Debating a Protestant

[Church_Militant]

Thank you very, very much.

No problem Dylan. PM me if you should need anything else.

 

[Janet_S]

Here’s a good article too.
“Did the Catholic Church Have Its Origin in Paganism?
A Protestant pastor tells This Rock how he got involved in the issue and how his understanding of the issue has changed.”

By Ralph Woodrow

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0505fea4.asp

 

[Janet_S]

Also from the Bible Christian Society, this is about the “Queen of Heaven.”
biblechristiansociety.com/2min_apologetics.php?id=18

Q: Why do Catholics call Mary the Queen of Heaven? Doesn’t God rebuke the Israelites in the O.T. for worshipping a false goddess called the Queen of Heaven? Should we not refer to Mary with that title, therefore, since it is the title of a false goddess?

A. In Jeremiah 7:18, God is indeed upset with the Israelites for worshipping a false goddess called the “queen of heaven”. However, just because God rebuked them for worshipping the false queen of heaven, doesn’t mean that we cannot pay honor to the true Queen of Heaven…the Blessed Mother.

That type of thinking would lead you to believe that just because people worship a false god that they call “god,” we, therefore, should not call the true God, by that same name…God…because that’s the same title the idolaters use for their god! That is faulty logic and it makes no sense whatsoever.

Again, the fact that there is a false “queen of heaven”, does not lead to the conclusion that we worship a false goddess when we call Mary the “Queen of Heaven.” Just as the fact that there is a false “god”, does not lead to the conclusion that we worship a false god when we call our Father in Heaven, God.

And there is a true Queen of Heaven, we see this quite clearly in Revelation 12:1, “And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars…” Let’s see. There’s a woman…she’s in Heaven…and she has a crown on her head. I could be wrong, but I don’t think it’s the maid! No! It is the true Queen of Heaven, Mary, the mother of the male child who is to rule the nations.

We do not worship Mary, we honor her, just as Jesus honors her. So, there is absolutely nothing wrong, from a scriptural point of view, in calling Mary the Queen of Heaven, and in honoring her just as Jesus honors her.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

hmm… I’m pretty sure Tammuz is a MALE god… I mean, if you’re going to make an attempt to call Catholics pagan idolaters, at least get your pagan idols straight first

T. is indeed not female ​

Some gods do change sex - but Tammuz is not one of them. Unless we’re talking about (say) the goddess Dumuzi-abzu, who was worshipped as male in some localities. Tammuz is a version of the god Dumuzi, but Dumuzi =/= Dumuzi-abzu; they are not the same.

I doubt very much that the OP’s source has any awareness of these details.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I don’t have any links for you, unfortunately. This is my take on it though: If I were “worshiping” the goddess Tammuz, I would KNOW that’s who I was worshiping.

Not if you were “judicially blinded” - see below​

When i ask Mother Mary to pray for me my heart and mind know that it is Mary that I am speaking to, not the Pope, not St. Peter etc etc etc. This claim is ridiculous. That would be like saying that when I am talking to my mother I am really talking to my uncle. I KNOW that it is my mother that I am talking to, I can see her, I can touch her if I like, it’s her. Likewise for Mother Mary, I may not be able to see her and touch her but in my heart and mind, I am talking to her. Therefore, how could I be talking to some “goddess” that didn’t even know existed?

I used to wonder about that. ​

I think the answer would be something such as this: we do not know that we are committing idolatry, & we don’t know that we are worshipping a goddess. But, since we are Papists, we are not worshippers of Christ, so we have been given up by God as a punishment for our refusal to worship Christ; which is why we are instead worshipping gods who are no gods. This punishment is described in Romans 1.18-32, & the Romish Antichrist commonly called the Pope is described in 2 Thessalonians 2 (a text of very great importance, because it is used to show that Catholics are blinded as a judgement for the sin of not being true Christians - IOW, not being Fundagelical Protestants )

Who says we don’t worship Christ ? Calvinism. Calvinism preaches the Gospel, Rome does not do so in the way that Calvinism does, and, worships saints., etc - therefore, Romanism is an abomination in the eyes of God. Cue Revelation 17.5.

