/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>552490

>Flaise flogging

Repent.

>>552490

I bet that's based on the critical text.

>>552496

isn’t the KJV based on the texts editied by jews in the 8th/9th century to remove prophecies about Jesus Christ and His Most Pure Mother?

>>552499

Well co sideri g you see prophecies of Jesus nonstop then no you nigger

>>552507

another heresy would be: Jesus descended into the fires of hell.

>>552508

For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

retard

>>552507

Some of those we don't believe and the rest are biblical

i don't understand why my fellow baptists deny the "mother of God" title.

it's not like you have to start chanting prayers at and kissing statues of her because it's true.

>Jesus is fully man and fully God

>Mary bore Jesus

>therefore, Mary bore God

which premise is wrong?

>>552513

"Hell" in this verse in particular is a translation of "hades" which is the Greek word for Sheol, not the lake of fire.

>>552516

Because she isn't the mother of his soul. And nesus is called the son of David but as the verses in the OP show that even though Jesus does ohysically decend form David it doesn't make David his father by spirit

>>552517

Yeah the lake of fire comes after the great white throne judgement and hell is right now.

>>552516

It's mostly how cathodox reacts towards Mary, then baptists concludes it has to do with goddess idolatry and calling Mary the mother of God presuppose that God isn't eternal/ Mary is viewed as equal or superior to God.

>>552513

>three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

>heart of the earth

>hell

No.

>, that his soul was not left in hell

Ya his soul was not in hell (hades/underworld).

" my flesh also will dwell in hope.

For you will not abandon my soul to Hades,

or let your Holy One see corruption." esv

>>552518

i am trying to wrap my head around your reasoning,

to be clear, are we in agreement that this verse?

>43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,

it is saying that David was speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit in Psalm 110? (which was quoted in verse 44)

would you say that Mary is technically or at least in some way the mother of God?

also: i agree with the first line in the OP.

>>552533

Bus soul was not left in hell because he then came out of hell. It couldn't say it woukdn't be keft there if it wasn't there.

also vid

>>552536

Mary is the mother of Jesus' flesh yes but not his soul

>>552544

Why do I care what they say? And I'm not completely sure what Nestorianism is.

>>552541

Your mom is the mother of your flesh but not your soul, so I guess nobody really has a mom? How can moms be real if they don’t give birth to our real souls?

>>552558

But she is the mother of my soul you retard.

What are you a mormon fag?

>>552489

I still don't understand how Mary's status as the second Eve makes her coredemptrix or mediatrix.

>>552567

But he decends from them

>>552568

>Now answer this question, posed by Jesus:

>45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

because Christ (David's descendant) is God and was with David then.

>>552568

Also, this pic is OC. A gift to my Cathbros. Just please answer the question as to why Christ's logic with regards to David as "Father of God" doesn't apply to Mary as "Mother of God"

>>552549

>Baptist flag

<Why do I care what Baptist doctrine is?

wew

>>552565

>>552549

The entirety of Christian doctrine falls apart when these Christological heresies are taken to their conclusions. This is because it's merely a subversive way to deny Christ by denying his nature and the fact the Nestorian Church utterly died out in Asia should be an obvious testament to fact that it's incorrect.

>>552562

Read your KJV

>>552568

Why does Mary who gave birth to Jesus call him lord? Aside from Mary why would any queen mother call their son lord? If Jesus was a mere man this question in unanswerable because it sounds like nonsense. Instead, Jesus Christ is the Son of God and kings of kings. They could not answer like Peter did in Matthew 16:16 because the father did not reveal it to them the way he did for Peter.

>>552574

So he was with David and not Mary even though he existed before both of them

>>552580

forgot the "?"

>>552576

>Baptist flag

<Why do I care what Baptist doctrine is?

>wew

I only care what the Bible says

>Why does Mary who gave birth to Jesus call him lord?

