So,I was talking to a fellow Christian, in a chat room. I asked some of these Catholics where the bible ever supports the ascension of Mary.----So 1 certain member PM'd me to discuss this matter out of general chat.Thats where this got interesting. Not only did he attempt to dodge the question directly, but then tried to slap scripture back to back to make a point I was never really informed on.----He then continued to show how the ark of the covenant was the dwelling place of the I AM, which I truly believe.--------Then from using scripture in Samuel, Genesis, and Revelations, tried to prove that Mary is the NEW ARK. He explained how the woman and the dragon in revelations was the dwelling place of Christ- twisting these scriptures to say that Mary the New Ark which Jesus dwelt in.I say putting Mary up on the same notch as the Ark of the Covenant (which the I AM dwelt in) And Mary (the ark which Christ dwelt in) is a very sketchy idea. And a long stretch to make scripture prove your point.I found thishttp://www.gotquestions.org/temple-veil-torn.htmlWhich represents my way of thinking.I strongly believe the purpose of the Ark was the dwelling place of God, and the ONLY place men could go to make attonement for the peoples' sin.Then we see that Christs' death caused the veil to be torn- significance?- I say because HE MADE IT A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP.The other guy claimed nothing is written of a personal relationship---Just as I say nothing REALLy claims Mary is the NEW COVENANT.Why would we even NEED a new covenent- Jesus fufilled these things.Im not looking for answers- Perhaps just scripture that you are aware of to help me with this struggling topic in my head.Thanks
I need help. This one wont let me go.
- Thread starter Red_Letters88
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I'll have to study this a little deeper but if Im am understanding you correctly this is absoulte blasphemy THOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE MEthe dragon is SATAN and even imply that was the dwelling place of Christ is beyond just a lie its the devils doctrine.
They were talking about what is called a "Type" in the Bible or any literature. The meaning of 'type' is like saying that one thing foreshadows another. It is in the same sense that Adam, created perfectly in Genesis (before the fall) is a type for Jesus, the New Adam of the NT. Jesus is perfect, and Adam's fall is why He needs to come to save us. Adam is a type for, foreshadows Jesus in the OT.If we believe Jesus is God (and most of us do) then in a very REAL sense God did dwell inside Mary for about 9 months or so. So in that sense the ark can be spoken of as a 'type' for Mary's womb, just as the ark, smoke, holy of holies...etc, represented "God is with us" as a type for Jesus Incarnate, ie Jesus is God and is truly "with us" (in the Flesh). Interestingly in the ark, God is with us, "us" means Israel. With Mary He came for us ALL.He got off topic with those discussions perhaps because he did not wish to admit there is no explicit scriptural reference to Mary's ascension. It is our tradition that it is so. It would have to come from St John, to whom Jesus left His mother to care for. Tradition is that she remained in John's household for the rest of her life on earth. Interesting point here is that like the ark today, there is no known location for Mary's body or even a claim to know where Mary's body is. We have several heads for John the Baptist for example(true, but kind of a Catholic joke there) but no body parts for Mary, no tomb or even stories of a tomb.We say it is fitting that Jesus would do this for His Mother, that an ascension like Enoch or Elijah (and some say maybe Moses) is a fitting end for Mary's life here. While one does not have to agree it is true that this happened to Mary, it is hard to ague that it would not be a fitting end for the Mother of God. A tradition is that at the end of her life here, her Son appears, took her in His arms and ascended with her to Heaven. Am happy to believe Jesus would do that with and for His Mother, even if John did not explicitly write about it in sacred scripture. Clearly John or someone in his camp told the story, else we would have objections from that same camp when the story began to circulate. Mary points to Jesus and so does John. Just before His mission on earth begins she points to Him and He performs His first miracle. Marian devotions today (not the abuse of them) are suppose to point us, our focus to Jesus.
