Mary- other children

  • Thread starter Thread starter glow8worm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
MaggieOH:
This is off topic. If you want to discuss these points then please start a new thread where they can be discussed.

Maggie
Click to expand...
How convenient for you to assert that this is off topic in an attempt to dodge the question. This whole thread is off topic.
Ok, lets get back to the topic of Mary having other children.
Matthew 1:24-25

***“And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took her as his wife, and kept her a virgin *UNTILshe gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.”

Matthew 12:46-50

“While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You. But He answered the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers? And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Behold, My mother and My brothers!” For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.” Here Jesus is distinguishing between blood brothers versus brothers of faith. Remember it was someone else who called them “mother and brothers” not Jesus. If the brothers are not literal, then neither is the mother. They cannot simply be cousins because Colossians 4:10 uses a separate Greek word (anepsios). John 1:41 uses the same term of Peter and his brother (adelphos).

**Matthew 13:55-56 **

“Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?” Where then did this man get all these things?” And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his home town, and in his own household.” Notice that it is implied that these brothers and sisters are members of His own household!

The following verses prove beyond any question that Jesus had literal blood brothers through Mary. Notice that brother cannot refer to “brethren in the church” kind of usage because other “brethren in the church” are listed in addition to “Jesus brothers”. Of the 20+ times “Jesus brothers” are referred to, NEVER are they called cousins or relatives. How could the Holy Spirit say it to make the fact any clearer?

**John 2:12 **

“After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days.”

**Con’t **
 
John 7:1

**“And after these things Jesus was walking in Galilee; for He was unwilling to walk in Judea, because the Jews were seeking to kill Him. Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Booths, was at hand. His brothers therefore said to Him, “Depart from here, and go into Judea, that Your disciples also may behold Your works which You are doing. For no one does anything in secret, when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.” For not even His brothers were believing in Him. Jesus therefore said to them, “My time is not yet at hand, but your time is always opportune. The world cannot hate you; but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil. Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come.” And having said these things to them, He stayed in Galilee. But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up, not publicly, but as it were, in secret. **
**Acts 1:14

“And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying; that is, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James. These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.”

**Galatians 1:18 **

“Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother**. “**

1 Corinthians 9:4

“Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
Colossians 4:10

*** “Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, sends you his greetings; and also Barnabas’ cousin*** (anepsios)Mark (about whom you received instructions: if he comes to you, welcome him);”
John 1:41

“He found first **his own brother **(adelphos) Simon, **and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” **

The term brother (adelphos) is NEVER used in the New Testament to denote a cousin or relative or anything other than a literal **BROTHER! **It is so clear that I wonder why truth-seeking Catholics cannot see it. They are blinded from the truth by Catholic tradition as I was for 47 years!

I praise God that He opened my eyes to the truth found in His Word! :amen:
**
 
Benadam said:
****
Can you authenticate your enterpretation of what the New Testament contains?
Did you invent a new word?
I’ll take that as a joke.
I should have been more specific. Where in the New Testament Church do you find priests offering sacrifices for sins?
]**Is everyone who does not agree with Catholic teaching labled by you as" **
Click to expand...
Dishonest and anti-Catholic?"

words like ‘all’ ‘everyone’ ‘never’ ‘always’ usually indicate the kind of misjudgement that occurs when the emotions rise up and usurp the authority of reason.
Obviously the question went over your head!

sure if there can also be a sincere exchage of ideas that are mutually respected.

Maybe you believe in relativism but I don’t! Believe it or not, there is objective truth. All ideas are not equal nor are they all true. You may believe that 2+2=5 but I assure you it does not, it will always equal 4!!!

I think calling my faith idolatry cuts it to the chase, especially when the accuser refuses to dignify the evidense of defense with a response directed at it’s meaning as a defense. What would you think if I told you I thought your faith was a paganized form of christianity permeated with gnostic notions of ‘special knowledge’ and new age mantras like "In Jesus Name! I rebuke you!"

If I did you might say:

Actually, you don’t know anything about my faith so how can you make assumptions! As for a religion filled with paganism, where did statues, holy water, eating Christ, calling Mary the Mother of God etc. all come from?

What do you call the worship of anything other than God? In my reality it is called idolatry plain and simple!

