Posted on 05/17/2024 4:42:14 AM PDT by SJackson
No, nobody takes the whole thing LITERALLY. You need to stop repeating that lie that you've been indoctrinated with.
But how ironic that Protestants are accused of *taking the whole thing literally* when Catholics are the biggest Bible literalists going when it comes to supporting their chosen, predetermined doctrines.
The clearest example is John 6 where you all think that we have to engage in cannibalism to be saved.
From beginning to end, God forbids the consumption of blood, and yet Catholicism teaches that it must be done, thus contradicting the entire weight of revealed Scripture on the subject.
Jesus used a metaphor in John 6 and at the end of the discourse tells the disciples that He was using it.
He tells us that it is the Spirit who gives life, that the flesh is no help at all, and you Catholicism demands the eating of flesh, something Jesus said is of no use.
Nor do Protestants not recognize poetry, prophecy, metaphor, parables, similes, etc.
Not one Protestant believes that God has wings, feathers, and pinions, that Jesus is an actual lion like Aslan, that He is made of wheat flour, that He is a vine, all green and leafy, or a literal sword comes out of Jesus mouth with which to destroy His enemies.
You all need to start thinking for yourselves instead of parroting anti-Protestant talking points you have been fed.
Tilting at wind mills and building and knocking down strawmen may feel good, but it accomplishes nothing but making you look foolish and lacking discernment.
Why? What can Mary do for us?
Nothing.
Jesus told people to *Follow ME*, not *Follow my mom*.
Mary didn't die for us. Jesus did.
Jesus, to the beloved disciple: “Behold thy mother.”
If it were possible that her will was something against His will, than we should turn from her and towards Him, but how could her will be any different from his?
My problem isn’t with taking the entire bible literally. My problem is with taking so much literally, such as declaring war on science by insisting the world doesn’t seem to be billions of years old, but dismissing so much of Jesus’ actual words and the revelations made to his disciples as “merely symbolic.”
By the way, I don’t mean to say that God didn’t create the world in seven days. What’s a day mean before the Earth is even set in motion around the sun? Or maybe God made the Earth merely look 5 billion years old so we could learn science and also put our faith in him. I dunno. I do know that claims that the Earth is APPARENTLY only a few thousand years old are utter dreck.
And just for the record, the point was that you claimed that the Queen of Heaven only ever referred to idolatry; when I pounted out that no, in fact, there is a HUGE section of the New Testament where the mother of Jesus is crowned queen in the Heavens, you changed the topic to more nonsense.
So Jesus gave John charge to take care of Mary because Jesus wouldn’t be around to do it.
What of it?
Did it occur to you that Jesus picked John because He knew John was going to live long enough to fulfill that responsibility?
You may find this interesting.
The Age of the Universe: One Reality Viewed from Two Different Perspectives
https://aish.com/the-age-of-the-universe-one-reality-viewed-from-two-different-perspectives/
Age of the Universe: 6 bil. yrs. = 6 Days?
https://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/844089/posts
Schroeder addresses the issue from the position that both are correct, it’s a matter of relativity and observer location. I understand he’s Jewish and knows Hebrew and he does a great job of going into detail about the Hebrew text and what can be gleaned from that.
Considering what we’ve become aware of recently concerning *science* and the fraud rife within the scientific community, and that science is only as good as the latest discovery, it’s best to not use it as the standard by which to measure anything, much less the veracity of Scripture.
I think it’s less about *religion* declaring war on science, than science declaring war on religion.
I’m familiar with the passage in Revelation and it by no means supports Catholic dogma about Mary being the queen of heaven.
This is another perfect example of Catholicism creating a doctrine and then trying to find Scripture verses that *support* it.
Problem is, the woman is never identified as Mary, Mary’s name never comes up in Revelation at all, the term *queen of heaven* is not used in the passage, and the scene does not contain any account of a coronation.
All those conclusions are based on assumptions made about who the woman is and what was going on. There is an awful lot being read into the passage in order to make it fit Catholic teaching about Mary.
“Why? What can Mary do for us? Nothing.”
She can pray - just like every other saint in Heaven. Read Revelation 5:8; 8:3-4 and ask yourself exactly whose prayers are being offered up in Heaven.
