Catholic Heresy (for the record)

Jeff_56 · Mar 31, 2015

nightmare, far worse than ste.king. those who don't wake up in time to be saved from the heresy

are terrified already and even more on judgment day as they are cast out because they rejected God in their life (now, today, as we post and following days if any more days permitted by yahweh) -
they willfully reject the one true God Who could save them in and by and through Jesus Christ (who they do indeed claim with their lips but deny with
their whole lives (as long as they trust men/rcc/heresy).

fordman · Mar 31, 2015

valiant said:

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]Firstoff I have to ask.... By what authority do come to these conclusionsand interpretations? My guess is you'll respond by saying the HolySpirit. If that is the case, can you assure that yourinterpretations/conclusions are absolute and without error? I wouldbe willing to say if I asked ten different non-Catholics to interpretthe same Scripture, I'd get ten different versions, all supposedlyinspired by the Holy Spirit.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]Nowwith that being said, t[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]hemain problem with your argu[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]ment[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif],is that it totally misses the main point of what the woman “does”in Revelation 12. In Rev. 12:2, the ‘woman’ is one that givesbirth to the child. In v. 5, the ‘woman’ again is referred to asone who brings forth a male child who will rule. Now, who does theBible say is the woman who brings forth a male child? In Isaiah 7:14,there is a prophecy of a virgin (or as the RSV says, a young ‘woman’)who will give birth to a child. That of course is a prophecy on thevirginity of the woman. The woman happens to be Mary, not Israel. InMatthew 1:25-2:1 and Luke 2:5, we see that it is Mary that givesbirth to the Son. A look at the Scriptures, both New and OldTestament will not find a single reference to Israel either being a‘woman’, or giving birth to the Messiah. Genesis 37 saysabsolutely nothing about Israel giving birth to a Messiah. Thus, themain feature of the woman in Revelation 12, giving birth to theMessiah, has no relevance to Israel, and its feature as 'woman' isnowhere to be found in the New or Old Testament. Almost allProtestants that I have know,acknowledge that the Son in this pictureis Jesus.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nowas far as your mention sun, moon and stars goes, this totallyignores the idea that the woman gives birth to the son Jesus. Besidesthe fact that it is a ‘woman’ that is identified, and not thesun, moon, and stars themselves. The Sun, moon and stars indeedallude to Israel, but the woman is not the sun, moon, and starsherself. The woman is ‘clothed’ with the Sun, moon and stars. Asthe ‘woman’ she [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]givesbirth to the son,[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]so it is Mary. There is no indication in Scripture anywhere that theNation Israel gives birth to the Son who is the messiah, the centralidentification of Revelation 12.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]Yes,Christ's true Church. Which brings up a question I've been meaning toask you. Do you consider yourself to be Protestant? If so, which ofthe thousands of differnt Protestant denominations do you belong?[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, serif]

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]Oh...Ibelieve I am proving otherwise. :[/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif])[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, serif]

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]Once[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]again,lets focus on the passage Rev.12:2 that you refer to, to prove thatMary could not be the ‘Woman‘. "she was with child and [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]shecried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery." [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Now if you remember, I have shown in our earlier look at Revelation12, it excludes Israel from being the ‘woman'. Nonetheless, it istrue that for a Catholic, we do have to deal with fact that there areindeed labor pains. There is a author, John McHugh, who sees Mary asnot the primary ‘Woman’ of Revelation 12, but still sees her asthe woman in a secondary manner. He sees the Church as the primary‘woman.’ He notes the passage where she cries out in anguish,that is used by Protestants to say it couldn‘t be Mary.
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]"The woman, we read was ‘in anguish for delivery’ (Revised StandardVersion). The Greek verb here translated ‘in anguish for delivery’(Revised Standard Version). The Greek verb here translated ‘inanguish’ [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]isnever once used in the Septuagint, the New Testament, the apocrypha,the papyri or the Fathers to denote the pains of physical birth;[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]and this is all the more remarkable when one remembers the scene of apainful birth is alluded to in these writings. The word can perhapsbest be rendered as ‘going through torment or torture’, and it istherefore a very surprising verb to encounter when one recalls theradiant description of the woman in 12:1." (John McHugh, [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]TheMother of Jesus in the New Testament[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif],Doubleday & Company, Inc. Garden City, NY, 1975, p.411.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Thus,this passage does not show that the woman is experiencing physicallabor pains, and if the author had wanted to say that, he would haveused such language. Instead, it seems as though John is speaking of adouble birth. Now, at Calvary, where Mary was there whereas all theapostles (except John) fled Jesus, she went into untold to sufferingwhile she watched Jesus get tortured, and hung on the cross.Remember, Jesus said ‘Woman’ to Mary, in Jn. 19:26. Mary isundergoing suffering at that point. Thus, there is a double birthpointed to in Revelation 12:2. The pain she is suffering here, is notindicating she was suffering pain in birth, but the suffering atseeing her son’s pain and suffering on Calvary. This willeventually point to his resurrection and ascencion into heaven (Rev.12:5).[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]Hmmmmm....I think you should take a look at Micah 5:2. "[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Thereforethe Lord will give them up, until the time when she who is to givebirth has borne,Then the rest of his kindred shall return to thechildren of Israel." You should pay close attention to whereit says, 'She who is to give birth': The mother of the Messiah. Thesewords are sometimes understood as a reference to Isaiah’s Emmanueloracle, given some thirty years earlier (Is.7:14). The Gospel ofMatthew reports that the chief priests and scribes cite this passageas the ancient promise of a messiah in the line of David to be bornin Bethlehem. (Mt.2:5-6)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]

