« first day (1302 days earlier)      last day (3325 days later) » 

Adithia Kusno
Adithia Kusno
1:54 AM
@fredsbend @fredsbend Protestants do sincerely believe Catholics and Orthodox worship Theotokos. Catholics and Orhodox can say that we're honoring her but not worshipping her all day. But Protestants won't listen because they do not accept the distinction between latria and hyper-dulia. We're having a presuppositional war. At no point this can be resolved. No one can ask this sort of question because this is not what C.SE is about. This is not about answering truth question. I agree.
But we can ask question, a proper question without accusing one another. How? Instead of blatantly caricaturing Protestants for worshipping the Bible which no sane Protestants would confess we can ask the underlying Protestants' belief and point out that belief is leading them into Bibliolatry.
I just watched this video, he is a binitarian Samosatan. The Logos is impersonal. Jesus was a mere man dwelt by this impersonal Logos. Please try watching this. He'll show you why as a Samosatan he sincerely believe the incarnate Logos can't be different than the spoken Logos by which god created the world. Because our spoken word is no different than our written word then the two are impersonal. As a Catholic I do disagree with him but it is important to know this.
Protestant reject any other authority than the Bible, by doing that the Bible is their highest authority. That is idolatry, equating a non divine being into equal authority with God. Do Protestant distinguish the written Word from the incarnate Word? Yes. What differentiate them? One is impersonal while one is personal. But why they're different, our spoken word and written word are identical, why not for God Word?
@curiousdannii "What is the basis Catholics use to claim Protestants worship the Bible?" Have you read the link above on Wikipedia on Bibliolatry?
Of course it's nonsense according to Protestantism. Did you read my own words when I described what I felt when Catholics accuse me for Bibliolatry? When I was a Protestant I can't understand this. This is why we're on presuppositional deadlock.
A question such as, "Why do Catholics honor and pray to Mary?" Is proper and valid. Similarly asking, "Why do Protestants distinguish incarnate Logos and Scripture?" Is also valid, both are asking doctrinal questions not truth or opinion based questions.
My aim is to be as neutral as possible. Not once in the question I accused Protestant for being a bibliolater.
With a good faith I ask that question so that Protestant can explain why the Bible is not worshipped? Please let me know if this is a bad question? I want to ask a question that would intrigue people to learn more about historic Christianity. For example, why the Bible is not worshipped even though it is 100% identical in nature with the Logos incarnate.
There are two type of Samosatans, this person doesn't worship Christ. Anthony Buzzard and his ministry worship Christ because the eternal impersonal Logos united itself to the man Christ Jesus and become one at incarnation. Worshipping the man is worshipping the Word of God. I hope you'll be intrigued and curious to answer my questions. My journey to Catholicism begin from that curiosity.
If you're looking to a type of model of answer that I like. This is an example. He is a Jew but his answer is objectively accurate and I would say very polite and also persuasive. hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/17042/…
I want to model my question is that tone, neutral yet persuasive. I don't want to accuse Protestantism for Bibliolatry directly. Because when I was a Calvinist I never thought that I am worshipping paper and ink. I want to ask a polite question that is objective yet thought provoking such as, "How do Christians distinguish the incarnate Word and the written Word of God?" Please let me know if such question intelligible? Thank you for your inputs.
 
bruised reed
bruised reed
2:37 AM
@fredsbend The events referred to here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impact_craters_on_Earth are much further in the past than the incarnation, but the type of evidence they left behind suggests to me that to characterise those events themselves as 'vague' would be misleading. In a similar way, an event's significance to us today should be interpreted by how much of it's impact we can still observe, not how long ago it was in the past.
@fredsbend "Why was the kernel of faith more convincing than what you saw before your own eyes?" - I don't think I can adequately explain that. I've met a few people who've experienced more from God positively and undergone less trials and still fallen away from faith. " Did life get easier and better shortly after, or did suffering continue for a while longer? Did that affect anything?" - yes,yes,yes and yes... there was firstly a gradual upward trajectory in motivation and hope...
...then a dramatic encounter with God, preceding a major life event that included an intense period of suffering. Since then, it's been a very mixed bag in terms of blessings and trials, but God's presence seems to be manifesting more and more clearly to me through both.
 