Do you even know what the Gospel is??? Please tell me "the Good News"
I noticed that you avoided this question. Is it possible that you honestly don’t know?

After you reply, could we please get back to the topic of this thread?
:love:
Click to expand...
 
40.png
John1717:
John1717:

Hey man, why so angry?

Look, there’s a thread under apologetics: “About Peter being the rock…” That’s where this belongs.

By the way, you misunderstood me. Petros and Petra, in Greek, are indeed used in Matthew. NO Greek scholar cognizant of first century usage will tell you that the two words mean different things.
They are synonymous! Your treating Petros as if it means somthing different is a 16th century invention.

I get Mary being Queen from Rev. 12. She’s the mother of the Redeemer, clothed with the sun, with crown of 12 stars. But it’s Jesus’s teaching Church that really tells me. I’m sure you’ll disagree with my interpretation, but hey, I’m no more fallible than you.

Peace. I worship only Jesus, okay?
John
 
John1717 said:
*Sorry friend but the New Testament was written in Greek and any Greek scholar will tell you the terms petros and Petra are used *in this passage. Are you saying that the Holy Spirit made a mistake when He inspired the Apostles to use the words and language they used to write the New Testament?
Click to expand...

Peace be with you,

I’m sorry to have to inform you, but Matthews Gospel was not originally written in Greek.
 
John1717 said:
How convenient for you to assert that this is off topic in an attempt to dodge the question. This whole thread is off topic.

Ok, lets get back to the topic of Mary having other children.

Matthew 1:24-25

***“And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took her as his wife, and kept her a virgin *UNTILshe gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.”

Matthew 12:46-50

“While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You. But He answered the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers? And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Behold, My mother and My brothers!” For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.” Here Jesus is distinguishing between blood brothers versus brothers of faith. Remember it was someone else who called them “mother and brothers” not Jesus. If the brothers are not literal, then neither is the mother. They cannot simply be cousins because Colossians 4:10 uses a separate Greek word (anepsios). John 1:41 uses the same term of Peter and his brother (adelphos).

**Matthew 13:55-56 **

“Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?” Where then did this man get all these things?” And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his home town, and in his own household.” Notice that it is implied that these brothers and sisters are members of His own household!

The following verses prove beyond any question that Jesus had literal blood brothers through Mary. Notice that brother cannot refer to “brethren in the church” kind of usage because other “brethren in the church” are listed in addition to “Jesus brothers”. Of the 20+ times “Jesus brothers” are referred to, NEVER are they called cousins or relatives. How could the Holy Spirit say it to make the fact any clearer?

**John 2:12 **

“After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days.”

**Con’t **
Click to expand...

Guess what all of your references are in error. First of all the English is not an exact translation from one language to another and that means that the original meaning has become lost in the translation.

Your other points are easily refuted because they are based upon erroneous assumptions:
  1. the word “until” does not mean that anything happened afterwards. In the passage under discussion it means that Joseph is not the father of Jesus and that Mary conceived by some other means. It is not proof of other children
2, The correct English word for the original Hebrew word is “brethren”. It is only in modern translations that we see the erroneous use of brothers and sisters that has clouded the issue so much.
  1. James and Judas Thaddues are the sons of Alphaeus and the other Mary. They are not the sons of Joseph and Mary.
  2. There are two other men mentioned by name Simon and Joseph. These two are the older, not younger brothers of James and Jude. They are the sons of Alphaeus and the other Mary.
(cont)
 
The issue of the use of the word cousins needs careful attention since we are dealing in English and the original language of Jesus was Aramaic, we have to look to the Aramaic usage to discover precisely what the author meant. In Aramaic there is no word for cousin, instead a cousin is referred to the son of my father’s brother. This is the same method of referring to cousin in Aramaic and the Middle East today.

The Greek translation from the Aramaic was not perfect and is in fact flawed, and this is the reason that there are problems when translating from one language to another. Therefore to make the claim that there is no mention of cousins is an illegitimate point since it was expressed as such in the original language but has been mistranslated into the Greek and then into the English.

So far you have not put up one single argument that proves your point. Now I wonder could this be Jim that I knew on another list who is getting so angry?

