BABYLON SCAMYLON

Enoch111 · Aug 5, 2018

Davy said:
What the Reformers believed with pointing to the pope as the Antichrist was based on the persecutions of their day. If they lived today, with Israel having become a nation today, and with orthodox Jews in Jerusalem already having the materials ready to build a third temple, the Reformers would no doubt rethink their old Antichrist beliefs.

No doubt the Reformers were focused more on Gospel truth than Bible prophecy, and so they did make some mistakes in their ideas about the Antichrist. But what they failed to do is thoroughly examine all Catholic teaching in the light of Scripture. For example they failed to check out Augustine's unbiblical ideas properly.

But even though Erasmus was not a Reformer, he exposed the lies and hypocrisies of the Catholic Church in his book In Praise of Folly (Latin Moriae Encomium). It is worth reading.

They [the apostles] knew the mother of Jesus, but which of them has so philosophically demonstrated how she was preserved from original sin as have done our divines?

And next these come those that commonly call themselves the religious and monks, most false in both titles, when both a great part of them are farthest from religion, and no men swarm thicker in all places than themselves...And among these there are some so rigidly religious that their upper garment is haircloth, their inner of the finest linen; and, on the contrary, others wear linen without and hair next their skins. Others, again, are as afraid to touch money as poison, and yet neither forbear wine nor dallying with women...

epostle1 · Aug 5, 2018

Davy said:
What the Reformers believed with pointing to the pope as the Antichrist was based on the persecutions of their day. If they lived today, with Israel having become a nation today, and with orthodox Jews in Jerusalem already having the materials ready to build a third temple, the Reformers would no doubt rethink their old Antichrist beliefs.

"...was based on the persecutions of their day."
A new church was needed because the CC was persecuting people is simply wrong. Let's level the playing field, shall we? The following well documented treatise is referenced from mostly Protestant and secular historians.
"reformers old anti-Christ beliefs"??? How can the beliefs be "old" when the reformers invented them? If they didn't invent them, why is there no evidence of such "beliefs" in any previous century???

The Protestant Inquisition

C O N T E N T S

I. PROTESTANT INTOLERANCE: AN INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

II. PROTESTANT DIVISIONS AND MUTUAL ANIMOSITIES

III. PLUNDER AS AN AGENT OF RELIGIOUS REVOLUTION

IV. SYSTEMATIC SUPPRESSION OF CATHOLICISM

V. VIOLENT RADICALISM AND THE PROTESTANT REVOLUTION

VI. DEATH AND TORTURE FOR CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANT DISSIDENTS

VII. PROTESTANT WITCH HUNTS

VIII. PROTESTANT CENSORSHIP

BIBLIOGRAPHY

FOOTNOTES

(P) = Protestant

1. Views of Catholic and Protestant Historians

A. Johann von Dollinger

"Historically nothing is more incorrect than the assertion that the Reformation was a movement in favour of intellectual freedom. The exact contary is the truth. For themselves, it is true, Lutherans and Calvinists claimed liberty of conscience . . . but to grant it to others never occurred to them so long as they were the stronger side. The complete extirpation of the Catholic Church, and in fact of everything that stood in their way, was regarded by the reformers as something entirely natural." (51;v.6:268-9/1)

B. Preserved Smith (Secularist)

"If any one still harbors the traditional prejudice that the early Protestants were more liberal, he must be undeceived. Save for a few splendid sayings of Luther, confined to the early years when he was powerless, there is hardly anything to be found among the leading reformers in favor of freedom of conscience. As soon as they had the power to persecute they did." (115:177)

C. Hartmann Grisar

"At Zurich, Zwingli's State-Church grew up much as Luther's did . . . Oecolampadius at Basle and Zwingli's successor, Bullinger, were strong compulsionists. Calvin's name is even more closely bound up with the idea of religious absolutism, while the task of handing down to posterity his harsh doctrine of religious compulsion was undertaken by Beza in his notorious work, On the Duty of Civil Magistrates to Punish Heretics. The annals of the Established Church of England were likewise at the outset written in blood." (51;v.6:278)

D. Henry Hallam (P)

"The Reform was brought about by intemperate and calumnious abuse, by outrages of an excited populace or by the tyranny of princes . . . it instantly withdrew . . . liberty of judgment and devoted all who presumed to swerve from the line drawn by law to virulent obloquy, and sometimes to bonds and death. These reproaches, it may be a shame to us to own, can be uttered and cannot be refuted." (50:295-6/2)

E. Francois Guizot (P)

"The Reformation of the 16th century was not aware of the true principles of intellectual liberty . . . At the very moment it was demanding these rights for itself it was violating them towards others." (50:297/3)