 
5 hours later…
curiousdannii
curiousdannii
7:23 AM
@AdithiaKusno C.SE can't settle the issues, but it can help explain the differences. I've got to be honest, I have no idea what either the latria or hyper-dulia is.
@AdithiaKusno Yes both of these questions would be good.
@AdithiaKusno "why the Bible is not worshipped even though it is 100% identical in nature with the Logos incarnate" I think this is a bad question because of what it is assuming. The Bible isn't 100% identical in nature with Jesus, and I've never heard anyone suggest anything like that.
@AdithiaKusno "How do Christians distinguish the incarnate Word and the written Word of God?" This question wouldn't be off-topic, but I would downvote it. The answer is so simple: one is a person and one is a book.
I know you want to ask something more sophisticated than that
Can you come up with a more sophisticated question which is still nonetheless simple and clear?
Now all this talk about the 'word' has got me thinking of a question I will ask: what are the reasons for considering 'word' to be one of the dominant titles for Jesus?
Biblically I think it is a second class title, not a dominant one.
 
fredsbend
fredsbend
7:57 AM
@curiousdannii I believe hyper dulia is the extra special veneration given to Mary. I'm not sure what latria is. I think I've heard of it ...
 
fredsbend
fredsbend
8:23 AM
@curiousdannii John 1. What else would it be?
 
curiousdannii
curiousdannii
@fredsbend I meant why is 'word' a first class title like 'lord', 'christ', 'son of god', rather than a lower class title like 'branch', 'redeemer', 'lamb of god'
I think there are only two verses which call Jesus the Word of God
 
fredsbend
fredsbend
@curiousdannii I'm not sure, but John characterizes Jesus that way in first verse. That's obviously where it started. The question is what the hell it actually means. I've never been sure.
 
curiousdannii
curiousdannii
@fredsbend I would go to Hebrews 1: God revealed himself through the prophets in the past, but Jesus is God's ultimate revelation of himself
 
fredsbend
fredsbend
@curiousdannii This starts to sound more and more modalist to me.
 
curiousdannii
curiousdannii
@fredsbend Really? Why? The essence of modalism is that God's only one thing at a time. Nothing about God revealing himself through the incarnation means that the Father and Spirit aren't also active at the same time
 
fredsbend
fredsbend
8:32 AM
@AdithiaKusno I'm not sure what all this that follows. You've made "a blatant caricature" by accusing some Protestants of biblolatry. Likewise, this reminds me of the ignorant Protestants that make "a blatant caricature" by accusing Catholics of idolatry and worshiping of the saints.
@curiousdannii Yeah, I looked it up, latria is special adoration of the Trinity, in any person, which includes the adoration of the Euchrist during Mass, and hyper dulia is the special attention/veneration Mary gets because she born the Christ and served as mother to our Lord.
@curiousdannii I might be mistaken, but I thought modalism does not state that God only acts in one thing at a time, but that when he acts, it is within the character of any given mode he is currently utilizing. God in the mode of the Almighty spoke to Moses. God in the mode of his omnipresent spirit, spoke to the prophets. God in the mode of Jesus, made the way for salvation.
There's no indication that God is hindered to act in only one mode at a time.
 
curiousdannii
curiousdannii
@fredsbend Protestants don't think that we should only honour God and no one else. Having looked up the terms, I don't think it is accurate to say that Protestants don't distinguish between latria and hyperdulia. Instead we'd say that the amount of honour given to Mary and the saints is at a level that is idolatrous
@fredsbend You're probably right there. God is only one person but acts/appears as the three
 
fredsbend
fredsbend
@curiousdannii My observation is that Protestants don't have a problem with the honor, but with the prayers and icons. It does look a bit pagan at times.
 
curiousdannii
curiousdannii
@fredsbend Exactly
 
fredsbend
fredsbend
@curiousdannii Or more. I don't know if any "modalism proper" says God has only acted in three modes.
@curiousdannii Actually, reading some of the Marian answers on this site led me to a greater honoring of Mary. She truly must have been amazing; something very special about her.
But I wasn't about to go to my local parish and pick up a Mary icon.
And I was certainly never going to pray to her, even if it was just "Will you pray to your Son for us please. He probably listens to you more than us."
I can't say it doesn't look fun ...
I've always been fascinated with Catholicism and hagiology.
 
