Tradition Versus Scripture

[Aunty Jane]

Hey Jane,

Did you know that ancient Christian art used 'halos' (what appears to be the sun behind the head) to depict important Christians, not just Christ, in their painting? It has been used in the iconography of many religions to indicate holy or sacred figures and has at various periods also been used in images of rulers and heroes.

Yes…and did you know that the origin of those halos have nothing to do with the Bible?
Since God’s express command was not to “MAKE” IMAGES of ANYTHING”, (Exodus 20:4-5) we can understand the reason why false worship is depicted in those icons and statuary (images) with the trappings of false sun worship.

In the religious art of Ancient Greece, Rome, Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism among other religions, sacred persons may be depicted with a halo!!!

Bingo! You will find these halos in false worship, but not in true Christianity, since the worship of images was forbidden to the Jews and also to the Christians, it is obvious from early Christian practice that images of God or Christ or his mother were not found until later times, when false ideas were spreading like the weeds that Jesus spoke about.

Those pesky little facts kind of destroy your opinion!!!

My opinion counts for nothing….but the scriptures speak louder than any of us…it’s a shame that the majority who identify as “Christians” don’t listen and obey them. It is, after all, what God provided to guide us on the path to life. It is when we wander off and indulge our own ideas about things, that the trouble starts.
When men in self-imposed religious authority began to enforce their rigid ideas and practices on their flocks, we see a repeat of what Jesus had to deal with in the first century. Those religious leaders were not teaching scriptural truth but with the aid of the Talmud, infused their own ideas into scripture….just like Catholicism does with its Catechism. The scriptures speak for themselves, but that doesn’t mean we don’t need guides to keep us on the right path. We are the ones who have to choose who those guides are for us, and since satan and his minions are the great deceivers, they entice people with false ideas about death and infuse morbid fear of a place the Bible does not say a word about….(“a fiery hell”)

The truth is out there, and it is God who guides right hearted ones to accept it (John 6:65)…to others, it appears to be heresy…..but think back to Jesus’ day and see the very same scenario. The majority, led by corrupt imposters, led the whole Jewish nation astray and they missed out on what was rightfully their inheritance, if only they would have obeyed the laws of their God…..we know from scripture that they never could, making them the best examples of what NOT to do in order to receive God’s blessings.

History is repeating right under everyone’s nose, but they have been “blinded”, so they cannot see it. ( 2 Cor 4:3-4) God allows each one of us to believe as our own heart inclines us…..he knows who are genuine truth seekers who will stand up for the truth no matter the consequences.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The problem you have BoL is that one doesn't need Hislop or Woodrow to see sun worship being a prevalent theme throughout Catholicism. It is evident for all to see, the pictures Jane posting above but the tip of the iceberg.
You criticism of Hislop may or may not be justified, but in context with the subject matter, irrelevant. Casting Jane's post aside with a snide "an idiotic accusation" and a weak reference to the catechism (which is hardly going to brandish an open boast regarding sun worship) is not in any way shape or form an answer to Jane's assertion. What are you going to do with the many evidences that proclaim otherwise when it comes to the symbolism and demonstration of your church's obsession with the sun? View attachment 35095
One could argue this further when you see the angels in Catholic culture being represented as babies with little wings and harps. The sum of all this imagery is a reduction of the glory and power and majesty of God to make Him less than the imagined glory, power, and majesty of the Pope.
View attachment 35096View attachment 35097View attachment 35098View attachment 35099View attachment 35100View attachment 35101

Another idiotic post.
At least Jane isn’t alone . . .

FIRST of all – you didn’t answer my question: Why is there NO mention of sun-worship in the Catechism?
Choke on that for a while.

As for your objection to the use of globes – or angels being depicted as children, – it’s because they are just THAT: artistic depictions.
Angels have NO form, as they are pure spirit. Since they are depicted in the Book of Revelation as “flying” Rev. 14:6-20, artists over the centuries have given them wings.

The word, “Cherub” is derived from the Hebrew word “kĕrūḇ, which icj is derived from the Aramaic word, “kĕ-raḇyā”, which means “child-like”. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with “Pagan” deities.
Just more of your LIES . . .

As for adoration of the baby Jesus – He is human in every stage of His life – as well as being GOD. If you are offended by Him being depicted as a child – WHY doesn’t it offend you when He is depicted as an adult?

This is what happens when ignorant anti-Catholics like Hislop and YOU go around inventing your own “facts” . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Everything had to look "Christian" so sun worship was disguised.....the worship of the "sun" became the worship of the "son"

Sooooo, WHO is keeping this “secret” – and WHEN are they going to let the other Billion Catholics in on it??
Utter stupidity . . .

Can you tell me something...?
Why is there a Babylonian sun wheel in St Peter's Square? And why was an obelisk that represented the sun god Ra imported from Egypt and given pride of place in the middle of the "Square"?

The obelisk was always there. It remains to this day – with a CRICIFIX on top of it – to symbolize Christ’s victory over paganism.

Do your HOMEWORK . . .

Why is the wafer offered at Mass in the shape of the sun, when Jesus broke the bread, meaning that it had no particular shape?

View attachment 35106 View attachment 35107

In the shape of the “sun”??
The sun i8s the ONLY circular object??

It is in the shape of a CIRCLE because the circle has NO beginning and NO end.

Sound familiar, Einstein??
It represents God’s ETERNITY.

We don't need Hyslop or anyone else to point out the manure, because the Catholic church hides it all in plain sight....they just call it something else

And yet, you FAILED to show me where “Sun-worship” is taught anywhere in the Catechism.

EPIC fail . . .

.....where will I find Jesus celebrating a Mass?

At the Last Supper . . .

 

[Brakelite]

FIRST of all – you didn’t answer my question: Why is there NO mention of sun-worship in the Catechism?
Choke on that for a while.

Ummm, yes, I did...

a weak reference to the catechism (which is hardly going to brandish an open boast regarding sun worship) is not in any way shape or form an answer to Jane's assertion. What are you going to do with the many evidences that proclaim otherwise when it comes to the symbolism and demonstration of your church's obsession with the sun?

The word, “Cherub” is derived from the Hebrew word “kĕrūḇ, which icj is derived from the Aramaic word, “kĕ-raḇyā”, which means “child-like”. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with “Pagan” deities.
Just more of your LIES . . .

I didn't say anything about angels being pagan deities. So stop with the straw men already.