F. William Lecky (P)

"What shall we say of a church . . . that had as yet no services to show, no claims upon the gratitude of mankind . . . which nevertheless suppressed by force a worship that multitudes deemed necessary to salvation? . . . So strong and so general was its intolerance that for some time it may, I believe, be truly said that there were more instances of partial toleration being advocated by Roman Catholics than by orthodox Protestants. " (50:298/4)

G. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (P)

"The Reformers themselves . . . e.g., Luther, Beza, and especially Calvin, were as intolerant to dissentients as the Roman Catholic Church." (78:1383)

2. The Double Standard of Protestant Anti-Catholic "Inquisition Polemics" (John Stoddard)

To read more, click on the above links.

Davy · Aug 5, 2018

https://www.luther.de/en/95thesen.html

Nuff said, by Luther.

epostle1 said:
"...was based on the persecutions of their day."
A new church was needed because the CC was persecuting people is simply wrong. Let's level the playing field, shall we? The following well documented treatise is referenced from mostly Protestant and secular historians.
"reformers old anti-Christ beliefs"??? How can the beliefs be "old" when the reformers invented them? If they didn't invent them, why is there no evidence of such "beliefs" in any previous century???

The Protestant Inquisition

C O N T E N T S

I. PROTESTANT INTOLERANCE: AN INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

II. PROTESTANT DIVISIONS AND MUTUAL ANIMOSITIES

III. PLUNDER AS AN AGENT OF RELIGIOUS REVOLUTION

IV. SYSTEMATIC SUPPRESSION OF CATHOLICISM

V. VIOLENT RADICALISM AND THE PROTESTANT REVOLUTION

VI. DEATH AND TORTURE FOR CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANT DISSIDENTS

VII. PROTESTANT WITCH HUNTS

VIII. PROTESTANT CENSORSHIP

BIBLIOGRAPHY

FOOTNOTES

(P) = Protestant

1. Views of Catholic and Protestant Historians

A. Johann von Dollinger

"Historically nothing is more incorrect than the assertion that the Reformation was a movement in favour of intellectual freedom. The exact contary is the truth. For themselves, it is true, Lutherans and Calvinists claimed liberty of conscience . . . but to grant it to others never occurred to them so long as they were the stronger side. The complete extirpation of the Catholic Church, and in fact of everything that stood in their way, was regarded by the reformers as something entirely natural." (51;v.6:268-9/1)

B. Preserved Smith (Secularist)

"If any one still harbors the traditional prejudice that the early Protestants were more liberal, he must be undeceived. Save for a few splendid sayings of Luther, confined to the early years when he was powerless, there is hardly anything to be found among the leading reformers in favor of freedom of conscience. As soon as they had the power to persecute they did." (115:177)

C. Hartmann Grisar

"At Zurich, Zwingli's State-Church grew up much as Luther's did . . . Oecolampadius at Basle and Zwingli's successor, Bullinger, were strong compulsionists. Calvin's name is even more closely bound up with the idea of religious absolutism, while the task of handing down to posterity his harsh doctrine of religious compulsion was undertaken by Beza in his notorious work, On the Duty of Civil Magistrates to Punish Heretics. The annals of the Established Church of England were likewise at the outset written in blood." (51;v.6:278)

D. Henry Hallam (P)

"The Reform was brought about by intemperate and calumnious abuse, by outrages of an excited populace or by the tyranny of princes . . . it instantly withdrew . . . liberty of judgment and devoted all who presumed to swerve from the line drawn by law to virulent obloquy, and sometimes to bonds and death. These reproaches, it may be a shame to us to own, can be uttered and cannot be refuted." (50:295-6/2)

E. Francois Guizot (P)

"The Reformation of the 16th century was not aware of the true principles of intellectual liberty . . . At the very moment it was demanding these rights for itself it was violating them towards others." (50:297/3)

F. William Lecky (P)

"What shall we say of a church . . . that had as yet no services to show, no claims upon the gratitude of mankind . . . which nevertheless suppressed by force a worship that multitudes deemed necessary to salvation? . . . So strong and so general was its intolerance that for some time it may, I believe, be truly said that there were more instances of partial toleration being advocated by Roman Catholics than by orthodox Protestants. " (50:298/4)

G. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (P)

"The Reformers themselves . . . e.g., Luther, Beza, and especially Calvin, were as intolerant to dissentients as the Roman Catholic Church." (78:1383)

2. The Double Standard of Protestant Anti-Catholic "Inquisition Polemics" (John Stoddard)

To read more, click on the above links.

View attachment 3563 View attachment 3564

epostle1 · Aug 5, 2018

Davy said:
https://www.luther.de/en/95thesen.html

Nuff said, by Luther.

