Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Revelation on Heavenly Mother


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, webbles said:

I've wondered about this.  If the Father and Christ are one God and Christ is consubstantial with humanity, then shouldn't the Father and/or God also be consubstantial with humanity?  Or is Christ's consubstantiality (is that a word?) with humanity somehow separate from His oneness with the Father and/or God?  Or am I misunderstanding the terminoligy?

No, I think that is a good point and is a good example of what I pointed out just above this post!

IF we want to see LDS doctrine in terms of Aquinas- how Aquinas would describe the LDS view of the relationship of God and man- THEN, using Scholasticism, one could say that mankind and God are "consubstantial" !!

But that is NOT what Aquinas believed nor is it what Catholics believe nor what LDS folks believe!

We are the same species as God which could be interpreted as being "consubstantial"- we are made of the "same stuff" as God and we originated physically and spiritually from OUR FATHER which is why we call Him that!!

But nobody is saying those words or presenting that conceptually- except for your pretty brilliant twist on the concept!!  :)

 

Link to comment

This is the link to the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Scholasticism, or what I sometimes call "substance theology"

https://www.britannica.com/print/article/527973

By the way, for our Catholic friends, I wouldn't listen to anything an encyclopedia said about our Church either!   I am just probing for evidence it goes back to the Apostles, and we still got bupkiss on that one.   But I keep looking.

Pragmatically in our lives AND following the principles of James' "radical empiricism", Catholicism is as logical as any religion!   There are even statements by the Evil One, Rorty, ;)  totally defending the beliefs of Catholicism and other faiths as being "justified" and "rational" in terms of ethics and morals, and even metaphysics, when one sees it all for the tremendous enrichment one receives in one's life- and on the words quoted in my siggy below, through the belief in God.

He just doesn't like the clergy, but yet again, he allowed his kids to be brought up LDS.  And defended Catholicism as a proxy example of religion in general.

Religion is how we get purpose into our lives, and I would argue that if one devotes one's life to say, "saving the whales" as a secular goal, and that goal gives your life meaning, and improves your search for meaning,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man's_Search_for_Meaning, then the word "true" applies to that religious belief as much as it applies to science!  Science provides benefits and so does religion, within their speheres.

Mixing scripture with the philosophies of men can be confusing, but we cannot avoid it.  Anything written by a human hand in any human language is automatically a "philosophy of man", the only thing which is not is direct experience of God, before it is translated into words.

You can EXPERIENCE eating the sizzling steak, or you can read about how tasty it is on the menu.

VERY DIFFERENT.

Read a guidebook about Paris and memorize ever street and every fact, or Go to Paris and walk around.   Smell it.   Hear it.  Get lost. Find your way.  Interact with the people.  You are now seeing Paris not in a factual way but in direct experience

VERY DIFFERENT

Words are not direct experience ,in religion or anything else.

If you experience God better by believing in the Trinity, or maybe it's better for you as our Godhead, ultimately it's just a different description of the steak on the menu.

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
23 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Bible? I don't think I used that word. If I did, I retract it. I thought I learned once that literally, "Bible" means books...more than one. I could have "learned" that wrongly. For most Christians, I think it means canon of Scripture. But I don't even know what I think it means at all times to everybody!

Good explanation, thanks, but what canonized scripture do Catholics have which are NOT in the "Bible"?

Link to comment
On 4/25/2022 at 10:00 AM, mfbukowski said:

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14322c.htm

New Advent, aka the "Catholic Encyclopedia", in my opinion, correctly seems to imply that the origin of the idea of "substance" stems from Aristotle, not the Apostles.  In this article, it never even alludes to it being from Apostolic times.

Technically all of Aristotle's philosophy is a modification of Plato's philosophy, to put it crudely one might say that Aristotle removed much of the rather "supernatural" aspects of Platonic philosophy and brought it more into the "real world"- whatever that means- ;), in a sense he used the idea of "substance" to replace Plato's realm of Forms.

