tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post5115456079764538944..comments2024-03-19T05:32:06.204-04:00Comments on My perspective -- What Constance thinks: Janice Daniels, former Mayor of Troy, Michigan, USA hosts my radio program tomorrow Aug. 6, 2016Constance Cumbeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07181096121385621574noreply@blogger.comBlogger398125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-15741284089890556332017-05-17T06:55:43.620-04:002017-05-17T06:55:43.620-04:00Hello everyone, I'm here to let the whole worl...Hello everyone, I'm here to let the whole world know of a man called Dr. Ekpen he is a spell caster and he is the man that helps me in my restore my marriage when my husband broke up with me, he use his power and gift to restore joy in my relationship. I want to also let the whole world know that he can still help if you are been blackmail by someone or you want to win a court case he can help. Contact him today via email: ekpentemple@gmail.com or you can whatsapp him on +2347050270218. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15532405449162182001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-59930666474048894862017-01-13T21:30:58.899-05:002017-01-13T21:30:58.899-05:00michael kors outlet
coach factory outlet
ugg sale
...<a href="http://www.michael-korsoutlet.ca" rel="nofollow"><strong>michael kors outlet</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.coachfactoryoutletsaleonline.us.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>coach factory outlet</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.uggsale.us.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>ugg sale</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.cheaprolexreplicawatches.us" rel="nofollow"><strong>rolex watches</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.pradaoutlets.us" rel="nofollow"><strong>prada outlet</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.kevindurantshoes.us" rel="nofollow"><strong>kd 9 shoes</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.saclongchampsolde.fr" rel="nofollow"><strong>sac longchamp</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.michaelkors-outlet.ca" rel="nofollow"><strong>michael kors outlet</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.fit-flopssaleclearance.us.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>fitflops sale clearance</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.raybans.org.uk" rel="nofollow"><strong>rayban</strong></a><br />20170114Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06468977099257039433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-41403150669907061702016-11-03T16:35:54.034-04:002016-11-03T16:35:54.034-04:00Benjamin Creme – Maitreya’s Voice – Dead at 93
h...Benjamin Creme – Maitreya’s Voice – Dead at 93<br /><br /><br />http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=21704<br /><br />Dave in CAAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-83862766789465209772016-10-07T01:49:19.368-04:002016-10-07T01:49:19.368-04:00Life is good when you have your love ones around y...Life is good when you have your love ones around you, I am saying this because when i had issues with my lover i never seen life as a good thing but thanks to Dr. AGBAZARA of AGBAZARA TEMPLE, for helping me to cast a spell that brought my lover back to me within the space of 48hours. My husband left me for another woman after 7YEARS of marriage,but Dr.AGBAZARA help me cast a spell that brought him back to me within 48hours. I am not going to tell you more details about myself rather i will only advise those who are having issues in there relationship or marriages to contact Dr.AGBAZARA TEMPLE through these details via; ( agbazara@gmail.com) or call him on Whatsapp: +2348104102662Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-83238235614019448342016-08-31T15:08:33.919-04:002016-08-31T15:08:33.919-04:00It so refreshing to not have to wade through swamp...It so refreshing to not have to wade through swamps of MCE's sewage, now that aka nasty New Ager of olde has been finally limited! Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-59268837865865108282016-08-29T06:59:45.474-04:002016-08-29T06:59:45.474-04:00Grant,
From the perspective of a Bible Believer y...Grant,<br /><br />From the perspective of a Bible Believer you are correct that the Bible is the measurement by which all other views are measured.<br /><br />Let’s turn this the other way. If a Catholic tells you that you should believe in the Assumption of Mary by explaining that Pope Pius XII, speaking <i>ex cathedra</i>, declared it so, would you then adopt it as part of your belief system? Of course not, as your belief system is <i>Sola Scriptura</i>, not Bible plus Tradition.<br /><br />Observe very carefully the means by which Paul proclaims Christ to the Athenians on Areopagus/Mars Hill in Acts 17:16-34. He began by preaching the Good News. Then, <b>when questioned <i>by them</i>, he used their own belief system as a springboard to preach Christ!</b><br /><br />You’re not going to win an atheist by claiming s/he is wrong because “The Bible says…” The atheist does not live by that worldview. That doesn’t mean we don’t tell him/her the Good News, which, of course, IS in the Bible! That doesn’t mean you cannot civilly defend your worldview, showing that it’s logically coherent, and that both Christianity and atheism require a certain amount of faith.<br /><br />As Bible believers, we are to preach the Good News, the Great Commission. It’s the Holy Spirit who convicts.<br /><br />Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. Pray for others. Preach Christ and Him crucified.Craighttps://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-77626693889565875352016-08-29T04:17:07.034-04:002016-08-29T04:17:07.034-04:00Craig said...
