How is Mary not a false Idol?

originally posted by: Malocchio
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I would also like to add the Qur'an speaks of Miriam more than does the New Testament and that Catholicism actually admired Islam for this and recognized them as true believers in the beginning and again officially since Vatican II.

The beef between Islam and Christianity is only outside of Catholicism, who has a functioning diplomatic relation with Islam.

Salaams & thank you. In all honesty, I don't think most Muslims or Christians have hostility towards each other. The majority of the hate that I've personally seen has come from people who also hated other "outside groups" just as much. So I think religion may simply be the excuse they use to justify their hate. For example, many of the American Christians who hate Muslims also hate Hispanic people & "inner city" Americans, even though the majority of Hispanic people and "inner city" Americans are also Christians.

a reply to: Malocchio

For the record, remember that it's not us who decides who is or isn't a "Person of the Book". The Qur'an on at least 2 occasions lists Christians, followers of Jewish scriptures, and Sabians as people who believe in God and the Last Day. So if anything, I think we should just be the best believers we can be and leave the rest to God.

Surah 2:62 (Pickthall & Yusuf Ali translations)

Pickthall translation
Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.

Yusuf Ali translation
Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Surah 5:69 (Pickthall & Yusuf Ali translations)

Pickthall translation
Lo! those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Sabaeans, and Christians - Whosoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.

Yusuf Ali translation
Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Xeven
I am just curious how worship of Mary is not a false Idol? I am not trying to pick a fight. I am exploring my spirituality and trying to understand?

I know this is a common Protestant criticism of Catholicism, and I have never understood THAT. It's like every time a Catholic mentions a saint, the Protestants claim "False Idol! False Idol!" St. Jude: False Idol! St. Patrick: False Idol! Good Lord, give it a rest.

If you keep it in proper perspective, it wouldn't be.

But why would you pray to Mary instead of praying to God? Is there something more special about her prayers for you over your own prayers for yourself? Is there some hierarchy that prevents you from praying on your own behalf?

That has always confused me.

originally posted by: Malocchio


The Catholic Church still insists on the perpetual virginity of Mary but she was the mother of James, Joses and Salome, all siblings of Jesus, according to Mark 15:40

...; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the Mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. These used to follow him and provided for him when he was in Galilee.

James the younger/lesser is known to be James the Just brother of the Lord. These people took care of Jesus in Galilee because it was his hometown and family.

Obviously the not mentioning of Jesus being her son too was a redaction because Mary the Mother of Joses, James and Salome is also the mother of Jesus (and a few others).

Oddly this irrefutable proof that Mary birthed children from a sexual union is never mentioned in any perpetual virgin discussion I have ever heard.

Oh the lying Catholic Church, is there no truth in you at all?

I don't disagree with your understanding of Paulism but people have a right to their belief systems (aka.. no compulsion in religion 2:256). So how far can one rightly go to question the belief systems of others. If people say the sky is purple we can obviously question that belief system. But when we look at someone like MLK, can we presume he didn't attain a true belief in GOD, from christianity. Perhaps words in books are of lessor importance to prayer itself.

originally posted by: glend

originally posted by: Malocchio


The Catholic Church still insists on the perpetual virginity of Mary but she was the mother of James, Joses and Salome, all siblings of Jesus, according to Mark 15:40

...; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the Mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. These used to follow him and provided for him when he was in Galilee.

James the younger/lesser is known to be James the Just brother of the Lord. These people took care of Jesus in Galilee because it was his hometown and family.

Obviously the not mentioning of Jesus being her son too was a redaction because Mary the Mother of Joses, James and Salome is also the mother of Jesus (and a few others).

Oddly this irrefutable proof that Mary birthed children from a sexual union is never mentioned in any perpetual virgin discussion I have ever heard.

Oh the lying Catholic Church, is there no truth in you at all?