(If we have any Platonic or Aristotelian scholars hereabouts- and if I am wrong, I would love to hear about it)

But it seems that even the "Catholic Encyclopedia" does not find a need to ascribe the idea of substance to an apostolic source, and I have seen nothing to correct me.

I think what happens is that one can look backward and INTERPRET any text AS IF it originated in another philosopy, as perhaps I do with Rorty at times.

One becomes schooled in a philosophy and ends up SEEING it everywhere, even in sources that really have no relation to the original idea.

I notice in my own life, perhaps that I go car shopping and discover a car model that I had never seen before- the "XYZ Zip" model SUV- to create an imaginary example.

AFTER one sees the Zip, suddenly it becomes part of your awareness and you see Zips everywhere!!   

Perhaps that is what is happening here- please correct me if I am wrong.  Once one becomes aware of the idea of "substance" one sees it everywhere, even in texts that predate the "real origin" of the idea of substance, here represented as being from Aristotle.

So at least for now, I am convinced that one CAN "read into" the gospels the idea of "substance" and actually see the world in those terms and wonder why others don't see it-- I know I do that with Rorty, but I do not harbor the illusion that Rorty was the origin of ideas that came hundreds or thousands of years before he was even born, and claim for example that Rorty was the source of the ideas of the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus- because in my universe both Heraclitus and Rorty are preaching the same "doctrine".

Please prove me wrong on this one- I would love to see a good argument for why I am wrong on this- it could shift my entire present opinion of Catholic theology.

 

This is a good way to look at it, too. I guess for me the details of theology are less important than the details of mystical teachings and experiences. I believe what Holy Mother Church teaches, but I don't necessarily have to dive into and understand every little detail. For example, I'd much rather read St. John of the Cross than St. Aquinas. So I'm sure to be mistaken on things, but that doesn't affect my faith.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is a good way to look at it, too. I guess for me the details of theology are less important than the details of mystical teachings and experiences. I believe what Holy Mother Church teaches, but I don't necessarily have to dive into and understand every little detail. For example, I'd much rather read St. John of the Cross than St. Aquinas. So I'm sure to be mistaken on things, but that doesn't affect my faith.

Thanks for the reply, I am starting to get it all better.

Different strokes for different folks.  ;)

I was talking with my sweetheart of 43 years recently about how my mind works as opposed to others- she is amazing because she gets these things instantly and can communicate with virtually everyone- she sees how they think and then responds in the best manner she can for the way the other person thinks.

But yes those details of logic are extremely important to me, and I was having the experiences too, so that is what drove me to find a philosophical way to justify religious experience and that led to William James "Varieties" and that led to Rorty and Wittgenstein etc etc.

I was recently reading Exodus 29 - our Sunday school classes are all studying that around this time of year in 2022- and it was talking about "wave offerings" and "heave offerings" and I was trying to figure out what the heck they were talking about in the KJV, and found a footnote that described them as "elevating" and making different motions with the offering, and then annointing with the blood of the "lamb" or really the offering whatever it is.   We have similar stuff in the temple, but what crossed my mind was that moment in the offering of the Mass where the host is raised for adoration just after the Consecration, or whatever it is called now.   Same principle as was done in the old Hebrew temple, and  even during the Exodus through the desert, in performing their sacrificial liturgy.

I thought that was pretty cool!

So yes I understand what you are saying- it is the experience that is the prime source of those feelings that bring us to God, and are far more important than the words.

I am again reminded of the young Catholic priest from India who officiated at my mother's funeral, allowing me, a "Mormon Bishop" at the time, to speak briefly from within the sanctuary, breaking all kinds of rules, I think, in the understanding that we were Christians.   He said personally and quietly to me- "You believe that Jesus is the Christ, and Savior- it's all the same after that...."