Because he is Christ

>>552518

>Because she isn't the mother of his soul

Souls are not inherited anon. Every single one is created by God

>>552576

We don't deny Christ's nature, I even say that. "All you people do is deflect either towards the Nestorian strawman or the hatred-of Mary strawman. We think neither of those things." Mary is not the Mother of God, because the idea of such filial relations is somewhat denied in Matthew 22:42-46 and completely denied in Hebrews 7:3, where it states that the Son of Man is "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life"

>>552580

>So he was with David and not Mary

when are you referring to?

when David wrote that psalm? yes.

God was with Mary though:

<And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. (Luke 1:28)

>he existed before both of them

yes.

<In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)

>>552471

That doesn't mean Jesus isn't the son of David, it means He can be both his son and his Lord because He is God in the flesh.

>>552592

They're kinda more created from your parents and either way Jesus' soul existed way before Mary ever did

>>552596

>Jesus' soul existed way before Mary ever did

Did Jesus have a human soul?

>>552595

You need to learn how to read

45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

>>552601

Well he is human and Adam was made in the image of God not the other way around

>>552603

Do you know what a rhetorical question is?

>>552605

That isn't an answer. Does Jesus have a human soul, yes or no?

>>552612

yes

>>552614

If Jesus has a human soul then it didn't exist before Mary

>>552616

besides he always existed. And Adam was made in the image of God. Do you think he has the soul if a platypus?

Like in Daniel 3

23 And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.

24 Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonished, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king.

>25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

26 Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst of the fire.

>>552619

>besides he always existed

He didn't always exist as a man

>Do you think he has the soul if a platypus?

He has the soul of a man, which was created at His birth

Andersonite Baptists sound more and more Muslim every day.

>>552647

He's always had the soul of a man you faithlet

>>552657

Andersonite Baptists: The Bible is the perfect and unaltered word of God

>Muslims: The Bible is an imperfect and altered book by man

>Andersonite Baptists: Jesus is fully God, God is a trinity of God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost.

>Muslims: Jesus was just a normal man who followed God

>Andersonite Baptists: all humans sin and are born in sin, including Mary

>Muslims: Mary was perfect, and was born without the touch of Satan

>Andersonite Baptists: Jesus Christ was crucified, died, buried, and rose again. Faith in Christ alone saves you

>Muslims: Jesus Christ wasn't crucified, didn't die, wasn't buried, and didn't rise again. Faith in God and your own good works saves you

>(you): Andersonite Baptists sound more and more Muslim every day.

>>552660

That's heresy, anon. Jesus' humanity is purely created, and nothing human in Him existed before His birth.

>>552523

>calling Mary the mother of God presuppose that God isn't eternal/ Mary is viewed as equal or superior to God.

Which you honestly have to be borderline retarded to even think that's what it could mean.

>>552675

I don't know, man. If I found someone bowing, praying toward a statue, and called it a father or mother of a god. It's only logical to assume they were engaging in polytheism.

>>552671

Are you saying that the Son has an human soul from eternity?If so that would seemingly imply that a human soul and a divine one are the same thing, as only the divine essence pre-existed creation.Perhaps I misunderstand you, so since you said

>The fact that Jesus as man has always existed has been the official position of all Christians, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and Baptist, since the beginning of time.

Could you post something from an Orthodox source saying what you are sawing we say?

>>552678

Yeah, and if you were not a christian and found someone worshiping three distinct persons it would only be logical to assume them to be polytheist.

>>552671

>The Bible makes it clear that no man has seen the Father

Right, because who they saw was the Son

>all references to God as a human being in The Bible are referring to Jesus Christ

All anthropomorphic references to God in the OT are analogous. Man did not exist before Adam was created, there is no eternal humanity

>If Jesus as a man didn't exist until 2017 years ago, how was he present in passages like Genesis 16:9-13, Genesis 18:1-33, Genesis 22:11-14, Genesis 32-24-33, Judges 6:11-44, Judges 13:2-23, or Daniel 3:23-29

A created avatar. Spiritual and visual. Not divine and invisible.