curiousdannii
curiousdannii
I've heard some CC/Orthodox say that because the saints are alive in Christ there isn't any substantial difference from asking them to intercede for us and asking our physically living friends to pray for us
I don't buy it at all, but I can't refute it yet either. Something I'll be interested in researching more in the future
 
fredsbend
fredsbend
8:51 AM
@curiousdannii I have a practical problem with it. I can't hear you ask for prayer unless you tell me. Now a saint like Mary collects probably billions of prayers a week. Unless God has bestowed her with God-like powers, she 1) cannot even hear most of the prayers and 2) if she somehow could, cannot comprehend all of them before the second coming.
 
curiousdannii
curiousdannii
@fredsbend That's a good point. I wonder if they think the saints have super speed brains or something to keep up with the prayers
 
fredsbend
fredsbend
4
Q: What biblical/traditional elements lead Catholics to believe that saints can hear our prayers?

BenjolThere have been quite a few questions on the 'orthodoxy' of praying to saints, or rather asking them to pray for us1. Also questions on why Protestants don't/should do the same. My question is slightly more practical: leaving aside whether it's 'allowed' or not: what is the basis for Catholics be...

prayer intercession-of-saints
11
Q: Do Roman Catholics believe Saints are omnipresent?

2tim424I understand that officially speaking when Catholics pray to saints, they are not supposed to really pray TO that saint, but rather are asking that saint to pray for them as you would ask any living friend to pray for you. The Bible does indeed say we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses...

catholicism prayer saint
As usually, Jayarathina provides an excellent answer. It basically concedes that God does indeed bestow them with the power to hear all the prayers.
 
curiousdannii
curiousdannii
> Heaven is not present in "earth time." Heaven is outside of earth time, in-fact there is no time in heaven. Eternal now is that all is there. The saints live in the power and energy of the Divinity; So, They hear us through God.
Makes sense, but it's completely unsupported
 
fredsbend
fredsbend
Also, unsupported.
Probably should be closed, but this is interesting
 
curiousdannii
curiousdannii
@fredsbend "Heaven" means so many different things, that a question like that really can't be ontopic
 
fredsbend
fredsbend
9:03 AM
@curiousdannii The top answer by Narnian also unsourced and seems mostly opinion based.
Peter did finally source it though. Interesting. Basically, if Catholics believe it then it is common. Narnian's answer is plain wrong.
 
curiousdannii
curiousdannii
@fredsbend Where? In a comment?
 
fredsbend
fredsbend
@bruisedreed I am truly saddened that you've suffered like that. I'm glad you have a way to not let it get you down.
@bruisedreed I think you are conflating the differences between science and history.
A whole in the ground with minerals that we know pretty certainly only come from space is a matter of science.
Whether a man named Jesus was crucified and raised from the dead is a matter of history.
We can measure stuff with science. There's nothing to measure with history.
I believe you've made a category error. Unless I missed the point you were making.
IN OTHER NEWS:
I have a sneaky suspicion that it will be the same framework with a new skin. They've been doing it to Windows since Windows 3.
 
 
3 hours later…
bruised reed
bruised reed
11:54 AM
@fredsbend Thanks, but I don't want to overstate things - there are many people who have endured much worse things than me.
@fredsbend I find it interesting that you think they are in different categories - human historical events and natural historical events both have the capacity to leave an enduring mark. Why do you think there is such a categorical difference in the types of enduring marks that are left that you would support describing one as vague and not the other? It seems fairly plain (to me at least) that the advent of Christ has changed the history of mankind in a major way...
 
bruised reed
bruised reed
12:17 PM
...including many, many things that are eminently measurable.
 
Adithia Kusno
Adithia Kusno
1:15 PM
@curiousdannii both are identical Gresham Machen and Princetonian theologians spoke about that. The difference is one is anhypostatic the other is enhypostatic.
@curiousdannii I disagree with you. Protestant especially Calvin doesn't distinguish latria and hyper-dulia. youtu.be/s5CW9HlSqBU
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@fredsbend Actually, I see this as an opportunity for Microsoft to make a browser that actually complies with standards without having to worry about backwards compatibility.
 
