Posted on 12/10/2015 7:36:16 PM PST by NYer
From KTNV in Las Vegas:Â
Parishioners are terrified after protesters have disturbed Mass at several Catholic churches across the valley.
The group, Koosha Las Vegas, includes members who clearly identify themselves as former Muslims turned Christians. They’ve been entering churches during services, shouting at Catholics that they need to repent now or else, and filming the acts and posting them on the internet.
The videos make clear the group has been active on the Las Vegas Strip and several other places around the valley; they’re often seen with large signs and megaphones. The difference now is that they’re going into houses of worship and causing disturbances. Parishioners tell Action News it’s made them fear for their lives.
“Repent, and turn to Jesus Christ. Pope is a Satan! Pope is a Satan! Mary statue is a Satan!” the man behind the camera can be heard shouting.
The videos are taken by the very people passing out the pamphlets and shouting during mass in at least 3 incidents confirmed by police. The Catholic Diocese of Las Vegas confirmed to Action News “multiple disturbances at several of their properties”.
Could Catholics who harass protestants here be Moslems practicing taqqiyah?
Wow, Jesus Himself posting on FR. Whodathunkit?
No; Catholics do not lie about their church affiliation.
Does that mean you agree with what these Evangelicals said to the Catholics but not where they said it ?
Which denomination or sect category do you regularly assemble with ?
“So you think Freeper protestants are muslims.”
Are you not familiar with the word “former”? Maybe you should look it up.
“You poor baby. If you cant take disagreement on a mostly open forum, maybe you need to get out of the kitchen.”
I have no problem with disagreement on a “mostly open forum”. I disagree with people here quite often. I am disagreeing with you now. See how that works?
“Wow, Jesus Himself posting on FR. Whodathunkit?”
Never said I was Jesus. I just said what was true: I made no errors. What I said was absolutely correct. It still is.
Okay, back at ya. Protestants don't lie about their belief in Christ.
Of course the popes are in the wrong. Are they Satan himself? No. But no man is Christ on earth, only Christ is Christ, not any pope. I would think it would be obvious to you with Pope Francis that he has nothing to do with Christ. I'm amazed lay Catholics are willing to walk off the cliff with him, taking down America in the process. And of course it is wrong to barge into a Catholic church uninvited.
Which denomination or sect category do you regularly assemble with ?
Bible studiers. As God said, come out of her my people. Study in small groups of two or more. Quit following this nutty commie pope and his commie Roman church.
You say there is no difference between a muslim and a protestant.
I have no problem with disagreement on a “mostly open forumâ€. I disagree with people here quite often. I am disagreeing with you now. See how that works?
One of accused the other of being the same as muslims. It was not me. lol
Okay, let's look and your statement that you say is absolutely free of mistakes. You say there were not any non-Jews in the temple when Christ took a cat-o-nine-tails to them. Now let's look at Jesus' words in Revelation:
Rev 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
Rev 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
Okay, so we learn that there is an ancient group of people that say they are Jews but are not. Some of these people were in the temple in Jesus' time and no doubt were the ones that Jesus took a whip to. You say you were absolutely correct in saying that Jesus did not go against non-Jews in the temple. Oh yes He did.
Sorry, your claim of perfection has fallen woefully short, you are no Jesus.
One who protests the Catholic Church and the pope by not recognizing the pope as Christ on earth and therefore follows the Received Texts preserved by the Greek Church over the centuries rather than the Catholic Bible which was changed by Origen to accommodate Alexandrian pagans.
Which Protestant denominational branch did "Bible Studiers" devolve from ?
Once the Received Texts were translated by The King James translators, there is no need for denominations for true bible studiers. We can study at home in groups of two or more, two being the minimum requirement of a church.
Does a Protestant have to accept baptism, and if so, in whose name ?
Doesn't have to. I recommend it though, since Jesus was baptized. Any Christian can baptize another Christian. In baptism, a Christian makes the public commitment to believe in Christ and to try to do things God's way and to accept the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Is a Protestant required to keep the Ten Commandments ?
Certainly.
