My Faith: Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), from Catholic to Muslim

CNN ^ | 9/1/11 | Chris Welch

[marshmallow]

Minneapolis, Minnesota (CNN) –Prior to 2006, few people even knew that then-Minnesota state legislator Keith Ellison was a Muslim. Because of his English name, he said, no one thought to ask.

But five years ago, when he ran for a seat in the United States House of Representatives - a race he would go on to win - word of his religious affiliation began to spread.

“When I started running for Congress it actually took me by surprise that so many people were fascinated with me being the first Muslim in Congress,” said Ellison, a Democrat now serving his third term in the House.

“But someone said to me, ‘Look Keith, think of a person of Japanese origin running for Congress six years after Pearl Harbor–this might be a news story.’”

Though Ellison's status as the first Muslim elected to Congress is widely known, fewer are aware that he was born into a Catholic family in Detroit and was brought up attending Catholic schools.

But he said he was never comfortable with that faith.

“I just felt it was ritual and dogma,” Ellison said. “Of course, that’s not the reality of Catholicism, but it’s the reality I lived. So I just kind of lost interest and stopped going to Mass unless I was required to.”

It wasn’t until he was a student at Wayne State University in Detroit when Ellison began, “looking for other things.”

[CynicalBear]

>>So, you know and accept these doctrines because of the Church which has validated it.<<

NO, it’s NOT because the “church” has validated it. It’s because it’s clearly stated in scripture. He was described as both God and man.

>>Let us start with Mary’s assumption into heaven.<<

You mention Enoch – Proven by scripture and documented
Then you mention Elijah – Proven by scripture and documented
Then Jesus – also documented in scripture obviously
You then mention the saints who arose from their graves when Jesus died on the cross – again, documented in scripture.

Then you make a really weird statement. >>It is not unreasonable to think that Mary falls into this group.<<

It’s not unreasonable to think that Mary falls into this group? Are you kidding me? Did you notice that each of those is documented by scripture? Unreasonable is to try to insert something into scripture that is NOT there. In fact there is a rather stern warning not to do that. You could just as well start to “not unreasonably” think any other sort of extra Biblical scenarios or “revelations” like John Smith did.

Then you begin your Churcheanity and direct me to the RCC sites. With statements like, “but it has been believed and taught by the Church for hundreds of years.” Well, there you have it. It must be scriptural because the “church” with a capital c no less, teaches it and for hundreds of years to boot. I would remind you that Islam has been taught for hundreds of years also. That doesn’t make it scripturally true. Trying to get someone to believe something because “it’s not unreasonable” is what cults are developed from.

>>In Revelation 12:1 John sees the Woman, “1 A great 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. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain, looking to her time of delivery.”<<

That “woman” is the nation of Israel. Out of her our Lord Jesus was birthed. The passage goes on to explain who the women is.

Revelation 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

That is the Jewish people being protected for the last 3 ½ years of the Tribulation or during the “Great Tribulation” or “the time of Jacobs trouble”. The “twelve stars on her head” are the twelve tribes of Israel. To try to make us believe that is Mary is not supported in any way by scripture.

>> I believe these things and I accept them. And, though I despise it, I can take the ridicule that comes to me here for having done so.<<

I don’t ridicule you at all. My heart aches for you. You have been led astray by the “doctrines of man”. My admonition to you would be taken from Revelation 18:4 ...'And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.'

[CynicalBear]

He seemed to be hiding behind double speak. It’s what they must do to attempt to deflect being contradicted by scripture and truth.

[MarkBsnr]

Say hi to Arius for me. I suppose that it's tough to blaspheme the Holy Spirit if you don't even believe in Him.

So you couldn't answer the questions either, eh???

What questions are these?

Don't you know any bible???

I know The Holy Bible. Not sure what you're reading from. The Bible according to The Church of Iscool (population one)?

[MarkBsnr]

There were approximately 70 (debate between 66 and 76) generations from Adam to Jesus. Apply your 20-25 years per generation and then add the 2011 years since Christ and try to convince any scholar that it’s been 3411- 3761 years since Adam.