Adithia Kusno
Adithia Kusno
@curiousdannii would this answer your question how on earth dead saints could hear our prayers? youtu.be/V6OwlfNwc9A
@fredsbend we pray to them because that's what we historically read in Church History. One example, at the Council of Ephesus St. Cyril closed the council with a devotion to Theotokos. Now Protestants accept Ephesus but not that devotion. There is no question that the early church pray to saints. The question why is truth question. The fact is stand.
@fredsbend saints are humans not divine. even Prophets in OT can hear and knows people's heart. Because God grant them
 
curiousdannii
curiousdannii
2:10 PM
@AdithiaKusno And what does that mean in normal English rather than Christianese?
2
 
 
4 hours later…
fredsbend
fredsbend
5:51 PM
I hope this isn't too broad:
0
Q: What is an overview of beliefs on "Jesus is the Word (Logos) of God"?

fredsbendRecently, I've been racked at the possible ways this belief might be construed when someone says it. I suspect that the primary Biblical basis for it is John 1, but as we know, there can be many interpretations for just a single verse, depending on your assumptions and starting points. So when a...

christology phrase word-of-god overview
 
 
4 hours later…
curiousdannii
curiousdannii
9:46 PM
@fredsbend Hmm. It's okay. It's not brilliant (sorry!) but I wouldn't know how to improve it either.
 
fredsbend
fredsbend
@curiousdannii Overview questions aren't brilliant by nature. They're basically research starting points. The first question of many.
I'm more worried about it being to broad.
 
curiousdannii
curiousdannii
@fredsbend I may answer according to some thoughts I've heard but without trying to be systematic or comprehensive
 
fredsbend
fredsbend
@AdithiaKusno's answer is not really helpful. It refers (twice) to the question that spawned this question in me.
@curiousdannii You might get an upvote. People aren't exactly clamoring to answer, so there's no competition. If it gives me at least something, I'll upvote.
 
curiousdannii
curiousdannii
I made another obvious answer on a question in which I know that he's looking for more than what's he asking. The temptation was just too strong
 
fredsbend
fredsbend
10:05 PM
@AdithiaKusno In the way Catholics do it, yes, many Protestants think that Catholics conflate the two, even though they are Catholic terms in the first place. Protestants honor Mary and do indeed call her blessed, but they generally believe that praying to Mary is wholly idolatrous.
The iconography is much to similar to pagan activities for their comfort, so they often label that stuff as "graven images", not because they are statues, but because of how the statues are used.
Summary: Protestants believe that Mary is worthy of honor. Protestants believe that Catholics take that honor too far to the point of idolatry, especially in the iconography and prayer rituals.
Catholics believe what they do is acceptable, using terms that no one else does to differentiate worship of God and veneration of Mary, even most Protestants look at the practice and conclude that it is the same thing.
Again, I feel like you are arguing something that we agree on, but you reply as if I'm wrong.
@bruisedreed Please measure for me the impact the advent of Christ has had on earth?
In similar terms, please measure for me the minerals found at what looks like an impact site?
You see the difference now? There is nothing to gather up and measure as it relates to Christ's advent. There's plenty to look at and measure at a suspected impact site.
History is a social science. Studying impact sites does not utilize any tools of any social science to determine the genuineness of an impact site. Likewise, studying the advent of Christ does not utilize any tools of any natural science to determine the validity of the claims (except maybe dating manuscripts and stuff, but that's not quite what I'm referring to).
social science and natural science are two different things and their gap is partially bridged via applied science (e.g. medicine, psychology, etc.)
 
Adithia Kusno
Adithia Kusno
10:22 PM
@fredsbend I mentioned two possibilities in my question. So when I answered your question and give you two possibilities logically it will lead to my question. Right?
@fredsbend Protestant do call her blessed and as the Mother of God but that doesn't mean they blessed her and called her Theotokos as we Catholic and Orthodox do.
 
fredsbend
fredsbend
@AdithiaKusno No, it does not, because I do not think you are correct in "Historically there are only two options". Actually, I'm not even convinced "both Christ and Scripture are one in nature" is accurate either. Who believes that and what do they mean by it? That is the point of my question.
 