One could argue this further when you see the angels in Catholic culture being represented as babies with little wings and harps. The sum of all this imagery (baby cherubs and baby Jesus) is a reduction of the glory and power and majesty of God to make Him less than the imagined glory, power, and majesty of the Pope.

Why is there no Catholic artistic representation of Jesus as He is to be worshipped today? He is the Son of God, ministering in the heavenly sanctuary as our High Priest and advocate before the Almighty Father.

anti-Catholics

No where in any of my threads have I spoken a bad word against Catholics, except in historical incidents when they murdered innocent people. But even then, I blamed the institution they belonged to, rather than being personal. Unlike yourself who constantly accuse individuals you don't agree with as being liars, ignorant, hateful, stupid and idiotic. It is only you who is anti the individual.

In the shape of the “sun”??

Yep. Like this... I'm not referring to the obelisk, but the pattern surrounding it. Care to explain it? We all know it is an intentional pattern and designer intentionally, not an accident.



Maybe these will offer you a hint...

 

[Brakelite]

FIRST of all – you didn’t answer my question: Why is there NO mention of sun-worship in the Catechism?
Choke on that for a while.

Ummm, yes, I did...

a weak reference to the catechism (which is hardly going to brandish an open boast regarding sun worship) is not in any way shape or form an answer to Jane's assertion. What are you going to do with the many evidences that proclaim otherwise when it comes to the symbolism and demonstration of your church's obsession with the sun?

The word, “Cherub” is derived from the Hebrew word “kĕrūḇ, which icj is derived from the Aramaic word, “kĕ-raḇyā”, which means “child-like”. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with “Pagan” deities.
Just more of your LIES . . .

I didn't say anything about angels being pagan deities. So stop with the straw men already.

One could argue this further when you see the angels in Catholic culture being represented as babies with little wings and harps. The sum of all this imagery (baby cherubs and baby Jesus) is a reduction of the glory and power and majesty of God to make Him less than the imagined glory, power, and majesty of the Pope.

Why is there no Catholic artistic representation of Jesus as He is to be worshipped today? He is the Son of God, ministering in the heavenly sanctuary as our High Priest and advocate before the Almighty Father.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Sooooo, WHO is keeping this “secret” – and WHEN are they going to let the other Billion Catholics in on it??

The church....and don't expect to be told any time soon.

The obelisk was always there. It remains to this day – with a CRICIFIX on top of it – to symbolize Christ’s victory over paganism.

It was always there? That is not what my research revealed....."It was erected to its present position by Pope Sixtus V in 1586."
The obelisk was the Egyptian symbol of their chief deity, and there it is in plain sight....holding pride of place where the pope gives his addresses to the people. Where will I find a "pope" in the Bible as the head of the church? The "Pontiff", as he is referred to, carries the pagan Roman religious title of "Pontifex Maximus"......there is nothing "Christian" about that.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannia...."Augustus absorbed the title of Pontifex Maximus as it was the ultimate ruling title, indicating both religious and political power over ancient Rome."
Julius Caesar was called pontifex maximus 40 years before Jesus was born. After the time of Christ, the ancient Roman church had a college of pontiffs.

If the title was around before Jesus even existed as a man on earth, then it was not either a Jewish or Christian title...it already existed in the pagan Roman religion indicating both religious and political power in the Empire.

Do your HOMEWORK . . .

I did.

In the shape of the “sun”??
The sun i8s the ONLY circular object??

It's all just a coincidence then...? The sun was a feature of pagan Roman worship, and when Jesus broke the bread at the last supper it just accidentally happened to be in the shape of the sun...?
Did Jesus place any emphasis on the shape of the bread he offered to his disciples at their last Passover?
Did he turn the bread and the wine into his literal flesh and blood before he had even offered his life?

you FAILED to show me where “Sun-worship” is taught anywhere in the Catechism.

Like the Jews of Jesus' day, tradition has replaced God's word in the worship practiced by the Catholic church. (Matt 15:7-9)
Sun worship, though not mentioned by name, is certainly right there in plain site, as is the idolatry that the Bible warned was NOT to be practiced.
"Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth
5Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them"....(Exodus 20:4-5)

What do you call this....?

At the Last Supper . . .

The last supper was a Passover celebration, not a Mass. It was an annual event, not something done weekly.

 

[Illuminator]

Anti-Catholicism is a tradition of men.
There are varying degrees. A disagreement does not make one an anti-Catholic. Sadly, the baseless verbal diarrhea from the extreme anti-Catholics are manifestations of mental illness; the Christian Taliban of the internet.
They are easy to spot. They deny the validity of the councils and synods that ratified the Books of the Bible and the defense of the Trinity from attacking heretics. In doing so, they profess ant-Protestantism.

 

[Illuminator]

 

[Illuminator]

The church....and don't expect to be told any time soon.

It was always there? That is not what my research revealed....."It was erected to its present position by Pope Sixtus V in 1586."
The obelisk was the Egyptian symbol of their chief deity, and there it is in plain sight....holding pride of place where the pope gives his addresses to the people. Where will I find a "pope" in the Bible as the head of the church? The "Pontiff", as he is referred to, carries the pagan Roman religious title of "Pontifex Maximus"......there is nothing "Christian" about that.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannia...."Augustus absorbed the title of Pontifex Maximus as it was the ultimate ruling title, indicating both religious and political power over ancient Rome."
Julius Caesar was called pontifex maximus 40 years before Jesus was born. After the time of Christ, the ancient Roman church had a college of pontiffs.

If the title was around before Jesus even existed as a man on earth, then it was not either a Jewish or Christian title...it already existed in the pagan Roman religion indicating both religious and political power in the Empire.

Title "Pontifex Maximus" or "Supreme Pontiff"

Of course Christ didn't appoint Peter to be the Pontifex Maximus. And of course the early Church Fathers spoke of the Pontifex Maximus in such derogatory, paganistic ways. Because when the early Fathers were writing, the Pontifex Maximus was the head of the Roman pagan religion, and the Roman Empire itself was pagan. As any student of Roman history knows, the Pontifex Maximus was an imperial office, usually held by the Emperor himself, which made one the "chief priest" of the Roman "state cult."