>The fact that Jesus as man has always existed has been the official position of all Christians, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and Baptist, since the beginning of time

The idea that Jesus was a man before His birth was nonsense made up by a few mad Anabaptists in the 16th and 17th centuries

>Even Mormons understand this

Mormons believe He had a physical body because they believe the Father has a physical body. Why in the world do you want to believe the same as them?

>Heresy according to whom?

Leo the Great, bishop of Rome

<The impiety of saying that the Son of God was of two natures before His incarnation is only equalled by the iniquity of asserting that there was but one nature in Him after the Word became flesh.

John 4:24

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.

>>552695

Besides it's one God. But either way you're deflecting.

>>552697

>Man did not exist before Adam was created, there is no eternal humanity

>A created avatar. Spiritual and visual. Not divine and invisible.

Where are you getting this? Passage and verse would be appreciated.

>>552719

I'm no fan of Anderson, but the passage is meant to call into question whether Jesus was really the descendant of David strictly speaking, and thus owing David the usual respect that would normally be required, instead of as it is the other way around, since in reality Christ created David. It points out that David himself was aware of this difference beforehand. David would not have called any of his other descendants by this title, only Jesus. So this acknowledged difference in the respect of David unto the superior exists, which is a unique situation with respect to the Lord Jesus Christ.

>>552751

>Where are you getting this?

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."

Genesis 1:26

But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built

1 Kings 8:27

>>552593

>where it states that the Son of Man is "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life"

No it does not.

<For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;

<To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

<Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Malchisedek was "made like unto the Son of God" but is not Jesus. He prefigures the Son.

>>552471

Was Jesus God?

Is Jesus, the man, capable of being divided from Jesus, the God?

Is He not completely one in the unity of his person, without confusing his natures?

>>552787

Then that means Malchisedek existed forever

>>552575

Mother of God is just the english tanslation of the more proper title "theotokos" which means God-bearer. David never bore God, so there is a big difference there and I'm not sure they are comparable.

>>552556

Abraham and David are saints too. Some Catholic prayers ask for the prayers of the old testament fathers, which include David and Abraham. So yes, we do pray to them.

>>552541

So she did not bear God? Jesus only became God after His birth?

>>552877

Well she can't be his mother of his soul when he is older than her.

>>552898

We don't give birth to souls, we give birth to persons. Individuals.

Is Jesus truly and fully God in His person?

Furthermore, did she bear His soul in her womb, or not?

>>552916

>We don't give birth to souls,

Yes we do

>we give birth to persons. Individuals.

also yes

>Is Jesus truly and fully God in His person?

yes

>Furthermore, did she bear His soul in her womb, or not?

If you mean created then no. If you mean his soul was in their yes.

>>552924

>Yes we do

It seems like this anon came from a family of ghosts.

Jesus is God, and He received humanity upon His nature. Humans are [Racional Soul + Body]. Since He has humanity upon Him, He has a Racional Soul + a human body. Mary gave birth to the group [human rational soul + body] of Jesus.

>>552933

>It seems like this anon came from a family of ghosts.

Well your parents have souls also.

>>552916

>We don't give birth to souls

We actually do, but in the most literal sense that the person containing the soul gets birthed.

But hey, you made him >>552924 admit that Mary birthed both soul and body of Christ.

>>552977

>admit that Mary birthed both soul and body of Christ.

But she didn't birth his soul you babylon nigger

>>553022

Then who did?

>>553025

>how many layers of heresy are you on

<like, maybe 5 or 6 right now my dude

>you are like a little babby, watch this

>>553025

Non-nicene leave

>>552924

>Yes we do

What I meant is, we don't give birth to souls alone. We don't give birth to flesh alone either. We give birth to persons, a whole.

>If you mean created then no. If you mean his soul was in their yes.

