Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:31 am**

This is a continuation of the thread about salvation assurance that got off topic.

That site made a case how we are not to ask any saint for intercession, yet it turns right around and says we can ask other Christians for prayer. If its asking for intercession for those in heaven, its asking for intercession on earth. Its the same thing.

It is not the same thing. I asked JamesScott for biblical proof that anyone is supposed to talk to physically dead saints. I still haven't received any proof.

Jesus Christ defeated death {1 Corinthians 15:54}. Saints are not "dead."

Here's where we keep going in circles. When the bible talks about necromancy and speaking with the dead, I believe the text is referring to physical death. Not spiritual death.

The following Scripture shows our prayers are offered to God by those in heaven.

"Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and the golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the Saints." Revelation 5:8

If one makes the case that this scripture is showing our prayers are offered to God by those in heaven, then why does it have to mean that those in heaven are hearing our specific prayers, and are being the mediators between us and God? The verse could simply mean that the four living creatures and 24 elders holding the golden bowls is symbolic.

There are other passages that Protestants would deem non-biblical, but it is in the book of the Bible called 2 Maccabees.

James, I'm asking for biblical proof for speaking to dead saints. I'm sure you could come up with plenty of extra-biblical proof. Maccabees isn't part of the Bible. There is a reason that it isn't. The Book of Mormon isn't part of the Bible, and neither is a lot of the Catholic literature. The problem is that when we start relying on extra-biblical sources, that's were we start becoming a cult.

There is no reason why we can ask for each others prayers but not for the prayers of our glorified brothers and sisters in heaven.

Yes, there is a reason. It's not biblical.

Posted: **Thu Sep 02, 2010 8:38 am**

This is an article that I believe shows from a Biblical standpoint that Mary is not the Mother of God. I believe the bible is clear that Mary is the mother of Jesus. The human Jesus. Jesus is fully God, and fully human. Jesus as God, has existed for eternity. I believe when people say that mary is the Mother of God, it puts Mary on a plane equal with God. Anybody have any thoughts?

CounterCentral hit counters

Is Mary The Mother of God?
Dan Corner

The Catholic church has given hundreds, even thousands of titles to Mary the Mother of Jesus. Of all of them, Mother of God is one of the most common. In fact, some Catholics like to just use the impressive, synonymous term theotokos when referring to Mary. This title seems logical when one considers that Jesus is God and Mary gave birth to him. In other words, from a Catholic’s perspective a syllogism could be erected to read as follows:

Jesus is God.
Mary is Jesus’ mother.
Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.

Jesus is both God and Man
If Mary is not the mother of God, then that syllogism is flawed somehow, but where? Let’s look at the Scriptures to gather more information. First of all, regarding Jesus’ identity, we learn that he is both God and man. (Because Jesus’ deity is not questioned among Catholics, only proof for his humanity will be cited here.) Please note the following Scriptures which state Jesus is man:

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5)

But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. (Rom 5:15-17)

It can also be easily proven that Jesus was man because he got hungry, thirsty, slept, etc. just like all other men. God became flesh is what the Bible teaches. Ponder this passage:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. (John 1:1-4,14)

The whole of Scripture shows Jesus is God, who became a man. This truth is the simple answer to the syllogism error, as cited earlier. Hence, it should be revised in the initial premise to read: Jesus is God, who became man. But by stating only a partial truth about Jesus’ identity people have gotten a fallacious idea about Mary. This in turn has led to the unscriptural title about Mary being the mother of God and worse—trusting in her for salvation. This additional fact about Jesus being man helps us to rightly conclude that Mary was the mother of his humanity or of the man Christ Jesus. This is why we never read in the Bible that she is the mother of God, but only that she is Jesus’ mother or the mother of Jesus, as identified in Scripture:

Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. (Mark 3:31)

Now Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. (Luke 8:19)

They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers. (Acts 1:14)

Jesus Existed Before His Birth in Bethlehem
One should also logically reject the Catholic concept that God could or does have a mother based on the fact that such a mother would have to be in existence before God, which is impossible. The Bible states that God is eternal and had no beginning. God can have no mother and still be God. Also, there can be no person who existed before God.

I still remember, as a former Catholic, the surprise I had when I learned from reading the Bible, that Jesus existed before he was born in Bethlehem. I wonder how many Catholics are aware of this precious truth. Ponder a few Scriptures which show this:

“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” (John 8:58)

Jesus existed before Abraham, who was a character from Genesis! To be more precise, Jesus stated his eternal existence in John 8:58 by using the words I am, which refer back to Exodus 3:14 and YHWH describing himself. Another verse which shows Jesus existed before his human birth is Micah 5:2:

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

So, there are irreconcilable problems with the unscriptural title given to Mary as mother of God. If Mary is the mother of God, then how could he have been in existence before his mother? Impossible. Jesus has always been God from the very beginning who became man when born in Bethlehem. Jesus only got his humanity from Mary and, therefore, she can’t be correctly labeled Mother of God. The aforementioned syllogism is in error.