"Bottom line: To criticize ano...Craig said...<br /><br />"Bottom line: To criticize another’s particular position fairly one must criticize it based upon , the rule of faith of the one being criticized, not the criticizer’s."<br /><br />Hi,<br /><br />I think your statement seriously lacks wisdom.<br />The rule of faith all faiths and religions is measured and critiqued is the Bible...( extras bits not included)<br /><br />Regards,<br />Grant<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-8529441475292263182016-08-28T23:26:26.706-04:002016-08-28T23:26:26.706-04:00Grant,
Allow me to clarify my position with respe...Grant,<br /><br />Allow me to clarify my position with respect to RCC. It’s as Susanna has stated more than once here (paraphrased), the RCC has a different rule of faith than Protestantism, and we cannot measure each other’s positions by the standards of the opposing rule of faith. For example, to tell a RCC adherent that the Assumption of Mary is not Biblical might receive a response of bewilderment, such as “Your point is…?”, because the RCC adherent finds the doctrine for the Assumption of Mary in their Tradition, not in the Bible. Moreover, strictly speaking, that doctrine is not anti-Biblical, though it is extra-Biblical. Hence, a Protestant cannot really criticize that particular RCC doctrine.<br /><br />Bottom line: To criticize another’s particular position fairly one must criticize it based upon <b>the rule of faith of the one being criticized</b>, not the criticizer’s.<br /><br />So, this is what I meant when I stated that it rarely accomplishes anything.<br />Craighttps://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-9280772584372753152016-08-28T22:35:55.991-04:002016-08-28T22:35:55.991-04:00Hi Craig and RayB re last comments,
Agree with yo...Hi Craig and RayB re last comments,<br /><br />Agree with your comments.<br />Like the phrase "cautious continuationist" might use that one myself, it sums up our position really well.<br />And you are so correct, RC's very seldom like any questioning at all of their beliefs.<br />When the Bible isnt your main authority anything goes.<br /><br />God bless,<br />GrantAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-52650284907510348692016-08-28T21:32:35.122-04:002016-08-28T21:32:35.122-04:00Grant,
I consider myself a 'cautious continua...Grant,<br /><br />I consider myself a 'cautious continuationist', and, as you know, I've written about some of the issues in what I term "hyper-charismaticism." And, yes, I agree that apostasy is waxing worse and worse - in accordance with prophetic Scripture.<br /><br />I prefer not to get into any (or at least not many) anti-RCC polemics because it rarely actually accomplishes anything. The RCC's rule of faith is Tradition plus Scripture; whereas, the Protestant's is Scripture alone. And the twain shall never meet.<br />Craighttps://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-82026250109268979412016-08-28T17:42:11.513-04:002016-08-28T17:42:11.513-04:00Grant said:
"Truth is that false teaching an...<br />Grant said:<br /><br />"Truth is that false teaching and practises are on the rise in every denomination... it seems its only to what degree its happening and its overall effect in the denominations that is debateble."<br /><br />Very true Brother! I think there has been a very distinct slide among so-called "Protestant" churches since about the mid 1850's. Charles Spurgeon spoke and wrote about it in his day, for which he was attacked from all sides. I believe it was known as the "Downward Spiral Controversy." In a nutshell, Spurgeon said that as compromise of Bible truth continues, what is not acceptable in the current generation, will be in the next. On and on it goes until you end up with outright apostasy.<br /><br />I never had respect for the magazine in the USA called "Christianity Today." Even as a very young Christian, I recognized it as a vehicle of compromise. But now, it is literally promoting "gays" as viable members of the body of Christ. The next step is almost guaranteed; gay marriage performed in so-called Bible believing churches!<br /><br />The end of the age ends in apostasy ... "When the Son of Man cometh; shall he find faith upon the earth?" "Ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." "Form of godliness, but denying the power thereof." etc., etc.<br /><br />RayB<br /><br />RayBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-11989941775000031742016-08-28T17:17:08.306-04:002016-08-28T17:17:08.306-04:00RayB,
Thanks for your response. I do not believe...RayB,<br /><br />Thanks for your response. I do not believe in purgatory, as I don’t find it in the Scriptures, as I read and understand them.<br /><br />And thanks for making your position re: KJV clear. I don’t care for its antiquated language, though I do like the translations of a few passages as compared to some modern counterparts. However, there are other verses that are much better rendered in the newer versions.<br /><br />Having studied a bit of NT textual criticism, I do not believe the <i>textus receptus</i> (TR) to be as faithful to what is more likely the original transmission of the Greek. While I don’t agree with every particular decision regarding individual textual variants, the NA28/UBS5 text, the Greek text underlying most modern versions, I think it superior the TR. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum" rel="nofollow"><i>Johannine Comma</i></a> is the most problematic aspect of the TR, in my opinion (as well as many others).<br /><br />Are you aware that the KJV 1611 – the ‘original’ KJV – contained 14 books of the Apocrypha, what the RCC terms the deuterocanonical books? I actually have in my library a paperback of an Oxford KJV based on the 1611, including the Apocrypha. I’m sure you’re aware that 2 Maccabees 12 is used as a reference for the RCC doctrine of purgatory.<br />Craighttps://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-36025350193698383342016-08-28T17:02:48.090-04:002016-08-28T17:02:48.090-04:00Craig said...