I don't disagree with your understanding of Paulism but people have a right to their belief systems (aka.. no compulsion in religion 2:256). So how far can one rightly go to question the belief systems of others. If people say the sky is purple we can obviously question that belief system. But when we look at someone like MLK, can we presume he didn't attain a true belief in GOD, from christianity. Perhaps words in books are of lessor importance to prayer itself.

I never preached the denial of the right to freedom of religion so your seeming reprimand and agreement are paradoxically perplexing.

Nothing in my statement suggested I am for forcing people to believe what I believe so your statement being directed at me was not appropriate.

a reply to: Malocchio

I was not reprimading you as I have done the same in questioning paulism. Its a question I have constantly asked myself, so I was actually looking for more insight.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Malocchio
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I would also like to add the Qur'an speaks of Miriam more than does the New Testament and that Catholicism actually admired Islam for this and recognized them as true believers in the beginning and again officially since Vatican II.

The beef between Islam and Christianity is only outside of Catholicism, who has a functioning diplomatic relation with Islam.

Salaams & thank you. In all honesty, I don't think most Muslims or Christians have hostility towards each other. The majority of the hate that I've personally seen has come from people who also hated other "outside groups" just as much. So I think religion may simply be the excuse they use to justify their hate. For example, many of the American Christians who hate Muslims also hate Hispanic people & "inner city" Americans, even though the majority of Hispanic people and "inner city" Americans are also Christians.

Hate may not be exclusively to Muslims but there is an active movement within segments of Christianity to portray Islam as the beast.

I have seen it claimed that because the Greek rendering of 666 looks like an Arabic statement about Allah.

That Allah is a moon god, even heard a Christian say that Allah is Semiramis and this was taught him by his church.

A current presidential candidate pandering to Islamaphobes and hater of Mexicans with anti Islamic rhetoric that draws cheers from the crowd.

Never underestimate the hidden hatred of fundamental Christianity for Islam. It's not a small minority but an actual belief that because we don't view Christ as God or his Son that we are antichrists, even though Issa is loved by Muslims the difference in opinion is enough to earn the wrath of fundamentalism.

Ask any Christian if Mohammed (PBUH) is a Prophet though and the answer you will get is he was a false prophet.

I am not hostile, I feel sorry that their religion closes their mind to the possibility that other faiths and cultures have Prophet.

For the record, remember that it's not us who decides who is or isn't a "Person of the Book". The Qur'an on at least 2 occasions lists Christians, followers of Jewish scriptures, and Sabians as people who believe in God and the Last Day. So if anything, I think we should just be the best believers we can be and leave the rest to God.

Certainly true. The Quran does declare who are the people of the book and without European interference all got along fine, even, until Saddam, the Mandaeans.

Yet Christianity ignores this call to tolerance in the Qur'an and inflicts its with us or against us mentality on the Middle East and does not allow for this tolerance and acceptance of legitimacy.

God was used by the ''Christian" George Bush as justification for war, although this is pandering to the Christian for support of the war it's not something we should ever forget that Christianity is covertly and to an extent overtly hostile to Islam.

Surah 2:62 (Pickthall & Yusuf Ali translations)
Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.

Yusuf Ali translation
Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Surah 5:69 (Pickthall & Yusuf Ali translations)

Lo! those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Sabaeans, and Christians - Whosoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.

Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

A beautiful, tolerant message not equalled in Pauline Christianity's New Testament.

Just saying don't ever forget the extent that Christianity will go to impeach Islam, whether privately, from the pulpit or publicly. It's not just Christians, but they lead the way to intolerance.

I realize I may not have your humility but I make up for it in truth. Allah gives us all different gifts, I am good at getting to the truth and the truth is Christians generally hate Islam (not Arabs) and Jews, will not admit it to outsiders. Though it is because of effective propaganda.

a reply to: Xeven

Text I am just curious how worship of Mary is not a false Idol? I am not trying to pick a fight. I am exploring my spirituality and trying to understand? Also, if God knows everything and is the creator, why did he create sin?