The Mary of Catholicism is not the Mary of the Bible. They are totally two different characters, with the similar trait of bearing the man Jesus. Once we realize this it will be much easier for us to extend a 100% trusting-submitting faith in Jesus alone for our soul’s salvation, as the Bible teaches to be saved. Jesus is the all-sufficient Savior, who needs no help from another to save us. In fact, to believe on Jesus and Mary for salvation, as some do, is to be in disobedience to what the Bible teaches and will not bring true salvation.

Order this book now!

(For additional truth on the true identity of the Mary of the Bible, seriously consider reading our 249 page book, Is This the Mary of the Bible? Our book shows who she is and who she isn’t. Neither this article, nor our book, is an attack on the Mary of the Bible. Both were written out of Christian love and for the sake of souls. Send this article to a friend! GOD BLESS YOU.)

Return to Evangelical Outreach
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org

Contact Us Or Join Our Email List

Posted: **Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:18 pm**

RickD,

It is not the same thing. I asked JamesScott for biblical proof that anyone is supposed to talk to physically dead saints. I still haven't received any proof

My point is an arguement against praying to saints is because we're not supposed to ask for intercession. But its the same thing when we ask those on earth to pray {intercede} for us.. Its all intercession. So its not much of an argument.

Here's where we keep going in circles. When the bible talks about necromancy and speaking with the dead, I believe the text is referring to physical death. Not spiritual death.

The point is we don't believe death is a barrier anymore.

If one makes the case that this scripture is showing our prayers are offered to God by those in heaven, then why does it have to mean that those in heaven are hearing our specific prayers, and are being the mediators between us and God? The verse could simply mean that the four living creatures and 24 elders holding the golden bowls is symbolic

Do you care to elaborate? It seems pretty clear they are offering prayers to God...

James, I'm asking for biblical proof for speaking to dead saints. I'm sure you could come up with plenty of extra-biblical proof. Maccabees isn't part of the Bible. There is a reason that it isn't.

Yes, actually the book of Maccabees is part of the Bible. It's not in the Protestant Bible because Martin Luther threw it out, among others. He almost through out the epistle of James because it didn't agree with his theology of Sola Fide.

Yes, there is a reason. It's not biblical.

Sola Scriptura is his idea, too, but that's another topic.

Posted: **Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:33 pm**

RickD,

I believe when people say that mary is the Mother of God, it puts Mary on a plane equal with God

If we said she gave birth to God and that is how Almighty God came into being, then yes, it would not only make her equal to God, but greater than God. The article you posted is suggesting that this is what we {or Catholics} are claiming.
However, that is not what we are saying. She gave birth to God in respect to time, not eternity. She is how the God-Man came into this world.

Little history lesson:

In the fifth Century a man named Nestorius began teaching that Mary should not be called Theotokos {Mother of God}, but rather Christotokos {Mother of Christ}. His reasoning was that Jesus was not God and Man at the same time, rather, the divine Logos dwelt in the Man, Jesus, as a temple. Nestorius was saying He is two Persons.
The Council that met to decide the matter determined that He is one Person with two natues, divine and human.
Because the One Who is God and Man came from the womb of the Virgin Mary into this world, she is therefore called Theotokos.

Posted: **Thu Sep 02, 2010 3:12 pm**

I already posted this in another thread, but this is a website where you can ask Catholics and get a lot of answers

http://forums.catholic.com/index.php

They probably already answered your questions.... if not just sign up and make a thread or too

Posted: **Fri Sep 03, 2010 6:57 am**

If we said she gave birth to God and that is how Almighty God came into being, then yes, it would not only make her equal to God, but greater than God. The article you posted is suggesting that this is what we {or Catholics} are claiming.
However, that is not what we are saying. She gave birth to God in respect to time, not eternity. She is how the God-Man came into this world.

That which is born of flesh is flesh. That which is born of spirit is spirit.

For this reason you will not hear Jesus, Paul or any apostle refer to Mary as the mother of God.
There were certainly ample opportunities to reference Mary in this way. But each time she is only referenced as the mother of Jesus. Very much affirming the earthly contribution of her role. Even after the ascension, Luke could have easliy placed this title upon Mary. But no, "Mary the mother of Jesus." Acts 1:14

You can always say, "we don't venerate or worship Mary." But the truth is better evidenced in the action than in claims. The question isn't whether they answer their claims, but are the answers consistent with the practices. Or, have answers been prescribed to keep the critics at bay, and maintain an unbiblical practice. I'm not even saying that may, like james, don't beleive this answer. I'm sure he very well may.

Posted: **Fri Sep 03, 2010 7:35 am**

Here's a link to a series of debates that has some answers about who the catholic church's Mary is. Their Mary is a different Mary than the Mary(Mother of the man Jesus) of the Bible.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tClS31hN ... re=related This is the Catholic Maryhttp://www.jesus-is-lord.com/mary.htm

Posted: **Fri Sep 03, 2010 11:02 am**

RickD,

That which is born of flesh is flesh. That which is born of spirit is spirit.