Here is some verses proving who the dragon isRev 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, Here we see the dragon foghts agaist michael an Angel of God--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Here we are flat out told the dragon is Satan the Devil and that he is going to be cast out onto the earth (this is the antichrist) so to aquaint Mary and Christwith dragon is to put them in the same camp with the devil himselfthat is blaspheme--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rev 12:13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man [child]. Here we are seeing the dragon persucuting Israel (represenative here of the entire church ) man child (Christ)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rev 12:16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth. This flood is a flood of lies that come from the dragons (Satans)mouth --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Here again we see the dragon making war with those who have the testimony of Jesus Christ (sealed in their foreheads that is minds)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rev 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. Here we see the second beast of Rev. this is Satan the dragon claiming to be Christnotice he looks like the lamb(Christ) but he speaks the lies of the Devil This what this doctrine this guy is talking about is a lie of the dragon Satan the devil himselfThis guys statement to Red _Letters88 are exactly the type of spin that Satan will put on scripture Satan is a scripture expert he knows it well and can twist it easily to confuse all that will fall for for it so calling it symbolism or not learn this lesson well. The only symbolism we are to use is what is explained in scripture you start making up your ownand you are part of Satan flood of lies
(DrBubbaLove;34347)
They were talking about what is called a "Type" in the Bible or any literature. The meaning of 'type' is like saying that one thing foreshadows another. It is in the same sense that Adam, created perfectly in Genesis (before the fall) is a type for Jesus, the New Adam of the NT. Jesus is perfect, and Adam's fall is why He needs to come to save us. Adam is a type for, foreshadows Jesus in the OT.If we believe Jesus is God (and most of us do) then in a very REAL sense God did dwell inside Mary for about 9 months or so. So in that sense the ark can be spoken of as a 'type' for Mary's womb, just as the ark, smoke, holy of holies...etc, represented "God is with us" as a type for Jesus Incarnate, ie Jesus is God and is truly "with us" (in the Flesh). Interestingly in the ark, God is with us, "us" means Israel. With Mary He came for us ALL.He got off topic with those discussions perhaps because he did not wish to admit there is no explicit scriptural reference to Mary's ascension. It is our tradition that it is so. It would have to come from St John, to whom Jesus left His mother to care for. Tradition is that she remained in John's household for the rest of her life on earth. Interesting point here is that like the ark today, there is no known location for Mary's body or even a claim to know where Mary's body is. We have several heads for John the Baptist for example(true, but kind of a Catholic joke there) but no body parts for Mary, no tomb or even stories of a tomb.We say it is fitting that Jesus would do this for His Mother, that an ascension like Enoch or Elijah (and some say maybe Moses) is a fitting end for Mary's life here. While one does not have to agree it is true that this happened to Mary, it is hard to ague that it would not be a fitting end for the Mother of God. A tradition is that at the end of her life here, her Son appears, took her in His arms and ascended with her to Heaven. Am happy to believe Jesus would do that with and for His Mother, even if John did not explicitly write about it in sacred scripture. Clearly John or someone in his camp told the story, else we would have objections from that same camp when the story began to circulate. Mary points to Jesus and so does John. Just before His mission on earth begins she points to Him and He performs His first miracle. Marian devotions today (not the abuse of them) are suppose to point us, our focus to Jesus.
This sounds like typical spin to defend this guys blasphemous talk None of this Mary boloney that the Catholic church defends is scripturalis all speculation and church doctrine of men if you want to follow it thats your choice but this is a Christain bible teaching site and I cant let these unbiblicalstatements go unaddressed nothing personal intendedBut as far as the bible is concerned Mary was simply a upright Virgin thatGod used as vessel to bring forth the Christ she went on to live a normal life and die a normal death and was a sinner like everyone else no where in scripture are we told to give her any kind of worship.And for you or anyone to claim its ok to say Mary is the NEW COVENANT wether he is speaking symbolic or not is BLASHEMOUS this is an intentional twist on scripture to read what is not nor never was there.
