I asked for the quotes where Jesus and at least two of the Apostles taught this.
All I got what pages of evasions and now you chiming in with diversions...
I understand your point about authentic. Actually, I never limited it to such. If the poster wants to quote Jesus from the Gospel of Thomas, I'll look at that. If he wants to quote from some "lost" Epistle of St. Philip and some never heard of before letter from St. Nathanael, okay - I'll read what he presents, but so far NOTHING has been presented to substantiate the apologetic which he posted. Nothing. From anything. So your point is moot.
ANYONE can say, "Jesus and Philip and Nathanael all taught that Toyotas are better than Fords so it is dogma that they are." It's an entirely meaningless, useless and baseless argument not worth the time it takes to read it unless and until he can document that Jesus, Philip and Nathanael indeed taught that. Our Catholic friend SEEMS to be admitting he has NOTHING from ANYWHERE to support his claim. Therefore....
.
Again....
Our Catholic friend posted that the teaching is correct because Jesus and the Apostles taught it.
The apologetic is that Jesus and the Apostles (2 or more it seems) taught it.
Therefore, I asked the relevant question: where?
I asked for the quotes where Jesus and at least two of the Apostles taught this.
All I got what pages of evasions and now you chiming in with diversions...
I understand your point about authentic. Actually, I never limited it to such. If the poster wants to quote Jesus from the Gospel of Thomas, I'll look at that. If he wants to quote from some "lost" Epistle of St. Philip and some never heard of before letter from St. Nathanael, okay - I'll read what he presents, but so far NOTHING has been presented to substantiate the apologetic which he posted. Nothing. From anything. So your point is moot.
ANYONE can say, "Jesus and Philip and Nathanael all taught that Toyotas are better than Fords so it is dogma that they are." It's an entirely meaningless, useless and baseless argument not worth the time it takes to read it unless and until he can document that Jesus, Philip and Nathanael indeed taught that. Our Catholic friend SEEMS to be admitting he has NOTHING from ANYWHERE to support his claim. Therefore....
.
Josiah said:
Again....
Our Catholic friend posted that the teaching is correct because Jesus and the Apostles taught it.
The apologetic is that Jesus and the Apostles (2 or more it seems) taught it. It all hinges on that point - that Jesus and at least 2 Apostles taught it. Therefore, I asked the relevant question: where?
I asked for the quotes where Jesus and at least two of the Apostles taught this. All I got what pages of evasions and now you chiming in with diversions...
I understand your point about authentic. Actually, I never limited it to such. If the poster wants to quote Jesus from the Gospel of Thomas, I'll look at that. If he wants to quote from some "lost" Epistle of St. Philip and some never heard of before letter from St. Nathanael, okay - I'll read what he presents, but so far NOTHING has been presented to substantiate the apologetic which he posted. Nothing. From anything. So your point is moot.
.
I have to ask, what precisely are your requirements?
The substantiation...
If I posted, "Sen. Obama has promised that he will appoint Pope Benedict as his Secretary of State" it would be at least warrented and reasonable (if not required) for the substantiation: "When/where did Obama state that?" I'm not sure why the Catholics and Orthodox here find that entirely unreasonable and inappropriate and wrong....
ANYONE can say, "Jesus and Philip and Nathanael taught that Toyotas are better than Fords so it is dogma that they are." It's an entirely meaningless, useless and baseless argument not worth the time it takes to read it unless and until he can document that Jesus, Philip and Nathanael indeed taught that. Our Catholic friend SEEMS to be admitting he has NOTHING from ANYWHERE to support his claim. Therefore....
.
Josiah, you must have in mind the exact kind or type of proof which will be acceptable to you.
If Jesus taught it, there must be somewhere where He taught it.
Just give the quote (referenced, of course).
Do the same for at least 2 of the 13 Apostles.
I would not seek any other substantiation for this than I would for my example of Obama promising to appoint Pope Benedict as his Secretary of State or of Jesus and Nathaniel and Philip teaching that Toyotas are better than Fords. If I said that Pope Benedict said that he's leaving the RCC and converting to Lutheranism, I have a hunch (that's all, just a hunch) that you'd want some substantiation for that - where/when he stated that. Now, my unseparated brother, remember: the whole point here is that the poster said that this teaching is correct because Jesus and the Apostles taught it: THAT is the apologetic. THAT, in my humble opinion, requires substantiation. I've been told - repeatedly - that that's entirely unreasonable, unnecessary and moot.
.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?