"I don’t wish to get into an a...Craig said...<br /><br />"I don’t wish to get into an anti-RCC rant, though I do not agree with a lot of RCC doctrines regarding Mary. In my opinion, the RCC exalts Mary too high, while, in general, Protestantism errs too far to the other side – especially in polemics against the RCC."<br /><br />Hi Craig,<br /><br />In this " Politically Correct" world if you challenge anything your branded "anti".<br />I think its a means of shuting down the Truth by shuting up the "truth tellers".<br />I am anti false doctrine found in any denomination, I hold to a "non cessationist" doctrinal stance yet with regard to exposeing false doctrine I have educated most of the false doctrines now rife in Charismatic and Pentecostal movements.<br />Truth is that false teaching and practises are on the rise in every denomination... it seems its only to what degree its happening and its overall effect in the denominations that is debateble.<br /><br />Regards,<br />GrantAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-10638049050767694712016-08-28T15:25:56.422-04:002016-08-28T15:25:56.422-04:00Craig ...
I am non-denominational as well, and do...Craig ...<br /><br />I am non-denominational as well, and do not belong to any "church" other than the true "catholic" ( small "c" i.e. "universal") church of all born again believers.<br /><br />As far as KJV only, I hold to the belief that the Textus Receptus is the most ACCURATE Greek text available. I do not make a big deal out of this, because I believe the Holy Spirit brings those to conviction, and repentance (via sovereign grace), and of course did so prior to the existence of the KJV. With that being said, I would encourage believers to use the KJV, because I believe it is the most accurate translation available to us. As far as my personal adherence to the KJV "only" ... that is my own PERSONAL preference based on my own PERSONAL convictions.RayBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-39851091316839068712016-08-28T14:38:41.050-04:002016-08-28T14:38:41.050-04:00Christine,
I defer to you!
Blessings!
Philippi...Christine,<br /><br />I defer to you! <br />Blessings!<br /><br />Philippians 2:3 <br />Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. <br /><br />Dan Bryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12374582411889264293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-29425740690158615912016-08-28T14:14:27.893-04:002016-08-28T14:14:27.893-04:00RayB,
Previously you stated your adherence to the...RayB,<br /><br />Previously you stated your adherence to the King James Bible only. In my travels I’ve come across a few different KJV/B only persuasions. Of which do you adhere? Do you believe the Greek underlying the KJV/B, i.e. the <i>Textus Receptus</i> is the only authoritative Greek text and/or do you believe the King James is the only inspired Bible?<br />Craighttps://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-33202499983458660102016-08-28T14:03:50.809-04:002016-08-28T14:03:50.809-04:00While doing a bit of research on theotokos, I foun...While doing a bit of research on <i>theotokos</i>, I found something very interesting. According to McGuckin, the title began as μητερ θεου, <i>mēter theou*</i>, “mother of God”, in Egypt apparently to counter the pagan term designated to Isis, which was ‘mother of the god Horus’.[1] It was later displaced by θεοτοκος, <i>theotokos</i>,[2] which is better translated into English as “God-bearer” or “God-birther”, as opposed to “Mother of God”.<br /><br /><br />[1] John A. McGuckin, The SCM Press A-Z of Patristic Theology (London: SCM Press, 2005), p 330.<br />[2] <i>ibid.</i> <br /><br />*<i>theos</i> has the genitive/possessive ending “u” here which replaces the “s” of the nominative form (so the term could be translated as “mother of God” or “God’s mother).<br />Craighttps://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-1803851472466043142016-08-28T13:28:19.261-04:002016-08-28T13:28:19.261-04:00RayB,
I'll answer you, if you'll answer m...RayB,<br /><br />I'll answer you, if you'll answer my query re: What denomination are you part of? I've already identified myself as non-denominational.Craighttps://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-77201563872751677872016-08-28T13:13:43.822-04:002016-08-28T13:13:43.822-04:00Craig,
Just out of curiosity, what is your take o...Craig,<br /><br />Just out of curiosity, what is your take on the RCC doctrine of Purgatory?RayBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-87292741410369082992016-08-28T09:30:51.542-04:002016-08-28T09:30:51.542-04:00Grant,