I think there was a definite East Indian attitude toward religion there, but I was VERY honored and humbled for him to allow me to do that.   I think the LDS folks who were there had no grasp of how far out on a limb he went with his ecumenical intent, but I felt VERY honored by his kindness, and I think of him often.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is a good way to look at it, too. I guess for me the details of theology are less important than the details of mystical teachings and experiences. I believe what Holy Mother Church teaches, but I don't necessarily have to dive into and understand every little detail. For example, I'd much rather read St. John of the Cross than St. Aquinas. So I'm sure to be mistaken on things, but that doesn't affect my faith.

Just some advice:

Never buy flowers from a monk.

Only you can prevent florist friars!

😎

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/25/2022 at 9:00 AM, mfbukowski said:

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14322c.htm

New Advent, aka the "Catholic Encyclopedia", in my opinion, correctly seems to imply that the origin of the idea of "substance" stems from Aristotle, not the Apostles.  In this article, it never even alludes to it being from Apostolic times.

Technically all of Aristotle's philosophy is a modification of Plato's philosophy, to put it crudely one might say that Aristotle removed much of the rather "supernatural" aspects of Platonic philosophy and brought it more into the "real world"- whatever that means- ;), in a sense he used the idea of "substance" to replace Plato's realm of Forms.

(If we have any Platonic or Aristotelian scholars hereabouts- and if I am wrong, I would love to hear about it)

But it seems that even the "Catholic Encyclopedia" does not find a need to ascribe the idea of substance to an apostolic source, and I have seen nothing to correct me.

I think what happens is that one can look backward and INTERPRET any text AS IF it originated in another philosopy, as perhaps I do with Rorty at times.

One becomes schooled in a philosophy and ends up SEEING it everywhere, even in sources that really have no relation to the original idea.

I notice in my own life, perhaps that I go car shopping and discover a car model that I had never seen before- the "XYZ Zip" model SUV- to create an imaginary example.

AFTER one sees the Zip, suddenly it becomes part of your awareness and you see Zips everywhere!!   

Perhaps that is what is happening here- please correct me if I am wrong.  Once one becomes aware of the idea of "substance" one sees it everywhere, even in texts that predate the "real origin" of the idea of substance, here represented as being from Aristotle.

So at least for now, I am convinced that one CAN "read into" the gospels the idea of "substance" and actually see the world in those terms and wonder why others don't see it-- I know I do that with Rorty, but I do not harbor the illusion that Rorty was the origin of ideas that came hundreds or thousands of years before he was even born, and claim for example that Rorty was the source of the ideas of the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus- because in my universe both Heraclitus and Rorty are preaching the same "doctrine".

Please prove me wrong on this one- I would love to see a good argument for why I am wrong on this- it could shift my entire present opinion of Catholic theology.

 

@Saint Bonaventure

I would like to know your reaction to this post, I already know you didn't like it.

I am trying to learn 

Link to comment

I don't have a chance at understanding an LDS notion of a Heavenly Mother if I don't lay out a few terms. 

Maybe I can help a few of you understand your Trinitarian neighbors too.

So here are a few terms from my Bible Study handout:

  • Being--An existing entity; that something is.
  • Person--A relation or individual capable of reasoning; who something is. 
  • Nature--The traits and ends of a certain being; what something is. 

Therefore, as a Catholic, I believe that God is one being that exists as three persons who each fully posses the divine nature. 

So having laid out those terms, I must admit I get confused by the way my LDS friends discuss God with terms such as "personage" (is it the same as person?), and the way they use being, person, and nature in a highly idiosyncratic way. I don't mean this as a criticism; it's just confusing on the receiving end.

One more clarification might be helpful too. Specifically, for Catholics worship is giving someone "worth-ship" or the honor that that person is due. So praying to a saint is not the same thing as equating a saint with God. There are three kinds of worth-ship that Catholics give to those in heaven:

  • Latria--The adoration and praise reserved for God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
  • Hyperdulia--The honor given to Mary, the most blessed of God's creatures.
  • Dulia--The honor given to saints and angels in heaven. 

And now, my questions:

If Latter-day Saints believe that "Heavenly Mother is God," why don't they pray to her?

Also, if Latter-day Saints believe that "Jesus is God," why don't they pray to him?

