₦airaland Forum

Hi people,

I can't really say much about DL because I attended only a few times in Nigeria (some in Abuja - Wuse and Kubwa; and in Uniben, Edo State). What I notice is that they try to conform to everything Kumuyi says and does - even most of the pastors imitate his accent and diction. For all of these things, I commend the labours of DL leaders.

Even so, not all the branches of DL have applause from non-DLites (or D-Lifers  ). I've seen ugly situations in which zealous members have asked 'newbies' to throw away their TV and jewelry, and this amazed me in no way. Mistakes have been made in the past but some have adjusted with time. In Uniben, not all the 'sistas' tie their scarf with such religiousity as one might find in some other branches.

There might be a lot of rigidity and legalism as interpreted by so many of us who are non-Dlites. I should venture to say that the opinions of a lot of people about any denomination are informed by hear-says. But, of course, that may not be correct since my population sample is quite constrained. Young people may not like certain trends they find in the DL churches, but that does not necessarily mean that the church is as way out of touch with our generation. I'll forever be grateful for Kumuyi's consistent pursuit of holiness (Heb. 12:14) - "holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord" - and I most definitely want to see the Lord, whether I'm a youth or not. If I learnt nothing else, that one lesson has not left my heart - and that is the one thing that broke the power of fornication (my strongest sin) from my life. And that was the one thing that drove me to my knees and to the Bible - so that today prayer and Bible study have become a natural part of my lifestyle.

I've enjoyed the discussions about denominations and their practices on this Forum. A lot of us have been asking questions about Cele, Catholic Church, Christ Embassy, the Man in the Synagogue, and now Deeper Life. Denominations no go finish - and who knows which is next? The one thing that we may all agree on is that questions are legitimate if they help us better understand our relationship with God. Sometimes arguments are so passionate that we tend to castigate "them" and defend "our own". Where I might've inadvertently done so, my apologies. As far as the efforts are bringing out the truth in the Bible and dispelling ignorance and heresy, I encourage everyone to keep up the work.

@joftech, it seems you did not bother to read the inputs of others in this thread. Before you anchor your faith in the Gospel of Judas, understand that the scholars you're quoting did not draw any conclusions but rather speculated about its true significance. There are questions you should answer before accepting the Judas text as part of your "new truths as they emerge".

(1)  Was Judas the author of the 'Gospel of Judas'?
Gnostic documents have this unmistakable characteristic - ficticious authorship. Even the researchers have not been able to tell us who is the author of the Judas text, other than that its author is anonymous. Other Gnostic documents which I have read that bear no authentic authorship include the Gospel of Thomas, and its supposed author is given in the first lines of the text as "didymos Judas Thomas." Read carefully and you'll find that it was neither written by the disciple Thomas (Mark 3:18) nor Judas Iscariot; more so because even the Gnostics themselves know that Thomas was not the same person as Judas. Galileo Galilei may have been thought in his time to be crazy, but his works were not produced by an anonymous Gnostic writer who knew nothing of him.

(2)  Did the author of the Judas text know Jesus first hand?
It's amazing that the original Judas text dates back to over a century after the other Biblical Gospels were written. From all indications, the anonymous author of the Judas text neither knew Judas, Jesus, nor any of the disciples personally. If I didn't know your great-great grandfather personally, would you trust a document written by my own great-great grandson claiming to have an insider knowledge of him, even though we're both Nigerians living over a century apart?

(3)  How did Judas "exceed" the other Dicsiples?
You'd have to convince yourself that suicide was the best demonstration of Judas' greatness above the other disciples. Jesus was crucified; some of the apostles were martyred; Judas committed suicide - and for this singular act of Judas, he demonstrated his greatness? This question is pertinent; otherwise how else did he fulfill the greatness promised him by Jesus? Being treated as an outcast says nothing about Judas eventually becoming greater than the other disciples.

(4)  Is the Judas text a 'Gospel'?
Does the abrupt ending of the Gospel of Judas not raise your incredulity? The researchers all agree that the Judas text says nothing about the crucifixion nor the resurrection of Christ. What should we make of the purported quote: "For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me" and yet the Judas of the text would say nothing about the sacrifice?

This is why I earlier said that, although I do not question the fact that the document was a genuine find/discovery, it has no substance to the original event of the betrayal of Jesus by Judas. So many questions left unanswered by Gnosticism - and you'd have to choose between Gnosticism and Christianity.

