Oldbear83 said:

---

Roman Catholics promoting the RC position.

Imagine that.

Now, if Our Lord Jesus had actually taught what you claim, you'd have something, but He set a different lesson before us.

---

The problem is that you assume that you have complete knowledge of what Jesus' teachings were just because you have opened a modern abridged Bible when that Bible itself refutes that fact:

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." (John 21:25).

You don't.

While the Bible does say "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" (1st Timothy 3:16), its says all, not only.

Even understanding the scriptures apart from a patristic understanding can lead to error.

For example, Romans 12:20: "Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head."

It's a common understanding of this verse in protestant circles that by engaging in charitable acts in response to hostile acts it results in the future judgement of your enemy.

The reality:

In Bible lands almost everything is carried on the head water jars, baskets of fruit, vegetables, fish or any other article. Those carrying the burden rarely touch it with the hands, and they walk through crowded streets and lanes with perfect ease. In many homes the only fire they have is kept in a brazier, which they use for simple cooking as well as for warmth. They plan to always keep it burning. If it should go out, some member of the family will take the brazier to a neighbor's house to borrow fire.

Then she will lift the brazier to her head and start for home. If her neighbor is a generous woman, she will heap the brazier full of coals. To feed an enemy and give him drink was like heaping the empty brazier with live coals which meant food, warmth and almost life itself to the person or home needing it, and was the symbol of finest generosity.

B.M. Bowen, Strange Scriptures that Perplex the Western Mind

The modern protestant, divorced from archeology and Church history, can't fully understand the abridged scriptures they possess.

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

historian said:

---

Jesus said that from the cross. Context matters.

Also, Mary is no one's spiritual mother. There is nothing in scripture to suggest that she or anyone else holds such a position. God is our spiritual Father because He is God and no other reason. There is no divine mother. Such thinking is pagan polytheism and idolatry.

---

Is she boiling in human excrement along w/ her son?

Isnt that what the Talmud teaches you?

---

Rent free...

---

You replace Jesus with Paul and God with the secular state of Israel.

---

Support your position, if you are able. Specifically:

1) How do I replace Jesus with Paul;
2) How are Paul and Jesus incompatible (your position implies they are);
3) How have I replaced God with Israel?

I'll hang up and listen.

---

All he has is hatred of the Jews and Israel, a very irrational bigotry. He clearly knows little to nothing about any of it yet declares himself judge over Christianity. Atheists tend to worship themselves because they hate moral restraints and want to be gods. Reality does not work that way.

historian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

historian said:

---

Jesus said that from the cross. Context matters.

Also, Mary is no one's spiritual mother. There is nothing in scripture to suggest that she or anyone else holds such a position. God is our spiritual Father because He is God and no other reason. There is no divine mother. Such thinking is pagan polytheism and idolatry.

---

Is she boiling in human excrement along w/ her son?

Isnt that what the Talmud teaches you?

---

Rent free...

---

You replace Jesus with Paul and God with the secular state of Israel.

---

Support your position, if you are able. Specifically:

1) How do I replace Jesus with Paul;
2) How are Paul and Jesus incompatible (your position implies they are);
3) How have I replaced God with Israel?

I'll hang up and listen.

---

All he has is hatred of the Jews and Israel, a very irrational bigotry. He clearly knows little to nothing about any of it yet declares himself judge over Christianity. Atheists tend to worship themselves because they hate moral restraints and want to be gods. Reality does not work that way.

---

He's glib and has been for years. He literally is one of the least informed posters on this board and that is saying something.

I knew he couldn't respond. Not only does he lack the ability, but he's also both a coward and a liar.

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Roman Catholics promoting the RC position.

Imagine that.

Now, if Our Lord Jesus had actually taught what you claim, you'd have something, but He set a different lesson before us.

---

The problem is that you assume that you have complete knowledge of what Jesus' teachings just because you have opened a modern abridged Bible when the Bible itself refutes that fact:

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." (John 21:25).

You don't.

While the Bible does say "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" (1st Timothy 3:16), its says all, not only.

Even understanding the scriptures apart from a patristic understanding can lead to error.

For example, Romans 12:20: "Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head."

It's a common understanding of this verse in protestant circles that by engaging in charitable acts in response to hostile acts it results in the future judgement of your enemy.

The reality:

In Bible lands almost everything is carried on the head water jars, baskets of fruit, vegetables, fish or any other article. Those carrying the burden rarely touch it with the hands, and they walk through crowded streets and lanes with perfect ease. In many homes the only fire they have is kept in a brazier, which they use for simple cooking as well as for warmth. They plan to always keep it burning. If it should go out, some member of the family will take the brazier to a neighbor's house to borrow fire.

Then she will lift the brazier to her head and start for home. If her neighbor is a generous woman, she will heap the brazier full of coals. To feed an enemy and give him drink was like heaping the empty brazier with live coals which meant food, warmth and almost life itself to the person or home needing it, and was the symbol of finest generosity.

B.M. Bowen, Strange Scriptures that Perplex the Western Mind

The modern protestant, divorced from archeology and Church history, can't fully understand the abridged scriptures they possess.

---

When confronted with the plain language of scripture, it was only a matter of time before this tired and heretical argument got tossed out to justify extra-scriptural teachings and doctrine.

But hey, it worked for Joseph Smith.

Mothra said:

---

historian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

historian said:

---

Jesus said that from the cross. Context matters.

Also, Mary is no one's spiritual mother. There is nothing in scripture to suggest that she or anyone else holds such a position. God is our spiritual Father because He is God and no other reason. There is no divine mother. Such thinking is pagan polytheism and idolatry.

---

Is she boiling in human excrement along w/ her son?

Isnt that what the Talmud teaches you?

---

Rent free...

---

You replace Jesus with Paul and God with the secular state of Israel.

---

Support your position, if you are able. Specifically:

1) How do I replace Jesus with Paul;
2) How are Paul and Jesus incompatible (your position implies they are);
3) How have I replaced God with Israel?

I'll hang up and listen.

---

All he has is hatred of the Jews and Israel, a very irrational bigotry. He clearly knows little to nothing about any of it yet declares himself judge over Christianity. Atheists tend to worship themselves because they hate moral restraints and want to be gods. Reality does not work that way.

---

He's glib and has been for years. He literally is one of the least informed posters on this board and that is saying something.

I knew he couldn't respond. Not only does he lack the ability, but he's also both a coward and a liar.

---

I chose not to respond as a courtesy to the Christians in this thread who are worthy of respect.

Its unfortunate you and historian make a mockery of their religion.

The good news is your sect is dying off and the congregation numbers show it.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

historian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

historian said:

---

Jesus said that from the cross. Context matters.