That, AFAICS, is the thinking behind the idea that we are idolaters even despite our intentions.

More judicial blindness - from the book that came up with this thing about Catholic Tammuz-worship:

• Were not the minds of men judicially blinded, they would tremble at the very thought of incurring the guilt that this land, by upholding the corruption and wickedness of Rome, has for years past been contracting. Has not the Word of God, in the most energetic and awful terms, doomed the New Testament Babylon? And has it not equally declared, that those who share in
  Babylon’s sins, shall share in Babylon’s plagues? (Rev 18:4)
  philologos.org/__eb-ttb/sect34.htm
• …In 432, and not before, did he publicly lay claim to the possession of Peter’s keys. This, surely, is a striking coincidence. Does the reader ask how it was possible that men could give credit to such a baseless assumption? The words of Scripture, in regard to this very subject, give a very solemn but satisfactory answer (2 Thess 2:10,11): “Because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved…For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.”
  philologos.org/__eb-ttb/sect61.htm

The trouble with this kind of “argument” is, that people who use it, cannot reasonably deny that they might be unknowing devil-worshippers or whatever. How they get out of that objection, I don’t know.

“Reasoning” of that kind also makes it impossible for us Catholics to prove that we are not Pope-worshippers. Any accusation, no matter how ridiculous, can be thrown at us & not be refutable, once every thing we say has been disposed of in advance by the notion that we are blinded by God.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’m debating a Protestant who claims that Catholics “worship” the Virgin Mary and this so-called “worship” is “actually the worship of the goddess Tammuz”. He provided this link: barr-family.com/godsword/queen.htm

I’ve seen this claim before and have seen it refuted but, I can’t seem to find any links that refute it, at this moment. Could someone provide some helpful links?

Here we go:​

Secular history and tradition tell us that “Nimrod” married a woman who was as evil and demonic as himself. Her name was “Semerimus”. Knowing God’s promise of a future Savior (Gen. 3:15), Semerimus brazenly claimed that “Tammuz”, her first son, fulfilled this prophecy.

No​

1. She is called Semiramis
2. She is a fusion of various females - she is not a single historical human being
3. Nimrod (who is known of only from a few references in the OT) has proved to be unidentifiable

Semerimus thereupon instituted a religious system which made both her and her son the objects of divine worship.

The only foundation for that is a Victorian anti-Catholic book. There is not a shred of historical evidence for it, and many shreds of evidence against it.​

She herself became the first high priestess. Thus began the **Mother-child **cult which later spread all over the world.

So why did many ancient religions have no Mother-child cult ? The Hittites didn’t, the Hurrians didn’t, nor the Elamites, nor the Romans, nor the Sumerians, Assyrians, Babylonians.​

The city of Babylon was the seat of Satan worship until it fell, in 539 B.C., to the Persians.

1. 
   *]From Babylon it spread to Phoenicia under the name of Ashteroth and Tammuz.
   *]From Phoenicia it traveled to Pergamos in Asia Minor. This is the reason for John’s admonition to the church at Pergamos in the book of Revelation: ‘‘I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan’s seat is’’ (Rev. 2:13).
   *]In Egypt the mother-child cult was known as Isia and Horus.
   *]In Greece it became Aphrodite and Eros.
   *]In Rome this pair was worshipped as Venus and cupid.
   *]In China it became known as Mother Shing Moo and her child.
   *]In Mexico an image was found and authenticated as belonging to the period about 200 years before Christ, where it was the center of religious worship among some of the early Indians in Mexico. The image was of a mother with a child in her arms.

1. 1. 
      *]## That doesn’t mean it comes from Babylon in any sense - Nazism used the swastika, which has also been found in Iraq: does that prove that the Babylonians were the first Nazis ? Hittite gods are shown wearing kilts - it doesn’t follow that the artist had attended the Braemar Highland Games. The form of something is not always a guide to its function or its meaning: something can be cross-shaped, without having the Christian meaning of the Cross.
      