While it is true that the term "man of God" has been much misapplied in many denominational circles, I don't agree that it is just another man made tradition (denominational jargon). More than once when Paul used the appellation to encourage Timothy (I Tim. 6:11), it occurs in several other verses in both the OT and NT. It was used of Moses when he blessed the children of Israel (Deut. 33:1). As used of Samuel, 'man of God' was supposedly pointing to his gift as a prophet (I Sam. 9:5-17), which same could be said of -

Shemaiah - I Kings 12:22-24 . . . the nameless prophet who disobeyed God - I Kings 13

Elijah - I Kings 17:18-24 . . . Elisha - II Kings 4:8-9 & 40; & 5:8

David as Israel's king ruled with integrity, and even though he failed on several occasions, he nonetheless followed God wholeheartedly and it is not surprising that he was called a man of God as well (II Chron. 8:14 & Neh. 12:24). Finally, Paul and many men used of God in the NT could count as men of God. The understanding of the term is not limited to just this designation; and several features characterizing their demeanour show us who a man of God would be.

Men and women of God are characterized by holiness (II Pet. 1:21), unwavering commitment to His will, righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, and meekness (II Tim. 6:11). These men and women have been taught by God and furnished unto His good works, instructed in righteousness and are not ashamed to receive correction in God's ways (II Tim. 3:16-17). Study the life of some of these people - is it any wonder that they were humble (like Moses, who was the meekest man in his time - Num.12:3), seeking after God's heart (like David - Acts 13:22), and characterised by intimacy in divine fellowship (like Abraham the friend of God - James 2:23; and the disciples of the Lord Jesus - John 15:14-15). I leave it to the rest of us to labour in God's word to find some other interesting virtues about men and women of God.

Since after the apostles, there's never been such a time as the present when Christians need such men of integrity, power and love. . . men who are not sold out to popular opinion or stand as crowd-pleasers; such men as those who are willing to stand in unwavering commitment to God's will and encourage us to follow in their steps for the greater blessing of others and the glory of God.

Kimba, I doff my hat - you practically anticipated me and took the word right out of my mouth, lol. I'll post my observations all the same.

Actually, I don't think that we should waste so much time questioning the validity of the discovery. What should be more important to us - believers and unbelievers (or non-believers) alike - is the question: how much of truth does it represent? It's hilarious that everytime a so-called discovery is made with regards to the Christian faith, the brains behind such and those who applaud them have one aim in mind: to write off Christianity as a HOAX. Let's sample some of these bogus games floating around on the net:

   (a)  Jesus used cannabis - http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,869273,00.html 

   (b)  Was Jesus Christ Really A Woman Called Judith? - http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44563 

   (c)  Jesus Must Have Walked on Ice - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/04/science/04find.html 

   (d)  Judas did not betray Jesus Afterall - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12186080/ 

You would have noticed two recurrent ideas among many others in these recent episodes:

(i) they don't have real answers to the questions they raise - have you noticed how many times the researchers use such non-committal expressions like 'what might be', 'probably occured' and 'the scientist suggested'? At the end, since they fail to give authentic answers themselves, it is not surprising that they still leave it up to anyone's guess to draw uncertain inferences.

(ii) the researchers don't trust their own findings - it always comes back to the probability explanation. Apply this to the Gospel of Judas theory: who wrote that 'Gospel', and how could we be sure it has any substance in representing what exactly might've happened - "now that the truths are beginning to surface", as jagunlabi put it? One review says, 'it is neither a Gospel nor was it written by Judas.'

For me, there are gaping holes in the Gospel of Judas discovery, even without having read it. Besides its late date of a few hundred years removed from the time of the apostles, and the fact that Judas could not be verified as its authentic author, the questions still remain: why would Jesus have 'connived/collaborated' with Judas in the plot of His betrayal? Now, if Judas was only helping out a grand scheme hatched by Jesus Himself, has this new discovery helped the discoverers or jagunlabi to believe in Jesus Christ at all? In the end, how did Judas "exceed" the others by this twist of secret connivance with Jesus about His own betrayal? We are not told anywhere in the discovery.

I think the conclusion suggested by the topic is rather insidious and silly: "Breaking News! - Judas Did Not Betray Jesus Afterall!" How did the handler of the topic come to this conclusion in the first place? This is the type of hype trumpeted by those who just want to advertize their prejudices. None of the news article reporting the find/discovery drew the conclusion that Judas did not betray Jesus afterall! Even Irenaeus called it a "ficticious history".

drag_on:
com'on funloving our friend wellborn suspended the issue in mid air like a talented magician by saying basically GOD will judge.

drag_on, it would be nice of you to post some of your nightmares in Protestantism or Pentecostalism here for us to read - then I'll be most glad to show who is the greater talented magician between us by sampling a few Catholic imbroglios to take home for your consideration. Since you're not satisfied that GOD will judge and you want to take the judgement into your own hands, please do so by all and any means in your next post.

biggjoe:
These people tend to be hypocritical sometimes. They will condemn you instantly for thinking that a pastor's healing power might be fake but they will also say that Mary is just a vessel that brought forth Jesus Christ. They say that Mary is only addressed as Mother of the Lord and not God. Did Lord make her less dignified? If a holy spirit filled Elizabeth honored her, who are these protestants.

