Posted on 01/09/2012 10:38:02 PM PST by rzman21
Here are the rules as posted (my copy and paste) on the Religion Moderator's profile page.
Ecumenic[al] threads.
What can be posted? Articles that are reasonably not antagonistic. Reply posts must never be antagonistic.
What will be pulled? Antagonistic reply posts. If the article is inappropriate for an ecumenic discussion, the tag will be changed to open.
Who will be booted? Antagonists
It’s interesting to note that the “gods of that amorites” were the same gods of the Babylon which included Baal with the same symbols and images that the CC uses which are the sunburst, the “wagon wheel” design” etc.
She gave flesh to Jesus The Word. And The Word became flesh. And The Word was with God from the beginning - so she didn’t give birth to God. And name Him, Jesus, is who she birth.
Who could take credit for giving LIFE to our born again spirit?
LOL, Christians know you serve the Lord by living the Faith believed by Christians universally for 2,000 years.
Christians know the Church is the Body of Christ on earth.
why do unbelievers always try to seperate Christ from His Body, as if you can have one without the other?
What post of metmom’s are you referring to as being antagonistic? I tried to follow your post - did someone ask for these rules? Your post isn’t clear enough so we can stay on target. Is it referring to those two deleted posts?
I’d like to see what is considered an antagonistic post - according to RF, not by you.
Thanks.
Pardon my simplicity here, but if Mary was the Mother of God, wouldn’t that mean that Mary had actually generated a member of the Trinity? And that He was a created being?
>>No. She birthed Jesus’s humanity, which was inseparable from his divinity. He had a human soul that was united indivisibly, without alteration, co-mixture, or division.
The dogma of Mary as Theotokos affirms that she gave birth to God the Son and that he was full God and full Man from the moment of his conception by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Why this is so hard for you to accept baffles me.
I learned this dogma when I was a Lutheran. Every one of the first generation Protestant Reformers believed in this teaching.
John Calvin’s arguments about Mary’s role are indistinguishable from those employed by St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Council of Ephesus against Nestorius.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom31.ix.viii.html#ix.viii-p22
The Lutheran Book of Concord says:
For how could the man, the son of Mary, in truth be called or be God, or the Son of God the Most High, if His humanity were not personally united with the Son of God, and He thus had realiter, that is, in deed and truth, nothing in common with Him except only the name of God?
12] 7. Hence we believe, teach, and confess that Mary conceived and bore not a mere man and no more, but the true Son of God; therefore she also is rightly called and truly is the mother of God.
http://bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php
And the decree of the Council of Chalcedon, as cited by Evagrius, lib. 2, cap 4, reads thus: “Following, then, the holy fathers, we confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and we all set forth with one voice that the same is perfect in deity and the same perfect in humanity; that the same is truly God and truly man, consisting of a rational soul and a body; that He is consubstantial with the Father as regards the deity, and that the same is consubstantial with us according to the humanity; that He is in all respects like us, excepting sin; that He was begotten before the world out of the Father according to the deity, but that the same person was in the last days born for us and for our salvation of Mary, the virgin and mother of God, according to the humanity; that one and the same Jesus Christ,
http://bookofconcord.org/testimonies.php
Martin Luther
11. At last they so exalted the indulgence as to teach that if one had even committed a sin of lust with the Mother of God, it would be forgiven him through the indulgence.
http://bookofconcord.org/exhortation.php
The Reformed Tetrapolitan Confession of 1530 refers to Mary as the “Mother of God”.
http://bit.ly/y78Ge6
And John Calvin reproves a Calvinist Church in England for refusing to call Mary “Mother of God” as “ignorance.” Found on page 346 in the following link.
http://bit.ly/yFVhuc
you want antagonistic?
see post #42
Once you throw out the Church and Tradition, it becomes an anything goes free-for-all.
Where does scripture condemn Arianism, Macedonianism, Applinarianism, Semi-Arianism, or pretty much any other Christological or Trinitarian heresy in the book?
If the judgment of scripture alone matters and that of the Church or the Church Fathers is irrelevant, than what authority do you have to condemn the Jehovah’s Witnesses or any other group for that matter for how they read the Bible?