Now as I said, in the days of the early Fathers, this "state cult" was paganism and Emperor worship. Yet, when Constantine the Great became the first Christian Roman Emperor, the "state cult" changed to Christianity. Now, oddly enough, the first Christian emperors all still retained the title of Pontifex Maximus (a traditional title for Emperors) which, under imperial law (though not Church law), actually made them the "Head of the Church"! It was by this authority, for example, that Constantine called the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) to settle the Arian controversy.

Indeed, it was not until the Empire split in two, with the Western Empire going to the pious, youthful Emperor Gratian (c. 360 AD) that the Pope was given the title Pontifex Maximus. Indeed, feeling that it was not right for he himself to carry that title (since he was, after all, not a Christian priest) the pious young Emperor bestowed it upon Pope Damasus I, who became the first Pope in history to hold the title "Pontifex Maximus."

Yet, this was only a legal title; and the Popes didn't pay much attention to it at the time, but continued to maintain that their authority came from the Apostle Peter and Peter alone. It was not until the Popes began to conflict with several heretical Eastern Emperors (who, by the way, never relinquished the title "Pontifex Maximus" in the Eastern Empire) that the Popes began asserting their legal authority under imperial law.

This is why the Pope is referred to as the "Pontifex Maximus" or "Supreme Pontiff" today, and not because of any carry-over from paganism. Just as there were pagan Emperors and Christian Emperors, just as there are pagan kings and Christian kings, so there are pagan Pontiffs and Christian Pontiffs. Aunty Jane's anti-Catholic prejudice prevents her from appreciating this.

Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/papacy/the-title-pontifex-maximus-by-mark-j-bonocore/

I did.

It's all just a coincidence then...? The sun was a feature of pagan Roman worship, and when Jesus broke the bread at the last supper it just accidentally happened to be in the shape of the sun...?
Did Jesus place any emphasis on the shape of the bread he offered to his disciples at their last Passover?
Did he turn the bread and the wine into his literal flesh and blood before he had even offered his life?

Hislop and Chick argue that the wafers of Communion are round, just like the wafers of the sun-worshippers of Baal. They don’t bother to mention that the wafers used by the same pagans were also ovals, triangles, some with the edges folded over, or shaped like leaves or animals, etc. The fact that a wafer is round does not make it immoral or pagan, since even the Jews had wafers and cakes offered in the Old Testament (Gen. 18:1-8, Exod. 29:1-2).

Unfortunately for Chick and other Fundamentalists, their arguments backfire. An atheist will take the pagan connection one step further, saying, “Christianity itself is simply a regurgitation of pagan myths: the incarnation of a divinity from a virgin, a venerated mother and child, just like Isis and Osiris, Isa and Iswara, Fortuna and Jupiter, and Semiramis and Tammuz. Beyond this, some pagans had a triune God, and pagan gods were often pictured with wings, as was your God in Psalms 91:4. The flames on the heads of the apostles were also seen as an omen from the gods in Roman poetry and heathen myths long before Pentecost. A rock is struck that brings forth water in the Old Testament . . . just like the pagan goddess Rhea did long before then. Also, Jesus is known as the ‘fish,’ just like the fish-god Dagon, etc.”

Fortunately, all of the supposed parallels mentioned above self-destruct when examined with any scholarly rigor. If not guilty of historical inaccuracies, they all are guilty of what can be called “pagan influence fallacies.”

Is Catholicism Pagan?

Catholic beliefs are not "borrowed" from earlier pagan cults. We clear away the confusion and give you some helpful hints on how to respond to this charge.

www.catholic.com

Like the Jews of Jesus' day, tradition has replaced God's word in the worship practiced by the Catholic church. (Matt 15:7-9)
Sun worship, though not mentioned by name, is certainly right there in plain site, as is the idolatry that the Bible warned was NOT to be practiced.
"Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth
5Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them"....(Exodus 20:4-5)

What do you call this....?

View attachment 35151 View attachment 35153 View attachment 35152

I call it hate propaganda with no context. The statue worship myth and has been beaten to death repeatedly on this forum and every forum on the internet. You are too proud to be corrected;, that's why you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again for several years.

Do Catholics Worship Statues?

Do Catholics violate God's prohibition of idolatry by worshiping statues? We put this bogus claim to rest once and for all.

www.catholic.com

The last supper was a Passover celebration, not a Mass. It was an annual event, not something done weekly.

Acts 2:46 46And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, 47Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

"continuing daily" so why do you exclude yourself? Daily communion is not practical for all Catholics, but it's there for those who are called to it.

The Mass fulfills Passover, but you shift into automatic "I hate Catholicism" rendering you incapable of receiving any explanations.

Catholics don't make a religion out of misrepresenting your beliefs the way you do to us. Your particular extreme anti-Catholicism rots the mind. Only the Holy Spirit can heal you of your psychotic prejudice, not arguing in forums.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Anti-Catholicism is a tradition of men.
There are varying degrees. A disagreement does not make one an anti-Catholic. Sadly, the baseless verbal diarrhea from the extreme anti-Catholics are manifestations of mental illness; the Christian Taliban of the internet.
They are easy to spot. They deny the validity of the councils and synods that ratified the Books of the Bible and the defense of the Trinity from attacking heretics. In doing so, they profess ant-Protestantism.

Those who highlight the erroneous traditions of the RCC as adoptions from paganism are not “anti-Catholic” because all their claims are valid. The justification for them by the church is IMO, pathetic. You can justify anything you want with enough excuses.

Since Jesus castigated the religious leaders of his day for exactly the same thing (substituting tradition for scripture) was Jesus then being anti-Semitic? (Matt 15:7-9; Matt 23:15, 33)

When God said not to “MAKE” images used in worship, and not to bow before them, how does the RCC then justify that? They say that it isn’t worship but veneration. What is the difference?
By offering the scriptural evidence for the making of the golden cherubs for the ark of the covenant, they seem to forget that it was mandated by God himself…and no one was allowed to see the sacred ark with its decorations except the High Priest, and only once a year.
When it was transported, it was always covered and only the priests were allowed to carry it with the poles that made human contact unnecessary. Any human who touched the ark would die. (When David disobediently transported the ark on a wagon, and it toppled, a man put out his hand to save it and perished.)

The copper serpent made by Moses in the wilderness to give the Israelites an opportunity to save themselves from the serpents that God had sent to punish them, he later commanded it to be destroyed when it became an idol to them.
The excuses do not hold water, but if you want to justify the things God condemns, he will allow you to be deceived because you have chosen your position in full knowledge of his commands regarding idolatry.