[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Ibelieve that the Church is the fulfillment of Israel. As Paul says inGal. 6:16, the Church is the Israel of God. I also recommend you readEph. 2 and 3.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]

[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Youare completely ignoring the main part of who the ‘woman’ is, isthe part that gives birth to the son (v. 2). Who is the Son? The Son,who she does give birth to in v. 5, is one who rules the earth, witha rod of iron. This is a clear reference to Psalm 2. In Psalm 2, Godsays, v. 7, [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]“Youare my son, today I have begotten you.” [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Inthe New Testament, this is applied to Jesus (Heb. 1:5, for example).In Psalm 2:9 it says that this Son will [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]"rulethem (or break) them with a rod of iron."[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]In Revelation 19:13-15, this phrase of ruling with a rod of iron isspecifically applied to ‘the Word of God’.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]cont.[/FONT]

[/FONT]

fordman · Mar 31, 2015

valiant said:

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]

cont.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]Herod wanted to destroy allthe children, for the purpose of destroying the one who would be theMessiah (Mt. 2:16-17). She fled with Joseph to escape the wrath ofKing Herod based on the angel telling Joseph through a dream. Thus,actually there was something in Mary’s life that matches Revelation12. In Revelation 12, the dragon, or Satan, tried to destroy thechild Jesus when he became born (Rev. 12:2-5). They fled and stayedin Egypt (or the wilderness) until King Herod died and it became safeto return back to Israel. This matches the happenings as found inMatthew. As far as Egypt hardly a desert.... you better study a bitmore on geography, for Egypt has two deserts, the Eastern and theWestern. The Western which is the biggest that is part of the Sahara. Geezzz dude.... (rolling eyes)[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, serif]

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]No,I don't believe you have.!!! [/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]Before[/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]I[/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]approach the task of identifying [/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]toyou [/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]whothis woman of Gen.3:15 [/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]truly[/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]is,let us look at the similarities between Gen. 3, which speaks of a‘woman’, and Revelation 12, which also speaks of a ‘woman’.When speaking of Rev. 12, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]oneshould consider[/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]these important insights: [/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]Thebeginning of the passage echoes the prophecy of Is. 7:14 taken up byMicah 5:1-2. As the [/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]almah[/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]of Isaiah, the woman of the Apocalypse is a sign ([/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]semeion[/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]).But here she appears in her triumph; the moon “under her feet”seems to indicate that she is raised above the vicissitude of whichthis constantly changing planet is the symbol. As with Mary in Jn19:25-27 this heavenly personage is repeatedly designated by the word‘woman’ ([/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]Rev.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]12:1, 4, 12, 13-17). As with Mary, who is taken to be the Mother ofChrist, and mother of the disciples of Christ, who are called “therest of her children” ([/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]Rev.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]12-17). This last term is an echo of G[/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]e[/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]n.3:14-15, where also the serpent ([/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]Rev.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]12:9 and 14) is at war against “the woman” and “herdescendants”. Gen. 3:14-15.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, serif]1.God said to [/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]theserpent[/FONT][FONT=Arial, serif]...[/FONT]Revelation.12:9 The great dragon, the primevalserpent known as the devil orSatan... Genesis 3:15.

2. I willmake you enemies of each other: you and the woman... Rev.12:13-14 sprang in pursuit of the woman ... but she was given a hugepair of eagle’s wings to fly away from the serpent into thedesert. Genesis 3:15

3. youroffspring and her offspring.Revelation 12:17 The dragon was enraged with the woman and went awayto make war on the rest of herchildren, (or offspring) that is,all who obey God’s commandments and bear witness for Jesus.