I'm not going to apply anything. You said that a generation was the span of someone's life. That is not the meaning of, for such things as 'from generation to generation'. Look, in the modern era, we have the Baby Boomers. How long? 30 years, roughly. Gen X? 25. Gen Y? 25.

Next you'll be telling us that since Methuselah was 1000 years old, his generation was 1000 years.

On the other hand take the 70 year generation and apply it and ask any scholar about the roughly 6911 years since Adam. Either do your own Biblical genealogy study or study research what scholars have done to check the number of generations. It’s not difficult if your looking for truth.

Where'd you get the 6911 years from?

[Mad Dawg]

The eternal, no beginning GOD did not have a mother. The Incarnation of CHRIST did. Saying the mother of Christ says something different than saying the mother of God.

From OUR POV the problem is the unity of natures in the one person.

And a proper understanding of "mother." Every mother mothers something which is partially not her nature. That's why I kept referring to the mothers of boys.

Christ, during His incarnation, had a point of conception, although His nature didn’t.

But that "conceptus" was God.

Saying that Mary was the mother of God can too easily be construed as saying that Mary was the mother of the Godhead.

Not for people who understand the question. This might be an example of how community is important.

As long as the RCC continues to say that Mary was the mother of God, it will continue to carry the implication that Mary was the mother of the Godhead, as that is what it is saying if you stick to the plain meanings of the words.

I would say:
As long as the RCC continues to say that Mary was the mother of God, it will continue to carry the implication risk that the ignorant will infer that Mary was the mother of the Godhead, as that is what it is saying if you stick to the plain meanings of the words , unless you understand that the question arose in a debate about WHAT Jesus was, the debate which led to Ephesus and Chalcedon, with which neither Luther, Calvin, nor the Anglican divines disagreed.

[smvoice]

I'm beginning to believe that anything that is not Roman Catholic is either an "ism", an "ish", or an "ant". It's the way of pidgeon-holing us into something they can "oh,yesyesyes..she is one of THOSE..."

I am a saved believer in the finished work of Christ. I don't care if Paul uses the wording, Ananaisis, or Ruford Welthorpe. God's word is my guide, I believe in the literal return of Christ, and I believe that we in this present age of grace, are members of the Church the Body of Christ. You can call it smvoice's creed if you wish. I don't care. I DO care about the Gospel of the Grace of God. If this commission was given to Paul to give to this present age, then that's the way it is. Don't like it? Take it up with God. He chose.

[MarkBsnr]

I use their replies as instructional materials for our religious instructional classes to demonstrate that just because they claim to be Christian, their own words contradict their contentions.

Some men serve very well as examples of perseverence (Peter). Some men serve very well as examples of daring and great speaking (Paul). Some men serve very well as an outstanding bad example (Judas).

However, since they worship at the altar of prideful interpretation which they change at a moments notice,it can be difficult to ascertain their belief of the day which like the weather is in a constant state of flux.

You've noticed?

[MarkBsnr]

No one that I know uses wiki for theology.

Then what do faux Christians and neo Judaizers use? Merrie Melodies? Tom and Jerry? You keep claiming to follow the Bible, yet post against the very teachings of the Gospels and Acts rather gleefully.

However wiki is a good source for common history about Roman Pontiffs e.g.Constantine and Augustus, etc.

How about wording it this way: Wikipedia is a good source of antiCatholic postings for heretics and apostates to try to justify their beliefs. Does that do it for you?

[Iscool]

He was not the physical manifestation of the Trinity, he was the physical manifestation of one person of the Trinity, namely, God the Son.

That's not what scripture says...

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

So if you are correct, the Holy Spirit as well as the Father each could have physical manifestations...And you call it what???

Gnostic Docetist

You guys are a trip...I'm a Gnostic Docetist because I believe what the scripture says...But the scripture does NOT say that God the Son was manifest in the flesh...It says God was manifest in the flesh...But what the hey, that's only scripture...

[MarkBsnr]

Very nice. I have not seen one exactly like it before.

