Featured Is it idolatry?

You do not read carefully what I wrote. I specifically stated, "commonly, not exceptionally defined". The false doctrine of the "trinity" (sic) is more than simply saying there is the "Father, Son & Holy Spirit". There is more to the false doctrine than that.

I already agreed that there are the Persons/Beings of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Yet, that is not the definition (sic) of the "trinity".

The details is where the issue lies, which I specifically addressed.

 

Is the word "Lord" in the koine Greek (or even English) the same as the word "God" in the koine Greek (or even English)?

Let us now consider a few statements by the Roman Catholic theological position and teaching on this subject of the “theotokos”, for it is said that:

"… Elizabeth is the first to call Mary by her most honourable title "Mother of God …" [Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; “V”; "The Blessed Virgin Mary"; subsection “The Visitation”] - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Blessed Virgin Mary
​

It is taught by outward (catechumen) Catholicism that she is not the 'mother of divinity' (well and good), yet there is more said inwardly by the dogma, with hints all over the place at something more, and even openly stated with more:

"… As Mary was truly the mother of Jesus, and as Jesus was truly God from the first moment of His conception, Mary is truly the mother of God. … Theotokos …" [Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; “V”; "The Blessed Virgin Mary"; subsection “Mary's divine motherhood”] - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Blessed Virgin Mary​

Let us look at the first quote again and ask yet another question. “Did Elizabeth [the cousin of Mary] ever call Mary by the “title” “Mother of God” in any part of the Scriptures?” Search as we will yet again, and the answer yet comes back to us as a plain, “No.”

Where then does the Roman Catholic theological position obtain the slightest ground from Scripture to say that Elizabeth says such?

Luke 1:43 is quoted, so we had better be careful to look at it:
Luke 1:43 KJB - And whence [is] this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
Luke 1:43 GNT TR - και ποθεν μοι τουτο ινα ελθη η μητηρ του κυριου μου προς με
Luke 1:43 Stephen's 1550 TR kai poqen moi touto ina elqh h mhthr tou kuriou mou proV me
Luke 1:43 Byzantine Majority TR - kai poqen moi touto ina elqh h mhthr tou kuriou mou proV me
Luke 1:43 Alexandrian Greek - kai poqen moi touto ina elqh h mhthr tou kuriou mou proV eme Luke 1:43
Luke 1:43 Douay Rheims - And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
Luke 1:43 Clementine Vulgate - Et unde hoc mihi ut veniat mater Domini mei ad me?

Does the text read from the English or Tr. Greek that Mary was designated with the “title” “Mother of God” by Elizabeth? [Remember, we are looking for the words “mhthr tou theou mou” [Theos/God].]

The text obviously does not read the way it is claimed [intimated] that it does, for it plainly reads, “...mhthr tou kuriou mou...” [“...mother of my Lord...”]. This passage is supposed to be the strongest support pillar upholding the “theotokos” theological position, yet the pillar is non-existent, as is the word “theou”.

Since “The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.” [Psalms 12:6] and “All Scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” [2 Timothy 3:16] and “...the scripture cannot be broken...” [John 10:35;p] and we are admonished to “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” [Proverbs 30:6], it then behooves us to take special and careful attention to then heed what the words plainly say without having to add anything to them.

As we have seen by the Scriptures, Mary is called the “mother of Jesus” [John 2:1,3; Acts 1:14] but never once designated with the “title” “mother of God”.

Titles carry weight. For instance, Jesus is called “the Son of Man” and “the Son of God”, among many others, and in scripture these “titles” relate something extremely important. Jesus has two natures, first, that of “God” being unborrowed, underived and having eternal life with Himself, as the Scripture says of His Divinity, “... without mother ...” [Hebrews 7:3;p]; “...from everlasting...” [Micah 5:2;p etc] even “...to everlasting...” [Psalms 90:2;p etc] and also eternally existing with the “Father” [ref: John 1:1, 17:5] and “Holy Spirit” before all things. Secondly, at the moment of His incarnation and from then on, eternally, that of “man”.

To give the title “mother of God” to Mary is unbiblical, and she herself would have never have wanted it, being the humble handmaiden and servant of God. Many women, who believed in scripture, were blessed (Genesis 1:22, etc).

The "Lord" (mother of my (Elizabeth) Lord) refers to the Throne of David, not the Throne of Deity, since again, mother deals with that which comes into existence (humanity) and not that which is eternal (deity).

 

Of Course its weird. Thats why all the disciples left in John 6. They are not going to leave over symbolism. Previously Jesus did use symbolism to make bigger bolder claims.

John 4
31Meanwhile the disciples were urging Him, saying, “Rabbi, eat.” 32But He said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” 33So the disciples were saying to one another, “No one brought Him anything to eat, did he?” 34Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work.

Oh symbolism...... He did it..... No body leaves.

John 5
23That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

24“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.