The Mary that you reference cannot forgive your sins against the Most High or His only begotten Son. There is only one mediator between you and The Most High El. and that is His Son Jesus. Jesus is the only Begotten Son of the only God to exist. Jesus' preexistence as the Word of The Most High El. is the Creator of this entire universe and is not subservient to any other form of existence. That is the concept of true Christianity with no additional windows or doors or smoke and mirrors added. One cannot pick and choose the agreeable portions of the author and reject other portion which prick their minds. That is lying to not only oneself but the author himself.

The concept of Christianity does agrees with all of the NT including His beloved servant Saul/Paul and claims otherwise are totally false and not agreeable with the apostles. There are some whose entire purpose is to destroy this concept by trying to destroy Saul/Paul. In the destruction of Saul/Paul is the destruction of almost the entire NT as is found today. That would suite the ones who have other ideologies and opens the door of total destruction of the salvation message of the Christ Jesus. It is senseless to argue theological differences of this nature simply because nothing can be accomplished while those who cause destruction and death talk of peace and love while laying destruction beneath their feet.

a reply to: Seede

Paul was actually a false prophet, we have proven this in Akragons Paul invented Christianity thread if you need the details.

It's common knowledge that Paul was not a true member of the Messianic congregation of Jerusalem and startes his own pagan acceptable version of it called Christianity.

It's recorded history that the Jewish Ebionites and Nazarenes were declared heretics because they rejected Paul and were ''too Jewish" to be called Christians.

These first Jewish Nazarenes and Ebionites were the true successors of The Nazarene didn't believe Jesus was God.

That was a decision made at Nicea and never accepted by the Jewish community of Nazarenes or Ebionites and the whole mediator thing is idolatry as no mediator between God and man is necessary.

It's ancestor worship to deify a human being and human sacrifice to believe his death is your gain.

Christianity is itself a form of idolatry as taught by Rome and it's successors.

Arius had it right if anything about Jesus was divine he was still a creation.

The truth is he was human as anyone and not God and never claimed to be God. Christians are constantly saying only Christ can save you not realizing that this doesn't allow non Christians a place in Heaven.

Thus it's fundamentally intolerant and flawed.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

Yes! In fact, the Qur'an constantly says things to that effect. You're forgetting that the tests are for us, not for Him.

This is a really underwhelming response. Please see the remainder of this reply to find out why I think so.

In modern sci-fi terms, this universe is a "sandbox" and we're a form of AI. We're in the final testing phase to see which AI "robots" (us) will willingly act correctly in the real dimension (aka Heaven).

But the whole concept of "will" does not exist if there is a single omniscient and omnipotent creator that came first. Think about it: can God create a being so complex that the being itself can chose willingly? (Which is a play on the paradox: can God create a rock so large that he is unable to lift it?)

It's no different than if scientists finally created truly independent AI. Would we immediately unleash all of them into civilian populations? Or would we put them in a test environment first, to see which ones can be trusted unattended? It also wouldn't make sense to allow even "nice" AI to live among humans if those specific robots rejected the existence of and relevance of humans, would it?

It's actually much different. For one, we are not omnipotent or omniscient. That is a CRITICAL consideration before comparing God creating a form of AI (humans) and humans creating a form of AI (robots).

An imperfect creator (humans) cannot create a perfect creation.

How would I know that? LOL. That's like asking a painting about the wants and needs of its painter.

We both know the answer, but you do not accept it, whereas I do.

But for the record, Islam doesn't believe that God needs us; it's us that need Him. Hence all of our common phrases that translate into things like "All glory goes to God!", "If God wills it", "God is great!", etc. But you seem to be forgetting that Muslims voluntarily serve God, hence the name (since a "Muslim" is "one who submits to God").

It's only natural that the product of creation would need its creator to come into existence. If God doesn't need us, why the need to create us in the first place? Or, going back to your AI analogy: why do we create robots? Because something is lacking...