Maggie
 
john ennis:
John1717:

Hey man, why so angry?

**Sorry if I came across as angry, I didn’t mean to! **

Look, there’s a thread under apologetics: “About Peter being the rock…” That’s where this belongs.

By the way, you misunderstood me. Petros and Petra, in Greek, are indeed used in Matthew. NO Greek scholar cognizant of first century usage will tell you that the two words mean different things.
They are synonymous! Your treating Petros as if it means somthing different is a 16th century invention.

With all due respect Petros and Petra have different meanings! Petros is masculine and means a stone or detached rock. Petra is feminine and means a large rock foundation.

I get Mary being Queen from Rev. 12. She’s the mother of the Redeemer, clothed with the sun, with crown of 12 stars. But it’s Jesus’s teaching Church that really tells me. I’m sure you’ll disagree with my interpretation, but hey, I’m no more fallible than you.

The reason your interpretation is wrong is you don’t seem to know much about biblical interpretation. Revelation is 404 verses, 278 of which are direct allusions to Old Testament passages. It’s a Book of symbols not riddles! So in order to understand it you must be familiar with these passages. Let’s look at Revelation 12: 1-5
Rev 12:1 A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.
Rev 12:2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.
Rev 12:3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads.
Rev 12:4 His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born.
Rev 12:5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne.
**Now lets look at Genesis 37:9 which records the dream of Joseph: “…Lo, I have had still another dream; and behold, the sun and the moon and eleven stars (Joseph being number twelve) were bowing down to me” **The twelve stars are the twelve tribes of Israel. You can also read Gen 49:1-28.
Now read Jer. 4:31: "For I heard a cry as of a woman in labor, The anguish as of one giving birth to her first child, The cry of the daufgter of Zion gasping for breath"
Now read Isiah 66:7-8: “Before she travailed, she brought forth; Before her pain came, she gave birth to a boy. Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things? Can a land be born in one day? Can a nation be brought forth all at once? As soon as Zion travailed, she also brought forth her sons.” You can also read Isiah 26:17 and Micah 4:9.
This Woman is not a person but a symbol ! It is the poeple of God from whom comes the Messiah! Notice this Woman cries out in the pain of childbirth, which is contrary to Catholic teaching. This passage has nothing to do with Mary!
The only reason you believe the Woman to be Mary is because thats what you have been taught by the Catholic Church. However, the Catholic Church is dead wrong and in fact is not the Church founded by Jesus Christ!!!

Peace. I worship only Jesus, okay?

**Do you ever pray the “Hail Mary?” :tsktsk: **
John
Click to expand...
 
John1717 said:
**Do you ever pray the “Hail Mary?” **
Click to expand...

All the time. It’s simply the prayer of the Gospels…comes straight from scripture. It suggests nothing about “worshipping” her.

We honor Mary, we do not worship her. How dare you try to suggest what “we” believe. Your arrogance is unbelievable.
 
Notice this Woman cries out in the pain of childbirth, which is contrary to Catholic teaching. This passage has nothing to do with Mary!
Click to expand...
No, pain in childbirth in no way contradicts Catholic teaching. The simple fact is as one reads this passage and asks who the child is, common sense says that it is Jesus. If they ask who the mother is, the brain simply computes who the mother of Jesus was and it reasonably suggests Mary. Think about the passage more and one CAN come up with the idea that it is also Israel, but it is intellectual suicide to say it is Israel and nothing else! Strange that Catholics always have to endure the accusation that they are forbidden to interpret Scripture, and yet here we have someone asking us to submit to one and only one interpretation of the passage. What an incredibly tiny universe this is.

Scott
 
Petros and Petra are masculine and feminine forms of the same word. Many biblical scholars of other denominations are now recognizing that this argument (which has only been used for a few hundred years, by the way), is bogus.

Look at the context of Matt. Ch. 16., just before Jesus says this to Peter…

How many times does he refer to “YOU,” Peter? It doesn’t make sense that he would refer to you, you, you, you, you, Peter, but oh, I’m building my church on “ME.” It doesn’t make sense.

