wad caused the 'breakaway'?
-
Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ, but she is not God. But Jesus is.Originally posted by despondent:vince i tink u misunderstood me...i mean tat i agree wif u tat mathematical equations cun be used to explain biblical stuff...tats y i am asking the catholics to explain those u came up wif...wanna see how they able to explain...
If it is possible for a virgin birth to occur, why is it not possible that She can give birth to God? (or God incarnate, as Icemoon will insist)
Let us also know that She is not giving birth to God the Father. -
Spurious reasoning that doesn't tell us anything.Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:If it is possible for a virgin birth to occur, why is it not possible that She can give birth to God? (or God incarnate, as Icemoon will insist)
Miracles are just that, miracles.
If Sarah can give birth in old age, does it mean Isaac must be superhuman? -
I tell you why it is not possible.
God is not begotten from any human being. -
Actually, if He wanted to, why not?Originally posted by Icemoon:For example .. can the God Incarnate survive a crucification? Cannot right? -
That is correct.Originally posted by Icemoon:I tell you why it is not possible.
God is not begotten from any human being.
I think we are arguing over small matters, when we agree on most of the theories.
Personally, the usage of 'Mother of God incarnate' is rather uncommon.. though I use it in my daily prayers..
In the Catholic usage of 'Mother of God', it is taken to be 'Mother of God the Son', not 'Mother of God the Father'. We do not accord Mary the title of Creator. Imho, I find your need to distinguish 'Mother of God' from 'Mother of God incarnate' quite superfluous. -
then God's efforts all wasted.Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:Actually, if He wanted to, why not?
He is human just like us .. He will bleed and laugh (if you tickle him). -
and He also suffers temptations..Originally posted by Icemoon:then God's efforts all wasted.
He is human just like us .. He will bleed and laugh (if you tickle him).
it is possible that He thought of taking the easy way out.. -
Mary is not the Mother of God the Son.Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:In the Catholic usage of 'Mother of God', it is taken to be 'Mother of God the Son', not 'Mother of God the Father'. We do not accord Mary the title of Creator. Imho, I find your need to distinguish 'Mother of God' from 'Mother of God incarnate' quite superfluous.
From the you know what creed:And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
From the Westminister Confession of Faith:
Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.II. The Son of God, the second Person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance, and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof; yet without sin: being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.
I quoted two very authoritative creeds here. Notice the Son of God is begotten of the Father before all worlds and is outside our time. And when the time was ripe, the Son of God took upon him man's nature and was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary of her substance.
So Mary is the Mother of the Son of God in man's nature (ie. God Incarnate), not the Mother of the Son of God!
Got difference leh. It makes no sense to label someone who is in time the mother of someone who is outside time.
See my point?
Furthermore, if Mary is the Mother of God the Son, and God the Father is the Father of God the Son, what does that leave you?
Your way of labelling is only making things worse. -
I disagree with the Christians here that Jesus cannot be tempted.Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:and He also suffers temptations..
it is possible that He thought of taking the easy way out..
So dumb right .. he suffers temptations but cannot be tempted. What crap logic is this?
What's your view on this? -
can be tempted... he is fully human mah... so he experiences what a normal human being experiences.... including temptations... but he has self-control/determination or what ever u call it to not allow these temptations to get the better of him lor
-
Agree.Originally posted by JustDroppingBy:can be tempted... he is fully human mah... so he experiences what a normal human being experiences.... including temptations... but he has self-control/determination or what ever u call it to not allow these temptations to get the better of him lor
Satan wouldn't be so dumb to tempt Jesus not once but thrice.
From the day God declared the end of Satan, Satan has been thwarting the plan of God.
I remember in the movie The Passion, the devil was also in the Garden of Gethesmane spying on Jesus. Actually I suspect he was waiting for Judas to turn up. -
that is why we have the old testament, if you check everything against that, you will find it pretty consistent.Originally posted by laurence82:The church fathers, for example, chose what gospels go into the tradition what.
if they are wrong, the scriptures are prolly wrong too -
go watch the last temptation of Christ.Originally posted by Icemoon:I disagree with the Christians here that Jesus cannot be tempted.
So dumb right .. he suffers temptations but cannot be tempted. What crap logic is this?
What's your view on this?