I don’t wish to get into an anti-RCC rant,...Grant,<br /><br />I don’t wish to get into an anti-RCC rant, though I do not agree with a lot of RCC doctrines regarding Mary. In my opinion, the RCC exalts Mary too high, while, in general, Protestantism errs too far to the other side – especially in polemics against the RCC. <br />Craighttps://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-68511055914250677002016-08-28T09:02:20.715-04:002016-08-28T09:02:20.715-04:00Christine, ardent arguer and self-appointed author...Christine, ardent arguer and self-appointed authority above all, asserts re: John 1:1:<br /><br /><i>the beginning is the beginning of creation. And IN THE BEGINNING we see God did something, so God (incl. the whole Trinity) must have ALREADY existed BEFORE the beginning in order to already be there "in the beginning," and do something "in the beginning."…</i><br /><br />The Greek words Εν αρχη (<i>en archē</i>), “in [the] beginning“ do not have to represent a precise point in time. No doubt John the Gospel writer <b>evokes</b> Genesis 1:1 here; however, there’s a major difference in that the subject in John 1:1 is “the Word”: “In the beginning <i>the Word</i>… This is as opposed to Gen 1:1’s “In the beginning <i>God</i>… (which we understand as the Trinity, since the Hebrew uses the plural <i>Elohim</i>), which then goes right into describing the act of creation.<br /><br />In contrast, John first describes, respectively, the Word’s [pre]existence (eternality), association (with the Father), and essence/nature. Verse 2 reiterates His association with the Father and His eternality. <b>THEN</b> verse 3 asserts that the Word is the agent of creation, thus expounding on Gen 1. Hence, <i>en archē</i> probably best represents a point <b>before</b> creation – what point that is, cannot be ascertained by the context. To attempt to do so is eisegesis, as opposed to exegesis. Moreover, nowhere is the Holy Spirit even mentioned in John 1:1. Of course, given that Gen 1:1 uses <i>Elohim</i> we know that the entire Trinity was involved with creation, but that is not part of the context of John 1:1.<br />Craighttps://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-17081924666396219452016-08-28T08:33:57.780-04:002016-08-28T08:33:57.780-04:00Correction to my comment at 3:07 Craigs comment re...Correction to my comment at 3:07 Craigs comment reads...<br /> "I am not saying that this is what you are consciously doing."<br /><br />The "not" dropped out in cut and paste due bold font was excluded from formating.<br />My apologies.<br /><br />Regards ,<br />GrantAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-53721802702419283142016-08-28T03:07:07.437-04:002016-08-28T03:07:07.437-04:00Craig said to Anon at 10:35am
"On the surfac...Craig said to Anon at 10:35am<br /><br />"On the surface, what you state is not untrue; however, it can be inferred from your statement that Jesus' words somehow trump the rest of Scripture, which is an implicit denial of the full authority of Scripture. I'm saying that this is what you are consciously doing."<br /><br />Actually Jesus Christ is "the full authority" so His Words are Scripture in the true sense of the word... He is Gods Word.<br />There is no denial of the scripture in any sense because He can not deny Himself.<br />We however are to endeavour to seek and find the whole council of God in a matter.<br />To that end and dealing with the matter that was at hand being " the worship of Mary by the Roman Catholic Church".<br />Scripture and the Words of Jesus (which is one in the same) does not in anyway condone or support the practise.<br /><br />Regards,<br />Grant<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-24534939514597988462016-08-28T03:00:51.897-04:002016-08-28T03:00:51.897-04:00Dan Bryan can't figure out the obvious. "...Dan Bryan can't figure out the obvious. "in John 1:1 the word beginning has meaning. It does not infer eternity past. Any thing with a beginning refers to it's starting point. Beginning is a point in time." so far so good. but then<br />"Is this referring to when God became 'Father God'? Is this 'beginning' the fixed point in time that God decided to utter his first word 'The Word'? I do not know. " Bryan elsewhere said he thinks the Word didn't always exist.