Also, Mary is no one's spiritual mother. There is nothing in scripture to suggest that she or anyone else holds such a position. God is our spiritual Father because He is God and no other reason. There is no divine mother. Such thinking is pagan polytheism and idolatry.

---

Is she boiling in human excrement along w/ her son?

Isnt that what the Talmud teaches you?

---

Rent free...

---

You replace Jesus with Paul and God with the secular state of Israel.

---

Support your position, if you are able. Specifically:

1) How do I replace Jesus with Paul;
2) How are Paul and Jesus incompatible (your position implies they are);
3) How have I replaced God with Israel?

I'll hang up and listen.

---

All he has is hatred of the Jews and Israel, a very irrational bigotry. He clearly knows little to nothing about any of it yet declares himself judge over Christianity. Atheists tend to worship themselves because they hate moral restraints and want to be gods. Reality does not work that way.

---

He's glib and has been for years. He literally is one of the least informed posters on this board and that is saying something.

I knew he couldn't respond. Not only does he lack the ability, but he's also both a coward and a liar.

---

I chose not to respond as a courtesy to the Christians in this thread who are worthy of respect.

Its unfortunate you and historian make a mockery of their religion.

The good news is your sect is dying off and the congregation numbers show it.

---

So even though you behave like a disrespectful and hateful pos on every single thread, the reason you chose not to answer my questions is out of respect for Christians.

Lmao. Nobody believes your bull **** just fyi.

You are an absolute clown, and a coward.

You keep telling yourself we're dying off as your ilk gets its ass handed to it in the primaries. Cope.

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

historian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

historian said:

---

Jesus said that from the cross. Context matters.

Also, Mary is no one's spiritual mother. There is nothing in scripture to suggest that she or anyone else holds such a position. God is our spiritual Father because He is God and no other reason. There is no divine mother. Such thinking is pagan polytheism and idolatry.

---

Is she boiling in human excrement along w/ her son?

Isnt that what the Talmud teaches you?

---

Rent free...

---

You replace Jesus with Paul and God with the secular state of Israel.

---

Support your position, if you are able. Specifically:

1) How do I replace Jesus with Paul;
2) How are Paul and Jesus incompatible (your position implies they are);
3) How have I replaced God with Israel?

I'll hang up and listen.

---

All he has is hatred of the Jews and Israel, a very irrational bigotry. He clearly knows little to nothing about any of it yet declares himself judge over Christianity. Atheists tend to worship themselves because they hate moral restraints and want to be gods. Reality does not work that way.

---

He's glib and has been for years. He literally is one of the least informed posters on this board and that is saying something.

I knew he couldn't respond. Not only does he lack the ability, but he's also both a coward and a liar.

---

I chose not to respond as a courtesy to the Christians in this thread who are worthy of respect.

Its unfortunate you and historian make a mockery of their religion.

The good news is your sect is dying off and the congregation numbers show it.

---

So even though you behave like a disrespectful and hateful pos on every single thread, the reason you chose not to answer my questions is out of respect for Christians.

Lmao. Nobody believes your bull **** just fyi.

You are an absolute clown, and a coward.

You keep telling yourself we're dying off as your ilk gets its ass handed to it in the primaries. Cope.

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Roman Catholics promoting the RC position.

Imagine that.

Now, if Our Lord Jesus had actually taught what you claim, you'd have something, but He set a different lesson before us.

---

For example, Romans 12:20: "Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head."

It's a common understanding of this verse in protestant circles that by engaging in charitable acts in response to hostile acts it results in the future judgement of your enemy.

The reality:

In Bible lands almost everything is carried on the head water jars, baskets of fruit, vegetables, fish or any other article. Those carrying the burden rarely touch it with the hands, and they walk through crowded streets and lanes with perfect ease. In many homes the only fire they have is kept in a brazier, which they use for simple cooking as well as for warmth. They plan to always keep it burning. If it should go out, some member of the family will take the brazier to a neighbor's house to borrow fire.

Then she will lift the brazier to her head and start for home. If her neighbor is a generous woman, she will heap the brazier full of coals. To feed an enemy and give him drink was like heaping the empty brazier with live coals which meant food, warmth and almost life itself to the person or home needing it, and was the symbol of finest generosity.

B.M. Bowen, Strange Scriptures that Perplex the Western Mind

The modern protestant, divorced from archeology and Church history, can't fully understand the abridged scriptures they possess.

---

You say a lot of ignorant and uninformed stuff, but this is just so patently absurd it's hard to fathom.

Can you give us the Protestant consensus on these verses? And can you likewise give us the Catholic and Orthodox interpretation, with citations to evidence supporting your position? Because I would submit that our respective interpretations are not terribly different from the early Church Fathers.

Indeed, the early fathers such as Augustine, Jerome, and other believed that "burning coals" are symbolic of the shame, compunction, or conviction a person experiences when confronted with undeserved kindness - not judgment and eternal damnation. That conviction is intended to lead the enemy to repentance and reconciliation.

• "Repay no one evil for evil."
• "Never avenge yourselves."
• "If your enemy is hungry, feed him."
• "Overcome evil with good."

In other words, these verses are describing how Christian love can soften a hostile heart rather than as a strategy for obtaining vengeance by proxy. The goal is the enemy's salvation, not his destruction. The idea that there is some Protestant consensus different than the Orthodox on these verses is just more of your unsupported hogwash.

So a few days ago, Vance did a closed-door speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition to try and secure their support for the 2028 presidential race.

One of the areas he empathized is that people under 40, across both sides of the spectrum, do not support Israel. He then discussed strategy to get these young people back on board.

I found this interesting because we are constantly told on here that "our" side is just a small collective with no actual influence.

For such a small sect, it sure sounds like we are a concern to the 2028 front-runner Republican nominee!

For all those words, there is not even one verse where Jesus said 'when I don't say something, let the rich men in Rome tell you their interpretation, and count it as if I said it."

I reject any Protestant pastor who adds his opinion to Scripture, and I reject any other sect which does so.

Oldbear83 said:

---

For all those words, there is not even one verse where Jesus said 'when I don't say something, let the rich men in Rome tell you their interpretation, and count it as if I said it."

I reject any Protestant pastor who adds his opinion to Scripture, and I reject any other sect which does so.

---

Jesus didn't provide us a canon, so how do you decide which books are divinely inspired? If you're only interested in what Jesus said, then I suppose you ignore the rest of the Bible.

Revelation 22:18-19 still applies

No one should ever add to or take away from God's word.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For all those words, there is not even one verse where Jesus said 'when I don't say something, let the rich men in Rome tell you their interpretation, and count it as if I said it."

I reject any Protestant pastor who adds his opinion to Scripture, and I reject any other sect which does so.

