Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Muslims Enter Catholic Church, See A Statue Of The Virgin Mary, Call It An Idol And Destroy It
Shoebat ^ | 7/19/2014 | Theodore Shoebat

Posted on 07/19/2014 3:22:50 PM PDT by markomalley

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-132 last
To: DuncanWaring
OK, Romans 3:23 says we are “all” sinners.

It’s not hard to round “99.99999999%” to “All”.

You're basing this on a human perspective. If you asked people how "good" to you have to be to get into Heaven and gave this this figure, the majority would say that individual "deserves" to go to Heaven because they've been good. From God's perspective it means ALL have sinned....including Mary. James tells us "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all."

You can't be "good enough" to earn your way into Heaven. Only through faith in Christ do we enter Heaven.

But, if you want to argue “All means all - no exceptions, because it’s Scripture”, then you must also agree that the Ninth Commandment proscription against coveting your neighbor’s wife allows for the coveting of the neighbor’s husband by male homosexuals and female heterosexuals.

If you are saying the commandment allows for coveting for other than the neighbor's wife I disagree with that as I would think everyone else. This goes to the lust of the eyes and the flesh discussed in the NT.

Look at this commmandment in relation to how Jesus explained it in Matthew 5:21-22; 27-28. That should clear it up.

I haven’t explicitly raised this issue with a member of the RCC clergy, but I’m fairly the Church does not agree that the Ninth Commandment allows coveting by male homosexuals and female heterosexuals.

I’m saying the RCC is correct on this one.

121 posted on 07/22/2014 1:05:20 PM PDT by ealgeone (obama, borderof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
If you are saying the commandment allows for coveting for other than the neighbor's wife I disagree ...

Why?

The commandment only prohibits coveting the neighbor's wife, not their husband.

Is the Bible to be read literally or metaphorically?

Pick one.

You can't have it both ways.

And by “99.99999999%”, I meant 1 person out of the roughly 10 billion humans who have existed, not "almost perfectly good".

122 posted on 07/22/2014 1:09:45 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
If you are saying the commandment allows for coveting for other than the neighbor's wife I disagree ... Why? The commandment only prohibits coveting the neighbor's wife, not their husband. Is the Bible to be read literally or metaphorically? Pick one.

As I noted in the prior text...Jesus expounded on this type of understanding. The NT talks clearly about the lust of the flesh and the eyes so if you're coveting(lusting) after your neighbor's wife, husband, cousin, etc....it is a sin.

Again....context is your key to the Bible.

The only person to be sinless is Christ. So another way to look at this is that 100% of all people who are not Christ have sinned.

123 posted on 07/22/2014 1:27:03 PM PDT by ealgeone (obama, borderof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
Why else is He doing this?

Which law was it ? None was mentioned in the text. It was certainly not Roman law; if you say to honor her as his mother, you concede she had no other children and the brothers were, in fact, cousins. If to honor a mother without other children, that honor could be spiritual as well as physical. Blessed John and Mary share another spiritual bond, and John seems to have been the only male apostle/disciple who was there at the execution.

That's the problem....you're reading something into the text that's not there.

Actually, that is what you did; you read something into the text about fulfilling a law. There is no mention of law, but there is a command of a spiritual relationship between Mary the mother of God with us and a disciple that Jesus loves.

I know Him and He knows me. We've been adopted into His family. Sounds personal to me. If we don't have a personal relationship with Christ, then what do we have?? Do you truly consider it heresy for a disciple whom Jesus loves to regard blessed Mary as a spiritual mother ? Yes...because there is nothing in the Bible that instructs us to view Mary in this manner. Paul never referred to Mary in this manner, nor did Peter or James, nor did Christ.

I find it odd to claim to be adopted into his family while claiming a spiritual relationship with his mother is heretical.

124 posted on 07/22/2014 8:14:25 PM PDT by af_vet_1981 (The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: defconw
They will never accept it. I don't care how you put it. I see it as their loss. 2.1 Billion of can't be wrong on this.

Are the 1.2 billion muslims wrong? What about the Hindu? Are they wrong?

Just because you have big numbers doesn't mean you are right.