Is a Protestant required to believe and affirm that Jesus is "God the Son ?"
Certainly.
Is a Protestant required to believe and affirm that Mary is blessed and the mother of Immanuel ?
"Immanuel" means "God with us". Mary was blessed amongst women to hold the title "Mother of 'God With Us'" for 34 years from December 25, the day of conception, to 40 or so days after Jesus' resurrection.
Why are some Protestant children baptized while others are no longer baptized ?
Children should not be baptized unless they are of the age of accountability. This age will vary between each child depending on that child's ability to accept Jesus in a mature way. Some people may not reach biblical maturity until 80 or more. Some maybe 10 or even less. There's no point in baptizing a child before they can even communicate. If a young child dies before the age of accountability, they are considered innocent by God and have the Millennium to be taught and make up their mind to accept Jesus.
Try it at my church and they’ll be singing soprano.
Acts ch. 17. Mars Hill was definitely a place of pagan worship, whether indoors or outdoors, and Paul challenged them directly about their idolatry in that venue.
Yes, Paul challenged them, but he was neither rude nor bullying. Paul focused upon their superstitious nature, even having an idol to ‘the unknown god’. Paul focused their attention to this aspect of their worship.
“Acts ch. 17. Mars Hill was definitely a place of pagan worship, whether indoors or outdoors, and Paul challenged them directly about their idolatry in that venue.”
That’s irrelevant since all the world was a place of pagan worship - even the Temple on a number of occasions. I asked for a specific instance in which St. Paul invaded a pagan temple. He never did so. That fact won’t change. Ever.
You are saying that a structure itself is important to your argument. Why?
“You say there is no difference between a muslim and a protestant.”
No, again, here is what I said: “Are you assuming there’s a difference?”
“Okay, let’s look and your statement that you say is absolutely free of mistakes.”
And it is.
“You say there were not any non-Jews in the temple when Christ took a cat-o-nine-tails to them.”
No. Apparently you’re confusing me with another person here. Look at post 93 or 100. I didn’t post either one of those posts.
“Now let’s look at Jesus’ words in Revelation:”
That won’t help your claim. Here are the reasons why:
1) Since I never made a claim about no non-Jews in the Temple when Jesus chased out the money changers this makes no difference in any case. What I posted is still 100 % true.
2) Nothing in Revelation actually suggests that there were non-Jews in the Temple on the day Jesus chased out the money changers anyway - which would be immaterial in any case since I never brought up that as an example of anything.
“Okay, so we learn that there is an ancient group of people that say they are Jews but are not.”
Irrelevant - for three reasons:
1) You have presented no evidence they were in the Temple during Jesus’ days on earth. The Book of Revelation was written decades later.
2) The idea that they were literally non-Jews rather than poor examples of Jews is simply erroneous.
3) Even if there were non-Jews there it would be irrelevant because my point was about St. Paul INVADING the temples of pagans not non-Jews being in the Jewish Temple. In other words, your example from Revelation - which is absolutely not helpful to the case you’re trying to make - is actually about something that is the exact opposite of what I was talking about.
“Some of these people were in the temple in Jesus’ time and no doubt were the ones that Jesus took a whip to.”
And that is still irrelevant even if true since it was a JEWISH Temple and not a pagan one.
“You say you were absolutely correct in saying that Jesus did not go against non-Jews in the temple. Oh yes He did.”
First of all, that’s not what I said. I said nothing about “going against”. I said that St. Paul did not invade the temples of pagans. And he didn’t. And Jesus didn’t either.
“Sorry, your claim of perfection has fallen woefully short, you are no Jesus.”
I never claimed to be Jesus. What I said is still 100% correct. Jesus did not invade a pagan temple. St. Paul did not invade a pagan temple.
“You are saying that a structure itself is important to your argument. Why?”
It’s about facts. What I said is absolutely 100% correct. St. Paul never went into a pagan temple disturbing the worship of the pagans. Jesus never did that either. For anyone to make a counter claim - that doesn’t actually deal with the fact I stated - is a waste of time. It wouldn’t fit the case at hand - for which there is no valid excuse.
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.