Skip to comments.Mary: Mother of God?
Posted on 01/11/2012 7:34:56 PM PST by RnMomof7
Mary: Mother of God?
This article is prompted by an ad in the Parade Magazine titled: "Mary Mother of God: What All Mankind Should Know." The offer was made for a free pamphlet entitled "Mary Mother of Jesus" with this explanation: "A clear, insightful pamphlet explains the importance of Mary and her role as Mother of God."
This is quite a claim, to say the least! Nowhere in the Bible is Mary said to be the mother of God. I touched on this subject in a series on "Mary Co-Redeemer with Christ" printed recently.
Question: If Mary is the Mother of God, Who, may I ask, is the Father of God? Does God have a Father, and if He does, Who is His Mother?
The phrase "Mother of God" originated in the Council of Ephesus, in the year 431 AD. It occurs in the Creed of Chalcedon, which was adopted by the council in 451 AD. This was the declaration given at that time: "Born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to the Manhood." The purpose of this statement originally was meant to emphasize the deity of Christ over against the teaching of the Nestorians whose teaching involved a dual-natured Jesus. Their teaching was that the person born of Mary was only a man who was then indwelt by God. The title "Mother of God" was used originally to counter this false doctrine. The doctrine now emphasizes the person of Mary rather than the deity of Jesus as God incarnate. Mary certainly did not give birth to God. In fact, Mary did not give birth to the divinity of Christ. Mary only gave birth to the humanity of Jesus. The only thing Jesus got from Mary was a body. Every Human Being has received a sinful nature from their parents with one exception: Jesus was not human. He was divine God in a flesh body. This is what Mary gave birth to. Read Hebrews 10:5 and Phil 2:5-11.
Please refer to Hebrews 10:5 where we see. "...Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me."
The body of Jesus was prepared by God. In Matthew 1:18, "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."
The divine nature of Jesus existed from before eternity, and this cannot be said of Mary Jesus never called her "mother". He called her "woman".
This doctrine deifies Mary and humanizes Jesus. Mary is presented as stronger that Christ, more mature and more powerful that Christ. Listen to this statement by Rome: "He came to us through Mary, and we must go to Him through her." The Bible plainly states that God is the Creator of all things. It is a blasphemous attack on the eternity of God to ever teach that He has a mother. Mary had other children who were normal, physical, sinful human beings. In the case of Jesus Christ, "His human nature had no father and His divine nature had no mother."
It is probably no coincidence that this false doctrine surrounding Mary was born in Ephesus. Please read Acts 19:11-41 and see that Ephesus had a problem with goddess worship. Her name was Diana, Gk. Artemis. You will not have to study very deep to find the similarities between the goddess Diana and the Roman Catholic goddess, Mary. It should be noted that the Mary of the 1st century and the Mary of the 20th century are not the same. Mary of the 1st century was the virgin who gave birth to the Messiah. Mary of the 20th century is a goddess created by the Roman Catholic Church. A simple comparison of what the Bible teaches about Mary and what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about her will reveal two different Marys. Mary is not the "Mother of God." If she were she would be GOD! There is only one true, eternal God. He was not born of a woman. Any teaching on any subject should be backed up by the word of God. If it cannot be supported by Scriptures, it is false doctrine.
Not understanding what replacement theology is no excuse for denying it.
“You dont take the CCC seriously?”
Of course I do, it is your many odd and goofy opinions about the teaching of the4 Church that I find laughable. BTW I note en passant that you do not mind grabbing passages of the CCC when you think (in error) that they prove your thesis, and yet when they are clear proof your rambling opinions about the Catholic belief is flat out wrong, you decline to look. Odd how that spiritual blindness thing works, eh?
“Your religion most certainly does...”
Oh look, another “church of one whose opinion matters (only to that one)” opines on what we Catholics believe!
Leaving the kindergarten picture stories behind might increase credibility.
ROTFLMAO, you want to talk about “credibility”? Oy, mine twoimy hoits.
Look ursine, you lost all credibility as you opined that church on Sunday is a man made tradition, that Christmas and Easter celebrations are pagan and that the Catholic Church teaches idolatry - so if you don’t like my graphics, too bad.
LOL, why? I recall clearly offering you a link to the Catechism and having you scoff at the notion. If you cannot recall that, well, so much for your memory.
Paul tells us we are in the age of grace and explained the mystery of the church. Now is the time to accept the free gift. We who are watching have an intimate relationship with The Lord Jesus Christ. We have left the world system behind.