      The teachings of Semerimus’ satanic church (mother-child).
      

      1. 
         *]That Semerimus herself was the way to God. She actually adopted the title ‘‘Queen of Heaven’’.

      1. 1. 
            *]## Which god ? Over 2000 individual gods are on record - Babylonia was not monotheistic, unlike Catholicism.
            

            *]That she alone could administer salvation to the sinner through various sacraments, such as the sprinkling of holy water.

            Sacraments are necessarily Christ-related - there were no sacraments in Babylonian religion.​

            *]That her son Tammuz was tragically slain by a wild boar during a hunting trip.
            *]That he was, however, resurrected from the dead forty days later.

            Tammuz died in June & returned from death in December - not surprisingly, since he is connected with the cycle of nature.​

            *]Thus, each year afterward, the temple virgins of this cult would enter a forty-day fast as a memorial to Tammuz’ death and resurrection…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

After the forty-day fast, a joyful feast called Ishtar

This is not true - no feast of that name existed​

took place. At this feast colored eggs were exchanged Our Easter tradition and eaten as a symbol of the resurrection. An evergreen tree was displayed and a Yule log was burned Our Christmas tradition. Finally, hot cakes marked with the letter T (to remind everybody of Tammuz) were baked and eaten. Our yearly Hot Cross buns during the lent season.

A letter T ? Babylonian is not written with individual letters; it used signs that stood for syllables - not (as with most Indo-European languages) signs standing for individual letters.​

About 2000 B.C., God called Abraham away from all this (see Josh. 24:2-3) and led him into the promised land, but by 850 B.C. Israel had returned to this devil worship under the influence of wicked Jezebel (1 Kings 16:30-33). At this time the cult was worshipped under the name of Baal.

Who was only one of many gods.​

Both Ezekiel and Jeremiah warned against this hellish thing.

1. 
   *]Ezek. 8:14 …there sat women weeping for Tammuz.
   *]Jer. 7:18 …and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven.
   *]Jer. 44:25 … to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings to her.

1. 
   

   If that is supposed to be a condemnation of Catholic practice, it might help if those Prophets were to mention things done by Catholics. They don’t - for Catholics do not do the things they mention, & condemn.​

   By the time of Christ, this cult had so influenced Roman life that the Caesars were not only crowned as emperors of Rome, but also bore the title Pontifex Maximus, meaning, ‘‘high priest’’. They were high priest of the Babylonian satanic church.

   Then why did they worship different gods ? There are some similarities, but the two religions are not the same​

   During A.D. 306, A Roman Emperor named Constantine, was threatened by a very powerful enemy army. Realizing that his uneasy troops needed confidence, Constantine claimed to have seen a vision on the eve of battle.

   Not 306 - 312​

   He saw a large blue flag with a red cross on it and heard a mighty voice which said, In hoc signo vinces — ‘‘In this sign conquer.’’ He thereupon marched his troops into a shallow river, claimed them to be officially baptized, and ordered the sign of the cross painted on all his weapons. Thus inspired, he led his troops to victory and subsequently made Christianity the state religion of Rome.

   Comment is needless ​

   The Roman priests of Tammuz soon discovered that they could easily make the transition into Christianity (with certain changes) and thereupon carried their traditions forward without interruption by promoting the** Madonna-Child worship concept, the holy water sacrament,** etc.

   For priests who did not exist, that’s quite an achievement.​

   Whenever I’m sick of Catholicism, all I have to do is look at this kind of thing, & I feel better at once
   

   For nearly 300 years the devil had attempted to destroy the church from outside by his terrible persecutions. But with the advent of Constantine he changed his tactics, walking the aisle to work from within. The corrupted church was already flourishing in Christ’s day and the Savior delivered a scathing attack against some of its very deacons and elders (Matt. 23)
   (From Wilmington’s Guide to the Bible pp. 570-571)

   The Pharisees worshipped Tammuz ? I hope that historians of Judaism know this​

 

[Gamera]

I’m debating a Protestant who claims that Catholics “worship” the Virgin Mary and this so-called “worship” is “actually the worship of the goddess Tammuz”. He provided this link: barr-family.com/godsword/queen.htm

I’ve seen this claim before and have seen it refuted but, I can’t seem to find any links that refute it, at this moment. Could someone provide some helpful links?