[Iscool]

I would say it was not his "natural" human body. It was his "spiritual" human body.

Again, that's not what scripture says...It says a terrestrial body compared to a celestial body...Human body is not mentioned except in the halls of the Catholic cathedral...

The human body is corrupt...It dies...It decays and rots...To say we will have a human body in heaven is a far stretch...What would be accurate is to say we will have a physical body...Not necessarily human...

[smvoice]

Wait a minute..Mad, RCC teaches that The Holy Spirit is the husband of Mary. Mary is the Mother of God, and Mary is Queen of the Universe.

No matter how you try to "properly explain" Mary as perfectly sinless, Mary as the wife of the Holy Spirit, Mary as the Mother of God and Universal Queen, it's just not gonna hunt.

This is not a "proper" understanding of ANYTHING Scriptural.

What kind of ancient "heretics" denied these doctrines? I'm sure the RCC has a list of them. Those who would not wear the ribbon of the RCC were by default, followers of Paul. As he followed Christ. As a pattern to those who would hereafter believe on Jesus Christ to life everlasting.

[Natural Law]

"Where'd you get the 6911 years from?"

Mark, when someone insists the equivalent of 2 + 2 = 5 its best to drop the argument. You obviously are not dealing with rational people. I've had some of these same literalist Bible thumpers argue with me that man coexisted with dinosaurs and that 6911, based upon James Ussher "calculations", was about 900 years too old.

[Jvette]

Please, let your heart rest easy. Mine does.

So, we have two terms which you seem to use interchangeably and which I take to be two different things.

To not be found explicitly in Scriptures is not the same as unBiblical or unScriptural.

I have proven, through these verses, that to believe that Mary is in heaven, body and soul is not unBiblical. It is entirely Scriptural for God to take into heaven “holy people”. Mary, I would hope you could agree, was certainly a holy person.

The Trinity, the doctrine and the word Trinity are not explicitly to be found in Scripture though the doctrine is completely Scriptural.

You say you believe it because Scripture says it,or that it is clearly stated in Scripture, but it is not. There are many, many verses which support it. If you know of one verse in Scripture that clearly says, God is One in Three Persons, and this is called the Trinity, please post it.

And there are those who read the very same Scriptures and do not believe it. They disavow the Trinity. They can point to what they believe are contradictions to that doctrine in Scripture.

I am not going to argue the Trinity, only that whether you care to admit it or not, Christians, ALL Christians adhere to this belief and it was defined by the Church.

Another thing that is Scriptural but not found explicitly in Scripture is Sunday worship or Sunday as the Sabbath.
There is nowhere in Scripture where the Apostles or any other disciple say that they stopped going to synagogue on Saturday. But, that the Apostles went there is. Do you still follow them in that practice?

Probably not. Most Christians celebrate the Lord’s Day on Sunday, the day of the Resurrection. That comes straight from the Catholic Church and if you meet on Sunday and not on Saturday, then you are following a doctrine of the Church.

Again, it is Scriptural but not in Scriptures.

I directed you to Catholic sites, only for brevity and because they supported an underlying interpretation of Scripture which I was using. It was meant to show the historocity of those beliefs within the Christian community. I also told you that there were many who explain these things in more depth of theology than I.

I mention Revelation in regards to the Ark and how John immediately after seeing the Ark, then sees the woman. Go and read the entire passage regarding the woman and the dragon noting the very last passage...

17 Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea.

Does Israel bear testimony to Jesus or is it Christians who do this?

And you cannot gloss over that the woman bears a male child.

And does Mary not flee to Egypt with Joseph and Jesus to escape the persecution of Herrod? Do you know how long they were there?

Consider also that in the NT, Mary and only Mary is called “Woman”, something John would have known well.

I find it interesting that in the first and last book of the Bible we find the woman. And again, only Mary is ever called woman. It’s not a coincidence.

At the very least, the passage could certainly contain symbolism which points to both Israel and Mary. The whole of that Book references many different times and places and people.