It goes unsaid that the Church is built upon Jesus as the foundation, YES, we agree. However, Peter is delegated by Jesus as his “Prime Minister,” to carry on the faith. How do we know this? Because he gave him the keys to the kingdom…a direct reference from Isaiah 22 indicating the intention of a successor.

And get off your “idolatry” kick. The Catholic Church has NEVER taught that we are to worship anything but God. PERIOD

Honoring those who are great examples of our faith is not worshipping them, any more than is the fact that you have photos of your great grandparents on your wall. It’s simply a remembrance, and a way to honor those who are in our family of God.

GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE, and get back to the topic of Mary.
 
40.png
MaggieOH:
Guess what all of your references are in error. First of all the English is not an exact translation from one language to another and that means that the original meaning has become lost in the translation.

Really? So God was unable to preserve His Word! So I guess we should just scrap the bible and rely on the infailible Roman Catholic Church!

Your other points are easily refuted because they are based upon erroneous assumptions:
  1. the word “until” does not mean that anything happened afterwards. In the passage under discussion it means that Joseph is not the father of Jesus and that Mary conceived by some other means. It is not proof of other children
Your presumption, that the word “until” can mean, what happens up to a certain point and not after, is valid. This is the meaning of the Greek word heous. However, in Matthew 1:25 a different Greek construction is used than in the other passages you cite. It is the Greek construction heous hou, which literally means, before but not after. This phrase is used throughout the New Testament and in every instance, without exception, it means before but not after. Had the Holy Spirit wished to convey the thought that Mary was a perpetual virgin, He could have ended the verse, “kept her a virgin.”

2, The correct English word for the original Hebrew word is “brethren”. It is only in modern translations that we see the erroneous use of brothers and sisters that has clouded the issue so much.
Throughout the gospels, we see multiple references to Jesus’ “brothers”. One even mentions his “sisters.” These texts, taken in their natural reading, imply that Mary was the mother of an ordinary Jewish family. The RCC insists that this natural reading is incorrect. They correctly state that Hebrew does not have separate terms for “brother” and “cousin.” Therefore, the brothers are really cousins, and Mary was a virgin forever. Unfortunately for the Catholic Church, the gospels were all written in Greek and Greek does have separate terms for “brother” (adephos) (which literally means, the sharing of the womb) “sister” (adelphe) and “cousin” (anepsios). In order for the RCC interpretation to hold, it must deny the inspiration of the gospel writers. No other possibility exists. Of course, to deny inspiration would be to deny the canonicity of the gospels, and without them, Mary essentially disappears.

**Con’t **

It is hard to imagine the argument against Mary having other children being more thin or groundless. Number one, nowhere does the Word of God say she had no other Children and so it is a doctrine, which is not based on solid Scripture. Number two; Roman Catholics have made the fundamental error of building a house from the roof down. In other words, they started out with a conclusion, and then set out to find what they call “technicalities” in the Greek to try and give the appearance their conclusions have support. But any logical Bible scholar knows that sound Bible hermeneutics (the art and science of biblical interpretation) doesn’t start out with a conclusion and then search for justification of it, rather, it starts out with the Word of God, and then follows it to it’s conclusion. Since THERE IS NOTHING IN GOD’S WORD WHICH SAYS OR EVEN IMPLIES THAT MARY HAD NO OTHER CHILDREN, that starting conclusion is based on man’s thoughts, not God’s.

**The doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity is not only false but utterly ludicrous. Do Catholics not ask themselves the question that logically stems from this insane doctrine? **Why would God yoke the sinless eternal virgin Mother of God to a man if she had to deny her marital relationship? Again, this doctrine is totally against the Bible and is just another step in desecrating the special places that belong only to Jesus Christ.

:amen:
Click to expand...
 
John1717 said:
In other words, they started out with a conclusion, and then set out to find what they call “technicalities” in the Greek to try and give the appearance their conclusions have support
Click to expand...

You are wrong, my friend. Look who started their own interpretations…you.

For over 1600 years after Christ, NO ONE suggested that Mary had other children. This is a man-made concept by those who refuse to acknowledge the authority of Christ’s true church.

Catholic doctrine is completely in harmony with sacred scripture, and you are looking for obscure ways to deny this due to your bigotry and hatred for Catholics.

We all just need to pray for this guy.
 