Huh. I’ve been Catholic for 42 years and I’ve never worshipped anybody but Jesus. And I’ve never even heard of Tammuz. So if the Catholic Church is trying to make me worship Tammuz, they’re doing a lousy job.

 

[DylanO]

Here are some claims from a Protestant (specifically he is Christian Identity). This guy says he used to be a Catholic and is constantly bashing the Catholic Church.

Here are some of his claims and remarks. Church Militant, would you mind answering his claims, since I’m not to familiar in this area?

Does the RCC teach the entirety of the LAW and the PROPHETS?

Do Catholics teach the need to abstain from pork? Jesus said the entire law shall always stand and nothing shall pass from it.

Do Catholics teach a Saturday Sabbath? Jesus said the entire law shall always stand and nothing shall pass from it.

Do Catholics teach that a man may have several wives? Jesus said the entire law shall always stand and nothing shall pass from it.

Do Catholics teach the death penalty being applicable for anything, let alone the 15-25 crimes it is applicable for? Jesus said the entire law shall always stand and nothing shall pass from it.

Do Catholics teach any of the laws that Jesus spoke about never passing?

I responded to some these questions and received a several responses. This guy is a bit strange from what he’s been saying. I’m not sure exactly how to respond. Here are some quotes from him.

In response to his claim that we mustn’t eat pork I quoted Acts 10:9-16 and said:

“Since Christ fulfilled (infinitely) fulfilled the requirements of the Mosaic ceremonial law, that means he paid our debts, and we don’t have to follow it since HE did it for us! He took that yoke off of our backs.”

Here is his response:

Christ did no such thing! He even showed how disgusting pigs are by driving the demons (Legion) into the swine!

If Paul says X and Christ says Y, you’d damn well better go with Y. Christ said NONE of the law will ever pass, so don’t you dare go quoting Acts to me, I don’t care about Acts! I pretty much dislike the entire book of Acts since the English translation is so poorly done and the book is so often misused, mainly by evangelicals.

I believe in Christianity, not Paulianity

Here are some other things he has said:

I follow a teacher who is better than “St. Paul” (Paul never claimed to be a saint, and he made it clear he was NEVER writing laws, nor giving holy commandments, he was merely offering advice for mediation of conflicts, aside from 1-2 times when he explicitly stated he was talking for God “not I, but Yahweh sayeth” etc) and that teacher is JESUS CHRIST, aka Yahshua bin Messiah.

You go follow Paul all you want, I will follow Jesus, we shall see who winds up where…

You can go on and on and quote to me that “saint so and so says this” and the only thing that makes that person is a saint is because some catholics voted him in… Well guess what, if 20-30 Identity preachers declare me a saint, does that make me an authority on anything? If 5,000 scientists vote that the sun is purple and made of turkey gravy, does that make it so?

Get real!

In response to his claim that polygyny is “okay”, I quoted Genesis 2:24 and Luke 16:18. Here is his response to that:

Poor translations that were done by biased Catholics who had biased views… Putting away is hardly divorce, indeed Luke 16:18 has NOTHING to do with a man having more than one wife… I actually did a lengthy essay on putting away vs divorce, maybe you might want to read it sometime… Divorce is perfectly legitimate in Christianity.

I just addressed this in a PM to somebody… Here is what I said…

First of all, Jacob, and most other patriarches had more than one wife, and clearly they were never condemned, they were given blessings. This is what I called “implicit allowance” meaning it was implied they could do it since they were never told not to, they were never punished because of it, and they never did it dishonorably or without treating their many wives as decent human beings should be. Indeed Jacob married two sisters, Rachel and Leah. He had to marry Leah in order to get Rachel. Remember, a concubine is just a wife of lesser status, meaning that any children she produces for her husband, will not be legal heirs with rights to property.