---

Jesus didn't provide us a canon, so how do you decide which books are divinely inspired? If you're only interested in what Jesus said, then I suppose you ignore the rest of the Bible.

---

There are clear standards to Canon. A Pope's personal approval does not rise to that level.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For all those words, there is not even one verse where Jesus said 'when I don't say something, let the rich men in Rome tell you their interpretation, and count it as if I said it."

I reject any Protestant pastor who adds his opinion to Scripture, and I reject any other sect which does so.

---

Jesus didn't provide us a canon, so how do you decide which books are divinely inspired? If you're only interested in what Jesus said, then I suppose you ignore the rest of the Bible.

---

There are clear standards to Canon. A Pope's personal approval does not rise to that level.

---

And those standards are…?

Cmon, stop dodging questions

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For all those words, there is not even one verse where Jesus said 'when I don't say something, let the rich men in Rome tell you their interpretation, and count it as if I said it."

I reject any Protestant pastor who adds his opinion to Scripture, and I reject any other sect which does so.

---

Jesus didn't provide us a canon, so how do you decide which books are divinely inspired? If you're only interested in what Jesus said, then I suppose you ignore the rest of the Bible.

---

There are clear standards to Canon. A Pope's personal approval does not rise to that level.

---

And those standards are…?

Cmon, stop dodging questions

---

Lying is a sin, sir.

You are the one pretending Jesus supports your fictions, while I simply reminded you there is no Scripture - at all - to support your claim.

Repent and turn from your sin. Jesus will forgive you.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For all those words, there is not even one verse where Jesus said 'when I don't say something, let the rich men in Rome tell you their interpretation, and count it as if I said it."

I reject any Protestant pastor who adds his opinion to Scripture, and I reject any other sect which does so.

---

Jesus didn't provide us a canon, so how do you decide which books are divinely inspired? If you're only interested in what Jesus said, then I suppose you ignore the rest of the Bible.

---

There are clear standards to Canon. A Pope's personal approval does not rise to that level.

---

And those standards are…?

Cmon, stop dodging questions

---

Lying is a sin, sir.

You are the one pretending Jesus supports your fictions, while I simply reminded you there is no Scripture - at all - to support your claim.

Repent and turn from your sin. Jesus will forgive you.

---

Damn, you really are senile. Where did you get lying from? All I did was ask you a question.

And just like your buddy BustyTarp, you can't defend your positions so you go on some tirade about how Catholics are damned and we need to repent.

Do yourself a favor and stick to your late night with Sean Hannity.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For all those words, there is not even one verse where Jesus said 'when I don't say something, let the rich men in Rome tell you their interpretation, and count it as if I said it."

I reject any Protestant pastor who adds his opinion to Scripture, and I reject any other sect which does so.

---

Jesus didn't provide us a canon, so how do you decide which books are divinely inspired? If you're only interested in what Jesus said, then I suppose you ignore the rest of the Bible.

---

There are clear standards to Canon. A Pope's personal approval does not rise to that level.

---

And those standards are…?

Cmon, stop dodging questions

---

Lying is a sin, sir.

You are the one pretending Jesus supports your fictions, while I simply reminded you there is no Scripture - at all - to support your claim.

Repent and turn from your sin. Jesus will forgive you.

---

Damn, you really are senile. Where did you get lying from? All I did was ask you a question.

And just like your buddy BustyTarp, you can't defend your positions so you go on some tirade about how Catholics are damned and we need to repent.

Do yourself a favor and stick to your late night with Sean Hannity.

---

First you pretend your opinion is Canon,

then you lie to pretend I'm the one dodging.

Now you resort to insults, which accompany a false comparison to someone else, while again pretending you are not the one who cannot defend your heretical claims.

Then you finish with a final insult.

Jesus will still forgive you if you repent, but brother you are digging quite the hole for yourself there.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For all those words, there is not even one verse where Jesus said 'when I don't say something, let the rich men in Rome tell you their interpretation, and count it as if I said it."

I reject any Protestant pastor who adds his opinion to Scripture, and I reject any other sect which does so.

---

Jesus didn't provide us a canon, so how do you decide which books are divinely inspired? If you're only interested in what Jesus said, then I suppose you ignore the rest of the Bible.

---

There are clear standards to Canon. A Pope's personal approval does not rise to that level.

---

And those standards are…?

Cmon, stop dodging questions

---

Lying is a sin, sir.

You are the one pretending Jesus supports your fictions, while I simply reminded you there is no Scripture - at all - to support your claim.

Repent and turn from your sin. Jesus will forgive you.

---

Damn, you really are senile. Where did you get lying from? All I did was ask you a question.

And just like your buddy BustyTarp, you can't defend your positions so you go on some tirade about how Catholics are damned and we need to repent.

Do yourself a favor and stick to your late night with Sean Hannity.

---

First you pretend your opinion is Canon,

then you lie to pretend I'm the one dodging.

Now you resort to insults, which accompany a false comparison to someone else, while again pretending you are not the one who cannot defend your heretical claims.

Then you finish with a final insult.

Jesus will still forgive you if you repent, but brother you are digging quite the hole for yourself there.

---

You can't even explain what is considered canon, so why do you continue to use that word?

And I didn't state an opinion, I said Jesus never laid out canon for us, that's a fact. And then I asked you how to determine what books of the bible are divinely inspired…

Believe it or not, asking you questions is not sin.

Pay attention, old man.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For all those words, there is not even one verse where Jesus said 'when I don't say something, let the rich men in Rome tell you their interpretation, and count it as if I said it."

I reject any Protestant pastor who adds his opinion to Scripture, and I reject any other sect which does so.

---

Jesus didn't provide us a canon, so how do you decide which books are divinely inspired? If you're only interested in what Jesus said, then I suppose you ignore the rest of the Bible.

---

There are clear standards to Canon. A Pope's personal approval does not rise to that level.

---

And those standards are…?

Cmon, stop dodging questions

---

Lying is a sin, sir.

You are the one pretending Jesus supports your fictions, while I simply reminded you there is no Scripture - at all - to support your claim.

Repent and turn from your sin. Jesus will forgive you.

---

Damn, you really are senile. Where did you get lying from? All I did was ask you a question.

And just like your buddy BustyTarp, you can't defend your positions so you go on some tirade about how Catholics are damned and we need to repent.

Do yourself a favor and stick to your late night with Sean Hannity.

---

First you pretend your opinion is Canon,

then you lie to pretend I'm the one dodging.

Now you resort to insults, which accompany a false comparison to someone else, while again pretending you are not the one who cannot defend your heretical claims.

Then you finish with a final insult.

Jesus will still forgive you if you repent, but brother you are digging quite the hole for yourself there.