I expect there are differences both in understandings of God and of prayer....

 

  

  

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I don't have a chance at understanding an LDS notion of a Heavenly Mother if I don't lay out a few terms. 

Maybe I can help a few of you understand your Trinitarian neighbors too.

So here are a few terms from my Bible Study handout:

  • Being--An existing entity; that something is.
  • Person--A relation or individual capable of reasoning; who something is. 
  • Nature--The traits and ends of a certain being; what something is. 

Therefore, as a Catholic, I believe that God is one being that exists as three persons who each fully posses the divine nature. 

So having laid out those terms, I must admit I get confused by the way my LDS friends discuss God with terms such as "personage" (is it the same as person?), and the way they use being, person, and nature in a highly idiosyncratic way. I don't mean this as a criticism; it's just confusing on the receiving end.

One more clarification might be helpful too. Specifically, for Catholics worship is giving someone "worth-ship" or the honor that that person is due. So praying to a saint is not the same thing as equating a saint with God. There are three kinds of worth-ship that Catholics give to those in heaven:

  • Latria--The adoration and praise reserved for God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
  • Hyperdulia--The honor given to Mary, the most blessed of God's creatures.
  • Dulia--The honor given to saints and angels in heaven. 

And now, my questions:

If Latter-day Saints believe that "Heavenly Mother is God," why don't they pray to her?

Also, if Latter-day Saints believe that "Jesus is God," why don't they pray to him?

I expect there are differences both in understandings of God and of prayer....

 

  

  

Mostly because we believe that Jesus specifically instructed us to only pray to our Father in Heaven.  

And as you know we do not believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are one being but three persons.  We believe they are three separate beings but one godhead.  "Personage" is just a way to say "person" but with that shows an increase of importance and an elevated status.  I'm sure when it was first used it was used for that reason, but now it's a part of our nomenclature.  Most members probably don't know the definition of the word but use it because it's always been used.  I had to look it up myself. 

And we believe that Christ honors the role that He has as being subordinate to the Father, and our mediator between us and the Father, by teaching us to pray to the Father in His (Jesus') name.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I don't have a chance at understanding an LDS notion of a Heavenly Mother if I don't lay out a few terms. 

Maybe I can help a few of you understand your Trinitarian neighbors too.

So here are a few terms from my Bible Study handout:

  • Being--An existing entity; that something is.
  • Person--A relation or individual capable of reasoning; who something is. 
  • Nature--The traits and ends of a certain being; what something is. 

Therefore, as a Catholic, I believe that God is one being that exists as three persons who each fully posses the divine nature. 

So having laid out those terms, I must admit I get confused by the way my LDS friends discuss God with terms such as "personage" (is it the same as person?), and the way they use being, person, and nature in a highly idiosyncratic way. I don't mean this as a criticism; it's just confusing on the receiving end.

One more clarification might be helpful too. Specifically, for Catholics worship is giving someone "worth-ship" or the honor that that person is due. So praying to a saint is not the same thing as equating a saint with God. There are three kinds of worth-ship that Catholics give to those in heaven:

  • Latria--The adoration and praise reserved for God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
  • Hyperdulia--The honor given to Mary, the most blessed of God's creatures.
  • Dulia--The honor given to saints and angels in heaven. 

And now, my questions:

If Latter-day Saints believe that "Heavenly Mother is God," why don't they pray to her?

Also, if Latter-day Saints believe that "Jesus is God," why don't they pray to him?

I expect there are differences both in understandings of God and of prayer....

 

  

  

OK I think I see clearly that we are actually very close, but speaking different languages with different definitions for the same words.   I don't have time at this moment to get into it fully, so this is a kind of outline.

We see things more in the vein of how you see the "Communion of Saints"- including US as believers in Christ as PART of the "communion" but not completely fulfilled as we might be after years- perhaps epochs- of sactification in the life after.

So FOR EXPLANITORY PURPOSES right now think of the "Communion of Saints" as incuding- just as an example- of those words literally.