Equates himself to God. Tells folks whoever believes him has eternal life. No one leaves.

John 6:

Feeds 5000 folks. still around, No disciples left him. After claiming to be God, after showing symbolism of doing the will of God as his food and meat to eat. No body leaves.

But the feather that breaks the camels back is Jesus says he is SYMBOLICLY the bread that comes from heaven come and SYMBOLICLY eat him?

Thats insane. NO one would have trouble with that. Even when you are teaching a fresh christian how many have you ever had one hold on.....Jesus symbolicly thinks he can feed me spiritually? Oh I draw the line there. AFTER hearing bolder claims before!?!?!

NNE has ever said that that is ridiculous. The problem is Jews were very kosher fanatics.

Even AFTER the Resurrection God had to convince PETER to eat "unclean" food three times.


They literally tell you their objection:

52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”

Does Jesus say oh hey common i'm just being symbolic. Think about they are ARGUING with each other on this.

No instead Jesus double downs with:

54“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55“For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.


Folks Jesus Christ is not Jerk. If you dont get the symbolism he explains himself:

33So the disciples were saying to one another, “No one brought Him anything to eat, did he?” 34Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work.

If there is something confusing he is great teacher, he explains himself.


Here is the kicker.

60Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62“What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?

What is difficult statement? That we have to eat his body and blood. THAT is difficult. To PROVE it true Jesus says Well what if you see me ascend to heaven?


The issue is believing the words coming out of his mouth. Thats why when he says THIS IS MY BODY, we say YES IT IS. AMEN to whatever Jesus says.

 

Doing that which is right, does not give credence to that which is wrong (otherwise I may point to the Scientologists, WTS, LDS, etc and even the pagan religions which do likewise):





No one is denigrating the right work. We are pointing out the error of the wrong. Apples to oranges and mixing the bag.

Someone succinctly put it this way:

 

There is only one LORD.

Isaiah 45
5“I am the LORD, and there is no other;
Besides Me there is no God.

If Elizabeth calls anyone else LORD it would be blasphemy.

Jesus Christ is GOD, He has a Mother Mary. Mary is the Mother of GOD.

Its as silly as objecting that Jesus' foot is not the foot of God.

When you read through all objections of theologians. They all insist the idea that MOTHER of God equates to ORGINATOR and CREATOR of divinity.

Which is a stupid pagan idea.

Your own mother is she your God and Creator? If you can answer this question.....common sense should take over.

If your own mother is not your God then obviously Jesus' mom is not his God.

 

Jesus Christ said THIS IS MY BODY, THIS IS MY BLOOD.

The only thing you can accuse us of is being dumb enough to believe him.

 

You're using a differing word. You capitalized it, which would refer to the name of JEHOVAH. Luke's Gospel doesn't use that word. Elizabeth is speaking about the Messiah, the King of Israel in context, or the human throne of David.

Roman Catholic tactics must always redefine the words used.

 

Mat_11:14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.

 

That's right. If we are wrong about Jesus and the Holy Eucharist and that it does not contain His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity then we are all going straight to hell as we would be guilty of blaspheming God. Of course, all of our Eastern Orthodox brothers will be going there too, as well as the Russian Orthodox faithful and anyone else who believes as we do.

But if we are right and you are wrong, all who rail against the truth of the Holy Eucharist as we experience it, then you all are the one's who are in big trouble with the Lord, it is you who have blasphemed.

 

Go look ancient manuscripts. CAPITALIZED letters where not invented for hundreds of years later.

 

I see the LAWYER in you coming out, Alofa Atu. Did you threaten Andrew with slander and libel as well? Bet you did! In one post you said that Andrew agreed totally with SDA doctrine and only disagreed with it's pro-abortion position. Next thing we hear is that Andrew is PRO-CATHOLIC which you refuse to explain.

No, what your Adventists hospitals/abortion clinics/doctors are performing are not 'miscarriages', they are hack-em up, slice and dice, suck 'em out ABORTIONS and it is an ABOMINATION. Your 'church' is pro-abortion and apostate as a result of that alone. As you know, your official SDA church guidelines provide for abortion as a women's choice. YOU REFUSE to address that. You insist in trying the 'pay no attention to the man behind the curtain' baloney and try spamming us with your SDA propaganda. Defend your church's pro-abortion position. What is Andrew wrong about? You refuse, refuse, refuse to answer.

 

Then they are in error. They pretty much have excommunicated themselves if you ask me. The belief that the Eucharist contains the "Real Presence" of Christ is the most basic belief of the faith.

 

Yeah, isn't that something. You can't have any pork sausage with your eggs in the cafeteria downstairs while upstairs they are slicing and dicing defenseless babies in the womb. Go figure!