What do you have if you remove Paul’s writings from the Bible. Does not Israel take center stage? This age of grace is about to end at any minute with the rapture of the church. God’s program will next focus on Israel, the 7 year tribulation.
“No disrespect, but...”
When ever i hear someone like you say “No disrespect, but...”
I know the very next words are going to be disrespectful.
You are the poster child for the bad catechesis of the typical Catholic education.
Recall the line quoting Mary where she says: “For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.” She should have said all generations except of course for Extreme Unction’s generation.
bad, bad catechesis.
There was no such thing in Judaism as "temple virgins", in fact, that was something the pagan religions did. Secondly, Mary was "betrothed" to Joseph. The custom was:
The first major step in a Jewish marriage was betrothal.1 Betrothal involved the establishment of a marriage covenant. By Jesus' time it was usual for such a covenant to be established as the result of the prospective bridegroom taking the initiative.2 The prospective bridegroom would travel from his father's house to the home of the prospective bride. There he would negotiate with the father of the young woman to determine the price (mohar) that he must pay to purchase his bride.3 Once the bridegroom paid the purchase price, the marriage covenant was thereby established, and the young man and woman were regarded to be husband and wife.4 From that moment on the bride was declared to be consecrated or sanctified, set apart exclusively for her bridegroom.5 As a symbol of the covenant relationship that had been established, the groom and bride would drink from a cup of wine over which a betrothal benediction had been pronounced.6
After the marriage covenant had been established, the groom would leave the home of the bride and return to his father's house. There he would remain separate from his bride for a period of twelve months.7 This period of separation afforded the bride time to gather her trousseau and to prepare for married life.8 The groom occupied himself with the preparation of living accommodations in his father's house to which he could bring his bride. (http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/jewish_marriage_customs.htm
But this, dear Stonehouse, does not answer my question concerning Mary's presumed "sinlessness" from birth and the question of her "free will" choice to bear the Messiah. Your comment stated if Mary had said no we would not have a Savior. I hope you can see that God's will is done and, though we not understand it all, it includes the freedom we have to accept or reject the grace of God.
Gods Grace is retroactive - Gods time is mystical and not linear as ours is. Remember that Abraham, Moses, Noah, etc., were saved after their deaths.
Of course, God's grace covers all sin - both before the time of Jesus here on earth as well as yet to come. That is why we can say with assurance that by the grace of God we are redeemed from the curse of sin. Jesus' blood paid for all sin and, when we through faith receive him as Savior, our sins will not be counted against us. He has washed us as white as snow. "And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more."(Hebrews 10:17) I am not sure what you mean by "Abraham, Moses, Noah, etc., were saved after their deaths". They certainly went to a place called Paradise AKA Abraham's Bosom before Jesus' resurrection when he "lead captivity captive" into Heaven. Is that what you meant?
Just as the Old Testament is full of foreshadows of the New Testament (typology), Catholics believe the Bible is clear that the New Jerusalem of the Book of Revelation is not the historic city of Jerusalem. We do not believe that present day Israel is the same spiritual entity as the historic Israel before the time of Christ. After the crucifixion, the curtain of the Jewish sanctuary was torn in two (Mk 15:37-39, Lk 23:44-46, Mt 27:51) which was God tearing his cloths. At that point, a transfer of authority happened and we believe that the fledgling Church became the New Israel. [http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/why_did_the_catholic_church_move_to_rome_from_jerusalem.htm]
What church do you go to? Does it have a Web page?
The Catholic Church says, Mary is a creature like us & she is NOT Divine.
My Church warns against wolves in sheep’s clothing. What Church do you go to? I’d like to read what your church has to say about the Virgin Mary. What is your church’s name & what is the Web site?
Luke 11:27-28 27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. 28 But he said, Nay rather, (Greek Menounge: nay surely, nay rather) blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
The words spoken to Mary were no different then were spoken to Jael in Judges. In fact, Jael was called blessed above women. Mary was called blessed among women.
Luke 1:28 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.
Judges 5:24 Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be,
Those words were also spoken of Noah, Moses, and David.
Yep. Your odd opinions. Once you started babbling about the pagan nature of common Christian celebrations like Easter, Christmas and Church on Sunday you reduced yourself to a laughingstock. That you find some splinter, some oddity that you grab and waive around, out of context and in obvious ignorance of anything resembling Christian scholarship entitles you to your own good opinion, nothing more. You are nothing more than a single and rather pathetic voice screaming about demons that only you can see. I will keep you in my prayers, but to take your opinions seriously? Nope, sorry, not gonna happen.