They were talking about what is called a "Type" in the Bible or any literature. The meaning of 'type' is like saying that one thing foreshadows another. It is in the same sense that Adam, created perfectly in Genesis (before the fall) is a type for Jesus, the New Adam of the NT. Jesus is perfect, and Adam's fall is why He needs to come to save us. Adam is a type for, foreshadows Jesus in the OT.If we believe Jesus is God (and most of us do) then in a very REAL sense God did dwell inside Mary for about 9 months or so. So in that sense the ark can be spoken of as a 'type' for Mary's womb, just as the ark, smoke, holy of holies...etc, represented "God is with us" as a type for Jesus Incarnate, ie Jesus is God and is truly "with us" (in the Flesh). Interestingly in the ark, God is with us, "us" means Israel. With Mary He came for us ALL.He got off topic with those discussions perhaps because he did not wish to admit there is no explicit scriptural reference to Mary's ascension. It is our tradition that it is so. It would have to come from St John, to whom Jesus left His mother to care for. Tradition is that she remained in John's household for the rest of her life on earth. Interesting point here is that like the ark today, there is no known location for Mary's body or even a claim to know where Mary's body is. We have several heads for John the Baptist for example(true, but kind of a Catholic joke there) but no body parts for Mary, no tomb or even stories of a tomb.We say it is fitting that Jesus would do this for His Mother, that an ascension like Enoch or Elijah (and some say maybe Moses) is a fitting end for Mary's life here. While one does not have to agree it is true that this happened to Mary, it is hard to ague that it would not be a fitting end for the Mother of God. A tradition is that at the end of her life here, her Son appears, took her in His arms and ascended with her to Heaven. Am happy to believe Jesus would do that with and for His Mother, even if John did not explicitly write about it in sacred scripture. Clearly John or someone in his camp told the story, else we would have objections from that same camp when the story began to circulate. Mary points to Jesus and so does John. Just before His mission on earth begins she points to Him and He performs His first miracle. Marian devotions today (not the abuse of them) are suppose to point us, our focus to Jesus.
This sounds like typical spin to defend this guys blasphemous talk None of this Mary boloney that the Catholic church defends is scripturalis all speculation and church doctrine of men if you want to follow it thats your choice but this is a Christain bible teaching site and I cant let these unbiblicalstatements go unaddressed nothing personal intendedBut as far as the bible is concerned Mary was simply a upright Virgin thatGod used as vessel to bring forth the Christ she went on to live a normal life and die a normal death and was a sinner like everyone else no where in scripture are we told to give her any kind of worship.And for you or anyone to claim its ok to say Mary is the NEW COVENANT wether he is speaking symbolic or not is BLASHEMOUS this is an intentional twist on scripture to read what is not nor never was there.
BTW there are other traditions that hold Mary died in either Ephesus or Jerusalem. But the evidence is inconclusive enough to be unable to dispute the belief in an ascension. We have earlier writings mentioning the ascension of Mary, some attributed to John and others that would have presumably known to the truth. However, these letters are dubious as far as dating and authorship. Doesn't mean they are false in this claim, we just cannot verify the authenticity of the writer or document dates. The earliest geniune reference comes in sermons of the 6-8th centuries. The location of the tomb of Mary in Jerusalem was unknown for almost 7 centuries. As it would have been early Christians who buried her, the idea they forgot where they put her is hard to swallow. Which suggest to me that this tomb is a false claim. In 451 we have a record of the Bishop of Jerusalem, who in response to the emperor of Rome wanting Mary's body, tells him the tomb was empty.The Ephesus story makes sense given tradition has it John took care of her and his connection with that area, yet there is no tomb there, only a story that John buried her secretly.With Catholic devotions to Mary, it is difficult to see a total absence in history of any relics claiming to be of Mary. People would want to have those, just as the emperor of Rome did.
The only thing that matters is not what men rather past or present say not traditions of men IT IS NOT IN GODS WORD
Kris,Thanks for the comments. As I admitted the belief is not based on scripture, am not sure how my post becomes twisiting of scripture or blasphemy. Nor is such belief required for Salvation. It is required for Catholics. You guys aren't Catholics, so I see no point in insisting that you do so believe.Perhaps I do not understand what you mean by blasphemy. My understanding of the term is the same as websters;1 a: the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God b: the act of claiming the attributes of deity2: irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolableCan you show me where in my post I did that or if your definition of blasphemy differs please share?