So she bore and gave birth to God, thus she is the Mother of God. That's what you said yourself right here:

>>Is Jesus truly and fully God in His person?

>yes

>>Furthermore, did she bear His soul in her womb, or not?

>If you mean his soul was in their yes.

Or you mean that she bore His soul in her womb but it's not His soul that came out, in which case, I'm confused.

>>553033

She didn't create his soul

>>553036

No one's talking about her creating his soul. Her being her mother means she bore Him in her womb and gave birth to Him. If Jesus, in His person, is really and fully God, and was born out of a woman, and that woman is called His mother, then she is the mother of God. This is not a statement on who created what - in fact, not being God, we technically create nothing.

He receives His humanity temporally from her and His divinity eternally from the Father. Nonetheless, He was God while in her womb, He was God after His birth, He was God while being born, He was born out of her, so she is the Mother of God.

>>553036

No shit Sherlock

>Her being her mother

His mother*

long day today

>>553022

If the soul was not birthed, and the body alone, you are Nestorian plain and simple.

If you say however, that the soul and body are one yet distinct, and the body is birthed, then also the soul is birthed, and makes Mary the Mother of God since the definition of a mother is someone who bears a child.

Did the soul only go into the body after birth perhaps? Then you are a Nestorian+.

>>553025

>faithlet

Surprised I've never seen this before. polite sage for off-topic

>>553028

>>553032

So you're saying he didn't always exist?

>>553049

Besides he didn't make his soul like your parents did.

And you guys completely changed the subject. If you believe that Mary is the mother of God then is David, Abraham, and Adam(if you even believe he existed you heretic) the father of God then? Jesus physically descends from them.

>>553069

They are sometimes called the ancestors of God, yes. Although it's not common because we already have the Mother of God to comment on the Incarnation.

However, they cannot be called the "Fathers" of God because Jesus was not given flesh by them. He was given flesh by Mary.

>>553070

Then what about the verses in the OP

Matthew 22

42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.

43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,

44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

>45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

>>553069

Depends on your definition of always. The Son is eternally begotten, before all ages.

>>553073

His point is not that He is not the descendant of David. He Himself embraces the title of "Son of Man" countless times, and I don't need to point out the genealogies in Matthew and Luke.

His point is that He is not just the "son of David," He is also truly the Son of God.

>>553078

no it means spritually that's why it says "How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying," because yes his flesh descends from him.

>>553086

But His flesh is not -obained- from him. His flesh is obtained from His mother alone. You cannot say your grandfather begat you - your mother and father begat you.

>>553069

>So you're saying he didn't always exist?

He didn't always exist as a man

>>553088

>But His flesh is not -obained- from him.

Kinda your genes are still from your grandparents.

Also I'm pretty sure the Bible uses begat when talking about your grand father/mother

Actually yes it does

Luke 3

was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,

36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the so

Genesis 11

13 And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.

>>552471

>if Mary was the mother of God

What "if"? Are you denying that Jesus is God or that Mary is Jesus's mother?

>>553097

Skip a minute in

>>552756

>1 Kings 8:27

Alright good, so now tell us your explanation for how Jesus himself existed despite this. Recall Colossians 2:9.

>>553032

There's nothing in Nicene about this, btw. So you're probably violating rule 2 here, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

>>553070

>He was given flesh by Mary.

Psalm 139:15-16

My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

>>553069

Souls are not created by parents but by God directly.

As long as the soul has resided in the body of Christ, and together with it came out of the womb of Mary, that made Mary give birth to Christ our God.

Therefore, she is Mother of God.

>If you believe that Mary is the mother of God then is David, Abraham, and Adam(if you even believe he existed you heretic) the father of God then?

What, you also a unitarian now?

David, Adam and Eve are ancestors of God the Son, not God the Father nor God the Holy Spirit.

>>553099

One cannot split the two natures of Christ and not be a Nestorian.

