Keeping the flame of irreverent, antagonistic, and thoughtful interaction alive.
Joined May 2022
- Tweets24.7K
- Following21
- Followers181
- Likes7.1K
Mary Magdalene is the new Eve, not Mary mother of Jesus.
🤯
instagram.com/reel/De4oW4-s9…
Wrong…
Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. -John 16:7
When you measure something with a ruler, you are dependent on the infallibility of the measurement being applied. The error is always located in the one reading the measurement, never in the standard.
In celebration of Reformation Month, I have a question for Protestants.
If Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith, by what infallible authority do you know your interpretation of it is correct when another Bible-believing Christian reading the exact same verses reaches an opposing doctrine?
For example:
On baptism: You read John 3:5 and 1 Peter 3:21 as a symbolic ordinance with no saving power, while a Lutheran reads those exact words and insists baptism objectively washes away original sin and saves the soul.
On salvation: You read John 10:28 to mean a believer can never lose salvation, while a Methodist reads Hebrews 6:4–6 and insists a true Christian can commit apostasy and go to hell.
On communion: You read Matthew 26:26 as a pure metaphor, while a Reformed Christian reads it as spiritual communion and a Lutheran reads it as the actual physical body and blood in, with, and under the bread.
Both of you pray to the same Holy Spirit.
Both of you use the same Bible. One of you is objectively wrong on a core matter of salvation.
Since the Bible cannot speak off the page to resolve who is right, how do you prove your personal interpretation is divine truth rather than just your fallible opinion?
It’s like these guys don’t understand how language works.
If I said, “I didn’t see the massive spider UNTIL I turned on the light”, I’m making a conditional statement.
The conditions for seeing the spider resulted from me turning on the light.
1/
In celebration of Reformation Month, I have a question for Protestants.
You claim Matthew 1:25 proves Mary had other children because it says Joseph knew her not UNTIL she had borne a son - meaning he knew her after.
2 Samuel 6:23 - Michal the daughter of Saul had no child UNTIL the day of her death.
Did Michal have a child AFTER she died?
1 Corinthians 15:25 - For he must reign UNTIL he has put all his enemies under his feet.
Does Christ STOP reigning after His enemies are under His feet?
If your interpretation of UNTIL is correct, you have to say yes to both - Michal had children after death, and Jesus stops being King. Both are heresy.
The Greek word heos hou in Matt 1:25 only tells us what did NOT happen up to a point. It says nothing about what happened after. Just like Michal.
Matthew 1:25 proves Mary was virgin UP TO birth. It does not prove what happened after.
Question: If Mary had 6 other children (Mark 6:3 lists James, Joses, Judas, Simon), why on the cross, in John 19:26-27, does Jesus break Jewish Law by giving His mother to John, a non-relative, instead of to His biological brothers? If you say because his brothers did not believe in him (John 7:5), it should be noted that his brothers did eventually believe in him (Acts 1:14), so the question remains.
The use of the conditional conjunction ἕως at 2 Sam 6:23 requires a condition to be met. It was bad when Jerome tried to use it in the 4th century, and it’s bad now.
tradreformed.blogspot.com/20…
I’ll take “atheists making claims without evidence” for $100, Alex.
Well, I found a great topic for the next Dividing Line for @HwsEleutheroi in light of his debate this morning: Truglia’s misunderstanding of the verb προεγράφη in relation to ἐβάσκανεν in Galatians 3:1.
I now have an eye twitch because of it.
Mary is NOT the “Queen of Heaven” because Jesus isn’t “King of Heaven”, he’s the King of the Jews.
.@Burgess7281975 provides over 30 Bible verses demonstrating biblically how Mary is Queen of Heaven.
@MarkAntiBabylon cops out with the pathetically weak “learn exegesis”. Thus proving he has no argument.
Jesus is the only one compared to the ark in Scripture. Mariolatry has to co-opt clear Christological identities and apply them to a creature.
It’s really simple.
Mary was a pure vessel — the Ark of the New Covenant — in order to contain God Incarnate in her womb. And just like Christ is the new Adam, come to reverse the curse of sin and death, so too is Mary the new Eve (Genesis 3:15, Revelation 12).
She needed a Savior too — the merits of Christ’s sacrifice were applied to her at her conception, in which she was made “full of grace” (kecharitomene). In this way, she was preserved from the stain of Original Sin. The curse of the Fall did not apply to her.
Because she was full of grace — without Original Sin — she did not suffer the consequence of sin, which is death. Thus at the end of her earthly life, she was assumed, body and soul, into heaven.
The scriptural support for the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary is very strong, but also very detailed. I’ve simplified the beliefs as much as I can, but I’m happy to delve into the nitty gritty details if you’d like.
Also, Newman…
If a Protestant reads the bible PROPERLY he/she becomes a Catholic.
These guys prove it:
• Dr. Scott Hahn, former Protestant Bible scholar
• Dr. John Bergsma, former Protestant Bible scholar
• St. John Henry Newman, former Protestant Bible scholar
• Dr. Robert Sungenis, former Protestant Bible scholar
• Jimmy Akin, former Protestant Bible scholar
• etc., etc., etc.
You elevate ONE MAN’s interpretation over the apostles’ own interpretation.