(kriss;34361)
The only thing that matters is not what men rather past or present say not traditions of men IT IS NOT IN GODS WORD
if by that you mean matters for Salvation, then we agree at least in part. But we should point out that God's Word is Jesus and it is Truth. We do not have everything He said in scripture. Whether God speaks to us from scripture, through the Apostles or by revelation, it is still God's Word. In that sense whatever is True is God's Word.We do not agree that being in scripture is absoltuely the only thing that matters.But as a Cardinal once said, if we found Mary's remains it would not be cause for us to doubt our faith. So in that sense one it does not really matter in the bigger scheme of things.
The only thing that matters is not what men rather past or present say not traditions of men IT IS NOT IN GODS WORD
if by that you mean matters for Salvation, then we agree at least in part. But we should point out that God's Word is Jesus and it is Truth. We do not have everything He said in scripture. Whether God speaks to us from scripture, through the Apostles or by revelation, it is still God's Word. In that sense whatever is True is God's Word.We do not agree that being in scripture is absoltuely the only thing that matters.But as a Cardinal once said, if we found Mary's remains it would not be cause for us to doubt our faith. So in that sense one it does not really matter in the bigger scheme of things.
I wasnt calling your post blasphemy I was calling your post supportive of this guys Blasphemy because he is putting Mary on equal footing with Christ therefore making her a diety.
(kriss;34368)
I wasnt calling your post blasphemy I was calling your post supportive of this guys Blasphemy because he is putting Mary on equal footing with Christ therefore making her a diety
Oh, ok. Did not read his post or realize he was doing that. To do so would be blasphemy. It would also not be proper Marian devotion to do so, nor would be endorsed by the Church or considered Catholic to do so.
I wasnt calling your post blasphemy I was calling your post supportive of this guys Blasphemy because he is putting Mary on equal footing with Christ therefore making her a diety
Oh, ok. Did not read his post or realize he was doing that. To do so would be blasphemy. It would also not be proper Marian devotion to do so, nor would be endorsed by the Church or considered Catholic to do so.
(DrBubbaLove;34367)
if by that you mean matters for Salvation, then we agree at least in part. But we should point out that God's Word is Jesus and it is Truth. We do not have everything He said in scripture. Whether God speaks to us from scripture, through the Apostles or by revelation, it is still God's Word. In that sense whatever is True is God's Word.We do not agree that being in scripture is absoltuely the only thing that matters.But as a Cardinal once said, if we found Mary's remains it would not be cause for us to doubt our faith. So in that sense one it does not really matter in the bigger scheme of things.
Thats my point if it was important it would be in scripture Marys role after Christs birth is never put into any kind of diety or worship context therefore it is strickly men who have elevated this beyond what God ever intendedI know this varies with each person espically those in the Catholic ChurchI dont believe every Catholic considers Mary a dietymy problem is with the church leaders for letting this be OK with them that some put Mary on this level.
if by that you mean matters for Salvation, then we agree at least in part. But we should point out that God's Word is Jesus and it is Truth. We do not have everything He said in scripture. Whether God speaks to us from scripture, through the Apostles or by revelation, it is still God's Word. In that sense whatever is True is God's Word.We do not agree that being in scripture is absoltuely the only thing that matters.But as a Cardinal once said, if we found Mary's remains it would not be cause for us to doubt our faith. So in that sense one it does not really matter in the bigger scheme of things.
Thats my point if it was important it would be in scripture Marys role after Christs birth is never put into any kind of diety or worship context therefore it is strickly men who have elevated this beyond what God ever intendedI know this varies with each person espically those in the Catholic ChurchI dont believe every Catholic considers Mary a dietymy problem is with the church leaders for letting this be OK with them that some put Mary on this level.
I understand your concern, just have not seen the abuse or it being ignored by the Church.Have yet to see a Church leader endorsing that Mary is equal to God, a deity or to be worshiped. Have yet to see anyone teaching this or any Father of the Church writing on it. The Pope certainly doesn't. We have people today claiming to be Pope and leading their own "true" Catholic Church. We note the Church seldom publicly speaks out against these people, but we know the Church does not agree with them and that privately these folks are repeatedly asked by the Church to correct their ways. Where it is public is normally when the Church is forced to respond because the other side speaks publicly and failing to speak appears like endorsement or consent.Jesus did not speak to the women's sins until everyone had left. I think that is the example we should strive to follow. Millions of Catholics do not take Marion devotions to a level being described here and the Church certainly does not teach those things. The fact that people opposed to the Church would avoid "exposing" proper devotions and instead focus on abuse or "apparent" abuse speaks more to their opposition than it does to an actual practice of Catholics.