---

You can't even explain what is considered canon, so why do you continue to use that word?

And I didn't state an opinion, I said Jesus never laid out canon for us, that's a fact. And then I asked you how to determine what books of the bible are divinely inspired…

Believe it or not, asking you questions is not sin.

Pay attention, old man.

---

More lies and insults from you.

Poor Christian, you.

I will pray for you.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For all those words, there is not even one verse where Jesus said 'when I don't say something, let the rich men in Rome tell you their interpretation, and count it as if I said it."

I reject any Protestant pastor who adds his opinion to Scripture, and I reject any other sect which does so.

---

Jesus didn't provide us a canon, so how do you decide which books are divinely inspired? If you're only interested in what Jesus said, then I suppose you ignore the rest of the Bible.

---

There are clear standards to Canon. A Pope's personal approval does not rise to that level.

---

And those standards are…?

Cmon, stop dodging questions

---

Lying is a sin, sir.

You are the one pretending Jesus supports your fictions, while I simply reminded you there is no Scripture - at all - to support your claim.

Repent and turn from your sin. Jesus will forgive you.

---

Damn, you really are senile. Where did you get lying from? All I did was ask you a question.

And just like your buddy BustyTarp, you can't defend your positions so you go on some tirade about how Catholics are damned and we need to repent.

Do yourself a favor and stick to your late night with Sean Hannity.

---

First you pretend your opinion is Canon,

then you lie to pretend I'm the one dodging.

Now you resort to insults, which accompany a false comparison to someone else, while again pretending you are not the one who cannot defend your heretical claims.

Then you finish with a final insult.

Jesus will still forgive you if you repent, but brother you are digging quite the hole for yourself there.

---

You can't even explain what is considered canon, so why do you continue to use that word?

And I didn't state an opinion, I said Jesus never laid out canon for us, that's a fact. And then I asked you how to determine what books of the bible are divinely inspired…

Believe it or not, asking you questions is not sin.

Pay attention, old man.

---

More lies and insults from you.

Poor Christian, you.

I will pray for you.

---

Cmon, I'm waiting.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

So a few days ago, Vance did a closed-door speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition to try and secure their support for the 2028 presidential race.

One of the areas he empathized is that people under 40, across both sides of the spectrum, do not support Israel. He then discussed strategy to get these young people back on board.

I found this interesting because we are constantly told on here that "our" side is just a small collective with no actual influence.

For such a small sect, it sure sounds like we are a concern to the 2028 front-runner Republican nominee!

---

No one is denying that there is a strain of anti-Israel or outright anti-Semitic sentiment among some younger self-described conservatives. I certainly haven't. The question has never been whether those people exist. The question is whether they're as large and influential as they've convinced themselves they are.

For years, we've heard predictions that the "groypers" were on the verge of taking over the Republican Party, that anti-Israel candidates were going to start upsetting establishment Republicans in primaries, and that figures like Fishback would usher in a political realignment. Instead, they got crushed. The same goes for many of the so-called America First insurgents like Massie and MTG. The movement consistently generates far more noise online than results at the ballot box.

That's what people have been pushing back against. Not the existence of the movement, but the wildly inflated claims about its electoral strength. This election cycle we were told the revolution is right around the corner. Then voters show up and reality looks very different.

So the fact that Vance discussed declining support for Israel among younger voters doesn't prove your movement is ascendant. It proves politicians pay attention to trends. Campaigns analyze every demographic trend they think could matter. Concern is not the same thing as influence, and influence is not the same thing as power.

What's especially ironic is that you're arguing against a position I don't hold. I've long said that Israel exercises too much influence over U.S. foreign policy and that Netanyahu has been a disaster. But recognizing that doesn't require me to believe that the groyper movement is some rising political powerhouse. The election results simply don't support that conclusion.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For all those words, there is not even one verse where Jesus said 'when I don't say something, let the rich men in Rome tell you their interpretation, and count it as if I said it."

I reject any Protestant pastor who adds his opinion to Scripture, and I reject any other sect which does so.

---

Jesus didn't provide us a canon, so how do you decide which books are divinely inspired? If you're only interested in what Jesus said, then I suppose you ignore the rest of the Bible.

---

I'd be very careful with that argument because it's the same principle that has fueled countless heresies.
Joseph Smith could have said, "Jesus didn't give us a canon, so how do you know my additional revelation isn't inspired?" Once you allow doctrines that cannot be grounded in Scripture, you've opened the door to virtually anything.

I'm not denying the biblical canon. I'm saying that if a doctrine is truly from God, it should be demonstrable from the Scriptures God gave us. The moment tradition becomes a substitute for scriptural support, you're on dangerous ground.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Well, she is a mother and her name is Mary. Not sure what's funny?

---

She's not my mother.

---

Oof! John 26:27 "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold, your son!' Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home."

---

Oof indeed! Christ is telling His disciple John to take care of his mother after his passing. He's not telling you, me or anyone else we have a new spiritual mother. Such an interpretation would be pretty tortured (though I know that won't stop the Catholics).

SMH.

---

That verse is widely accepted as establishing a spiritual family in the Catholic and (to a lesser extent) Orthodox traditions, but not among the Protestants. It's not a mistranslation either, the Greek meaning is consistent.

It's a shame you reject your Mother but embrace Bibi as your daddy

---

FIFY.

I would be happy to debate your position, but so far, you've done nothing to support it, other than claiming some faith traditions claim that it means Mary is now our spiritual mother.

But let's take a look at the plain language of the verses, shall we?

First, nobody said it was a mistranslation. The question isn't what the Greek says. The question is what the text actually teaches. And the text says Jesus told John (i.e. the disciple whom Jesus loved) to take care of His mother and told Mary to accept John's care. That's it. It's a private instruction to two specific people standing at the foot of the cross. There is nothing else suggested in the plain language of the text.

Feel free to point to evidence that is not what the text says or means, and that it instead creates some sort of "spiritual family," or was an instruction to ALL Christianity - concepts unmentioned in the text.

Mary is a mortal that was blessed among women. She's not my mama, nor yours for that matter.

As for Bibi, my dad will be surprised to hear it.

---

Speak for yourself. I'm a Christian and she's my spiritual Mother.

Christ tells John, "Behold, your mother", and tells Mary, "Woman, behold your son". John represents all of the disciples. Thus, Jesus is establishing the spiritual family.

Revelation 12:17 "Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspringthose who keep God's commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus."

The offspring of this unnamed woman, are followers of Christ, aka Christians.

Earlier in the chapter, this same woman is mentioned giving birth to Jesus.

Revelation 12:5 "She gave birth to a son, a male child, who "will rule all the nations with an iron scepter."

This woman is Mary, and her children are Christians.