This is what necessitated my responses - your labelling as 'hypocritical' those who do not agree with you. As far as I've not condemned a pastor's healing power as fake, the title that Catholics accord Mary as 'mother of God' would have made sense only if God Himself had inspired it to be written in any verse in the Scriptures. Did Elizabeth indeed call her that in Luke 1:45? If a Holy Spirit-filled Elizabeth honoured Mary by calling her 'mother of God', no one would have wondered about it. I wonder why by the same rule Catholics shrink from honouring themselves with the titles of 'brother of God' or 'sister of God' or 'mother of God' according to Mark 3: 35. So, who is the hypocrite?

I have said it before: it is a healthy practice to "not think of men above what is written" - I Cor. 4:16. It is this so-called tradition of going beyond the written word in crucial matters that lead people to reject God's commandments and give men titles that are either expressly forbidden or which are in direct contravention of Scripture. Jesus said not to call anyone on earth "Father" - for believers have only one Father who is in heaven (Matt. 23:9); but what do we see happening around your circles?

biggjoe:
So brethren I urge you to avoid these arguments.What you should focus on is to live your life in a way that will further propel the gospel of the Lord. You should understand u cannot convince annybody with arguments. The arguments cannot stop, it started centuries ago. And even when u seem to be making your point theres always another thing they will say to diusregart them. No matter the length and the soundness. Have you seen anyone converted with argument. The answer is no. Your life and attitude speaks louder than any public address system. No matter how many times they claim to be born, you as a baptised and practising catholic is in the Lord. You profess in the Lord everyday you attend mass. Pray for the protestants too and never condemn them as there are many of them that will be going to heaven with good ones amongst us.

Typical of Catholics who cannot make sense of their practices and want to hide behind every excuse to not face up to the truth of the Bible that Catholicism gave the world. You condemn protestants by calling them hypocrites and cast aspersions on them - then you come back with a double talk of "never condemn them." Be assured, I'm praying for the likes of you - because you realy need to unload yourself off your biases and seek God's truth as you have advised other Catholics to do: "I urge you to pick up your Bible once again" - and READ IT!

biggjoe:
Remember, they will stir you with the statement that something, is not biblical. They have forgotten that the bible itself came from catholicism. Also they cannot in clear terms tell us why the bible must dictate every thing that we do in this world. The people that wrote the new testament had no idea that they were writing the bible and it was catholic church that put all of it together because of the holy spirit inspiration that guided the writers. Yet the writers did not in any terms command us that after them, the bible will be the only thing that will guide us. Christ's instruction to the apostles that whatever they bind on earth is bound in heaven is the driving force behind many catholic doctrines. Also, happened to the holy spirit he promised that will be with them after he had gone. Yes, Bible is inspirational and is supposed to be used as our guide to to pious life in christ which is all meant to lead us to christ. So i am not saying that the bible is not necessary. Infact its is crucial to every christian's salvation. So fellow catholics i urge you to pick up your bible once again or buy a new one if you don't have any.

It amazes me how you sound typically like a desperate politician distorting facts to cushion your prejudices. Let's even for a moment concede that "the bible itself came from catholicism" (as if Catholicism inspired the Bible), I cannot understand how or why Catholics like you cannot trust the same Bible you claim to have given us - and that is a big shame! It is not evangelical Christians who mistrust God's Word; rather, it is the same Catholic Church that prides itself with that tattered slogan who no longer swear by the truth of the Bible (see sample here:  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html ). The Bible states that God created the world; the "infallible" Pope (John Paul II) preferred evolution instead (http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1034.html ).
The Bible encourages believers to read it; several popes in the past have pronounced as heresy and blasphemy to read it, claiming that it would do more harm than good (http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0203.htm ). If Peter was the first Pope (as surely he was not), he certainly had a wife (Matt. 8:14); Catholicism forbids marriage and requires celibacy for its priests. And all these matters are in the Bible you Catholics gave the world and yet don't believe in it yourselves? Shame!

The importance of regulating everything we do in worship and the Christian life is underscored by Christ Himself - not the Tradition of Catholicism: "But He answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matt.4:4). He was quoting Deut. 8:3, the same book of the Bible where Moses warned the people time and again to not turn aside from, or add to, God's commandments. When Jesus denounced the Jews of His day for their traditions against the commandments of God, He quoted again from Deuteronomy (compare Matt. 15:4 and Deut.5:16 & Lev. 20:9). If it was not important to keep to God's Word, there would be no need for the Bible at all in the first place, and the Catholic Church would not have needed to engage in producing a Bible it does not believe in nor practice in the first instance.

Whether or not the inspired writers knew they were producing Scripture, at least Paul knew he was instrumental in writing parts of the New Testament as the inspired Word of God (I Cor. 14:37; II Cor. 1:13; Col. 1:25). Peter also classed Paul's writings among the 'other scriptures' (II Pet. 3:15-16). When Christ stated that whatever the apostles bound of earth it was recognised as binding in heaven, He did not stretch it to include heresy. So, if anyone was binding a heresy or tradition that conflicted with or contradicted God's ways, by all means we ought to question and reprove such, regardless the 'infallible authority' such a person might claim from any source.

biggjoe:
Even the bible said it that in the latter days, many misinterpretaion of the bible will surface. Most times, these protestants will overlook some practices in their own church which is unbiblical. For instance they have not been able to answer convincingly a question in the thread before this one where the author asked why christians worship on sunday instead of saturday. Yet there is no place in the bible old or new testament where we were commanded to change the day of worship to sunday. Even christ himself worshipped on saturdays. Events that took place after christ's death necessitated that christians worship on sundays. Most of them also neglect the directions that people will dress decenly in the house of God. Their ladies wear anything they like to church and they will tell you that it is outward and that it is only what is in the heart that matters. They ordain women pastors but there was an instruction against it.

So what is the force of your argument? If Christ worshipped on Saturdays, why do you Catholics choose Sundays for worship instead of Saturdays, since there is no place where you were commanded to change the day of worship? You posited that events that took place after Christ's death necessitated that Christians worship on Sundays - and you thereby think you've convincingly answered the question, abi? Clap for you! I'll offer you that Christians did not switch to Sunday because of certain events after Christ's death. Rather, the first day of the week was the day Christ rose from the grave - and that was the main reason believers celebrated the victory of Christ over Satan, sin and death (see Mark 16:9; Acts 20:7 and I Cor. 16:2). Believers are supposed to celebrate a living Christ who rose from the dead (Rev. 1:18) and the NT shows overwhelmingly that the first day of the week was their normal day of worship.

I would not have sought to post a reply but for the misrepresentations that you've introduced through the back door to paint others black while your own ship remains unsettled in the turbulence of a system you have not been able to justify.

biggjoe:
In this forum and many other places, catholics have come under attacks from people of other denominations crictisizing or questioning several doctrines and practises of the catholic church. This is not new and its is not also strange.The question is why will they always be doing this. what do they plan to achieve and I have the answer to that; they want to justify breaking away or in some cases to try to add more members to their congregation. These attacks normally come in the guise of an innocent question coated with sarcasm. Trying to answer such questions will always lead one to arguments with them which is what they really wanted. My advise to all true and strong catholics is to try as much as possible to avoid these arguments.

First, you have to understand that not everyone who asks a question is necessarily trying to draw out an argument or seeking to criticize the practices of the Catholic Church. If these practices are untenable, questions must be asked, whether or not you have nightmares about them. Even godly leaders who led God's people in the past did not shy away from questions intended to provide a better understanding of God's ways. Moses, for example, in establishing the passover service of the Lord, anticipated that children would ask their parents questions:

         "And when your children say to you, 'What do you mean by this service?' You shall say,
         'It is the sacrifice of the LORD's Passover, for he passed over the houses of the people of
          Israel in Egypt, when he struck the Egyptians but spared our houses.'" And the people
          bowed their heads and worshiped." (Exo 12:26-27).

Notice three things in Moses' answer: (a) first, he states the answer - "It is the sacrifice, " (b) next, he explains the answer - "for he passed over, " (c) then he verifies the answer with undeniable history without exaggerations - "when he struck the Egyptians, ". Is it such a difficult thing for you Catholics to follow the same example?

Jesus did not encourage people to just follow Him gullibly without understanding what they were committing their lives to. That's why He went so far as to encourage them to "Hear, and understand" (Matt.15:10). The apostle Paul did not get angry when people asked him questions, and he encouraged them to check out his doctrines by comparing them with the Scriptures - the OT (Acts 17:11 - "searched the scriptures daily". . .& I Cor.15:3 - "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures".