I am by no means a dispensationalist, but I will brook no disparagement of Paul. He is one of God’s greatest gifts to the world.
Its a shame you didnt even recognize the teaching of the church you claim.
Paul is how we know about the mystery of the church?
Amen! And, as long as we are open to the leading of the Holy Spirit, He will speak through us to reach hearts for Christ. The disciples certainly faced much worse than verbal smears and insults. Their very lives were at stake. What we experience here is hardly comparable but we should always endeavour to “speak the truth in love”. God always honors His word and Jesus said, “if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.” John 12:26
My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.
Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.
(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)
When Peter stood up on the day of Pentecost and declared that the last days had come (Acts 2:16,17), he showed clearly that he was totally ignorant of God's plan to usher in a dispensation of grace before the return of Christ.
His ignorance of this was in no way due to some human failing in Peter himself, for the on the day of Pentecost the followers of Christ "were all filled with the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:4.
Moreover, what Peter said was SCRIPTURALLY correct, In the light of all that had so far been revealed, these WERE the last days. The prophets had said nothing about the dispensation of grace OR the body of Christ. There had yet been NO HINT of any interruption of the prophetic program.
In Joel's prophecy concerning the last days, Pentecost is followed by the great tribulation and the return of Christ. Indeed, the prophets had "testified beforehand" only "the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow" (1 Pet. 1:11). Now that the sufferings were over, it seemed as though the glory would soon follow, for no one could deny that the signs of "the day of the Lord" had begun to appear.
So Peter was NOT ignorant of the revealed program of God concerning the day in which he lived. Taught by the Lord (Acts 1:3) and filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4), he had an intelligent understanding of just where he stood in the divine plan. Hence the dynamic POWER of his message.
The apostles had expected the Holy Spirit to be "poured out" before the great tribulation and the return of Christ, and our Lord had promised them in commissioning them that they would then be supernaturally empowered to speak with other tongues (Mark 16:17). Thus when the Spirit came and they began to speak in other languages Peter knew EXACTLY what was happening and, pointing to Joel's prophecy, said WITHOUT QUALIFICATION: "THIS IS THAT."
"These are not drunken, as ye suppose...BUt THIS IS THAT which was spoken by the prophet Joel: And it shall come to pass in THE LAST DAYS, saith God, I will pour out of My Spirit..and..show wonders..and signs..before that great and notable day of the Lord come" (Acts 2:15-20).
As far as God's REVEALED prophetic plan was concerned, the last days- the days so long foretold HAD begun. Israel's long-promised Messiah had appeared, had died and risen again, had ascended to the Father's right hand and had sent the Holy Spirit to guide and empower His own. The next number on the prophectic program was the tribulation period with the judgment of the nations and Messiah's return, and the signs of these things were already beginning to appear. Peter saw the prophetic program for the nation Israel exactly as prophesied for so long: Pentecost, then the tribulation. Just as Peter declared on that day. -C.R.Stam, Things That Differ. "The Last Days" pp. 100-101.
But the tribulation did NOT happen as was prophesized. A mystery, hid in GOd, from the foundation of the world, was revealed to the Apostle Paul that put the tribulation on hold. ANd everything changed at that time. When it has run its course in God's Plan, the tribulation will begin and the remaining prophetic program will be fulfilled.
I didn’t think catholics believed in replacement theology???? Looks like they do....what’s the vatican saying about this?
I dont think it gets in their Catechism if they dont ok it do they?
CCC 877 Likewise, it belongs to the sacramental nature of ecclesial ministry that it have a collegial character. In fact, from the beginning of his ministry, the Lord Jesus instituted the Twelve as "the seeds of the new Israel and the beginning of the sacred hierarchy." Chosen together, they were also sent out together, and their fraternal unity would be at the service of the fraternal communion of all the faithful: they would reflect and witness to the communion of the divine persons. For this reason every bishop exercises his ministry from within the episcopal college, in communion with the bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter and head of the college. So also priests exercise their ministry from within the presbyterium of the diocese, under the direction of their bishop. [http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/877.htm]
I can think of one He should call obfuscator. Was Peter named Rock by Jesus?
You don’t have to be brilliant...etc.
Not keeping up with the thread? Jesus called him Peter then during the same exchange called him Satan.
No, you don't. But it sure would help.
I’d say the following article is your modus operendi across threads, “arguing from ignorance.”