[FONT=Arial, serif]Anotherparallel between Genesis 3 and Revelation 12: [/FONT]Gen.3:15 he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel. Rev.12:5, 11. The seed of the woman, who happens to be Jesus, ascendsinto heaven, and the Devil is defeated, and it is by his blood(called the blood of the Lamb) through which he crushes the dragon.

The parallels are obvious. First, the devil is spoken of in bothRevelation and Genesis.
The devil is intricately involved inboth of these passages at war with both the Son and woman. Some tryto refer us to Genesis 37, in reference to the moon and stars andsuch, but there are no such parallels to Revelation 12, found inGenesis 37. The devil is at war both with the woman of Genesis 3:15,and the woman in Revelation 12, who bore a Son, who will bevictorious in both passages. The devil will be defeated as bothprophesied in Genesis 3, and fulfilled in Revelation 12. In thisvictory, The ‘woman’ is at the center of both passages. Thiswoman in both instances are mothers. Since Genesis 3 and Revelation12 is undoubtedly linked, and the person of the woman, is a centralfigure in both passages, the identity of the woman of Genesis 3 isabsolutely important. Now, since Christians identify the seed of the‘woman’ in Genesis 3:15 as Jesus, it is important to see who thiswoman is. It is obvious that if this (Genesis 3:15) is a prophecyabout Jesus, and this is called the ‘protoevangelium’, the onewhose seed Jesus came from was his Mother Mary. If that is the case,the ‘woman’ spoken of who will be at war with the Devil, would beMary. This fits again the Revelation 12 where the woman is at warwith the devil. In your analysis of Genesis 3 and Revelation 12, youignore this obvious parallel.
Now as forJer.31:22, no satisfactory explanation has been given for this text.Jerome, for example, saw the image as a reference to the infant Jesusenclosed in Mary’s womb. Since Jeremiah often uses marital imageryin his description of a restored Israel, the phrase may refer to awedding custom, perhaps women circling the groom in a dance. It mayalso be a metaphor describing the security of a new Israel, asecurity so complete that it defies the imagination and must beexpressed as hyperbolic role reversal: any danger will be soinsignificant that women can protect their men.
[FONT=Arial, serif]

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, serif]Lol!!! I think not ol' timer Lol!![/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, serif]PaxChristi[/FONT]

“[FONT=Arial, serif]Fromhenceforth, all generations shall call me Blessed.” ----Luke 1:48[/FONT]

KenAllan · Mar 31, 2015

If you look carefully at Matthew 5:22 it talks about our Brothers in Christ. Catholics are not our Brothers in Christ because they teach a different Gospel then the one we have received from the Holy Spirit.

Galatians 1:6-9
[SUP]6 [/SUP] I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—
[SUP]7 [/SUP] not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
[SUP]8 [/SUP] But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
[SUP]9 [/SUP] As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

How can the Catholics be our Brothers in Christ when they teach that there are Truth's outside of the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures?

John 16:13
[SUP]13 [/SUP] However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak

1 John 2:20-21
[SUP]20 [/SUP] But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.
[SUP]21 [/SUP] I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

John 6:45
[SUP]45 [/SUP] It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

1 John 2:27
[SUP]27 [/SUP] But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.

Its by the Holy Spirit with the Scriptures He wrote that we are taught the Truth from God! God does NOT say we are taught Truths from the corrupted Catholic Church! We are taught the Truth from the Holy Spirit who IS God!

1 Corinthians 2:14
[SUP]14 [/SUP] But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The Catholics are the natural men who cannot receive the Truth from the Holy Spirit because they do not have the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit!

1 Corinthians 2:9-13 (NKJV)
[SUP]9 [/SUP] But as it is written: "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him."
[SUP]10 [/SUP] But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.
[SUP]11 [/SUP] For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.
[SUP]12 [/SUP] Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
[SUP]13 [/SUP] These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
We do not speak in words of the wisdom of men, like the corrupted Catholics do, we speak in Wisdom of the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures He has given to us!

This is why Catholics are not our Brothers in Christ! This is why we CAN judge what the corrupted Catholics teach!

Like Peter said in Acts 2:38.

Acts 2:38
[SUP]38 [/SUP] And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

All you Catholics need to REPENT first and then be Baptized! Accept Jesus Christ as your ONLY Lord and Savior! Reject Mary, toss her aside! Then you WILL receive the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit AND He will teach you ALL the Truths in the Scriptures!

fordman · Mar 31, 2015

KenAllan said:

All this post proves is your bigotry, and using Scripture to do so no less! Wow!!! If I were a non-Catholic, I'd surely distant myself from you.

