Posted on 02/15/2010 9:07:17 AM PST by GonzoII
The Scenario:
Ever have one of those days when you’re feeling full of energy and vigor? I mean, you’re feeling just obnoxiously happy? Well, this is one of those days.
Driving home from work, you switch on the radio to see what’s happening, and you tune in to a local Protestant radio station just in time to hear a preacher speaking against various Catholic doctrines concerning Mary. The show is called Pastor Bob’s Bible Hour. Pastor Bob proclaims: “Jesus knew Catholics would come along and begin to worship His mother and call her perpetual virgin and absurd things like that. But the Bible says: ‘Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And are not His brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all of His sisters with us?’ (Matt. 13:55-56a). And isn’t it sad, my brothers and sisters?”
Pastor Bob goes on to say: “Jesus dealt with these Mary worshippers in His day. In Luke 11:27-28, the Bible says, ‘A woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts that You sucked!” But He said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”’”
On a normal day you would probably just listen, take a few mental notes and drive on. But not this time. You’re feeling a little bit too saucy. You take the first exit you see and head for a phone. This is just one more reason why you need to buy that cell phone you’ve been talking about getting.
Step One:
(Excerpt) Read more at envoymagazine.com ...
WRONG and BEARING FALSE WITNESS YET AGAIN.
Y’all don’t like it when you think we do it . . . yet y’all seem to be by far the worst at it on FR.
We attack idolatry and blasphemy.
That is NOT EQUAL to attacking Roman Catholics et al as persons.
NONSENSE.
maybe the donkey was pegasus
The woman described in Rev. 12 is Mary because she is described there as the mother of Christ. That you are suprised by the rest of the description is neither here or there, because it is the Bible we are discussing, not your state of mind. You are certainly not alone in being puzzled by the scripture you read.
NO!
NOT IN REV 12!
Revisionism to the max.
Sheesh.
Is that your final defence, lol.
INDEED!
ALLEGATIONS OF “BIGOTRY” HEREON
LEVELED AT PROTTYS
IS BEARING FALSE WITNESS 99.99999% OF THE TIME.
SHEESH WHAT DUPLICITY.
The blacker pot accusing the kettle of blackness.
UNMITIGATED NONSENSE.
Defending Mary per se has nothing to do with worship . . .
DEFENDING THE HOGWASH ATTACHED TO MARY
often has to do with inordinate worship.
Yes, the verses in Apoc. 12 that identify the woman as the mother of Christ, most directly verses 5 and 10, also identify her as Mary. Therefore the rest of the passage, no matter what our reaction to it is, refers to Mary as well.
That is called reading and believing the Holy Scripture.
VERY WELL PUT.
Perhaps most LDS are more mature than so many Roman Catholics et al hereon . . . in that far fewer of them resort to such idiocies as wailing and whining about assertive perspectives being 100% of the time held by “bigots” while ignoring their own attitudes which are much worse, MUCH MORE knee-jerky, hostile, rigid and narrow.
NEVER in Scripture is God pleased with such duplicity.
INDEED.
Wow.
THANKS FOR POSTING THE PROOF YET AGAIN
THAT “BIGOT”
DOES NOT
apply to any Prottys hereon 99.9999% of the time.
UNrubberized dictionaries are wonderful.
You have proven otherwise.
NONSENSE.
Fascinating how the Vatican system defines all metaphors strictly in terms of its hogwash dogma . . .
particularly a lot of Marian stuff overwhelmingly mostly formalized after 1930 yet!
Yet they try and convince us that it was all a seamless homogeneous perspective held 100% by all the early Church ‘Fathers’ 100’s of years before the Roman Catholic/Vatican organization formally came into being.
What hubris.
I don’t know if I’ll survive the weekend, but thanks for the discourse, it has been a pleasure, I hope not too contentious.
NONSENSE.
As one astute commentary puts it to 12:1: “A WOMAN. This woman refers to the faithful of Israel through whom the Messiah [i.e. the Christ child vv 2,4-5] came into the world (cf. Ro 9:5). This is indicated not only by the birth of the child, but also by the reference to the sun and the moon (se Ge 37:9-11) and the twelve stars, which would naturally refer to the twelve tribes of Israel.”
And I thought Fundamentalists had a hyper-literalistic hermeneutic.
My apologies to the Fundamentalists.
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.