Secondly, in the parable where Jesus talks about the 10 virgins/brides going to meet the groom, and five having oil for the lamps and the other five not having any oil (not being worthy), he is using marriage to draw a parallel. If there was a problem with a man having five wives, Jesus would never have used such an example, since He knew the totality of the law.

This might help explain it some more-

christianpoly.org/numbered.php

:ehh: What do you think about this? How should I respond in order to refute his bizarre claims?

 

[jpaul]

Does anyone know of any good information/articles refuting this Protestant claim? I entered another debate with this Protestant (and a few others) and I can’t seem to find anything online from Catholic apologetics websites. I would really appreciate some info, thanks.

Peace and all-good!

Neither Saint Peter (Simon Peter) nor Simon Magus (Simon the Sorcerer) were the founder of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ on Peter the Rock (see Matt. 16:18; John 1:42).

The Protestant allegations are 100% lies. They have no standard reference to show because there is none.

Former Baptist Minister and anti-Catholic Steve Ray has good tools for Catholic apologetics. He can be contacted at www.catholicconvert.com.

Ave Maria!

jpaul

 

[Mannyfit75]

Does anyone know of any good information/articles refuting this Protestant claim? I entered another debate with this Protestant (and a few others) and I can’t seem to find anything online from Catholic apologetics websites. I would really appreciate some info, thanks.

Dr. E.L. Martin:

Right from the very beginning, Satan had his counterfeit “messiah” operating right in the true Messiah’s backyard. His name was Simon Magus or Simon the Sorcerer and this man, and not Simon Peter the Apostle, went on to found the Universal Roman “church.” His career was the history of Roman Catholicism in miniature. For a long time he bewitched the people with his false miracles. Since the year 800 A.D., Rome has bewitched the world with her false miracles of transubstantiation.

There is no historical evidence to prove that Simon Magus founded the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church sense the beginning always believed in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Eucharist. This is not magic. This is divine intervention by God. God, send His Holy Spirit to make these gifts holy.

Simony is also condemned by the Catholic Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

2121 Simony is defined as the buying or selling of spiritual things. To Simon the magician, who wanted to buy the spiritual power he saw at work in the apostles, St. Peter responded: “Your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain God’s gift with money!” Peter thus held to the words of Jesus: “You received without pay, give without pay.” It is impossible to appropriate to oneself spiritual goods and behave toward them as their owner or master, for they have their source in God. One can receive them only from him, without payment.

Also Dr. Martin’s claim has no backing of history.

Wikipedia states consider Simon Magus.

The figure appeared prominently in several apocryphal accounts by early Christian authors, who regarded him as the first heretic. He appears in the canonical Acts of the Apostles, verses 8:9-24, where he tries to offer money to the Apostles in exchange for miraculous abilities, specifically the power of laying on of hands. The sin of simony, or paying for position and influence in the church, is named for Simon. The Apostolic Constitutions, verse 6.19, accuse him of antinomianism.

According to reports by ancient Christian Orthodoxy, the Gnostic sect of Simonianism believed that Simon Magus was God in human form. Almost all of the surviving sources for the life and thought of Simon Magus are contained in works from the ancient Christian Orthodoxy: in the Acts of the Apostles, in patristic works (Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus of Rome), and in the apocryphal Acts of Peter, early Clementine literature, and the Epistle of the Apostles.

There are small fragments of a work written by him (or by one of his later followers using his name), the Apophasis Megale, or Great Pronouncement. He is also supposed to have written several treatises, two of which allegedly bear the titles The Four Quarters of the World and The Sermons of the Refuter, but are lost to us. Simon is specifically said to have possessed the ability to levitate and fly at will. There were accusations that he was a demon in human form, with the story of Simon the wizard as the cultural equivalent of Merlin during the Middle Ages.