To suggest that asking questions is a way of seeking to justify a breakaway from Catholicism or add members to protestant denominations is a weak and beggarly propaganda only too reminiscent of those who are afraid of defending their untenable position. People leave a system when they discover the truth of God's Word - for example, salvation is a free gift by faith in Jesus Christ whose blood alone atones for sin (contrary to penance, purgatory and the indulgences sold to the repentant that offered them no saving security for heaven). In so many denominations, there have been abuses that cannot be condoned by God - and people left them to seek fellowship where God's truth is preached without compromise. It was not too long ago that the rumour of sexual abuses and pedophilia perversions came to light in the Catholic Church, and many who could no longer tolerate these excesses left to seek God's truth in other Christian churches. Jesus said you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free (John 8:32). When people get involved in idolatory and other questionable practices that they hold as their doctrines and traditions, God commands that we come out from among them and touch not the unclean thing (II Cor. 6:16-17).

biggjoe:
These are just but few and im not writing this to start another argument. I only want to call on catholics to avoid these arguments. the bible itself condemned involving in protracted arguments like that. The catholic church is far above all of the arguments and the people who initiate them. But the church is not arguing with anybody. The breakout of denominations started with wrong interpretaion of the bible. The have church spent so much resourses in finding out the real interpretation of the bible and many other events not recorded in the Bible. These protestants often argue with their knowledge of the English bible but the church have in the past trained people to learn the original tongue with which the bible was written and also understand the various dialects of the writters and these languages/dialects are extinct today yet the catholic church have people that can speak and understand them.

That's why I marvel at your bias. You ferment an argument and just want to run away by hoping no one's capable of answering your acrid misrepresentations. When you suppose that the Catholic Church has trained people in the original languages of the Bible, how about the fact that in the real world most protestant seminaries and theological institutes have produced fine scholars who match the scholarship of Catholicism? The breakout of denominations that you often claim show your ignorance of Church history. If the Catholic Church has always been right, how do you explain the pedophilia of Catholic bishops in America? How do you explain the murder of innocent people whose only crime was to possess, read the Bible and seek to follow God in all simplicity - the Waldensians in the 12th and 13th century as an example? Why would anyone want to remain in such heinous system - Catholic, Protestant or otherwise? God didn't ask us to come out of Christianity - He says when churches start derailing we are bound to come out of them - Rev. 18:4.

But test everything; hold fast what is good. - 1Thes. 5:21.

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. - John 7:2

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. - Eph. 5:11

Em. . .what about dis one? -

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour.

- 1Tim. 2:1-3

If I can pray for all men, could I not include my beloved country Nigeria?

@4get_me, thanks for that correction - I acknowledge the typo.

@mochafella, possibly I might've made the wrong inference and I apologise. I'll be glad to read your views, if it differs any from Jerome's commentary as posted on Catholic Answers website: "Do not marvel at the novelty of the thing, if a Virgin gives birth to God" (Commentaries on Isaiah 3:7:15 [A.D. 409]).

mamaput: And i did not call mary a vessel . I said she should not be seen as a vessel.

@mamaput, again I apologise to you for the mixup - that was supposed to have been mochafella's quote on the vessel and not yours. The mixup is regretted

Alright. No hassles meant. Enjoy your evening.

So, what about the testimonies of the church fathers?

There's something we have to understand here. If Irenaeus, Gregory the Wonderworker, Cyril of Jerusalem, and the others listed on the Catholic Answers website were inspired writers of Scripture, then the point would have been carried. However, these gentlemen of yester-centuries were re-interpreting the Word of God in their own tradition as they did so many other things - and it is remarkable that whatever title they called Mary, none of them actually was directly quoting the inspired writings that constitute the Bible as we have it today. Let's see how this bears out:

Irenaeus said: "The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]). Where did he get this idea from? The closest to it would be Luke 1:35, and this is the direct statement of Scripture as it appears there: "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." What has happened is that Irenaeus has shortchanged us by dropping some words from Luke 1:35. The angel called Mary's child 'Son of God', but Irenaeus just disregarded 'Son of' and simply said 'God'. Is this important? Yes, indeed. Let's use another example of this type of diddle:

If someone attempted to quote I Tim. 6:10 and said, "For money is the root of all evil" we know immediately that he/she has done the same thing as Irenaeus by dropping some words ("the love of". So, this is how this dribbling would read: "For the love of money is the root of all evil" - and the crossed out words show why it is important to be careful.

Cyril of Alexander made an interesting remark: "I have been amazed that some are utterly in doubt as to whether or not the holy Virgin is able to be called the Mother of God. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how should the holy Virgin who bore him not be the Mother of God?" (Letter to the Monks of Egypt 1 [A.D. 427]). By the same rule, Cyril should be amazed that the very same people who call Mary 'mother of God' cringe back in horror when you ask them why it is that those who do God's will cannot as well be called the 'brother of God' or 'sister of God' or 'mother of God' according Mark 3:5.

It is remarkable that none of the church fathers listed on the website actually was backing up their statements by what the apostles had written, as Paul warned that we ought not to go beyond what is written (I Cor.4:6). The earliest on the website who made that inference was Irenaeus and his documents dates back to 189 AD - nearly a hundred years after the apostles had completed their testimony in scripture. All the others that follow Irenaeus wrote a couple hundreds of years after him, and yet none of them brought forth their arguments from the apostles writings. Apart from the fact that they were forcing an unjustifiable interpretation into inspired Scripture, none of them actually pointed to God's Word where Mary was clearly called 'mother of God' by anybody in the New Testament.

Hey mamaput, after a great break this afternoon, I'm back - and then I saw the weblinks you'd posted. Let me assure you that I had already visited them and several others before you posted. Greatly appreciate your efforts. However, there are some concerns that I should table here:

From the first weblink [Catholic Answers]: http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp

Catholic Answers applies a logical syllogism to arrive at the title of Mary as 'mother of God'. What they don't understand is that the syllogism could be applied to arrive at a lot of other flawed and horrifying notions that bear no Scriptural basis. Let me attempt what a syllogism is:

By definition:
A syllogism is type of deductive reasoning containing two premises and a conclusion,
logical argument in the form "if A=C and A=B then B=C" (Logic); deductive reasoning.

Quote from Catholic Answers:
"Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God:
If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God.
There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized
by classical logicians since before the time of Christ."

Now let's see if logical syllogism applies to the following Scriptures:

(1) Since Jesus is God, and He calls believers His brethren (Heb. 2:11-12), by logical syllogism is it correct to say that believers are 'brethren of God'?

(2) Since Jesus is God, and He calls those who do the Father's will His sisters and brothers (Matt. 12:50), by logical syllogism, is it correct to call you the 'sister of God' and a Catholic male 'brother of God'?

(3) Since Jesus is God, and He was surely put to death on the Cross (Matt. 27:50), by logical syllogism, is it correct to say that 'God was put to death?'

(4) Or, since Jesus is God, and He was crucified (Mark 15:25), is it correct by the same logical syllogism to say that 'God was crucified'?

If we keep up with this logical syllogism, you'll come to see that what Catholic Answers has done is untenable. The Word of God is not interpreted by logic; Jesus said that the Holy Spirit will teach us all things (John 14:26), and any careful reader of God's Word will see that logical syllogism is too weak a tool in matters of divine revelation.

Catholic Answers website got it wrong. They can't find a clear scripture giving Mary the title of 'mother of God', and the only way they have sought to defend that title is by classical logic - not the word of God. Have you wondered that the Bible always uses the respected title of 'the mother of Jesus' (or 'Mary his mother') for Mary? (see for example John 2:1-3 and Acts 1:14). Nowhere in scripture was Mary ever called 'mother of God'.

U're absolutely right, Seun. I was half- . . .no, 3/4-asleep this morning when I posted it. I got hit so bad by yours that I thot to play one particularly in this board. So. . . I guess if I'm not the administrator, my April fool scheme bounced back and hit me so hard again - as my sister says. . . lol.







P/S.
Please help throw it in the bin after today. And thanks for your input.

Wow! That's a great treasure to have, you know

When I was in secondary school, the Gideons visited our school and gave us copies of the New Testament, but I never read it for years even though I believed I was a 'good person' - that was way back in 1985. . . uhm, yep - just over 20 years ago, too! Today, that little copy is a treasure to me, even though its binding/spine is weak. .lol; but, of course, I have acquired more copies of the Bible in several translations and versions.

Way to go, mamaput. Once again, thank you for your calm responses - and be encouraged to read more in God's Word.

mamaput:
That i don't know .
But I also believe that there are scripts that have not been opened to us.
That there are things that have not been reviled to us.
But Mary is supposed to have appeared to people several times, the church also investigated the cases and found some for true eg our lady of Fatima.

I respect your sincerity in answering my questions, mamaput - and may I further remark that you're one of the few rare Catholics I've been able to discuss issues with in a friendly way without fights and outburts. Thank you for your patience.

All I'm asking is that you take time to go through the Word of God - that is the surest ground that can guarantee you the truth against the traditions of men. These things you are defending will only make sense if they are found in the Scriptures rather than the traditions of men - because the traditions of men do FIVE serious things in the lives of those who follow them -

(a) they make people transgress God's commandments
(b) they make the commandments of God of no effect in people's lives
(c) they encourage people to lay aside God's commandments
(d) they bring in a whole lot of other traditions that are foreign and vain to worship
(e) they encourage people to reject the commandments of God in favour of traditions of men

"But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?. . .Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition" (Matt. 15:3 & 6).

"For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do,  .And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." (Mark 7:8 & 9).

I don't mean to be crude with respect to whatever you want to adopt in your worship style; however, my friendly appeal is that we all seek God's truth from God's Word rather than from the traditions of men. That is what is informing my questions and why I would appreciate that you point me more to the Bible than something else.

mamaput:
we pray to Mary to pray for us and the rosary is not only full of Mary prayers.
Like i say i i want something from you and i don't get it what stops me from going to your mother,
I i now say its from the pope you will say the pope is human.
What was Peter .