It seems to me to come down to a matter of taste otherwise.
“Where does scripture condemn Arianism, Macedonianism, Applinarianism, Semi-Arianism, or pretty much any other Christological or Trinitarian heresy in the book?”
If it isn’t revealed by God, then the majority vote of philosophers won’t prove it.
“If the judgment of scripture alone matters and that of the Church or the Church Fathers is irrelevant, than what authority do you have to condemn the Jehovah’s Witnesses or any other group for that matter for how they read the Bible?”
By showing their beliefs conflict with scripture. For example, the Mormons believe there are thousands of Gods, and that Jesus and Satan are brothers, and that God the Father had sex with Mary. Do you suggest we need a church council’s vote to refute that?
Comment #42 Removed by Moderator
Which proves what?
Apart from Tradition, the Bible’s meaning falls into a matter of private taste.
Whether you want to admit it or not, the way your religion interprets the Bible is a matter of tradition.
Just take the difference between your views on Mary as Mother of God and the Lutherans and early Reformed Protestants for example.
I’d say you are sort of begging the question when it comes to Mormonism.
Every heretical group since the beginnings of Christianity has claimed the benefit of scripture as being on their side.
“As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful, e.g. the annual commemoration, by special solemnities, of the Lord’s passion, resurrection, and ascension, and of the descent of the Holy Spirit from heaven, and whatever else is in like manner observed by the whole Church wherever it has been established.”
Augustine,To Januarius,Epistle 54:1(A.D. 400),in NPNF1,1:300
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/ecumen.htm
Whatever you learned in Sunday School and after is Tradition.
“While (the sects) mutually refute and condemn each other, it has happened to truth as to Gideon; that is, while they fight against each other, and fall under wounds mutually inflicted, they crown her. All the heretics acknowledge that there is a true Scripture. Had they all falsely believed that none existed, some one might reply that such Scripture was unknown to them. But now that have themselves taken away the force of such plea, from the fact that they have mutilated the very Scriptures. For they have corrupted the sacred copies; and words which ought to have but one interpretation, they have wrested to strange significations. Whilst, when one of them attempts this, and cuts off a member of his own body, the rest demand and claim back the severed limb....It is the church which perfect truth perfects. The church of believers is great, and its bosom most ample; it embraces the fulness (or, the whole) of the two Testaments.”
Ephraem,Adv. Haeres. (ante A.D. 373),in FOC,I:377-378
“For those are slothful who, having it in their power to provide themselves with proper proofs for the divine Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, select only what contributes to their own pleasures. And those have a craving for glory who voluntarily evade, by arguments of a diverse sort, the things delivered by the blessed apostles and teachers, which are wedded to inspired words; opposing the divine tradition by human teachings, in order to establish the heresy.”
Clement of Alexandria,Stromata,7:16 (post A.D. 202),in ANF,II:553-554
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/private.htm
It’s gone. What’s the problem here - I want to know what is considered antagonistic on an ecumenical thread.
And not by you - by someone who is unbiased.
It seems that even John Calvin regarded Nestorius as a heretic in his Institutes on the Christian Religion.
http://bit.ly/ymaMsn
I just realized that was my post.
It was to mm and smvoice on my opinion regarding the topic of the thread.
OLOF, you say that’s antagonistic? Did you read it and then hit the abuse button on my post?
This seems more like persecution on Christians by catholics. Unless it’s established what is considered antagonistic - that is exactly what is happening here.
On Religion Forum threads labeled “ecumenical” antagonism is not tolerable. Antagonistic posts provoke hostility in the reader.
This seems more like persecution on Christians by catholics. Unless it’s established what is considered antagonistic - that is exactly what is happening here.
>>Flaming. That’s what’s not allowed here.
I’m Trying to get a better grip on this.
I’d like to know what was antagonistic in my post 42 that was deleted. It was strictly the Word.
Thanks.
Nah, now iscool in post 10 talked about what he believes in. I respect his right to an opinion on that and if you notice will not “attack” or debate him as he did not pose a question but make a simple statement of what he believed in — I respect a person if he will share that, it opens up to discussion if the poster wants, or it can be taken as a plain statement as in this case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.