<br /><br />Craig rightly points to Genesis as showing "the beginning" is beginning of all creation <br /><br />"Beginning of what? Verse 3 makes it clear that the reference is to creation. For “through him all things were made”. If “the Word” was the agent of creation, then “the Word” must predate creation, and, hence, “the Word” must be eternal." <br /><br />but then caves to Dan Bryan's influence (whatever it is) somehow "Actually, in reading John 1:1-3 again, I should say that "the beginning" may well refer to a time predating creation; however, it may also be concurrent with it. In any case, we can't infer anything else from the context"<br /><br />the beginning is the beginning of creation. And IN THE BEGINNING we see God did something, so God (incl. the whole Trinity) must have ALREADY existed BEFORE the beginning in order to already be there "in the beginning," and do something "in the beginning." By "God" I mean the whole Trinity. there is nothing before the beginning but God. because God (not angels) created everything by just saying so not out of His own essence. "Creation" includes all visible and invisible incl. angels. before the beginning there was only incomprehensible God. <br /><br />none of the Trinity have a BEGINNING but two have an origin The Father, from all eternity and without a beginning, that is, you cannot say (as do Arians of various kinds) of The Son or of The Holy Spirit that "there was a time when He was not." Genesis speaks of The Holy Spirit operating, so all Three existed BEFORE the beginning. If any of the Trinity preexisted another, then it would read "in the beginning was God who produced The Son and The Holy Spirit and then they went on to create everything else." But it doesn't.<br /><br />QUEEN OF HEAVEN - Jewish queens were the MOTHERS of the kings not wives.<br />RayB "As Creator, and as God, He had no beginning. When He was manifested in the flesh via the Virgin Birth, Mary was only a vessel for the birth of his humanity. Being that He was God, and she was human, Jesus received nothing from Mary regarding His God "nature" if you will. Therefore, she cannot be the Mother of God, because she did not contribute ANYTHING towards His birth that contributed one iota of Him being "God Incarnate.""<br /><br />Exactly correct. But YOU ARE THINKING OF MOTHER AS ORIGIN. That is not claimed here. Mary is birthgiver <br />of God in the flesh, because WHAT CAME OUT OF HER WOMB WAS GOD though He did not originate in any<br />way from her, He entered her womb and took an unfertilized egg or a cell of her flesh and united Himself to that by The Holy Spirit.<br /><br />"Mother of God" declares Jesus' divinity contra those denying it Nestorius posited distinct persons not one person two natures so disliked "theotokos" because it affirmed the divinity of Christ without denying His humanity instead of God having moved in on a man which is more like Nestorius thought or used that simile+ at least.Christine Erikson (aka Justina)https://www.blogger.com/profile/11594093718714798117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11772087.post-35181990487797512842016-08-28T00:06:37.360-04:002016-08-28T00:06:37.360-04:00RayB,
Thanks for the clarification. However, as ...RayB,<br /><br />Thanks for the clarification. However, as shown in Luke 1:35-45 there <b>IS</b> Scriptural support that Mary was, according to Elizabeth, “mother of my Lord”, i.e. mother of God. While Scripture never uses <i>theotokos</i>, the Luke verses clearly indicate Mary was, ‘mother of the Lord’.<br /><br />Also, as I stated earlier, <i>theotokos</i> was not an exclusively RCC invention; the term was used to maintain the integrity of the hypostatic union at the Council of Ephesus (and earlier), with Cyril of Alexandria, Egypt chief spokesperson.<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br /><i>…When He was manifested in the flesh via the Virgin Birth, Mary was only a vessel for the birth of his humanity…</i><br /><br />The Definition at Chalcedon (451AD) makes this statement:<br /><br /><i> …and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the virgin Mary, the mother of God (theotokos), <b>according to the manhood</b>; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten…</i><br /><br />Notice it also calls her <i>theotokos</i>, <i>mother of God (or “God-bearer”) <b>according to the manhood</b></i> in order to maintain the integrity of His divine/human Person. Continuing:<br /><br /><i>… to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; <b>the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons</b>, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ…</i><br /><br />Mary bore the God-man; she is “mother of God, according to the manhood”. So, when you write: <br /><br /><i>Therefore, she cannot be the Mother of God, because she did not contribute ANYTHING towards His birth that contributed one iota of Him being "God Incarnate."</i><br /><br />…you destroy the integrity of the hypostatic union, a la Nestorianism. And, unless you change your stance, you are identified as a heretic according to historic, orthodox Christianity, for all major Protestant denominations affirm the “Creed” at Chalcedon.<br /><br />Which brings me to this question out of curiosity: To which denomination do you belong?Craighttps://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com