Is this blasphemous enough for you?

[Zenas]

Lori...
This says a lot...
http://http://www.fisheaters.com/images.html

And your point is?

 

[Alive in Christ]

And your point is?

Did you read it?

It should be obvious.

 

[Zenas]

Did you read it?

It should be obvious.

Yes I read it. It's an explanation of the iconograhic symbols in this work of art. I hate to say so but you are displaying your ignorance by your failure to understand this.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Yes I read it. It's an explanation of the iconograhic symbols in this work of art.

You obviously have not read all of it.

Try reading it Zenas...with your *discernment glasses* on. :wavey:

There is much more there than a painting, Zenas.

Try reading it.

 

[Zenas]

You obviously have not read all of it.

Try reading it Zenas...with your *discernment glasses* on. :wavey:

There is much more there than a painting, Zenas.

Try reading it.

You mean that Mary is the main focus of the painting?
That Mary is identified as Mother of God?
That Mary is characterized as the comforter of Jesus and of us?
That Mary is strong and Jesus is weak and frightened?
That Mary communicates with people in the accompanying history?

AC, any of these ideas can be seen in dozens, perhaps hundreds, of Christian icons both two dimensional and three dimensional. Again I ask what your point is.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You mean that Mary is the main focus of the painting?
That Mary is identified as Mother of God?
That Mary is characterized as the comforter of Jesus and of us?
That Mary is strong and Jesus is weak and frightened?
That Mary communicates with people in the accompanying history?

AC, any of these ideas can be seen in dozens, perhaps hundreds, of Christian icons both two dimensional and three dimensional. Again I ask what your point is.

The titles attributed to Mary are the very same exact titles attributed to the Persons of the Godhead. That is blasphemy as Mary is a sinner saved by God's grace by her own confession "God MY Savior." However, Rome has exalted a sinful creature to equality with God and even above God as she now stands between God's people and God. This is so blasphemeous that only spiritually blinded completely biased people cannot see it (1 Tim. 4:1).

 

[Zenas]

The titles attributed to Mary are the very same exact titles attributed to the Persons of the Godhead. That is blasphemy as Mary is a sinner saved by God's grace by her own confession "God MY Savior." However, Rome has exalted a sinful creature to equality with God and even above God as she now stands between God's people and God. This is so blasphemeous that only spiritually blinded completely biased people cannot see it (1 Tim. 4:1).

You have a very vivid imagination. Maybe we could exchange information some time on the Illuminati, or perhaps on the Trilateral Commission. By the way, relatively little Maryology came out of Rome; most of the oldest traditions came out of Constantinople. And your assertion that Mary admitted she was a sinner misses the point. Like all creatures, Mary needed a savior. However, Mary’s salvation came about through the miracle of the Immaculate Conception, meaning she was never a sinner.

 

[matt wade]

However, Mary’s salvation came about through the miracle of the Immaculate Conception, meaning she was never a sinner.

I have no idea how you completely ignore parts of the Bible to come up with your heretical positions.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Dr. Walter. Your argument centers around your statement here.

Again, Mary was simply notified of an action already performed in her by God that she had absolutely NO CHOICE in performing.

I would suggest that God had prepared her for specifically this purpose and knew her answer. So unlike DHK not any virgin would have done. However, as you have suggested the operation of the incarnation and as I've quoted you main point. I find myself disturbed by it because it has the connotation of an action resembeling rape. Whether or not she wanted it; she was inpregnated. I find that a hard thing to swallow. In a sense if Mary was not obedient to God she would have been violated. And how would that reflect on the character of God. Whether or not you want it you will give birth to the incarnation and how would have that played out? There is a problem with your hypothesis with regard to this.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Dr. Walter. Your argument centers around your statement here.
I would suggest that God had prepared her for specifically this purpose and knew her answer. So unlike DHK not any virgin would have done. However, as you have suggested the operation of the incarnation and as I've quoted you main point. I find myself disturbed by it because it has the connotation of an action resembeling rape. Whether or not she wanted it; she was inpregnated. I find that a hard thing to swallow. In a sense if Mary was not obedient to God she would have been violated. And how would that reflect on the character of God. Whether or not you want it you will give birth to the incarnation and how would have that played out? There is a problem with your hypothesis with regard to this.

The problem is how you approach it. God did not approach Mary with a proposition, or a question or consulted her for her opinion or requested her for permission. Such an approach is at the bottom of your position. However, it is simply not there.

God approach her announcing, informing, declaring that she was blessed because of how he was going to use her for His glory. Mary was a repentant beleiver in the Old Testament gospel of Christ (Acts 10:43) and thus a born again child of God who desired to please God. Thus, all God had to do was to declare His purpose without ever requesting her permission as that was already a given with the new birth.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The problem is how you approach it. God did not approach Mary with a proposition, or a question or consulted her for her opinion or requested her for permission. Such an approach is at the bottom of your position.

Often this is true of men who violate women. If your suggestion is the case then the fact that Mary said Let it be done as you have said is of no consequence. However, it is in the scripture as though she could permit it which means she could disallow it as well. So, are you suggesting God is a celestrial rappist? Forcing upon the poor young virgin his incarnation? Note Cult leaders who have had consensual sex with their followers are considered to have violated them as well. Also men who violate women believe that the woman wants it or in some way is giving a privilage to the woman violated. However, this seems not in compliance with God's character. Or how he deals with man.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Often this is true of men who violate women. If your suggestion is the case then the fact that Mary said Let it be done as you have said is of no consequence. However, it is in the scripture as though she could permit it which means she could disallow it as well. So, are you suggesting God is a celestrial rappist? Forcing upon the poor young virgin his incarnation? Note Cult leaders who have had consensual sex with their followers are considered to have violated them as well. Also men who violate women believe that the woman wants it or in some way is giving a privilage to the woman violated. However, this seems not in compliance with God's character. Or how he deals with man.

First of all there was no MARRIAGE! So you can't claim rape or fornication because God is a SPIRIT and Mary is a HUMAN. Two different species and two different natures and therefore Marriage, fornication, rape do not apply.

Second, God does not rape your wife when he gives conception for a child - you don't give conception, your wife does not give conception - God does. God didn't marry your wife! God didn't rape your wife.

 

[targus]

God approach her announcing, informing, declaring that she was blessed because of how he was going to use her for His glory. Mary was a repentant beleiver in the Old Testament gospel of Christ (Acts 10:43) and thus a born again child of God who desired to please God. Thus, all God had to do was to declare His purpose without ever requesting her permission as that was already a given with the new birth.

Exactly the same way that all born again Christians never say no to God by sinning - it's a given with the new birth.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Zenas...

From my linked material...

"Baby Jesus, identified by the letters "IC XC," doesn't look at His mother or at us in this icon; instead, He is looking away, having seen something that made Him afraid -- so afraid that He ran to His mother fast enough that He lost one of His little sandals. What does He see? His destiny, symbolized by the angels bearing the instruments of His Passion. The angel to the left, Michael, carries the lance that will pierce His side, an urn filled with gall, and the reed and sponge which will carry it to His lips. The angel to the right, Gabriel, bears a Cross and four nails. His earthly comfort, and ours, is in His mother,...

Blasphemy. The christians comfort is in God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. (((NEVER))) is the sinner saved by grace Mary to be our comfort.

...and as He clings to her, she, with her gaze, invites us to do the same.

Only Satan would invite us to "cling to" anyone other then God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

But then these hellish diversions from trusting in Christ to trusting all these other counterfeits...Mary, trinkets, statues, candles, scapulors, crackers, priests, popes, etc etc etc are all NORMAL and fully acceptable to groups like the Catholics, and the Orthodox "churches".

May God have mercy.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Exactly the same way that all born again Christians never say no to God by sinning - it's a given with the new birth.

The new birth is in part - the disposition of willingness to submit to God as the unregenerate state is in part refusal to submit to God (Rom. 8:7). God did not submit a request, ask permission or make a proposition to Mary - He simply announced that she was blessed for God to use her for this purpose! Mary did not give her consent as God never asked for it. She simply submitted to God's declaration -"Be it according to they word." She did not say "Be it according to thy request."

 

[Thinkingstuff]

First of all there was no MARRIAGE! So you can't claim rape or fornication because God is a SPIRIT and Mary is a HUMAN. Two different species and two different natures and therefore Marriage, fornication, rape do not apply.

Second, God does not rape your wife when he gives conception for a child - you don't give conception, your wife does not give conception - God does. God didn't marry your wife! God didn't rape your wife.