The fact they don't teach it is not the point they don't teach against it that's the problem its fine with them if people pray to Mary create alters to her this is as bad as teaching it. The church by its non action in fact by default embraces it that's the problem. And those that don't get the gravity of how out of hand this becoming are in denial of the problem (didnt they make the same mistake with the recent sexual abuse scandal?) the church leaders have away of hiding their heads in the sand and not admitting of how wide spread these false doctrines are becoming and to sit back and keep quite this doesn't relive them of being responsible for the problems
The first ark was God saving those who obeyed him by the few entering in and being saved. God then made a covenant with Noah.The second covenant the ark contained the books of the law and the seat where the winged creatures were was the seat God sat on when meeting with his people. The coveant box being kept in the Holy of Holies in the temple.This is where the sacrificial lambs blood was taken once a year by the high priest.When Christ entered in as high priest with his own shed blood the veil which seperated God from Man was torn once and for all. No more God seperated from his people and no more any other sacrifice needed. Christ the high priest entered in on our behalf shedding his blood for our sins and interceding bringing us to God.Mary is not the ark of any covenant. It is a lie. did you know that Rome before they became christians actually worshipped a black madonna and child which comes from egyption origin? They readily accepted the religion based on the madonna because they could slip in their own teachings of the false religion they followed.The bible tells us we have one teacher since Christ returned to the Father. 1 john 2:27. It is easy for a power to steal an identity to pretend they are someone else to do their own thing in their name.But their is only one person whom God has sent that can make us part of his children through Christ. The Holy Spirit is the only true mark of a child of God and member of the true church of Christ.The rest are all forgeries.Remain in truth and forget false teachings.Jesus said, 'I' am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but by me.Not mary, Not Moses, Not John the baptist. Just our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ. May Gods Holy name be praised and may the mouths of liars fall dumb that teach any other way but the truth and the life as God teaches it.We need only the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.Faithful
ray4:
ray4:(Red_Letters88;34306)
So,I was talking to a fellow Christian, in a chat room. I asked some of these Catholics where the bible ever supports the ascension of Mary.----So 1 certain member PM'd me to discuss this matter out of general chat.Thats where this got interesting. Not only did he attempt to dodge the question directly, but then tried to slap scripture back to back to make a point I was never really informed on.----He then continued to show how the ark of the covenant was the dwelling place of the I AM, which I truly believe.--------Then from using scripture in Samuel, Genesis, and Revelations, tried to prove that Mary is the NEW ARK. He explained how the woman and the dragon in revelations was the dwelling place of Christ- twisting these scriptures to say that Mary the New Ark which Jesus dwelt in.I say putting Mary up on the same notch as the Ark of the Covenant (which the I AM dwelt in) And Mary (the ark which Christ dwelt in) is a very sketchy idea. And a long stretch to make scripture prove your point.I found thishttp://www.gotquestions.org/temple-veil-torn.htmlWhich represents my way of thinking.I strongly believe the purpose of the Ark was the dwelling place of God, and the ONLY place men could go to make attonement for the peoples' sin.Then we see that Christs' death caused the veil to be torn- significance?- I say because HE MADE IT A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP.The other guy claimed nothing is written of a personal relationship---Just as I say nothing REALLy claims Mary is the NEW COVENANT.Why would we even NEED a new covenent- Jesus fufilled these things.Im not looking for answers- Perhaps just scripture that you are aware of to help me with this struggling topic in my head.Thanks
What is this person really thinking about... Mary, yes we know she was the mother of Jesus, but putting her in a pedestal... mary is the New Ark... so weird. YOU ARE RIGHT , Jesus already has fullfilled everything and that's it, it's in the Bible... Gospels...