The vast majority of followers of the three major Abrahamic religions are indoctrinated by religious teachings from a young age, which interferes with their ability to "voluntarily serve God" as you put it. Islam is not special and millions of its followers have not adhered to its teachings voluntarily.

I thought I already explained that part?

Nope. You deflected from the key component of the argument I made: where does the ability to reject God stem from? The answer is: God.

originally posted by: Xeven

originally posted by: filthyphilanthropist

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Xeven
I am just curious how worship of Mary is not a false Idol? I am not trying to pick a fight. I am exploring my spirituality and trying to understand?

I know this is a common Protestant criticism of Catholicism, and I have never understood THAT. It's like every time a Catholic mentions a saint, the Protestants claim "False Idol! False Idol!" St. Jude: False Idol! St. Patrick: False Idol! Good Lord, give it a rest.

They are false idols. For example, prayer is to the Father, in Jesus' name, delivered/translated by the Spirit. That's it. Period. The need of anything beyond that strike me as idolitry.

Seems to be a legit point of view. Maybe we discover the real god my questioning what man has decided?

Yes....you are on the right track. Keep questioning.... and know it's okay to do so.

Opp's wrong thread lol

a reply to: Malocchio

a reply to: Seede Paul was actually a false prophet, we have proven this in Akragons Paul invented Christianity thread if you need the details. It's common knowledge that Paul was not a true member of the Messianic congregation of Jerusalem and startes his own pagan acceptable version of it called Christianity. It's recorded history that the Jewish Ebionites and Nazarenes were declared heretics because they rejected Paul and were ''too Jewish" to be called Christians. These first Jewish Nazarenes and Ebionites were the true successors of The Nazarene didn't believe Jesus was God. That was a decision made at Nicea and never accepted by the Jewish community of Nazarenes or Ebionites and the whole mediator thing is idolatry as no mediator between God and man is necessary. It's ancestor worship to deify a human being and human sacrifice to believe his death is your gain. Christianity is itself a form of idolatry as taught by Rome and it's successors. Arius had it right if anything about Jesus was divine he was still a creation. The truth is he was human as anyone and not God and never claimed to be God. Christians are constantly saying only Christ can save you not realizing that this doesn't allow non Christians a place in Heaven. Thus it's fundamentally intolerant and flawed.

Let’s get real about theology. Theology is never proof or it would not be theology. Akragon as well as no man has ever proven Paul as a false prophet. If proof ever existed it would then no longer be theology. You are grabbing at straws and show total ignorance when you post tripe such as that. It is not common knowledge and you very well know it. It may your opinion but even then it is totally false.

You also throw the word Ebonites around as though to imply that they were the founders of the Jesus movement. Well, they were not the founders of neither the Jesus movement nor Christianity. They were a sect that came into prominence long after the formation of the first Jesus movement of James the Just, brother of the Christ. They did not accept the divinity of the Christ Jesus and they also rejected Saul/Paul as a member of the Nazarene movement. Saul/Paul was converted about five or six years after the first synagogue of the Christ was established by brother James and flourished for well over three decades. The Roman organizations had no hand in the Nazarene movement other than to slaughter the Jews and try to destroy the Nazarene movement.

I do not understand how you can be so misinformed as to state that the first council of Nicaea could determine anything of the Nazarene movement. It was about 325 years after the Nazarenes established the first congregation that we find the Roman Gentile movement forming their council which only pertained to what they had taken from the Nazarenes. You are not even in the ball park of understanding Christianity. What Christianity is today does not even remotely connect with the true Nazarene Synagogue. Actually your very own understanding is so flawed that you have no idea of what you are talking about.

Ebonites were not even remotely connected with Nazarenes. Nazarenes were the very first Hebrew people to walk with Jesus and accept Him as the incarnate Word Of God. Nazarenes were the only people who formed the very first synagogue under their own Nasi who was the brother [James] of the Christ Jesus. The Apostle John was the second in command of the movement and the Apostle Peter was the third in command of the movement.