-
Really, haven't you realised by now that the Christian religion is full of paradoxes?Originally posted by Icemoon:I quoted two very authoritative creeds here. Notice the Son of God is begotten of the Father before all worlds and is outside our time. And when the time was ripe, the Son of God took upon him man's nature and was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary of her substance.
So Mary is the Mother of the Son of God in man's nature (ie. God Incarnate), not the Mother of the Son of God!
Got difference leh. It makes no sense to label someone who is in time the mother of someone who is outside time.
See my point?
Furthermore, if Mary is the Mother of God the Son, and God the Father is the Father of God the Son, what does that leave you?
Your way of labelling is only making things worse.
Summa Theologica > Third Part > Question 35 > Article 4
Whether the Blessed Virgin should be called the Mother of God?
http://www.newadvent.org/Summa/40350Objection 2. Further, Christ is called God in respect of His Divine Nature. But the Divine Nature did not first originate from the Virgin. Therefore the Blessed Virgin should not be called the Mother of God.
Reply to Objection 2. This was an argument of Nestorius. But Cyril, in a letter against Nestorius [Cf. Acta Conc. Ephes., p. 1, cap. ii, answers it thus: "Just as when a man's soul is born with its body, they are considered as one being: and if anyone wish to say that the mother of the flesh is not the mother of the soul, he says too much. Something like this may be perceived in the generation of Christ. For the Word of God was born of the substance of God the Father: but because He took flesh, we must of necessity confess that in the flesh He was born of a woman." Consequently we must say that the Blessed Virgin is called the Mother of God, not as though she were the Mother of the Godhead, but because she is the mother, according to His human nature, of the Person who has both the divine and the human nature. -
Is it possible for a summary of the whole damn thread????
-
Basically Icemoon and I are arguing over whether Mary is the Mother of God.Originally posted by davidche:Is it possible for a summary of the whole damn thread???? -
oic,
Shld always remember the presuppositions in all your arguements. -
This is a slippery argument. The author should be screwed upside down if he is a Great.Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:Objection 2. Further, Christ is called God in respect of His Divine Nature. But the Divine Nature did not first originate from the Virgin. Therefore the Blessed Virgin should not be called the Mother of God.
Reply to Objection 2. This was an argument of Nestorius. But Cyril, in a letter against Nestorius [Cf. Acta Conc. Ephes., p. 1, cap. ii, answers it thus: "Just as when a man's soul is born with its body, they are considered as one being: and if anyone wish to say that the mother of the flesh is not the mother of the soul, he says too much. Something like this may be perceived in the generation of Christ. For the Word of God was born of the substance of God the Father: but because He took flesh, we must of necessity confess that in the flesh He was born of a woman." Consequently we must say that the Blessed Virgin is called the Mother of God, not as though she were the Mother of the Godhead, but because she is the mother, according to His human nature, of the Person who has both the divine and the human nature.
To argue (by analogy?) that our soul is analogous to the divine nature of Christ is blasphemy. Is he saying we are all gods ala pantheism?
For the soul of a child is not above the mother, but the divine nature of Christ is above all creations.
So your child is now your mother?
We chinese have a term for this - luan4 lun2! -
Priests cannot marry but pastors can
There's more but I only want to quote this -
You don't have to feel sorry for them, 'cos they chose their own path.Originally posted by maggot:Priests cannot marry but pastors can
There's more but I only want to quote this -
hey everyone...we have digressed from the topic again...can we pls get back to the original qn? from wad i understand the breakaway was a result of the issue of 'indulgence'...tats wad my catholic frends told me...however, most protestants tell me its abt the issues of purgatory, immaculation concept n salvation by works...i am juz looking for a definite answer to tis...tats all...thanx
-
They are all wrong.Originally posted by despondent:hey everyone...we have digressed from the topic again...can we pls get back to the original qn? from wad i understand the breakaway was a result of the issue of 'indulgence'...tats wad my catholic frends told me...however, most protestants tell me its abt the issues of purgatory, immaculation concept n salvation by works...i am juz looking for a definite answer to tis...tats all...thanx
It is all about Sola Scriptura. Those issues are secondary.
I quoted this and I shall quote it again, Luther's courageous reply at the Diet of Worms:Since Your Majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply, I will answer. Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain Reason -- and not by Popes and Councils who have so often contradicted themselves -- my conscience is captive to the Word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I cannot and I will not recant.
It was not about any of those issues since Luther's belief on the Lord's Sacrament is arguably closer to the Catholic version than the quintessential Protestant version.