 

Zwingli was simply turning from the error of men to the truth of God's word. What was wrong with his position:

Ulrich Zwingle -

"... Zwingle observed that esti (is) is the proper word in the Greek language to express signifies, and he quoted several instances in which this word is employed in a figurative sense. ..." - The History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, Volume 3, Book 11, Chapter 6, page 406

"... Zwingle was seriously engrossed by these thoughts, and when he closed his eyes at night, was still seeking for arguments with which to oppose his adversaries. The subjects that had so strongly occupied his mind during the day present themselves before him in a dream. He fancied that he was disputing with Am-Grutt, and that he could not reply to his principal objection. Suddenly a figure stood before him and said: “Why do you not quote the 11th verse of the 12th chapter of Exodus: Ye shall eat it (the lamb) in haste: it is the Lord’s passover?” Zwingle awoke, sprung out of bed, took up the Septuagint translation, and there found the same word esti (is), which all are agreed is synonymous with signifies in this passage.

Here then, in the institution of the paschal feast under the old covenant, is the very meaning that Zwingle defends. How can he avoid concluding that the two passages are parallel? ..."

"... Zwingle no longer hesitated, and at nearly the same time he gave to the world his Letter to Albert, and his Commentary on True and False Religion, dedicated to Francis I. In this last he said: “Since Christ, in the sixth chapter of St. John, ascribes to faith the power of imparting eternal life, and of uniting the believer to Him in the closest union, what need have we of more? Why should He afterwards have ascribed this virtue to His flesh, whilst He himself declares that His flesh profiteth nothing? The flesh of Christ, so far as it suffered death for us, is of incalculable utility, for it saves us from perdition; so far as it is eaten by us, it is of no use whatever.” ..." - The History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, Volume 3, Book 11, Chapter 11, page 424

"... Zwingle replied that Scripture must be interpreted by Scripture, and reminded him of numerous passages where is has the force of signifies, and among others he quoted the following: - "The seed is the Word," "The field is the world," "I am the Vine," "The Rock was Christ." 8 The secretary objected that these passages were taken from parables and proved nothing. "No," it was replied, "the phrases occur after the parable has ended, and the figurative language been put aside." ..." - The History of Protestanism, Volume 1, Book 8, Chapter 15, page 470

"... The scene in which Zwingle had been so intensely occupied during the day, presented itself to him when asleep. He thought that he was again in the Council Chamber disputing with Am-Gruet. The secretary was urging his objection, and Zwingle was unable to repel it. Suddenly, a figure stood before him and said, "O, slow of heart to understand, why don't you reply to him by quoting Exodus 12:11

471

-'Ye shall eat it [the lamb] in haste: it is the Lord's Passover'? 10 Roused from sleep by the appearance of the figure, he leaped out of bed, turned up the passage in the Septuagint, and found there the same word ejsti> (is) used with regard to the institution of the Passover which is employed in reference to the institution of the Supper. All are agreed that the lamb was simply the symbol and memorial of the Passover: why should the bread be more in the Supper? The two are but one and the same ordinance under different forms. The following day Zwingle preached from the passage in Exodus, arguing that that exegesis must be at fault which finds two opposite meanings in the same; word, used, as it here is, in the same form of expression, and recording the institution of the same ordinance. If the lamb was simply a symbol in the Passover, the bread can be nothing more in the Supper; but if the bread in the Supper was Christ, the lamb in the Passover was Jehovah. So did Zwingle argue in his sermon, to the conviction of many of his hearers. ..." - The History of Protestanism, Volume 1, Book 8, Chapter 15, page 470-471

You can see more here - Transubstantiation Unsubstantiated Substantially :P

 

They are proper terms. However, to answer the question, "No." There was no "threatening", as there is none here either (again they are proper terms), and secondly, Andrew simply refused to address the issues in detail as I already shared in thread. If you do not believe me, go ahead and email him for the full transcript of our exchanges. I still have my copy.

Finally, I do not gamble, and therefore cannot partake in your 'bet'.

 

Actually I did, in the previous thread. Roman Catholicism and the total abuse & murder of children (incl. abortion).

 

It still depends. Ignorance and knowledge are in play:

Joh_3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Act_17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Luk 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

Luk 12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

Mat_12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

Mat_12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Luk_12:10 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.

 

JESUS said to the Jews: Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and CRUCIFY...

JESUS knew that He would be CRUCIFIED. He said unto His disciples: Matt.20:v.18 Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, 19 And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to CRUCIFY him: and the third day he shall rise again.

JESUS knew that He would be CRUCIFIED to redeem the sinners of curse;

Galatians 3:v.13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. COL.1:v.14 - In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins: --->without shedding of blood is no remission. Hebrews 9:v.22

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CROSS IS CURSE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The CROSS does not belong to God absolutely, but to the Devil. CROSS is of the Devil and belongs to him.

 

Ah, the ex-Seventh-day Adventists, who misrepresent the position. I emailed her also. You want to know what she told me? She said I had to buy her book to continue dialogue with her, and she refused to address any material sent to her.