The author of Revelation is believed to be John the Apostle.

---

"John represents all disciples" is not in the text. It's the bridge your argument requires, but simply asserting it doesn't prove it. John 19 says Jesus spoke to Mary and John. It then says John took her into his home. Nothing about that passage tells the reader that John is a stand-in for all future Christians.

Likewise, Revelation 12 is heavily symbolic and has been understood by many Christians as referring to Israel, God's people, or the covenant community, not merely Mary as an individual. Citing a disputed interpretation of Revelation to prove a disputed interpretation of John doesn't really advance the argument.

You're certainly free to believe Mary is your spiritual mother. But that's different from showing that Scripture clearly teaches it. The texts you've certainly don't state as such. The conclusion is theological, not the plain meaning of the passages themselves.

---

You say "the woman" refers to Israel but the text does not say that. That's the bridge your argument requires. Not to mention, the writer, John, already refers to Israel by name in Revelation, yet he never refers to the unnamed woman as Israel.

Jesus could've told John to simply take care of Mary, but he never explicitly said that. He only says "behold, your mother" and "Woman, behold, your son" Jesus is establishing a mother-son relationship.

And John doesn't use his own name, he refers to himself as "The Disciple whom he loved", symbolic for all Christians.

Jesus makes Mary the mother to the disciple.

---

Here is the problem. The text does not say:

• John represents all Christians.
• Mary is the mother of all believers.
• Jesus is establishing a universal spiritual motherhood.

While those are theological conclusions you draw from the passage, they are not actually in the passage.

As for "behold your mother" and "behold your son," of course Jesus is establishing a mother-son relationship between Mary and John. The question is whether He is establishing that relationship only between Mary and John or between Mary and every Christian who will ever live. You are inferring the latter, because it isn't in the text.

And saying John calls himself "the disciple whom Jesus loved" does not show he symbolizes all Christians. It shows he avoids using his own name, something he does throughout the Gospel.

The plain reading is simple: Jesus entrusts His mother to John, and John receives her as his mother. The text then immediately explains the practical result: "from that hour the disciple took her into his own home." That sounds much more like provision and care than the announcement of a new doctrine.

---

You're reading this passage very plainly, but the Bible is full of inferences that require the reader to look beyond the words directly on the page.

The fact that the passage doesn't contain the exact sentence "Mary is the mother of all Christians" doesn't invalidate the conclusion. Scripture frequently teaches truths through symbolism and inference rather than stating every doctrine plainly.

The same goes with your inference that the Woman in Revelation is Israel. It's not plainly stated but you infer that.

John is a writer, in which his writing style deliberately leaves room for a representative theological meaning. He doesn't name himself because he is presenting a model disciple who remains with Christ at the cross, receives Mary as his mother, believes at the empty tomb, and recognizes the risen Christ.

And you need to pay attention, Jesus establishes the relationship but John then acts upon it. Jesus says, "Behold, your mother," and only afterward does John tell us that the disciple took her into his own home. But he doesn't say, "care for my mother". John's action explains what he did with the relationship Jesus established

---

I didn't argue that doctrines can never be based on inference. Of course they can. I asked for evidence that John in this passage represents all Christians and that Mary is therefore the mother of all Christians. You've repeated that conclusion several times, but you haven't actually demonstrated it from the text - nor any text for that matter. Now, you may think your inferences are correct, but simply asserting that Scripture contains symbolism doesn't prove this particular symbolism.

As for Revelation 12, I never claimed my interpretation was self-evident or beyond dispute. The difference is that I acknowledge it as an inference. You keep presenting your conclusion as though it is what the text plainly teaches, when it actually depends on several unstated assumptions.

Most importantly, you still haven't provided any evidentiary support whatsoever for your conclusion that John intended "the disciple whom Jesus loved" to be a representative figure for all Christians. Where does John say that? Where does Jesus say that? Where does any New Testament author say that? The answer? Nowhere.

Without that premise, your entire argument collapses.

---

You won't understand if you're interpreting the Bible from face value. It's not a simple book of instruction, it's a complex work of literature. Many truths aren't plainly stated. If we do that, now many biblical truths that are commonly accepted begin to collapse, including the nature of the Trinity.

And for what it's worth, I have also acknowledged that this John passage is an inference, I just happen to believe it leads to the truth.

But I feel like you're spending more time looking at John than Revelation 12, which I personally believe to be the best biblical evidence here. You believe the passage refers to Israel, but going off of the text alone it seems far more likely to be the mother of Christ.

---

I would submit that the more a doctrine depends on inference, the stronger the textual support needs to be. And there just isn't any textual support for your position in the verses in John. Simply calling it an inference doesn't answer the criticism. Plenty of inferences are wrong. The question is whether the inference is warranted.

With respect to Revelation 12, again, I don't think "the woman gave birth to Christ, therefore the woman is Mary" follows nearly as easily as you're suggesting. The woman is a highly symbolic figure: clothed with the sun, standing on the moon, crowned with twelve stars, giving birth to the Messiah, and having other offspring. That's much different than the description of Mary in previous passages.

And that's really my issue. You keep presenting your interpretation as though it's the obvious reading of the text, when Revelation 12 is one of the most symbolically rich passages in Scripture. I can understand why someone sees Mary in it. What I don't understand is the confidence that the symbol must refer primarily or exclusively to Mary, especially when the text never actually names her.

---

The two most common interpretations are Mary and Israel, you may be surprised that I would submit that it's symbolic of both in a way… but that's a can of worms for a later conversation.

Basically, this woman has to be Mary or Israel, people think she represents Israel because this scene references the Old Testament in which Joseph has a dream depicting similar imagery. My main problem with that is the author of Revelation already references Israel, and he doesn't do it by using a woman. Therefore this woman must be someone else. She's described as giving birth to the messiah, well that can only be one person, Our Lady. She's later described as being a mother to all Christians.

We know our author is a John, but it's debated whether it's John the Apostle or a different John. It would make sense if this wasn't John the Apostle as he would have recognized Mary in these visions.

But even if it is John the Apostle, I don't think it's far fetched for him to use these symbolic representations once again.

---

I think you're making several leaps that the text itself never makes. Even if I grant, for the sake of argument, that Mary is represented in Revelation 12, where does the chapter ever say she is the mother of all Christians? The woman is never called the spiritual mother of believers. She is never called the mother of the Church. Christians are never instructed to regard her as their mother.

That's the problem I keep running into with the Catholic/Orthodox interpretation. While there are things about them I respect, too often the text says one thing, and then a chain of inferences is used to reach a much broader doctrine. The further the doctrine gets from the actual words of the text, the more cautious I become. That's why I remain Protestant. I prefer to anchor doctrine in what Scripture actually teaches rather than in conclusions that require multiple interpretive leaps.

