Who made God?

[Gregg T]

Really??? So 99% of the church had no common sense for 1600 or so years until the advent of Evangelical Protestants? Amazing!!!

I definitely do not accept every Tom, Dick and Harriet's personal opinion of what they think scripture says over what the early church fathers said.

Ah! THAT's your problem; perpetual virginity is too KAATH-lick for you.
Not my problem.

Please. That is your insertion of your personal opinion into the scriptures. Your opinions are not definitive of reality.

I already answered that question. "Because that has been the teaching of the Church from the earliest times."
But I don't "need" to think that. I accept the teaching of "the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (1Ti 3:15)
Why do you have such a pressing need for me to agree with you?
Why is it so important to you for Mary to have a "normal" sex life?
What's THAT about?

I do not reject the perpetual virginity of Mary because it is to Catholic for me, but because it contradicts Scripture.

Catholicism teaches that Mary remained a virgin, that she is the Queen of Heaven, and that she contributes / or contributed to our salvation, that people can recieve grace and blessings from her; but the Church and the Scriptures have not taught these things.

Catholic tradition teaches that Mary was sinless from her conception and throughout her life; but Scripture teaches "all have sinned, and fall short off the glory of God" (Rom 3:23), and "the Scripture locked up all under sin" (Gal 3:22), and "If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His Word is not in us" (1 Jn 1:10).

Some tradions make God a liar. Why does one support a tradition that makes God a liar?

This thread is about witnessing to the unsaved, and how a Christian would answer the question "Who made God?" Catholic tradition calls Mary the 'Mother of God', the 'Mother of the Church', and makes her to be a co-savior with Christ. How do you explain that tradition to a non-believer?

 

[Gregg T]

Really??? So 99% of the church had no common sense for 1600 or so years until the advent of Evangelical Protestants? Amazing!!!

No, but rather 100% of people who claimed Mary remained a virgin were either not exercising common sense or were being decieved regarding that matter. Many people during that 1600 years did not have (or were prohibited from having) a Bible to investigate Catholic claims.

Protestants protested Catholic heresies, not the heresies of the true Church.

 

[jasonc]

No it means you already have what you need to live a Godly life. Christ in us. Assuming you have that gift. You should know.

A good tree doesn't bear bad fruit.

Randy

That's not what you appear to say.the idea thar a person can't forgive his enemy and enter inot heaven is where in the bible?

 

[Jim Parker]

Scripture trumps tradition

The correct understanding of scripture is found in the apostolic tradition as recorded by the early church fathers.

 

[Northman]

The correct understanding of scripture is found in the apostolic tradition as recorded by the early church fathers.

Isnt having a book to explain a book the same thing the mormons do?

 

[Nathan]

I have given my reason.
It is the teaching of the Church from ancient times until today.
If I can't trust the Church with that bit of information then why should I trust them with any CHristian teaching?

The fact that somebody did not do the research for you (plural) and then teach it to you is no excuse for not having a clue.

It is doubtful to you because you have not done any research on the subject to see what the early church had to say.
No one is saying "just because" unless you are also willing to say that you believe in the Trinity "just because" and the dual nature of Christ "just because" as well.

The answer should be obvious.
What other person conceived a child by the Holy Spirit?
There were consecrated or dedicated virgins in the Church in the 1st century.
[1 Cor 7:34 hē gunē hē agamos kai hē parthenos … ("the unmarried woman and the virgin [cares for the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit]"),
Acts 21:9 thugateres tessares parthenoi prophēteuousai ("four unmarried daughters who prophesied")]
Just because the modern western person cannot imagine such a life, it does not follow that it could not be the case in ancient Israel.

Here is the issue. My comments were not directed toward you, but the idea in general. You are free to have your reasons to believe what you do. However, when someone wants to use their God given intellect in order to understand why they believe something, then there are questions a person can ask. How do we know Mary was perpetually a virgin? There are only two ways of knowing for sure.

1. She told everyone she was.
2. Someone knew that every time she was with her husband, no intimacy happened.

Both points are doubtful, if not absurd to think about.

There is a difference between a mystery of God, and the humanity of Mary. We cannot say that because we do not understand how God is a Trinity, then it is impossible to understand if Mary was a virgin the rest of her life or not. That is putting Mary on the same level as God. Which, I highly suspect, is why the idea was brought about in the first place.

We know that there were unmarried and virgins in the church, but that does not mean that a married woman like Mary kept her virginity. The teaching of unmarried women, and of virgins, is actually quite the opposite. Paul taught that a woman was not to neglect her husband. So it would have been Josephs call to not have intimacy in that nature with her. This is never written about.

 

[Jim Parker]

And what does "a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."" mean?

One thing it does NOT mean is that you may ignore the clear words of Jesus Christ who said that you will be judged by your works. (In the scripture which I have repeatedly posted.)

A good tree doesn't bear bad fruit. My justification isn't by works and isn't from me. But by the Lord and His grace. Now those who don't have the spirit despite what they might declare? (not meaning you)

A good tree doesn't bear bad fruit. I do NOT declare once saved always saved. I would state remain in Jesus and He will remain in you. Even though John wrote those who are born again don't continue to sin. And the Lord stated if you hold to my testimony that shows you as His disciple.

What do you think it means to "hold to Jesus' testimony"?
Do you think that it means to agree with Him that He is Lord?
Jesus never asked for anyone's agreement that He is Lord.
What He DID ask is: “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,' and not do the things which I say?" (Luk 6:46)

Bearing fruit means doing Jesus will that you “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven." (Mat 5:16) The fruit is "good works." If believers just automatically did those good works then Jesus would not have had to tell anyone to do them.

It continues to amaze me how much resistance I get when I tell people that if we are going to call ourselves Christians we need to act like Christ.

Jesus said, “For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man.
Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation." Jhn 5:26-29

By those words, Jesus, our LORD, told us that the basis on which He will judge us is whether we did good or we did evil. If we did good (works) we will have (eternal) life and if we did evil (works) we will be condemned (to the second death in the lake of fire.)

Why would anyone want to diminish the importance of that statement by Jesus our LORD?

But that's what I get every time I post Jesus' very own words.

I don't understand.


iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

I do not reject the perpetual virginity of Mary because it is to Catholic for me, but because it contradicts Scripture.

It contradicts YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of scripture.
And your personal interpretation is in direct contradiction of the teaching of the historical church.
I cannot imagine why that would be so important to you.

 

[Jim Parker]

No, but rather 100% of people who claimed Mary remained a virgin were either not exercising common sense

So the people who hammered out the theology of the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ had no common sense but you have been blessed with an abundance!
How nice for you!

 

[Gregg T]

The correct understanding of scripture is found in the apostolic tradition as recorded by the early church fathers.

I disagree.

The correct understanding of Scripture is found in the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 2:10-13, 1 John 2:20, 1 John 2:27) and in God through the Scriptures (John 10:35, Titus 1:2, 2 Timothy 3:16).

Apostolic tradition and the early Church fathers are not living and active as is God and His word, Heb 4:12 "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart."

God Himself says what is correct about His words, not what a man may think He says. Men tend to redefine God's words, but God does not redefine His words.

 

[Jim Parker]

Isnt having a book to explain a book the same thing the mormons do?

Have you ever used a commentary?
That's what the apostolic tradition is.
The apostolic tradition also includes the New Testament.
SO, no. It isn't the same thing the mormons do.

 

[Gregg T]

So the people who hammered out the theology of the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ had no common sense but you have been blessed with an abundance!
How nice for you!

You appeal to another authority about whay God says, rather than appealing to God Himself as to what He says?

Would you hammer out theology with Scripture or tradition? Only one of them will be proven true.

 

[Jim Parker]

There are only two ways of knowing for sure.

1. She told everyone she was.
2. Someone knew that every time she was with her husband, no intimacy happened.

Both points are doubtful, if not absurd to think about.

It is the teaching of the church since at least the 2nd century.
You think you know better because you have an modern western intellect and a feble if any grasp at all of the ancient eastern intellect.
That is not the result of applied intellect as you propose. It is the result of arrogance (presumption) that you know better than the entire Christian church has known for almost 2000 years.

Why is it so important for Protestants that they must dwell on what they imagine to be the sex life of the Mother of God???

 

[Jim Parker]

I disagree.

Really?
Based on what?
Your complete knowledge of the ancient Greek and Hebrew languages and the culture and literature of the ancient society in which the scriptures arose.
Have you done extensive research on the writings of the Cappadocians, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, et. al. and are qualified to correct them when they digress from the pure teaching of God as you personally know it?

The correct understanding of Scripture is found in the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 2:10-13, 1 John 2:20, 1 John 2:27) and in God through the Scriptures (John 10:35, Titus 1:2, 2 Timothy 3:16).

Oh! Then why is there such a diversity of "truth" among the Protestant churches?
Is it only YOU who has the Holy Spirit and the truly true truth of scripture?

Please!

 

[Gregg T]

It contradicts YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of scripture.
And your personal interpretation is in direct contradiction of the teaching of the historical church.
I cannot imagine why that would be so important to you.