God has not mandated or commanded the use of images in worship….EVER. When he says “do not MAKE” them, he means it. He detests idolatry regardless of what you want to call it.
Decorations in the Temple in no way represent what Catholics do with the images they venerate in their homes and churches…or anywhere else for that matter.



Where in all of scripture does anyone make Mary a person to be venerated? She was a privileged woman, no doubt chosen by God for her devotion, but the RCC made Mary into an idol, giving her the status of “mother of God”….yet nowhere is she ever called that in the Bible……but ‘mother goddess worship’ is seen in false religions all over the world. All of Mary’s titles come from the worship of those false deities.
Catholic adoptions are not scriptural which is why they reject ‘sola scriptura’ in favor of making up their own rules. Christendom today bears no resemblance to the original Christianity as taught by Jesus Christ and his apostles…..it’s not even close.


How is this in any way a reflection of anything Christ taught? He would be appalled!

They will need to make their excuses to the one who will judge all of us.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Acts 2:46 46And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, 47Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

"continuing daily" so why do you exclude yourself? Daily communion is not practical for all Catholics, but it's there for those who are called to it.

This is not the commemoration of Jesus’ death as it was celebrated at the last supper…..the people gathered for meals in loving fellowship.…breaking bread as they did at all their meals….and from house to house.
This was early in the history of Christianity because later they were expelled from the Temple as apostates, yet it was the real apostates who accused them of what they themselves were guilty.

The Mass fulfills Passover, but you shift into automatic "I hate Catholicism" rendering you incapable of receiving any explanations.

The Passover was only for the Jews. Jesus, by becoming the true Passover lamb fulfilled the role for which he was “sent”. When he was about to expire he said “it is finished”…..he had fulfilled all that was written in God’s word concerning the role of the Messiah.
I have studied the Bible with many Catholic people who were very angry about what the Bible said in relation to their worship…..not angry with God, but with a church system who has lied to them for centuries. Identifying the “weeds“ of Jesus’ parable, allowed them to obey Revelation 18:4-5…..putting them on the narrow road to life.

Catholics don't make a religion out of misrepresenting your beliefs the way you do to us. Your particular extreme anti-Catholicism rots the mind. Only the Holy Spirit can heal you of your psychotic prejudice, not arguing in forums.

Jesus and his apostles exposed the Pharisees for what they were…self-righteous hypocrites….as I said, that did not make them anti-Semitic…..it made them pro-God.
What "rots the mind" is being told generation after generation, for century after century, that what you accept as Christianity actually is….look back and then look up. The truth is out there, but the willfully “blind” will never see it. (2 Cor 4:3-4; Matt 23:13, 15, 24)

 

[Hobie]

A Saturday Sabbath is a valid day to worship, so the whole Sunday/Saturday controversy is silly. If worship on Saturday only is more important than the Resurrection, then Jesus should apologize to such Sabbatarians for rising from death a day late.
The NT Church gathered on the LORD’S Day – the FIRST day of the week (Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:2, Rev. 1:10) on SUNDAY, the day of the Resurrection, not Saturday.

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbathday, and hallowed it.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Mark 2:27
And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

It is clear that Christ made the Sabbath at Creation on only one day and blessed and hallowed it, and no other...

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ummm, yes, I did...

Ummmm – NO, you didn’t.
YOU said: “…one doesn't need Hislop or Woodrow to see sun worship being a prevalent theme throughout Catholicism.”

Can you produce ONE, SINGE example of this?
You’re a two-bit liar and nothing more.

I didn't say anything about angels being pagan deities. So stop with the straw men already.

No – nut your idiotic notions about WHY cherubs are represented as small children is just as stupid.

Why is there no Catholic artistic representation of Jesus as He is to be worshipped today? He is the Son of God, ministering in the heavenly sanctuary as our High Priest and advocate before the Almighty Father.

Another LIE.

There are PLENTY of depictions of Jesus in all His glory . . .

No where in any of my threads have I spoken a bad word against Catholics, except in historical incidents when they murdered innocent people. But even then, I blamed the institution they belonged to, rather than being personal. Unlike yourself who constantly accuse individuals you don't agree with as being liars, ignorant, hateful, stupid and idiotic. It is only you who is anti the individual.

What I see a liars spewing LIES or making stupid or idiotic claims – I point them out.

In other words - I calls’em as I see’em . . .

As for YOU – you are constantly attacking the Catholic Church with half-triths and outright lies. That makes YOU an “anti-Catholic.”

Yep. Like this... I'm not referring to the obelisk, but the pattern surrounding it. Care to explain it? We all know it is an intentional pattern and designer intentionally, not an accident.

Maybe these will offer you a hint...

This is a textbook example as to WHY I refer to YOUR posts as “idiotic”.
The history behind the design of St. Peter’s Square has everything to do with “Church” and NOTHING to do with the sun.

Gian Lorenzo Bernini, the Italian architect who designed St. Peter’s Square, explained the symbolism of his design.
Two semi-circular rows of colonnades sweep out from each side of St. Peter’s Basilica and curve toward one another, as though they were “embracing” the square.
The colonnades represent the “maternal arms of Mother Church,” as he himself put it.

“Babylonian Sun Wheel”, indeed . . .

Exod. 20:16
“You SHALL NOT give false testimony against your neighbor.:

 

[BreadOfLife]

The church....and don't expect to be told any time soon.

Ummmm, wouldn’t that defeat the entire purpose of their supposed “sun-worshipping” agenda, Einstein??

It was always there? That is not what my research revealed....."It was erected to its present position by Pope Sixtus V in 1586."
The obelisk was the Egyptian symbol of their chief deity, and there it is in plain sight....holding pride of place where the pope gives his addresses to the people. Where will I find a "pope" in the Bible as the head of the church? The "Pontiff", as he is referred to, carries the pagan Roman religious title of "Pontifex Maximus"......there is nothing "Christian" about that.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannia...."Augustus absorbed the title of Pontifex Maximus as it was the ultimate ruling title, indicating both religious and political power over ancient Rome."
Julius Caesar was called pontifex maximus 40 years before Jesus was born. After the time of Christ, the ancient Roman church had a college of pontiffs.

If the title was around before Jesus even existed as a man on earth, then it was not either a Jewish or Christian title...it already existed in the pagan Roman religion indicating both religious and political power in the Empire.

