Right Divider
Body part
You think that Mary is the "mother of God".... she is not.
Answering old threads thread Part II
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
You either deny Our Lord Jesus Christ is God, or that Our Lady is His mom. No other options:
It's here for everybody to see RD. Right out in the open. Public.
Right Divider
Body part
I do not deny either of those things, Mr. Liar.
Jesus is God.
The Father is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.
Mary is Jesus' human mother only.
If your nonsense were true, Mary would be God the Fathers mother as well. Just stupid.
Is Mary also Jesus' grandmother?
Yes, we can all see what a fool you are.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
You can't even tell me where the lie is! It's because you have a giant plank in your eye! Remove ... it!
Irrelevant!
Irrelevant!
What's the difference between a "human mother" and a mother! Irrelevant!
Wow.
Sure. Yep. You ... got me. You found me out.
lol.
Right Divider
Body part
Your severe mental retardation makes it impossible to have a sensible discussion with you.
Please seek the medical attention that you so badly require.
Derf
Well-known member
Um, you kinda went unhinged there. It was answered appropriately. Plus, remember that Jesus gave His mother away?
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
If you answer Yes to the first one and Yes to the second one but you can't answer Yes to the third one you've got an anti-Catholic bigoted plank in your eye, and it didn't come from the Bible it came from the Devil. Remove it.
Meanwhile, another nice old thread:
Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?
I got into a discussion about young Earth creationism recently. My position was that YECism is completely debunked because it is obvious that there are objects in the night sky that are much older than 6,000 years. For instance, the galaxy Andromeda is roughly 2.5 million light years away. That...
theologyonline.com
Their paradigm is currently an open question, but that paradigm is in conflict with their paradigm which to them is not an open question. That's a conflict, it's causing them to have tunnel vision.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
No I didn't. This is the epitome of a simple syllogism. It's in the same zone as all men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal.
No it wasn't. It's a simple yes-no question. And every opportunity is provided to show any logical fallacy (there is none there).
You're equivocating. If my mother died when I was a boy and my father married another woman she's my mother in a sense, particularly in the "step-mother" sense, but there's no subtly shifting term in my syllogism like that. Mother's mother. No tricks.
Or, you realize that Jesus is one Person of the Triune Godhead, and that Jesus existed PRIOR to being born of Mary, which means that she is not the mother of God, but only of Jesus' human body. Meaning that you've made an association fallacy,
"A is a subset of B.
A is also a subset of C."
The two premises are true. The fallacy come in when you assert the following:
"Therefore C must be B."
To apply this to your argument:
Jesus is the son of Mary.
Jesus is also God the Son.
Therefore, Mary must be the mother of God.
The two premises are true. The conclusion is not.
Mary is the mother of Jesus, she is His HUMAN mother. He has no "Godly" mother. Thus, trying to say that Mary is the mother of God is false, because Jesus has no Godly mother, only an earthly (human) mother.
You intentionally ignore the fact that Jesus now has two natures, where He did not have two natures before He was conceived in Mary, and in conflating the two natures, you commit the association fallacy.
To answer your question: NO, Mary is not the mother of God.
She IS the mother of Jesus, who by having Him conceived in her womb, gave him a human nature by which He could rightly become the Perfect Mediator between God and men.
That doesn't make her the mother of God, that makes her the human mother of Jesus' human nature, not His God nature.
The one with a plank in his eye is you, because you have been blinded by Catholic lies into thinking, wrongly, that Mary is the mother of God, when she is not.
Remove it before you make a further fool of yourself.
P.S. - bigot: a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
Who's the real bigot here?
Derf
Well-known member
here's your post (we'll consider the same scritpures):
Let's add in a scripture that begins to talk about the laying of foundations:
1 Corinthians 1:12 KJV - Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
Cephas, of course, is Peter. And Paul referenced Peter one more time AFTER your quoted verse:
1 Corinthians 3:22 KJV - Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;
1 Corinthians 3:23 KJV - And ye are Christ's; and Christ [is] God's.
Apollos is strictly defined as a "waterer":
1 Corinthians 3:6 KJV - I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
And the point about God giving the increase is repeated. God, therefore is involved in all aspects of the building/growing:
1 Corinthians 3:7 KJV - So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
Notice that Paul mixes his metaphors a bit, talking at one time of husbandry and another of construction, but he brings them back together here:
1 Corinthians 3:9 KJV - For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, [ye are] God's building.
Thus we also know which building Paul is speaking of: "ye", which would be the Corinthians to whom he is writing. And he is speaking of himself as an apostle (not "the" apostle, but "an" apostle):
1 Corinthians 1:1 KJV - Paul, called [to be] an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God,
So, Paul is comparing his own ministry with that of Apollos (that they are slightly different, one planting, one watering), then with Peter with no difference cited. Since Peter is an apostle of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:1 KJV - Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ), which Paul acknowledges (Galatians 1:18-19 KJV - Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none,)
So, what is Paul's ministry as an apostle, and by implication Peter's? Laying the foundation of Jesus Christ as one who saw Jesus alive from the dead. And if Apollos is a "laborer together" with Paul, so much more Peter, who holds the same title of apostle.
Right Divider
Body part
Paul's ministry was one apostle called for the one body of Christ.
Peter's ministry was shared by all of the twelve apostles that will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
And yet Paul says that he laid the foundation and was careful NOT to build on another man's foundation.
1Cor 3:10 (AKJV/PCE)
(3:10) According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
Rom 15:20 (AKJV/PCE)
(15:20) Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:
Paul was the LAST one to see the Lord Jesus Christ.
1Cor 15:5-8 (AKJV/PCE)
(15:5) And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: (15:6) After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. (15:7) After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. (15:8) And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
Is it possible that the LAST one to see the Lord Jesus Christ received the LATEST information?
What difference does that make (that they are both called apostles)?
Peter and Paul were given different missions. That is quite obvious.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Thanks for the cryptic answer RD! That's why I always ask you Dispensationalists to cough up an authoritative creed of some sort, but never will any single one of you do that!
That'd be too easy.
WHO'S THE "ANOTHER MAN?"
Well, then, that, would, be, JOHN, RD!
There's no higher authority on Earth than the Apostles. They are both the highest possible authority. Paul refers to Peter as an Apostle, as @Derf showed, and Peter meanwhile refers to Paul's writings as Scriptures. You know the verse. 2nd Peter 3 "And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."
Thanks for the cryptic answer RD!
Okay, so first of all I want to say a very heart felt thank you for actually making a real argument! Imagine how much more interesting and engaging and edifying this website would be if everyone did what you've done here. Not that every single post someone makes has to be a fleshed out argument nor that simply stating your position isn't appropriate from time to time but when someone makes a naked claim, they should be willing to defend that claim with an actual argument as you've done here, especially when challenged to do so. So I say, bravo! If only it were contagious!
As for responding to what you've said, Right Divider pretty nearly posted my exact thoughts!
No one denies that Peter was an apostle. Indeed, Peter was the leading apostle for Israel and their Kingdom gospel, which Jesus and the Twelve preached. But Paul didn't say anything about Peter laying a foundation in the passages you cite, nor was Paul's point to elevate himself in the mind's of his audience to the level of Peter. On the contrary, if you read the rest of I Corinthians, Paul's point was to say that no one has any right to look down their noses at anyone else because we're all Christ's and whatever it is we've got in terms of salvation, wisdom, ministry, etc. we received from Christ and so don't go putting people (especially yourselves (see I Cor. 4)) on any pedestal other than Christ and Him crucified.
Also, you are effectively arguing that Peter and Paul had parallel ministries; that Paul was simply a thirteenth apostle and that the two of them were simply two guys that held the office of apostle and that the only substantive difference between them was that Paul was focused on the Gentiles.
There are several problems with this notion....
1: There wasn't any need for a thirteenth apostle because all of the Twelve had already been trained by Christ Himself (Acts 1:21) and given, not only the Great Commission but the Holy Spirit Himself (Acts 2:1-4).
2: Paul didn't not, at first, focus on Gentiles but instead went first to the Jews in whatever town he found himself and turned exclusively to the Gentiles later (Acts 13:46).
3: There is no record of any of the Twelve preaching Paul's gospel. On the contrary, Paul was told by God to go to the Twelve for the express purpose of explaining his gospel to them (Gal. 2:2) and Peter writes that some of Paul's teachings are "hard to understand" (II Peter 3:16).
4: No other Apostle claimed to have received their gospel by direct divine revelation (Gal. 1:12 & Eph. 3:3) nor did any other apostle refer to their message as "my gospel" as Paul did repeatedly nor did any of them exhort their audience to "imitate me" the way Paul did (I Cor. 4:16 & 11:1).
5: When we see the New Jerusalem coming out of Heaven, it does not have thirteen foundations, it has twelve, and on them are written the names of the TWELVE Apostles of the Lamb. (Rev. 21:14)
I'm sure I could come up with more but I trust the point is made. Whether Peter laid a foundation or not, it wasn't the foundation that Paul laid, as Paul himself states explicitly. (Romans 15:20)
Clete
Right Divider
Body part
There was nothing the slightest bit cryptic there.
You are more concerned about what men say about the Bible than what the Bible says about men. We simply go by the Bible and need no "creed".
Creeds are easy. Anyone can write one. They are meaningless.
Any other man, it makes no difference. Paul's ministry was unique and different than any other man.
That's not what Paul says in the Word of God.
1Cor 15:8 (AKJV/PCE)
(15:8) And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
Yes, but different apostles were given different missions and different instructions.