---

The last sentence of the chapter: "Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God's commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus."

Her offspring are those who keeps Gods commands and believe in Jesus. Those are Christians.

This isn't a leap and it's clear biblical phrasing. Regardless of who the woman is, these off-spring are undoubtedly Christians, and nearly every major denomination agrees.

---

Again, the leap occurs when you move from "the woman's offspring are Christians" to "therefore the woman is the spiritual mother of all Christians and should be regarded as such."

Revelation 12:17 says the woman has offspring who keep God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus. It does not say those believers should view her as their mother, pray to her, venerate her, or derive any doctrine of Mary's universal spiritual motherhood from the passage.

In other words, you're taking a descriptive statement and turning it into a much broader theological doctrine. That's exactly the sort of interpretive leap I'm talking about. The text says Christians are her offspring. It never says what you need it to say for the Catholic or Orthodox doctrine to follow

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

So a few days ago, Vance did a closed-door speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition to try and secure their support for the 2028 presidential race.

One of the areas he empathized is that people under 40, across both sides of the spectrum, do not support Israel. He then discussed strategy to get these young people back on board.

I found this interesting because we are constantly told on here that "our" side is just a small collective with no actual influence.

For such a small sect, it sure sounds like we are a concern to the 2028 front-runner Republican nominee!

---

No one is denying that there is a strain of anti-Israel or outright anti-Semitic sentiment among some younger self-described conservatives. I certainly haven't. The question has never been whether those people exist. The question is whether they're as large and influential as they've convinced themselves they are.

For years, we've heard predictions that the "groypers" were on the verge of taking over the Republican Party, that anti-Israel candidates were going to start upsetting establishment Republicans in primaries, and that figures like Fishback would usher in a political realignment. Instead, they got crushed. The same goes for many of the so-called America First insurgents like Massie and MTG. The movement consistently generates far more noise online than results at the ballot box.

That's what people have been pushing back against. Not the existence of the movement, but the wildly inflated claims about its electoral strength. This election cycle we were told the revolution is right around the corner. Then voters show up and reality looks very different.

So the fact that Vance discussed declining support for Israel among younger voters doesn't prove your movement is ascendant. It proves politicians pay attention to trends. Campaigns analyze every demographic trend they think could matter. Concern is not the same thing as influence, and influence is not the same thing as power.

What's especially ironic is that you're arguing against a position I don't hold. I've long said that Israel exercises too much influence over U.S. foreign policy and that Netanyahu has been a disaster. But recognizing that doesn't require me to believe that the groyper movement is some rising political powerhouse. The election results simply don't support that conclusion.

---

The DSA was established in the 80s but it wasn't until 2016 that they finally had a real break-through, via Bernie Sanders. Fast forward 10 years to now and you're seeing socialist candidates win elections all across the country. The left of center or "old guard" democrats have ultimately lost control of their party.

Now, Trump had about total control of the Right in 2024, Gen Z thru Baby Boomer generations supported him, as well as all the major "conservative" podcasters such as Kirk, Tucker, Candace, Meghan Kelly, the Daily Wire Crowd, etc. The only somewhat major dissenter I know of was Fuentes.

2025 was the break through of the whole anti-Zionist movement. And I would say the main proponent was the start of this Iranian war. Suddenly a "civil-war" develops within the Republican Party over the issue and you can see support of Israel drop off around dramatically with the 40 & under crowd.

James Fishback wasn't a total loss, he made up about 10% of the Republican vote in Boomer dominated Florida, running against Trump endorsed Byron Donald's who had a war chest of roughly $100 million, compared to Fishbacks mere ~$900 thousand. Despite this he had 60-80% of the vote across college campuses, which makes sense since the majority of his campaign was on social media.

If Groypers are the equivalent of the Left's DSA, we are still in the infant stages of the movement, but trending up in a major way since 2024. JD Vance talking about this with his donors is a good sign of the way things will be trending thru the next few election cycles.

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For all those words, there is not even one verse where Jesus said 'when I don't say something, let the rich men in Rome tell you their interpretation, and count it as if I said it."

I reject any Protestant pastor who adds his opinion to Scripture, and I reject any other sect which does so.

---

Jesus didn't provide us a canon, so how do you decide which books are divinely inspired? If you're only interested in what Jesus said, then I suppose you ignore the rest of the Bible.

---

I'd be very careful with that argument because it's the same principle that has fueled countless heresies.
Joseph Smith could have said, "Jesus didn't give us a canon, so how do you know my additional revelation isn't inspired?" Once you allow doctrines that cannot be grounded in Scripture, you've opened the door to virtually anything.

I'm not denying the biblical canon. I'm saying that if a doctrine is truly from God, it should be demonstrable from the Scriptures God gave us. The moment tradition becomes a substitute for scriptural support, you're on dangerous ground.

---

It may be an uncomfortable topic, but it's an important question, and I believe it dismantles this extremely plain biblical interpretation that some people here have.

Perhaps this doesn't apply to you, but we have some people on here who act as if all Biblical truths are plainly stated and don't require any sort of interpretation or analysis. I don't know what Baylor's curriculum was like 30 years ago, but the required Christian Scriptures course goes over strategies to accurately interpret the Bible. If the Bible was so simple as some people make it out to be, this course wouldn't be mandated at our Christian University.

The DSA has existed for decades, had a surge of attention after Bernie's 2016 campaign, and has won some local and state-level races. Yet the Democratic Party is still overwhelmingly led by mainstream Democrats, not democratic socialists. Winning city council or mayoral races is a far cry from "taking over a party," IMO.

The same is true here. Having influence on social media, performing well on a few college campuses, or attracting younger activists does not demonstrate a path to controlling the Republican Party. National elections are won by broad coalitions, and the electorate looks very different from X, Telegram, podcasts, and college campuses.

And of course, as pointed out in my previous post, recent Republican primaries have shown the opposite of what you're predicting. When groyper-aligned or strongly anti-Israel candidates have challenged establishment-backed Republicans, they've lost every single time, in most cases, badly. The movement consistently generates more attention online than votes at the ballot box. That's why I'd be cautious about confusing a trend with a takeover.

Never in the Bible is anyone commanded by God to pray to anyone but God. When Jesus taught His followers to pray, He began with, "Our Father who art in heaven…". It does not get much more explicit ard unambiguous. Even in the OT, there are plenty of verses about praying to God and nowhere ard we told to pray to anyone else. Again, it explicitly condemns any form of worship of false gods.

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Well, she is a mother and her name is Mary. Not sure what's funny?

---

She's not my mother.

---

Oof! John 26:27 "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold, your son!' Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home."