Is that a rebuttal or refutation of post #322, or an evasion? You've never seen that kind of stuff before, have you.

Davy · Aug 5, 2018

What I know personally, from my family history, is that they were persecuted by the Catholic Church in France in the 16th century, and fled to the Americas. They were French Huguenots, the first French Protestants.

epostle1 said:
Is that a rebuttal or refutation of post #322, or an evasion? You've never seen that kind of stuff before, have you.

View attachment 3565

epostle1 · Aug 6, 2018

Davy said:
What I know personally, from my family history, is that they were persecuted by the Catholic Church in France in the 16th century, and fled to the Americas. They were French Huguenots, the first French Protestants.

Is this supposed to be a rebuttal to the Protestant Inquisition, or a rabbit trail?
Do you think that defenseless Huguenots were running from blood thirsty Catholics and they landed in America???
It would be a good idea to study the matter. Read any historian of your choice who has written in the last 50 years. Anything before that is tainted with agendas and politics. Supposed "Catholic" Emperor Charles V was power hungry ruler, and not acting under directions from the Pope, contrary to one sided history. But blaming the Church for every single crime 500 years ago is more fun than an objective look at historical context.

brakelite · Aug 6, 2018

epostle1 said:
Is this supposed to be a rebuttal to the Protestant Inquisition, or a rabbit trail?
Do you think that defenseless Huguenots were running from blood thirsty Catholics and they landed in America???
It would be a good idea to study the matter. Read any historian of your choice who has written in the last 50 years. Anything before that is tainted with agendas and politics. Supposed "Catholic" Emperor Charles V was power hungry ruler, and not acting under directions from the Pope, contrary to one sided history. But blaming the Church for every single crime 500 years ago is more fun than an objective look at historical context.

I am unsure whether this post will elicit any sort of response, as I believe it possible I may be on 'ignore' by the quoted poster. Nevertheless, I cannot allow the above post, and the ones previous written by her hand, to pass by without comment. The continuing pretence of innocence by this catholic apologist on behalf of her church is bordering on fanaticism, and flies in the face of every known contemporary historian of the age. The history of France, the life and times of those in power, from the politicians, to the royal houses, and the clergy, in the 16th, and 17th centuries is written with the blood of innocent Protestant Christians. This woman who somehow believes this invention of a protestant inquisition can in any manner reduce the horrors perpetrated by catholic bigots and despisers of decency and truth, against Christians living their lives according to their conscientious convictions is shameful. Thousands died in France in those centuries, and to claim that the pope disapproved, or was not aware of what was taking place, is disingenuous at best, and blatantly BS at worst.
This continuing denial of true history itself reveals the bigotry of the writer, and is indicative of the kind of hatred the Huguenot people were up against. I am sure that epostle/kepha, if she had authority and power, would not hesitate to take the coats of those who would again kindle the fires of a modern inquisition in order to extirpate the world of those she disagrees with.
It wasn't just Davy's forbears who landed in America escaping from Catholic hatred. My own French forbears escaped to Britain, and had to change their names in order to settle there without attracting the attention of spies and informants only too eager to gain leverage and money from bishops and priests intent on spreading the gospel of blood to every corner of the globe.
Everyone on this site needs to read again the history of these times, and study who it was that were involved. Henry11, Francis, Louis, men and women like Claude de Lorraine Duke of Guise; Diana of Poictiers; Catherine de Medici; Anne de Montmorency. Cardinals and bishops, military and politicians, catholics all murdering entire villages, destroying houses and laying waste crops, confiscating goods and lands, and the popes did nothing. In fact in commemoration of St Bartholomew's massacre the pope even had a medal made to celebrate it. It wasn't just the Huguenots, previous centuries saw the laying waste of communities of the Albigenses and Vaudois in France and Italy. And modern catholics try to play down the atrocity of these events. Makes me sick. You have no idea of the horrors those people had to suffer for their faith.Well did the apostle John write of them when he said
... Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.
13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.
14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

That said, let no-one think that the murder of catholics by protestants, or of protestants by other protestants, was any less evil. But I refuse to allow catholic apologists pretend that catholic persecutions in Europe, in Spain, France, Britain, Italy, Germany, even Goa India, and in all other places where the popes had the ears and hearts of the kings of the earth, amounted to just a few hundred people and that the popes themselves gave no sanction to those matters. That is a bald-faced lie and the vilest of propaganda because it tramples upon the blood of millions of innocent people who through the centuries gave witness of their love for Jesus and the truth.
Read "The History of Protestantism" by James Wylie, or the "History of the Waldenses" by the same author. Both are freely available online for anyone interested.
Now watch the abuse come out against Wylie.

Harvest 1874 · Aug 6, 2018

Davy said:
What the Reformers believed with pointing to the pope as the Antichrist was based on the persecutions of their day. If they lived today, with Israel having become a nation today, and with orthodox Jews in Jerusalem already having the materials ready to build a third temple, the Reformers would no doubt rethink their old Antichrist beliefs.

I beg to differ, I believe with all of history behind them their original thoughts on the matter would have been more than doubly confirmed. It was not simply the persecutions being inflicted by the apostate church which convince them that the Papacy was the Antichrist, but more importantly how Papacy fulfilled all the prophecies concerning it as describe in the scriptures, most especially those found in Daniel’s prophecies.

brakelite · Aug 6, 2018

Harvest 1874 said:
I beg to differ, I believe with all of history behind them their original thoughts on the matter would have been more than doubly confirmed. It was not simply the persecutions being inflicted by the apostate church which convince them that the Papacy was the Antichrist, but more importantly how Papacy fulfilled all the prophecies concerning it as describe in the scriptures, most especially those found in Daniel’s prophecies.

Amen. The reformers may not have had everything perfect, but they were Bible students. That is why they became reformers. They saw how far their church had deviated from the truth, so the reformers such as Luther simply wanted his beloved church to get back on track. What they didn't see was the intransigence. The persecution were but one of ten or so criteria the papacy fulfilled regarding Antichrist.
On another note, it took another 300 years for the reformed churches to understand what true religious liberty is all about. Sadly, I do not believe the RCC has discovered that yet. The RCC may tolerate other faiths, but only so long as they don't have the power or authority to retract permission and said toleration.

epostle1 · Aug 6, 2018

Harvest 1874 said:
I beg to differ, I believe with all of history behind them their original thoughts on the matter would have been more than doubly confirmed. It was not simply the persecutions being inflicted by the apostate church which convince them that the Papacy was the Antichrist, but more importantly how Papacy fulfilled all the prophecies concerning it as describe in the scriptures, most especially those found in Daniel’s prophecies.

This is more junk history that is rejected by recent Protestant historians. It's the same false rhetoric that Luther and Calvin invented to justify their break from Rome. Here's a challenge, Harvest. Find a reputable historian with a legitimate Ph.D. in history that supports your Catholic bashing that has been written in the last 50 years. Anything before that is tainted by the Enlightenment Era (that "enlightened" us with formal atheism, Nazism and communism). Also, the made-in-America anti-trinitarian cults were founded after this period. NOT BEFORE.

You refuse to distinguish sin from doctrine, and are forced to re-write history to suit your beliefs.

most especially those found in Daniel’s prophecies

Dan. 2:44 But in the days of those kingdoms the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, and his kingdom shall not be delivered up to another people, and it shall break in pieces, and shall consume all these kingdoms, and itself shall stand for ever.

Daniel prophesies an earthly kingdom that will never be destroyed. Either this is a false prophecy, or the earthly kingdom requires succession. I'm sure you have plenty of screwed up interpretations of Daniel and Jeremiah to force fit it into your false suppositions.

Jer. 33:17 For thus saith the Lord: There shall not be cut off from David a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel.

Jeremiah prophesies that David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the earthly House of Israel. Either this is a false prophecy, or David has a successor of representatives throughout history.

Your solution? Deny the hard facts of succession and force your man made traditions into scripture.

History is your enemy.

Stumpers for the Jehovah's Witnesses (proceeded by "Bible Students")

In this tract we will examine five topics relating to Russell, the JWs, and their parent organization, the Watch Tower Society (WTS). We will show that the beliefs of JWs are unscriptural, and that both Russell and the WTS are completely unreliable as spiritual guides.

Philip James · Aug 6, 2018

brakelite said:
Please find me one example of an apostle sprinkling water on a baby and calling it baptism. Heresy.

Not sure what you mean by 'sprinkling', but heres some instruction from the Didache : And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit

Please convince me that the apostles believed they were eating the literal flesh of the Son of God

If 2000 years of the Church teaching this does not convince you, I am unlikely to sway you. I will point out though that EVERY ancient apostolic community (not just Rome) teaches that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ.
Further this belief can be demonstrated in christian wrirings down through the centuries by men like Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Iraeneus to name a few...

Priests, by their very nature, are ordained to offer sacrifice. Jesus is not being sacrificed again and again on Catholic altars. Heresy.

Jesus' ONE sacrifice is presented and to it we unite our thanksgiving and praise. It is the 'pure offering' of Malachi 1:11

You can read more about it here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM

But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms.