[Mad Dawg]

Clearly that text (which the RSV -- NOT a Catholic translation -- begins "Great is the mystery of our religion, which I got crawled for quoting the other day") is known to us. We say The Son is God; The Son is not the Trinity. So, with that understanding, the text does not contradict what I said.

So if you are correct, the Holy Spirit as well as the Father each could have physical manifestations...And you call it what???

Not at all. It is not the 'job' of the Father or of the Spirit to be incarnate. It's not necessary. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, which was the point of the thing. So no need for another manifestation.

[MarkBsnr]

The 'praise' consists of the acknowledgement that they have a distant and imperfect glimpse of the True God, but that they are totally wrong in how they worship Him.

Imperfect??? You mean like they got a little bit right so they are ok??? Your muzlim apologetics is disgusting...

So is your misrepresentation. I never said that they are okay. They are killing Christians and being aided and abetted by the State Department and the Muslim-in-Chief and his two immediate predecessors. I like W a whole lot, but he has helped what Clinton started in killing Christians in the Middle East, North Africa and the Balkans in these latest series of bush wars that we are engaged in. I must say that Drudge is good (not very good, but good) in bringing those headlines to the fore. Read them sometime and find out just how many people in the US Government are culpable of enabling the killing of millions of Christians.

Simple as that...Your muzlim brethren are not just a little bit Christian...

The Jews are less Christian. The Muslims at least honour Jesus. Observant Orthodox Jews do not; yet we Christians believe that they are our elders, first contacted by God.

And it is not my Church. God has me; I do not have him. Remember?

Only if you've ever called on Jesus to save you...Where's your testimony of your conversion to Jesus???

Iscool, we've been through this a dozen times and I've posted it over and over. You're not playing with Alzheimer's are you?

Your magisterium has man's wisdom, not the wisdom from God...

Sadly, on the face of it, the Church of Iscool has neither.

[Mad Dawg]

The number of errors is large but finite.Most of them cropped up in the first few centuries. In attempting their refutation, the Father classified them with the names of their founders (Arianism, Pelagianism) or the names of their principle doctrines (Docetism, Adoptionism, Monothelitism.) Learning them was part of Church History in seminary.

[AndrewC]

While this site is anti-Catholic in many ways, it’s not enough to drive virtually all the Catholics off the site.

I should hope not. Jim Robinson is Catholic.

[MarkBsnr]

We have seen the alternate realities that you have posted here over the years. Once again, you are on top of your game - congratulations.

My game as you call it is the bible, the written word of God

Really, then I'd have to say that you're in the house league. Your Scriptural proofs are appalling. They would certainly never convince a Christian.

Some of us have passed on from the practice run to the real one in Matthew 28.

Naw, you guys are still practicing and you won't make the team at the rate you are going...

Look who's talking.

All things Jesus taught you??? Heal the lepers, raise the dead...

You're just fooling yourself...But you don't fool those who believe what Jesus said...You don't do any of that stuff that Jesus said to do in the Gospels...

What do you think that the Catholic hospitals are doing? When you bring somebody back to life that has been clinically dead for the better part of an hour, is that doing God's will or is what you are doing? What have you done to fulfill the Great Commission?

[Mad Dawg]

Mother of God I have explainedas best I can. Spouse of the Spirit is a kind of figurative honorific, on account of Jesus was conceived with her by the "operation" of the holy Spirit. When chaste women conceive young 'uns, it's with their spouses, therefore ..... Queen of....[just about anything you can think of] is also an honorific. The closest example for a lot of us the late "Queen Mother". As Dowager of a king and mother of a Sovereign whe was given the"courtesy title" of Queen. it was not hers by birth (or conquest) it was a courtesy. Similarly Bathsheeba was honored in the court of Solomon, because she was his mother. So Mary is Mother of the Lord. That's why I come to call her my Lady or our Lady. We would say it is entirely Scriptural and proper because it follows from what Scripture says of her. I don't think Scripture ever mentions that she had two legs. But we assume it because she was a human female.

A culture familiar with the courtesies of Kings and Queens and with the manner of our Lord's conceiving would think it natural to give her those titles.