You mean to join of the ranks like you????? No Thanks.... I'll have no part of what your having!!!! You are far from being Christ like!

Pax Christi

"from henceforth, all generations shall call me Blessed." ----- Luke 1:48

When was the last time you did this as Scripture says????

valiant · Mar 31, 2015

fordman said:

Certainly not by slavishly following the perversity of mother church lol. We do not need authority. Especially not one that has distorted the Scripture over the last 1300 years. Rather I consider the words in the light of Scripture, as God intended me to, take into account context, and in this case come to a conclusion which is undoubtedly right.

you couldn't even get that right LOL

In this case yes. Which is more than you can say about the perversions of your church.

Well I doubt that. But in view of the nature of the narrative and the background of the interpreters I would expect some divergence. Probably a choice between two. But at least they won't distort it like your church does. They will consider it in the light of Scripture (your Achilles heel).

You mean that she flees into the wilderness and produces offspring? How can that possibly be said of Mary (by any intelligent interpreter)? But it was certainly true of Israel. Indeed is a clinching argument.

Yes she does that too. The Messiah was to spring from Israel.

Well Sara for one. Then Rebecca. Then Rachel and Leah. And so we could go on. Every man born was brought forth by a woman. It is a fairly regular phenomenon lol

Wow, is there? And to think I never noticed lol. Try to use your intelligence. We all know that a virgin was prophesised who would produce the Coming King. But Israel was also to produce the coming king. We therefore have to take into account all the facts to decide which one is being spoken of. And in Rev 12 John has made clear from Scripture that it is Israel who produces the Messiah. And this is confirmed by the fact that it was Israel who produced offspring as she went forth with the Gospel. Mary doesn't get a look in.

But there is no mention of virginity in Rev 12. And the mention of 'a woman' could depict a million and more people. There is no reason for connecting Is 7.14 specifically with Rev 12 except for her connection with the Messiah. And that is equally true of Israel. You come with a biased mind. At least I have no reason for bias. I consider it dispassionately. No one has told me what to believe!!!

No one is suggesting that Mary did not give birth to a son. But the picture in Rev 12 is VERY different and it has to be a woman who produces offspring. According to the distorted doctrine of your church Mary does not produce any more offspring. Thus she can be counted out for one.

Well it is certainly Bethlehem from whom is to 'come forth He Who will be ruler in Israel' (Mic 5.2), and Bethlehem is a city of Israel. (Whereas Is 7.14 says NOTHING about a ruler). And she is described as the one who will be in travail and will bring forth (Mic 5.3) and cause many to return to the people of Israel (she will produce offspring - Mic 5.3).

Israel is certainly depicted as a woman bearing children in Hosea 1-3, and as a mother, and as a woman betrothed to YHWH, and as being restored and consequently producing 'David their king'.

And these are just two quick examples. Israel is often depicted as a woman, a virgin, a wife, etc. So you are clearly wrong.

Actually neither does Isaiah 7.14 speak of the woman as giving birth to the Messiah. Her offspring is called Immanuel, 'God is with us'. In those days no one saw it as speaking of the Son of God. And the concept of the Messiah had not yet come into being.

I have just shown differently. And the emphasis in Rev 12 is not on the woman producing the Messiah. The Messiah is not mentioned. It is on a man child who is to be snatched up to Heaven. This fits adequately with the picture of the woman as Israel. In Daniel 7.13-14 the Son of Man is snatched up to Heaven out of Israel.

Which I have shown is false.

Of course it is Jesus. No one is questioning that. It is Jesus being brought forth from Israel, an Israel which then goes forth and produces offspring.

I would have said the opposite. We could see it as creation giving birth to the Messiah. But that John meant Israel comes out in the connecting link with Gen 37. Mary is never connected with the sun, moon and stars. She is depicted as just a lowly Israelite peasant girl.

well the sun, moon and stars would hardly have given birth to a manchild. But the woman is clothed with 'the sun' (Jacob/Israel), has twelve stars on her head (her sons, the sons of Israel), and the moon (Jacob's wife) under her feet because she as Israel is predominant. The picture could not be clearer.

Good we have got that settled.

Which demonstrates that she is Israel as a whole.

There is absolutely no reason in a book of signs and symbols that this should be so. You only see it that way because of your church's false teaching.

