Search results

Will contemplating Christ, His accomplished work, your own sinfulness and need for Him bring salvation?

So, saying the Lord's Prayer ten times isn't praying to God? I guess Jesus didn't get your memo...

Hence why I prefer "Bearer of God" or "The Woman Who Gave Birth to God the Son", except that the latter, whilst being more theologically clear, is a bit of a mouthful. A more authentic (old) English equivalent of theotokos would be "God's Damm", except that sounds rude!

I have thought it through and you still appear at least to be denying an essential feature of the Incarnation: that God the Son, though eternally pre-existent, took on flesh and was born as a baby in Bethlehem. You seem to be denying that God the Son experienced being born, which is an essential...

Then you deny the Godhead of Jesus, pure and simple. [reply to the Biblicist]

Sorry, but this makes no sense and sounds suspiciously to me like Nestorianism, which we all know is heresy.

No, the mother is not God, but the Son is, so not a red herring: the Biblicist's post implied at least that he did not believe the Son to be God. This

Now you're talking heresy; Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. Yes, the Son pre-existed the Virgin Birth but He - Jesus - was conceived of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit. So, unless you are espousing some kind of latter-day Nestorianism, you can't get round the fact that Mary, as...

So, is the Son not God, then? Er...no; try reading their catechism.

According to their own catechism, Catholics should not be worshipping Mary anyway.

Congratulations! You are now suitable material to be a High Court judge in England!

You have a point there. But so do I:smilewinkgrin:

Yep, you heard it here first! Finally he's exposed himself.

Hmmm...while personally finding some of the Fatima stuff distasteful, I find it hard to think that something demonic could exhort people to pray, "Oh my Jesus, pardon us, save us from the fires of Hell. Lead all souls to heaven."

Except that it clearly didn't - see above John would have known about the Parthian Empire, and his apostolic colleague went to India. Yes. And? Not when you consider that the bounds of the 'known world' were considerably larger to John than they had been to Daniel. I never said anything...

A female BBC journalist heard about a very old Jewish man who had been going to the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem to pray, twice a day, every day,for a long, long time. To check it out, she went to the Wall, and there he was, walking slowly up to the holy site. She watched him pray, and after about...

Except that Rome didn't rule over the known world. That's the elephant in your argument's drawing room. The Parthians have already been mentioned. There were also the Kushan Empire and Kuninda Kingdom of what is now India, both of which traded with Rome but in no way were subject to her. Further...

Again, ahistorical nonsense! Rome never reigned over the whole world, not even John's world: John would have known about the Parthian Kingdom since it was right next door to his part of the Roman Empire and Rome never conquered Parthia; in fact, one of its generals, Crassus, had been defeated...

The point is that Rome didn't rule over all the kings of the earth. Neither does then Catholic Church today, for that matter.

Hmm...let's see: Washington is built on seven hills. It's a city. It is the centre of the world's only remaining superpower which arguably rules over the kings of the earth.... Right, so America is the Great Harlot and I'm now going to run round gerbilling to myself that you're the Antichrist...