Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
"Fleshly Doors of Heaven"? Where is that term used in Scripture? God chose Mary as His mother? God has NO mother. Calling Mary Theotokos is heresy!bound said:The second person of the Holy Trinity entered creation through Fleshly Doors of Heaven, Mary. Why do we call Mary the 'Fleshly Doors of Heaven'... because God passed through them into His Creation! He chose her as His mother, the vessel of our salvation (i.e. ark).
In 431 A.D., the Third Ecumenical Council was held at Ephesus in Greece, whose philosophy and culture were based in the occult traditions of Atlantis. The Council of Ephesus condemned the Nestorian heresy and approved the veneration of the Virgin Mary as Theotokos (God-Bearer or Mother of God). Nestorius and the Nestorians were exiled to the Persian Empire and become the Assyrian Orthodox Church of the East. However, what appears to have been a classic dialectical operation would prepare the way for Mary to be transformed from the 'Mother of God' to a deity in the image of Isis, who shared in the divinity of her son, Horus. In an article on Mariology, Keri Mills presents an insightful analysis of the great Nestorian controversy:
"Catholics claim that no serious question was raised about Mary's sinlessness after the Council of Ephesus in AD 431 which declared Mary to be 'God bearer, Mother of God'. What is not explained is the reason why no questions (according to the RCC) were raised after the council. It is clearly documented that Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, was declared a heretic and exiled because he rejected the popular title given to Mary (Mother of God). The church would claim that Nestorius made it appear, in his emphasis on the reality of the humanity of Jesus, that Christ was two persons or 'two sons' the son of Mary and the son of God. Interestingly, the writings of Ignatius, a disciple of the apostle John and bishop of Antioch, declared a similar thought, 'Mary is presented as Mother of Christ according to his human nature, as the heavenly Father is his Father according to his divine nature (To the Ephesians)', with the same purpose to refute heretical thinking, and yet he is not declared a heretic. Nestorius was declared a heretic based power politics and his denial of Mary as God-bearer, not on Christology. Nestorius was refuting heretical ideas that Christ was not flesh, only deity. In his autobiography, he insisted that he did not oppose the title 'God-bearer' because he denied the Godhead of Christ, but rather to distinguish that Jesus was a genuine human being born with a body and soul. He insisted that calling Mary 'God-bearer, Mother of God' was to declare that God could be born of a woman. Parents pre-exist their children, yet Mary a mortal woman could not pre-exist God; in fact the paradox remains clear to this day that Jesus the son of Mary pre-existed Mary. Yet with the reign of Constantine, the church had gained power, and so no serious questions would be raised outwardly, without the backing of the majority, once that power had been exercised on Nestorius." - 849
849. "Mariology," Keri Mills, December 7, 1999.
http://www.watch.pair.com/virgo-black.html
DHK said:You still don't get it do you. Seek to understand the meaining of ekklesia, the word from which "church" is translated. It means assembly or congregation. There is no such thing as a universal church. There is no such thing as a denominational church. It is not found in the Bible.
Orthodox Christianity predates the 1600's. I encourage you to step out of your box and look around a bit and see.Again, the Scriptures are sufficient. Your interpretation of that passage is foreign to orthodox Christianity.
Again, consensual teachings from multiple sources expressing a continuity which transcends the errors of individuals and region idioms. There is a body of historic consensual teachings available. Take a look at "What does Justification Mean"... it was crafted from the consensual teachings from the earliest fathers to Reformation Professions.Many of "the first sources" were filled with gnosticism, Arianism, and other sources. Every NT books warns against false teachers, teachings, and prophets. There were many of them circulating at the time of the Apostles. Paul especially warned of them. What makes you think that you are not following some of their "first sources," instead of the Bible? I follow that which God has inspired. I know it is true, and reliable.
I'm not going to touch that. Perhaps another thread. Leave it to be said that the use of the Scriptures were vigorous on both side of this issue in American history and it ultimately undermined the belief that the Scriptures are sufficient as a rule of faith.Slavery isn't condemned by the Bible. The OT made use of slaves. God condoned it in the OT. It was the abuse of slavery that was wrong. Many countries in this world have a form of "slavery" that is perfectly acceptable. It is the same thing that was in the NT, except under a different name. It is an employer-employee relationship. It is not much different than a person hiring a live-in care-taker. They take care of children, or more likely an elderly person. They are given room and board. And on top of that they are given some other expenses. The same was true in the NT. It was called slavery. We have a different name for it. But essentially it is the same thing. The abuse of it is what is wrong.