He also says that itś faulty logic and we should rely on bible verses, but it's the logic coming from the bible itself!

>>553101

>now tell us your explanation for how Jesus himself existed despite this

h y p o s t a t i c u n i o n

>>553106

>Souls are not created by parents but by God directly.

Yes, they are. Maybe the only it wouldn't be is Adam and Eve

>but it's the logic coming from the bible itself!

So do you have a verse that says "Mary is the mother of God"?

>>553112

>So do you have a verse that says "Mary is the mother of God"?

Do you have a verse that says "God is a trinity"?

>>553108

So then if that's your full explanation I guess we agree after all.

>>553112

>So do you have a verse that says "Mary is the mother of God"?

"And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" -Luke 1:43

>>553114

1 John 5:7 KJV

>>553119

So where does it say "God". And that's also someone that isn't God or the narrator talking

>>553131

I see neither the word God nor the word trinity

>>553134

Trinity literally means 3 in one. tri(3)unity(in one).

>>553145

Would you please show me the phrase "3 in one" in this verse?

>>553147

and these three are one.

>>553132

The Lord refers to God, hence the capital letter (unless the KJV is wrong of course).

>>553150

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fv7eqtYAi_w

>>553148

I'm sorry but the words "3 in one" do not appear in your post

>>553151

Just admit that you don't have any arguments yourself, or show me the part where he talks about that verse.

>>553155

Around 31:30

And even if she were to be that doesn't justify worshipping her

>>553152

Okay it says "three are one"

>>553172

Yesyou do. You make graven images(even though you don't know what she looks like), pray to, bow,kneel to, kiss the feet of the graven images, burn incense to, literally say "Hail Mary" and say that prayer 50 times in one session.

>>553182

Their conscience is seared, so I don't think they realize this.

>>553182

Okay, okay.

First of all, why do you believe that the early Christians did not practice veneration of things that are not directly God? Jews were doing it, and even with their negative reaction to Christianity, they are still doing it today. They venerate the scrolls of the Torah, they venerate the Western Wall, and so on.

So Jews did the act of veneration, and early Christians most likely did as well, particularly since early sources seem to indicate this directly (notably, what was done with the relics of Polycarp).

Next, there is the actual use of imagery. It's pretty easy to figure out that early Christians used images - both the Dura Europos church and synagogue show that both Jews and Christians used religious imagery in their buildings, and most interestingly, while the Dura Europos church is from the 3rd century, there are other instances of the images found there (notably Jesus being portrayed as the "good shepherd") found in other 3rd century places such as the Roman catacombs, thus showing that as early as in the 3rd century, this one image of Jesus was already popular Church-wide. While we cannot say when exactly it became popular, it must be from about the 2nd century at least (this kind of thing does not happen overnight), but again, I'll remind you that even Jews had no problems with images at the time, so there is no reason to think Christians did.

Now, the veneration of images… Only that which is holy can be venerated, of course. What can make an image holy? Can an image be holy if what it intends to represent is holy? The answer is yes: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/johndam-icons.asp

>>553205

>First of all, why do you believe that the early Christians did not practice veneration of things that are not directly God?

Did I say that? They're were heretics in Pual's day

>Jews were doing it,

because they're of satan(just like the catholic/orthodox church)

>and even with their negative reaction to Christianity, they are still doing it today.

No where even near as much or as bad

>They venerate the scrolls of the Torah, they venerate the Western Wall, and so on.

Yeah it's weird they put notes in a wall and bob back and forth to it but that's WAY less than what you do.

>Next, there is the actual use of imagery. It's pretty easy to figure out that early Christians used images - both the Dura Europos church and synagogue show that both Jews and Christians used religious imagery in their buildings, and most interestingly, while the Dura Europos church is from the 3rd century, there are other instances of the images found there (notably Jesus being portrayed as the "good shepherd") found in other 3rd century places such as the Roman catacombs, thus showing that as early as in the 3rd century, this one image of Jesus was already popular Church-wide. While we cannot say when exactly it became popular, it must be from about the 2nd century at least (this kind of thing does not happen overnight), but again, I'll remind you that even Jews had no problems with images at the time, so there is no reason to think Christians did.