I have shown you otherwise and without doing much research. I have no doubt I could find a lot more proof if looked. but your case is lost to the mind of any sensible person who is not RC.

well its getting late. more later.

mikeuk · Apr 1, 2015

valiant said:

Here is what Luther had to say... who was the origin of the "lutherans"

"Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous"

He also said that "every milkmaid was not making up their own doctrine" and there were "as many doctrines as heads" which is the deplorable state of protestantism today. Thousands upon thousands of doctrines because every "valiant" (surely not a milkmaid!?) makes up his own!

Believe what you will. But the church fathers were unanimous. Not one said symbol that I ( or luther!) was aware of! The differences in doctrine are on mechanism not presence, the eastern rite simply leave it as a mystery how bread becomes the body really present, they simply decline to speculate.

All changed at the reformation and since, many have even forgotten what it was the reformers objected to! so put words into luthers mouth.
In later life he despaired of the monster he created and LITERALLY SAID the only way back to unity was via the doctrine of the councils of rome.

valiant · Apr 1, 2015

mikeuk said:

I see no indication here that Luther believed in the real physical presence. He believed Christ was present spiritually. In other words that through taking the physical bread and wine we can 'partake of Christ' as the Jews 'partook' of the blood of the prophets' (Matt 23.30). In other words there is a 'spiritual presence'. Through it Christ communicates Himself to us.

However, Luther is irrelevant. You Roman Catholics are obsessed with Luther. Here in the UK we had our own reformation which came to full fruition under Elizabeth. What matters in this and any spiritual subject is what the Scriptures say. And the Scriptures give no suggestion of a 'real physical presence.

By the way if it was not in regard to this what was your apology about?

mikeuk · Apr 1, 2015

valiant said:

Please do not relate private messages in public context - my apology was for sharpness of tone, because of mistaken identity.

My comments spot on , regardless.
Here in the UK we had a king who could not keep it in his trousers, and when Rome objected to his penchant for playing musical wives, he decided to make his own church instead. you cannot think that is a good basis for doctrine - and in any event, look at Anglicanism now, it does not stand for anything anything coherent , there are as many bishops as doctrines as people decide to make their church conform to populist beliefs in designer Christianity. That is what I left behind.

You cannot read Luther's words above and consider he believed it was symbolic and other than body and blood really present - he says so and argues with his peers who disagree.

As for the Eastern rite , the schism was over Filioque not the Eucharist, some Eastern writers even used the word transubstantiation on occasion, and the churches almost reunited ( but for personalities getting in the way ) AFTER the doctrine of transubstantiation was topic at the fourth Lateran council, so it was no fundamental obstacle. So there is not a problem other than semantics, and under some conditions catholics can take part in Eastern rite sacraments. The Eastern rite do not try to seperate mystical and physical views. The Eastern rite churches also have the problems of lack of clear authority, so like Protestants have drifted a little between each other.

valiant · Apr 1, 2015

fordman said:

No one denies that there was a single prophecy concerning Mary producing the Messiah, although no great stress was laid on her, and as I have already shown you there is also a prophecy of Bethlehem of Judah bringing forth the Messiah through birth pangs(Micah 5.2-3). Birth pangs are never connected with Mary.

You say that 'in both New and OldTestament you will not find a single reference to Israel either being a‘woman’, or giving birth to the Messiah.' OK lets look at the facts:

'For I have heard a voice as of woman in travail, the anguish as of her who brings forth her first child, the voice of the daughter of Zion, who gasps for breath, who spreads her hands saying, 'Woe is me now.' (Jeremiah 4.31)'.

'--- O daughter of Zion. We have heard her fame, our hands wax feeble, anguish has taken hold of us, pangs as of a woman in travail' (Jeremiah 6.24).

,Turn again, O virgin of Israel, turn again to these your cities. How long will you go here and there, oh you backsliding daughter. For YHWH has created a new thing, a woman will encompass a man.' (Jeremiah 31.22 - Sounds like Israel giving birth to a man to me).

'Be in pain and labour to bring forth, O daughter of Zion, like a woman in travail' (Micah 4.10). Notice how often Israel is seen as like a woman in travail, as in Rev 12.

And who produces the man child? 'Before she travailed she brought forth, before her pain she was delivered of a man child. Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things. Shall a land be born in one day? Shall a nation be brought forth at once? For as soon as Zion travailed she brought forth her children.' (Isaiah 66.7-8). Here it is quite clear that it is Zion who will bring forth a man child followed by her bearing many sons exactly as in Rev 12.

KenAllan · Apr 1, 2015

Fordman you are a true example of a corrupted Catholic!

Luke 1:48
[SUP]48 [/SUP] For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant; For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed.

This is True but being called Blessed is not just for Mary!

Matthew 5:3-12
[SUP]3 [/SUP] “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
[SUP]4 [/SUP] “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
[SUP]5 [/SUP] “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
[SUP]6 [/SUP] “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
[SUP]7 [/SUP] “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
[SUP]8 [/SUP] “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
[SUP]9 [/SUP] “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
[SUP]10 [/SUP] “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
[SUP]11 [/SUP] “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.
[SUP]12 [/SUP] Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Matthew 16:17
[SUP]17 [/SUP] And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 25:34
[SUP]34 [/SUP] Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

Luke 6:20-23
[SUP]20 [/SUP] And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
[SUP]21 [/SUP] “Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied. “Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.
[SUP]22 [/SUP] “Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man!
[SUP]23 [/SUP] Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets.

Luke 11:27-28
[SUP]27 [/SUP] As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!”
[SUP]28 [/SUP] But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

Romans 4:7-8
[SUP]7 [/SUP] “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered;
[SUP]8 [/SUP] blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”

James 1:12
[SUP]12 [/SUP] Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him.

According to what the Holy Spirit says in the Scriptures i am just as Blessed as Mary! So why are you not praying to me Fordman?

All the Children of God are Blessed! We are in fact Blessed MORE than Mary because we ARE His True Children!

Matthew 7:21-23
[SUP]21 [/SUP] "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
[SUP]22 [/SUP] Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'
[SUP]23 [/SUP] And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

This is what WILL happen to you Fordman because you Worship Mary instead of Jesus!

Like Peter said Fordman, "Repent and be Baptized"!

mikeuk · Apr 1, 2015

KenAllan said:

With respect Ken - you are the only one here deserving of that title!
You have often used straw men to attack catholicism, being charitable I would say it is you failed to study what it actually believes, rather than deliberately corrupt the doctrine to create the straw men you attack!

Fordman presents catholic doctrine as it actually is.

MikeHenderson · Apr 1, 2015

I agree with KenAllen, Mikeuk and Fordman are examples of corrupted Catholics trying to teach a different Gospel then the one given to us by the Holy Spirit!

mikeuk · Apr 1, 2015

MikeHenderson said:

Which is simply an ad hominem insult unless you refer to one thing I have specifically said with which you disagree, and give me a reasoned view of why. (preferably without anticatholic myths alone) Ken Allen does not even know what catholics belief , despite claiming to have been one. He has frequently criticised catholicism for believing things it clearly does not! Which considering it is all there in the catechism, is laziness as well as duplicitous and false witness

valiant · Apr 1, 2015

mikeuk said:

That is the Roman Catholic view of what happened and as usual totally misplaced. Henry VIII had almost nothing to do with the reformation in England. He took over the English church and basically left it as it was. He did not support the reformation. His activities were purely political. But the reformers were working behind the scenes, and came to the forefront when Mary came to the throne BY BEING BURNED ALIVE. Mary took the English church back to Rome. It was under Elizabeth that the reformation took place and the Church of England free from Rome was founded. And thank God for it. If you are English as you appear to claim you should read up on your history OUTSIDE ROMAN CATHOLIC TEXTBOOKS.

The doctrine of the church of England was laid down in the 39 articles which began under Elizabeth.

I am not here to support the modern church of England, although you exaggerate grossly. Doctrine is decided by the synod. It divided into three sections. The high church which often out-Romes Rome, the middle church which is mostly wishy-washy, and the evangelical wing (which is 50% of the church) which is solidly evangelical. But I do in the main support the 39 articles. So you ran away? That explains a lot.

Did I mention 'symbolic'? That can be interpreted in 100 different ways. What I said was that he saw Christ as present in the bread and wine spiritually. And that is clear from his words. He did not believe in the real physical presence. SO HE DOES NOT SAY WHAT YOU CLAIM.

History AS WRITTEN BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH LOL.

Eastern orthodox Christians whom I know certainly do not accept the real physical presence in the Lord's Supper. There are always some renegades in any church (mentioning no names). You are hidebound in your Roman Catholic views and thus unable to see clearly. Neither Lutheran or Eastern Orthodox churches accept the real physical presence. But even if they did it would not make it right. Both are hidebound by tradition. The Scripture knows NOTHING about the real physical presence.

So you like to be under authority, and under the authority of a church whose history is stained with blood and adoption of false doctrine under the authority of a Pope who is certainly drifting at the moment? You like to be told what to believe? Well that is your choice. But do not expect people who believe the Scripture to agree with you. We prefer to think and seek the Holy Spirit's guidance., as the early church did.

notuptome · Apr 1, 2015

mikeuk said:

Really? How can you be credible when the popes and priests of Rome do as much and far worse even to this day?