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or “appeal to ignorance” (where “ignorance” stands for: “lack of evidence to the contrary”), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is “generally accepted” (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
Argument from ignorance may be used as a rationalization by a person who realizes that he has no reason for holding the belief that he does.
The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell’s teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism, wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument’s proponent.
1.1 Basic argument
1.2 Matters of confusion
2 Related terms
2.1 Contraposition and Transposition
2.2 Absence of evidence
2.3 Evidence of absence
2.4 Negative evidence
2.5 Null result
3 Related arguments
3.1 Argument from incredulity/Lack of imagination
3.2 Argument from self-knowing (auto-epistemic)
4 Distinguishing absence of evidence from evidence of absence
4.1 Formal argument
5.1 Absence of evidence
5.2 Negative results
5.3 Evidence of absence
5.4 Arguments from ignorance
5.5 In the field of science
5.6 Principles in law
6 Origin of the term
8 See also
10 External links
Arguments that appeal to ignorance rely merely on the fact that the veracity of the proposition is not disproven to arrive at a definite conclusion. These arguments fail to appreciate that the limits of one’s understanding or certainty do not change what is true. They do not inform upon reality. That is, whatever the reality is, it does not wait upon human logic or analysis to be formulated. Reality exists at all times, and it exists independently of what is in the mind of anyone. And the true thrust of science and rational analysis is to separate preconceived notion(s) of what reality is, and to be open at all times to the observation of nature as it behaves, so as truly to discover reality. This fallacy can be very convincing and is considered by some to be a special case of a false dilemma or false dichotomy in that they both fail to consider alternatives. A false dilemma may take the form:
If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.
If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.
Such arguments attempt to exploit the facts that (a) true things can never be disproven and (b) false things can never be proven. In other words, appeals to ignorance claim that the converse of these facts are also true (therein lies the fallacy).
To reiterate, these arguments ignore the fact, and difficulty, that some true things may never be proven, and some false things may never be disproved with absolute certainty. The phrase “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” can be used as a shorthand rebuttal to the second form of the ignorance fallacy (i.e. P has never been absolutely proven and is therefore certainly false.). Most often it is directed at any conclusion derived from null results in an experiment or from the non-detection of something. In other words, where one researcher may say their experiment suggests evidence of absence, another researcher might argue that the experiment failed to detect a phenomenon for other reasons.
Matters of confusion
See also: Evidence of absence
Much confusion about ‘arguments from ignorance’ can be caused when one side of a debate forgets that we often possess evidence of absence in practice.
The ignorance fallacy is sometimes confused (or combined) with logically valid contrapositive arguments. Contrapositive arguments rightly utilize the transposition rule of inference in classical logic to conclude something like: To the extent that C implies E then Not-E must also imply Not-C. In other words, if a cause always leads to an effect, then absence of the expected effect is evidence of absence of the cause. For example, if the causal proposition that If it’s raining outside then the streets will be wet is assumed, then it can be assumed that if the streets are not wet then it is not raining outside. The inference that it cannot be raining outside because the streets are not getting wet is exactly as true, or perhaps exactly as untrue, as the original proposition. The statements are logically equivalent.
Carl Sagan beside a Viking model
As Carl Sagan explains:
“Appeal to ignorance the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., there is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: there may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we’re still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”-The Demon-Haunted World: (Chapter 12 The Fine Art of Baloney Detection.)
For instance, absence of evidence that it rained (i.e. water is the evidence) may be considered as positive evidence that it did not rain. Again, in science, such inferences are always made to some limited (sometimes extremely high) degree of probability.
Arguments from ignorance can easily find their way into debates over the Existence of God. It is a fallacy to draw conclusions based precisely on ignorance, since this does not satisfactorily address issues of philosophic burden of proof. Russell’s teapot provides an example of why agnosticism is not necessarily an appropriate response to lack of evidence.
Contraposition and Transposition
Contraposition is a logically valid rule of inference that allows the creation of a new proposition from the negation and reordering of an existing one. The method applies to any proposition of the type If A then B and says that negating all the variables and switching them back to front leads to a new proposition i.e. If Not-B then Not-A that is just as true as the original one and that the first implies the second and the second implies the first.
Transposition is exactly the same thing described in a different language.
Absence of evidence
Absence of evidence is the absence, or lack of, any kind of evidence that may show, indicate, suggest, or be used to infer or deduce a fact.