The apocryphal Acts of Peter gives a legendary tale of Simon Magus’ death. Simon is performing magic in the forum, and in order to prove himself to be a god, he flies up into the air. The apostle Peter prays to God to stop his flying, and he stops mid-air and falls, breaking his legs, whereupon the crowd, previously non-hostile, stones him to death. The church of Santa Francesca Romana claims to have been built on the spot in question (thus claiming that Simon Magus could indeed fly), claims that Saint Paul was also present, and that a dented slab of marble that it contains bears the imprints of the knees of Peter and Paul during their prayer.

Dr. Martin testimony is **poorly written and a waste of time **to read. There is no historical evidence to prove his claim to be true.

 

[DylanO]

This Protestant believes in polygyny (aka polygamy) and this is what he had to say:

Secondly, in the parable where Jesus talks about the 10 virgins/brides going to meet the groom, and five having oil for the lamps and the other five not having any oil (not being worthy), he is using marriage to draw a parallel. If there was a problem with a man having five wives, Jesus would never have used such an example, since He knew the totality of the law.

I responded:

This is another gross error. Look at the first sentence of the parable:

Matthew 25:1 - Then shall the kingdom of heaven be like to ten virgins, who taking their lamps went out to meet the bridegroom AND THE BRIDE.

These virgins are bridesmaids, not brides.

He responded:

You’re a liar, since the KJV does not have the words “and the bride” in it…

They are brides, and you are a liar for adding the words “AND THE BRIDE”.

I responded as such,

No, I am not a liar and I did not add the words “and the bride”. I’m not using your precious KJV, I’m using the most accurate version of the Scripture in the English language; the Douay-Rheims Version, which includes the words “and the bride” in it:

“Then shall the kingdom of heaven be like to ten virgins, who taking their lamps went out to meet the bridegroom and the bride.” - Matthew 25:1; Douay-Rheims.

drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=25&l=1

He answered:

You’re using a version that suits your needs… EVERY other version has it without the words “and bride”… I don’t care about a garbage Catholic bible that threw out a lot of the prophets…

It also makes it clear, that the ten women are virgins, why does virginity matter if they are not brides and are merely the bride’s maids?

How should I respond?

 

[Janet_S]

How should I respond?

I think this guy is pretty far gone. I’m kind of surprised you are still talking religion with him.

I looked up many Protestant versions of this verse on the Bible Gateway site. All of the ones I looked up said the virgins went to meet the “bridegroom.” None said the “bridegroom and bride.” Some of the versions translated “virgin” as “bridesmaid” or “women” or “women who had never known men.”

I found this interpretation of Matthew 25 on Scott Hahn’s website. I think your friend will have a hard time finding a Bible commentary that agrees with him:
salvationhistory.com/library/scripture/churchandbible/homilyhelps/ordinary32_a.cfm

Matthew 25:1-13

According to marriage customs of Jesus’ day, a bride was first “betrothed” to her husband but continued for a time to live with her family. Then, at the appointed hour, some months later, the groom would come to claim her, leading her family and bridal party to the wedding feast that would celebrate and inaugurate their new life together.

This is the background to the parable of the last judgment we hear in today’s Gospel.

In the parable’s symbolism, Jesus is the Bridegroom (see Mark 2:19). In this, He fulfills God’s ancient promise to join himself forever to His chosen people as a husband cleaves to his bride (see Hosea 2:16-20). The virgins of the bridal party represent us, the members of the Church.

We were “betrothed” to Jesus in baptism (see 2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:25-27) and are called to lives of holiness and devotion until He comes again to lead us to the heavenly wedding feast at the end of time (see Revelation 19:7-9; 21:1-4).

As St. Paul warns in today’s Epistle, Jesus is coming again, though we know not the day nor the hour.

We need to keep vigil throughout the dark night of this time in which our Bridegroom seems long delayed. We need to keep our souls’ lamps filled with the oil of perseverance and desire for God - virtues that are extolled in today’s First Reading and Psalm.

We are to seek Him in love, meditating upon His kindness, calling upon His name, striving to be ever more worthy of Him, to be found without spot or blemish when He comes.

