WWJD Did Jesus Pray to Mary?

[Fidelibus]

If I’m in error, please give me the truth.

How about you pointing out where I am in error with my post you quoted here. What part did I got wrong?

 

[disciple Clint]

That’s not the problem. The problem is that you seem to think that Jesus couldn’t be human like you or I. That isn’t compatible with orthodox Christianity.

I have no idea how you got that impression. Jesus is 100% human and 100% God. He has two natures in one person.

 

[Hammster]

How about you pointing out where I am in error with my post you quoted here. What part did I got wrong?

I’ve already made an actual argument. All you seem to be able to do is say that I’m wrong. You don’t seem to be able to say why, or what the truth is.

So be it.

 

[Hammster]

I have no idea how you got that impression. Jesus is 100% human and 100% God. He has two natures in one person.

Right. And nothing about that means that Mary had to be sinless. Nothing in scripture says that she had to be sinless. Nothing in scripture says that she was sinless.

 

[disciple Clint]

Right. And nothing about that means that Mary had to be sinless. Nothing in scripture says that she had to be sinless. Nothing in scripture says that she was sinless.

Enough going around in circles, I have explained everything, I have provided evidence, there are fundamentals about the character of God that need to be understood before we can proceed. Theology is far more than just reading the bible and trying to limit God to what is written and what is often misunderstood. There are many things that come from sources outside just the Bible itself, for example the Trinity is developed in the Council of Nicaea, Christology is refined in the Council of Chalcedon. Trying to understand either of these subjects without studying the councils is impossible. Since I do not intend to try to explain everything that is not in the bible that supports my posts I am going to leave this discussion where it is. If a person is willing to put in the time and effort to learn the resources are available.

 

[Hammster]

Enough going around in circles, I have explained everything, I have provided evidence, there are fundamentals about the character of God that need to be understood before we can proceed. Theology is far more than just reading the bible and trying to limit God to what is written and what is often misunderstood. There are many things that come from sources outside just the Bible itself, for example the Trinity is developed in the Council of Nicaea, Christology is refined in the Council of Chalcedon. Trying to understand either of these subjects without studying the councils is impossible. Since I do not intend to try to explain everything that is not in the bible that supports my posts I am going to leave this discussion where it is. If a person is willing to put in the time and effort to learn the resources are available.

So....nothing. Okay.

 

[disciple Clint]

So....nothing. Okay.

Post 332 try to refute it.

 

[Hammster]

Post 332 try to refute it.

That’s not scripture.

 

[Fidelibus]

We are to never stop seeking, even when He is found.

Couple of observations timo. First off, where does it say in the bible, "We are to never stop seeking, even when He is found?" Chapter and verse please.

Secondly, in the Bible it says "No one seeks for God," (Romans 3:11). That's an absolute isn't it? I mean, it says "no one!" Let's look back to Romans 3:23, which says all have sinned. You agreed when I asked you if "all means all" and that it should be treated as an absolute, you said yes. Well, Romans 3:11 should also be treated as an absolute, right?

If absolutely "all" have sinned, then absolutely "no one" is seeking God, right? So going by what it says in the Bible, do you wish to stick with what you said, that you have been seeking for God, because it says "no one seeks for God."

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Fidelibus]

I’ve already made an actual argument. All you seem to be able to do is say that I’m wrong.

No, all I was asking is,,,, when you post Scripture passages, and then give your personal interpretation and opinion of what "you" believe the passages to mean, would you agree that your personal interpretations and opinions are just that... "your" fallible, and personal interpretations/opinions that are subject to error? It's a simple yes or no question. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it the Protestant belief that absolutely "no one" is infallible, and are subject to error, including yourself?

You don’t seem to be able to say why, or what the truth is.

Yes I did, but you must have missed it.-----1 Timothy 3:15

So be it.

Okay!

 

[Hammster]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it the Protestant belief that absolutely "no one" is infallible, and are subject to error, including yourself?

No.

You stand corrected.

 

[Fidelibus]

No.

You stand corrected.

So, you consider yourself infallible. Got it, thanks for the correction!

 

[Hammster]

So, you consider yourself infallible. Got it, thanks for the correction!

No, I don’t. Again, you are corrected.

 

[Fidelibus]

No, I don’t. Again, you are corrected.

Okay, so your personal interpretation and opinion of Scripture is fallible and is subject to error and could well be wrong. Got it. Thanks again for the correction!

 

[HIM]

Yes it does. Does it honor Mary when we ask her to intercede for us, yes it does. Are we praying to Mary when we ask her to intercede for us, yes and no. We are in the same respect as when we ask anyone else to pray for us in intercessory prayer, but no in the respect of are we treating her as being on an equal level as God, certainly we are not any more than we are doing so when we ask our pastor to pray for us. Do I think that Jesus listens to His mother a little more closely than He would someone else, yes I do.

We are not God. Why would you pray to somebody that you don’t really know if they are in heaven or not. To think that they are or not is assuming. Because we have no way of knowing if even Mary is in heaven.

 

[Hammster]

Okay, so your personal interpretation and opinion of Scripture is fallible and is subject to error and could well be wrong. Got it. Thanks again for the correction!

It could be. That’s why I asked you for the proper understanding of Romans 3, since you indicated that I was wrong.

 

[Fidelibus]

It could be. That’s why I asked you for the proper understanding of Romans 3, since you indicated that I was wrong.

It could be? You do know there is a 'huge' difference between being fallible and infallible, right? One can't be both. So, do you consider yourself fallible or infallible? Now, as far as Romans's 3 goes, feel free to follow or pine in with my discussion with timothy u beginning on post # 389.

 

[Hammster]

It could be? You do know there is a 'huge' difference between being fallible and infallible, right? One can't be both. So, do you consider yourself fallible or infallible? Now, as far as Romans's 3 goes, feel free to follow or pine in with my discussion with timothy u beginning on post # 389.

“Could be” equals “could be wrong”. So yes, I could be wrong about Romans 3. That’s why I asked you for the proper understanding of Romans 3, since you indicated that I was wrong.

 

[Fidelibus]

“Could be” equals “could be wrong”. So yes, I could be wrong about Romans 3. That’s why I asked you for the proper understanding of Romans 3, since you indicated that I was wrong.

Wow, we finally got there! Now that wasn't so hard admitting your personal interpretation/opinions are not absolute, and are subject to error. I am sure no one thinks the less of you. I sure don't. You keep saying that I told you that you were wrong regarding Romans's 3. I don't recall doing so. Could you show what post number I was to have said that. Thanks

 

[timothyu]

He has two natures in one person.

Don't we all?