125 posted on 07/23/2014 5:09:02 AM PDT by ealgeone (obama, borderof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: defconw
Ping me when you have something original to accuse us of. I get tired of the same old parroted lines. What do you care anyway? More room for you and your Bible in heaven, right?

I accuse you of nothing. I merely point out what the Word has to say.

It is my sincere hope that there are billions in Heaven. I hope you are one of them. My hope, which is in Jesus, is for all to be there. Sadly, not all will. Based on the Word of God, only those who have placed their faith in Christ will enter Heaven.

126 posted on 07/23/2014 5:12:22 AM PDT by ealgeone (obama, borderof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_1981
>Why else is He doing this?<

We know that John was the disciple Jesus loved. We also know that Jesus' brothers did not believe in Him at this point. What we don't know is where is Joseph. It is understood that he is dead at this time....hence the need for Jesus to provide for His mom. So who does He turn to? The brothers who don't believe in Him....or the disciple who loves Him and is there at the cross with Him?

Which law was it ? None was mentioned in the text.

Honor thy father and thy mother.

It was certainly not Roman law; if you say to honor her as his mother, you concede she had no other children and the brothers were, in fact, cousins.

Nope. The Bible records, in more than one passage, Jesus had half brothers and sisters. If we look at the Greek and how Jesus is referred to in John 3:16 and compare with the account in Luke we find the following:

John 3:16 only begotten is translated from monogene. It means only, unique, only begotten. Everwhere it is used in the NT (9x) is it used to refer to only one of a kind.

In Luke 2:7 the word for first born is τὸν πρωτότοκον. The root Greek word is protokos. It means first born, eldest.

If Luke had wanted to indicate Jesus was going to be Joseph and Mary's only child he would have used monogene. Instead he used protokon. Luke being a physician I think he would understand the difference. Plus we have his explaination in Luke 1-4 where he tells us he has investigated everything he was told about Christ, etc. In Luke 8:19-21 he records that His mother and brothers came to see Him. Brothers is not understood to be cousins in this passage. Again, context is key.

As far as the notion of the other children of Mary being "cousins" of Jesus, I suggest you read the passages in context and it will clearly distinguish between His half brothers/sisters and fellow believers. Again, context is your key to understanding the Word.

If to honor a mother without other children, that honor could be spiritual as well as physical. Blessed John and Mary share another spiritual bond, and John seems to have been the only male apostle/disciple who was there at the execution.

That's the problem....you're reading something into the text that's not there. Actually, that is what you did; you read something into the text about fulfilling a law. There is no mention of law, but there is a command of a spiritual relationship between Mary the mother of God with us and a disciple that Jesus loves.

I know Him and He knows me. We've been adopted into His family. Sounds personal to me. If we don't have a personal relationship with Christ, then what do we have??

Do you truly consider it heresy for a disciple whom Jesus loves to regard blessed Mary as a spiritual mother ?

Yes...because there is nothing in the Bible that instructs us to view Mary in this manner. Paul never referred to Mary in this manner, nor did Peter or James, nor did Christ.

I find it odd to claim to be adopted into his family while claiming a spiritual relationship with his mother is heretical.

This is the problem when you ignore basic Biblical teaching like Romans 3:23, all have sinned.

Completely ignoring this you have the RCC teaching that Mary was sinless....she never lusted after a man in her whole life. Even though the Word tells us she was in need of a Savior. Even though she and Joseph offered the sin offering after the birth of Christ.

If she never lusted after a man...she never desired to have sex. So from this you have to get she was always a virgin. Even though the Word tells us Joseph kept her a virgin until Christ was born.

From this you have to get Jesus has no other family in spite of what the Word clearly teaches.

See how much you have to twist Scripture when you don't adhere to sound Biblical teaching in the beginning?

127 posted on 07/23/2014 2:14:19 PM PDT by ealgeone (obama, borderof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
We know that John was the disciple Jesus loved. We also know that Jesus' brothers did not believe in Him at this point. What we don't know is where is Joseph. It is understood that he is dead at this time....hence the need for Jesus to provide for His mom. So who does He turn to? The brothers who don't believe in Him....or the disciple who loves Him and is there at the cross with Him?

I don't think you know what you think you know. Yet from your argument, you are claiming that, in order to fulfill the law of Moses, Jesus had to take his mother from her own Jewish children you say she has, because they were not baptized. How twisted is that argument about the Law of Moses ?

