Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-03-2015, 11:53 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(17-03-2015 08:57 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Then I'd be interested to hear exactly how you define human dignity.

Human dignity (Christee definition): We have none. We are fucking disgusting, horrible and useless. The only way out for us is pathetic grovelling at the feet of our vengeful dick of a God. The only way a human has dignity is through Christ our Holy Lord.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
18-03-2015, 10:39 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(17-03-2015 10:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(17-03-2015 10:08 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  Well it depends what you mean by recognized before. While not officially declared, I did find a reference to Mary's sinnless nature in a 5th century letter from the emperor to the pope, so there is precedence. In terms of the word "divine" it comes from the latin word "divus" meaning godlike. As such, I believe that it means that one who is divine is God like. Given the context, I think the only one who has a god like nature is God. In terms of the metaphysics of the homousios, I must admit that I am not particularly well versed in Christology, but I believe that it falls under the concept of "mysteries" as such it cannot be fully understood. I'm well aware of the difficulty of this concept, virtually all early heresies were Christological.

The POINT is that the Church, in general, did not even think about, or accept the later revisionist dogmatic inventions about Mary, until they were pronounced much much later. Certainly the early church (Paul for example) never ever entertained any notion about her even. They cooked it all up later. In Hebrew culture, there were many many divine (the Latin word was not the origin of the CONCEPT), beings in the heavenly host. Being a god, was NOT what qualified one as being divine. So you have another vast cultural SHIFT in meaning and definition. Eventually it canme to mean what it does today, but even in the days of the 1st Century, it did NOT mean what it does today. When Saul has the Witch of Endor conjure the shade of Samuel, he asks her what she sees, (as only witches were thought to be able to see a shade),
and she says "I see a divine being". All it meant was "other that normal human". It did NOT mean "of the nature of Yahweh".

It depends what you mean by much later and dogma. The first major work regarding Mary appears in St Ireneus' against heresies. St Ireneus was born in 130 AD, which would be only 30 years after the death of the last apostle. While not the apostolic church, it is still definitly early. After the edict of Milan, many churches dedicated to Mary appear, including a church dedicated to the assumption. Now this may be fairly late but first recorded instances do not imply first instance, and I tend to find that, more often than not, the first recorded instance occurs after something had been well established. To set the first recorded instance as a starting point can lead to major errors, the mernaptah stele for ecample.
In terms of dogma, the earliest I can give you, although it may in no means be the earliest, is a 5th century letter. This is still fairly early, especially when one considers that Christ's divinity wasn't dogmatically defined until the 4th century. To imply that no one thought that Jesus was God before that would be a grave error.
In regards to your comment on divinity, you asked me to define the word divine, which comes from the latin root "divus". And that is where its meaning comes from. The hebraic equivalent does not affect its meaning especially since we are talking about the nature of Christ. The concept of natures mainly comes from the Greeks and Christ's nature was defined in the 4th century. How the Jews saw their equivalent of divine. It would be like me saying that "I am going to the store" and then arguing that that phrase doesn't necessarily mean that I am leaving you since the Greek word erxomai can mean either "to go" or "to come" so I could be coming towards you instead. Also I don't think anywhere in the Gospels does it call Jesus divine using that terminology. John definitly uses the concept that Jesus is of the nature of YHWH by using the Greek ego eimi as a descriptor of Jesus, not to mention the use of the word Logos which would be known to the Jews as dabarim. Which is from God.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2015, 10:42 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(17-03-2015 11:53 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(17-03-2015 08:57 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Then I'd be interested to hear exactly how you define human dignity.

Human dignity (Christee definition): We have none. We are fucking disgusting, horrible and useless. The only way out for us is pathetic grovelling at the feet of our vengeful dick of a God. The only way a human has dignity is through Christ our Holy Lord.

That is more of a protestant definition. The Catholic view tends to be more that man is naturally good with a tendancy towards evil. We have dignity as we are creations of God and should be respected as such. This is why the Catholic hymnals changed the verse in Amazing Grace. The verse no longer says wretch.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TarzanSmith's post
21-03-2015, 07:07 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
I just noticed PP has been banned. Was it for this comment?...

"You know that "Beating you to a bloody pulp" thing is still open."

If so, well done! Making comments like this is unacceptable.

I'm glad he's gone. The guy was so "out there" it was getting to the point where it was just pointless trying to have a conversation.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
21-03-2015, 08:31 PM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2015 08:00 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-03-2015 10:39 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  To set the first recorded instance as a starting point can lead to major errors, the Mernaptah Stele for example.

Oh really ? What EXACTLY are those "errors" ? So now you're an archaeologist ?
We know for a fact the way the history of Israel presented in the OT is completely false, and Jewish archaeologists are some of those that proved it.

"5th Century" proves my point as well as the 4th defining the divinity if Jebus. Of course it HAD to be later, as the concept of what a "divine being" was, had evolved, and no longer meant what it did in Hebrew culture, including to Jesus HIMSELF. The fact is, the Councils cooked up ALL the bullshit, and argued, and non-unanimously VOTED on what was to be declared as "truth", just like the "experts" of the Vatican Commission in the 1960's and 1970's composed of theologians, bishops and cardinals that said birth control was ok. The concept of what was the nature of Christ's divinity is DIFFERENT in each gospel, (and YOU are no Biblical Scholar). NO Jew would equate Jesus with Yahweh. They would have been stoned. And if you're going to go with Greek meanings, then your entire cult is screwed :
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...other-look

If you "assume" Mary was assumed into heaven, when did she "wake up", (since I've been to the Church of the Dormition in Jerusalem, where she fell asleep ) ? Or did a sleeping virgin go "up" to heaven ? Where EXACTLY do you think her body went ? Up ? Down ? Sideways ? By what reference grid ? 150 is WAY too late, BTW. How did anyone keep track for THAT long of what happened ? They had NO recording devices, no photos. virtually nothing to write on, (assuming anyone knew how to write). It's all too much to buy. They made up every bit of your cult, and LATER the old men in dresses declared it as truth.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: