Skip to comments.The Worship of Mary? (An Observation)
Posted on 05/30/2008 10:21:34 AM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
click here to read article
Also, kindly note that I am NOT referring to the people that publish the Weekly Reader which we used to get when I was in elementary school (shortly after the discovery of fire) and which now, I read to my distress, is publishing novellas for 'tweens' that feature parents shacking up and so forth.
If this isn't the end times, I want my money back.
**screws in stink-eye* *looks suspiciously* Yer accent is weird... are y'all a citified yankee actin' redneck, or didja lose part of yer tongue to too much tobacca?
[...] Hahperstadick," and then spit [...]
*smiles knowingly* Whoops! Nevermind... I see... *nods approvingly*
Almost guilty. Raised in NY (but country, NY, not city -- always hated the city) but did total immersion for 4 years in Mississippi and then tore up thousand dollar bills farming in central Virginia for 20 years.
or didja lose part of yer tongue to too much tobacca?
Not yet. Talkin' 'round the chaw gets a mite tricky sometimes, though, especially when the subject is Aristotle or Heidegger. Yew try sayin' "anundfursichkeit," without swallerin' yer plug.
But it IS of whole cloth. There is very little evidence asserting a co-equal trinity, and there is MUCH evidence available to dissenters...
(NOTHING makes life more delightful than the cat puking on the rug when one is trying to condense the history of Trinitarian thought up to Nicea into a paragraph, believe me ...)
Try this: Leap up, run around the room at least twice (to get breathless), throwing your arms up over your head in panic as you flee the room, while shouting the magic word, followed by the problem: WIFE!! CAT PUKE!!!
When you return, the cat-puke fairy will have come and removed all traces... It's almost miraculous...
Sometimes, if your quick enough (like when the cat first starts it's huck-motor), the entire cat may be mysteriously removed without having puked at all! Never fear, though... The cat is not gone for good... it will reappear sometime later, being in perfect health.
You will have to take your actual wife out to dinner, or something, for using her title to invoke the cat-puke fairy - it is an unfortunate coincidence that the magic word just happens to be "WIFE," which invariably causes the actual wife to become inordinately angry for some reason (mine seems to guard that title vociferously)... thus some pittance must be paid to placate her... But in the end, it is well worth it.
I think the 'teachers' (whoever they were) of the early Church were struggling to hold in their minds the ringing declaration of the Shema AND, for just one example, Thomas's "Ο κυριος μου και ο θεος μου."
Thanks for putting quotes around those scribbely marks. It made it SO much easier when feeding them into my search engine to decode their meaning...
Just because opposing statements exist, one need not make something up to explain the opposing parts - Evidence is required. As far as the evidence is presented is likely as far as one should go... To do otherwise is to invite blasphemy.
Was Thomas blaspheming? Was he wrong? Was Jesus NOT God or was he a demigod, a created being? Or when he said, "I and the father are one," how should that be taken, especially in the context of, say, John,5:19 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise...."
The fact of the matter is this: WE DON'T KNOW. We have no idea wrt the mechanics involved within the Godhead... So we shouldn't define try to them. The lion's share of those who follow the Nazarene, from Messianic Judaism all the way through Protestants and Rome/Orthodox, do not deny the divinity of the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost, which we DO have proof for. What IS divisive is the manner in which that divinity is ordered.
Those who would prefer an hierarchical order within the Godhead - a position which seems much easier to prove by the Book - are ostracized and removed from within the general Christian sphere, even though their position is opinioned upon evidences equally as strong (if not more so) as the trinitarian view. What hubris allows no dissent?
And others (like myself), who believe the Torah to be irrevocable, and that it must be reconciled within the proper view of the New Covenant, are trying to return to the historical description of YHWH (because YHWH said, and Christ said...). Such as these are laughed out of the park, even thought they are relying upon the direct declaration of the Father. It_is_Impossible for the conclusion to be any other.
It occurs to me that "settled" doctrine should not be settled, unless the evidence is overwhelmingly direct. Sola-scriptura dictates such a position, as does common sense.
The Father set forth His "metaphors." He has declared the means and methods. Why must we forever try to color outside of those lines? One can say that the entirety of scripture points to Christ, but many seem to forget: Christ inerrantly points to the Father ALONE.
This describes the final solution to the problem... the very end game:
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
1Co 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
(Missed this part)
Indeed, that is a question of great merit... But in admitting a "place" for human reason, prudence requires an unflinching look at the errata: Evolution, Globull Warming, The European Crusades, Keynesian Econnomics, Communism, Pimento-filled olives, Brylcreme...
To wit: Small mistakes in reason can have disastrous results.
In the final agonies of preparing a “talk” I’m spoze to give tomorrow.
Appreciate advice on cat. Inexplicably, wife was not there to respond to my alert. Consarned feminisds.
When talk incapable of being made worse and I’m done laughing at these posts I’ll TRY to come up with something reasonable to say. No hope of that now.