Suppose for a minute the communion of saints included only Persons who have been fully declared to be "Saints" by the Catholic Church.

We can to some extent analogize those beings to what we would call "exalted beings"- who have been human and in some degree still are as beings, but yet are not God our Father.

Now suppose there is another "level" of sanctification where those individuals, after even more sactification in the afterlife, are able to become "Gods"

Suppose another analogy, that the stages of becoming a Saint are like unto what we call the "Kingdoms of Glory" which has different "layers" of sanctification within it, as perhapsthe various degrees of sanctification.   I forget all of them now, but first one is being declared to be in heaven, then another is Beatification, and then moving forward eventually the person can be declared to be a "Saint" officially, able to intercede to the Father and prayed to as one like us, with whom we may feel some identification of life's similarities, perhaps as a fisherman in our earthly life may pray to the Patron Saint of Fishermen for that saint to intercede for us with Father to bless us, and help us along the path to becoming more like Christ/God.

https://uscatholic.org/articles/201412/what-is-the-communion-of-saints/      < for LDS who have no clue what I am saying here>

Now we depart from the analogy to Catholicism and to translate it into "LDS" we might call these certified exalted people to be "Gods'.

D&C 132

Quote

 

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man amarry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the bnew and everlasting covenant, and it is csealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of dpromise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the ekeys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit fthrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s gBook of Life, that he shall commit no hmurder whereby to shed innocent iblood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their jexaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the kseeds forever and ever.

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from aeverlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be be gods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them.

21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my alaw ye cannot attain to this glory......

......36 Abraham was acommanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not bkill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for crighteousness.

37 Abraham received aconcubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and bJacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their cexaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

 

So for purposes of communication, going back to your post, skipping over defintions of "Beings" etc, just speaking in ordinary English,  as one human being from this world can become a Saint, we believe that individuals can become Gods through a similar progression.

Heavenly Mother had achieved that level of glory, as perhaps you might say that Mary became a "Saint" and even a "Co-Redemptrix".   Personally fyi I have no problem with those ideas personally, and also for me, I believer her to be a GODDESS.  I don't profess to have a testimony that Mary is the same being as Heavenly Mother, but I think at some point the distinction becomes irrelevant- they are both examples of human Perfection.   Two examples of Perfection I think become irrelevant, in Perfection all is ONE!

So now where are Abraham and Issac?  Why do we NOT pray to them?

For us, there are many Gods and many worlds, but our God is the only one with whom we have to concern ourselves.   There might be multiverses beyond our world all having their Gods from those universes. 

God the Father IS THE FATHER of our human spirits, and those spirits attain a body like His and come to earth as a test to see if we can become like our Father.

OUR FATHER is our God.   We are made in his image because He is an EXALTED human who has gone through all the stages of perfection- and is the ONLY ONE we worship.

His literal SON is Jesus Christ - and we pray to the Father who begot the Son- without the Father there would be be no Son, no earth no universe as we know it - no NOTHING as we know it because we cannot KNOW WHAT humans cannot know.

But this has gone on too long-hope it helps.

We are VERY close, the differences are largely semantic once you speak both "languages"

Link to comment
On 5/7/2022 at 1:07 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

If Latter-day Saints believe that "Heavenly Mother is God," why don't they pray to her?

Also, if Latter-day Saints believe that "Jesus is God," why don't they pray to him?

I expect there are differences both in understandings of God and of prayer....

 

  

  

 

Christ fulfills his role as a Mediator God to God the Father. He stands between men and God the Father. As Moses acted as a mediator as a prophet in delivering God's message to Pharoah, thus Moses was "god" to Pharaoh.

Early Christian Fathers - Clementine Recognitions

Simon says that in Jewish scriptures there are many gods, "There are also many other testimonies which might be adduced from the law, not only obscure but plain, by which it is taught that there are many gods. One of these was chosen by lot, that he might be God of the Jews [Deuteronomy 32:8]. But it is not him that I speak, but the God who is also his God, whom even the Jews themselves do not know. For he is not their God, but of those who know him." (Clementine Recognitions 2:39).