Tell me about your relationship to Christ. Tell me have you found any testimonies of the ECF's where they related their salvation experience? Any writing preserved by Rome that testify to salvation by grace? Any saints who said they were saved and it was by Gods grace and not self reformation? Any?

There is no Godly virtue in the modern Roman Catholic Church. All that the RCC does is corrupted because their hearts are evil continuously.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

mikeuk · Apr 1, 2015

valiant said:

I prefer an authority that makes sense, to inventing a designer doctrine which is why there are 10000 denominations or more, and far more who cannot agree with those!

Just look at this forum. NOne of you agree on ANYTHING AT ALL!! - except the biblically.logically and historically unsupportable claim of sola scriptura, which as Luther bemoaned in his later years led to every milkmaid inventing his own intepretation of dcotrine. And the fractures of doctrine have been non stop since.

valiant said:

Which is why you should believe in real presence. As real flesh and blood. As Luther says. Nobody amongst the fathers contests it. Nowhere do they say it is just symbolic or just spiritual.

Have to go out now. Farewell.

valiant · Apr 1, 2015

fordman said:

We are aware of what Scripture teaches, but there is no real comparison between this and Rev 12. The woman Israel did not flee into Egypt. She fled into the wilderness and produced offspring there. How many children did Mary have in Egypt? This should be interesting LOL

And where do we learn that Mary was in jeopardy of a flood that came from Satan's mouth which the earth swallowed up? Such a flood usually indicates military activity. It did happen to the Christians who fled into the wilderness from Jerusalem around 70 AD. The picture is in total contrast to Mary's time in Egypt in which they were financed by the gold, frankincense and myrrh and could therefore live well.

.

Do you really think that Joseph was stupid enough, having taken refuge in Egypt with plentiful resources, to go and live in the Sahara?. No wonder your roll your eyes at your own stupidity. They did not 'flee into the wilderness''. They took refuge in Egypt, a land of plenty watered by the Nile.

It is clear that the use of such a rare word is significant. In the kjv Old Testament it only occurs 245 times in the singular. Wow. Rolls eyes.

There is NO ECHO of Is 7.14 in Rev 12.1-2. The writer does not even call her a young unmarried woman (almah). And in Isa 7.14 there is no hint of travail. Furthermore the sign in Is 7.14 was of a 'virgin with child'. That bears no resemblance to Rev 12.1-2. It was not even a sign in heaven. So it is in fact quite the opposite. It ties in better with Micah 5.1-2 which does speak of travail and bringing forth a sun will cause Israelites to return to God. Thus the bearer of the man child is Bethlehem/Israel. Note also the revolutionary promise that Israel would produce a man child in Is 66.7-9.

Let us look at this woman closely. She wears a crown with 12 stars. This parallels Satan and the Beast with their seven head and ten horns. What do the latter represent ? They represent kings. Thus her 12 stars represent something similar, in her case the patriarchs (as in Gen 37.9). And in contrast with the anti-God Satan and the Beast (a composite figure) she is God's representative, another composite figure, righteous Israel.

She is clothed in the sun. In Gen 37.9 the sun represents Jacob/Israel. And it is the righteous who will shine forth like the sun in the kingdom of their Father (Matt 13.43). Thus the woman is righteous Israel. The moon under her feet indicates that she is born of Israel and his wife, and bestrides time. In other words she represents a chunk of history. Who could it be but Israel? And she brings forth a man child. Now where does such an expression come from? 'Before she (Zion) travailed she brought forth, before her pain came she was delivered of a man child'
(Isaiah 66.7). And it resulted in 'a land being born in a day, a nation brought forth at once'. But this latter results from travail (Is 66.8-9). It was Israel which bore the Messiah without travail but who would produce offspring out of travail as Rev 12 shows.

In what way does the commitment of a weeping, broken hearted mother to a surrogate son make her a heavenly personage? In fact it demonstrates the opposite. She needed earthly protection. John was to look on her as a mother needing to be cared for. You echo Roman Catholic fantasies.

A word used 245 times in the Old Testament. What does it signify? That she is female, just like Israel..

She is not taken to be the mother of Christ in Rev 12 as I have clearly shown. Let the reader judge. She was certainly not the mother of the disciples. There is not a hint of that idea in the New Testament. She was simply committed to John's care and protection. In Rev 12 'the rest of her seed' are the persecuted church, as is quite clear from the context. There is no reference to the Apostles. It is all delusion in your mind, 'the Mary delusion',

Echo is to strong a word. There is no similarity in the wording, only in the idea. And as it is also the story of Scriptural history it cannot here be taken as having any special significance. The woman in Gen 3. was Eve, and she represents ALL MANKIND. Rev 12 is not speaking of all mankind.

