Posted on 12/10/2014 6:32:20 AM PST by marshmallow
“You misintrepret Christian FReepers’ responses which are intended to expose the myriad fallacies and soul-entrapping unBiblical heavy-handed teachings of the RCC, a well-known and pervasive cult still enslaving millions to an ancient form of religion without their comprehension or even awareness of it.”
Got a tinfoil hat?
“Not a “Protestant anti-Catholic”. I protest that label.”
Tough.
It appears that the difference between leaning on and bowing to escapes some.......
They understood, unlike Catholics, that Mary was NOT to be given any preferential treatment or regard. Jesus Himself said "more blessed are they who believe in me". They also understood the condemnation by God of the pagan belief of the "queen of heaven". They also understood that women were NOT given the same position in the "assembly" or synagogue as men and were NOT to be revered in that way.
If you are going to assert that you answered my questions, when all you did was change the subject, there’s no possibility of discussion.
I made POSITIVE statements about a POSITIVE fact (the absence of any devotion to any relics of Mary), and you characterized that as demanding proof for negative statements.
I am writing for the benefit of intellectually-honest bystanders. They can draw their own conclusions from your evasions.
If you define “winning” an argument as emerging from it with your previous opinion intact, then, of course, you can always “win.”
I will leave it to third parties to judge for themselves whether my questions received honest answers, or only spluttering, bluster, and pretended logical objections.
Avoiding my question with a question will not lead to an answer by me.
What CB said, post 665. That.
As scripture clearly and repeatedly states.
Your assertion would be credible, provided that the early Christians were all 17th-century Protestants.
But you are ignoring the fact that early Christians treasured and venerated the relics of THOUSANDS of MALE and FEMALE saints and martyrs, not one of whom was a pivotal figure in the gospels, as Mary was, not one of whom was ever asked by an angel to be the mother of the Savior.
And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority? And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet. And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.
“If that is your considered final attempt to refute what I posted you, then our business has concluded for the day, vlad.”
Some comments from Protestant anti-Catholics essentially make their own refutation unnecessary. Comments that sound like something out of a twilight world need no refutation. They simply make the person posting them look silly.
A Protestant protesting being called Protestant needs no refutation.
If Mary is the mother of God and the God is the Father, then Mary is the mother of God the Father.
If Mary is the mother of God and God is the Holy Spirit, then Mary is the mother of God the Holy Spirit.
That puts Mary above the Godhead, makes Mary deity, makes her the mother of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, making them created, finite beings with beginning.
It totally messes up all kinds of theology.
Do Catholics EVER think through what they have been spoon fed for their entire lives, cause it sure doesn't look that way with the arguments they use.
I'll stick with agreeing with the Holy Spirit in what He inspired in Scripture: *Mary, the mother of Jesus*.
That way, I KNOW I can't be wrong.
The Holy Spirit is clear in Scripture in calling Mary *the mother of Jesus*.
John 2:1 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.
John 2:3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”
Acts 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
That’s interesting. Where does Scripture say that Mary is not the mother of God.
“Avoiding my question with a question will not lead to an answer by me.”
It’s hilarious to see you talk about someone avoiding answering questions.
Exchange of wedding rings - that’s from paganism.
His “I’m more logical and well-educated than you” approach from FR thread to thread to thread is wearing velly thin.
I’d say...worn out.
“His “I’m more logical and well-educated than you” approach from FR thread to thread to thread is wearing velly thin. I’d say...worn out.”
Gee, sounds like you’re making it personal.
B—William is a fireman.
Ergo: Helen is the mother of a fireman.
1) Is there a logical error in the above syllogism?
2) Does the above syllogism logically imply that William is not a pianist?
Please answer question number one, which is a Yes-or-No question.
After you have done that, please answer question number two, which is also a Yes-or-No question.
I asked you two Yes-or-No questions. Are you able to answer the first one "yes" or "no," and then answer the second one "yes" or "no"?
Please note that the syllogism, and the two questions, concern HELEN and WILLIAM, so any Scriptures you may cut-and-paste having to do with Jesus and Mary are totally irrelevant.
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.