The Church was established before one letter of the NT was penned... That scripture came forth from the Church, not the Church from scripture...

But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

I agree that there is an unbroken line between today and the apostles in Rome...but there was also a point which was crossed and that line became warped, bent, twisted out of shape and entered into apostasy,

Unless there is a community with an unbroken line to the apostles that has NOT apostized then Jesus is shown a liar... If not Rome then who? Please demonstrate their claims.

Pax!

epostle1 · Aug 6, 2018

brakelite said:
I am unsure whether this post will elicit any sort of response, as I believe it possible I may be on 'ignore' by the quoted poster. Nevertheless, I cannot allow the above post, and the ones previous written by her hand, to pass by without comment. The continuing pretence of innocence by this catholic apologist on behalf of her church is bordering on fanaticism, and flies in the face of every known contemporary historian of the age. The history of France, the life and times of those in power, from the politicians, to the royal houses, and the clergy, in the 16th, and 17th centuries is written with the blood of innocent Protestant Christians. This woman who somehow believes this invention of a protestant inquisition can in any manner reduce the horrors perpetrated by catholic bigots and despisers of decency and truth, against Christians living their lives according to their conscientious convictions is shameful. Thousands died in France in those centuries, and to claim that the pope disapproved, or was not aware of what was taking place, is disingenuous at best, and blatantly BS at worst.
This continuing denial of true history itself reveals the bigotry of the writer, and is indicative of the kind of hatred the Huguenot people were up against. I am sure that epostle/kepha, if she had authority and power, would not hesitate to take the coats of those who would again kindle the fires of a modern inquisition in order to extirpate the world of those she disagrees with.
It wasn't just Davy's forbears who landed in America escaping from Catholic hatred. My own French forbears escaped to Britain, and had to change their names in order to settle there without attracting the attention of spies and informants only too eager to gain leverage and money from bishops and priests intent on spreading the gospel of blood to every corner of the globe.

Junk history that cannot be verified by any scholarly source. Rants by 18th century false philosophers is not scholarly.

Everyone on this site needs to read again the history of these times, and study who it was that were involved. Henry11, Francis, Louis, men and women like Claude de Lorraine Duke of Guise; Diana of Poictiers; Catherine de Medici; Anne de Montmorency. Cardinals and bishops, military and politicians, catholics all murdering entire villages, destroying houses and laying waste crops, confiscating goods and lands, and the popes did nothing. In fact in commemoration of St Bartholomew's massacre the pope even had a medal made to celebrate it. It wasn't just the Huguenots, previous centuries saw the laying waste of communities of the Albigenses and Vaudois in France and Italy. And modern catholics try to play down the atrocity of these events. Makes me sick. You have no idea of the horrors those people had to suffer for their faith.Well did the apostle John write of them when he said
... Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

Everyone on this site needs to realize what a pile a crap this is. Phony history makes me sick. Modern PROTESTANT historians and Bible colleges no longer teach this anti-Catholic rhetoric, because most of it has been proven to be FALSE. Phony history is invented to justify your false doctrines. Sin had nothing to do with doctrine. Yes, Catholics sinned, but you hold Catholics today accountable for the sins of centuries ago. Same with Protestants. It's stupid and illogical.

13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.
14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

Who was/is "the woman" in verse 16-17 brokelight? The whore of Babylon???

I agree that there is an unbroken line between today and the apostles in Rome...but there was also a point which was crossed and that line became warped, bent, twisted out of shape and entered into apostasy,

In other words, the gates of Hades prevailed, Jesus is a liar, and the Council of Jerusalem was not infallible and a model for future councils, which you conveniently reject. Your criteria for determining historical from perpetual in scripture is grossly inconsistent.

epostle1 · Aug 6, 2018

DEBATE ON REVELATION 12

Greg Still describes himself as a “”skeptical Pentecostal” and is a former Catholic. More of a discussion with Dave Armstrong than a debate. GS in black, DA in blue.

Since you brought up the supposed “Assumption of Mary” let us deal with that. You suggest that because a thing did happen to others (Enoch, Elijah etcetera) that it could have happened to Mary. That’s a poor argument for the idea that Mary was assumed.
Angels came down many times in the OT and a couple of times in the NT. Should we then say that Moroni visited Joseph Smith?

Certainly, if Mary had been assumed, the Bible would have mentioned something about it – for it would have occurred during the apostolic era. And if the Apostles wanted the saints to “venerate” her, they would have mentioned SOMETHING about it? But, no. Catholic apologists take a few words that Jesus spoke to John on the cross, “behold thy mother”, and add to it a dumpster-full of tradition.

