Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Praying to Mary is worshiping Mary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The lexicons/dictionaries I cited all teach that being the heart-knower of all is the same thing as being omniscient.
    Now if you can cite a lexicon that says otherwise I'd like to see it but so far I have cited several that affirm my position.

    Besides the ones I cited in my link in Post #149 this is from the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis:
    the psalmist acknowledged the omniscience of God who knows the secrets of the heart (44:21[22]) (3:426, ta`alummah - hidden, secret, Andrew Hill).

    Once again, to know the totality of all hearts of all people is the same thing as being omniscient.
    Last edited by foudroyant; 07-28-2014, 08:56 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
      The lexicons/dictionaries I cited all teach that being the heart-knower of all is the same thing as being omniscient.
      Now if you can cite a lexicon that says otherwise I'd like to see it but so far I have cited several that affirm my position.
      No. You have cited lexicons that affirm the former logically valid argument, not the latter logically invalid one. But even if they did the lexicons would be wrong. It is not a question that is proper to use a lexicon to answer. It is a strictly logical question and can only be solved using the laws of logic.

      Comment


      • The lexicons are wrong and you are correct? Please cite your credentials in both Hebrew and Greek.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
          The lexicons are wrong and you are correct? Please cite your credentials in both Hebrew and Greek.
          A. None of your cited lexicons say what you want them to say. They only say that God knows the hearts of people because he is omniscient. They do NOT say that he is omniscient because he knows the hearts of people.
          B. It is not a question of Greek or Hebrew. It is simply a question of applying the rules of logic. Affirming the consequent is and remains a logical fallacies. This would be the case even if a bunch of lexicons commit that fallacy. But they don't.
          C. Please read up on and think about the affirming the consequent fallacy and how it relates to your claim.

          Comment


          • EDNT: On the one hand God is "in heaven" (Matt 6:9f. par.; 7:11; 11:25) and strictly distinguishable from everything that is of this world. On the other hand, however, he is present (Matt 6:1-18; Rev 1:8) and omniscient (Matt 6:8, 32; Acts 1:24; 15:8) (2:141, theos, G. Schneider).

            Acts 1:24 reads, And they prayed and said, You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen (NASB)

            So your assertion is false about God not being omniscient because He knows all the hearts.
            Last edited by foudroyant; 07-28-2014, 10:54 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
              EDNT: On the one hand God is "in heaven" (Matt 6:9f. par.; 7:11; 11:25) and strictly distinguishable from everything that is of this world. On the other hand, however, he is present (Matt 6:1-18; Rev 1:8) and omniscient (Matt 6:8, 32; Acts 1:24; 15:8) (2:141, theos, G. Schneider).

              Acts 1:24 reads, And they prayed and said, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place." (NASB)

              So your assertion is false about God not being omniscient because He knows all the hearts.
              "EDNT: On the one hand God is "in heaven" (Matt 6:9f. par.; 7:11; 11:25) and strictly distinguishable from everything that is of this world. On the other hand, however, he is present (Matt 6:1-18; Rev 1:8) and omniscient (Matt 6:8, 32; Acts 1:24; 15:8) (2:141, theos, G. Schneider)."

              This just affirms God's omnscience. As a Christian I too affirm God's omnscience.

              "Acts 1:24 reads, And they prayed and said, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place." (NASB)"

              This just affirms that God knows the hearts of all men. As a Christian I too affirm this.

              Neither of your quotes says that God is omniscient BECAUSE he knows the hearts of all men.

              Here is my stance:

              1. I affirm that God is omniscient.
              2. I affirm that God knows the heart of all men.
              3. I affirm that 1 implies 2. That is God's omniscience implies that he know the heart of all men.
              4. I deny that God knowing the heart of all men implies he is omniscient.

              Comment


              • You are correct that Acts 1:24 does affirm God's omniscience. This is because the Greek word καρδιογνῶστα (lit. heart-knower) is found in this passage.


                From The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible: Christ possesses the attributes of God: omniscience (Acts 1:24) (2:94, deity of Christ, A.H. Leitch).

                Comment


                • Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
                  You are correct that Acts 1:24 does affirm God's omniscience. This is because the Greek word καρδιογνῶστα (lit. heart-knower) is found in this passage.


                  From The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible: Christ possesses the attributes of God: omniscience (Acts 1:24) (2:94, deity of Christ, A.H. Leitch).
                  Read what I said once again. I specifically denied that Acts 1:24 affirmed the omniscience of God.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Kristian Joensen View Post
                    "EDNT: On the one hand God is "in heaven" (Matt 6:9f. par.; 7:11; 11:25) and strictly distinguishable from everything that is of this world. On the other hand, however, he is present (Matt 6:1-18; Rev 1:8) and omniscient (Matt 6:8, 32; Acts 1:24; 15:8) (2:141, theos, G. Schneider)."