The title of “King” existed before Saul or David.
Does that mean that this is automatically a “pagan” title?

Pontifex Maximus simply means “Greatest Bridge-builder”.
Do your HOMEWORK . . .

I did.

It’s painfully-evident that you didn’t . . .

It's all just a coincidence then...? The sun was a feature of pagan Roman worship, and when Jesus broke the bread at the last supper it just accidentally happened to be in the shape of the sun...?
Did Jesus place any emphasis on the shape of the bread he offered to his disciples at their last Passover?
Did he turn the bread and the wine into his literal flesh and blood before he had even offered his life?

Are you really that dense??
As I educated you in my last post – the circular shape of the host symbolizes Go’s ETERNITY.

I can’t explain it ANY simpler than that . . .

Like the Jews of Jesus' day, tradition has replaced God's word in the worship practiced by the Catholic church. (Matt 15:7-9)
Sun worship, though not mentioned by name, is certainly right there in plain site, as is the idolatry that the Bible warned was NOT to be practiced.
"Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth
5Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them"....(Exodus 20:4-5)

What do you call this....?

I call it, “abject ignorance” of God’s Word.
Time for a Bible Lesson . . .

The commandment against graven images is about the WORSHIP of them as gods.
THAT’S what “idolatry” means.

God commanded Moses to make 2 golden Cherubim to place atop the Ark (Exod. 25:18-20) and they prostrated themselves before it (Joshua 7:6).

He also commanded him to fashion a bronze serpent and mount it on a pole so that those who gazed upon it would be healed (Num. 21:4-9).

The commandment was not against the MAKING of images – otherwise YOU and everybody else would be guilty of having images on your mantle at home or in your wallet.

It was against the WORSHIP of them as gods.
Catholics don’t “worship” anything or anybody but GOD Himself.

The last supper was a Passover celebration, not a Mass. It was an annual event, not something done weekly.

What do you think the Mass is, Einstein??
It is the celebration of the FULFILLMENT of the Passover.

Jesus’s Passion fulfilled the Passover.

 

[Brakelite]

Babylonian Sun Wheel indeed

Yes, just as you said. I'm not talking about the Colonnades, but you know that already right? You are just evading the obvious.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Ummmm, wouldn’t that defeat the entire purpose of their supposed “sun-worshipping” agenda, Einstein??

The title of “King” existed before Saul or David.
Does that mean that this is automatically a “pagan” title?

Pontifex Maximus simply means “Greatest Bridge-builder”.
Do your HOMEWORK . . .

It’s painfully-evident that you didn’t . . .


Are you really that dense??
As I educated you in my last post – the circular shape of the host symbolizes Go’s ETERNITY.

I can’t explain it ANY simpler than that . . .

I call it, “abject ignorance” of God’s Word.
Time for a Bible Lesson . . .

The commandment against graven images is about the WORSHIP of them as gods.
THAT’S what “idolatry” means.

God commanded Moses to make 2 golden Cherubim to place atop the Ark (Exod. 25:18-20) and they prostrated themselves before it (Joshua 7:6).

He also commanded him to fashion a bronze serpent and mount it on a pole so that those who gazed upon it would be healed (Num. 21:4-9).

The commandment was not against the MAKING of images – otherwise YOU and everybody else would be guilty of having images on your mantle at home or in your wallet.

It was against the WORSHIP of them as gods.
Catholics don’t “worship” anything or anybody but GOD Himself.

What do you think the Mass is, Einstein??
It is the celebration of the FULFILLMENT of the Passover.

Jesus’s Passion fulfilled the Passover.

Oh the ducking and weaving of justification…..but that’s OK,
Einstein was a genius but he couldn’t spell because he was dyslexic. I’m not a genius but I can read and God’s word tells me that the Catholic church is a monumentally bad imitation of original Christianity.
Even if the words fall on deaf ears, the visual proof is right there for all to see….

In John’s Revelation he describes a harlot sitting on a wild beast….
Rev 17:3-6…..
“And he carried me away in the power of the spirit into a wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet-colored wild beast that was full of blasphemous names and that had seven heads and ten horns. 4 The woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and she was adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, and she had in her hand a golden cup that was full of disgusting things and the unclean things of her sexual immorality. 5 On her forehead was written a name, a mystery: “Babylon the Great, the mother of the prostitutes and of the disgusting things of the earth.” 6 And I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the holy ones and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus.”

This entity is of the devil’s making and encompasses all religions that have the same basic teachings…..multiplicities of gods, belief in an immortal soul, and places for these souls to go immediately after death to either heavenly bliss, or a fiery hell of eternal torment….none of those teachings however, are from the Bible because they all have their origins in ancient Babylon. The “greater Babylon” is just a larger global imitation of the original. Original Babylon was the springboard for all false religious ideas to spread abroad in the earth when God confused the language of the tower builders.

It’s interesting the mention of the “mother of the disgusting things of the earth” is “clothed in purple and scarlet”….



The “golden cup“ is also significant….as are the trappings of the gold inlaid Vatican ‘temple’ of false worship.



The wealth of the church is in stark contrast to the poverty of its many subjects. Jesus warned about the dangers of wealth and its material expressions. He instituted none of this.….but advocated a simple life and faith, free of the love of money.



But I guess there are none so blind……?

 

[Jack]

Oh the ducking and weaving of justification…..but that’s OK,
Einstein was a genius but he couldn’t spell because he was dyslexic. I’m not a genius but I can read and God’s word tells me that the Catholic church is a monumentally bad imitation of original Christianity.
Even if the words fall on deaf ears, the visual proof is right there for all to see….

If you could read you wouldn't be JW.

In John’s Revelation he describes a harlot sitting on a wild beast….
Rev 17:3-6…..
“And he carried me away in the power of the spirit into a wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet-colored wild beast that was full of blasphemous names and that had seven heads and ten horns. 4 The woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and she was adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, and she had in her hand a golden cup that was full of disgusting things and the unclean things of her sexual immorality. 5 On her forehead was written a name, a mystery: “Babylon the Great, the mother of the prostitutes and of the disgusting things of the earth.” 6 And I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the holy ones and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus.”

This entity is of the devil’s making and encompasses all religions that have the same basic teachings…..multiplicities of gods, belief in an immortal soul, and places for these souls to go immediately after death to either heavenly bliss, or a fiery hell of eternal torment….none of those teachings however, are from the Bible because they all have their origins in ancient Babylon. The “greater Babylon” is just a larger global imitation of the original. Original Babylon was the springboard for all false religious ideas to spread abroad in the earth when God confused the language of the tower builders.