Who said marriage? So your contention is that if God forces himself onto someone (especially regarding giving birth to the incarnation) it's not a rape? A violation? I'm sorry I disagree with you. People Go to Hell because they choose to. God doesn't force that upon them.
Your next point is that because God isn't of the same species its not considered the same thing? I disagree. Force is force. And we are made in God's image so it is a violation.
I never said God raped my wife. I'm saying that using your view that we must then consider that God in some respect violated Mary especially if she was ill disposed of god's plan. He either negated her will and thus a robot or a victim.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Who said marriage? So your contention is that if God forces himself onto someone (especially regarding giving birth to the incarnation) it's not a rape? A violation? I'm sorry I disagree with you. People Go to Hell because they choose to. God doesn't force that upon them.
Your next point is that because God isn't of the same species its not considered the same thing? I disagree. Force is force. And we are made in God's image so it is a violation.
I never said God raped my wife. I'm saying that using your view that we must then consider that God in some respect violated Mary especially if she was ill disposed of god's plan. He either negated her will and thus a robot or a victim.

Your logic would require that a married couple who were WILLINGLY against conception and doing everything to prevent conception but conceived anyway were RAPED by God because it is God alone who determines Sovereignly when a woman conceives. This marriage couple did not give their permission, were not willing and yet conceived so according to your logic God forced himself upon her and raped her.

God does not have to ask this couple for permission any more than He has to ask Mary's permission.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your logic would require that a married couple who were WILLINGLY against conception and doing everything to prevent conception but conceived anyway were RAPED by God because it is God alone who determines Sovereignly when a woman conceives. This marriage couple did not give their permission, were not willing and yet conceived so according to your logic God forced himself upon her and raped her.

God does not have to ask this couple for permission any more than He has to ask Mary's permission.

Do you know that legally if a wife does not consent to intercourse with her husband and its forced upon her he can be brought up on charges of rape? Also I find it strange that as anti-catholic as you are you consider that Mary is Married to God. Both Orthodox and Catholics would agree with you. However, to work against someone's will is to violate them. Which is a form of rape whether they are Married to you or not. Look when you disobey God (after regeneration) God doesn't prevent you from sinning he allows you to fall away from him. He respects the nature he gave us in that we are created in his image. Mary obviously thought God wanted her permission "let it be done to me according to thy word." very telling don't you think?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Do you know that legally if a wife does not consent to intercourse with her husband and its forced upon her he can be brought up on charges of rape? Also I find it strange that as anti-catholic as you are you consider that Mary is Married to God. Both Orthodox and Catholics would agree with you. However, to work against someone's will is to violate them. Which is a form of rape whether they are Married to you or not. Look when you disobey God (after regeneration) God doesn't prevent you from sinning he allows you to fall away from him. He respects the nature he gave us in that we are created in his image. Mary obviously thought God wanted her permission "let it be done to me according to thy word." very telling don't you think?

Get Serious! I never inferred that I regarded Mary married to God. I made the direct opposite conclusion - she is not married to God. It was your line of argument of "rape" that led to a relationship between Mary and God.

Second, God is the One who wrought conception in the womb NOT THE HUSBAND!!!!

When a husband and wife both consent to resisting conception by taking operative measures and pills to prevent it and yet GOD GIVES CONCEPTION ANYWAY does that constititue RAPE and FORCE upon that woman by God? According to your logic it does! Or has God the right to give conception regardless if both are willing or not to have conception?

God has as much right to give these UNWILLING married partners conception as He has the right to do so with Mary! He didn't ask their permission and He didn't ask Mary's permission! He simply declared to her what He was going to do. She didn't give permission "Be it according to thy REQUEST" but rather submitted to His Sovereign declared word "Be it according to THY WORD".

 

[targus]

The new birth is in part - the disposition of willingness to submit to God as the unregenerate state is in part refusal to submit to God (Rom. 8:7). God did not submit a request, ask permission or make a proposition to Mary - He simply announced that she was blessed for God to use her for this purpose! Mary did not give her consent as God never asked for it. She simply submitted to God's declaration -"Be it according to they word." She did not say "Be it according to thy request."

So then why do not all reborn Christians submit in the same way?

Are we not called to obedience too?

But do we not submit in that we continue to sin?