Saul/Paul was never involved in this formation of the Nazarene movement and his conversion came about five years later as he then was commissioned by the Christ Jesus to evangelize the Gentiles. This has not one thing to do with Roman Catholicism nor any Christian council. What the Roman councils agreed to [ centuries later] had nothing to do with the Nazarene movement.

One last thought that you also are absolutely wrong about. Jesus did claim that He and the Most High El were one and that He preexisted with the Most High as the Most High’s only begotten Son. Jesus was tried in the Jewish Courts with blaspheming in the claim that He was the Son of The Most High El and by a vast majority vote was acquitted of that charge of blasphemy. He was never found guilty by either Jewish law nor Roman law but was murdered by mob rule.

As far as you going to heaven? I have no idea or judgment in that matter at all. You will have to decide that matter for yourself but one thing is very clear. If I felt the way that you have just posted I most certainly would not even consider wasting my time in trying to degrade the Hebrew or the Greek bibles. If I were a Muslim I would not clutter my mind in trying to disprove the Christian Theology.

a reply to: Seede

I actually did prove it, many times over, if you follow the thread and use logic and common sense and not emotional attachment.

Many, many times.

Matthew 24:23 is a prophecy that proves it by itself but the fact that Paul said ''Nah, go ahead eat idol meat, that's for weak brothers" (slight paraphrase) AGAINST the decree of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus condemned this practice in Revelation specifically, calling it "the doctrine of Balaam...who put a stumbling block in front of Israel.

When Paul says ''No wonder! even Satan transforms into an angel of light." (when?) he is talking about the 12 Apostles, go back to the preceding paragraphs he sarcastically calls the "arch-apostles" and adds "I think I am not the least inferior to these super-apostles."(arch/super)

So if your best retort will be ''He was talking about some other (hitherto unknown to history) group of Apostles of Christ that argument is obviously false as there is no mistaking he is definitely talking about the 12 Apostles.

I think that qualifies as proof.

a reply to: Seede

And you say the Ebionites didn't exist in the time of Jesus but they existed BEFORE Jesus.

The Ebionites and Nazarenes both are mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament.

That more than destroys your untrue statement that "The Nazarenes and Ebionites were not even remotely connected."

How you could accuse me of being misinformed when I have been researching the Ebionites and Nazarenes for over a year daily and know far more than most is just plain rude and disrespectful and dishonest.

I think being both mentioned in the Scrolls of the Dead Sea is proof enough to establish a connection and proof enough to show that you are making statements that aren't true because you don't know the facts and just because I told you Paul was a false prophet.

Ebionim or Ebionites simply means the Poor. They are mentioned several times but not properly translated to make it easy to see they are/were a Jewish sect that was definitely led by James who Paul claims said said "Remember the Poor."

It means remember the Ebionim and they certainly did exist in the time of Christ as if you had read the DSS you would know this.

I guess though if you stop reading anything except the New Testament that makes it difficult to learn little known facts that might be little known but are nevertheless true.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are no later than AD 68 and likely span from 150BC- then. So you can't make the argument that they didn't exist at the time of Christ because it is provabley incorrect.

And if you didn't know that...what else have you missed thinking Paul was the isht, forsaking all other knowledge as vain that ''puffs up."

Stay away from false prophets. Just because some unlettered men decided 1700 years ago to include him in the so called New Testament doesn't make him the word of God, just a very angry rejected in Asia self proclaimed ''apostle" to the gentiles.

Problem is nobody ever appointed him to that position and Acts specifically states Peter was chosen BY GOD to be that Apostle and that there can't be a 13th Apostle because 12 is the max, ask New Jerusalem in Revelation how many Apostles there are.

I guarantee you it's 12.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Malocchio

a reply to: Seede Paul was actually a false prophet, we have proven this in Akragons Paul invented Christianity thread if you need the details. It's common knowledge that Paul was not a true member of the Messianic congregation of Jerusalem and startes his own pagan acceptable version of it called Christianity. It's recorded history that the Jewish Ebionites and Nazarenes were declared heretics because they rejected Paul and were ''too Jewish" to be called Christians. These first Jewish Nazarenes and Ebionites were the true successors of The Nazarene didn't believe Jesus was God. That was a decision made at Nicea and never accepted by the Jewish community of Nazarenes or Ebionites and the whole mediator thing is idolatry as no mediator between God and man is necessary. It's ancestor worship to deify a human being and human sacrifice to believe his death is your gain. Christianity is itself a form of idolatry as taught by Rome and it's successors. Arius had it right if anything about Jesus was divine he was still a creation. The truth is he was human as anyone and not God and never claimed to be God. Christians are constantly saying only Christ can save you not realizing that this doesn't allow non Christians a place in Heaven. Thus it's fundamentally intolerant and flawed.

Let’s get real about theology. Theology is never proof or it would not be theology. Akragon as well as no man has ever proven Paul as a false prophet. If proof ever existed it would then no longer be theology. You are grabbing at straws and show total ignorance when you post tripe such as that. It is not common knowledge and you very well know it. It may your opinion but even then it is totally false.

Common knowledge it is buddy, just not something you know. That doesn't make it not common or false or just my opinion.

Like I said, it's been proven using nothing but the New Testament by many people who have open minds and don't by Paul's story, just Google: Paul false... it will automatically type in Paul FOR you.

You also throw the word Ebonites around as though to imply that they were the founders of the Jesus movement. Well, they were not the founders of neither the Jesus movement nor Christianity. They were a sect that came into prominence long after the formation of the first Jesus movement of James the Just, brother of the Christ. They did not accept the divinity of the Christ Jesus and they also rejected Saul/Paul as a member of the Nazarene movement. Saul/Paul was converted about five or six years after the first synagogue of the Christ was established by brother James and flourished for well over three decades. The Roman organizations had no hand in the Nazarene movement other than to slaughter the Jews and try to destroy the Nazarene movement.

First see my last comments.

Second reread your Bible. Paul is accused of being a ''ringleader of the sect of Nazarenes.'' So saying he wasn't involved shows that you are lacking in knowledge because he may have been a false prophet but he started out under James and his Nazarene movement that the Ebionites were certainly a part of, the ''Poor" as mentioned by Paul himself.

Bam bam. Nazarenes and Ebionites are something you would know about if you just checked the Internet, that they existed in the first century is beyond debate and even the Church "Historian" Eusebius does not deny this. He may lie and say they came from a non-existent man named Ebion to fool people but that lie has long been uncovered.

I do not understand how you can be so misinformed as to state that the first council of Nicaea could determine anything of the Nazarene movement. It was about 325 years after the Nazarenes established the first congregation that we find the Roman Gentile movement forming their council which only pertained to what they had taken from the Nazarenes. You are not even in the ball park of understanding Christianity. What Christianity is today does not even remotely connect with the true Nazarene Synagogue. Actually your very own understanding is so flawed that you have no idea of what you are talking about.

Ebonites were not even remotely connected with Nazarenes. Nazarenes were the very first Hebrew people to walk with Jesus and accept Him as the incarnate Word Of God. Nazarenes were the only people who formed the very first synagogue under their own Nasi who was the brother [James] of the Christ Jesus. The Apostle John was the second in command of the movement and the Apostle Peter was the third in command of the movement.

Saul/Paul was never involved in this formation of the Nazarene movement and his conversion came about five years later as he then was commissioned by the Christ Jesus to evangelize the Gentiles. This has not one thing to do with Roman Catholicism nor any Christian council. What the Roman councils agreed to [ centuries later] had nothing to do with the Nazarene movement.