                    This just affirms God's omnscience. As a Christian I too affirm God's omnscience.
                    One of the passages cited is Acts 1:24 above while your comment is beneath.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
                      You don't know that it is a misuse of Mounce but then you add later that it is most certainly a misuse of Mounce.

                      Yeah that makes sense.

                      Go check out page 531 and whatever else you can find in what he wrote concerning "pray" in this section. It's there for anyone to see. Thing is you can't refute it so now you resort to playing this stupid game of denial.
                      It would help if you read what I posted for understanding instead of just looking for something to attack. I don't have a copy of Mounce to check, so I cannot tell if you are misusing Mounce by misquoting him or quoting him out of context.
                      NIDNTT: In prayer we are never to forget whom we are addressing: the living God, the almighty One with whom nothing is impossible, and from whom therefore all things may be expected (2:857, Prayer, H. Schonweiss).

                      Catholics and others of their ilk add Mary and countless other "saints" to the mix identifying them as "the living God" as well in that they are also prayed to.

                      Now two sources of pray/prayer are against the blasphemy of praying to anyone/anything else but God alone.
                      You are patently misusing this, because no one identifies Mary and the saints as "the living God." You're assuming prayer can only be to God, an assumption I've debunked more than once.
                      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                      sigpic
                      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                        It would help if you read what I posted for understanding instead of just looking for something to attack. I don't have a copy of Mounce to check, so I cannot tell if you are misusing Mounce by misquoting him or quoting him out of context.

                        You are patently misusing this, because no one identifies Mary and the saints as "the living God." You're assuming prayer can only be to God, an assumption I've debunked more than once.
                        Then in Post #144 you should not have said I am misusing Mounce if you aren't sure. You would think before posting again you would have at least found his dictionary to prove that I am misusing him.
                        You flunked in your debunk for I cited more than one dictionary that disagrees with your assertion concerning prayer.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
                          One of the passages cited is Acts 1:24 above while your comment is beneath.
                          The text it self affirms omniscience and that is it. I was only addressing that and not the biblical passages the author cites in support. But I will note that the Matthew passage is NOT talking about knowing the hearts. This is just G. Schneider citing some passages with examples of things that God knows as a consequence of omniscience. God knows what people are going to ask for before they pray because he is omniscient. God is not omniscient because he knows what people are going to ask for before they pray. Schneider is just showing some example of God's omniscience in action. God knowing the hearts of all men is a consequence of God's omniscience. God's omniscience is not a consequence of God knowing the hearts of all men. It is possible to know the hearts of all men without being omniscient. It is not possible to be omniscient without knowing the hearts of all men.

                          You can become rich without winning the lottery. But you can't win the lottery without becoming rich*. You can't truly know me as a person without knowing my name, but you can know my name without truly knowing me as a person. If your head gets chopped off you die, but just because you are dead doesn't mean your head was chopped off. You can't know how to speak English without knowing how to speak. You can know how to speak without knowing how to speak English(by knowing othe languages such as Faroese). You can not know how to program in the programming language Haskell without knowing how to program but you can know how to program without knowing how to program in Haskell(by knowing other language such as Pascal). You can not be the President of the United States without having a lot of power but you can have a lot of power without being President of the United States. I could go on....

                          *
                          Spoilers (click to see)
                          Last edited by Kristian Joensen; 07-28-2014, 11:42 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
                            Then in Post #144 you should not have said I am misusing Mounce if you aren't sure. You would think before posting again you would have at least found his dictionary to prove that I am misusing him.
                            Once again, you show that you failed to read for understanding. I clarified in post #146 about what I wasn't sure. Thank you for continuing to make my point for me.
                            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                            sigpic
                            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Kristian Joensen View Post
                              The text it self affirms omniscience and that is it. I was only addressing that and not the biblical passages the author cites in support. But I will note that the Matthew passage is NOT talking about knowing the hearts.
                              The text itself affirms omniscience. Agree. That is what Acts 1:24 affirms.
                              So your assertion in Post #154 that not one of the citations I provided proves this is false.
                              Last edited by foudroyant; 07-28-2014, 07:05 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                                I don't know that that is, since I don't have the rest of what he wrote. However, your statement, "Based on what Mounce wrote above. . . " is most certainly a misuse of Mounce.
                                This is clarification in Post #146?
                                No, this is repeating once again that you don't know what Mounce wrote.
                                Go to the library and get his book or ask a friend who has this book for the information you so desperately lack and need. I'll tell you this though, you won't find what you are asserting.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X