---

Oof indeed! Christ is telling His disciple John to take care of his mother after his passing. He's not telling you, me or anyone else we have a new spiritual mother. Such an interpretation would be pretty tortured (though I know that won't stop the Catholics).

SMH.

---

That verse is widely accepted as establishing a spiritual family in the Catholic and (to a lesser extent) Orthodox traditions, but not among the Protestants. It's not a mistranslation either, the Greek meaning is consistent.

It's a shame you reject your Mother but embrace Bibi as your daddy

---

FIFY.

I would be happy to debate your position, but so far, you've done nothing to support it, other than claiming some faith traditions claim that it means Mary is now our spiritual mother.

But let's take a look at the plain language of the verses, shall we?

First, nobody said it was a mistranslation. The question isn't what the Greek says. The question is what the text actually teaches. And the text says Jesus told John (i.e. the disciple whom Jesus loved) to take care of His mother and told Mary to accept John's care. That's it. It's a private instruction to two specific people standing at the foot of the cross. There is nothing else suggested in the plain language of the text.

Feel free to point to evidence that is not what the text says or means, and that it instead creates some sort of "spiritual family," or was an instruction to ALL Christianity - concepts unmentioned in the text.

Mary is a mortal that was blessed among women. She's not my mama, nor yours for that matter.

As for Bibi, my dad will be surprised to hear it.

---

Speak for yourself. I'm a Christian and she's my spiritual Mother.

Christ tells John, "Behold, your mother", and tells Mary, "Woman, behold your son". John represents all of the disciples. Thus, Jesus is establishing the spiritual family.

Revelation 12:17 "Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspringthose who keep God's commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus."

The offspring of this unnamed woman, are followers of Christ, aka Christians.

Earlier in the chapter, this same woman is mentioned giving birth to Jesus.

Revelation 12:5 "She gave birth to a son, a male child, who "will rule all the nations with an iron scepter."

This woman is Mary, and her children are Christians.

The author of Revelation is believed to be John the Apostle.

---

"John represents all disciples" is not in the text. It's the bridge your argument requires, but simply asserting it doesn't prove it. John 19 says Jesus spoke to Mary and John. It then says John took her into his home. Nothing about that passage tells the reader that John is a stand-in for all future Christians.

Likewise, Revelation 12 is heavily symbolic and has been understood by many Christians as referring to Israel, God's people, or the covenant community, not merely Mary as an individual. Citing a disputed interpretation of Revelation to prove a disputed interpretation of John doesn't really advance the argument.

You're certainly free to believe Mary is your spiritual mother. But that's different from showing that Scripture clearly teaches it. The texts you've certainly don't state as such. The conclusion is theological, not the plain meaning of the passages themselves.

---

You say "the woman" refers to Israel but the text does not say that. That's the bridge your argument requires. Not to mention, the writer, John, already refers to Israel by name in Revelation, yet he never refers to the unnamed woman as Israel.

Jesus could've told John to simply take care of Mary, but he never explicitly said that. He only says "behold, your mother" and "Woman, behold, your son" Jesus is establishing a mother-son relationship.

And John doesn't use his own name, he refers to himself as "The Disciple whom he loved", symbolic for all Christians.

Jesus makes Mary the mother to the disciple.

---

Here is the problem. The text does not say:

• John represents all Christians.
• Mary is the mother of all believers.
• Jesus is establishing a universal spiritual motherhood.

While those are theological conclusions you draw from the passage, they are not actually in the passage.

As for "behold your mother" and "behold your son," of course Jesus is establishing a mother-son relationship between Mary and John. The question is whether He is establishing that relationship only between Mary and John or between Mary and every Christian who will ever live. You are inferring the latter, because it isn't in the text.

And saying John calls himself "the disciple whom Jesus loved" does not show he symbolizes all Christians. It shows he avoids using his own name, something he does throughout the Gospel.

The plain reading is simple: Jesus entrusts His mother to John, and John receives her as his mother. The text then immediately explains the practical result: "from that hour the disciple took her into his own home." That sounds much more like provision and care than the announcement of a new doctrine.

---

You're reading this passage very plainly, but the Bible is full of inferences that require the reader to look beyond the words directly on the page.

The fact that the passage doesn't contain the exact sentence "Mary is the mother of all Christians" doesn't invalidate the conclusion. Scripture frequently teaches truths through symbolism and inference rather than stating every doctrine plainly.

The same goes with your inference that the Woman in Revelation is Israel. It's not plainly stated but you infer that.

John is a writer, in which his writing style deliberately leaves room for a representative theological meaning. He doesn't name himself because he is presenting a model disciple who remains with Christ at the cross, receives Mary as his mother, believes at the empty tomb, and recognizes the risen Christ.

And you need to pay attention, Jesus establishes the relationship but John then acts upon it. Jesus says, "Behold, your mother," and only afterward does John tell us that the disciple took her into his own home. But he doesn't say, "care for my mother". John's action explains what he did with the relationship Jesus established

---

I didn't argue that doctrines can never be based on inference. Of course they can. I asked for evidence that John in this passage represents all Christians and that Mary is therefore the mother of all Christians. You've repeated that conclusion several times, but you haven't actually demonstrated it from the text - nor any text for that matter. Now, you may think your inferences are correct, but simply asserting that Scripture contains symbolism doesn't prove this particular symbolism.

As for Revelation 12, I never claimed my interpretation was self-evident or beyond dispute. The difference is that I acknowledge it as an inference. You keep presenting your conclusion as though it is what the text plainly teaches, when it actually depends on several unstated assumptions.

Most importantly, you still haven't provided any evidentiary support whatsoever for your conclusion that John intended "the disciple whom Jesus loved" to be a representative figure for all Christians. Where does John say that? Where does Jesus say that? Where does any New Testament author say that? The answer? Nowhere.

Without that premise, your entire argument collapses.

---

You won't understand if you're interpreting the Bible from face value. It's not a simple book of instruction, it's a complex work of literature. Many truths aren't plainly stated. If we do that, now many biblical truths that are commonly accepted begin to collapse, including the nature of the Trinity.

And for what it's worth, I have also acknowledged that this John passage is an inference, I just happen to believe it leads to the truth.

But I feel like you're spending more time looking at John than Revelation 12, which I personally believe to be the best biblical evidence here. You believe the passage refers to Israel, but going off of the text alone it seems far more likely to be the mother of Christ.

---

I would submit that the more a doctrine depends on inference, the stronger the textual support needs to be. And there just isn't any textual support for your position in the verses in John. Simply calling it an inference doesn't answer the criticism. Plenty of inferences are wrong. The question is whether the inference is warranted.