Peter and the twelve's authority was diminished when Israel rejected their Messiah and their kingdom. That is actually ONE of the reasons WHY Paul was called in the first place.
Remember that Peter disappears half way through the book of Acts. The book of Acts is the record of Israel's rejection of the Messiah and their kingdom.
Duh.
Indeed, and why did Peter call "some things" that Paul wrote as "hard to understand"?
(Clue: Because they were very different than what God gave to Peter and the twelve.)
It's only cryptic to someone like yourself.
There was nothing at all cryptic about what RD said.
As you have been told repeatedly, our authority is Scripture, not writings of men.
Your problem is with Scripture, not Dispensationalists.
What's too easy is if you actually were to steel man our arguments, instead of knocking down straw men.
Why does it have to be someone specific?
If you assert that it has to be someone specific, then please point out where in Romans 15 Paul is talking about this specific person. Explain your reasoning.
Nope.
And even if John were the last person to have ever seen Jesus (in Revelation), there are a few problems that must be addressed before moving onto anything else:
1) When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 15:8, had John written Revelation yet? or was it still yet to be written?
- If the former, your timeline is incorrect, and you need to re-examine your beliefs, since Paul died LONG before John was even exiled to Patmos, AFTER which is when John wrote Revelation.
- If the latter, then what Paul said was true anyways, since John hadn't yet seen Christ. And that huge gap between when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 15:8 and when John wrote Revelation only serves as further evidence against there being any other man who had received information directly from Christ. In other words, the Twelve received their Revelation from Christ for three years, followed by a 40-day training period, then the Great Commission, at which point Christ ascended. Then Paul encountered and received his revelation from Christ approximately one year later on the road to Damascus, and between that point and at least 1 Corinthians 15:8, there were no further appearances of Christ to anyone.
2) Did John the Apostle break the promise he made with Paul, described in Galatians 2:7-9?
Not in dispute.
That "hard to understand" should be a warning flag to you that something is up, however, that not everything Paul taught was in line with what Peter and the others taught.
Cryptic: having a meaning that is mysterious or obscure.
Derf
Well-known member
I appreciate that, Clete.
Agree wholeheartedly!
He did, just not as clearly as you are asking for (the old "the word 'trinity' isn't in the bible, so it isn't true" argument)
Whether that was his purpose or not is borne out in other scriptures.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not true, because they WEREN'T following the great commission very well.
Yep...parallel, but to Gentiles.
Meaning Peter was agreeing with Paul's gospel, I.e., he was "preaching" it through his letters.
Good thing, since Peter was not following it when Jews came around.
I don't have time right now to respond with scripture to each point you've made, though maybe you can discern some I'm thinking of, but I regarding your conclusion: I agree that Paul was laying a different foundation from Peter's--Paul makes that clear. But the difference was in location, not gospel. Paul was not trying to pay a foundation of the gospel of Christ in Jerusalem where the other apostles were, but in Gentile cities where they weren't.
Thanks for a good post, Clete.
Right Divider
Body part
Everyone seems to find it so easy to criticize the twelve apostles.
The fact of the matter is that they were following the so-called "great commission" to the T.
The so-called "great commission" is documented in many places, including this one:
Luke 24:47 (AKJV/PCE)
(24:47) And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
They began in Jerusalem (just as they were told to do), but Jerusalem would not budge from their unbelief and rejection of their Messiah and their kingdom.
Remember that Jesus said that He "sent them" (the twelve) "as His father had sent Him".
John 20:21 (AKJV/PCE)
(20:21) Then said Jesus to them again, Peace [be] unto you: as [my] Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
And HOW did His father send Him? Like this:
Matt 15:24 (AKJV/PCE)
(15:24) But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Nope.
Peter never preached Paul's gospel. If you think so, please QUOTE him doing so.
That's my line!
The fact is that they had been doing so but then stopped following it at all, and intentionally so, in response to Paul's divinely directed trip to Jerusalem to explain "his gospel" to them. (Gal. 2:6-9)
Unresponsive.
The sentence this was in response to was that he did NOT go to the Gentiles at first but to the Jews, which, if your doctrine is correct, was Peter's (and the rest of the Twelve) job per the Great Commission.
No! If that were the case then there wouldn't have been any need for him to go and explain it to them. Nor would there have been any need for his apostolic ministry.
Unresponsive.
If that were so, there wouldn't have been any need for Paul in the first place as my first point established. The Twelve were devout to the point of death (exile in the case of John) and had not only been directly trained by Christ but had been given the authority to preach outside of Israel per the Great Commission and had been given the Holy Spirit so as to not have to worry about knowing just what to say or how to say it nor any other consideration related to their competency for the job.
In short, there was no need for Paul at all - if your doctrine is correct.
In effect, the existence of Paul's apostolic position and ministry proves your doctrine false - by itself.
I keep telling everyone that all I want from people is just a hint of actual substance but its as if they don't believe me.
Clete