40.png
John1717:
40.png
MaggieOH:
Guess what all of your references are in error. First of all the English is not an exact translation from one language to another and that means that the original meaning has become lost in the translation.

Really? So God was unable to preserve His Word! So I guess we should just scrap the bible and rely on the infailible Roman Catholic Church!
Click to expand...
Your other points are easily refuted because they are based upon erroneous assumptions:
  1. the word “until” does not mean that anything happened afterwards. In the passage under discussion it means that Joseph is not the father of Jesus and that Mary conceived by some other means. It is not proof of other children
Your presumption, that the word “until” can mean, what happens up to a certain point and not after, is valid. This is the meaning of the Greek word heous. However, in Matthew 1:25 a different Greek construction is used than in the other passages you cite. It is the Greek construction heous hou, which literally means, before but not after. This phrase is used throughout the New Testament and in every instance, without exception, it means before but not after. Had the Holy Spirit wished to convey the thought that Mary was a perpetual virgin, He could have ended the verse, “kept her a virgin.”

2, The correct English word for the original Hebrew word is “brethren”. It is only in modern translations that we see the erroneous use of brothers and sisters that has clouded the issue so much.
Throughout the gospels, we see multiple references to Jesus’ “brothers”. One even mentions his “sisters.” These texts, taken in their natural reading, imply that Mary was the mother of an ordinary Jewish family. The RCC insists that this natural reading is incorrect. They correctly state that Hebrew does not have separate terms for “brother” and “cousin.” Therefore, the brothers are really cousins, and Mary was a virgin forever. Unfortunately for the Catholic Church, the gospels were all written in Greek and Greek does have separate terms for “brother” (adephos) (which literally means, the sharing of the womb) “sister” (adelphe) and “cousin” (anepsios). In order for the RCC interpretation to hold, it must deny the inspiration of the gospel writers. No other possibility exists. Of course, to deny inspiration would be to deny the canonicity of the gospels, and without them, Mary essentially disappears.

**Con’t **

It is hard to imagine the argument against Mary having other children being more thin or groundless. Number one, nowhere does the Word of God say she had no other Children and so it is a doctrine, which is not based on solid Scripture. Number two; Roman Catholics have made the fundamental error of building a house from the roof down. In other words, they started out with a conclusion, and then set out to find what they call “technicalities” in the Greek to try and give the appearance their conclusions have support. But any logical Bible scholar knows that sound Bible hermeneutics (the art and science of biblical interpretation) doesn’t start out with a conclusion and then search for justification of it, rather, it starts out with the Word of God, and then follows it to it’s conclusion. Since THERE IS NOTHING IN GOD’S WORD WHICH SAYS OR EVEN IMPLIES THAT MARY HAD NO OTHER CHILDREN, that starting conclusion is based on man’s thoughts, not God’s.

**The doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity is not only false but utterly ludicrous. Do Catholics not ask themselves the question that logically stems from this insane doctrine? **Why would God yoke the sinless eternal virgin Mother of God to a man if she had to deny her marital relationship? Again, this doctrine is totally against the Bible and is just another step in desecrating the special places that belong only to Jesus Christ.

:amen: You are very angry individual:nope: You explain to God why you disdain His mom,His Church,and His body.Also, let Him know why you attack Him,when you attack His Church you attack Him,ask To be humbled like St.Paul,and I am sure all of us here will pray for you.God Bless
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted by Benadam
Can you authenticate your enterpretation* of what the New Testament contains?
Did you invent a new word?
***no, I mispelled a word. I guess that puts the question in the penalty box? ***
*
*
Quote:
***Where in the bible do you find ***priests offering sacrifices for sins,
**I’ll take that as a joke.
***I *should have been more specific. Where in the New Testament Church do you find priests offering sacrifices for sins?

It’s true that those who broke the bread at the supper weren’t defined as priests in the early Church. The bread was being consecrated nevertheless and the worship was centered on the breaking of bread. This and as is noted by St. Paul the abuses associated with it, that manifested physically, not only made christians aware how profound and physical a reality it was, but required special care to it’s service which eventually developed into a priestly function identified with Christ’s act in persona in memory of Him.