Another Kingdom Hall victim!

 

[Illuminator]

Oh the ducking and weaving of justification…..but that’s OK,
Einstein was a genius but he couldn’t spell because he was dyslexic. I’m not a genius but I can read and God’s word tells me that the Catholic church is a monumentally bad imitation of original Christianity.
Even if the words fall on deaf ears, the visual proof is right there for all to see….

In John’s Revelation he describes a harlot sitting on a wild beast….
Rev 17:3-6…..
“And he carried me away in the power of the spirit into a wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet-colored wild beast that was full of blasphemous names and that had seven heads and ten horns. 4 The woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and she was adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, and she had in her hand a golden cup that was full of disgusting things and the unclean things of her sexual immorality. 5 On her forehead was written a name, a mystery: “Babylon the Great, the mother of the prostitutes and of the disgusting things of the earth.” 6 And I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the holy ones and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus.”

This entity is of the devil’s making and encompasses all religions that have the same basic teachings…..multiplicities of gods, belief in an immortal soul, and places for these souls to go immediately after death to either heavenly bliss, or a fiery hell of eternal torment….none of those teachings however, are from the Bible because they all have their origins in ancient Babylon. The “greater Babylon” is just a larger global imitation of the original. Original Babylon was the springboard for all false religious ideas to spread abroad in the earth when God confused the language of the tower builders.

It’s interesting the mention of the “mother of the disgusting things of the earth” is “clothed in purple and scarlet”….

Some anti-Catholics claim the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18. Dave Hunt, in his 1994 book, A Woman Rides the Beast, presents nine arguments to try to prove this. His claims are a useful summary of those commonly used by Fundamentalists, and an examination of them shows why they don’t work.

For his fourth argument, (similar to Aunt Jane's verbal diarrhea) Hunt states, “She [the whore] is clothed in ‘purple and scarlet’ (v. 4), the colors of the Catholic clergy.”, proven with a photo.

Rather than assigning the whore’s colors their symbolic meaning (purple for royalty, red for the blood of martyrs), Hunt is suddenly, joltingly literal in his interpretation. He caught on well enough that the woman symbolizes a city and that the fornication symbolizes something other than a sexual act, but now he wants to assign colors a purely literal fulfillment in the clothing of Catholic ecclesiastics.

Besides, purple and red are not the dominant colors of clerical clothing. Black and white are. Consider the average priest’s “clericals” (black suit with white Roman collar); priests’ clerical garb is never purple or red, and for only a short time during the liturgical year do they wear chasubles with purple or red. But every priest wears a white alb at Mass. Even bishops and cardinals usually wear black (look at the bishop or cardinal who heads your diocese). And the pope, of course, always wears white.

The purple and scarlet of the whore are contrasts to the white worn by the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Christ (Rev. 19:8). This makes two more problems for Aunt Jane: The clothing of the Bride is given a symbolic interpretation (“the righteous acts of the saints” 19:8) implying that the clothing of the whore should also be given a symbolic meaning, and the identification of the Bride as New Jerusalem (Rev. 3:12, 21:2, 10) suggests that the whore may be old, apostate Jerusalem–a contrast used elsewhere in Scripture (Gal. 4:25-26).

Another problem for Aunt Jane is that she ignores the liturgical meaning of the colors purple and red. Purple symbolizes repentance, and red honors the blood of Christ and the Christian martyrs–both of these things being noble, whereas in Revelation these colors reveal how ignoble the whore is.

It is entirely appropriate for Catholic clerics to wear purple and scarlet because these have been liturgical colors ever since ancient Israel. In fact, together with blue and white, they were the dominant colors of the Israelite liturgy.

• God commanded that the curtains which formed the walls of the Tabernacle be made with purple and scarlet yarn (Ex. 25:4, 26:1, 31, 36, 27:16, 36:8, 35, 37, 38:18, 39:34).
• He commanded the tabernacle to have a ceiling made of ram skins dyed red (Ex. 26:14, 36:19, 39:34).
• He commanded that when they were being moved the table of the bread of the presence be covered with a scarlet cloth (Num. 4:8)
• and the bronze altar with a purple cloth (Num. 4:13).
• He commanded that scarlet yarn and wool be used in liturgical ceremonies (Lev. 14:4, 6, 49-52, Num. 19:6).
• He commanded that the vestments for priests be made with purple and scarlet yarn (Ex. 28:4-8, 15, 33, 39:1-8, 24, 29).

If there was nothing sinister about the Israelites using these God-commanded colors then, there is nothing sinister about the Catholic clergy using them now.

At the risk of making the same point too often, it should be noted that the colors purple and scarlet, taken literally or symbolically, may stand for pagan Rome or apostate Jerusalem. Both were capital royal) cities, and both shed the blood of Christian martyrs. A. Jane can't identify by name any martyrs of the 2nd or 3rd century.

View attachment 35246

The “golden cup“ is also significant….as are the trappings of the gold inlaid Vatican ‘temple’ of false worship.

To make the Whore’s gold cup suggestive of the Eucharistic chalice, Hunt inserts the word “chalice” in square brackets, though the Greek word here is the ordinary word for cup (potarion), which appears thirty-three times in the New Testament and is always translated “cup.”

• A.J. ignores the fact that the Catholic chalice is used in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper—a ritual commanded by Christ (Luke 22:19–20; 1 Cor. 11:24–25);
• A.J. ignores the fact that the majority of Eucharistic chalices Catholics use are not made out of gold, but other materials, such as brass, silver, glass, and even earthenware;
• A.J. ignores the fact that gold liturgical vessels and utensils have been part of the true religion ever since ancient Israel—again at the command of God (Ex. 25:38–40, 37:23–24; Num. 31:50–51; 2 Chron. 24:14);
• and A.J. again uses a literal interpretation, according to which the Whore’s cup is not a single symbol applying to the city of Rome, but a collection of many literal cups used in cities throughout the world. But Revelation tells us that it’s the cup of God’s wrath that is given to the Whore (Rev. 14:10; cf. Rev. 18:6). This has nothing to do with Eucharistic chalices.

The wealth of the church is in stark contrast to the poverty of its many subjects. Jesus warned about the dangers of wealth and its material expressions. He instituted none of this.….but advocated a simple life and faith, free of the love of money.

But I guess there are none so blind……?

The problem is that, regardless of what it had in the past, the modern Vatican is not fantastically wealthy. In fact, it has run a budget deficit in most recent years and has an annual budget only around the size of that of the Archdiocese of Chicago. Furthermore, wealth was much more in character with pagan Rome or apostate Jerusalem, both key economic centers.
Myth of Vatican Wealth:

DEBUNKING A MYTH: THE VATICAN'S WEALTH

https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/1sugfe
The Church operates more than 140,000 schools, 10,000 orphanages, 5,000 hospitals and some 16,000 other health clinics. They are not money making operations.

 

[Illuminator]

Oh the ducking and weaving of justification…..but that’s OK,
Einstein was a genius but he couldn’t spell because he was dyslexic. I’m not a genius but I can read and God’s word tells me that the Catholic church is a monumentally bad imitation of original Christianity.
Even if the words fall on deaf ears, the visual proof is right there for all to see….

View attachment 35253

In John’s Revelation he describes a harlot sitting on a wild beast….
Rev 17:3-6…..
“And he carried me away in the power of the spirit into a wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet-colored wild beast that was full of blasphemous names and that had seven heads and ten horns. 4 The woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and she was adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, and she had in her hand a golden cup that was full of disgusting things and the unclean things of her sexual immorality. 5 On her forehead was written a name, a mystery: “Babylon the Great, the mother of the prostitutes and of the disgusting things of the earth.” 6 And I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the holy ones and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus.”

This entity is of the devil’s making and encompasses all religions that have the same basic teachings…..multiplicities of gods, belief in an immortal soul, and places for these souls to go immediately after death to either heavenly bliss, or a fiery hell of eternal torment….none of those teachings however, are from the Bible because they all have their origins in ancient Babylon. The “greater Babylon” is just a larger global imitation of the original. Original Babylon was the springboard for all false religious ideas to spread abroad in the earth when God confused the language of the tower builders.

It’s interesting the mention of the “mother of the disgusting things of the earth” is “clothed in purple and scarlet”….

Some anti-Catholics claim the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18. Dave Hunt, in his 1994 book, A Woman Rides the Beast, presents nine arguments to try to prove this. His claims are a useful summary of those commonly used by Fundamentalists, SDA's and JW's. and an examination of them shows why they don’t work.

For his fourth argument, (similar to Aunt Jane's verbal diarrhea) Hunt states, “She [the whore] is clothed in ‘purple and scarlet’ (v. 4), the colors of the Catholic clergy.”, proven with a photo.

Rather than assigning the whore’s colors their symbolic meaning (purple for royalty, red for the blood of martyrs), Hunt is suddenly, joltingly literal in his interpretation. He caught on well enough that the woman symbolizes a city and that the fornication symbolizes something other than a sexual act, but now he wants to assign colors a purely literal fulfillment in the clothing of Catholic ecclesiastics.

Besides, purple and red are not the dominant colors of clerical clothing. Black and white are. Consider the average priest’s “clericals” (black suit with white Roman collar); priests’ clerical garb is never purple or red, and for only a short time during the liturgical year do they wear chasubles with purple or red. But every priest wears a white alb at Mass. Even bishops and cardinals usually wear black (look at the bishop or cardinal who heads your diocese). And the pope, of course, always wears white.

The purple and scarlet of the whore are contrasts to the white worn by the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Christ (Rev. 19:8). This makes two more problems for Aunt Jane: The clothing of the Bride is given a symbolic interpretation (“the righteous acts of the saints” 19:8) implying that the clothing of the whore should also be given a symbolic meaning, and the identification of the Bride as New Jerusalem (Rev. 3:12, 21:2, 10) suggests that the whore may be old, apostate Jerusalem–a contrast used elsewhere in Scripture (Gal. 4:25-26).

Another problem for Aunt Jane is that she ignores the liturgical meaning of the colors purple and red. Purple symbolizes repentance, and red honors the blood of Christ and the Christian martyrs–both of these things being noble, whereas in Revelation these colors reveal how ignoble the whore is.

It is entirely appropriate for Catholic clerics to wear purple and scarlet because these have been liturgical colors ever since ancient Israel. In fact, together with blue and white, they were the dominant colors of the Israelite liturgy.

• God commanded that the curtains which formed the walls of the Tabernacle be made with purple and scarlet yarn (Ex. 25:4, 26:1, 31, 36, 27:16, 36:8, 35, 37, 38:18, 39:34).
• He commanded the tabernacle to have a ceiling made of ram skins dyed red (Ex. 26:14, 36:19, 39:34).
• He commanded that when they were being moved the table of the bread of the presence be covered with a scarlet cloth (Num. 4:8)
• and the bronze altar with a purple cloth (Num. 4:13).
• He commanded that scarlet yarn and wool be used in liturgical ceremonies (Lev. 14:4, 6, 49-52, Num. 19:6).
• He commanded that the vestments for priests be made with purple and scarlet yarn (Ex. 28:4-8, 15, 33, 39:1-8, 24, 29).

If there was nothing sinister about the Israelites using these God-commanded colors then, there is nothing sinister about the Catholic clergy using them now.

At the risk of making the same point too often, it should be noted that the colors purple and scarlet, taken literally or symbolically, may stand for pagan Rome or apostate Jerusalem. Both were capital royal) cities, and both shed the blood of Christian martyrs. A. Jane cannot identify by name any martyr of the 2nd or 3rd century. That's because Bible cults that started in the late 18th century are so sadly divorced from the early church, and have little or no Jewish roots.

Hunt-ing the Whore of Babylon: Part I

Anti-Catholic writer Dave Hunt is at it again. Large portions of his previous books have been devoted to attacking the Catholic Church. Now he has written an en...

www.catholic.com

Hunt-ing the Whore of Babylon: Part II

Dave Hunt’s earlier books seem to be divided i...

www.catholic.com

 

[Aunty Jane]

View attachment 35253

This sounds suspiciously like propaganda.....seriously, what was to praise?
Though a handful of priests and nuns protested Hitler’s atrocities—and suffered for it—the Vatican as well as the Catholic Church and its army of clergy gave either active or tacit support to the Nazi tyranny, which they regarded as a bulwark against the advance of world Communism.
The Catholic clergy were up to their necks in politics, currying favor with the world, (James 4:4) when Christ taught that we should be “NO PART of the world”. What the world is does or is doing, is what God permits them to do. It has nothing to do with us.

Sitting pretty in the Vatican, Pope Pius XII let the Holocaust on the Jews and the cruel persecutions of Gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses and others to proceed uncriticized. It is ironical that Pope John Paul II, on visiting Germany in May of 1987, should have glorified the anti-Nazi stand of one sincere priest. What were the other thousands of the German clergy doing during Hitler’s reign of terror? A pastoral letter issued by the German Catholic bishops in September 1939 at the outbreak of World War II provides enlightenment on this point. It reads in part: “In this decisive hour we admonish our Catholic soldiers to do their duty in obedience to the Fuehrer and to be ready to sacrifice their whole individuality. We appeal to the Faithful to join in ardent prayers that Divine Providence may lead this war to blessed success.”

If Christ’s disciples have blood on their hands, they have removed themselves from his discipleship and have shifted support to the one whom Jesus said not only rules this world, but is it’s god. (1 John 5:19; 2 Cor 4:3-4)

Some anti-Catholics claim the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18.

She is not the “whore” all by herself, but encompasses all religion whose doctrines originated in ancient Babylon.....starting with the RCC, Christendom adopted pagan beliefs and practices and simply changed their name to justify the defection.....have you not made that connection? The Revelation was a glimpse into the future....to a time when Christ was to return.

The history of the church is well documented in this “time of the end”, but it has existed since the 4th century after centuries of the gradual fall into outright apostasy. Power meant corruption and the church had a “kingdom over the kings of the earth” as Jesus said. The clergy ruled the rulers....not a move was made without their input.

Dave Hunt, in his 1994 book, A Woman Rides the Beast, presents nine arguments to try to prove this. His claims are a useful summary of those commonly used by Fundamentalists, SDA's and JW's. and an examination of them shows why they don’t work.

For his fourth argument, (similar to Aunt Jane's verbal diarrhea) Hunt states, “She [the whore] is clothed in ‘purple and scarlet’ (v. 4), the colors of the Catholic clergy.”, proven with a photo.

Rather than assigning the whore’s colors their symbolic meaning (purple for royalty, red for the blood of martyrs), Hunt is suddenly, joltingly literal in his interpretation. He caught on well enough that the woman symbolizes a city and that the fornication symbolizes something other than a sexual act, but now he wants to assign colors a purely literal fulfillment in the clothing of Catholic ecclesiastics.

Besides, purple and red are not the dominant colors of clerical clothing. Black and white are. Consider the average priest’s “clericals” (black suit with white Roman collar); priests’ clerical garb is never purple or red, and for only a short time during the liturgical year do they wear chasubles with purple or red. But every priest wears a white alb at Mass. Even bishops and cardinals usually wear black (look at the bishop or cardinal who heads your diocese). And the pope, of course, always wears white.

The purple and scarlet of the whore are contrasts to the white worn by the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Christ (Rev. 19:8). This makes two more problems for Aunt Jane: The clothing of the Bride is given a symbolic interpretation (“the righteous acts of the saints” 19:8) implying that the clothing of the whore should also be given a symbolic meaning, and the identification of the Bride as New Jerusalem (Rev. 3:12, 21:2, 10) suggests that the whore may be old, apostate Jerusalem–a contrast used elsewhere in Scripture (Gal. 4:25-26).

Do you understand that original Christianity had no priests officiating on earth.....their priesthood was to be in heaven
Rev 20:6
“Happy and holy is anyone having part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no authority, but they will be priests of God and of the Christ, and they will rule as kings with him for the 1,000 years.” “Will be”, not “are”.

And they had no special clothing or titles, that separated them from their brothers because all Christians were to be ministers of Christ.....a minister is a servant. All were “brothers” and some were qualified to be appointed as shepherds to guide and direct the flock.

Even the son of God was no different in appearance to his disciples because Judas had to identify him with a kiss. He wasn’t the man in the distinctive clothing.

Another problem for Aunt Jane is that she ignores the liturgical meaning of the colors purple and red. Purple symbolizes repentance, and red honors the blood of Christ and the Christian martyrs–both of these things being noble, whereas in Revelation these colors reveal how ignoble the whore is.

It is entirely appropriate for Catholic clerics to wear purple and scarlet because these have been liturgical colors ever since ancient Israel. In fact, together with blue and white, they were the dominant colors of the Israelite liturgy.

Doesn’t it seem strange to you that the RCC has reverted back to a religious system that Christ rejected?
You have emulated the Jewish system that became corrupted in exactly the same way.
Read Matthew ch 23 and see what Jesus condemned in those hypocrites. They justified all their defections as well....it's all very old, but humans are still so very easy to manipulate if you appeal to self interest and add the trappings of wealth and self aggrandisement....distinctive clothes and high sounding titles.

God commanded that the curtains which formed the walls of the Tabernacle be made with purple and scarlet yarn (Ex. 25:4, 26:1, 31, 36, 27:16, 36:8, 35, 37, 38:18, 39:34).

What does that have to do with Christianity? The Jewish system was a shadow of things in heaven. “Types and shadows” are what were represented in that system, but it became defective due to men adding to what Christ taught. Christ ended that system and introduced a “New Covenant”.....it replaced the old one.

What masquerades as “Christianity” today is not even close to the original.

• He commanded the tabernacle to have a ceiling made of ram skins dyed red (Ex. 26:14, 36:19, 39:34).
• He commanded that when they were being moved the table of the bread of the presence be covered with a scarlet cloth (Num. 4:8)
• and the bronze altar with a purple cloth (Num. 4:13).
• He commanded that scarlet yarn and wool be used in liturgical ceremonies (Lev. 14:4, 6, 49-52, Num. 19:6).
• He commanded that the vestments for priests be made with purple and scarlet yarn (Ex. 28:4-8, 15, 33, 39:1-8, 24, 29).

If there was nothing sinister about the Israelites using these God-commanded colors then, there is nothing sinister about the Catholic clergy using them now.

They were never told to do that....the whole of scripture is based on obedience to God and his Christ....we are not free to add or subtract anything. Christianity was not to be based on the procedures, trappings and actions of apostate Judaism....not to mention the adoption f doctrines that have no basis in scripture at all. You have all fallen for very old tricks.

“If a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into the pit”. (Jesus Christ)