Yes, my personal interpretation is in contradiction to Catholic teaching.

You speak of 'the historical church' as if only Catholicism existed before Protestantism. I assure you, there were Biblical Christian doctrines being kept alive during the reign of Catholicism.

Things regarding Mary like 'queen of heaven' and 'mother of God' and 'perpetual virginity' are nowhere to be found in the Scriptures. Men imagined those things, whose imaginings are now falsely perpetuated as truths.

So a person asks the believer, 'who made God' or perhaps 'who made the Son of God;' would you tell them God and Mary made the Son? And if they asked, 'was Mary sinless?' Wouldn't you say 'Yes' according to your beliefs? And if they then read from John, to whom Christ entrusted His mother in the flesh, who said "if we say we have not sinned, we make Him a liar" (1 Jn 1:10a), wouldn't they then reason this:
1. either God is a liar, and should not be believed, or
2. "His word is not in" (1Jn 1:10b) you, and your testimony of Him should not be believed.

That is why these things are important to me - that no one should inhibit another from believing the words of God because of false traditions, and no one's testimony of God based on false traditions should contradict the Scriptures.

 

[Nathan]

It is the teaching of the church since at least the 2nd century.
You think you know better because you have an modern western intellect and a feble if any grasp at all of the ancient eastern intellect.
That is not the result of applied intellect as you propose. It is the result of arrogance (presumption) that you know better than the entire Christian church has known for almost 2000 years.

Why is it so important for Protestants that they must dwell on what they imagine to be the sex life of the Mother of God???

It is applied intellect. Do you believe everything that you are taught in church? If you do, why did you leave the protestant church after 18 years? Was it because they taught things that were not inline with the truth? How did you come to that conclusion?

Nobody is dwelling on the intimacy of Mary. Its simple questions. There has to be a reason why she is believed to be a perpetual virgin. We do not find it in the Bible, so someone, at some point, had to start teaching it for some reason. There are a lot of things that we have no clue about in regards to other people in Jesus life. So why did the early church teach she was a perpetual virgin? There has to be a reason.

Arrogance comes from thinking that what has been taught for so long must be right - regardless of the reason it is taught.

Jesus had some pretty harsh things to say about people who did such things in Matthew 23.

 

[Northman]

Have you ever used a commentary?
That's what the apostolic tradition is.
The apostolic tradition also includes the New Testament.
SO, no. It isn't the same thing the mormons do.

Yes I have read parts of some commentaries. Isn't the difference that commentaries aren't and shouldn't actually be considered authoritative? More specifically aren't prophets and apostles only supposed to hold that role when it comes to scripture?

 

[Gregg T]

Really?
Based on what?
Your complete knowledge of the ancient Greek and Hebrew languages and the culture and literature of the ancient society in which the scriptures arose.
Have you done extensive research on the writings of the Cappadocians, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, et. al. and are qualified to correct them when they digress from the pure teaching of God as you personally know it?

Oh! Then why is there such a diversity of "truth" among the Protestant churches?
Is it only YOU who has the Holy Spirit and the truly true truth of scripture?

Please!

As if there were not Catholic teachings that contradicted each other. Please, ask to begin another thread on this very matter and I will see you there.

Appeal to men and Queen Mary, but I will appeal to God and His Word.

 

[Jim Parker]

Yes I have read parts of some commentaries. Isn't the difference that commentaries aren't and shouldn't actually be considered authoritative? More specifically aren't prophets and apostles only supposed to hold that role when it comes to scripture?

OK.
So, since we have such a wide diversity of interpretations, who do we go to to get the best one?
We can't just "go to the scriptures" because that's were we are having the problem.
So how about going to people who were the closest to the events, who speak the language of the writers of the NT and their native tongue and who live in the same culture as the NT writers?
Or we could wait for someone like J. Vernon McGee to come along and enlighten us. (I really liked that guy!) Or Joyce Myers or Creflo Dollar or Jimmy Bakker or John McArthur or Chuck Smith.

We accept the conclusions of the 7 great councils as definitive for orthodox Christianity but we reject the opinions of the same people because modern reformed, evangelical, protestants don't agree?

Somepin wrong wid dat

iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

As if there were not Catholic teachings that contradicted each other. Please, ask to begin another thread on this very matter and I will see you there.
Appeal to men and Queen Mary, but I will appeal to God and His Word.

Yeah. Goody goody for you.
Every heresy is based on reinventing the meaning of God's word and modern ones very often include religious bigotry against them dang KATH-licks.
And you have no idea that I have not based anything I have said on any teaching that originated in the Roman Catholic Church.
Typical