How you Roman Catholics play with Scripture to suit your purpose. In Rev 12.9 God says NOTHING to the serpent. And in Gen 3.15 it was not the primeval serpent to whom God spoke but the snake in the garden and then to snakes in general. Certainly we may apply it to the Serpent by association, but that is all. In Rev 12 the Serpent is 'the deceiver of the whole world'. In Gen 3 he was the deceiver of Eve. In either case nothing to do with Mary.

Yes of Eve and of her descendants, especially Israel. In the Old Testament it was Israel who were borne on eagle's wings.(Exod 19.4).

So Satan persecuted righteous Israel, the Jerusalem and Judean church, and followed it up by persecuting Gentile who became Christians.

well no one is arguing about that.

Actually the Devil is not spoken of in Gen 3. You simply imply it.

well only indirectly. In Gen 3 it is the seed of Eve, the whole of mankind. That is not what Rev 12 is saying.

I wonder who the SOME are LOL ? Personally I think that there are good parallels. The woman wears the patriarchs on her crown of 12 stars, and is clothed with the sun representing Jacob/Israel. See my opening remarks.

Yes Eve and Israel are paralleled. Both produce a man child, both fight Satan, the seed of both will prevail.

Yes it is and by brilliant deduction I have worked out that it is EVE to whom God Actually spoke. Who else could it be if you are not bound by Roman Catholic dogma?

I will deal with the following distortion of truth at some other time as my time is up. But anyone but a blind fool knows that the woman was Eve

valiant · Apr 1, 2015

mikeuk said:

There were '10000 denominations or more' during the apostolic period. Each church or group of churches were independent. Apart from the Apostles there was no central authority. There were independent churches throughout the known world. It is the Roman Catholic church which has 'designer doctrine'. What mattered to the Apostles was the maintenance of central truths, the deity of Christ, salvation through faith, the saving work of Jesus Christ, the inspiration of Scripture as the final test of all teaching. Otherwise there were many variations, and they were not seen as important, and that is the truth of the matter. Differing ideas on top of a basic foundation is the sign of a healthy church.

It was a bad day for Christianity when Constantine became emperor and introduced pagan ideas and tried to establish the authority of Rome, something in which he failed. It was an even worse thing when the later murderous popes gained control by political force and introduced doctrines that gave the church control of a supposed salvation which is not true salvation. You are welcome to rely on the Roman Catholic church for salvation. I prefer to trust Jesus Christ as my Savior.

A typical Roman Catholic exaggeration and misrepresentation. We all agree on the deity of Christ and His power as Savior. But each of us has different experiences. That is life as it is.

Strange that the early church laid such stress on only accepting Apostolic writings and putting aside writings which were not Apostolic as useful (sometimes) but not to be read in churches. Strange that they believed Jesus when He said 'Scripture cannot be broken'. Strange that Peter recommended Paul's letters because they were Scripture. Strange that they believed that not one jot or tittle of the Law should fail until all should be fulfilled. Strange that they supported their positions by an appeal to Scripture as the final arbiter. They clearly had not read your posts.

you are obsessed with Luther. We do not look on Luther as the last word on anything. He never ceased being a bit mixed up.

We should believe it because Luther says so (or says so according to your biased view of him)? No one even thought of the real physical presence in the elements before Constantine, and indeed until long after. They used vivid language to stress the importance of the Lord's Supper, but they recognised that any 'change' was spiritual. Show us where Luther denied that the elements were changed spiritually. you are clearly obsessed with his writings. Be careful he might get you lol

valiant · Apr 1, 2015

mikeuk said:

seems to me that there is some serious backtracking here. no longer confident on what the greek and eastern orthodox believe. Roman Catholics can 'sometimes' take part. how gracious of them. but the orthodox churches do not try to separate mystical from physical. so how could you dogmatically state that they taught the real physical presence?

How dangerous, they have begun to think and read Scripture for themselves. They no longer slavishly believe what they are told. There is clearly hope for them yet.

If only they would be sensible, close their eyes, stop reading the Scriptures, and believe what the Cardinals tell them. Then they could drift into Hell without any worries.

Catholic Heresy (for the record)

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

mikeuk

Guest

Senior Member

mikeuk

Guest

Senior Member

Banned

mikeuk

Guest

Banned

mikeuk

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

mikeuk

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member