One last thought that you also are absolutely wrong about. Jesus did claim that He and the Most High El were one and that He preexisted with the Most High as the Most High’s only begotten Son. Jesus was tried in the Jewish Courts with blaspheming in the claim that He was the Son of The Most High El and by a vast majority vote was acquitted of that charge of blasphemy. He was never found guilty by either Jewish law nor Roman law but was murdered by mob rule.

As far as you going to heaven? I have no idea or judgment in that matter at all. You will have to decide that matter for yourself but one thing is very clear. If I felt the way that you have just posted I most certainly would not even consider wasting my time in trying to degrade the Hebrew or the Greek bibles. If I were a Muslim I would not clutter my mind in trying to disprove the Christian Theology.

I read up until the part you accused me of being misinformed and that was enough, I have shown how informed I am and that it's actually you who is misinformed, and I am not going to be told by the less informed how uninformed I am, I draw the line at that.

If I were a Muslim I would not clutter my mind in trying to disprove the Christian Theology

What the heck does that have to do with anything, Seede? Does being Muslim automatically disclaim one from understanding the Bible? Really now.
I understand you have many years on most of us here....but, you still could learn a few things.

a reply to: Seede

Paul destroyed the message of Christ loooong ago.

We are trying to bring it back.

Of course a mainstream believe everything that is also mainstream mind will see it your way it's a short sighted and narrow minded view reinforced by the mere existence, for 1700 years, of Pauline theology being promoted over even that of Jesus.

Men who were not Jewish but Roman made that decision.

They also decided Christ was God, Jesus never made that claim.

So yeah, it scares you that a mistake was made and you want what you were told was true to be true.

But it ain't, deal with it or go with the false prophet Paul.

a reply to: Seede

Also I can't just let the fact that you said because I am a Muslim I should not be spending time debating Christian theology go without responding as thats just plain ignorant of you, sorry but that is the only appropriate word to describe that kind of thinking.

So because I am one religion I am forbidden from knowing anything about another or have to excuse myself from all Christian conversation?

You are aware I also study Judaism because you responded in my Zohar thread, yet you didn't seem to mind my study of esoteric Judaism.

I guess you just don't want a Muslim studying YOUR religion, because Islam has nothing about it that has a reason for interest in Christianity, right?

Sorry, we adore Issa (PBUH) and all the Prophets of Judaism and Apostles of Christianity.

It's just that we know how Paul ruined Christianity with his hair brained ideas that make absolutely no sense, are absurd and derogatory towards the rest of the pack, the real 12 Apostles.

ETA: I would not be surprised at all if the Pauline elements absent from Islam such as the sacrificial atonement and deification based on his writings and the obscure possible interpolation of the anonymous and last written of the 4 Gospels, the one attributed to John by tradition using the ''beloved disciple" theory that lacks evidence in the fact that the beloved disciple never is a title claimed by the author and not attributed even to John. Nobody knows the identity of the beloved disciple and the tradition is made up by Roman men.

Back to my point. Godhead and the concept of the Trinity not used by Jesus who though says to Baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit that doesn't make a Trinity of 3 God's that equal 1 God not polytheistic. Because you still claim 3 God's. Claim 1 all you like Trinity means there is three just like Hinduism and the old Egyptian system.

Islam was a movement of a return to one God and that was it's success. The Prophets would all be honored as Prophets, Jesus as the Messiah and every man responsible for his sins without having to believe in the story of Pauline theology that his death (which doesn't happen in Islam) is not an element in a persons judgement on the day of judgement.

So I think the Nestorian Christian's were well known to Muhammad, I think a relative of his was one and that they had the New Testament of the other churches with the Pauline epistles.

His theology (Paul) is nowhere to be found in Islam. Allah is merciful and graceful and a lot of other good things, no question, but each man is responsible for his sins independent of the crucifixion of Jesus, that was a trick and not really him.