With respect to Revelation 12, again, I don't think "the woman gave birth to Christ, therefore the woman is Mary" follows nearly as easily as you're suggesting. The woman is a highly symbolic figure: clothed with the sun, standing on the moon, crowned with twelve stars, giving birth to the Messiah, and having other offspring. That's much different than the description of Mary in previous passages.

And that's really my issue. You keep presenting your interpretation as though it's the obvious reading of the text, when Revelation 12 is one of the most symbolically rich passages in Scripture. I can understand why someone sees Mary in it. What I don't understand is the confidence that the symbol must refer primarily or exclusively to Mary, especially when the text never actually names her.

---

The two most common interpretations are Mary and Israel, you may be surprised that I would submit that it's symbolic of both in a way… but that's a can of worms for a later conversation.

Basically, this woman has to be Mary or Israel, people think she represents Israel because this scene references the Old Testament in which Joseph has a dream depicting similar imagery. My main problem with that is the author of Revelation already references Israel, and he doesn't do it by using a woman. Therefore this woman must be someone else. She's described as giving birth to the messiah, well that can only be one person, Our Lady. She's later described as being a mother to all Christians.

We know our author is a John, but it's debated whether it's John the Apostle or a different John. It would make sense if this wasn't John the Apostle as he would have recognized Mary in these visions.

But even if it is John the Apostle, I don't think it's far fetched for him to use these symbolic representations once again.

---

I think you're making several leaps that the text itself never makes. Even if I grant, for the sake of argument, that Mary is represented in Revelation 12, where does the chapter ever say she is the mother of all Christians? The woman is never called the spiritual mother of believers. She is never called the mother of the Church. Christians are never instructed to regard her as their mother.

That's the problem I keep running into with the Catholic/Orthodox interpretation. While there are things about them I respect, too often the text says one thing, and then a chain of inferences is used to reach a much broader doctrine. The further the doctrine gets from the actual words of the text, the more cautious I become. That's why I remain Protestant. I prefer to anchor doctrine in what Scripture actually teaches rather than in conclusions that require multiple interpretive leaps.

---

The last sentence of the chapter: "Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God's commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus."

Her offspring are those who keeps Gods commands and believe in Jesus. Those are Christians.

This isn't a leap and it's clear biblical phrasing. Regardless of who the woman is, these off-spring are undoubtedly Christians, and nearly every major denomination agrees.

---

Again, the leap occurs when you move from "the woman's offspring are Christians" to "therefore the woman is the spiritual mother of all Christians and should be regarded as such."

Revelation 12:17 says the woman has offspring who keep God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus. It does not say those believers should view her as their mother, pray to her, venerate her, or derive any doctrine of Mary's universal spiritual motherhood from the passage.

In other words, you're taking a descriptive statement and turning it into a much broader theological doctrine. That's exactly the sort of interpretive leap I'm talking about. The text says Christians are her offspring. It never says what you need it to say for the Catholic or Orthodox doctrine to follow

---

The question of whether believers should choose to venerate her wasn't part of the original discussion. It was if scripture supports her being a "mother" of Christians.

And the Catholic Church makes a clear distinction between worship and veneration. Worship is reserved for God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

If it wasn't clear in my posts, I was discussing trend more so than takeover. Hence the reason I mentioned it took 30 years for the DSA to gain actual influence in the overall Democratic Party.

From the very beginning of this thread, the issue wasn't merely whether Scripture contains imagery that could be connected to Mary. The question was whether Mary should be regarded as the spiritual mother of Christians and treated as such. That is what led to the discussion about calling her "mother" in the first place.

So I have to respectfully disagree that the discussion has been as narrow as you're now framing it. Even if someone argues that Mary is represented in Revelation 12, that alone does not establish that Christians are to regard her as their spiritual mother, invoke her maternal role, or give her a unique place in the life of the Church.

And regarding worship versus veneration, I understand the distinction Catholics make. My point has never been that Catholics claim to worship Mary. My point is that the biblical basis for assigning Mary the title and role of spiritual mother of all Christians remains unproven. The conclusion depends on theological inferences that Scripture itself never explicitly states

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

If it wasn't clear in my posts, I was discussing trend more so than takeover. Hence the reason I mentioned it took 30 years for the DSA to gain actual influence in the overall Democratic Party.

---

I was responding more to your claim that the center-left, or "old guard," Democrats have lost control of the party to the DSA. I don't think that's an accurate characterization, and for that reason I don't see the DSA as a good predictor of what will happen with the current crop of groyper candidates. Influence and control aren't the same thing, and I don't think the DSA currently controls the Democratic Party.

Good point. Despite all appearances the most they have won so far are mayoral races in far a left wing cities and Dem primaries in the bluest states. People like to talk about them taking over the party but it's not a fait accompli yet.

Mothra said:

---

The DSA has existed for decades, had a surge of attention after Bernie's 2016 campaign, and has won some local and state-level races. Yet the Democratic Party is still overwhelmingly led by mainstream Democrats, not democratic socialists. Winning city council or mayoral races is a far cry from "taking over a party," IMO.

The same is true here. Having influence on social media, performing well on a few college campuses, or attracting younger activists does not demonstrate a path to controlling the Republican Party. National elections are won by broad coalitions, and the electorate looks very different from X, Telegram, podcasts, and college campuses.

And of course, as pointed out in my previous post, recent Republican primaries have shown the opposite of what you're predicting. When groyper-aligned or strongly anti-Israel candidates have challenged establishment-backed Republicans, they've lost every single time, in most cases, badly. The movement consistently generates more attention online than votes at the ballot box. That's why I'd be cautious about confusing a trend with a takeover.

---

Recent primaries - where I'll conveniently leave out that jews spent record breaking amounts of money in Massie's congressional race to replace him with a Boomer who can barely string a sentence together.

I cant wait for the dopamine hit I'll receive in a couple of months watching Mothra's Israel-First Republican party getting curb stomped by the dems... you delusional old men cant win a general election without America First conservatives.

More Israel First legislation that suppresses the freedom and liberty of actual Americans from the Republicans... can anyone name a single thing they've done that actually benefits Americans over the last two years?

US House passes legislation that blocks federal aid for colleges and universities if they engage in discriminatory commercial or academic boycotts against Israel in 237-169 vote.

33 House Democrats voted in favor, 2 House Republicans voted against. pic.twitter.com/a5cSCKCTRI

— Politics & Poll Tracker 📡 (@PollTracker2024) September 3, 2026

House passes legislation to block federal aid for colleges that boycott Israel.

Notably, most of the legislation passed by Republicans during the legislative gridlock has been to support Israel or Jews.

The GOP refuses to take action against anti-White policies.

Follow:… pic.twitter.com/JjO3oiQkid

— AF Post (@AFpost) September 3, 2026