The events recorded by the individuals who wrote the New Testament are 'bigger' and frankly 'richer' than what is confined on paper, word and concept. Although we are privileged to glimpse these truths in the inspired word we are not saved by a thing; but by a someone, Jesus Christ.Linda64 said:"Fleshly Doors of Heaven"? Where is that term used in Scripture?
As I have posted numerous times, the Fullness of the Godhead dwelt among us. God made Flesh was born of the Virgin Mary and Born, Suffered and Died and on the third day was Risen. God Incarnate did this and it was God Incarnate that was born of Mary. Please read my previous post #318...God chose Mary as His mother? God has NO mother. Calling Mary Theotokos is heresy!
I can appreciate your convictions but the historical evidence of the consensual teachings weigh against your claim.Sir, you have come up with some really strange unbiblical doctrines!
1 Corinthians 15:50
So you would argue that flesh is evil?Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.bound said:Orthodox Christianity predates the 1600's. I encourage you to step out of your box and look around a bit and see.
Scripture takes precedence over "consenual teachings".bound said:I can appreciate your convictions but the historical evidence of the consensual teachings weigh against your claim.
You are twisting God's Word. I never said flesh was evil. The Apostle Paul said:So you would argue that flesh is evil?
Linda64 said:John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
I would say Jesus was pretty narrow-minded here. He also said this BEFORE the 1600's.
John 5:39
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Scripture also predates the 1600's--you should open them up and get back into the "box" of God's Word and study it.
From reading your many posts in this thread, it appears to me that you are denying the sufficiency of Scripture by putting more trust in the writings of men and the "consensual teachings" of Orthodox Christianity than in God's Word.bound said:No one has denied the nesessity of Jesus Christ for salvation. Where did you get that idea?
If you care to note, Jesus taught the means of this to His own disciples on the Road to Emmaus...
Within the consensual teaching of the Church we are equipped to do just that.
Linda64 said:Scripture takes precedence over "consenual teachings".
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2 Timothy 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
You are twisting God's Word. I never said flesh was evil. The Apostle Paul said:
Romans 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
Mariolatry is evil.
Joshua 24:15
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
"To be honest we should 'test everything' including our own 'traditions' conclusions against what is evident as the interpretations of those who walked before us."
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in rightiousness, that the man of God might be complete, and thoroughly equipped for every good work:
Linda64 said:From reading your many posts in this thread, it appears to me that you are denying the sufficiency of Scripture by putting more trust in the writings of men and the "consensual teachings" of Orthodox Christianity than in God's Word.
Not really. I'm not saying that a properly formed student of the Scriptures wouldn't have a 'sufficient' resource but clearly everyone who has the Scriptures are not properly formed. Even the Disciples on the Road to Emmaus needed Forming.... Perhaps it wasn't 'sufficient' unless one was already formed properly.D28guy said:Bound,
God says different...
The apostle Paul himself was "tested" against the scriptures by the Bereans, and the scriptures commend them for that.
Mike
The Holy Spirit (the third Person of the Triune God) is the Interpreter of Scriptures--not the consensual teachings of men. That same Holy Spirit indwells every born again believer in Christ. Therefore, every born again believer is able to interpret Scriptures through the Holy Spirit.bound said:God's Word is Jesus Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity.
What I would tell you is that Scripture doesn't interpret itself but used a 'system' or 'means' or 'measure' in which a proper consensus it drawn by the interpretor. That interpretor thus uses what is outside of Scripture to interpret (i.e. a exegesis).
This is the reason most denominations have Sunday School... they are teaching an interpretation of the Scriptures biased to their own tradition (i.e. think exegesis).
So I am not putting the consensual teachings above the Scriptures because I am using them to aid me in interpreting the Scriptures.
...and whom Linda was Jesus addressing here; you and me or the Apostles?Linda64 said:The Holy Spirit (the third Person of the Triune God) is the Interpreter of Scriptures--not the consensual teachings of men. That same Holy Spirit indwells every born again believer in Christ. Therefore, every born again believer is able to interpret Scriptures through the Holy Spirit.
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
The answer should be obvious to you. John was writing his epistle in 90 A.D. at the very eariest. He was the only one of the Apostles alive at that time. It is certain that he wasn't writing to any one of them, and it is obvious that he was writing to believers in general. Again, the answer should be obvious. They were writing to you and me.Agnus_Dei said:...and whom Linda was Jesus addressing here; you and me or the Apostles?
ICXC NIKA
-