So the issue is about the authority of the Bible v.s. the authority of the Church. -
i agree with icemoon on this
-
It is good for you, despondent, to ask for clarification. Okie, let me put this in Catholic's point of view.Originally posted by despondent:hey everyone...we have digressed from the topic again...can we pls get back to the original qn? from wad i understand the breakaway was a result of the issue of 'indulgence'...tats wad my catholic frends told me...however, most protestants tell me its abt the issues of purgatory, immaculation concept n salvation by works...i am juz looking for a definite answer to tis...tats all...thanx
Purgatory
1 Cor 3:12-15
We believe that, on the hour of our death, our past works will be tested. If they passes the test, then we are rewarded, but if they fail, we will be passed through fire in order to be saved. This fire must not be Fires of Hell if we are promised to be saved. It cannot be the Eternal Fire of God in Heaven if our works fail the test, since everything in Heaven is pure and holy. So, there must have existed another kind of Fire which will purge our infirmities. The doctrine of Purgatory is built on the scriptural implication of "passing through fire".
Note that Paul prayed for Onesiphorous after he died, "may the Lord grant that he will find mercy from the lord on that day" (2nd Timothy 1:16-18 ). If he is either in Heaven or Hell, the prayer would not make sense, because the souls in Heaven don't need prayers anymore, and souls in Hell no longer have the ability to receive prayer. So where is the soul whom Paul thinks still in need of prayer?
Scriptural references:
Ps 66:12, Mt 12:32, Phil 2:10-11, Ecc 12:14, Lk 16:19-31, 1 Thess 3:13, Is 4:4 (cf. Eph 4:8-10; 4:7 6:5-7 1 Pet 3:19-20) 2 Tim 1:16-18, Mic 7:8-9, 1 Cor 3:11-15, Heb 12:14, Mal 3:1-4 15:29 12:29, 2 Maccabees 12:39-45, 2 Cor 5:10, Rev 5:3,13, Mt 5:25-6, Lk 12:58-9, 7:1, 21:27
Immaculate Conception of Mary
Luke 1:28 - Rejoice, full of grace (Gk. kecharitomene)
I have commented it in EH. Read my post - I think it's the longest post in the following page:
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=208844&page=7
Salvation by Faith and Works
James 2:14-26 - Faith without works is dead
Matthew 28:20 - The Great Commission, call to work for Christ's ministry - evangelize
Catholics believe well that by merely having faith is not enough. As James said, faith without works is dead. Many parables and stories in Jesus' time show that faith has to be accompanied with good works that celebrate God's Glory.
There are more scriptural quotes which states the importance of works. Here are some, copied from the web:
Matt 7:16-20, Matt 19:21, Matt 25:31-46, Matt 25:15-28, 2 Cor 5:10, Rev 20:12-13, Luke 19:6-9, Gal 6:2, Gal 6:4, 1 Cor 9:16, James 5:20, Jer. 17:10; 32:19
And lastly, especially to Icemoon:
Mary Mother of God
Luke 1:43
Elizabeth exclaimed "mother of my Lord". Who is "my Lord"? God, right? Anyway, by saying Mother of God, Catholics do not intend to place Mary as above God. Mary said herself that she is a handmaid of God (Luke 1:38, 1:48a). She even said that she needs God as her Saviour (Luke 1:47). -
Originally posted by ben1xy:mannn ... i hope fadango doesnt appear hahaa
we have 3 pillars; MAgeisterium, tradition and Scripture
it has been that way since the early church
i will even argue that despite Protestant frowning on our dependency on tradition, they have adopted many of their own and borrowed extensively from our Early Fathers like Justin MAtyr, St Ausgustine, etc
Haha... Ben, I could not say much but agree with you.Originally posted by Icemoon:The litmus test is whether the tradition can be found in Scripture.
One can always argue (for example) - they adopted the Nicene Creed .. which was formulated by the church fathers (or rather a council of bishops) too.
Btw, Icemoon, if you want scriptural reference, here it is. I added scriptural reference for Magisterium. Btw, I have posted this in EH as well.
Magisterium - Matthew 18:16-17 - Jesus talks to the referral to matters to assembly. Acts 15 talks about the assembly formed to clear a major dispute, even when Scripture seem to have cleared it.
Tradition - This refers to Church Tradition, not human tradition. See 1 Cor 11:2.