The Apostles are also 12 except Barnabas is the 12th and not Matthias. It might have something to do with the belief that no Prophets existed between Jesus and Mohammed but I am not sure about that.

I know Paul is not recognized as an Apostle or Prophet and is called "decieved."

I have read Paul, he is trash. His lies about direct (secret) revelation from Christ was warned about in Matthew 24:23.

Something you would know if you didn't spend time worrying about my participation in Christian debates and actually listened to the words of Jesus instead of Paul.

originally posted by: Malocchio
a reply to: Seede

Also I can't just let the fact that you said because I am a Muslim I should not be spending time debating Christian theology go without responding as thats just plain ignorant of you, sorry but that is the only appropriate word to describe that kind of thinking.

So because I am one religion I am forbidden from knowing anything about another or have to excuse myself from all Christian conversation?

You are aware I also study Judaism because you responded in my Zohar thread, yet you didn't seem to mind my study of esoteric Judaism.

I guess you just don't want a Muslim studying YOUR religion, because Islam has nothing about it that has a reason for interest in Christianity, right?

Sorry, we adore Issa (PBUH) and all the Prophets of Judaism and Apostles of Christianity.

It's just that we know how Paul ruined Christianity with his hair brained ideas that make absolutely no sense, are absurd and derogatory towards the rest of the pack, the real 12 Apostles.

ETA: I would not be surprised at all if the Pauline elements absent from Islam such as the sacrificial atonement and deification based on his writings and the obscure possible interpolation of the anonymous and last written of the 4 Gospels, the one attributed to John by tradition using the ''beloved disciple" theory that lacks evidence in the fact that the beloved disciple never is a title claimed by the author and not attributed even to John. Nobody knows the identity of the beloved disciple and the tradition is made up by Roman men.

Back to my point. Godhead and the concept of the Trinity not used by Jesus who though says to Baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit that doesn't make a Trinity of 3 God's that equal 1 God not polytheistic. Because you still claim 3 God's. Claim 1 all you like Trinity means there is three just like Hinduism and the old Egyptian system.

Islam was a movement of a return to one God and that was it's success. The Prophets would all be honored as Prophets, Jesus as the Messiah and every man responsible for his sins without having to believe in the story of Pauline theology that his death (which doesn't happen in Islam) is not an element in a persons judgement on the day of judgement.

So I think the Nestorian Christian's were well known to Muhammad, I think a relative of his was one and that they had the New Testament of the other churches with the Pauline epistles.

His theology (Paul) is nowhere to be found in Islam. Allah is merciful and graceful and a lot of other good things, no question, but each man is responsible for his sins independent of the crucifixion of Jesus, that was a trick and not really him.

The Apostles are also 12 except Barnabas is the 12th and not Matthias. It might have something to do with the belief that no Prophets existed between Jesus and Mohammed but I am not sure about that.

I know Paul is not recognized as an Apostle or Prophet and is called "decieved."

I have read Paul, he is trash. His lies about direct (secret) revelation from Christ was warned about in Matthew 24:23.

Something you would know if you didn't spend time worrying about my participation in Christian debates and actually listened to the words of Jesus instead of Paul.

:

I see this thread has delineated from the OP. I'd like to get it back on track:

God is known as the Father. So who is the Mother? Mater is the latin word for mother, and is also the derivation of the word "matter" and "matrix". Mother earth, which is natural matter, is the receptive aspect of the Creative Father Source. Similar to how the female receives the male's seed, the Heavenly Father blew his spirit into Mother Earth ("The dust of the ground") to give His consciousness to the first human body. Mary was the pure virgin that was a proper vessel for the Heavenly Father to impregnate (""The Most High will overshadow you" Mother Earth once again while also fulfilling all the prophecy of the Messiah being of the line of David.

Catholics think this is really awesome that Mary had the honor of holding Jesus in her womb.