They remainder of your doctrine is a relatively modern view.

See how much you have to twist Scripture when you don't adhere to sound Biblical teaching in the beginning?

I see your interpretation of Scripture and find it lacking.

When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

There must be a reason this passage is in the Scriptures. I find it likely to be about more than John; not like he is going to heap praise on himself for taking in Mary, the blessed mother of God with us, to keep her from being homeless.

You declare it heresy for a disciple that Jesus loves to regard blessed Mary as a spiritual mother, and yet consider yourself to be a disciple her son loves and adopted into their family. I find that to be cognitive dissonance.

128 posted on 07/24/2014 4:42:05 AM PDT by af_vet_1981 (The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_1981
>We know that John was the disciple Jesus loved. We also know that Jesus' brothers did not believe in Him at this point. What we don't know is where is Joseph. It is understood that he is dead at this time....hence the need for Jesus to provide for His mom. So who does He turn to? The brothers who don't believe in Him....or the disciple who loves Him and is there at the cross with Him?<

I don't think you know what you think you know. Yet from your argument, you are claiming that, in order to fulfill the law of Moses, Jesus had to take his mother from her own Jewish children you say she has, because they were not baptized. How twisted is that argument about the Law of Moses ?

Never said anything about being baptized. If you read the Scriptures you will find His brothers had issues with Christ and did not believe Him. I am saying Jesus being the Good Son that He was while on earth recognized His responsibility to take care of His mom. He charged John with this task.

He put His mom in the care of the disciple He loved and who loved Him.

And yes....those were Mary's other children. I don't say it...the Bible does. The reading of the texts while read in context are clear on this. I'm not relying on some account from the apocrypha to twist the NT.

Not sure which part of "my doctrine" you say is relatively new.

I assure you I am not the one twisting Scripture. It is the RCC.

There must be a reason this passage is in the Scriptures. I find it likely to be about more than John;...

Yep...there's a reason why every verse we have is in the Bible. I don't see this as being about John. I see it as his account of what he saw as he walked with Christ. And John is right, if we had an account of everything Christ did the whole world couldn't contain it all. But, this does not give us license to add things to the Bible that are not written. It doesn't give license to come up with doctrines not supported by the text...like the sinlessness of Mary.

I notice you have no comment on how the RCC has deviated from the Bible on the sinlessness of Mary. Because an honest reader of the text will see she can't be sinless. And with that being the case, the rest of the RCC doctrine on Mary falls apart rather quickly.

The RCC's path of deviating from the Bible regarding Mary is what has led us to this conversation.

This will be my last post on this thread.

129 posted on 07/24/2014 5:30:08 AM PDT by ealgeone (obama, borderof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
I notice you have no comment on how the RCC has deviated from the Bible on the sinlessness of Mary.

I did comment and noted that it is the part of your doctrine that is modern.

130 posted on 07/24/2014 5:39:57 AM PDT by af_vet_1981 (The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
Never said anything about being baptized. If you read the Scriptures you will find His brothers had issues with Christ and did not believe Him.

a distinction which further erodes your argument; you write that our Lord removed his mother from the care of the other Jewish children you claim she had because those others had issues with him and did not believe him. Seriously ? With no textual support saying this was fulfilling the law of Moses ? I can see how this line of thought would lead to removing family members from their homes if their relatives do not agree with all the same doctrines as those doing the removal, and all this to "honor" them according to the law of Moses. No, I have considered your premises and personal interpretation and am not persuaded.

131 posted on 07/24/2014 7:10:53 AM PDT by af_vet_1981 (The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: PJBankard

Reverent requests to anyone but God are a violation of Matthew 6:9. Please remember there are scriptures in both the old & new testament which command us not to add or subtract anything from the Bible. Mary IS NOT, IS NOT, IS NOT the mother of God. To think otherwise does not attribute a pre-beginning existence to God. There is no queen of heaven. God existed prior to the beginning, and prior to Jesus. Do you seriously not see the difference between asking a friend/family to keep so & so in their prayers, and praying to anyone else but God (thru Jesus)?


132 posted on 08/15/2014 6:38:29 PM PDT by 82nd Bragger (Count to four except when in a helicopter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-132 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson