A Catholic Dilemma

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

It is a teaching of the True Church that the Pope is one hierarchical person with our Lord Jesus Christ. Hence when the Pope speaks as pope or from the Chair of Peter, it is Christ who teaches, governs, and sanctifies. The triple crown once worn by true popes and clearly seen on their statues in St. Peter’s, signifies their authority in these three realms. That triple crown, along with the “fisherman’s ring” was sold by Paul VI (who John Paul II considers his spiritual master and teacher) to a Jewish gentleman who in turn gave it to the United Nations.

If one recognizes John Paul II as a genuine pope, one is obliged to obey him in the three realms of his authority – his teachings, his governing or what is called “jurisdiction,” and in his sanctifying role which includes the administration of the Sacraments. Now John Paul II uses his pseudo-authority to teach falsely – for example that all men are saved and that the Crucifixion is a witness to the dignity of man. One could list dozens of other heresies, but suffice it to say that he holds the documents of Vatican II to be the highest form of the ordinary Magisterium, and as such we are bound to give them our intellectual assent and hold them to be true. Many will argue that one can pick and choose just what one accepts in these documents, but such is not a Catholic way of thinking or acting. Many will claim they do not believe in all the tommyrot in Vatican II while at the same time giving honour and recognition to John Paul II. To do so is both schizophrenic and irrational and as such a sin against Truth and the Holy Ghost. A Catholic who departs from unity of faith with the pope and the bishops in union with him can no longer consider himself as a Catholic – unless of course the pope and the bishops in union with him have themselves abandoned the faith. Then to quote St. Catherine of Sienna in a similar situation, the pope and those who follow him in obedience can go to Hell. Similarly, one has to accept the validity of all the new sacraments. (This is one of the conditions for attending the “indult” Mass of John XXIII, and members of the Society of St. Peter sigh a paper stating their acceptance of the documents of Vatican II and the validity of the new sacraments.) One must for example not only accept Vatican II and the new “mass,” but also the destruction of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction which has been reduced to a “blessing of the sick.” (The fact that some priests in the new Church, in disobedience still may give the old Sacrament is beside the point – indeed they sin by disobedience when they do so.)

Now if I accept all that is in Vatican II; if I accept that Socialism is a good thing and that evolution is true; if I accept that all religions are equally good and that there is no need for the Jews to convert, then in a simple word, I apostatize from the Catholic faith as it has existed throughout the centuries, and join what is in essence a new religion with its new code, creed and cult. This I refuse to do and hence I refuse to give any allegiance to John Paul II or his representatives. There may be some good people in the new or post-Conciliar Church (as they themselves call it), and even individuals devoted to prayer, but it is clear that they are in the Novus Ordo Church, they are in no way Catholic. As for myself, I hope and pray that I may both live and die as a faithful Catholic.

Truly, “they have the Churches but we have the faith”

-- TC (Festoctober@msn.com), December 06, 2004

Answers

Bump

-- Miriel (Festoctober@msn.com), December 06, 2004.

The only thing you said that has any basis in truth is "when the Pope speaks as pope or from the Chair of Peter, it is Christ who teaches, governs, and sanctifies". That is indeed the truth. Accept it and be a member of the Holy Catholic Church - or reject it, but in that case please don't make a pretense of being Catholic. You can't have it both ways. Where the Pope is, there is the Catholic Church. You accept both or you reject both.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 06, 2004.

Imho, what you have here Paul is an imposter from the left.

Believe it or not.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 06, 2004.


If you are interested, I can explain why. That is, if you are open to hearing it. If not, I wouldn't want to waste your time.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 06, 2004.

What baffles me Mirial is that you recognize the fault with Roman Catholicism only from the point of Vatican II.

You should dig deeper back to the time of Constatine and disvover that Satan got his foot in the door at least as early as then.

When you consider the murderous and devestating history of the Catholic Church from even just the middle ages--one has to admit that this religion couldn't possibly be of God. Popes murdered popes and bastard sons inherited this seat. The history of the the papacy reads more like an Italian mob movie script!

Jesus said that His church could not be divided and that can only be because His Body is spiritual for now and consists of true believers who have been born-again.

Division has been a problem since the time of Paul, yet Jesus assured us that we cannot be divided. So either Jesus was wrong--or His church is something other than an earthly religion.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 06, 2004.



Faith;

You do not understand one thibg. We Catholics have our differences with inside problems, but we all agree that outside the church there is no salvtion. Well, we almost agree. the Novus ordos weaken, and to that extent they are your friend.

The Church has had, as you say, some rotten people, but the miracle is that it could survive for 2000 years with those kind of people. The Romans made it for 600 years and they wee gone. The Catholic longevity has to be supernatural.

-- TC (Tredmill234@@south.com), December 06, 2004.


What has survived is Christianity and the power of the cross, TC.

It is the Holy Word of God that will endure till the end. For God's words will never pass away. Truth will conquere in the end with the return of Jesus Christ when He comes to bring us home.

Catholicism in and of itself is every bit as vulnerable and faulty as is every other religion.

It doesn't matter if you Catholic agree that there is no salvation outside of your religion. Jesus says there is no salvation apart from Him. That's a big difference.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 06, 2004.


But, will you prove what you say against the Church, Faith?

You are up to your propaganda, again. Everything you say against the Church makes a greater impact on Protestantism. It fits like a glove. So, why don't you clarify your attacks with facts. I want names and dates.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 06, 2004.


In other words,

your attacks sound like they are more against Protestantism rather than Catholicism. Afterall, look at the history of Protestantism. It started as a corruption in idealogoy beginning with Henry VIII. It has broken into thousands of pieces as it fell from the Catholic Church. It sounds like your Satan has had a hand in its fall, Faith.

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 06, 2004.


Faith,

Constantine put an end to the wholesale slaughter of Christians. For 400 years Christians were persecuted unto death. I don't see that as a bad thing. God chose Constantine as an instrument of mercy towards his people. He could have used other means, but he chose to use a warrior. Why? That's God's business. Additionally, Constantine saw the great need for a decision to be made with regards to the canon of scripture, and applied tremendous pressure on the Church to come to that determination.

Why did no Christians at the time of Constantine recognize that the Church had gone off its rocker? If what you believe is true, Faith, there would be some evidence to that effect. But there isn't.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 06, 2004.



Martin Luther a Catholic priest started the Protestant reformation in 1520 and founded another church other than the one which GOD founded and claimed it to be the true church. Since more than one true church was not in GOD's plan (Psalms 127:1, 1Corinthians 3:11), His fingerprints were seen almost immediately in that very same year. Unresolved squabbling between Luther and his allies caused each of them to split off and form a chaotic plethora of separate denominations, which resulted in the scattering of the one flock of GOD. This chaotic madness is continuing to this very day. They are now numbering in the tens of thousands of sects, with each teaching something different, and with each claiming to be the true church. It is simply a variation of the tower of Babel story, with the one flock of GOD being scattered this time not by language differences, but by personal opinion differences: ""Come, let us go down, and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. Therefore its name was called Ba'bel, because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth." Genesis 11:7-9

-- TC (A@b.com), December 06, 2004.

TC,

Aside from that division of the church--the Protestant Reformation, there were many others. The great schism of 1000 AD isn't even the first time that the church began dividing.

Romans 16: 16-18

All the churches of Christ send greetings. I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned (Scripture). Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.

Paul speaks of the attempts to divide almost in 2 Thessalonians: 2:1- 12

Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back (the Holy Spirit and the church) will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

>>>>>>>>>

Do you think that these such deceiving miracles, signs and wonders could be such things as Transubstantiation..,the glass encased flesh and blood hold-up at the Vatican.., the enshrined saints who don't decay..,the aparitions of Mary., etc..?

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 06, 2004.


Gail.,

I believe that Constatine was perhaps a political genius--using Christianity to serve his purposes. But I highly doubt he was a convicted Christ as we know he allowed the Roman pagan practices to continue. They simply re-named their goddess--Mary. It was at this time that paganism and Christianity merged.

Before Constatine their were no pilgrimages., or elevation of relic or Mary worship--whatsoever.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 06, 2004.


Oops.., make that "convicted Christian"

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 06, 2004.

Ok, you are doing it again. You are starting with the "Mary worship" fodder again. That's what lead to you leaving this forum the last time. Now, substantiate your assertions with hard evidence or retract your propaganda, Faith.

I don't know how many times you've been taught by Catholics and Protestants that Mary is not being worshiped. This forum has made that very clear to you, yet you either cannot understand or flat out ignore Catholic teachings about Mary. Or, you are just trying to bring discord to this forum. You did that last time, too.

It is put up or shut up with your Mary bashing, Faith!

Fix it now before things get messy again.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 06, 2004.



One thing faith has right, Rod, is that many catholics pray to Mary without ever mentioning Jesus.

It doesn't bother me if they were to mention Jesus, the mediator of the New Pact.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 06, 2004.


Faith: "Before Constatine their were no pilgrimages., or elevation of relic or Mary worship--whatsoever."

rod: Yes there was. Before Mary ascended, those who visited here tomb found the sweet aroma of roses. Question: How could there be a "relic" when Mary was Ascended into Heaven?

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 06, 2004.


The problem with Faith's comments is that she makes blanket assertions of all Catholics. Obviously, a person who worships Mary is not a true practicing Catholic; therefore, her accusations are erroneous. Also, it is my understanding that the Catholic doctrine does not condemn those who are not Catholic. That is a false claim that Faith is perpetuating. She is either ignorant of the facts or deliberately spreading on a thick blanket of propaganda.

Some people worship cows; they are not Catholic. Some people worship Mary; they are not Catholic. Faith asserts that Catholics worship Mary; Faith is wrong.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 06, 2004.


Faith knows nothing abou working out her salvation in fear and trembling. They just skip that part. The N.O. has butchered the Mas and they too are displeasing God.

The memorial acclamation

As mentioned above, the phrase Mysterium fidei (The Mystery of Faith) was part of the Consecration form of the traditional Mass. In the new "mass" the phrase has been removed from the form and made into the introduction of the people's "Memorial Acclamation." Right after the supposed consecration, the faithful are asked to say or sing "Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again." Not only is this an entirely new practice, but it implies that the Mystery of the Faith is the Death, Resurrection and Final Coming of Our Lord, rather than His "Real Presence" on the altar. Nor are the other Memorial Acclamations any more specific - e.g. "When we eat this bread and drink this cup we proclaim your death Lord Jesus, until you come in glory."

Archbishop Annibale Bugnini informs us in his memoirs that this issue was discussed directly with Paul VI. The Consilium had wished to leave the "Memorial Acclamation" up to the National Bishops' Committees on the Liturgy, but Paul VI urged that "a series of acclamations (5 or 6) should be prepared for [use] after the consecration." According to Archbishop Bugnini, Paul VI feared that "if the initiative were left to the Bishops' Committees, inappropriate acclamations such as 'My Lord and My God' would be introduced." The traditional Church had always encouraged the use of the ejaculatory prayer "My Lord and My God" at the elevation of the Host during Mass as it both affirmed belief in the Real Presence and gave praise to God.)

-- TC (a@b.com), December 06, 2004.


Faith, could you please list the pagan rites you feel that Constantine added to Christianity?

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 06, 2004.


I would like to invite all posters and lurkers to witness what will probably transpire here with Faith.

Here is what may happen:

1. Faith will completely ignore this "Mary" issue she has brought upon us.

2. Faith will not show evidence to support her blanket accusations of Catholics--her assertion.

3. Faith will never apologize even in light of her error.

4. Faith will exihibit indignation and blame others (me) for the events to follow.

5. Faith will apologize for her offensive ad hominem attacks.

Number five will happen, if you believe miracles can happen in this forum.

Faith, I want hard evidence to support your claim that Catholics worship Mary.

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 06, 2004.


Rod.,

How many shrines are their to Jesus compared to Mary?

How many Hail Mary's is one instructed to recite after confession compared to the Lord's Prayer--for example?

Who are the rosaries for?

When a Catholic dies--who are they instructed to commit their soul to?

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 06, 2004.


Faith-

If by providing your questions I am to give my answers, am I to accept my answers with great satisfaction of them being the truth? Ok. I shall do just that. You have not provided the hard evidence to support your assertions. You have provided questions:

How many shrines are their to Jesus compared to Mary?

I don't know. I do know that The Holy Eucharist is celebrated at Mass in those shrines. So, your point is basically pointless.

How many Hail Mary's is one instructed to recite after confession compared to the Lord's Prayer--for example?

I don't know. But, the Sacrament of Confession is the point. You have not seen the real purpose of the prayer, nor do you understand.

Who are the rosaries for?

The rosaries are for the faithful in Christ. You will find your "Lord's Prayer" in the sequence of prayers.

When a Catholic dies--who are they instructed to commit their soul to?

My soul shall be judged by God.

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 06, 2004.


Well, Faith. You have fulfilled my personal prophecy about your engagement in this particular issue:

2. Faith will not show evidence to support her blanket accusations of Catholics--her assertion.

3. Faith will never apologize even in light of her error.

................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 06, 2004.


rod,

Cool your emotions.

We are allowed our opinions here.

I have to tolerate all these Catholic claims and you have to tolerate my disagreement.

When you have time--search for the answers to questions--since in those answers, I think my point is proven.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 06, 2004.


Faith. Your spreading of anti-Catholic fodder reminds of a person who is inside a pit with a spade. The person keeps digging his pit deeper and deeper. People walk to the edge of the pit and tell the digger to stop his digging. There will be a point where the digger can no longer attract the passers-by. So, ultimately the digger will only keep sinking deeper and deeper into the darkness, the abyss of confusion and deception.

You don't have to keep digging. You can simply walk away from the pit. Most people do avoid those pits and manage to stay in the light. There isn't a need to walk where there is absence of "Light".

Very simple put, you don't accept the Church; there isn't a need to torch the Church. Just walk away. You can always come back to the Church with a "born again" faith.

......................... ...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 06, 2004.


Again rod, Cool your emotions.

We are allowed our opinions here.

I have to tolerate all these Catholic claims and you have to tolerate my disagreement.

When you have time--search for the answers to my questions that I asked you---since in those answers, I think my point is proven.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 06, 2004.


Ah! and now the 4th prophecy is fulfilled:

4. Faith will exihibit indignation and blame others (me) for the events to follow.

Textual proof follows:

"Cool your emotions.

We are allowed our opinions here.

I have to tolerate all these Catholic claims and you have to tolerate my disagreement.

When you have time--search for the answers to questions--since in those answers, I think my point is proven. "

rod's reply (in BOLD) to Faith:

"Cool your emotions.

Attack the other guy when you can't give proof. Make the claim that their emotions are the issue, instead of sticking to the real issues.

"We are allowed our opinions here. "

You may opine all you want, Faith. I'm not arguing about your opinions. Again, I want "hard proof". You can't provide that proof. Uh, your opinions are not facts. Or, were you thinking that your opinions are sacred?

"I have to tolerate all these Catholic claims and you have to tolerate my disagreement."

Ok, I'll tolerate your disagreements, but I will not tolerate your errors and false teachings.

"When you have time--search for the answers to questions--since in those answers, I think my point is proven. "

Here is another example of your "flip-flop" tactics. Uh, Faith? The ball is in your court, not mine. You are the one with the funky accusations against the Catholic Church, not me. The burden of proof is with you, not me. When you have the time--search your soul for doing the right thing. You pretty much make your opinion of the Church and then you fail to provide an intellectual argument to support your assertion. You may wish to make time to load your pistols before firing off at your target (the Catholic Church).

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 06, 2004.


TC..,the true church is visible and invisible...and it is not the Roman Catholic church, past or present!

From the very first church described in the early chapters of Acts until now, there has always been a core of genuine believers in Christ's atoning death on the cross and His resurrection, which guarantees life eternal. These genuine believers are identified in Scripture as the "Body of Christ," which Paul refers to in several of his epistles (see Romans 12:5; 1 Cor. 12:27; Eph. 1:23; 4:12. and Col. 1:24; 2:19).

Down through the centuries, this Body of Christ has met in local visible churches of all kinds. The New Testament uses the word "church" when speaking of believers meeting in private homes (see Romans 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:9), in an entire city (see 1 Cor. 1:2, 2 Cor. 1:1) or a region (see Acts 9:31).

The visible church will always include some unbelievers...because we can not see hearts as God sees them. Therefore, the "true" church, while being visible, is also invisible. It is invisible "in its true spiritual reality as a fellowship of all genuine believers." Hebrews speaks of the "church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven" (Heb. 12:23). The invisible church, then, is "the church as God sees it" (see 2 Tim.2:19).

This invisible church--the Body of Christ-- can be found today throughout the world, but it does not reside in any particular church or denomination.

How many true Christians can be found among those claiming to be Christian?? Because Scripture tells us that the wheat grows with the weeds (see Matthew 13:24-30), only God knows.

However, He includes every sincere follower in the invisible Body of Christ as part of "the community of all true believers for all time...made of all those who are truly saved" (see Eph 1:22,23; 5:25).

"And God placed all things under His(Jesus) feet and appointed Him to be head over everything for the church, which is His Body, the fullness of Him who fill everything in every way" (Eph. 1:22,23).

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to Himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless." (Eph 5:25).

We can see that the foundation of the church..the true church of Jesus Christ, is Christ Himself, and what He accomplished at Calvary...for all who will believe.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 06, 2004.


Faith--

How are you going to make a connection of those Scriptures as teaching against the Catholic Church? Those Scriptures support the Catholic Church, but does not support your attacks against the Catholic Church. You have proven nothing to support your accusations.

The Church is not "invisible". It is like the lamp stand that is placed where it can be seen, not under your night stand where it is "invisible".

.....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 06, 2004.


Of what value are those "invisible" believers? Don't you know, what good is faith without works?? Of course, God knows a man's heart. We have no doubt of that, but we do not play god. The "invisible" believer is of no consequence to his brother. The "invisible" believer leads no one to the path of Salvation. It is like having the blind lead the blind.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 06, 2004.


So, your "invisible" church leads no one to nowhere. The visble Church is a guiding light that shows the path to Salvation. It is only logical and your choice Scriptures support the visible Church.

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 06, 2004.


Scripture supports churches...not one Church. There is no evidence in the Scriptures of one Church residing and ruling over all the rest. Each is its own church. The churches in Acts--for example., look more like what the Protestent churches look like.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 07, 2004.

Each is still "its own church", just as they were then. Today they are called dioceses. They are each governed by a separate bishop, just as they were then. But they are all united in one faith, one set of beliefs, one form of worship, just as they were then. It would be ridiculous to suggest that God approves of multiple churches teaching contradictory and therefore false doctrine. He said the truth would set us free. Denominationalism is a departure from truth and therefore cannot be of God.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 07, 2004.

Still Paul.,

Your religion is knee deep in this division and departure from the truth also.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 07, 2004.


You choose to use the word "also". Faith. How in the world can a person find you credible when you do not even have faith in your own church? You've just lost a ton of credibility as a faithful "light".

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 07, 2004.


Jesus Christ's true church is His body of faithful believers. We are universal and are mixed in with the weeds, as Scripture says.

There is no earthbound church that is Christ's One True Body. We are a called out body--eccelssia....

We are called out of the world....

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 07, 2004.


You obviously reject Scriptures if you maintain your false belief, Faith. The Keys were handed to Peter--Voila!--hello The Catholic Church. Go back and read what you have rejected. Stop telling others your personal interpretations.

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 07, 2004.


That is your false belief rod.

The keys were handed to all the disciples.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 07, 2004.


And the "Keys" fit only one model of vehicle--The Catholic Church.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 07, 2004.


Keys are mentioned only twice in the New Testament, once in Revelation, in reference to the supreme authority of Christ Himself, the Alpha and the Omega; and once in Matthew, where Christ, the sole possessor of all authority, ordains one man, His personally appointed representative, the Apostle Simon. to exercise that same authority, still represented by the keys. If you had any concept of what the keys symbolize, namely supreme authority, you would realize they could not be given to more than one person. Twelve people cannot each hold supreme authority.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 07, 2004.

When Jesus gave the keys to Peter in matt16:19--he explained what that meant. "What so ever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"

That same promise was renewed to all the disciples in Matt 18:18, as it was in John 20:23--with the special application there to forgiveness of sins.

Clearly the keys of binding and loosing and remitting or retaining sins were given to all, not just Peter.

Therefore it is unwarrented to claim that Peter had special power and authority over other apostles. Such a concept cannot be found anywhere in the New Testament. and was unknown even to the early church Fathers.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 07, 2004.


"Faith"

(Matt 16: 18-19) You should realise that Peter was the only one to recognise Jesus Christ as the true Son of God NOT any of the other apostles "... upon THIS rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to THEE the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Jesus did NOT say, "I give you ALL the keys to the kingdom of Heaven"

You also will find that after the crucifixion, Jesus specifically asked Peter THREE TIMES, "Feed my lambs" (John 21: 15-17) He did not ask this of anyone else... not even John, who had the guts to stand at the foot of the cross.

Also the numerous occasion in the epistles, the primacy of Peter stands out (with the occasional consulatations made by Barnabas and Paul himself). What clearer language do you need, to see that Peter was the leader of the early Christians.

-- Andrew (andyhbk96@hotmail.com), December 08, 2004.


Sorry Andrew,

But I disagree.

Peter was certainly the one who recognized Jesus as the Christ in that verse--but he was not the only one who did. And the reason Jesus asked Peter three times to prove himself--was to atone for the three times he died Jesus.

Peter is not the rock, by the way. Jesus is the rock. Peter stated as much and Jesus was qualifying His remark that "Jesus is the Christ"-- that is the foundation of Christianity.

If you search the Scriptures--you will find that it is God or Jesus who is the rock.

Jesus said to Peter: Upon *this* rock I will build my church.

What did Jesus mean by *this* rock? What was the rock He was refering to?

Two separate words are used in this passage. When Jesus addresses Peter, the word petros is used--meaning small stone. When Jesus says *this rock*--the word petras is used--meaning large stone or foundation.

Jesus was acknowledging Peter with a play on words, indicating that he was basing His church on something larger--Himself!

It was Peter's proclamtion that "Jesus is the Christ"--that would be the foundation of His church.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 08, 2004.


Oops..make that *denied* Jesus!

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 08, 2004.

I think everyone here is missing the point. We are all christians who believe Jesus died for our sins. We then have a responsibility to retain our salvation and not fall away. In my experience, all non- Catholic christian communities are anti-Catholic (although not all the individuals) whereas Catholicism is not anti other christians (even when it really should be against some).

The Mary issue is the one which seems to cause the most problems. As a Catholic I dont pray to Mary, I ask her to pray for me/the sick/my family/friends, etc in the same way as I may ask ANYONE on earth to pray for me. Her closeness to her son Jesus Christ means she can intercede on our behalf.

-- Teresa (jandt.huggles@bt.com), December 08, 2004.


While that may be sweet Teresa,

It is not biblical.

Only God can be in all places at all time and here our prayers. Jesus is our mediator between God and man.

Mary is not mentioned in the Scriptures as having this sort of role. Unless you want to usurp Jesus with Mary--there is no need for this kind of theology.

Mary was a human being who died like the rest of us die. She is not able to hear your prayers any more than any other person who has passed.

We only need to come directly to God through Jesus Christ.

Where does the Bible teach that we need a mediatrix between us and our mediator before we can come to God?

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 08, 2004.


I don't need you to call me sweet, please don't patronise me about something I have undertaken great study on

James 5:16 tells us that "the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much" -- and who is more righteous than Mary, the woman chosen by God to bring forth His very Son?

"It may be objected: 'Our Lord is enough for me. I have no need of her.' But He needed her, whether we do or not.

God, Who made the sun, also made the moon. The moon does not take away from the brilliance of the sun. All its light is reflected from the sun. The Blessed Mother reflects her Divine Son; without Him, she is nothing. With Him, she is the Mother of Men."

That Mary was (and, of course, we Catholics believe that she still is) full of Grace is clearly evident in Luke 1:28, when Gabriel addressed her as "Full of Grace"! The problem for many non-Catholic Christians is the idea that she was born that way and that she was sinless. But Mary had to have been literally filled with Grace because Christ is her Son - and He is perfect!. She is more than some really cool, spiritual woman who acted as a surrogate mother for the Holy Spirit; she gave to Jesus His humanity in the same way that all mothers give to their children their humanity. He took from her His very flesh and blood! It was through her that our Lord "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3). As Ireneus of Lyons asked in his Adversus haereses (ca A.D. 180), "...why did He come down into her if He were to take nothing of her?"

To deny this is todeny that Jesus was fully human AND fully divine...

-- Teresa (jandt.huggles@bt.com), December 08, 2004.


No Teresa,

Again, sweet thoughts--but simply not biblical.

Where does the Scriptures inform us that Mary herself was also born free of sin? Answer: It doesn't reveal this at all.

In fact, Mary needed a Savior like the rest of us.

Your theology is based solely on the emotions and logic of faulty men who mean well but are simply not going by any revelation from God.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 08, 2004.


Dead saints (of which Mary is Queen) are aware of earthly affairs (Mt 22:30 w/ Lk 15:10 and 1 Cor 15:29; Heb 12:1), they appear on earth to interact with men (1 Sam 28:12-15; Mt 17:1-3, 27:50-53; Rev 11:3), and therefore can intercede for us, and likewise be petitioned for their prayers, just as Christians on earth (2 Maccabees 15:14; Rev 5:8; 6:9-10). Which is basically what I said before.

You don't have to like it, or do it, but there is plenty of scriptural backing. The biggest problem with the anti Catholic brigade is that they quote scripture out of context (Especially re salvation) and listen to bad representations of Catholicism

-- teresa (jandt.huggles@bt.com), December 08, 2004.


It seems that you also reject the belief in an eternal life, Faith. Of course, our prayers are heard in Heaven by the Saints. We shall become Saints in Heaven. Do you not believe this, Faith?

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 08, 2004.


I fail to see how these verses prove that the dead can hear our prayers:

Matt 22:30..

At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

1 Cor. 15:29

Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?

Luke 15:10

In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

Are you thinking that people become angels in heaven? The Bible makes it clear that humans are not angels. Also, when is the resurrection? And when will heaven be established?

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 08, 2004.


Hi Faith,

The point of being a Christian (which Catholics are by the way) is that you believe that Christ died to forgive us our sins. And that you believe that they only way to Heaven is through HIM.

I am not a Catholic, but i do know one or two quite well. They do not believe in anything different to other christians, not at the core of their faith. They may go about things differently, but to imply or outright state that the Catholic Faith honours Mary above Christ is quite ludicrous.

Without Mary there was no vessel to bring Christ into this world. Mary was human. God blessed and cleansed her so that she could bear Gods son, how do you think he was human?

From my quick scan reading of this discussion it seems that you are forgetting a couple of important things. Without Catholics you probably wouldnt be a Christian, because without the Apostles setting this them up there is no Guarntee that we would even know who Jesue is. Now I am aware that God is Almighty and Powerful and would have found a way to bring Christianity to the world. But it seems to me that you are critizing Jesus' teachings. After all the Apostles sat next to Jesus when he spoke, they were quite literally hand picked by Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit. I hope you see my point here, they may very well have made mistakes as they are human. But God wouldn't have Chosen them if the mistakes would be as erroneous. If you believe that God would let this happen then it seems to be that you are questioning his Power.

I would also like to point out a rather large part of ANY Christians beliefs is Love your neighbour as Yourself. Just in case you are unfamiliar with this passage it is in MARK 12:29-31.

I do not mean to be insulting to anyone in this room, but I do believe that if you are a Christian then this should be foremost in your mind at all times, and Neighbour is not defined as other Christians, and certainly not as other Christians that share your beliefs, or way of worship. But rather it should be applied to everyone in the world. That is how it was meant.

Us bickering among oursleves does not convince anyone else that we have the right ideas, and it kinda makes it harder to take Gods word out to the people.

Hope you agree and sorry to go off topic

-- John (jc_2010@hotmail.com), December 08, 2004.


Than you John,

For your input.

But you should know that I was born and raised Catholic and I know quite well what is believed, as I used to believe much the same things. That is, until I discovered that most of what they teach is not found in the Bible.

Bringing up the apostles as though they were Roman Catholic or something doesn't help.

I prefer to think of my *Love* as tough love. Jesus never became agreeable with false teachings just to be loving--did He?

No--He never compromised the Word of God to get along with anyone, but rather seems to be quite urgent in His need to point out to them, their mistake in trusting tradition. He angered them so much that they killed Him, John.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 08, 2004.


But, by the very same token of saying that Jesus stuck to his teachings, arent you abandoning those same teachings by insulting somewhere around 1 billion Christians beliefs.

Arent you also Judging those same Christians, a job which is not upto you me or anyone else on this world to do?

Catholics do not believe that simple belief, or acknowledgement that Jesus existed is the way to heaven. They believe and accept Jesus as their Saviour.

And I am sorry but I do not see how that is not being Christian. Maybe yuor were brought up as Catholic. Me i was brought up in the Chruch of England, but i aint no Protestant. I am a Christian. I do not beleive that you are any different to me, or anyless faithful to od and Jesus siply becuase you disagree with my point of view.

But the seemingly continual insults of the Catholic faith is not right. The Apostles were not Catholics as such. But Catholicism is modelled on the Apostles and their teachings. As are all Christian faiths.

Do you not follow the Ten Commandments, Pray for salvation, and for the Strength to preach Gods word to the world. Is that not the same thing that the Catholics do. They Catholics I know, well thats excactly what they do.

Maybe where you were brought up, or how in the Christian faith has distorted some of the Catholics beliefs. They pray to Mary for their salvation yes. but to imply that means that they believe that Mary is their salvation, or is the Power behinds is wrong.

I am a Christian, but every day I fail at something, as I am sure you do to. But once again I have to say that had Catholicism not come into being the odds are quite strong that you would not be a believer, nor myself for that matter.

I would also like to ask how your response is in line with Mark 12:29-31.

You seem to be missing the point that as long as everyone believes that Jesus died for their sins so that they could get into heaven, and that people believe that Christ is THEIR personnal saviour and with this comes responsibilty to live his way, or at the very least attempt to.

And lastly you can be Catholic, Church of England, Baptist, Mehtodist, Salvationist, Evangelist or whatever. As long as you believe that Christ died to save YOU. That he died for YOUR sins, then you are CHRISTIAN!!!!!

-- John (jc_2010@hotmail.com), December 08, 2004.


John,

Just because I voice my objections to Catholicism., does not mean I am insulting anyone. I simply speak what I believe and why. If they become insulted, then that is how they choose to take it. I could just as easily become insulted by many opinions voiced here about Protestantism. But I choose to stay focused on the topic and turn to Scripture for my answers and arguments.

In my opinion, Satan infiltrated the church at around the time of Constatine--though he started deceiving believers from the very begining. He got a good foot in the door when he falsely forshadowed the true virgin birth of Jesus Christ--manifesting it in those pagan religions.

Christianity and paganism merged at the time that Rome became a Christian state. Nothing really changed, and the pagan state simply renamed it's fertility goddess--Mary, for example.

Until that time, Christians did not have a Queen of heaven. The only queen of heaven spoken of in the Scriptures is in the Old Testament.

The rebellious people of Israel told God why they prefered to make offerings and sacrifices to the "queen of heaven" instead of to him:

"But we will certainly do whatever has gone out of our mouth, to burn incense to the queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her, as we have done, we and our fathers, our kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. For then we had plenty of food., we were well off, and saw no trouble" (Jer. 44:17).

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 08, 2004.


Too many sains too soon. The preponderance of canonizations can lead to error Apparently, Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI themselves did not consider canonization infallible. Otherwise, they would not have opened the Pandora's box by "de-canonizing" St. Philomena, who had been publicly venerated by several Saints and popes, and "de-canonizing" the 14 Auxiliary Saints, who had been venerated by millions of Catholic since the early Church, including St. Christopher and St. Barbara. If the Church of the New Order wishes to decanonize traditional Saints, turnabout is fair play: traditional Catholics can reserve judgment on the New Order's unproven

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 08, 2004.

"But I choose to stay focused on the topic and turn to Scripture for my answers and arguments. "--Faith.

Not exactly an accurate conclusion, Faith. You may turn the pages of Scriptures, but your arguments are fueled by your PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS of those Scriptures. Plain and simple.

(I hope Kevin doesn't have a patent on the all caps type.)

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 08, 2004.


"... many catholics pray to Mary without ever mentioning Jesus. It doesn't bother me if they were to mention Jesus, the mediator of the New Pact. "

The CENTER of the Hail Mary is JESUS.

"Hail Mary, Full of Grace
The LORD is with thee." -- Prayer of St. Gabriel the Archangel
"Blessed art thou amongst women.
And Blessed is the Fruit of thy womb,
JESUS." -- Prayer of St. Elizabeth
Holy Mary, Mother of GOD,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.

The CENTER of the Holy Rosary is JESUS.

I. The Joyful Mysteries
1. St. Gabriel announced to Mary that she will bear JESUS.
2. Mary visited Elizabeth while she was pregnant with JESUS.
3. The Birth of JESUS.
4. The Presentation of JESUS in the Temple as required by the Jewish law.
5. The Finding of JESUS in the Temple after being lost for three days.

II. The Luminous Mysteries
1.The Baptism of JESUS.
2. Mary interceded for the wedding party by asking the help of JESUS at the Wedding at Cana.
3. JESUS proclaimed the Kingdom of God.
4. JESUS was transfigured.
5. JESUS instituted the Holy Eucharist at the Last Supper.

III. The Sorrowful Mysteries
1. The Agony of JESUS in the Garden of Gethsemene.
2. The Scourging of JESUS at the pillar.
3. JESUS was crowned with thorns.
4. JESUS carried His Cross.
5. The Crucifixion of JESUS.

IV. The Glorious Mysteries
1. The Resurrection of JESUS.
2. The Ascension of JESUS.
3. The Descent of the Holy Spirit of JESUS.
4. The Assumption of Mary into Heaven, just as JESUS had promised.
5. The Coronation of Mary as Queen of Heaven, just as JESUS had promised.

Member,
The 2000-Year-Old Holy Catholic Church, the Ark of Salvation: 1 Supreme and Infallible Pope (St.) John Paul II, Successor of St. Peter, the Rock, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit; 4649 Bishops, Successors of the Twelve Apostles; 405067 Priests; 29204 Deacons; 54970 Brothers; 792317 Sisters; 1.1 BILLION MEMBERS on earth unified in the Sovereign Pontiff. "All roads lead to Rome."

-- Joseph (jtg878@hotmail.com), December 11, 2004.


WELL I DON'T KNOW ABOUT KEVIN, BUT I CAN TYPE IN CAPS AS WELL. SEE? NOW, WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS WHAT ALL THIS HAS TO DO WITHTE PRICE OF TEA IN CHINA?

-- Zarove (Zaroff3@juno.com), December 11, 2004.

Sohn Paul II, has made more saints in 25 years than the whole church combined did for 2000 years, so he might as well include humself.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 12, 2004.

"(I hope Kevin doesn't have a patent on the all caps type.)"

When was the last time you saw me use capital letters in my posts???

"The 2000-Year-Old Holy Catholic Church, the Ark of Salvation:"

Sorry, there is "no" salvation in the Catholic Church or any of the denominations that are exist today.

"1 Supreme and Infallible Pope (St.) John Paul II, Successor of St. Peter, the Rock, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit; 4649 Bishops, Successors of the Twelve Apostles"

The Bible knows "nothing" of a "Pope" nor does it mention anything concerning a "Successor" to any of the apostles.

"1.1 BILLION MEMBERS on earth unified in the Sovereign Pontiff. "All roads lead to Rome."

The Bible says in Matthew 7:13-14, "13 Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

-- Kevin Walker (navyscporetired@comcast.net"), December 12, 2004.


I always find it sort of sad, but also sort of interesting to watch Romanists, Protestants, and post-Protestants fight each other over certain issues that stem from the same basic errors.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), December 12, 2004.

Faith

You are a puzzle to me. Your knowlege of scripture is more than impressive. You write very well and express your position with ease. THere's a problem though, at least as I see it. I'm sure you and some others may disagree. I mean nothing personal or hurtful. I'm just talkative today.

In your response to John you say that your objections to Catholicism "are not meant to insult anyone." I've got to say that many Catholics would find the your opinion that Satan entered the Church with Constantine to be blatently insulting. We don't equate Satan with the Church.

Your dismissive response to Teresa's ideas as "sweet," could be interpreted as being condescending---a close cousin of insulting.

The "Mary Worship" has been over done. I think Joseph explained how Jesus is central to the Rosary and not much came of that as it once again clearly explained the Catholic veneration of Mary as opposed to worship.

The Rosary is a form of meditative prayer, which by the way is optional. Many find it to be a spiritually fulfilling practice which I can only see as a good thing. I have no problem asking Mary to "pray for us sinners." I need all the help I can get.

Why always the abrasive approach when slightly different words will effectively get your ideas across without offending? You might actually advance your agenda. Your continuous verbally harsh treatment of Catholic belief is quite likely "off putting" to most Catholics. So what's the point. You get nowhere. I'm afraid you get turned off. Its almost like you are having a private war with Catholicism. In the process some of what is so important to being Christian is lost. War is Hell---

You have much to offer, I've read and have actually learned more than a few things from your posts. I find your ideas and use of scripture to be interesting and often informative, but it seems that much of it come with spikes attached.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), December 12, 2004.


Jim,

I think the problem that Faith has, stems from her belief system. Faith thinks she is saved, and she is convinced that nothing she will ever do will get her unsaved. Therefore, if she has to rough up some catholics to push her beliefs, then so be it. I have been a member of her type of church, and there is an unwritten rule that suggests that the end justifies the means. If they are a little rough on people, that is ok as long as they feel justified in their attack.

Also, a regular examination of conscience is not something that I have ever heard preached about in my time as a Baptist. This would suggest that people can be clueless about how they come off for quite some time.

Of course, Catholics can also be harsh and mean, but I think that some protestants see the Catholic Church as so evil, that civility is not a part of their battle plan.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 12, 2004.


Hi Jim,

Thanks for your post.

I can see why you may feel that I am harsh or intolerant to Catholic teaching. The truth is--I am.Please remember though, that it is not the Catholic people that I am harsh on., but the religious teachings.

I call it like it is.

I do not blame the faithful Catholic people for what is definately a worship of Mary in practice. I know they don't think they are worshiping her. It is a subtle deception.

When I speak of Satan in the church--it is not an attack on the people, but an attack against the powers of this world. I don't blame the Catholic people for the fact that the great deceiver of this world has done this. The Bible tells us that our battle in this world is *not* against the flesh--meaning each other., but against the powers and authorities of this dark world. It reminds me of this parable:

The Rich Man and Lazarus

Luke 16:19-31

“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day.....(Priest, Man of God?)

At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. (the lost?)

“The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side...(heaven?)

The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

“But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony.

And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ (Scripture)

“ ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead. (Jesus)’ ”

*******************

To me, this verse speaks volumes against the religious hierarchy who have the ability to feed the lost and hungry people who are coming seeking truth and seeking God., but instead they fail to do so and they give just feed them crumbs and morsels. They only give these people a small glimpse of God, or a distorted taste.

I notice that these poor souls who are never really fed the truth, still get to heaven anyway. It is the religious hierarchy represented by the rich man, that went to hell.

I don't feel all that bad for pointing out false teachings. I am not attacking anyone individually--I am against the *institution* and the deception.

This is really all about theology and biblical understanding, so no one needs to make this a personal thing.

Notice also that this verse tells us that no one will leave Abraham's side to come to the earth and tell us about hell., or to plead with us to be better people because of this and that:

“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

This verse clearly says that the only sign or message or warning necessary unto our salvation is Jesus Christ:

“ ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead. (Jesus?)’ ”

I have to wonder how anyone can listen to the apparitions of Mary when Scripture clearly indicates that no one from heaven will come to the earth because Jesus was the only sign necessary and people will either believe or they won't.

I guess I do have spikes--I can't help it. But these spikes are only against false doctrine.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 12, 2004.


Faith says:

"I can see why you may feel that I am harsh or intolerant to Catholic teaching."

Let me correct that, you are intolerant of your perception of catholic teaching. There is a big difference, Faith. You don't approach Catholic teaching the way a scholar would, that is objectively weighing the evidence for and against, you look for morsals of catholic teaching that you don't like and then use your interpretation as the final interpretation. Your approach can be compared to gossip. When we don't like someone, we tend to look for things we don't like to justify our views.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 12, 2004.


Being "rough" with false doctrine is perfectly fine, if you detect your audience needs that sort of emotional nudge. I think, however, that some people identify so closely with their beliefs that it "ruffles their feathers" when the things they hold dear are severely challenged.

So, it's not wrong to "severely challenge" beliefs or ideaologies.

Though it'd take an extreme situation to provoke the Spirit of God in me to take someone to task, I also see nothing wrong with "severely challenging" a religious leader (on a personal level) who is leading God's people into error by calling him a "son of the devil" or a "snake" or a "dark cloud" or something like that is not. However, and this is a big however, weu'd better be absolutely sure we're right and moved by God's Spirit we'll answer for it at the Judgment.

If we truly want to win an open-minded mislead person over, though, we have to be extra gentle. In fact, Jesus commands us to be as gentle as doves. Being rude or harsh or intimidating is not the Spirit of Christ - at least not when dealing with our everyday neighbor, those who are not set up in some leadership position of authority.

It's the kindness of God which leads us to repentance, not insults.

I'm not saying I detect any personal insults here... I'm just addressing the issue in general. All "touchy" people need to toughen up a bit and all "pushy" people need to back off a bit. I think that applies to us all - including myself.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), December 12, 2004.


Faith says:

"I am against the *institution* and the deception."

Perhaps you ought to take a little time to learn about the institution that you are against. Your attacks are based on misinformation, and when you are corrected you never acknowledge that your are wrong.

For example, you have implied on several occaisions that priests are all molesters. But, you never have once provided any evidence that the problem among Catholic priests is worse than it is among protestant pastors. You make inferences based on incredibly weak evidence just because it fits your point of view. I don't condone child molesters, whether they are protestant or catholic, it is a grave sin which can have devastating effects on its victims. But the fact of the matter is that when you make accusations and this goes for your inuendos as well, you need to make sure solid facts back up your accusations.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 12, 2004.


Max says:

"So, it's not wrong to "severely challenge" beliefs or ideaologies."

However, I wouldn't call what Faith does as serverly challenging beliefs or ideologies. I can't tell you how many times I have asked Faith to back up her claims and she has refused. Also, we need to be fair when challenging others beliefs, and make sure they are the others beliefs, not just our perception of them.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 12, 2004.


Max, emotional?

No, Max. If Faith can play by her rules of causing flames, anyone can do the same. I read your post, which seems to say that Faith is ok with her style. So,let the games begin!

You don't get it, Max. Faith's style is to bring decay to a person's faith. Her mission is to destroy the Catholic Church one sentence, one paragraph, one post, one thread, and one person at a time. This has been going on for too long. She's been banned for it before. So, Max, I don't mean to ruffle your feathers (yours are much more prestine), you may choose to sit on the fence or realize what is happening here with Faith. Get some conviction and passion in your life, Man! Get off the fence.

.................. ...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 13, 2004.


rod,

Again., personally attacking other posters is not allowed. Please refrain from this or I will see to it that your posts, which contain lies about me--are deleted.

My mission 9is to point out the deception in the Catholic religion-- to which I believe there are no rules against.

Either deal with the points, or if you cannot--then don't speak to my posts.

But personal attacks and lies about a person are against the board rules.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 13, 2004.


James,

You also need to refrain from lying about me.

You claim:

Perhaps you ought to take a little time to learn about the institution that you are against. Your attacks are based on misinformation, and when you are corrected you never acknowledge that your are wrong.

When I post about Catholic theology I am not attacking, and thus far-- no one has proved me wrong.

For example, you have implied on several occaisions that priests are all molesters. This is a flat-out lie! We are not here to discuss individuals, and attacking each other is against the board rules.

The relions and theologies are fair game. You must know this by now.

But, you never have once provided any evidence that the problem among Catholic priests is worse than it is among protestant pastors. You make inferences based on incredibly weak evidence just because it fits your point of view.

This is outrageous, since you were the one who brought up the subject by trying to insinuate that Pastors are pornographers. The most I did was point out that all humans--including Catholic priests, have sin problems. I never went into any detail about Catholic priests. You need to refrain from lying about me.

I don't condone child molesters, whether they are protestant or catholic, it is a grave sin which can have devastating effects on its victims. But the fact of the matter is that when you make accusations and this goes for your inuendos as well, you need to make sure solid facts back up your accusations.

This is your dialogue all by yourself! I was never a part of it. Stop lying and talking about me personally. It is against the rules. It also shows that you, like rod, are unable to deal with the issues. So you resort to attacking me. But again--it is against board rules.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 13, 2004.


Italics off

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 13, 2004.

And a repost... *************************

James,

You also need to refrain from lying about me.

You claim:

Perhaps you ought to take a little time to learn about the institution that you are against. Your attacks are based on misinformation, and when you are corrected you never acknowledge that your are wrong.

When I post about Catholic theology I am not attacking, and thus far-- no one has proved me wrong.

For example, you have implied on several occaisions that priests are all molesters.

This is a flat-out lie! We are not here to discuss individuals, and attacking each other is against the board rules.

The relions and theologies are fair game. You must know this by now.

But, you never have once provided any evidence that the problem among Catholic priests is worse than it is among protestant pastors. You make inferences based on incredibly weak evidence just because it fits your point of view.

This is outrageous, since you were the one who brought up the subject by trying to insinuate that Pastors are pornographers. The most I did was point out that all humans--including Catholic priests, have sin problems. I never went into any detail about Catholic priests. You need to refrain from lying about me.

I don't condone child molesters, whether they are protestant or catholic, it is a grave sin which can have devastating effects on its victims. But the fact of the matter is that when you make accusations and this goes for your inuendos as well, you need to make sure solid facts back up your accusations.

This is your dialogue all by yourself! I was never a part of it. Stop lying and talking about me personally. It is against the rules. It also shows that you, like rod, are unable to deal with the issues. So you resort to attacking me. But again--it is against board rules.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 13, 2004.


Faith

I understand your point about attacking specific teaching of the Church rather than "Catholics." But the Church is considered to be the Body of Christ by Catholics and as Catholics we are all a part of the Body of Christ.

I believe this representation is familiar to all Christians---that is, being a part of the Body of Christ. This is not just a Catholic view.

Thats why an attack on Catholic belief and teaching is taken so personally by Catholics. An attack on the Church can be seen as an attack on those of us who see ourselves as part of the Body of Christ.

I think thats why all Christians are touchy when another denegrates its beliefs---Catholic or Protestant.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), December 13, 2004.


I think that the *Body of Christ* is not caught up in any one religion or institution, though.

To say that when arguing theology--it attacks the Body of Christ-- should mean that no theology or religous discussion should or could occur without someone being offended.

That is just silly.

Can't we all just agree not to make these discussions personal? People who can't handle it--really shouldn't come to a religion discussion board.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 13, 2004.


Just my thoughts about why a general attack on belief or dogma can become so personal to so many. Satan entering the Church just won't sit right with any Catholics. None will entertain the possibility anyway,--- but the very words seem more personal than simply a general disagreement about teaching. THus we get a thread filled with offended Christians and explanations about why we shouldn't be so thin skinned.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), December 13, 2004.

Proverbs 16 is very instructive. I personally need to heed these wise words of God.

-- aNDY s ("ask3332004@YAHOO.COM"), December 13, 2004.

Faith, you still have not apologized for making that blanket statement that Catholics are "Mary Worshipers". So, until such apologies are made to all Catholics who are in your targets, you will never receive any apologies or retractions of any sort from me in the past, present, or future. You have established the game rules; I am playing by your rules. I didn't want to stoop to your level, but I supposed that we are now talking eye to eye. I have asked for your retraction of false claims towards all Catholics and their Church. Obviously, you ain't budging. I can wait this thing out til doomsday. You have left the Church and make strides to bring Her tumbling down around us. Sorry, not a chance of that happening. If you can't beat them, Faith, join them.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 15, 2004.


"But personal attacks and lies about a person are against the board rules. "--Faith.

So, Faith, you need to stop with those attacks and lies towards the Catholic Church. You have not provided evidence to support your attacks against the Church in regards to your propaganda--"Mary Worship". You didn't take my recommendation of attending those shrines and taken notes. Or, you haven't provided us with those notes you've taken. All you want me to do is to count the number of shrines.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 15, 2004.


rod.,

Personal attacks are not permitted.

Therefore--stop.

Arguing Catholic theology and pointing out that worshiping Mary is definately pa Catholic practice whether one calls it that or not--is not a personal attack, but an observation about Catholic practice.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 15, 2004.


Faith, obviously, you have igonored the message of my posts. You have not provided evidence to support your "arguments" against the Church. Until you can provide evidence to support your "Mary Worship" allegations, your directives towards me are basically moot.

You need to apologize, retract your comments, or provide hard evidence, Faith. You recommend honesty in others, yet you fail to practice your own advice. Be honest and do the right thing here. Catholics are not "Mary Worshipers", if they were, they aren't being Catholic.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 15, 2004.


St. Loius DeMontfort's Prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary

Hail Mary, beloved Daughter of the Eternal Father! Hail Mary, admirable Mother of the Son! Hail Mary, faithful Spouse of the Holy Ghost! Hail Mary, my dear Mother, my loving Mistress, my powerful sovereign! Hail my joy, my glory, my heart and my soul! Thou art all mine by mercy, and I am all thine by justice. But I am not yet sufficiently thine. I now give myself wholly to thee without keeping anything back for myself or others. If thou still seest in me anything which does not belong to thee, I beseech thee to take it and to make thyself the absolute Mistress of all that is mine. Destroy in me all that may be displeasing to God, root it up and bring it to naught; place and cultivate in me everything that is pleasing to thee.

May the light of thy faith dispel the darkness in my mind; may thy profound humility take the place of my pride; may thy sublime contemplation check the distractions of my wandering imagination; may thy continuous sight of God fill my memory with His presence; may the burning love of thy heart inflame the lukewarmness of mine, may thy virtues take the place of my sins; may thy merits be my only adornment in the sight of God and make up all that is wanting in me. Finally, dearly beloved Mother, grant, if it be possible, that I may have no other spirit but thine to know Jesus and His divine will; that I may have no other soul but thine to praise and glorify the Lord; that I may have no other heart but thine to love God with a love as pure and ardent as thine. I do not ask thee for visions, revelations, sensible devotion or spiritual pleasures. It is thy privilege to see God clearly; it is thy privilege to enjoy heavenly bliss; it is thy privilege to triumph gloriously in heaven at the right hand of thy Son and to hold absolute sway over angels, men and demons; it is thy privilege to dispose of all the gifts of God, just as thou willest.

Such is, O heavenly Mary, the "best part" which the Lord has given thee and which shall never be taken away from thee - and this thought fills my heart with joy. As for my part here below, I wish for no other than that which was thine; to believe sincerely without spiritual pleasures; to suffer joyfully without human consolation; to die continually to myself without respite; and to work zealously and unselfishly for thee until death as the humblest of thy servants. The only grace I beg thee to obtain for me is that every day and every money of my life I may say: Amen - Amen - so be it, to all that thou art now doing in heaven; Amen - so be it, to all that thou art doing in my soul, so that thou alone mayest fully glorify Jesus in me for time and eternity. Amen.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 15, 2004.


The first time I attended a "mass," I fully expected to see hoards of people standing around a statue of Mary and worshipping her! What I got, instead, was pure and lofty worship of the Lord Jesus Christ at the most Christ-centered service I had ever attended! SHOCKED, I was! How could it be that for years and years I suspected Catholics of all kinds of atrocities? Why? Easy answer . . anti-Catholocism has had no small persuasion in this country.

Faith, you know our Catechism prohibits the worship of anyone other than God. You also know that we believe that we can ask our heavenly brothers, sisters, moms and dads IN CHRIST for their prayers. Why do you insist to fomenting lies?

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 15, 2004.


Faith--

You have this entire forum focused on you. Catholics and non- Catholics seem to have rallied on the obvious leaving you all alone. There isn't anyone here who demands more than what we've been asking for--proper procedures in sharing of information and knowledge, a.k.a. evidence. Posters have given you insight into their faith, which refutes your assertions of specific Catholic issues. You reject their teachings, fine. But, you take it a step further by perpetuation your false claims after hard evidence has been given to you.

Your style is to be harsh on those who deserve it. Well, by the same manner, you deserve some of that hard teaching. You are perpetuating lies about the Church.

Do you not read and try to understand what people post to you about their Catholicism?

I do believe that we shall be judged by the way we judge others. I would never "stomp" on young believers or truly honest seekers of faith. But, like your manner, some need a bolt of lightning to knock them off their horsy. You are such a believer who needs a wakeup call. My experience with anti-Catholics had me in a choke hold. They preached the same fodder against the Church that you preach. I made the effort to find answers and realized that those anti- Catholics were very misinformed or down right malicious towards the Church. Never again shall I be fooled by such deceivers. And, never again shall I allow others to fall victim to such tactics. That doesn't mean that I am out to convert the world to Catholicism or my personal interpretation of anything. They have the right to listen and to make up their minds based on facts and truths.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 15, 2004.


jake's prayer proves my point,

What would have to be true about Mary in order for Mary to be able to grant these things for us?

According to Catholicism--Mary has the same powers as God Himself. How else could she grant anyone mercy? Or salvation? She has usurped the place of Jesus.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 15, 2004.


Faith?

Are you trying to send me an email? I have an email with your name on it, but I don't think it is from you. Is it?

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 15, 2004.


No rod..,

I have not tried to send you an email.

That is odd.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 15, 2004.


rod,

If the teachings in Catholicism are as false as I believe--then in the end, God's judgement of my *works* won't be anything like you think--will it?

Stop talking about me, attacking me and calling me anti-Catholic. It is against the rules of this forum to do this. Address the issues or refrain from posting on a thread where you have nothing to say.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 15, 2004.


Then, post some hard evidence. That's all I ask of you, Faith.

BTW, don't open any emails with the following email address:

'elreyrod@yahoo.com'

Somebody is goofing around with my email identity.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 15, 2004.


Uh, I don't post in the threads where I have nothing to say. I always say something.

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 15, 2004.


Hard evidence?

In matters of faith??

Give it a rest rod.

The Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent Mary....

Soul Magazine, "Official publication of the Blue Army of Our Lady of Fatima in the U.S. and Canada" 22 million strong, declares:

Mary is so perfectly united with the Holy Spirit that He acts only through [her] His spouse...all our life, every thought, word, and deed is in Her hands...at every moment, She Herself must instruct, guide and transform each one of us into Herself, so that not we but She lives in us, as Jesus lives in Her, and the Father in the Son."

Every thought, word and deed of all of mankind is in Mary's hands? She instructs, guides and transforms each one of us into Herself???

Well--then Mary is God!

Don't even consider the fact that the Bible never mentions that the Holy Spirit only acts through Mary. But I question the concept since the Holy Spirit has been in action from eternity past. Mary has not.

Please, please, please---wake up!

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 15, 2004.


Faith

"Google", in light of yr last post, sent me here:

http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=maryusurp

goodness gracious! tell me it's not true.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 15, 2004.


"If the teachings in Catholicism are as false as I believe--then in the end, God's judgement of my *works* won't be anything like you think--will it?" --Faith. Well, Faith. What if it isn't false? What will God's judgement be on your works? Most importantly, what with His judgement be on your soul?

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 15, 2004.


Those who are found in Christ--are judged perfect in Him. For us-- there is no condemnation.

If I am wrong--which I seriously doubt, God will not reward me in this area. But I have other *works.*

Surely He is pleased for those I have helped out of the jehovah's witness cult--or for those who I helped convince not to have an abortion, or for those who received Christ, effected in part, by my art work...etc.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 15, 2004.


Tell you *what* is not true Ian? That Maryology is not a fact?

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 15, 2004.

Faith

to you it might be fact.

to others,.....

you stand alone.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 15, 2004.


"you stand alone."

or together with other extremists.

is that a fact too?

i hope not.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 15, 2004.


Mariology works with some 10-30 million Mexicans, faith. We call her La Virgen de Gudalupe.

I should know. I was one of them.

The rest ....

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzlez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 15, 2004.


What do you mean *works* with some 10-30 million people??

Works???

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 15, 2004.


Faith says:

"Surely He is pleased for those I have helped out of the jehovah's witness cult--or for those who I helped convince not to have an abortion, or for those who received Christ, effected in part, by my art work...etc. "

Surely, God is displeased by your sins as well. He is displeased by my sins too. I would hate to think that my judgement before God is a balancing act where we compare the good we did with the bad. Because, if that is the case, most of us would fare quite badly.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 15, 2004.


categories of Catholic honour:

“latria” -- Adoration: The highest honour that is possible, which is given to God alone.

“hyperdulia” -- Super-veneration: The second highest honour, which is given to the Blessed Virgin alone. “Hyperdulia” acknowledges that the Mother of God is so highly blessed that she stands in her own unique status. “dulia” -- Veneration: The third highest honour, which is given to the angels and saints.

Relative Honour vs Absolute Honour

“Absolute honor” -- is give directly to the person being honoured.

“relative honor” -- is ostensibly directed to an image of the person being honoured, but is for the benefit of the person being honoured.

“idolatry” –- honour that is directed towards, and is intended to remain with, the image. SINFUL.

eg Honour given to a Nativity crib display is:

(A) relative adoration (latria) of the Infant Jesus; (B) relative super veneration (hyperdulia) of the Blessed Virgin; and (C) relative veneration (dulia) of St. Joseph.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 16, 2004.


Exactly James!

In fact we all fall short of the glory of God and cannot ever be good enough to enter heaven based on our deeds or works.

Thankfully we are not judged unto salvation by our deeds.

We are judged perfect in Christ and saved by His work on the cross! This requires true faith.

But believers do face a different kind of judgement. A judgement of our deeds as Christians where we receive rewards in heaven. I don't know exactly what this means.

The Bible is not very detailed in regards to eternal life in heaven. That is probably because it is beyond the scope of our finite minds.

God just gives us some clues. The very verse that talks about this judgement of our works--is the very same Scripture that the Catholic Church claims proves the existence of Purgatory.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 16, 2004.


Faith;

You asked; "Who is your pope"?

I don't know who the real pope is right now, but I can tell you that it is not JP2.

“I the Lord [the God of the Catholic Church], this is my name: I will not give my glory to another, nor my praise to graven things [false gods, false religions, heresies, and schisms]. …Who hath given Jacob [Catholics] for a spoil, and Israel [Vatican City and Catholic churches] to robbers? hath not the Lord himself, against whom we have sinned? And they would not walk in his ways, and they have not hearkened to his law. …They are turned back: let them be greatly confounded, that trust in a graven thing [false gods, false religions, heresies, and schisms], that say to a molten thing: You are our god. Hear, ye deaf, and, ye blind, behold that you may see. Who is blind, but my servant [fallen-away, self-professed Catholics]? or deaf, but he to whom I have sent my messengers? Who is blind, but he that is sold? or who is blind, but the servant of the Lord [bishops, priests, and laymen]? Thou that seest many things, wilt thou not observe them? thou that hast ears open, wilt thou not hear? And the Lord was willing to sanctify him, and to magnify the law, and exalt it. But this is a people that is robbed and wasted: they are all the snare of young men, and they are hid in the houses of prisons: they are made a prey, and there is none to deliver them: a spoil, and there is none that saith: Restore [repent, convert, and abjure]. Who is there among you that will give ear to this, that will attend and hearken for times to come? …I will lead the blind into the way which they know not… I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight… That thou mightest open the eyes of the blind, and bring forth the prisoner out of prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.” - Isaias 42: 8, 24, 17-23, 16, 7 -

The Holy Catholic Church is primarily recognized in Her Faith. She is one in the faith of Christ as handed down from the original Apostles and through the popes. A pope infallibly defines the faith and morals that Catholics must believe. An infallible truth is officially known as a dogma. All the dogmas of the Catholic Church are referred to as the “Deposit of Faith.” Catholics must believe the Deposit of Faith. Therefore, they must not deny or doubt one dogma. The obstinate doubt or denial of one dogma makes a Catholic a heretic and excommunicates him automatically, placing him outside the Catholic Church. A heretic is no longer a Catholic.

The past infallibly teachings of the Church cannot be contradicted by a future pope. If a pope publicly teaches heresies that have been condemned by past popes then that pope would be automatically excommunicated and fall from his office (he would be automatically deposed from the papacy) by the operation of the Church Law. It is the Church, not a man, who automatically deposes a pope who publicly teaches heresy. This protects the Catholic Church from defecting. If the Vatican II Church is the Catholic Church then the Church has defected and the gates of hell have prevailed over the Church because the Vatican II Church contradicts past infallible papal decrees (dogmas). Papal infallibility would be meaningless if a pope can publicly deny/contradict past infallible papal decrees (dogmas).

It has been infallibly taught in the bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio in 1559 that if a candidate for the papacy were heretic before his election, even if he was elected by the unanimous consent of the Cardinals, the election would be null and void. John Paul II cannot be the pope because he publicly teaches and practices heresy. The bishops, since Vatican II, are known not to be Catholic bishops because they signed the heretical Vatican II documents.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 16, 2004.


What do you mean? TC?

How can you not know who your pope is?

Is it a secret?

A mystery?

A great disagreement?

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 16, 2004.


Faith

Looks like some Catholics are in disagreement with one another. Not an unusual occurrance with the subject of religious belief.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), December 16, 2004.


Faith;

At this time we may not have any pope at all. That is called Interegnum.

Maybe , " The shepherd has been struck and the sheep have been scattered". It sure looks like it in these times.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 16, 2004.


I believe that Constatine was perhaps a political genius--using Christianity to serve his purposes. But I highly doubt he was a convicted Christ as we know he allowed the Roman pagan practices to continue. They simply re-named their goddess--Mary. It was at this time that paganism and Christianity merged.

Im sorry, but this is bad Hisotry. Don't confuse NeoPagan claims with acutal Hisotry. The Pagans coidltn rtename there goddess Mary, sicne the Goddessd was never worshipped in Ancient Rome. Thy had any number of goddesses, but never a single, pwoerful goddess which they prayed to regularly that could be identified as Mry in any way, even accepting the claim that Catholicds Pray to and worship Mary, there devotion to her is Markedly different from ancient Paganism wiht its plethra of gods and individual patron deities.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 16, 2004.


What was Babylon's idolatrous system? Among other aspects of astrology and idol worship, Babylon (the former city of Babel) included a cult that followed Semiramis, wife of Marduk, whom most scholars identify with Nimrod. We know that Semiramis and Marduk/Nimrod were the ancient god and goddess of Babylon. Their son (whom Semiramis claimed was virgin born) was known to the Babylonians as Dammuzi, to the Hebrews as Tammuz, and to the Greeks as Adonis.

The divine mother and child appeared in Egypt as Isis and Horus, and in Greece as Venus and Adonis. According to Hislop's "The two Babylons," the ancient cult Nimrod and Semiramis started spreading among all nations when the people of Babel scattered throughout the world.

When God called Abraham out of Ur, He called him from a region devoted to the worship of false gods, including the "queen of heaven," the mother figure of the mother/ child cult. Joshua 24:2 tells us:

"Thus says the Lord of Israel: 'your fathers, including Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, dwelt on the other side of the river in old times; and they served other gods.' "

The cult continued to spread unabated through the years. Generations after Babel, the rebellious people of Israel told God why they prefered to make offerings and sacrifices to the "queen of heaven" instead of to him:

"But we will certainly do whatever has gone out of our mouth, to burn incense to the queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her, as we have done, we and our fathers, our kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. For then we had plenty of food., we were well off, and saw no trouble" (Jer. 44:17).

In the eigth chapter of Ezekiel, God told the prophet to do a little checking. Ezekiel was to go to the temple set apart for the worship of Jehovah God and observe:

"So he brought me to the door of the court; and when I looked, there was a hole in the wall. Then He said to me, 'Son of man, dig into the wall'; and when I dug into the wall, there was a door. And He said to me, 'Go in and see the wicked abominations, which they are doing there.' So I went in and saw, and there-- every sort of creeping thing, abominable beasts, and all the idols of the house of Israel, portrayed all around on the walls." (Ezekiel 8:7-10).

What did Ezekiel see? Idols to the queen of heaven! The mother-child cult had taken over the sanctuary of Jehovah God in Jerusalem. The picture, however, grew worse. As Ezekiel continued to look around the city, the spirit of God took him "to the door of the north gate of the Lord's house; and to my dismay, women were sitting there weeping for Tammuz" (Ezekiel 8:14).

These were the Temple virgins, weeping for Tammuz, Semiramis's son who had been slain by a wild boar.

Fast-foward to a few years before Christ's birth. In 63 B.C. Julius Caesar was named Pontifex Maximus, or head of the state religion of Rome-- which was the heathen mother-child cult. By 12 B.C., when Augustus received the title, the role of Roman high priest was automatically conferred upon the emporers of Rome. In A.D. 306, the emporer Constantine became a Christian and declared that Christianity was the religion of the Roman Empire. But what kind of Christianity was it?

The people went to the same temple, worshiped the same trinity of mother-child-God, and followed the same rituals. But now their rituals and religion were called "Christian."

Not until A.D. 376 did an emporer realize that the Roman church was not truely Christian. The emporer Gratian refused the title of Pontifex Maximus because he recognized that Babylonianism was idolatrous.

As a result, two years later, bishop of the Christian church at Rome, was elected to the position and from that time Babylonianism and organized Christianity merged. The rites of Babylon--complete with the veneration of images and relics, penances, pilgrimages, and other pagan rites and festivals--became part of Christian worship.

Thousands of people followed, trusting the rituals, the worship, and the acts of self-denial to save them from hell. The introduction of Babylonianism, an ancient and false mother-child cult, into the church of Jesus Christ was a satanic stroke of genius. Satan knew God's *prophesied* plan for his own destuction, and in this cult, we can see the devil's clever attempt to falsly forshadow the authentic virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Satan is an imitator, and he loves to imitate Christ! Jesus said, "I am the light of the world" (John 9:5). Satan disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14). He spreads a false illumination upon the Word of God, resulting in false doctrine that leads people astray.

God sent a Messiah, Jesus Christ. Satan will send a messiah too--the Antichrist.

God will send His son to earth on a white horse (Rev. 19:11). Satan will send his son, the son of perdition, on a white horse (Rev. 6:2). The devil is a master of deception! (Re-post/author unknown)

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 16, 2004.


What was Babylon's idolatrous system? Among other aspects of astrology and idol worship, Babylon (the former city of Babel) included a cult that followed Semiramis, wife of Marduk, whom most scholars identify with Nimrod.

{"Most Scholars" here means Alexander Hislop. I doubt you can find any reference to this mateiral and beelif of the worship of semoiramis outside of Hislop, or othes who quote him.

Likewise, Constantine was a roman, not a Babylonian.}-Zarove

We know that Semiramis and Marduk/Nimrod were the ancient god and goddess of Babylon.

{No we don't. Babylon had a plethra of gods and goddesses, of whch Mardok took on the role similar to Zeus. King of the gods, and rtuler, but NOT the only god.Likewise, his wifes name was Not Semaramis.}-Zarove

Their son (whom Semiramis claimed was virgin born) was known to the Babylonians as Dammuzi, to the Hebrews as Tammuz, and to the Greeks as Adonis.

{Tammuz to the Bbaylonains, and no, the story of Tammuz is not identical to Adonis, thouhg they both decend to the Underworld... The Hebrews have no local equivlent, beign Monotheistic...}-Zarove

The divine mother and child appeared in Egypt as Isis and Horus, and in Greece as Venus and Adonis.

{Except theidea of Motherhood is Universal, an thus we wudl expect to see mother-and-child Images accross cultures. The link is Tenuous. and Venus never cradles Adonis, who was Born of an Incestuous relationshipbetween Myrrah and her Father, King Cinyras, king of Cyprus. He was Beloved by Venus and Persephone, who both sought to make him there lovers... }-Zarove

According to Hislop's "The two Babylons," the ancient cult Nimrod and Semiramis started spreading among all nations when the people of Babel scattered throughout the world.

{Hislop is remarkabely dated and long since discredited... check regular mythology books and compare if you like.}-Zarove

When God called Abraham out of Ur, He called him from a region devoted to the worship of false gods, including the "queen of heaven," the mother figure of the mother/ child cult. Joshua 24:2 tells us:

"Thus says the Lord of Israel: 'your fathers, including Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, dwelt on the other side of the river in old times; and they served other gods.' "

{The fact that flase gods whwre worshipped isnt in dispute, btut he Mother Gopddess claim is. Show real evidence Faith, nto Hislop.}- Zarove

The cult continued to spread unabated through the years. Generations after Babel, the rebellious people of Israel told God why they prefered to make offerings and sacrifices to the "queen of heaven" instead of to him:

{The Queen of Heaven was Ishtar, not Semiarmis, and has nothign to do with a Mother-and-Child cult...}-Zarove

"But we will certainly do whatever has gone out of our mouth, to burn incense to the queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her, as we have done, we and our fathers, our kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. For then we had plenty of food., we were well off, and saw no trouble" (Jer. 44:17).

{See above, do I need to descirbe Ishtar to you? And I dont mean the motion Picture...}-Zarove

In the eigth chapter of Ezekiel, God told the prophet to do a little checking. Ezekiel was to go to the temple set apart for the worship of Jehovah God and observe:

"So he brought me to the door of the court; and when I looked, there was a hole in the wall. Then He said to me, 'Son of man, dig into the wall'; and when I dug into the wall, there was a door. And He said to me, 'Go in and see the wicked abominations, which they are doing there.' So I went in and saw, and there-- every sort of creeping thing, abominable beasts, and all the idols of the house of Israel, portrayed all around on the walls." (Ezekiel 8:7-10).

{OK... but thwen...}-Zarove

What did Ezekiel see? Idols to the queen of heaven!

{Not nessisarily. This is presumed. there were many false gods, eahc wiht divergent stories, and nto all basiclaly the same. The Mother- and-Child myht hwoever wa sinvented by Hislop, not by the ancients...and for all you knew he walekd in an saw statues of Ba'al, which is mroe liekly sinced Ba'al was a Cannanite god and hye wher ein Caanan...}-Zarove

The mother-child cult had taken over the sanctuary of Jehovah God in Jerusalem.

{The Bible doesnt meniton sttues of a mother and child, the queen of Heaven is Universlaly understood to be Ishtar, whose story doest invovle her with a child, and the Idols mentioend in the Scrptures yo just quited don menton the Queen of Heaven...ezekeil may have seen any number of Idols, barring Ishtar...}-Zarove

The picture, however, grew worse. As Ezekiel continued to look around the city, the spirit of God took him "to the door of the north gate of the Lord's house; and to my dismay, women were sitting there weeping for Tammuz" (Ezekiel 8:14).

{Tammuz, beign the ine who died and decended tot he Underworld, NOT the virgin born fale messiah that Hislop cliamed. }-Zarove

These were the Temple virgins, weeping for Tammuz, Semiramis's son who had been slain by a wild boar.

{Yammuz wasnt slain by a wold bore...he was killed by Ereshkigal, the goddess of the Underworld...}-Zarove

Fast-foward to a few years before Christ's birth. In 63 B.C. Julius Caesar was named Pontifex Maximus, or head of the state religion of Rome-- which was the heathen mother-child cult.

{Yeah and those stupid Mythology bosk get it all wrong! they claim Zeus was the most powerful god an worshipped, and mention the 12 Great olymprians, but ti was rellay the Mother-and-Chiuld Cult...

Sorry Faith, the orman Rleigion rese,bled the Greek religion, not one developed out of the Middle East. It had a compelxe family of gods, mst of which wher eleser gods commandign small cult followugs, and some beign general or universal State gods, such as Jupiter, which is the Latin name for the Greek Zeus.

Ther ewas never a Mother ad Child saga in Roman or Greek Myhtology.}-Zarove

By 12 B.C., when Augustus received the title, the role of Roman high priest was automatically conferred upon the emporers of Rome.

{Asside formt he Dtae, this is mainly correct...but then you blow it...}-Zarove

In A.D. 306, the emporer Constantine became a Christian and declared that Christianity was the religion of the Roman Empire. But what kind of Christianity was it?

{This is flacse. The Idict of milan only made Christainity legal, it woidl take 50 years, and constantiens gransdson, to make it the State religion.}-Zarove

The people went to the same temple, worshiped the same trinity of mother-child-God, and followed the same rituals. But now their rituals and religion were called "Christian."

{You havent even proven that they HAD a mother and hcild cult, and where did the trinity come form? Just declarign it as so doesnt make it so, least of all is this impressive to those who studied the myths...}-Zarove

Not until A.D. 376 did an emporer realize that the Roman church was not truely Christian. The emporer Gratian refused the title of Pontifex Maximus because he recognized that Babylonianism was idolatrous.

{And your evidence for this is?}-Zarove

As a result, two years later, bishop of the Christian church at Rome, was elected to the position and from that time Babylonianism and organized Christianity merged.

{At leats in the midn of Hiuslop who wanted to discredit catholisism at the expence of turth and accedentlaly discredited all of the christain fait if you take him seriosuly... no real evidence links Greco-Roman rleigion with the Sumer valley region or the Middle East, beither is there record of a Mother and Child clt in rome beign the cenral sate rleigion of the Caesers, tis all Fantasy Faith.}-Zarove

The rites of Babylon--complete with the veneration of images and relics, penances, pilgrimages, and other pagan rites and festivals-- became part of Christian worship.

{ Can you show how wihtout rleyign on Hislop and with getitng the Mythological dacts right?}-Zarove

Thousands of people followed, trusting the rituals, the worship, and the acts of self-denial to save them from hell. The introduction of Babylonianism, an ancient and false mother-child cult, into the church of Jesus Christ was a satanic stroke of genius.

{Now your just quotign Jack Chick...}-Zarove

Satan knew God's *prophesied* plan for his own destuction, and in this cult, we can see the devil's clever attempt to falsly forshadow the authentic virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

{No we cant. Tammuz was not the child of Ishtar btu his Liver. Hislop was mistaken as they msitranslated the texts.Likewise, the rest he just sort of invented.}-Zarove

Satan is an imitator, and he loves to imitate Christ! Jesus said, "I am the light of the world" (John 9:5). Satan disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14). He spreads a false illumination upon the Word of God, resulting in false doctrine that leads people astray.

{This doent prove anyhting int he Two Babylons as Credible.}-Zarove

God sent a Messiah, Jesus Christ. Satan will send a messiah too--the Antichrist.

God will send His son to earth on a white horse (Rev. 19:11). Satan will send his son, the son of perdition, on a white horse (Rev. 6:2). The devil is a master of deception! (Re-post/author unknown)

{See above, jsyt declarign this is fact doesnt make it so. Pleae show me evidence of all this that can b confirmed form neutral soruces. Such as, a hisotry soruce that confirms the Mother and child cults preemenence in Rome at the time of christ.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 16, 2004.


Faith--

You once told me that you knew nothing of Hislop's book. Were you lying? It seems that you can reject the Deuterocananicals, but you embrace Hislop hatred like your second bible, amazing!

You post like one of Hislop's disciples. For one who is ignorant of Hislop's mythology towards the Church, you sure do make the attempts to perpetuate his malice.

I read Hislop's "Two Babylons". I actually understood his writings/attacks as being against Christianity itself, not necessarily the Cathholic Church.

................. ..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 16, 2004.


Can we stick to the subject.., and not bash authors instead?

Clearly the state religion of Rome was pagan and they did indeed worship this false mother as *queen of heaven.*

When Contatine changed the state religion to Christianity--they indeed placed Mary and Jesus on that throne in that temple!

Not until this time did Christianity practice their faith like this.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 16, 2004.


If you understand the mutlitude of pagan worship of "goddesses", you may understand the importance of getting the facts straight about Mary and her mission in the Salvation plan that was set forth by God. The Church made it very accurate and clear the distinction of Mary in the seas of confusion of those pagan goddesses and pagan rituals of fertility goddesses and proxies--"quesha". Mary was never a pagan anything. The Church has protected her truth.

Bashing the author?? The author does a fine job of it himself--the late Hislop hater of the Catholic Church and all of Christianity. Just read his yellow journalism and discover his delirious view of reality.

I'm not surprise that you find Hislop as a resource for your evidence, Faith.

......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 16, 2004.


Bashing the author??

You question the Deuterocanonicals credibility and authorship. Why don't you question Hislop's credibility? Cuz his mythology supports your agenda, Faith. Plain and simple. Why else would you adopt his views?

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 16, 2004.


"The Queen of Heaven" worship pre-dates Roman institutions. It may also be pre-Judaic religion. So, you can't blame Roman paganism as the starting point. You can't even pin it on Catholicism. The actual phrase--"The Queen of Heaven"--has its roots in Jewish religion, according to a few books I've read. Remember, the Jewish religion was and is very splintered into many parts.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 16, 2004.


Faith,

Do you have a rebuttal to Zarove's point by point reply?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 16, 2004.


Faith,

You're using extra-Scriptural sources as "truth" to disprove Catholicism. Would you accept other, more objective extra- Scriptural sources that might support the Catholic view?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 17, 2004.


No Andy,

I won't address Zarove point by point.

There is nothing to address. It's a he said, she said sort of thing.

All he did was deny everything I posted. And I am sorry--not to insult Zarove, but I stand by the author of the book I quoted, which, by-the-way, was not Hislop.

This post is from one of my folders and unfortunately, I can't remember what book I typed it from. Otherwise I would reveal my source. Though I don't know why I would--given the inability of most people on this board to address the issues instead of the author.

Besides which--Zarove misses the point of my post, which was not about half the things he was saying.

My point is that the pagan worship of the mother/child cult like worship that was already taking place in Rome before Constatine--did not change. They continued to practice those same rituals in those same temples where they had once worshiped pagan gods and goddesses., only now they replaced the fugures with Mary and Jesus, etc...

Before this time, Catholicism as we know it today did not exist.

The early Christian church never venerated Mary as queen of heaven.

Please find one place in Scripture where we can see the early believers practicing anything even remotelty pagan or Catholic.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 17, 2004.


Faith, a few things to consirer.

1: The orman state Religion never worshiped "The queen of Heaven" , and had no Mothe and child Cult. The yqeen of the gods, Juno, rules iwht her Ocnsort, Jupiter, the Latin names for the Greek gods, Hera and Zeus, respectively. In addition tot hese two, ten other dieties tule from mount Olympus.

The Pantheon of rome mirrored that of the Greeks, and had no central theme of a Mother an Child.

2: The queen fo Heaven was not Jewish in origin but Sumerian, to correct rod, BUT, the Queen of Heaven was Ishtar, who, after the Demise of her Lover Tammuz I( Not her child she cradled on her lap, midn you) She decended intot he Underworld to retrieve him. At each of the nine Gates, ershkeigel had her strip off an article of clothing, till she finally appeared nude before the Queen fo the Underworld. There she endeured emence torture until she coidl secure the release form the realm of theDead of her beloved, Tammuz. His return to life and deaht agan the next year, which mirrors Ba'al and may be a Sumerian Verison of the cannanite Ba'al story, indicates the changes of the seasons and explaikns winter and its harshness as opposed to summer and its bounty, when the two lovers united.

3: Horus and Isis where never a Mother and Child Cult. though images of the Baby Horus beign held by Isis exist, they whent spacificlaly the focus of any cult that egyptologisst are aware of, and the central theme of the Horus Mythos is that Horus grew to defeat his Uncle, seth.

4: The roman Religion was not Middle eastern iN origin, but Indo- euripean, and as a reuslt, lacked the oreintal flavour of Ishtar, the queen of Heaven.

5: The Biik of Ezekeil isnt clear which Idols where beign worshipped when he went intot he Temple, and Ba'al coudl have just as easily been the worshipped one...

6: Bakc to rome, we find that the orman Religion did not worship a central goddess, but three main gods, all male, made u the most promenent and important of the gods of rome. Jupiter, Mars, and Saturn. They alos hihgly Honoured the goddess Hestia, who was a virgin, but not a mother.

There is no part of Ancient Pagan wirship in rome that is equel tot he supposed Mother-and-Child cult. This sitn a He said she said Faith, its a fact.Read up on roman religion soemtimes, see or yourself.

The Ormans never had a cetnral goddess, or even a cntral god, though some gods wher prememenent above the others as patrons of rome.(Mars, spacificlay, is a patorn of orme.)

Saying thet simpley Changed the nam of there goddess to Mary is absurd sicne they never had a central goddess, to whom they where deoted, as you claim XCahtolcis are devoted to and worship the Virgin Mary.

Some Queatsions for you.

1: Do you know about Orman rleigion? Can you present any evidence that prives me worng, and shows them worshippign a Mothe-and-Child as aprt f the state religion? Midn you, I dint say a cult tha existed, I said the state religion.

2: Can you show me where Semiarmis is mentioend at all as the mother and bride fo minrod et all, outside of books that rle on Hislop?

3: You do relaise toyr own post mentions Hislop as a source, right?

4:Why shoudl I take seriposuly the claism of Hislop when I can just go to Tahoo refernece and discover the facts diverge form his claims. The claim that nimrod was Murdok for instance is not supported by arhceology, and the claims he makes of the pagan mythlogy simpley do not meet up with the a actual facts.

5: Can you prove any link between the sumerian religiona dn rome?> You now thik like a Neopagan who asusmed the term Pagan means one religion shared by al the peoels in the ancient past till the "New Religion" came about. are you certain they are connected? Or, could these religiosn be disparagous and teah fdifferent things?

6: Again, Faith, can you prove any of this with neutral sources?



-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 17, 2004.


Thanks, Zarove for the correction. I assumed they were Jewish generically. I do recall the story of Nimrod, too, as a feable attempt to equate them with Mary and Joseph and Jesus.

........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 17, 2004.


Zarove.,

Listen...

I can't really understand your questions all that well and I don't know where you get your info from. But to just deny what I post and then demand I prove it is a little silly.

I don't have to prove anything. No one here ever *proves* anything.

I simply put it out there for you to consider.

If you choose not to hear it--that's fine. If you want to know more-- then do some research or something.

I have no problems understanding this information from my books or reasoning from the Scriptures to see the truth. I believe my sources.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 17, 2004.


The following link provides volumes of Marian quotes from 1st century Christians onward. The quotes carry a common theme: honoring the mother of the Lord. No where does anyone make Mary part of the Godhead.

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/venerate.htm

I am interested in going to the "horse's mouth" and NOT in commentary by anti-Catholic bigots.

-- gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 17, 2004.


Zarove., Listen...

I can't really understand your questions all that well and I don't know where you get your info from.

{mY BASIC QUREATSION IS THIS. cAN YOU SHOW ME how THE "qUEEN OF hEAVEN" CULT WENT TO ROME AND BECAME THE STATE RELIGION, EXPLAIN WHY NO BOOKS OUTSIDE OF THOSE WHO ARE BASED ON hISLOP CLAIMS THIS, AND WHY THE MYTHS DIVERGE FROM YUOR PRSENTATION.

My soruces are numerous. Variosu Mythology books on my shelf, various websites, and various yapes on myhtology. I use to love Mythology.

Google up some of the names.Ishtar, Adonis, Isis, ect... many are available on Yahoo Reference, and all are available for free on the net and eaisly accessed.check the myths and hisotry of the myths and what peopel they cnnected to, and then check this agisnt your own assertions.}-Zarove

But to just deny what I post and then demand I prove it is a little silly.

{I didnt just deny them Faith, I KNOW FOR A FACT that what you posted is entrely Bogus. The hisotry of religion doesnt record the roman state Religion ebign based around the Queen of Heaven, who is Ishtar.

I can bakc these claism up if you like, my next post if asked will be several lnks on the variosu mythologeis tou distort and lump togather.}-Zarove

I don't have to prove anything. No one here ever *proves* anything.

{In any discussion you mut orove soemthing or other, or have valid grounds for claims.

Otherwise, I can claim I own all of the state of colorodo's land and everyone owes me rent, and no one can refute it as I dotn have to back up this claim. I also own Paramount studio's...}-Zarove

I simply put it out there for you to consider.

{No, you put it here to trash Catholisism, which, even though I dotn midn our position, I do wish you woudl consiuder using less dubious, or rather, obviously false, soruces...}-Zarove

If you choose not to hear it--that's fine. If you want to know more-- then do some research or something.

{The trouble is, I have listened and heard this before. I own a copy of "The Two Babylons". Its just that I also own volumes of mythology and have researched them ont he net extensively and there is no evidenc form History or Mytholgy linking the roman Sttae Religion with a Mother-and-Child Cult of the Queen of Heaven, as you have alledged. why doyn YOU do soem research?}-Zarove

I have no problems understanding this information from my books or reasoning from the Scriptures to see the truth. I believe my sources.

{What if I show you numerous sources, all Nonbiased and noncahtolic, that discfredig your soruces?

You only beelive your soruces as it agrees with you that Catholisism is eviul and corrupt Pagan worhsip and feeds your agenda, and is conveneint. But tis harldy academiclaly repsoncible since its clealry false.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 17, 2004.


I don't believe it is false.

In fact--it alll measures up quite well.

All one has to do is consider Catholicism to see the paganism.

Since Catholicism didn't invent paganism--it must have taken it from the pagans. I believe this occurred during the time of Constatine.

My sources vary and there are mant. Hislop isn't one of them.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 17, 2004.


That is another fine example of your propaganda tactics. Just throw it out there and see what catches on fire. Who cares if the source is credible. Hey, that's how Dan Rather got himself out the door. Obviously, it doesn't matter to you, Faith, if your information is fact or fiction, just throw it out and see who gets caught up in its nasty little snare. What responsibility do you have for new believers when you go around throwing myths like missiles at their faith? You don't even know if what you are spewing out is fact or fiction. How can we consider you as being credible?

Let me pull those stunts on your faith system and see how long you'll call for my banning, Faith.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 17, 2004.


Like I said rod--

If I were moderator, I would delete your posts like the one right above here.

They are derogatory--filled with misinformation, and lies.

They attack on a personal level, and have no other purpose than to start a flame war.

If you don't like my opinion about Catholicism--that is just to darn bad.

Address the topic if you can.

Otherwise, you need to follow the rules of the board like the rest of us. There is no rule against raising things about the false theology of a religion.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 17, 2004.


Faith

What do you make of Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy? Also how come Costantine had contol over the church not in the Roman empire?

Hugh

-- Hugh (hugh@inspired.com), December 17, 2004.


"All one has to do is consider Catholicism to see the paganism. Since Catholicism didn't invent paganism--it must have taken it from the pagans. I believe this occurred during the time of Constatine."

Taken what from paganism?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 17, 2004.


I don't believe it is false.

{I don care...what i care about is the fact of History, which you misepresent. Nothign you have said makes any sence... least of all when contrasted to actual mythology and Hisotry.}-Zarove

In fact--it alll measures up quite well.

{It was DESIGNED to fit quiet well, the problem is that the roman State Religion dd not have a Mother-and-Child aspect, and this can be confirmed with a simpoek web search.

Try it Faith, try to look upo what the Ancient pagans beelived.There was never a signel Pagan rleigion, and no common threads between the cultures.}-Zarove

All one has to do is consider Catholicism to see the paganism.

{in considering ancient sumerian Myths abotu Ishtar and not seeign her holdign a child and beign wirshipped as the Madonna. in considering ancient rome with tis 12 Olympains and not seeing anyhtign liek Mary worship in Catholisism as you claimed. Im relaly, relaly not seing any evidece for the Semiarmis claim.

Try lookign onlien for these thigns Faith, see what cmes up...}- Zarove

Since Catholicism didn't invent paganism--it must have taken it from the pagans. I believe this occurred during the time of Constatine.

{Based on fualty histrrical works designed to prove this...}-Zarove

My sources vary and there are mant. Hislop isn't one of them.

{Hislop is one, indireclty. His name is even mentioend in your own post, and he is the osurce of r the pagan Mother-and-Child worhsip infromaiton, sued by most of yuor soruces. As he is the only soruce in existance...}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 17, 2004.


My sources vary and there are mant. Hislop isn't one of them. - Faith

Faith, Would you list your sources? I'd like to look them up myself, if you don't mind. Thanks.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 17, 2004.


Pararpah Two of your post I answered.

The divine mother and child appeared in Egypt as Isis and Horus, and in Greece as Venus and Adonis. According to Hislop's "The two Babylons," the ancient cult Nimrod and Semiramis started spreading among all nations when the people of Babel scattered throughout the world.

Note:Hislop is mentioend as the source...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 17, 2004.


Faith made it very clear to me at one time that she knew nothing about Hislop, eventhough her posts were Hislopian . I called her on it and she denied any connection to Hislop. She tries to do the same here today. It has become quite obvious that her source is indeed Hislop, without question.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 17, 2004.


That's it, Faith. I've had enough of this little game. I took the hatchet and burried it in my garden. There isn't any further reason to persue anymore issue with you. Dealing with your tactics is like trying to catch my left thumb with my left thumb--senseless and useless.

Go out and play in the world!

..........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 17, 2004.


rod, it could be someone who draws from Hislop, thus she may not have knowledge of his original writings.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), December 17, 2004.

Yes, that could very well be the case, Emily.

A side note:

I once had some people use Hislop's book to steer me away from Catholicism. They almost had me believing that the Catholic Church was satanic. If it were not for my stubborness and problem with authority figures, I would be in the same boat with Faith preaching Hislop's slop. I think that even an atheist would not allow a Catholic to be suckered into Hislop's mess, even if by trickle-down books.

............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 18, 2004.


My problkem is that She even mentioned Hislop in her origional Posat, therefore had to be aware that this was the origional osurce ofr her claims...

Rod...how codl anyone beleive this ??? Its utterly absurd!

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 18, 2004.


Boy--its a really good thing I can't remember what book I used to make that post all those years ago.

I told you that that post was a re-post from my folder and that I had not included the original offer in my notes.

There is a reason I do not like to do this. It is obvious that there is a bias against such authors as Dave Hunt, James White, Jack Chick and Hislop.

The only one of those authors that I read is Dave Hunt and James White. You may not like them--but I think they make great sense.

The post that I re-posted is so clearly referencing Hislop's work-- and is not written by Hislop.

Stop attacking the authors and try dealing with the subject. This is so typical and you really must be able to see why I hesitate to reveal my sources.

David told me a long time ago to just post *author unknown* to avoid such types of strawman arguments--yet it still happens.

Shall we have a debate about Hislop now?

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 18, 2004.


lol...what's offer? I meant author......heheh

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 18, 2004.

Boy--its a really good thing I can't remember what book I used to make that post all those years ago.

{tHE ISSUES ARE THE VALIDITY OF THE INFORMATION, AND THE CREDIBILITY OF THE CLAISM MADE UPON THEM, AS WELL AS THE MENTION OF hISLOP.}- Zarove

I told you that that post was a re-post from my folder and that I had not included the original offer in my notes.

{But didnt you re-read it? It mentions Hislop, that was where the informaiton origionates... regardless of rather or not the book you quoted was written by hislop, it noentheless drew from him as its source.}-Zarove

There is a reason I do not like to do this. It is obvious that there is a bias against such authors as Dave Hunt, James White, Jack Chick and Hislop.

{Could it be less Bias and more reasonable rejectionm to an unrelaible source? Really Faith, the stuff you popsted is discredited. And I don mean by Cahtolic soruces.

Check the Myths yourself, checkt he Hisotry yourself. The soruces you read claim that the roman Mother Goddess beczme the Cahtolci Mary. However, there is noi refeence ot a roman Mother Goddess that coudl fit Mary. Itas all invented. Again, the orman rleigion mirrored that of Greece and had 12 Olympains, not a Mother-and-Child. Its not warmed over seemiarmis...

The issue is that the informaiton contaiend in such works is dubious and unrelaible and cannot be confrmed form any source outside of there own narrow, inbred mateirlas. No Hisotrical soruces confirm them, none.}-Zarove

The only one of those authors that I read is Dave Hunt and James White. You may not like them--but I think they make great sense.

{That makes two, not one. Grammer aside, the reality is that it doesnt matter if they make great sence to you, what matters is if there claims are true. when you claim that the orman Mother Goddess was renamed Mary, you have to first prove they HAD a Mother Goddess to begin with, and hat Semiarmis was the origional, and the religion sdpread, all by independant soruces, and this you have faield to do. Makign sence to you does not make it good hisotry.} -Zarove

The post that I re-posted is so clearly referencing Hislop's work-- and is not written by Hislop.

{The fact that its informaiton came form Hislop means your informaiton comes form hislop...just liek If I read a Modern Physics book written by Dr.Johnathan Smythe, and it referneces einsteins relativity theory, the thery is still einsteins work...}-Zarove

Stop attacking the authors and try dealing with the subject.

{I did deal withthe subject. Heck, I posged twice.

1: The ormans never had as part of there state religion a Mother-and- Child Myth central tot here identity, but where an extension of Greek Myths and legends.

2: Roman rleigion was Indo-european in Origin and free form Semetic influence.

3: There is no Connection to Babylonain rleigion, egyptian rleigion, and roman religion.

4: Adonis was not Venus's Child, but her lover, and the child of Incest...

5: Horus's myth centres around his defeat of Seth, not a Mother-and- Chiuld image.

6: There is no evidence of any cult spreading liek you describe, aside form Judaism.

These are issues faith, issues I can wporive,a nd muhc much more.

Do I need to post, complete with addresses, links ot the myths so you can read htem yourself? do I need to go to berklwy Hisotry online so you can read how the Hisotry fo rrligkon developed? Those peopela re Atheists at Berlkey and wot have a pro Catholic stance.

Exaclty what will it take for you to recognise that what makes sence to you is nonsence, sicne hisptrically it warps facts and events, and distorts mythologies, often inventign them?}-Zarove

This is so typical and you really must be able to see why I hesitate to reveal my sources.

{I Didnt care, the sources where obviosuly wrong. Accusign me of not dealign withthe issue is NOT acceptable, since its a flat out lie!.

I DID deal withthe issues, and not just the authors. I DID tell the myhtologies, thouh not ind etail. want me to elaborate? want me to take ofp post afte rpsot on mythology and Hisotry> im gsame, but you will STILL cliam tis just an attakc on the author...}-Zarove

David told me a long time ago to just post *author unknown* to avoid such types of strawman arguments--yet it still happens.

{My argumetns arent straw men, my arguments rest on the fact that orman rleigion was nogt centred afound the Mother-and-Child iamge aND WEVERYTHIGN YOU POSTED IS A LIE AND ITS SO EASY TO CONFIRM... I mean, relaly, just rsad the myths yourself.}-Zarove

Shall we have a debate about Hislop now?

{Hislop is discredited, want me to annotate his boo, which is onlune, wiht links to real mythology sources?}-Zarove



-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 18, 2004.


Zarove--

No offense, but I find it hilarious that you would have the nerve to point out one little grammer mistake that I may have made. Lol!!

It was actually more of a typo than a grammer mistake anyway. But that aside--Where do you feel justified in saying anything to anyone about this??? I can't even read most of what you post. I know you say it's dyslexia--but it looks more like very poor typing skills to me. But in any event--should you really be in the business of correcting or pointing out anyone else's error?

I dare say yes--please anotate Hislop's boo........

I can't wait to see this ;)

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 18, 2004.


Faith,

If Zarove is able to provide objective and reputable references that refute Hislop's claims, would you accept that Hislop may be wrong? I'm not saying you have to accept that Catholicism is true, just that Hislop may be wrong.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 18, 2004.


First of all Andy--I have never read a single book by Hislop. The things that I choose to believe need to come from more that one author in one book--they need to jive with history and with God's Word.

Zarove missed the point of my post--which was to show how Babylonianism has worked its way into the Catholic Church. It's there, whether you or he want to agree or not.

I am not arguing mythology or whether or not it was this goddess or that goddess who was worshiped as *queen of heaven.* And I am not interested in a debate about any author.

I find it very difficult to follow Zarove anyway.

If he wants to prove to me from the Scriptures that the early believers were venerating Mary., making pilgramages to shrines of her.., venerating relics or anything like that, and if he could do it in an easy read format--then I would listen.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 18, 2004.


Faith, my Grammer is fine.Its my spelling thats off. Nonetheless, you resort to Cheap pesonal attakcs, and then accuse us.

Your own sources quote hislop. Yur own post admits they use Hislop.Hislop is the origin of the Maitehr-and-Child cult theory that states Catholisism is a merger of Chrisainity and roman paganism, based ont he Mother Goddess. its also a lie, since the ancient Pagan rleigions where divorse and not realy connected, and the omans had no central Mother Goddess, and no mother and child cult.

This you never address.

you instead make personal attacks, and claim we do.

Issues, faith, not posters, and not authors.

Hisotry does not corrolate wiht your cliams. Myhtology dos not corrolate wit your claims.

Look at your post below, as ever, my quotes in {} Brackets...

---------

First of all Andy--I have never read a single book by Hislop.

{But yu use books thta are based on Hislop, as your own post admits...}-Zarove

The things that I choose to believe need to come from more that one author in one book--they need to jive with history and with God's Word.

{TheyJive with neither. Neither the Bible nor hisotry mention the Mother Goddess and child cult that your netire theory hinges on, nor do they confirm how it spread out of babylon to Rome and became the state rleigion.

since the Bibel des not sya htis happened, an since Hisotry repeaedly discredits the iudea, you obviosuly prefer your soruces to the truth.}-Zarove

Zarove missed the point of my post--

{The poitn is simple. Catholisism is Pagan. It merged the roman Paganism with Christan languages, repalcign the Mother Goddess, Venus in this case, with Mary.

The poitn you miss form me is that the orman religion did not look anyhtign liek what your sources claim it did.}-Zarove

which was to show how Babylonianism has worked its way into the Catholic Church.

{Except you claim it did this by means of rome, whoch never worshipped Babylonain Dities, and whose religion is Indo-european in origin.

Again, Faith, you cannot prove that Semiarmis became a goddess an was worhsiped, and her cult spread form babylon to all parts of the Kown world, and became the orman Religion. You cannot have it this wy and rconcuile this wihhe Temple of Jupiter that wa cental i rome. You cannot rconcile this claim wiuthhte other Olympain dieties of Orme.

Simple fact, neither babylonian rleigion nor roman religion resemble tyour claims.

who am I to beleive, you and your spruces, or any refernce you can pick up even on Yahoo?}-Zarove

It's there, whether you or he want to agree or not.

{No, its not. You cannot prove this with imperical Data, only books base don huslop, who was a forger. May as well prove how Chrisyainity is paganism retold by Using Kensey Graves and the lethra of wauthors he inspired.}-Zarove

I am not arguing mythology or whether or not it was this goddess or that goddess who was worshiped as *queen of heaven.* And I am not interested in a debate about any author.

{This is wholy about hwich goddesses wher owrhsipped by whom, sicne tyoy cliam the ormans renamed there goddess Mary. Since the romans didnt owrhsip a single Female diety in any absolute , final way, and since rome was under the protection fo MArs and Jupitdefr, two Male deities, and the households of gods had variosu functions, and since no central female goddess eve too centr stage, your enture argument falls to ash.}-Zarove

I find it very difficult to follow Zarove anyway.

{Im pretty straigh forward here Faith.

The real myhtology of rme does not corrolate to your claims. Since they didnt worhsipp a Mother goddess, this said Mother oddess coudl not have been renamed Mary. Why is this hard to follow?}-Zarove

If he wants to prove to me from the Scriptures that the early believers were venerating Mary., making pilgramages to shrines of her.., venerating relics or anything like that, and if he could do it in an easy read format--then I would listen.

{ and you accuse me of missing your point. I dont CARE about Miriam devotion, I nly cae abouth the truth here, soemthiugn you in your cheap shots agsint me disregard.

Listen carefully Faith, as it simportant you realise this.

You claim not to be interested in Myhtology, but tor whole case rests on pagan Myhtology, so you shoudl aquaint yourself iwht it before launchign into tirades about how smilar Anyhtign is to it.

You claim, in short, that Semiarmis married her son Nimrod, who was tammuz, they became worsipped, and later, as there cult spread, it became the domenet rleigion of the age, even becoming the state religion of orme.

Thus, roman rleigion was babylonian in Origin and hte Myhtology shodl be similar if not Identical.

The toriuble is that htis just isnt the case.

Wedont find in either religion Semiarmis and tammuz beign Mother and child. we find in neither rleigion a Mother and child aspect.

In orme, spacificlaly, we find 12 sovwright dieties and a host of lesser gods. Jupiter is soverign over them all, and Mars is the patron of the mepire, and the father of the orman Peoples.

We do not find any reference to a queen of Heaven, and no refernece to a Mother Goddess, that codl have been renamed Mary. None.Zippo. Zilch. Its not there.

If you want ot beleive Catholisism is wrong, fine, but that doesnt excuse poor academia in the name of discrediting somethign . Indeed, spreadign this rubbiush is harmful to the envronemnt of thinkers, sicne it clutters it up wiuth so much stuff that is disposable nonsence.

either prove that babylonain rleigoion became roman State rleiigona nd intermerged with chrisendom with COnstantine, or else admit that the myhtoligies d not corrolate.

If you claim the former, be warned, you will be called into acocunt to give unbaised pages on the mythology of the regions to confirm your claims. }-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 18, 2004.


Was it really a personal attack to point out to you that you were in no position to make an issue of my mistake? I pointed out that you have poor typing skills, already acknowledged by you--and therefore I felt you had a nerve to mention my mistake--which, by-the-way.., was not really grammatical.

Who did this first????

Why did you need to point this out?

This was my sentence that you had to comment on:

The only one of those authors that I read is Dave Hunt and James White. You may not like them--but I think they make great sense.

Originally the sentence read:

The only one of these authors that I read is Dave Hunt. You may not like him-- but I think he makes great sense.

I originally only listed Dave Hunt, Jack Chick and Hislop.

Then I remembered James White--and added him to my list. Therefore I had to add him to the first sentence and change *he* to *them.*

Unfortunately--I missed the word *one* in the begining of the sentence. I should have changed that word altogether so that it would have read:

The only two authors that I read is (are) Dave Hunt and James White. You may not like them--but I think they make great sense.

In any event--thank you so much for pointing out this big problem : )

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 18, 2004.


Was it really a personal attack to point out to you that you were in no position to make an issue of my mistake? I pointed out that you have poor typing skills, already acknowledged by you--and therefore I felt you had a nerve to mention my mistake--which, by-the-way.., was not really grammatical.

iT WAS gRAMMATICAL fAITH. Just as if I said " we was". saying " The only author I use is James whoite an Dave Hunt' is a grammer, not a spellign error. I make spelling, not grammer, errors...

And it was a personal attack in the way you not only excuted it here, but continued the lashings elsewhere.

Who did this first????

You. Several times. when yoy lied about us attakcign auhtors and not dalign with issues,a nd rused to deal withthe objectiosn we raised about the issues,instead favourignto ignor them. Just liek toyu ignored the entre thread I made to you about evlution queatsions...

Why did you need to point this out?

Im a Grammer Nazi?

This was my sentence that you had to comment on:

The only one of those authors that I read is Dave Hunt and James White. You may not like them--but I think they make great sense.

Originally the sentence read:

The only one of these authors that I read is Dave Hunt. You may not like him-- but I think he makes great sense.

It appeared int he post as I quoted it, and remains a grammatical error, that woudl now be a Nonisuse had you not kept it up. Because you wil continue to harp on this and continue to ignore the real queatsions, I wll simpley ignore this matter in future posts.

I originally only listed Dave Hunt, Jack Chick and Hislop.

This dos nothign to the sentence structure.

Then I remembered James White--and added him to my list. Therefore I had to add him to the first sentence and change *he* to *them.*

Fr somne that ants me to revise my posts beore posting, you certainly lost credibility explaining your mistakes...

Unfortunately--I missed the word *one* in the begining of the sentence. I should have changed that word altogether so that it would have read:

The only two authors that I read is (are) Dave Hunt and James White. You may not like them--but I think they make great sense.

In any event--thank you so much for pointing out this big problem : )

The explanation wa sunnessisary. what woid be more appriciated woud be historical informaiton aboutthe supposed semiarmis worship in Ancient Rme beign the STtae rleigion,and its connection to Catholsiism, which remaisn Historiclaly Unteneble.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 18, 2004.


Faith,

Your assertions about Catholicism seem to be related to arguments used by atheists and pagans to attack Christianity in general, not just Catholicism. You may be interested in seeing what is posted at Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth (POCM). Also see the POCM Scholarship page.

If your assertions are not true, you may be spreading lies that can be used against Christianity in general, not just Catholicism. If you take your assertions at face value, they can be used to debunk Christianity as a whole. Just a word of caution.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 18, 2004.


Ive sen this site beofre...interesting, they use thr "Orpheus Bakkus" onthe ld rugged crss thing still...its been sited that the image was 4th Century AD and postdates Chrisyainity, an is likelyborrowed form christains by pagans ( A concept Mythers hate... they wnat the pagans to invent all the cool stuff and the christaisn to steal them) and they are wrong. Itt is Orpheus beign killed, not Dyonisus, and Orpheus is not "Orpheys Bakkus". The Bakkunides killed Orpheus for not joinign in there orgie after his wife died... Oropheys and Bakkus are two distinct pernages.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 18, 2004.

No Andy--I have already been down that road.

As my post from earlier states; The introduction of the false Mother/Child cult into the church of Jesus Christ was a Satanic stroke of genius.

But there are some really good Christian theologians who have debunked that twist.

Tekton/ Building Blocks for Christian Faith

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 19, 2004.


Faith says, "The only two authors that I read is (are) Dave Hunt and James White. You may not like them--but I think they make great sense."

Ummm, really, Faith. What about Morton Egar's "Mythology and the Bible" that you quoted UNDER YOUR NAME on the other thread? Oops, I guess you forgot about him!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 19, 2004.


Under my name?

What's my name Gail?

And when do I ever sign my posts?

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 19, 2004.


Faith, what Mother and Chld Cult? Agin the hisotry that I challenge you never address.

Abandon Catholsism for a few minuets and answer the simpel facts aboutthe pagan rlegion I mentioned...or religions, plural...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 19, 2004.


Oh and.., I only just discovered that site when I was doing exactly what you were probably doing....googling "Fortuna and Jupiter-puer, or Jupiter, the boy."

I don't read Morton Egar--never heard of him before today--but now you can add him to your list of my sources that are fiction panderings of vicious and unstable persons with not a hoot of evidence. Therein lies the problem. Why in the world would someone cleave to unsubstantiated, historically inacurrate ramblings such as these, unless they just simply wanted to.

Unbelievable really....

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 19, 2004.


Zarove,

I answered you on the other thread.

The Roman Mother/Child were known as Fortuna and Jupiter-puer, or Jupiter, the boy.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 19, 2004.


Faith,

My point is, that pagans claim that Christianity at the very start came from pagan myths. They claim the pagan influences started at the beginning of Christianity. In that respect, you are arguing the same thing. The only difference between their argument and yours is that you claim it happened later in history.

The "Satanic stroke of genius" may be that your work to discredit Catholicism is also being used to discredit Christianity in general. That's why I'm cautioning you to be certain of your sources. Pagans don't see a difference between Catholics and other Christians. To them, we're all the same. I'm sure you wouldn't want to spread lies that could be used to lead others away from Christianity.

Just hear Zarove out and verify your sources. Zarove is as objective as anybody here. He has no reason to defend Catholicism. He's trying to defend historical accuracy.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 19, 2004.


Sadly, Andy, she dosn sem to relaise we are tryigt o help her here,a nd like Achilies, her wrath may well kill us all.

By the wya, fortuna was Jupiters Daughter, not his mother...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 19, 2004.


http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Fortuna+and+Jupiter-puer&ei=UTF- 8&fr=my_top&fl=0&x=wrt

I did a yahoo. Most of the linsk whre hislopian, referingin the Two bablons, and attempting to discrdit Catholisism based on Hislops work. None where objective histories...

And they get there myhtology wrong.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 19, 2004.


I understand what you are saying Andy. I worried about that at first too.

But that is why I posted Tektonics for you.

Of course the clever twist of falsely forshadowing the authentic virgin birth of Jesus Christ--with that mother/child cult--make it look like Christianity copied from older pagan religions.

But Catholicism is a major player in the problem. To expose that part of it--will at least clean things up a bit. I think debunking the myth of evolution will also help to straighten out those who believe that the Word of God didn't exist until much later than some ancient civilizations..

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 19, 2004.


Faith,

I just think it would be better if you stick to Scripture to make your arguments. In the big scheme of things, I think you may be helping the pagan cause more than your own by posting these myths about the pagan-Catholic connection. They have been debunked by reputable scholars. If you want to point to a similarity between Catholicism and Paganism, the exact same logic can be used to say that Christianity stems from Pagan cults. Why do you think Zarove is so adamant about this?

I know what you think about Scripture, so why the need to use extra- Scriptural sources to make your point? If you wish to do that, why not accept the words of early Christians themselves like Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 19, 2004.


I can't ignore the connection to babylonianism unless I want to ignore the book of Revelation and its warning to us about this apostate religion that has been planned and in the making since the begining--and we can see it in the Scriptures--starting with the tower of babel.

Atheists don't need more fuel. They don't believe.

But maybe if they can get around the whole truth and look at it biblically--then the very thing they think disproves Christianity-- may be what proves it.

H. A. Ironside in his commentary of the Book of Revelation, gives us the following insights:

"Building on the primeval promise of the woman's Seed who was to come, Semiramis bore a son whom she declared was miraculously conceived! And when she presented him to the people, he was hailed as the promised deliverer. This was Tammuz, whose worship Ezekiel protested against in the days of the captivity. (Ezekiel 8:14) Thus was introduced the mystery of the mother and the child, a form of idolatry that is older than any other known to man. The rites of this worship were secret. Only the initiated were permitted to know its mysteries. It was Satan's effort to delude mankind with an imitation so like the truth of God that they would not know the true Seed of the woman when He (Jesus Christ) came in the fullness of time.

From Babylon this mystery-religion spread to all the surrounding nations. Everywhere the symbols were the same, and everywhere the cult of the mother and the child became the popular system; their worship was celebrated with the most disgusting and immoral practices. The image of the queen of heaven with the babe in her arms was seen everywhere, though the names might differ as languages differed. It became the mystery-religion of Phoenicia, and by the Phoenicians was carried to the end of the earth. Ashtoreth and Tammuz, the mother and child of these hardy adventurers, became Isis and Horus in Egypt; Aphrodite and Eros in Greece; Venus and Cupid in Italy; and bore many other names in more distant places. Within 1,000 years Babylonianism had become the religion of the world, which had rejected the Divine revelation.

Linked with the central mystery was countless lesser mysteries, the hidden meaning of which was known only to the initiates, but the outward forms were practiced by all the people. Among these were the doctrines of purgatorial purification after death; salvation by countless sacraments, such as priestly absolution; sprinkling with holy water; the offering of round cakes to the queen of heaven as mentioned in the book of Jeremiah; dedication of virgins to the gods, which was literally sanctified prostitution; weeping for Tammuz for a period of 40 days, prior to the great festival of Ishtar, who was said to have received her son back from the dead; for it was taught that Tammuz was slain by a wild boar and afterwards brought back to life.

To him the egg was sacred, as depicting the mystery of his resurrection even as the evergreen was his chosen symbol and was set up in honor of his birth at the winter solstice, when a boar's head was eaten in memory of his conflict and a yule-log burned with many mysterious observances. The sign of the cross was sacred to Tammuz, as symbolizing the life-giving principle and as the first letter of his name. It is represented upon vast numbers of the most ancient altars and temples, and did not, as many have supposed, originate with Christianity."

*********************************

Isn't it these things that make Christianity look like a copycat of that ancient pagan religion called babylonianism?

And what is God's prophesied plan for such a religious system? The Bible is repleat with answers from Genesis to Revelation.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 19, 2004.


Atheists don't need more fuel. They don't believe.

You may be right, depending on the person. But there are people out there with a weak faith for whom "more fuel" could be just the poison Satan needs to have them.

If your assertions are true, they should stand up to scrutiny. If not, then they could be lies. And lies can't further the cause of Truth. That's all I'm trying to say.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 19, 2004.


Thanks Andy,

You are right--the truth always does stand up to the test.

That's why I'd rather face these things head on instead of burying them in fear that some may be confounded by them.

The Bible twlls us that God is in control and His Word is truth.

We can trust in that.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 19, 2004.


Sadly. people like Faith work for Satan without realizing that they are working for him. That's how he conned one third of the angels who were smarter than all of us.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), December 19, 2004.

Faith, th Babylonain connection just is not there. As I said, jupiter was notthe boy worsippedin his Mothers arms. Nor was His mother ortuna.

Neither was roman religion develped put of abylon.

Be reasonable and answer my objectiosn here...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 19, 2004.


I disagree with you and agree with these:

Jupiter the boy, was worshipped in the arms of the goddess Fortuna

*****************************************************************

The Babylonian link

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 20, 2004.


I'm sorry, Faith, but this si not baourt rather or no yo argee wiht me, nor is it baout opinions.

Unless youpresent Pagan myths htat support hte claims that hislop made, preferabley form prmary soruces,whichmans actual Pagan Documents, or at elats form rputale scholars preswenitng the myths in Raw Form, you have nohtign but a book tat can be called a book of lies.

Spreadign lies because they conform to our own predjudices is always a temptation, and we all too easly blind ourselves tot he real issues in our Zeal for a cuase we beelive in.Nonehteless, it is irresponcible to do suhc things, and the end reuslt is confusiona nd apostacy.

with due regards faith, and apologies for slight loss of demenour in ealrier posts, I must ask again for Raw Myths that show hislop to be telling the truth.

Please show us, form a Non Hislopian work, or a work derived thereafter form hislop, the same myths, emerging form babylon and setltign in rome.

Show form a roman Document, form the firts century, fortuna craddlign her child Jupiter-Peur.

Sow any record of his eign the state religion. Sow anyhting at all, or else, admit yu have nothing but blindbeleif in a book that only serves to generate predjudice agaisnt the orman Catholic Churhc, and has little by mean of cooberatign evidence.

All i ask is for the raw myth Faith, nothign more. so secular soruces will do , sicne they wll have no interst in alterign the myths even if they fail to see the satanic conspiracy to create the Cathoc churhc as the xountuerfiet chruch and replace the Goddess wth Mary.

SHow the myths on which Hislops claims are made, or else pelase rerain form expectign us to take these mateials seriosuly and consider not bringing them up agaisn unless ou can find hard proof in support of the claims in the book that CAN be verified and confirmed Historically.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 20, 2004.


And why Faith, are you using extra-Biblical sources to interpret the Bible anyway? I thought the Bible interprets itself?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 20, 2004.

I'm not interpreting the Bible here, Gail--with any outside source.

I am simply posting someone's work.

I agree with him--but I understood the Scriptures before I ever even heard of Him. Actually--I never read Hislop until now.

He rings true..

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 20, 2004.


If he rings ture, why is it you cannot demonstrate this truth by showugn us the pagan myths that conform to his teahcings?

Gibbons, dispite your claim, never claimed the froman state rleigion cntres aroung furtuna, the Great Mother Goddess, and her son Jupiter the boy.

where is your evidence Faith?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 20, 2004.


You do understand what history is, right Zarove.

A historian is simply giving his take on things.

There is no for sure thing when it comes to these things--esp [ecially. It takes research and surmising. It takes piecing things together.

I have given you Hislop, who does a fantastic job of looking at history with biblical eyes--and I have given you Gibbons who says that the Romans worshiped Jupiter as like Jesus.

2+2=4

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 20, 2004.


You do understand what history is, right Zarove.

Yes, but do you understand the ocncept of Imperical evidence?

Do you even read half the arces you post before sotignthem?

A historian is simply giving his take on things.

But this desnt mean that a historianis given license to invent facts and pass them off as Hisotry as Hislop does...

Likewise, your own quote from Gibbons did not advance hislops claims.

There is no for sure thing when it comes to these things--esp [ecially. It takes research and surmising. It takes piecing things together.

But wodl you at lats agree that if tu summery is not base don any docuents form antiquty, or any evidnece whatsoever, pepel may find it difficult to beleive?

I have given you Hislop, who does a fantastic job of looking at history with biblical eyes--

If you mean by Biblical eyes the ability to lie and sistort, then i wodl agree, however, the bubk ohsjisl agaisnt deceptipon.

and I have given you Gibbons who says that the Romans worshiped Jupiter as like Jesus.

which was not relaly cntested. we all knpw and acknowlede Jupiter was a god who was worhsiped.

The claim we discount is that he sat on his mothers lap as a child, and wa worhsipped as jupiter-Peur, and that his mother was fortuna, and she was the Greta Mother Goddess, and that the state rleigion of orme was equvolent to babylonain rleigion, and indeed was Babylonian in origin.

Simpley norting that Jupiter was worhsipped in rme does not cooberate the spacific claism made by hislop, and evn you shoidl be ale to see that.

2+2=4

This is why i don trust Hislop. He said it equeled 5 and 1/2.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 20, 2004.


See The two babylons: A Case Study in Poor Methodology a review of The Two Babylons, or The Papal Worship by Alexander Hislop by Ralph Woodrow, author of Babylon Mystery Religion and The Babylon Connection?.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 21, 2004.

Great article Andy. Thanks, and the source is reliable. I have a great deal of respect for the Christian Research Institute.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 21, 2004.

Thanks Andy--I'll read the article when I get a chance.

But I just want to say that even if Pagan gods and goddesses and the Mythology is debatabe--it doesn't change the fact that Catholicism is pagan in nature and that it is not supported in the Bible itself.

Nothing would change.

I would also add that history is not a decided thing. Historians interpret. Things need to be pieced together and there is a lot of room for all involved to be wrong about certain details--including even the author of your article-- or to change their minds and change them even again.

It was never my intention to get into a debate over mythology and the exactness of that. I just wanted to show the babel connection which we can see from the Scriptures--has spread all over the world and that even though Babylon the physical place may have been conquered-- babylonianism was not.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 21, 2004.


But Faith, there is only a "Babel connection" in the minds of those who want to see a "Babel connection." It is not EVIDENCE! You, yourself admit that this an "interpretation," and that is all it is.

When you are asked for evidence, all you are ever able to do is throw out the opinions of others who also have a bias. Big deal! Hislop is completely and utterly useless in an argument concerning EVIDENCE! That is Zarove's point.

All of your ramblings about Babylon/Catholic Church are utterly and completely without merit, and only hold sway in the minds of those who WANT TO BELIEVE IT!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 21, 2004.


I think everything about life is interpretation, Gail.

Our faith is interpreted, history is interpreted, creation is interpreted..etc.

Why is it that I am being demanded hard evidence?

No one else here can offer hard evidence.

I am just giving my understanding of things.

That's all any of us are doing.

Why is everyone persecuting me?

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 21, 2004.


I think everything about life is interpretation, Gail.

This is not true Faith. soem things arenot subject to interpretation. Indeed, this woudl mean morals are relitive and so is truth, neither of which are relative but cnstant.

The issue however is, and will remain, that you lack vicende and we have evidence.

Our faith is interpreted, history is interpreted, creation is interpreted..etc.

But not everythign in our faith is interpreted. soem thigns are constant. The mroals are constant.Prayer is constant. The Bible is constant.

even interpretation needs soemthign to be based upon, and the speculations you have presented are baseless.

Why is it that I am being demanded hard evidence?

Because without evidence, there is no reason to beelive your claims.

No one else here can offer hard evidence.

This is an untruth. I have presented ample evidence for my claim that the roman State Religion was not centred around the Mother an Child Cult and did nto decend form babylon.

I have presented factual evidence that discredits the notion that ofrtuna was Jupiters mother, or that he was called "Jupiter-Peur", this being, Jupiter, the boy.

I have provided links to accredited websites and variosu mythology sites that prive the myhs do not corrolate to your claims.

You have only repeate your accusaitosn and use sources that are universlaly sen as unreliable.

I am just giving my understanding of things.

No, you are attmeptiung to present as factual things that are clealry ficitonal. Hislop, and all those who followed him withthe Bbaylonain Connecion tot eh Catholic Chruch, ar ein deep error, sicne the Myths and Hisotry do not support the conclusions he arrived at.

Likewise, hsi claism easly rfute all of Christnedom, wich may not be tyour intent, btu clealry is the result.

That's all any of us are doing.

Im presentign hard evidence, you on the other hand are attempting to defend a discredited soruce because you prefer to beelive it.

Why is everyone persecuting me?

we are not. we are, hwoever, tryign to help you.

Persecution wod be insistin that roman Cahtolisismis Babylonainism wihtout any evidence and repeated attakcs agistthe charecter of Cahtolics.

Persecution is mockign me, my intellect, and my disability.

Perscution is forcefully attmeptugn to assert your clais as fat wihtoutthe slightest hint of eidnece based on your own authority.

we have doen none of thse higns, btu attmet to present facts that dispell your claims.

Pleae see the diffeence.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.XOM), December 21, 2004.


I think, Faith, that you have hit the nail on the head. The difference between you and the people on this forum can be summed up like this: Most of the people on this forum base their beliefs on objective truth." You, however, "feel this" or "feel that," or something just "rings true," as you said somewhere.

It is impossible to debate you on issues as they relate to FACT. What is worse, is that you continually spread things that are blatantly untrue, you are shown they are untrue, but then continue spreading your misinformation.

Zarove has been trying to prove to you that something vitally incorrect has been taught by this fellow Hislop. There is no proof outside of Hislop's teachings that a certain thing is true, and yet you are willing to accept Hislop simply because it "ring's true." That is subjectivism, or relativism.

Since you came to this forum, you have proved over and over and over again that you are not a truth-seeker, but rather a distorter-of- truth. When you are wrong on certain subjects (and we all know you are wrong and try to prove to you your error), you just continue on down La-La Road in the land of Neverneverland, brushing off "truth" as if it were dust on your shoulders.

Your world is a scary place, Faith, because it's ALL based on your subjective emotions!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 21, 2004.


If any of you truly believe you have facts--then why don't you prove your religion?

You can't--that's why.

We can't even prove God exists--yet we know he does.

It just makes sense that the discussions on a reliegion board would follow suit.

Zarove--you have proved nothing.

Gail you have prvoved nothing.

We all simply present what we believe to be true--and hopefully we can use the Scriptures to back us up. I know I can, anyway.

Without using any other source--we can see babylonianism revealed from Genisis to Revelation where it is finally destroyed.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 21, 2004.


If any of you truly believe you have facts--then why don't you prove your religion?

Because my religion was not called into queation,., only Historical facts...

You can't--that's why.

Yes I can...I just dont right now as it woudl be meanignles to the discussion.

We can't even prove God exists--yet we know he does.

proof of God's existance has been aruged hilosophiclaly and even scntificlaly, but this, too, is moo ot the current discusion.

It just makes sense that the discussions on a reliegion board would follow suit.

If there is clear eidence agaisnt your claims, htough, then oen can reasonabely conclude you are wrong. its not all interprtation an personal gueswork,soem evidence is needed fornayhting, and you have none.

Zarove--you have proved nothing.

I have proven that fortuna wa not the Mother Gopddess of the roman State, that Jupiter-Peur was nto her son, and that the rleigion was not of Babylonain origin.

I have likewise demonstrated that Hislops other clasm are irrelevant and absurd.

I cn liekwise Prove semiaramis, who lived in 800 BC, coudl not have been Nimrods mother or wife, sice he as dead for 3000 years before she was even born...

I have proen quiet a lot, Faith.

Gail you have prvoved nothing.

I shall let Gail answer for herself.