You pray to Mary? I think your inference here is also flawed. First, how do you know that if you asked something from Jesus you would not get it? That is not a promise found in God's Word, for Jesus said everyone who asks will receive (Matt.7:8 ); and He also promised that "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son" (John 14:13). He did not say we should ask Mary in His name, but rather we ask the Father in Jesus' name (John 15:16 & 16:23).

The Bible does not tell us to pray to Pope, Paul or Peter. . nor even Mary - because it is only to God that worship and prayers are to be directed, not to men: "All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord; and shall glorify thy name." (Psa 86:9). Why is it that no one in Biblical times prayed to Mary or any of the apostles? And why did Jesus Himself ask His disciples to pray directly to the Father in Jesus' name? Why did the Israelites (or Jews) not ask Abraham, Moses, Miriam, Samuel, Deborah, Hulda, David, Daniel and so many other men and women of God to pray for them after these men and women passed into blessed memory?

We are not asked to pray to men or women, neither are we asked to seek the prayers of the dead - that is called necromancy in God's Word.

mamaput:
Thats why they call it the mystery of the holy Trinity
I will not call myself a sister of god
But a child of God are we not all Gods children He is our maker.
And i did not call mary a vessel . I said she should not be seen as a vessel.
As long as i don't know if jesus is god i cannot answere you Question.
If Jesus is "ONly" the son of God then he is not God but the son of god .
But if he is god that was born as man, then he was born through a woman.
And this woman is the mother.
What is a mother.

Alright then, if you cannot call yourself a 'sister of God' directly or indirectly, I don't see why you want to call Mary the 'mother of God' by any indirect rule of application. The whole discussion is centered on what God's Word says in direct statements - and so far, there is not a single verse in Scripture that refers to Mary as the 'mother of God.' Let me share why this is important for me as a Christian who is humbly seeking God's truth.

God Himself inspired the Scriptures (II Tim. 3:16) and as such it makes sense to understand that if He wanted Mary to be called 'mother of God', then He would definitely have inspired at least one of the apostles to inscribe that title in the Bible.

There's a deep lesson to be learnt in God's Word about giving people titles that have no foundation in God's Word. Paul was inspired to write to the Corinthians to warn them not to go beyond and call anyone something more than they deserved: this is how he put it - "I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another." (I Cor. 4:6).

Further, Jesus Himself warned that the tradition of men constitutes vain worship before God (Matt. 15:9). That is why it is important for me to know if most of the things in any Church originates as the tradition of men, or the Word of God.

When investigating any subject of Scripture, one needs to be careful to use the Biblical words than mere human conjectures. Take for example the apostle Paul's use of this rule of context: "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seed[b]s[/b], as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." (Gal. 3:16). There's defintely a world of difference between 'seeds' and 'seed', and the apostle was careful to point that out. Jesus even used this same rule in discussing with people. Often you would read of Him saying, "It is written" or "What is written in the law? how readest thou?" (Luke 10:26).

If it was important to the Lord Jesus to keep to what is written in God's Word, I think anyone who seeks God's truth should take that same attitude - "What is written?" It is a healthy practice "not to go beyond what is written", as the apostle Paul warns in I Cor. 4:6. That's why I asked you to show me where in the Scriptures Mary is called the 'mother of God'.

I'll grant you that - Jesus is Lord.

Having said that, would you also be saying that Mary is the 'mother of God' if you admit that the Father is also God as well as is the Holy Spirit? If you said that Mary is 'God's birth mother/vessel', are you ignoring the fact that the Father is God also in the Trinity?

In fair exchange, would you answer my question which I repost --

>>If you're trying to indirectly call Mary that title, then according to Matt. 12:50, would you indirectly call yourself the "sister of God"?<<

Give me just one place in your Bible where Mary is directly called 'mother of God' by anyone - whether in the Gospels or the Epistles where the doctrines of the Church are established. If you're trying to indirectly call Mary that title, then according to Matt. 12:50, would you indirectly call yourself the "sister of God"?

I'd agree with you that it matters who was the son in particular that Abraham would have sacrificed. The answer determines who has been on the wrong track of life's journey: if Ishmael, then Christians got it wrong; if Isaac, then Muslims got it wrong. We both have our convictions of one or the other based on interpretations of the Bible or the Qur'an. You scored a good point by asking for historical verification as to who exactly could have been the 'son' in question.