Again you realize that there were heretics back then right? I'm pretty sure Pual even named a few.

>Can an image be holy if what it intends to represent is holy?

No

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

>ANY

That includes ones of Jesus, the Father, and Mary which we don't even know what they looked like

>>553101

>There's nothing in Nicene about this

[…]

Et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sǽcula.

[…]

Génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri […]

>>553213

Consubstantial with the Father. Was someone arguing against that?

>>553216

What does soul mean to you?

>>553227

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but it's something that men have and also that God has. We see God breathe into Adam a living soul in the opening part of Genesis. Psalm 30 is about the speaker's soul being saved. Job 34:14-15 shows that God is currently quickening all life. And there are the well-known New Testament passages relevant to it, proclaiming the salvation of souls by belief in the word, such as Hebrews 10:39 and James 1:21.

>>553210

>4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

>>ANY

>That includes ones of Jesus, the Father, and Mary which we don't even know what they looked like

What about golden cherubim?

>>553240

Are we building a new temple for God to abide in?

>>553236

>I'm not sure where you're going with this

Since the Word was natum, genitum, what do you mean when you say "his soul has always existed"? I'm assuming it's you because you keep arguing in his stead

>>553244

Yes.

>>553245

I'm not him but his soul HAS always existed. An act of the Son being begotten was not at any place in time. He is and has always been eternally begotten of the Father.

>>553246

And is this a body, or is it a physical building?

>>553244

>hey dude you should put this totally sinful graven image of things above on my new temple, that'll show those stupid catlicks who won't read the bible the way real christians will literally millennia from now, just go along with it for now ok?

>>553247

The Temple exists both physically and mystically.

>>553247

Do you agree that at one point ante ómnia sǽcula the person, not the substance, of the Word was not?

>>553248

Look the bottom line is this. The Bible says that idolatry is a sin, clear and simple. That didn't change from the Old to the New Testament. It said so even before the first temple was built. It was a foremost command. So you have to accept the fact that the only reason any of this was acceptable was because God actually resided in it. There was no change to the prohibition of idolatry at any point, because God doesn't reside in the works of our hands, but he did reside in the Temple when it existed, thus explaining why they built it exactly as he commanded. And yes, God did specifically told them to use stones that were not touched by stoneworkers but were in their natural shape.

>>553250

I'm not going to speculate about that.

>>553253

>I'm not going to speculate about that.

I've been using verbatim quotes from the nicene creed in Latin which say exactly that. Disagreeing doesn't seem like a smart move from any point of view.

>>553254

Where does it say that either?

I agree that the Father existed before all time, which is what it actually says. You're just taking certain phrases and applying them to things that the Nicene doesn't apply them to, such as Mary and such as the person of Christ not existing before all time. That stuff simply isn't found there in any case.

>which say exactly that.

So you're that foreigner again just trying to get us all banned. I can tell it's you by the shoddy arguments and poor word tensing.

>>553240

Well that was commanded by God and I don't remember people worshipping it atleast

>>553263

>Where does it say that either?

How can a begotten person be the cause of himself?

>>553265

What you're implying is considered by everyone to be a heresy. You think the Son was begotten by the Father at a certain point in time? So you say the Son isn't co-eternal?

>>553253

>the only reason any of this was acceptable was because God actually resided in it

>don't do this thing unless I tell you to do it, then it's ok

Said God never

>>553268

>You think the Son was begotten by the Father at a certain point in time?

Are you illiterate? Don't answer that, a rhetorical question. Here, let me quote my own words verbatim this time:

>>553250

>at one point ante ómnia sǽcula

>>553269

The reason why idolatry is wrong is because God doesn't reside in those things. Deal with it.