Adithia Kusno
Adithia Kusno
I'll answer your question when I got home. Ttyl
 
fredsbend
fredsbend
@AdithiaKusno Yes, Catholics love their names and titles. Another thing that many Protestants find annoying and even repugnant. Click through on the link I gave. It's a semantic issue. Just don't call her Lord or anything more than a sinful human (another sticking point for Protestants).
@AdithiaKusno If you have something more substantial, I'd love to hear it.
 
Mr. Bultitude
Mr. Bultitude
10:54 PM
@fredsbend I'm working on an answer.
 
Adithia Kusno
Adithia Kusno
11:33 PM
@fredsbend I'll answer one by one. Council of Ephesus was closed with a devotion to Theotokos. Do Protestants venerate her? No. But Protestants (talking about Confessional Protestants) while accepting that Council pick and choose which one in agreement with their reading of Scripture. Therefore historically Protestants in disagreement with historic Christianity.
Does this mean Catholics and Orthodox are correct? Not necessarily because as Mormons and JWs pointed out the Church simply lapsed earlier before Ephesus.
Do Protestants accept Nicene council? Yes. Do they accept the teaching of Athanasius? Yes. Do they accept his teaching on devotion to Theotokos? No.
Because Protestants never follow a person or group of people. Protestants only follow what they believe the Bible teaches explicitly or at least as Westminster Standard put it "can be deduced from Scriptures."
Calvin can say one thing and Calvinists can simply ignore him. The standard is the Bible not Calvin or anyone else. The problem is, if Ss. Athanasius and Cyril can't be trusted on their devotion to Theotokos why would we trust them on Trinity and Christology?
Remember this is not a truth argument, I'm not arguing Catholic and Orthodox are correct. This is historical argument. So Mormons and JWs can both be correct that the Church simply lapsed earlier than Nicaea altogether :D
Go to your second question on iconography. Have you read St. Damascene's defense of the Holy Icon? You don't need to watch this 3 hours documentary in full. Just skim through if you're interested. Veneration of icons existed since the beginning as can be seen in the Roman Catacombs.
Again this is not a truth argument but a historical argument. Mormons and JWs again argue that this doesn't validate iconography but instead showed since the beginning Greek Paganism has crept in and pollute the Church from the get go.
I'll update my answer by providing references but it might take me some time to do it. As for now I'm quite busy. But I'll do it. Quick reference you can check St. Irenaeus and Tertullian both wrote against Gnostics' Logoi. The Logos is singular. Christ and Scripture are identical in nature, both are the Word of God. The different is one is a hypostasis the other is men writings. I'll elaborate more with citations.
@fredsbend Protestants not only consider it repugnant but a blatant idolatry altogether. But when I ask them about Ss. Athanasius and Cyril the would shy and ignore that those two saints according to Protestants ought to be condemned. But they can't say it because they rely on their Trinitarian and Christological Orthodoxy.
For Protestants to condemn Athanasius and Cyril is basically giving in to Mormons and JWs arguments that historic Christianity was pagan. So any appeal to St. Augustine and other saints are useless. Without any appeal to early Christian writers Mormons and JWs can't be refuted. Protestants can't refute them simply by using the Bible alone without testimony from historic Christians in the past.
Protestants' powerful arguments against Mormons and JWs is by appealing to St. Athanasius and other saints who spoke about Trinity. Without any testimony from the early Christians Mormons and JWs would simply argue that Protestantism is as novel and recent as they are :D
To summarize let me ask you a question. If you agree it means we're on the same page.
An appeal to history says nothing to its validity. To argue that early Christians suffered and martyred for Christ means Christ is God is parallel to argue that because the early Mormons suffered and martyred for their faith means Joseph Smith Jr is a true prophet of God. An appeal to history validates nothing of its truthfulness. It gives credential and some appeal but nothing more than that. History gives us warrant but not truth.
If you agree with what I said above then we're on the same boat despite of our different worldviews, yours agnostic and mine Catholicism.
 

« first day (1302 days earlier)      last day (3325 days later) »