So,I was talking to a fellow Christian, in a chat room. I asked some of these Catholics where the bible ever supports the ascension of Mary.----So 1 certain member PM'd me to discuss this matter out of general chat.Thats where this got interesting. Not only did he attempt to dodge the question directly, but then tried to slap scripture back to back to make a point I was never really informed on.----He then continued to show how the ark of the covenant was the dwelling place of the I AM, which I truly believe.--------Then from using scripture in Samuel, Genesis, and Revelations, tried to prove that Mary is the NEW ARK. He explained how the woman and the dragon in revelations was the dwelling place of Christ- twisting these scriptures to say that Mary the New Ark which Jesus dwelt in.I say putting Mary up on the same notch as the Ark of the Covenant (which the I AM dwelt in) And Mary (the ark which Christ dwelt in) is a very sketchy idea. And a long stretch to make scripture prove your point.I found thishttp://www.gotquestions.org/temple-veil-torn.htmlWhich represents my way of thinking.I strongly believe the purpose of the Ark was the dwelling place of God, and the ONLY place men could go to make attonement for the peoples' sin.Then we see that Christs' death caused the veil to be torn- significance?- I say because HE MADE IT A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP.The other guy claimed nothing is written of a personal relationship---Just as I say nothing REALLy claims Mary is the NEW COVENANT.Why would we even NEED a new covenent- Jesus fufilled these things.Im not looking for answers- Perhaps just scripture that you are aware of to help me with this struggling topic in my head.Thanks
What is this person really thinking about... Mary, yes we know she was the mother of Jesus, but putting her in a pedestal... mary is the New Ark... so weird. YOU ARE RIGHT , Jesus already has fullfilled everything and that's it, it's in the Bible... Gospels...
Mary being the Way is not the point or aim of a Marian devotion. Having a statue of Mary, even on a pedestal in a room or area devoted to prayer is hardly in itself blasphemy. Nor would be kneeling in prayer in front of such things. Most Catholics that have such an area in their homes and the areas devoted to prayer in our Parish are always centered on Christ. Mary is there, sure but the center is Jesus, God. Won't deny that some might have large Marian altars in their homes with candles everywhere, the works..., but willing to bet there is a Corpus there too in most cases. Also do not deny that abuses happen. There may be areas specifically set up for or even permanently set up for Marian devotions in a Parish, but as these are prayers and activities pointed to God it hardly follows that such things represent blasphemy. And the main areas for private devotions are still Christ centered. The Hail Mary itself is primarily reciting scripture. The main Marion devotion of praying the rosary, is a call to remember and meditate on specific events in JESUS life (not Mary's).Luk 1:48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Scripture says ALL would call blessed. As a former Baptist can say I often wondered how and in what way I or my Church honored Mary according to that verse. Remembering her maybe once a year at Christmas and then primarily as a backdrop hardly seemed to me to be in keeping with Luke's writing. Just saying she was special ONLY in that God randomly picked her, could have picked any virgin, hardly seemed to be calling her blessed either. Maybe that is just me, but can remember giving this verse some thought.
By the way, Kriss, Dr, Thunder...He did say ONE thing that did make sense in all of this-He says the items that were in the ark were- mana,commandments,iron rodThen using this information says that the in the NEW ARK (mary) dwelt Jesus, the Son of God.And symbolically to him this seals the deal with this doctrine, Because He says Jesus is the Bread of Life, The Fufillment of the Law, and the Ruler of all.Thats the only part of this dicussion that we agreed on- HOWEVER- Why does Mary so desperately NEED credit.SHe was a human, like you or me, Who ever said (in the bible) That she was the ONLY one for this role- to bring Christ into flesh?Side note- I try to see catholics on their views and doctrines- but it completely goes against the bible in certain cases.What do you see in a catholic church?---Statue of MARY with itty bitty baby JesusWheres the focus?After the veil was torn, it became personal, in a relationship manner and forgivness.
Seems to me he is mixing apples and oranges to get what he wants to belive all I can say is this is a lie Not biblical and figment of his twisting scripture and seeing what he wants
Yeah, I would agree with you Kriss.When the Lord says "do not use my name in vain,"....I think NOT ONLY is this using his name as a recreational curse...but also to put HIS NAME on something that he never said or supports in his word.I mean really- what does vain mean?- I say its using it to support something that HE never supported.
Similar threads