If we do this, we will be counted as wise and the oil for our lamps will not run dry (see 1 Kings 17:16). We will perceive the Bridegroom, the Wisdom of God (see Proverbs 8:22-31,35; 9:1-5), hastening toward us, beckoning us to the table He has prepared, the rich banquet which will satisfy our souls

 

[DylanO]

I think this guy is pretty far gone. I’m kind of surprised you are still talking religion with him.

Well, this guy is a different Protestant than before.

I looked up many Protestant versions of this verse on the Bible Gateway site. All of the ones I looked up said the virgins went to meet the “bridegroom.” None said the “bridegroom and bride.” Some of the versions translated “virgin” as “bridesmaid” or “women” or “women who had never known men.”

I found this interpretation of Matthew 25 on Scott Hahn’s website. I think your friend will have a hard time finding a Bible commentary that agrees with him:
salvationhistory.com/library/scripture/churchandbible/homilyhelps/ordinary32_a.cfm

Thanks for that commentary.

Does anyone know why the Protestant versions exclude “and the bride”? Are those versions using different texts? I would also assume that the Eastern Orthodox Bible also has “and the bride” in this passage however, I can’t find an online Orthodox Bible to be sure.

 

[DylanO]

Another Protestant I’m debating claims that the Culdee Church was the first church, not the Catholic Church. I can’t seem to find any information from Catholic sources regarding this. Could anyone help with this? Thanks again.

 

[shawn34_a]

I’m debating a Protestant who claims that Catholics “worship” the Virgin Mary and this so-called “worship” is “actually the worship of the goddess Tammuz”. He provided this link: barr-family.com/godsword/queen.htm

I’ve seen this claim before and have seen it refuted but, I can’t seem to find any links that refute it, at this moment. Could someone provide some helpful links?

No Church is suppose to worship Mary. There is but one mediator between God and us, that’s Jesus Christ. You may ask Mary to pray for you as you due the saints. This is no different than the prayer requests that are asked of in the Baptist church.

The Catholic church does a horrible job of explaining that.

 

[Mannyfit75]

No Church is suppose to worship Mary. There is but one mediator between God and us, that’s Jesus Christ. You may ask Mary to pray for you as you due the saints. This is no different than the prayer requests that are asked of in the Baptist church.

The Catholic church does a horrible job of explaining that.

Explaining what?

 

[VociMike]

Does anyone know why the Protestant versions exclude “and the bride”? Are those versions using different texts? I would also assume that the Eastern Orthodox Bible also has “and the bride” in this passage however, I can’t find an online Orthodox Bible to be sure.

I looked up the passage in a couple of Greek Interlinear sites and none of them had “and the bride”. But that shouldn’t be a problem because it is Christ who is the bridegroom and the entire Church is the bride.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I’m debating a Protestant who claims that Catholics “worship” the Virgin Mary and this so-called “worship” is “actually the worship of the goddess Tammuz”. He provided this link: barr-family.com/godsword/queen.htm

I’ve seen this claim before and have seen it refuted but, I can’t seem to find any links that refute it, at this moment. Could someone provide some helpful links?

Hi Dylan, as a protestant historian I would simply Laugh ROFL at this because it is simply the copycat thesis which historians have dismissed long ago. In fact, his argument is from Frazer’s Golden Brough.

If you do not have a copy of The Babylon Connection?
ralphwoodrow.org/books/pages/babylon-connection.html I suggest you get a copy because it refutes the methodology used by Hislop in his two bablyons which is this nonsense.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Does anyone know of any good information/articles refuting this Protestant claim? I entered another debate with this Protestant (and a few others) and I can’t seem to find anything online from Catholic apologetics websites. I would really appreciate some info, thanks.

It is believed that Simon Magus formed a gnostic sect, not the Christian Church. And, the Church Fathers write aganist him.

Based on Acts,
newadvent.org/fathers/050106.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm

The gnostic sect
newadvent.org/cathen/13797a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/13797b.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/04039b.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/0103123.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/0319.htm
hermetic.com/sabazius/simon.htm

newadvent.org/utility/search.htm?safe=active&cx=000299817191393086628%3Aifmbhlr-8x0&q=Simon+Magus&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A9#913