At this time, I haven't thought much on it from the historical perspective - I've had reasons from the Bible itself to believe the son in question was Isaac. . . reasons which, if you so desire me, I'd be glad and willing to share. Perhaps also, if I come up with anything that sheds light on the historical antecedence, you'll read it soonest here. However, my faith is anchored in the belief that the prophetic significance is so overwhelming as to pass lightly for any other than Isaac.

Jesus appeared to several women including Mary His mother after His resurrection; He was born as a baby and grew up in His mother's house; and more than twice, He addressed her.

Do all these matters make Mary the 'mother of God'?

Well, what did you expect? I was only trying to see how many hits this would generate before the end of the day. Anyway, enjoy - it's April Fool's Day!!

mochafella:
um welborn,

it does clearly say "mother of my lord". What do you think was meant there? Sounds like you are splitting hairs. Besides catholics do know Mary was God's birth mother/vessel. No one is suggesting she had a hand in God's "creation".
It's a set of beads used to pray to God and to ask Mary to pray to God for the individual saying the rosary. I beleive it's importance is restricted to that.

Many thanks for your reply, but no I'm not trying to split hairs.

Luke 1:43 indeed mentions 'mother of my Lord' but is that the same thing as mother of God? And just what I feared you would conclude by that title is the idea that Mary was God's birth mother/vessel - it sounds like you're saying Mary gave birth to God!

Jesus is God, no doubt (John 1:1) but He was God before Mary even existed! Jesus created Mary (see John 1:3). For somebody to be God's mother (or 'mother of God', or even 'God's birth mother'), that person should have existed before God - which is impossible with Mary or anyone else for that matter. Jesus became Man (John 1:14) and it is in the sense of His humanity that Mary is His mother, not in the sense of His deity. Mary did not give birth to God, nor is she God's birth mother. Read through the Bible for yourself - there's no idea of the 'birth of God' because He has no beginning nor end.

I've tried to reason as to why the early Christians did not call Mary 'mother of God', or 'God's mother'. For one thing, while they were gathered in prayer in the upper room, no one addressed Mary as such, and no one even asked Mary to pray to God as the intermediary or go-between for those who were gathered - even though she was present there with them; they simply prayed to God (see Acts 1:12-14. . . did you notice that Mary is called the 'mother of Jesus' in verse 14, rather than 'mother of God'?).

Second of all, in at least two recorded situations we see how Jesus responded to events connected with His mother: (a) when Mary approached Him with the request for wine at the wedding of Cana, He simply called her 'woman' instead of 'mother' in John 2:4; (b) when someone in the audience called out to Him that His mother and brethren stood outside and desired to speak with Him, Jesus said that whosoever did the will of the Father was His brother, and sister, and mother - Matt. 12:46-50. If you are also doing the will the Father, you certainly would not call yourself a 'sister of God' or 'God's sister', would you? That you are a 'child of God' by faith in Jesus Christ is not something for me to argue about; but that is not the same thing as someone calling you a 'sister of God', is it?

Once again, my aim is not to cause a skirmish. However, I've often wondered what Catholics mean by 'mother of God'. Don't get me wrong - Mary indeed is one of the special women in the Bible. But it seems to me that the Catholic doctrine of venerating her to the status of 'mother of God' (or 'God's mother', or yet 'God's birth mother' as if she gave birth to God) is an unbiblical tradition that has no convincing historical basis with the apostles and early Christians.

Your generalizations are not true about pentecostal pastors, speaking in tongues, and people flocking wherever to miracles as the possibility of the demonic. If you have a problem with pentecostal Christians, will you deny that Catholicism has had its share of questionable practices?

Luke 1:41 does not call Mary the 'mother of God', and you didn't explain. So, what am I missing?

No one is bringing a fight in here. We all know John 10:30 clearly records Jesus Himself saying that He and the Father are one. This oneness does not mean that Jesus is the Father - does anyone argue about that? I don't think so. Jesus did not say "I am the Father"; His statement is: "I and the Father are one." If we praise the Father, we bring glory to the Trinity - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If we praise the Son, we still bring glory to the Trinity as well.

Born again is not a state of mind: it is a divine reality of receiving the gift of new life - divine life - by the power of the Spirit. The Bible was not describing a state of mind in John 1:12 - God gave repentant sinners (like me ) the power to become the sons of God.

I would like you to point me more to the Bible, not the traditions many people are too familiar with. God has no beginning nor end - no one created Him. "Mother of God" suggests that Mary gave birth to 'God' (to even think of such a thing! - Lord have mercy!) - which is not true. If I'm missing something out, please kindly direct me to God's Word so I could check it out as well.

Without the Holy Spirit, you don't have the Trinity. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - the blessed Trinity.

Could a Catholic explain to me the meaning of addressing Mary as "mother of God" - it does not appear to me that is what she was called in God's Word. I'll appreciate a reasonable and unbiased response that is based on God's Word. Thanks.