Peter explains that the Most High God is the God of the Jews, but that there are several intermediaries called "gods", an that "god" is being used with several meanings. "For every nation has an angel to whom God has committed the government of that nation; and when one of these appears, although he be thought and call God by those over whom he presides, yet being asked he does not give such testimony to himself. For the Most High God, who alone holds power of all things has divided the nations of the earth into seventy two parts and over these he hath appointed angels as princes. But among to the one among the archangels who is greatest, was committed the government of those who before all others, received the worship and knowledge of the Most High." (Clementine Recognitions 2:42).

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/080401.htm

"For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many and lords many)", "There is one God, the Father... and one Lord, Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 8:5-6).

 Christ instructs the Christians to pray to: "Our Father which art in heaven." (Matt. 6:5-13) and to pray to the Father in Christ's name (John 14:13-14).

Early Christian Fathers - Origen

"only God the Father is worthy of receiving prayer and adoration; not even the Son, though we pray in the name of Christ." (Origen, On Prayer 16.1)

"And also “the Father alone is ho theos; the Son is simply theos…. Prayer can be offered only to the Father; prayer directed to the Son is not prayer in the fullest meaning of the word. (Contra Celsum 5:4)

Also Christ rebuked John for worshiping him. Now as I read it. John the Revelator is about to be initiated into the Royal-Melchizedek High Priesthood, at the Holy Place a door opens, and John hears a voice summoning him inside the Holy of Holies through its veil (Revelations 4:1). After the completion of the priestly rites, like the Israelite kings of old, John speaks of royal enthronement, marked by some equivocation between a new human sons of God and the angelic Sons of God, even Christ, the pre-eminent, firstborn Son of God. John describes enthronement as, “he that hath an ear let him hear” to them that overcome can “sit with me in my throne… [just] as I… am sit down with my Father in his throne” (Revelations 3:2). This is not quite a post-mortem statement.

Just as the royal anointing and enrobing was done in life, a ritual death and rebirth and royal enthonement can also happen before death. We see at the end of John’s own initiation. Before his initiation, John was not rebuked for worshiping the Christ-angel (Revelations 1:17) but after his induction, he is then rebuked for worshiping the Christ-angel for the reason that both John and the Christ were (now, not before) “fellow servants” to God the Father (Revelations 19:10; 22:8-9). As Paul puts it, by God’s “adoption of sons” (Galatians 5:4), equivocates them with other sons “thou art no more a servant but a son, and if a son the heir of God” (Galatians 4:8) and if heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. By becoming “sons”, it renders everyone equal regardless of decent, or even gender, which I’ll have to explain another time (Galatians 3:27-28).
    This was Christ’s great crime. Christ didn't tell the Jews he was God the Father, rather that God was his Father. By Christ merely claiming to be a Son of God, while not claiming to be “God” the Father (or even the God of Israel which he was but never says clearly), they thought it was still blasphemy because His status as a Son of God was still a claim to be equal to God. You see Jesus' equality with the Father is brought on by his sonship (John 5:18 Philip 2:6), its in this way, among other ways, the Father and Son are equal (Matthew 20:12; Luke 20:36; John 5:18; Philip 2:6). Those made sons are made equal to God and other Sons of God. Even though Christ has the honor of the designation of the “first born”, we can become equal by also becoming a “first born” also (Rom 8:14, 29), as King David was first born (Psalms 89:26-27), forming a church of the first born (Hebrews 12:23).

So, I think there was a certain point, by which it is appropriate to pray and worship Jesus, as a Jew and Gentile in the Old Testament as prayers to YHWH thus to Jesus Christ but perhaps not a born again Christian as a son of God.

For similar reasons we believe we should as a formula pray as Christ instructed, which is to the Father, and not to the Mother.  I believe they are "one", unity without distinction or rivalry. By praying to the Mother, are you are presuming to sway her opinion contrary to her husbands, when they should be of one mind?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...