Funny thing.... the gospel doesn’t SAY that Jesus told JOHN to behold his mother. What the gospel actually said was Jesus told the beloved disciple to love his mother. Since this is actually an historical event, it’s reasonable to presume that historically he said this to John, but the evangelist deliberately chose NOT to express it this way, didn’t he? Do you think that as the gospel says “THE disciple whom Jesus loved,” Jesus loved only one disciple? Rather, John used an actual event to tell us that the beloved disciple shall behold Mary as his mother. Why do YOU think he did that?
>>> The woman is never identified as Mary<<<
Nuh... she’s just identified as the woman who gave birth to Jesus.
>>> the term *queen of heaven* is not used in the passage,<<<
A better translation of “Queen of Heaven” would have been “Queen of the Skies,” which would be recognized as a material realm, rather than that of the Father. I’m not criticizing the translation as “wrong,” per se. Ironically, the account in Revelation DOES use “Ouranos” (sky), but the Catholic Church is careful to use “Heaven.” But since you’re trying to say, “A-ha! Because these words match, they must reference the same entity!” the fact that they’re not the same language and don’t (really) mean the same thing kinda kills your argument.
(I should note that Catholics read this passage as using Mary to embody the Church, using the hermeneutic that prophets describe something that has happened in ways to reveal a future or universal truth. In such double meanings, the eternal or metaphysical meaning does not negate the obvious, historical meaning.)
>>>> and the scene does not contain any account of a coronation. <<<<
“And she was clothed with the sun, ... and on her head a crown of stars.”
>>>> This is another perfect example of Catholicism creating a doctrine and then trying to find Scripture verses that *support* it. <<<<
Since the Bible predated the Church, and the Church discerned which books were of the bible after some period of relatively more ambiguity, it’s positively absurd to claim that the Church had some doctrine independent of the Bible, and only then found justification in the bible for its belief, as if the Bible were only something discovered by the Church at some late point in the development of Church doctrine.
Indeed, the reformers broke from the Church and only over centuries drifted further and further from the Church, inventing more and more reasons to place emnity between their flock and the Church’s flock. It seems strange that if “Queen of Heaven” constituted idolatry, Luther would embrace this idolatry rather than condemning it.
(There is a recent book which claims he eventually changed his view, but it is not available on line and costs an astonishing $260 to so much as peek at it; I can find no older source. Given the plethora of times he referred to her as “Queen of Heaven,” it would seem if he believed he had committed idolatry, he might do more to repent of it and correct his flock than mention it once in an apparently long-lost sermon.)
>> Since the Bible predated the Church, and the Church discerned which books were of the bible after some period of relatively more ambiguity, <<
Lest I be accused of siding with the idiots who claim that the gospel of Judas was once considered part of the Bible, allow me to clarify:
Martin Luther removed 14 books from the bible, on the claim (fairly well since refuted) that they weren’t clearly part of the bible. He did this by pointing out the fact that early canons of the bible varied significantly. As a result, he specifically and emphatically rejected the canonicity of the Book of Revelation. Later Lutherans eventually sided with other Protestant movements and included it despite Luther’s rejection.
And insisting that J*sus was conceived seedlessly, born to a virgin, and passed through her side so as to avoid bursting her hymen isn't "declaring war on science?"
A dead man coming back to life isn't "declaring war on science?"
Water magically turning into wine isn't "declaring war on science?"
Insisting that bread magically turns into human flesh isn't "declaring war on science?"
Just how does only the "old" testament "declare war on science" when it is interpreted literally?
but dismissing so much of Jesus’ actual words and the revelations made to his disciples as “merely symbolic.”
The Five Books of Moses are G-d's actual words. Bet you didn't know that. Bet you still don't believe it.
By the way, I don’t mean to say that God didn’t create the world in seven days.
Sure you didn't. That's why you're b*tching about it.
Modern chrstianity's hatred of the Hebrew Bible is really something.
“ What I can’t stand is the deification of one of the world’s most evil men of all time, Martin Luther. He was the very mouthpiece of Satan, who yes, does use sin to separate us from God and each other. ”
Nut job statement .
Luther wanted to clean up the failings of the Catholic Church but he was met with resistance .
> And insisting that J*sus was conceived seedlessly, born to a virgin, and passed through her side so as to avoid bursting her hymen isn’t “declaring war on science?” <<
What on Earth are you talking about?
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.