Briefly: the Bible does mention the “woman clothed with the sun” in heaven (Rev. 12:1). Her child is clearly Jesus (Rev 12:5). It’s not rocket science to figure out that this is Mary, and that she is portrayed in quite a glorious state in heaven. If you want more Catholic perspectives on this (and Mary as mediatrix and intercessor and spiritual mother), see my Blessed Virgin Mary web page.

‎Certainly, if Mary had been assumed, the Bible would have mentioned something about it.

By Protestant reasoning, “certainly, if sola Scriptura were true, the Bible would have mentioned something about it“. But it never does, which is the topic of my book. That doesn’t stop Protestants from making an entirely non-biblical, anti-biblical concept the very foundation and bedrock and pillar of their authority structure. They do it anyway. Then, having done that, they demand that we adopt the same illogical reasoning with regard to Catholic distinctives like Mary’s Assumption.

We never claimed that absolutely everything has to be explicitly laid out in Scripture, precisely because the Bible never teaches this. That is your game, and thus your burden to defend, not ours.

Your statement above is classic. You believe this firmly, yet the Bible never states such a thing. Thus, you supposedly appeal to the Bible itself with a completely non-biblical idea that can’t be found there. Then you try to bind Catholics to this silly notion: so now you are arbitrarily applying an arbitrary tradition of men to us, as if we have to play by those rules . . . We think logically and biblically, so no dice!

By the way – Even in Catholic circles the identity of the Woman of Rev. 12 has been in dispute.
___

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
It is true that commentators generally understand the whole passage as applying literally to the Church, and that part of the verses is better suited to the Church than to Mary. But it must be kept in mind that Mary is both a figure of the Church, and its most prominent member. What is said of the Church, is in its own way true of Mary. Hence the passage of the Apocalypse (12:5-6) does not refer to Mary merely by way of accommodation [108], but applies to her in a truly literal sense which appears to be partly limited to her, and partly extended to the whole Church. Mary’s relation to the Church is well summed up in the expression “collum corporis mystici” applied to Our Lady by St. Bernardin of Siena. [109]

Cardinal Newman [110] considers two difficulties against the foregoing interpretation of the vision of the woman and child: first, it is said to be poorly supported by the Fathers; secondly, it is an anachronism to ascribe such a picture of the Madonna to the apostolic age.

___

I note that Cardinal Newman recognizes that the Madonna figure is an “anachronism” to the apostolic age. That is, the apostles never regarded Mary as a “Madonna”.
______________

I do not have a copy of the Confraternity version with me at present, but I do distinctly recall reading the footnotes of it regarding Rev 12. The writer said that the application to Mary was “useful” but that the Woman represented the church.
____________

Personally I think the Woman represents the Church at the last age, and the “manchild” represents a certain group within her who, like Christ and with Christ, will rule the world with a rod of iron.

The fact that the woman has “other children” indicates that this is not speaking of a “Virgin Mary”. (Rev 12:17)

Yes; in past treatments of the topic I have taken the view that the passage has a dual application: to Mary and the Church (and Mary as a figure of the Church). That is quite common in Scripture. I did this in my first book, which was completed 16 years ago this month, so that is nothing new with me.
con't...

epostle1 · Aug 6, 2018

However, the part specifically about giving birth to the child (who is Christ) must be about Mary, I contend, if it is about Christ, because Jesus was not a product of the Church, since He preceded it and initiated it. Therefore, that part is specifically talking about Mary. The Bible never uses a terminology of Jesus being a “child” (Rev 12:5) of the Church. He is the child of God the Father (His Divine Nature) and of Mary (as a person with both a Divine and human nature). The Church is “of Christ”; Christ is not “of the Church”; let alone its “child.” Those categories are biblically ludicrous and indeed almost blasphemous.

Your interpretation of “male child” is incoherent. “Rule all nations with a rod of iron” is clearly hearkening back to the messianic passage Psalm 2:7-9, which is again reflected in Rev 19:15 (absolutely about Jesus). It’s true that there is a secondary application along your lines in Rev 2:27, but you still have to deal with the phrase “caught up to God and to his throne” (Rev 12:5; RSV). That can’t mean “the twelve thrones” referred to in Matt 19:18 (cf. Lk 22:30; Rev 4:4; 11:16) because it says “his [i.e., God’s] throne.” Only Jesus is connected directly with that, because He is God.

And so we see Jesus (unlike any created men) sitting on God’s throne (Matt 19:28; 25:31; Heb 1:8; Rev 7:17; 22:1, 3).

Therefore, this proves that Rev 12:5 is referring to Jesus alone, and thus, His mother in this particular passage must be Mary, since it cannot be the Church, per the reasoning above. Other parts of the entire passage also have an application to the Church, as the Catholic Church continues to teach today.