Evidence of absence
Main article: Evidence of absence
Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that can be used to infer or deduce the non-existence or non-presence of something. For instance, if a doctor does not find any malignant cells in a patient this null result (finding nothing) is evidence of absence of cancer, even though the doctor has not actually detected anything per se. Such inductive reasoning is important to empiricism and science, but has well established limitations. The challenge thus becomes to try to identify when a researcher has received a null result (found nothing) because the thing does not exist (evidence of absence), and when one simply lacks proper means of detection (absence of evidence).
Negative evidence is sometimes used as an alternative to absence of evidence and is often meant to be synonymous with it. On the other hand, the term may also refer to evidence with a negative value, or null result equivalent to evidence of absence. It may even refer to positive evidence about something of an unpleasant nature.
Null result is a term often used in the field of science to indicate absence of evidence. A search for water on the ground may yield a null result (the ground is dry); therefore, it probably did not rain.
Argument from incredulity/Lack of imagination
Arguments from incredulity take the form:
P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
It is obvious that P is true (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false); therefore P must be true.
These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.
Argument from self-knowing (auto-epistemic)
Arguments from self-knowing take the form:
If P were true then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true.
If P were false then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be false.
In practice these arguments are often fallacious and rely on the veracity of the supporting premise. For example the argument that If I had just sat on a wild porcupine then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore I did not just sit on a wild porcupine is probably not a fallacy and depends entirely on the veracity of the leading proposition that supports it. (See Contraposition and Transposition in the Related terms section in this article.)
Distinguishing absence of evidence from evidence of absence
Absence of Evidence is a condition in which no valid conclusion can be inferred from the mere absence of detection, normally due to doubt in the detection method. Evidence of absence is the successful variation: a conclusion that relies on specific knowledge in conjunction with negative detection to deduce the absence of something. An example of evidence of absence is checking your pockets for spare change and finding nothing but being confident that the search would have found it if it was there.
By determining that a given experiment or method of detection is sensitive and reliable enough to detect the presence of X (when X is present) one can confidently exclude the possibility that X may be both undetected and present. This allows one to deduce that X cannot be present if a null result is received.
Thus there are only two possibilities, given a null result:
Nothing detected, and X is not present.
Nothing detected, but X is present (Option eliminated by careful research design).
To the extent that option 2 can be eliminated, one can deduce that if X is not detected then X is not present and therefore the null result is evidence of absence.
Absence of evidence
(These examples contain or represent missing information.)
Statements that begin with “I can’t prove it but ” are often referring to some kind absence of evidence.
“There is no evidence of foul play here” is a direct reference to the absence of evidence.
When the doctor says that the test results were negative, it is usually good news.
Under “Termites” the inspector checked the box that read “no”.
The results of MichelsonMorley’s experiment reported no shift at all in the interference pattern.
Evidence of absence
(These examples contain definite evidence that can be used to show, indicate, suggest, infer or deduce the non-existence or non-presence of something.)
A biopsy shows the absence of malignant cells.
The null result found by MichelsonMorley’s famous experiment represents “strong evidence” that the luminiferous aether was not present.
One very carefully inspects the back seat of one’s car and finds no tigers.
The train schedule does not say that the train stops here at 3:00pm on a Sunday.
Arguments from ignorance
(Draws a conclusion based on lack of knowledge or evidence without accounting for all possibilities)
“I take the view that this lack (of enemy subversive activity in the west coast) is the most ominous sign in our whole situation. It convinces me more than perhaps any other factor that the sabotage we are to get, the Fifth Column activities are to get, are timed just like Pearl Harbor... I believe we are just being lulled into a false sense of security.” Then California’s Attorney General Earl Warren (before a congressional hearing in San Francisco on 21 February 1942)
In the field of science
One looks in the back seat of one’s car and finds no adult-sized kangaroos and then uses this negative/null adult-sized kangaroo detection results in conjunction with the previously determined fact (or just plain old proposition) that adult-sized kangaroos, if present, cannot evade such detection, to deduce a new fact that there are indeed no adult-sized kangaroos present in the back seat of said car.
Principles in law
The presumption of innocence, if present, effectively removes the possibility that the accused may be both guilty and unproven, from consideration in judgment, and as such the accused is considered as innocent unless proven guilty. (See decision table below)
Innocent and unproven. Judged as innocent.
Innocent and proven. Judged as guilty. (Jury is biased, misled, makes error; law is incorrect; false evidence fabricated etc.)
Guilty and unproven. Judged as innocent. (Presumption of innocence)
Guilty and proven. Judged as guilty. (Innocent unless/until proven guilty is a summary of this and easier to remember.)
Origin of the term
From “Fallacies: classical and contemporary readings By Hans V. Hansen, Robert C. Pinto”
“It is generally accepted that the philosopher John Locke introduced the term in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding:”
“Another way that Men ordinarily use to drive others, and force them to submit their Judgments. And receive the Opinion in debate, is to require the Adversary to admit what they alledge as a Proof, or assign a better. And this I call Argumentum ad Ignorantum” John Locke
Fallacies: classical and contemporary readings By Hans V. Hansen, Robert C. Pinto
Introduction to Logic by Irving Marmer Copi.
Essay Concerning Human Understanding Book IV John Locke
Argument from silence
Negation as failure
^ “Argumentum ad Ignorantiam”. Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic. Lander University. 2004. Retrieved 2009-04-29.
^ “Appeal to Ignorance (Shifting the Burden of Proof)”. Gracyk’s Explanations of basic fallacies
Copi, Irving M; Cohen, Carl (1998). Introduction to Logic (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. ISBN 9780132425872. OCLC 36060013.
Appeal to Authority Breakdown section on Appeal to Ignorance
Fallacy Files article on Appeal to Ignorance
Compare that to John 1:42: "Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A STONE."
Back to Matt. 16:18. "And upon this rock (Petra)..." An immovable stone.
So if Peter's name means in Greek a fragment of a rock, and in Aramaic a stone, then we can get a pretty good idea how big this rock/stone was. Pretty sure it wasn't "immovable". But Christ, the Rock IS immovable.
Mostly just your responses to my question, since I just got up and haven't had time to read everything. Was Peter named Rock by Jesus?
Surely you didnt think I would read past Id say did you?
a Syriac surname given by Christ to Simon (John 1:42), meaning "rock." The Greeks translated it by Petros, and the Latins by Petrus.
Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary
Képhas: "a rock," Cephas, a name given to the apostle Peter
Definition: Cephas (Aramaic for rock), the new name given to Simon Peter, the apostle.
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
of Aramaic origin
"a rock," Cephas, a name given to the apostle Peter
"Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A STONE."
The Greek in that verse says petros, which is correct since the name he is given is Rock, and the for the gender to agree with Peter's maleness it is Petros.
Short version. You can’t disprove a negative.
Facts don’t matter to these folks.
Actually didnt He call him Cephas then later in the conversation call him Satan?
So why do you keep trying?
Do you know anything about logical fallacies? Well, telling people to prove to you something that you have decided is wrong when you are closed to other possibilities is a logical fallacy.
Your post was to my asking for proof that the CC does not teach that they have replaced Israel. I posted from the CCC and other Catholic sources that indeed in their official teaching they do believe that the CC has replaced Israel. I was then told they do not so I asked for proof. The problem was going to be that in an attempt to prove me wrong would have required a disagreement by a Catholic with what the CC teaches. If you would have researched the background on that exchange you would have known that.
I know. It's pretty sad but funny at the same time when they do everything they can to avoid the truth.
While men can argue about the significance of the difference between the Greek (the language the Holy Spirit chose to express the New Testament revelation in) words Petros (Peter, or stone in Jn. 1:42) and petra (rock) in Mt. 16:18, and what the LORD might have said in Aramaic, it may be worth noting that the phrase this stone (touton lithosis), used to identify the cornerstone which is the foundation of the church, (Mt. 21:42) is only used of Christ as regarding a person. (Mt. 21:44)
Rome does not take a comprehensive dogmatic position on the end times beyond some basics, but here is some of what the Catechism teaches:
670 Since the Ascension Gods plan has entered into its fulfillment. We are already at the last hour.554 Already the final age of the world is with us, and the renewal of the world is irrevocably under way; it is even now anticipated in a certain real way, for the Church on earth is endowed already with a sanctity that is real but imperfect.555 Christs kingdom already manifests its presence through the miraculous signs that attend its proclamation by the Church.556
673 Since the Ascension Christs coming in glory has been imminent,566 even though it is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority.567. This eschatological coming could be accomplished at any moment, even if both it and the final trial that will precede it are delayed.568
674 The glorious Messiahs coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by all Israel, for a hardening has come upon part of Israel in their unbelief toward Jesus.