And?
The point is that person in her womb is God. That is why we say she gave birth to God. The one Person Who is divine and human dwelt in the womb of the Theotokos. As I said, all titles given to the Virgin Mary is a testimony to Who her Son is. Calling her the 'Mother of God' is stating our belief in the diety of her Son.

"we don't venerate or worship Mary."

We DO venerate Mary. She is the Mother of my Lord. I will always venerate her.

and maintain an unbiblical practice.

So?
I've never found in the Scriptures where she is referred to as the Mother of God, either.
But I don't believe everything has to be in the Bible for it to be believed. Sola Scriptura is Martin Luther's teaching and I am not a Protestant, anymore.
I also believe in the Seven Ecumenical Councils which took place from 325 A.D to 787 A.D, and these Councils are obviously not in the Bible.
And to flip the coin, In Protestant churches people sit in pews and listen to a preacher, and believe things such as Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, things that are not found in the Sacred Scriptures.

Posted: **Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:45 pm**

JamesScott wrote:And to flip the coin, In Protestant churches people sit in pews and listen to a preacher, and believe things such as Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, things that are not found in the Sacred Scriptures.

Don't tempt me on a similar bandwagon.

.
.

Posted: **Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:48 pm**

BavarianWheels wrote:
JamesScott wrote:And to flip the coin, In Protestant churches people sit in pews and listen to a preacher, and believe things such as Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, things that are not found in the Sacred Scriptures.
Don't tempt me on a similar bandwagon.
.
.

What do you mean?

Posted: **Fri Sep 03, 2010 1:18 pm**

JamesScott wrote:What do you mean?

To mention would be to hijack. Suffice it to say it's the RCC making a point against Christianity's "sola scriptura".

Posted: **Fri Sep 03, 2010 1:25 pm**

Bav has similar issues in other areas.

You make a strong point however. Western and Protestant christian congregations are often as laden with tradition and practices that come from outside of Scripture as what they then change orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions are. I've only recently looked at this seriously and seen the roots of much of the practices in my own tradition that my own cultural filter just doesn't allow me to see without some effort on my part.

Truth be told, it is impossible to separate our spiritual views entirely from our own traditions, cultures and experiences. Even Sola Scriptura as a claim becomes close to meaningless when you factor in that you cannot understand and interpret Scripture outside of those things. What happens is we often fail to see those elements and they slip under the radar and just get accepted as part and parcel of the "faith delivered once to all the saints.)

I haven't weighed into this discussion much. The fact is, I believe that praying to the saints and Mary is not Biblical. I think it has slipped in over time, particularly as Christianity became culturally dominant and other incorporated elements of other cultures and religions that were someone polytheistic were easier to incorporated in and given acceptance and cover by means of these "melding" of practices.

That's an easy pattern to see throughout history and the reality is that Christianity as we understand and practice it today doesn't come to us purely from Scripture. It very easy to see and jump on when we see other things creeping in from other peoples cultures and traditions. It's not as easy to see our own and as a result we tend to just give them a pass.

So, I'm chiming in here to say that I agree with your point in that regard, while not agreeing with the practice of praying to Mary or the Saints.

blessings,

bart

Posted: **Fri Sep 03, 2010 1:29 pm**

BavarianWheels wrote:
JamesScott wrote:What do you mean?
To mention would be to hijack. Suffice it to say it's the RCC making a point against Christianity's "sola scriptura".

It's also Eastern Orthodox Chistians that makes a point against Protestant's Sola Scriptura.

Posted: **Fri Sep 03, 2010 1:48 pm**

Canuckster1127 wrote:Bav has similar issues in other areas.

You make a strong point however.

He does and not the RCC? <giggle>
.
.

Posted: **Fri Sep 03, 2010 2:26 pm**

Another note on Mary as the Mother of God:

Theotokos comes from two greek words: "Theos," meaning God, and "tokos," which referrs to bearing a child. It is a reference to the Incarnation. It is a reference to God becoming Man. Only man needs a mother, and God became Man so He needs a Mother. This is why she is called the Mother of God.
Also, while the actual words "Mother of God" are not in the Scriptures, the same concept is mentioned:

"But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Luke 1:43

Evidence for God from Science

asking saints to pray for us. Is it biblical?

asking saints to pray for us. Is it biblical?

Re: asking saints to pray for us. Is it biblical?

Re: asking saints to pray for us. Is it biblical?

Re: asking saints to pray for us. Is it biblical?

Re: asking saints to pray for us. Is it biblical?

Re: asking saints to pray for us. Is it biblical?

Re: asking saints to pray for us. Is it biblical?

Re: asking saints to pray for us. Is it biblical?

Re: asking saints to pray for us. Is it biblical?

Re: asking saints to pray for us. Is it biblical?

Re: asking saints to pray for us. Is it biblical?

Re: asking saints to pray for us. Is it biblical?

Re: asking saints to pray for us. Is it biblical?

Re: asking saints to pray for us. Is it biblical?

Re: asking saints to pray for us. Is it biblical?