You want to bring up Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman. Bad choice, since he was my main theological influence in becoming a Catholic; I’ve had a large web page about him for 15 years, and a 448-page book of his quotations coming out in a few weeks (I mentioned it this very day on my Facebook page). In my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (p. 200), I cited his words from 1875 (“Letter to Pusey”):

What I would maintain is this, that the Holy Apostle would not have spoken of the Church under this particular image, unless there had existed a blessed Virgin Mary, who was exalted on high and the object of veneration to all the faithful. No one doubts that the ‘man-child’ spoken of is an allusion to our Lord; why then is not ‘the Woman’ an allusion to his mother?

Exactly! And precisely as I argue . . .

Revelation 12:17 is no problem since it can either be an instance of the dual meaning of “Church” or Mary as a spiritual mother in a different sense (tying into the same John at the cross receiving Mary as his “mother”). We accept the dual application. It is you who are denying the Marian application, which doesn’t fly in light of the exegesis and cross-referencing that I have shown you.

And if it is Mary in this passage (as well as the Church), then we have an indication of both her veneration and glorification in heaven, akin to the Assumption (whereas you claimed there was nothing in Scripture at all about it: as if the Assumption were solely an arbitrary tradition of men, like sola Scriptura is

.

I never said “absolutely everything has to be explicitly laid out in scripture”. This is a straw man.

Is that so? You stated:

“Certainly, if Mary had been assumed, the Bible would have mentioned something about it – for it would have occurred during the apostolic era. And if the Apostles wanted the saints to “venerate” her, they would have mentioned SOMETHING about it?”

BUT if there is a MAJOR DOCTRINE of the church, then the scriptures must surely say SOMETHING about it.

Yes, and I showed that it does: by analogy (Enoch, Elijah, and Paul’s experience in the second heaven), and the data of Revelation 12, just discussed. Therefore I have demonstrated “SOMETHING about it.” You just disagree (on inadequate grounds). I showed implicit grounds, which is what you want, since you deny that you require explicit grounds. Therefore, I succeeded in my task, according to your challenge. I provided what you asked for. It continues to be the case, on the other hand, that sola Scriptura is entirely absent from the Bible and massively contradicted in it at every turn. So you hang by your own false premise, whereas we are not harmed at all by it because we reject it as unscriptural in the first place.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2016/01/defending-mary-revelation-12-her-assumption.html

View attachment 3570

quietthinker · Aug 6, 2018

epostle1 said:
Junk history that cannot be verified by any scholarly source. Rants by 18th century false philosophers is not scholarly.

Holocaust deniers also have their twisted logic.

TheHolyBookEnds · Aug 6, 2018

epostle1 said:
...Briefly: the Bible does mention the “woman clothed with the sun” in heaven (Rev. 12:1). Her child is clearly Jesus (Rev 12:5). It’s not rocket science to figure out that this is Mary, and that she is portrayed in quite a glorious state in heaven. If you want more Catholic perspectives on this (and Mary as mediatrix and intercessor and spiritual mother), see my Blessed Virgin Mary web page....

Revelation 12, already demonstrated to not be actually 'Mary in Heaven' here - https://www.christianityboard.com/t...seal-of-jehovah-god.26143/page-17#post-421981

"... Now, Roman Catholicism, has a more sinister theology in regards Mary, as they teach that she is the Ark of the Covenant, and the Woman of Revelation 12.

However, the "woman" of Revelation 12, though in small part includes Mary (for she is one of the people of God, whom the woman represents, who longed for the coming of the Messiah), but it speaks to the greater body of Christ (the "church in the wilderness", such as Moses and all Israel, see Acts 7:38; 1 Corinthians 10:1-12; Ephesians 5:22-33; Jeremiah 6:2; Isaiah 62:1-5; Revelation 22:17; etc who is in contrast to the Great Whore of Revelation 17).

John 16:21 KJB - A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world.

Luke 2:11 KJB - For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

For notice, this woman did not 'remain' in Heaven, but was chased and fled into the 'wilderness' for 1,260 years (the same timeframe as found in Daniel 7:25, 12:7; Revelation 11:2-3, 12:6,14, 13:5; Luke 21:24; being a part of the larger 2,300 years of Daniel 8:13,14,26; Revelation 9:13-15, etc, and connected with the 1,290 years of Daniel 12:11 and the 1,335 years of Daniel 12:12, and the 490 years of Daniel 9:24-27):

Revelation 12:6 KJB - And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Revelation 12:13 KJB - And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.

Revelation 12:14 KJB - And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

Revelation 12:15 KJB - And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.

Revelation 12:16 KJB - And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.