The full inclusion of the Jews in the Messiahs salvation, in the wake of the full number of the Gentiles,572 will enable the People of God to achieve the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, in which God may be all in all.573
675 Before Christs second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.574 The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth575 will unveil the mystery of iniquity in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.576
676 The Antichrists deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,577 especially the intrinsically perverse political form of a secular messianism.578 [fill in blank]
677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection.579 The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by Gods victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven.580 Gods triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.581 http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c2a7.htm#673
988 The Christian Creed - the profession of our faith in God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and in Gods creative, saving, and sanctifying action - culminates in the proclamation of the resurrection of the dead on the last day and in life everlasting.
989 We firmly believe, and hence we hope that, just as Christ is truly risen from the dead and lives for ever, so after death the righteous will live for ever with the risen Christ and he will raise them up on the last day.534 Our resurrection, like his own, will be the work of the Most Holy Trinity:
1001 When? Definitively at the last day, at the end of the world.557 Indeed, the resurrection of the dead is closely associated with Christs Parousia:
For the Lord himself will descend from heaven, with a cry of command, with the archangels call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.558
1053 We believe that the multitude of those gathered around Jesus and Mary in Paradise forms the Church of heaven, where in eternal blessedness they see God as he is and where they are also, to various degrees, associated with the holy angels in the divine governance exercised by Christ in glory, by interceding for us and helping our weakness by their fraternal concern (Paul VI, CPG § 29). http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm#V
► The Catholic bishop Arnulf of Orleans was the first to apply the 'man of sin' prophecy in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-9 to the papacy. The same interpretation was given by the Catholic abbot Joachim of Floris in 1190 and the archbishop Eberhard II in 1240. EB Elliott, 'Horae Apocalypticae', volume IV, Appendix I, fifth edition, 1862; Leroy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, volume I (1950) pages 541-542
*Some Traditional Catholics believe that a pope was anti-Christ:
Fr. Herman Kramer was a Catholic priest who spent 30 years studying and writing a book on the Apocalypse. In his book, he wrote the following about St. Pauls prophecy concerning the Antichrist sitting in the Temple of God.
St. Paul says that Antichrist sitteth in the temple of God This is not the ancient Temple of Jerusalem, nor a temple like it built by Antichrist, as some have thought, for then it would be his own temple this temple is shown to be a Catholic Church, possibly one of the churches in Jerusalem or St. Peters in Rome, which is the largest church in the world and is in the full sense The Temple of God." (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/section1.pdf )
Our Lady of La Salette, Sept. 19, 1846: Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ the Church will be in eclipse.
►The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Antichrist indicates that St. Bernard believed that the Antichrist would be an antipope.
► According to the prophecy of St. Malachy, the last pope would be the glory of the olive, which is a phrase that has been associated with Pope Benedict XVI. http://papalprophecies.com/obama-pope-benedict-december-2012-the-anti-christ-the-last-pope.html
► Also, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1351430/posts:
"When the great ruler (the Great Monarch who is to rule Europe after the collapse of Communism) exterminates the Turks almost entirely, one of the remaining Mohammadans will be converted, become a priest bishop and cardinal, and when the new pope is elected (immediately before Antichrist) this cardinal will kill the pope before he is crowned, through jealousy, wishing to be pope himself; then when the other cardinals elect the next pope this cardinal will proclaim himself Anti-pope, and two-thirds of the Christians will go with him. He, as well as Anti-christ, are descendants of the tribe of Dan. - Yves Dupont (a staunch anti-communist, and a learned Catholic historian, September 1975 A.D.)
► Roman Catholic theologian Father Hubert J. Richards agrees that the Revelation 12 woman refers to Israel. His book, What The Spirit Says to the Churches: A Key to the Apocalypse of John, carries the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Church.13 Concerning the woman of Revelation 12, Father Richards writes:
The vision proper, then, begins with the figure of a Woman clothed with the sun and the stars. We think naturally enough of our Lady, to whom this description has traditionally been applied. After all, we say, of whom else could John be thinking when he speaks of the mother of the Messiah? However it is clear from the rest of the chapter that this interpretation will stand only if the verse is isolated: what follows has very little relevance to our Lady. Nor is it any honor to Mary to apply any and every text to her without thought....
Who then is she? The source to which John has turned for his imagery throughout this book is the Old Testament. There, the Woman, the bride of God who brings forth the Messiah, is Israel, the true Israel, the chosen people of God. It is quite certain that this is what is in John's mind when he begins his description with a quotation from Gen. 37:9-10, where the sun and moon and twelve stars represent the twelve-fold Israel.
This Woman will later be contrasted with the Harlot (the collective personality of Rome, opposed to the true Israel), and will be specified at the end of the book, again appearing in light and splendour for her marriage with the Lamb, as the twelve-gated Jerusalem which forms the new Israel. In fact the number twelve occurs so frequently in the Apocalypse in reference to Israel that it cannot have a different meaning here. All the early Fathers of the Church interpreted these verses as about the Israel of God.14 See http://www.eternal-productions.org/PDFS/Revelation12Woman.pdf
► Here are some of Catholic Ron Cotes (catholicplanet) predictions for 2010
May 13th - Pope John Paul II canonized; perhaps also Pope Pius XII will be canonized on the same day.
At some point after the Miracle, and probably before the end of 2010, Pope Benedict XVI dies.
The next Pope is the one St. Malachy called Peter the Roman. But he does NOT take the name Pope Peter II. I believe that this Pope will be Cardinal Arinze and that he will take the name Pope Pius XIII. He will die a martyr in late 2012 or early 2013.
World War III begins in 2010, and lasts throughout most of the 2010s.
I believe that this war begins with an attack on New York City; a nuclear bomb (not a missile; not a dirty bomb) sent by the Arab/Muslim nations of the Middle East and northern Africa. (http://www.catholicplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3822)
► Prophesy is not much my (daniel1212) focus, but I tend to see the Lord coming for his own toward the end of the Tribulation, the faithful having been protected during it, during which God shall reverse the curse of blindness, the fullness of the Gentiles having entered in, with Jews believing then witnessing and entering into the Millennial reign of Christ, and so all Israel - the natural branches now granted repentance, and the Israel of God - shall be saved. Israels repentance is what i see Rm. 11 teaching.
The resurrected saints (resurrection of life: Jn. 5:29; first resurrection: Rv. 20:5) come with the Lord in judgment at Armageddon, (Jude. 1:14,15) and reign with Christ for a 1,00 years before the final war, and then judge angels as well as men (resurrection of damnation: Jn. 5:29; Rv. 20:12) (http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/israel-chosenorforgotten.html )
Well of course. Someone needs to read up on the facts.
....Must be a bunch of Romney Mo mo’s who don’t even know where Jesus was born.....and to whom.....
15 He said to them, But who do you say that I am?
16 Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 Jesus answered and said to him, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
Notice Peter called Jesus the Christ, the Son of the living God, not God the Son. We have taken His title, The Christ, and made it His last name.
He told Peter it was not flesh and blood, man, but Jesus' Father in heaven who reveled that truth to Peter.
Man renamed Jesus, God the Son, 100s of years later by in a council with a majority vote. They called all who would not go along with them heretics and kicked them out of their church.
We wouldn't be having the conversation this post is based on if not for that vote. Mary would be the virgin mother of the Son of God as she is in scripture. That is all that is needed for Jesus to be born without a sin nature. When she became the mother of God, all the other attributes had to be placed on her you all think are fine and dandy. We wouldn't be to talking about her statues and people praying to her. How much simpler things would be. We all would spend our time loving our Father in heaven with all our hearts and soul and strength as Jesus taught instead of sharing His time with Mary and/or a saint or saints.
I only have one questions to the Catholics out there. Are you still going to claim Peter as your first Pope when he couldn't even get the trinity thingy right?
There were many post speaking to the nature of The Christ. To both Catholics and Christians I have this question;
"Do you think a righteous God could condemn His creation, Adam and us, if He couldn't prove Adam and us could live a sinless life?"
May God the Father lead us to His truth, BVB
Carl Sagan...Was he one of your popes???
This is exactly the tactic that your religion uses with scripture...No wonder you are so familiar with it...
Was the first pope Simon Peter or Simon Magus?
Thank You for providing the entrance in by an intimate personal relationship with The Lord Jesus Christ and acceptance of the free gift of grace.
TIME IS SHORT PEOPLE! THE AGE OF GRACE IS COMING TO A CLOSE! THE ARK DOORS ARE CLOSING! BECOME BROKEN IN SPIRIT AND ACCEPT THE GIFT! IF YOU RESIST THE GIFT GOD WILL GRANT YOUR WISH! THE USA DESTRUCTION MAY OCCUR RIGHT AFTER THE RAPTURE! THOSE THAT RESIST THE GIFT NOW MAY NOT HAVE AN OTHER CHANCE! ALL YOU DO IS LAY ASIDE YOUR PRIDE AND ASK THE LORD JESUS CHRIST FOR THE TRUTH! IF YOU KEEP YOUR PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS YOU WILL NOT FIND THE TRUTH!