The Scriptures are Holy and they reveal much in what isn’t written as well as what is. Those who have ears to hear find meaning in what wasn’t said as well as what is. For instance when John was in prison and sent disciples to ask “Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?” Christ didn’t answer explicitly, He said “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: 5The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy****
**
]**Is everyone who does not agree with Catholic teaching labled by you as" **
Click to expand...
Dishonest and anti-Catholic?"


words like ‘all’ ‘everyone’ ‘never’ ‘always’ usually indicate the kind of misjudgement that occurs when the emotions rise up and usurp the authority of reason.
Obviously the question went over your head!
not really, what is obvious is that you aren’t responding to the statement
 
continued

Maybe you believe in relativism but I don’t! Believe it or not, there is objective truth. All ideas are not equal nor are they all true. You may believe that 2+2=5 but I assure you it does not, it will always equal 4!!!

In case ya didn’t notice Catholics are the only ones bold eneogh to claim that they teach Truth without error, as opposed to teaching a Christ that is relative to others. You being a Protestant I would say that statement is a projection.

I think calling my faith idolatry cuts it to the chase, especially when the accuser refuses to dignify the evidense of defense with a response directed at it’s meaning as a defense. What would you think if I told you I thought your faith was a paganized form of christianity permeated with gnostic notions of ‘special knowledge’ and new age mantras like "In Jesus Name! I rebuke you!"

If I did you might say:

Actually, you don’t know anything about my faith so how can you make assumptions! As for a religion filled with paganism, where did statues, holy water, eating Christ, calling Mary the Mother of God etc. all come from?

Apparently you hear an accusation in what I stated that isn’t there. Your response makes my point. Please compare what I wrote with what you responded with and reflect on what you see. Bear in mind that you have recieved the answers to those questions already.
What do you call the worship of anything other than God? In my reality it is called idolatry plain and simple!

**I call it the same thing you do, and I agree that it is plain but far from simple. Fallen man is complex. As the Old Testament sage said and I paraphrase " the heart is deceitfull above all things, who can plumb it’s depths?" and again, Who can say, “I have kept my heart pure; I am clean and without sin”? **

Do you even know what the Gospel is??? Please tell me "the Good News"

I noticed that you avoided this question. Is it possible that you honestly don’t know?
 
40.png
John1717:
words like ‘all’ ‘everyone’ ‘never’ ‘always’ usually indicate the kind of misjudgement that occurs when the emotions rise up and usurp the authority of reason.
Obviously the question went over your head!

sure if there can also be a sincere exchage of ideas that are mutually respected.

Maybe you believe in relativism but I don’t! Believe it or not, there is objective truth. All ideas are not equal nor are they all true. You may believe that 2+2=5 but I assure you it does not, it will always equal 4!!!

I think calling my faith idolatry cuts it to the chase, especially when the accuser refuses to dignify the evidense of defense with a response directed at it’s meaning as a defense. What would you think if I told you I thought your faith was a paganized form of christianity permeated with gnostic notions of ‘special knowledge’ and new age mantras like "In Jesus Name! I rebuke you!"

If I did you might say:

Actually, you don’t know anything about my faith so how can you make assumptions! As for a religion filled with paganism, where did statues, holy water, eating Christ, calling Mary the Mother of God etc. all come from?

What do you call the worship of anything other than God? In my reality it is called idolatry plain and simple!

Do you even know what the Gospel is??? Please tell me "the Good News"

I noticed that you avoided this question. Is it possible that you honestly don’t know?

After you reply, could we please get back to the topic of this thread?
:love:
It is a known fact that when Protestants do not have a good argument in debate they always try to change the subject. In this forum it is called hijacking the thread.

You have not been addressing the subject matter and continue on a subject that belongs in a separate thread. Please start your own thread and we will respond there.

Maggie
 
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
You are very angry individual:nope: You explain to God why you disdain His mom,His Church,and His body.Also, let Him know why you attack Him,when you attack His Church you attack Him,ask To be humbled like St.Paul,and I am sure all of us here will pray for you.God Bless
Click to expand...
Lisa,

agreed. I know what Jesus is saying at this very moment each time we are attacked in this manner by Sandra and her friends:

“Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me”

Enough said.

Maggie
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top