Revelation12:17 KJB - And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Please notice that the "great wonder" of "a woman" that appeared "in Heaven" before she gave birth to the "man child", and was chased on earth (Revelation 12:6,12-17) "in the wilderness" after the "man child" (Jesus the Christ) was born and ascended, and for a very long time.

Roman Catholicism attempts to link the previous scripture of Revelation 11:19, with the text of Revelation 12:1, and say that the "woman" is the Ark in the Most Holy Place of Heaven. Nothing could be further from the truth, for the timeframe that Revelation 11:19 speaks about is the timeframe of the end, the 7th trumpet:

Revelation 11:15 KJB - And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

Revelation 12:1, speaks about the timeframe long before Jesus was born, and the waiting of the people of God for the time prophecies to be fulfilled in Daniel:

Revelation 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

Revelation 12:2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

Roman Catholicism must confound these scriptures and time that it may exalt 'Mary', because in reality, Roman Catholicism's apparitional 'Mary' is really Satan masquerading as a messenger (angel) of Light (2 Corinthians 11:14). Now most Roman Catholics have no idea, but if they will simply read their own material (which I will later be citing), they will hear the very voice of satan exalting himself in them under the guise of this apparition of a woman.

Mary is not in Heaven, she is dead, asleep in her grave, awaiting her resurrection,

https://www.christianityboard.com/t...y-die-devil-genesis-3-4-not-surely-die.26178/

but because Roman Catholicism believes in neo-platonism, and immortal soul/spirit theology, spiritualism runs rampant in their theology, just as the nuns that never see the world practice, in their seances. Oh, they know what they are doing, and the carnal filth that goes with it.

https://www.christianityboard.com/threads/the-devils-counterfeit-signs-miracles-wonders.26276/

Additionally, if Roman Catholicism's theology desires to have this “woman” of Revelation 12 as 'Mary', then do they desire also to teach as the scripture does, that this “woman” of Revelation 12 had more descendants, as this “woman”, being the people of God throughout the ages, has numerous 'children', Jesus, being the “firstborn” of many, while the actual Mary had only one child, Jesus:

Romans 8:29 KJB - For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Revelation 12:17 KJB - And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1:15 KJB - Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Colossians 1:18 KJB - And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Paul solves the issue for us, line upon line: “... head of the body … who is the beginning … have the preeminence.” ..."

epostle1 · Aug 6, 2018

Your reputation of blindness proceeds you.

The Word of God in stone inside the ark foreshadows the Word Made Flesh that you call sinister.

The manna from heaven that sustained the Jews inside the ark foreshadowed the Bread of Life that you call sinister.

The rod of Aaron inside the ark foreshadows Jesus as High Priest that you call sinister.
Maybe that's why your cult has a sinister Gnostic view of Jesus.

These were not mere symbols, they were signs from God.

We believe that all three of these Old Ark realities existed in Mary's womb in the form of the Incarnation. That's why we call her the Ark of the New Covenant. Talking about Mary and leaving Jesus out of the picture is always a mistake.

Ark of the New Covenant

epostle1 · Aug 6, 2018

Ave Maria by Celine Dion

Lyrics
Ave Maria, maiden mild
Oh, listen to a maiden's prayer
For thou canst hear amid the wild
'Tis thou, 'tis thou canst save amid, despair

We slumber safely till the morrow
Though we've by man outcast reviled
Oh maiden, see a maiden's sorrow
Oh mother, hear a suppliant child

Ave Maria

Ave Maria gratia plena
Maria gratia plena
Maria gratia plena
Ave ave dominus, dominus tecum

The murky cavern's air so heavy
Shall breathe of balm if thou hast smiled
Oh maiden, hear a maiden pleadin'
Oh mother, hear a suppliant child

Ave Maria
Ave Maria

brakelite · Aug 6, 2018

Philip James said:
Not sure what you mean by 'sprinkling', but heres some instruction from the Didache : And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit

The didache is not a basis for faith or doctrine. To baptize means two things mainly. Full immersion, and an outward sign of an inward decision. Babies cannot do that.

brakelite · Aug 6, 2018

Philip James said:
If 2000 years of the Church teaching this does not convince you, I am unlikely to sway you. I will point out though that EVERY ancient apostolic community (not just Rome) teaches that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ.
Further this belief can be demonstrated in christian wrirings down through the centuries by men like Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Iraeneus to name a few...

They were wrong. The physical real literal Son of God is in heaven. Not on a Catholic altar or shut up in a box.

BABYLON SCAMYLON

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

brakelite

Guest

Well-Known Member

brakelite

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Attachments

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Attachments

brakelite

Guest

brakelite

Guest

Similar threads