>>553274

I agree, now show me the doctrine which states that statues contain divine spirits and we should worship them

>>553278

Psalm 138:2

I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

>>553282

ebin

One can do that at any tabernacle marked by a lit candle by the way, since there are consecrated hosts in there.

>>553283

Not according to the word of God.

>>553285

>now remember: this isn't my body, it's just bread; likewise this isn't my blood, just wine

Hook me up with your version because it's a riot

>>553288

>When I said take the beam out of your eye meant you literally have a 15 foot wooden beam in your eye

>>553297

>this ceremony I am instituting right now is a metaphor for pantheism in general and nature worship in particular: this bread and wine I give you are my body because I am in all fruits of the land

Lay down the heresy please

>>553264

I don't remember Orthodox worshiping icons.

>>553302

I bet some babushka up on the Caucasus is doing that right at this moment, but what matters is doctrine.

>>553303

Yes. Orthodox Church does not teach idolatry, period.

>>553305

I never claimed the contrary. You are schismatics because of pride, not insanity

>>553306

How do you claim to know our hearts? Perhaps the pride lies elsewhere.

>>553302

>>553305

>friend walks up and asks to be kept in your prayers

>kneel down and worship him, sing psalms on his behalf, draw a picture of him, light candles and burn incense, bring all of your friends and family to kneel down and worship the picture, pray to your friend for blessing

>its just a prayer bro

>>553307

Okay, not pride, just fear of muslim swords. Bartholomew who?

>>553308

>worship

This is just false. There's nothing wrong with honoring friends.

>>553310

Maybe we should have another council. Invite the whole Church and come to a consensus by the Holy Spirit like the good old days?

>>553308

>really cool guy who used to be of great help to you departs to a distant land and you have all reason to believe he has gotten chummy with an extremely important person

>not pestering him incessantly for favors

>>553313

If you manage to get all your friends to come I don't see why not

>>553316

Someday, God willing!

>>553313

So this is just honouring him?

>kneel down to him, sing psalms on his behalf, draw a picture of him, light candles and burn incense, bring all of your friends and family to kneel down to the picture, pray to your friend for blessing

Also what exactly is worship then? It said worship about Cornellius to Peter, the romans when mocking Jesus, and John to the angel.

>>553320

>So this is just honouring him?

Yes, I don't acknowledge St. George as my Creator, only as a man worthy of veneration.

>>553326

You realize falling at thier feet us worship right?

Acts 10

25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.

26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

18 And began to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews!

19 And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him.

8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.

9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

>>553341

Seems to me like kneeling comes before worship but is not worship by itself

>>553341

>You realize falling at thier feet us worship right?

>is

Read the text more carefully.

>>553343

Then what do you di that they don't

>>553344

Not An Argument

>>553348

>and fell down at his feet

comma

>and worshipped him

Separate clauses.

>and bowing their knees

>worshiped him

>I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel

>I fell down to worship

>to

>Not An Argument

>falling at thier feet us worship

No It Isn't.

Now apologize for making me type all that out.

>>553352

This one doesn't imply it to be different thoigh "and bowing their knees worshipped him." That implies bowing the knee did.

And again what did they do that you don't? It just says they fell at their feet which you do AND you do way more than that and they can't do more because they haven't got their incense and pictures set up. Maybe it means they fell to his feet to kiss them or something which cathlodox do.

>>553354

>and bowing their knees

>worshiped him

In this one it does affirm that they "worshiped" Him, but of course in this particular instance the soldiers did it to mock Him.

>And again what did they do that you don't?

We don't mock the Lord for our worship is genuine.

>>553357

And bowing the knee counts as worship and you do that to people that aren't God.

And I used that one as an example that it is worship by bowing the knee.

>>553358

>bowing the knee is worship

>is

That's just silly.

Anyway, I'm out for now, got work in the morning.