We all simply present what we believe to be true--and hopefully we can use the Scriptures to back us up. I know I can, anyway.

OK, use scurptrue to prove Zemiaramis was married to Nimrod. Use scritru to prove that the roman sttae Relion worshipped a cenral Mother Goddeess. Prove the cliasm of Jupiter-Peur. prive ut wuththe Bible, or else admit youhve no scurpotre to confirm you.

Without using any other source--we can see babylonianism revealed from Genisis to Revelation where it is finally destroyed.

Only if you veiw it in a certian way. Ultmtley thouhg this is also moot sinced Iwa critisising spific claims you made abtu semiaramis, Jupiter-Peur, an foruna, and the roman State Religion, all of which arent addressed by you or by scruoture.

-- zarove (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 21, 2004.


Faith says "Gail you have prvoved nothing." I don't have to prove anything, I didn't make the allegations YOU DID!!!!! You make the allegation that there is a correlation between Babylon and the Catholic Church. You are the ALLEGER Faith, not me! And all you can offer is the workings of a spin-doctor!

You flunked Faith in this effort!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 21, 2004.


The only thing I flunked at, Gail, is opening up your eyes.

The Woman and the Beast

Revelation 17:1-18

One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute, who sits on many waters. With her the kings of the earth committed adultery and the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries.”

Then the angel carried me away in the Spirit into a desert. There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries. This title was written on her forehead: MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus.

When I saw her, I was greatly astonished. Then the angel said to me: “Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and ten horns. The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come.

“This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. 11The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.

“The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast. They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings– and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers."

Then the angel said to me, “The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages. The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to give the beast their power to rule, until God's words are fulfilled. The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.”

Babyloninism is alive and well, for now........

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 21, 2004.


Yeah but those paragraphs you cite refer to the fundamentalist autonomous churches and other heretical sects that have been around for centuries.

I know, because I prayed about it and then I opened up a telephone book, and lo and behold my eyes feel on "First Fundamental Sect of Unorthodox Sects" in the yellowpages.

Get over it, Faith. Your biblical exegesis is pitiful!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 21, 2004.


And to make my point, here is an exerpt from Christianity Today's

"Two things have concerned me about dispensationalism in the modern American church: 1) It has become such a "fad" to believe in one form or another of it that, to oppose it, places one in a situation similar to our place as nonevolutionists in the scientific world. There are many of us who are stong believers who do not jump on the dispensationalist bandwagon. (2) Evangelical leaders, as Weber points out, are "making" events in the Middle East conform to their interpretation of Israel, the kindom, aschatology, and so on. This is an alarming idea, and portends even worse things than the historical tension between the Arab and Israeli people. Thank you for including Dr. Weber's article--to many, an unpopular sketch of these matters."

http://www.againstbombing.org/fundamentalists.htm

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 21, 2004.


Faith, the burden of proof falls on your table. The proof that you provide has failed to change the minds and beliefs of both Catholics and non-Catholics. Your mission here has failed. I would suggest that you drop your propaganda and go back to teaching the Gospels. Your attempt at "Sola Scriptura" has also failed considering your extracurricular activities in Yellow Journalism to make unfounded accusations against the Church. You have told be to go read a book; I return the advice to you. Go read a book and leave the mythology where you found it. This is a Christian forum, remember?

You still need to apologize to all of us for your "style" of spreading your "stuff".

It can happen, Faith, and people will still keep you in their hearts and prayers.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 21, 2004.


Andy put out some teriffic info about Hislop/Woodrow. The links work and the information is credible and easy to access. I hope Faith has a look. But after all these years we know somthings about one another.

Faith is not one to eat humble pie so I guess perhaps, its not important in this case. We shouldn't expect it. The information is there and she might read it. Don't expect any epiphanies.

There is a good person inside of the Faith we see depicted on the boards. We just have to look past some of the spikes and hard headedness. (no offence Faith) We all have our personalities that while irritating in many ways are quite unchangable--- but perhaps modifiable. We'll see how things work out.

She stirs things up, gets us all talking, and I end up with a rebuttal about the pagan /Catholic controversy that I've been aware of for years now, and am better able to refute. (Thank you Andy}

To Faith, my apologies for discussing you as if you weren't here. I couldn't figure out any other way to make my point. I really don't think your so bad, you live your life, have your views, do step arobics, and make us mad because you don't ever change your mind or give us credit when we make a good point.

THats life....Merry Christmas!

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), December 21, 2004.


Yeah, well, Jim, "Pride goeth before a fall," and I'm afraid Susan a/k/a Faith is in for a big one! (Not that I haven't been there and done that myself a few times. . . OUCH, it smarts too!!)

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 21, 2004.

Gail--

Who do you mean by this?

Yeah but those paragraphs you cite refer to the fundamentalist autonomous churches and other heretical sects that have been around for centuries.

It would obviously have to be a religion that has a queen of heaven, so who? The Traditional Catholics..,or maybe the Eastern Orthodox Church?

Is that who God meant? He means them--but not the Roman Catholics?

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 21, 2004.


No mention oft he QAueen of Heaven is made in the Book of the Revelation of St.John the divine...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 21, 2004.

Then I heard another voice from heaven say:

“Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues; for her sins are piled up to heaven, and God has remembered her crimes.

Give back to her as she has given; pay her back double for what she has done. Mix her a double portion from her own cup. Give her as much torture and grief as the glory and luxury she gave herself.

In her heart she boasts, ‘I sit as queen; I am not a widow, and I will never mourn.’ Therefore in one day her plagues will overtake her:

death, mourning and famine. She will be consumed by fire, for mighty is the Lord God who judges her.

“When the kings of the earth who committed adultery with her and shared her luxury see the smoke of her burning, they will weep and mourn over her. Terrified at her torment, they will stand far off and cry:

“ ‘Woe! Woe, O great city, O Babylon, city of power! In one hour your doom has come!’

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 21, 2004.


BUIt th oinferencethathtis queen is "The queen of Heaven" is speculation, based on interrpetation. Since you bae this interpretation on bad soruces, it is negligable.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 21, 2004.

Thanks for your opinion Zarove--but I stand by my belief that this *woman* is a counterfeit who represents an apostate religion and she has led many astray.

The verse says that this *woman* sits as queen., and that is exactly where the Roman Catholic Mary has been elevated to.

This could not be the biblical Mary who goes around the world appearing to people and tellng them that they need to make reparation to her for sins committed against her immaculate heart--could it??

The Bible tells us that sin is against God, and God alone!

I see a conflict of interest in that, don't you?

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 21, 2004.


Thanks for your opinion Zarove--

{I offered no Opinion, Faith. I tated a fact. The term "qwueen of Heaven" s not mentioend in the book of revelations, and it is only your presupposition based on discredited soruces than lends to your conclusion. I offered no onlcusion of my own.}-Zarove

but I stand by my belief that this *woman* is a counterfeit who represents an apostate religion and she has led many astray.

{I gree. this is your opinion. I however voiced no opinion.

The real queatsion is why you beelive this, and form forer evidnece, I have no reason to put stock in your claims...}-Zarove

The verse says that this *woman* sits as queen., and that is exactly where the Roman Catholic Mary has been elevated to.

{whihc is one interpretaiton, based on personal subjective ideas you culled fom other, less than reliable soruces.

Ahain, this is not the only posisbe onterpretation.}-Zarove

This could not be the biblical Mary who goes around the world appearing to people and tellng them that they need to make reparation to her for sins committed against her immaculate heart--could it??

{May be the Eu, ofr tsome ne rleigion, or Neopaganism... many posisbilitis, I liek to keep open...}-Zarove

The Bible tells us that sin is against God, and God alone!

{OK, but this doesnt address the real topic which I introduced...}- Zarove

I see a conflict of interest in that, don't you?

{No, I see you avoiding the main issue again...}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 21, 2004.


I offered no Opinion, Faith. I tated a fact. The term "qwueen of Heaven" s not mentioend in the book of revelations, and it is only your presupposition based on discredited soruces than lends to your conclusion. I offered no onlcusion of my own.}-Zarove

Yes you did Zarove. You determined that the verse I quoted does not have anything to do with Mary as Queen of Heaven. That is an opinion.

No offense Zarove--but it is you who never understood what the topic really was.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 22, 2004.


Actually, the Book of Revelations mentions another woman, clothed with the sun, and 12 stars on her head. This is the true queen Mary, who gives birth to the Church through the child she bore. This figure represents both Mary and the Church.

And to honest, Faith, the fall of the Roman empire/Babylon, which was the world superpower of its day, has already taken place. So all of your speculations and machinations are really pointless.

My interpretation makes much more sense, and I'm standing on it!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 22, 2004.


Faith, I made no mention of who the woman on the beast, he whore of babylon, was in revelations. I merley said that you have no basis for claimign its the Catolic churhc based on your soruces, as we have discussed already.

Can you quote me sayign tis not Mary, or anyone?

If not, I suggest you learn form this ordeal and pay closer attention to what is said, and to sources.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 22, 2004.


And the topic Starred out about the true Cahtolcis as opposed to Novous Ordo Catholics, as Traditionalists see it.

Likewise, your topic was suppose to be abotu provoing that thr Catholci church doesnt worhsip the true God and true Jesus but is babylonainism. You spectaculalry failed to demonsrate these facts.

what im askign for now is a little humility.

You attmept NOW to prove its babylonaanism, and by defualt validate your sources, who are derived off of Alexander hislop,based on this.

Its a tactic Faith, and we all see throhgh it.

If the revelation passage is taken as evidnece that the Catolci churhc worhsips the False Queen of Heaven and is babylon, then you wodl have us suppose that it all started with Semiaramis and her Son/Husband Nimrod and a Mother-and-Chidl Clt that spread aorusn the world eventually becomign the Roman sttae Religion, yet leavign no historical trace.

Again, Faith, I offer no interrpetaiton fo revelation, and never said it did not refer tot he Roman Catholcic Mary, I merely said that this was your interpretaiton, and it is an interpretation that wholly rests upon your other soruces, which are demonstratabley false.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 22, 2004.


I disagree Gail.

This verse:

Rev 12:1-6

A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.

Notice that the child is brought up to heaven.., but the woman flees into the dessert? You have Catholic Mary in heaven, so how does this jive?

The woman in this verse is being protected during Jacob's time of trouble or the *Tribulation* period as we more often refer to it. This is endtime prophecy.

I think that the woman in this verse is most likely a referance to Israel. Israel gave birth to Jesus--the twelve stars represent the twelve tribes of Israel. The woman is the faithful Jews who have been waiting for their Messiah. Don't forget that God has set apart these Jews for Himself. A remnant will be saved.

Romans 9:4-5

...the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 22, 2004.


Lol!! Did I say dessert? Well I meant desert.

It must be all the baking I have to do.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 22, 2004.


Israel gave birth to Jesus - Faith

This is very true Faith, in a figurative sense. But Mary gave birth to Jesus in a very literal and real way. The woman can represent Israel, the Church, and Mary all at the same time. That's what's so great about God's Word. It's not limited to one layer of truth.

I brought this up last time we discussed this passage from Revelation. I really hope we can discuss some new points instead of rehashing the same arguments.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 23, 2004.


where did Jesus get His DNA?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 23, 2004.

...and in the great "nature vs nurture" debate, by whom was He nurtured.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 23, 2004.

Andy--

I don't see how this woman can represent all three of those things you metioned. Israel gave birth to the church which is Jesus.

So in a sense., Mary gave birth to Jesus which is the Church.

We can say that Mary equals Israel in a figurative sense. That is probably why the Catholic Church see Mary as their Mother.

But this woman cannot be the church itself because the church did not give birth to Jesus.

In any event--this woman--who I think represents Israel--has fled into the desert. God is protecting her during Jacob's time of trouble as prophesied in the book of Daniel--chapter 12:

1 "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people-everyone whose name is found written in the book-will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. (this is the rapture)3 Those who are wise [a] will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. 4 But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge."

5 Then I, Daniel, looked, and there before me stood two others, one on this bank of the river and one on the opposite bank. 6 One of them said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, "How long will it be before these astonishing things are fulfilled?"

7 The man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, lifted his right hand and his left hand toward heaven, and I heard him swear by him who lives forever, saying, "It will be for a time, times and half a time. [b] When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed."

8 I heard, but I did not understand. So I asked, "My lord, what will the outcome of all this be?"

9 He replied, "Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end. 10 Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand.

11 "From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. 12 Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days.

13 "As for you, go your way till the end. You will rest, and then at the end of the days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance."

****************

This woman in Revelation 12 could be the true Mary--unlike the woman in Revelation 17--who is a counterfeit. The difference is a mother of the true church of Jesus Christ and the mother of an apostate religion.

I would also add that the Woman/Israel in Revelation 12 is not sitting as queen of heaven.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 26, 2004.


Mary gave birth to Jesus which is the Church. - Faith

Yes!

We can say that Mary equals Israel in a figurative sense. - Faith

Yes!

You're hitting on some things the early Church fathers also saw. There's even more to it. I'll try to provide a better response later, unless someone else picks it up.

Visiting with family. Just wanted to point out a few things we agreed on regarding that passage.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 26, 2004.


"Notice that the child is brought up to heaven.., but the woman flees into the dessert? You have Catholic Mary in heaven, so how does this jive?"

I guess I'm not following you there. The "Catholic Mary" as you say, lived on many years after the Ascension. She lived with the Apostle John, the Revelator, in Ephesus (I believe) for some time, but was really rather hidden "from view" so-to-speak as she is not mentioned in scripture after Acts.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 26, 2004.


But that verse is refering to endtimes...it is prophetic about the endtimes. I believe that God will protect his people--true believers, during this time. I think it is a prophetic look at the protection that will be offered the Tribulation saints--those who received Christ after the rapture of the church had already occured. These people would likely be Jews--maybe even the remnant of Jews refered to in other parts of Scripture.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 27, 2004.

But Faoth, what if there is no Rapture? Many Christaisn reject this theory, wich no one beleived till the 19th Century...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 27, 2004.

That is nonsense Zarove--

There are plenty of early writings that show that these church Fathers indeed recognized the revelation of the rapture--which *is* in the Scriptures.

I have posted these things before.

I'll have to do search to find them again if you want to see them.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 27, 2004.


It woidl be wise to show evidence, rather than elude to it. I knwo I am likewise guilty of this offence, hwoever, I never beleived the rapture theory, and neither was it taught by any Chruch till the 19cth Century, as it is my understanding at least.

I hold to an Amillinial posiiton, precisly because of the lakc of evidence. Not only is there a lack of a mention spacificlaly of "The rapture" in scriptrues, but most of the cases for the rapture Ive seen take a snippit here and a clip ther and stitch togather toe Doctorien form left ove rparts of Scirttuee pilfered from other locaitons, often tlakign on diverse mattrs.

However, this thread has gone on too long ad is beying it spurpose, so, if you will dome one kindness, and not post such evidence for the rapture on this thread, nut open a new one, I should appriciate this. Indeed, I shal open a new thread for you.

Pease do nto respond to this thread ahain Faith, on the mater of the rapture, allow us to smpley discuss it int he new thread.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 27, 2004.


There are plenty of early writings that show that these church Fathers indeed recognized the revelation of the rapture--which *is* in the Scriptures. - Faith

Would you consider these same church Fathers to be reliable witnesses for other Christian doctrines too?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 27, 2004.


Ignore that last response. Johnny come lately again. Typing as Zarove posted.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 27, 2004.

Faith, there is no such thing as the "rapture." That was an invention of Scofield and Darby. There is one puny little quote from one early church father that Rapturists rely on to make their case. However, when you look up the quote in context, it doesn't say what they think it says.

FYI to David, Hank Hanengraf recently made his official stance on the the Rapture after years of study and DOES NOT believe it exists.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 27, 2004.


BTW, Faith, 2nd coming quotes from the fathers don't count. All Christians (at least most and including Catholics) believe Christ is coming ONE MORE TIME. Rapturists believe Christ is coming two more times.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 27, 2004.

Andy, your concerns where mvoed to the new thread. Gail, Imoved yours too. I asked Faith not to post here as the thread is too long,and off topic,please also stop positng here and try the new hread, OK?

-- z (Z.@Z.Z), December 27, 2004.

Here's a few for you Zarove--

"For all the saints and Elect of God are gathered, prior to the Tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins" (On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World, by Ephraem the Syrian, A.D. 373).

The early Christian writer and poet, Ephraem the Syrian, (who lived from A.D. 306 to 373) was a major theologian of the early Byzantine Eastern Church.

**********

Victorinus 240AD....

Commentary on Revelation 6.14 - "'And the heaven withdrew as a scroll that is rolled up.' For the heaven to be rolled way, that is, that the Church shall be taken away. "And the mountain and the islands were moved from their places." Mountains and islands removed from their places intimate that in the last persecution all men departed from their places; that is, that the good will be removed, seeking to avoid the persecution."

Commentary on Revelation 15.1 - "And I saw another great and wonderful sign, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is completed the indignation of God.' For the wrath of God always strikes the obstinate people with seven plagues, that is, perfectly, as it is said in Leviticus; and these shall be in the last time, when the Church shall have gone out of the midst." Cyprian 250 AD

Epistle 55 -

The Antichrist is coming, but above him comes Christ also. The enemy goeth about and rageth, but immediately the Lord follows to avenge our suffering and our wounds. The adversary is enraged and threatens, but there is One who can deliver us from his hands." It is significant that he did not write about enduring the persecution of the Antichrist. Rather, Cyprian promised that Christ "is One who can deliver us from his hands."

Cyprian Speaking of the immanency of the Rapture, he wrote, "Who would not crave to be changed and transformed into the likeness of Christ and to arrive more quickly to the dignity of heavenly glory."

After telling his readers that the coming resurrection was the hope of the Christian, he points out that the Rapture should motivate us as we see the last days approaching. Cyprian says that "we who see that terrible things have begun, and know that still more terrible things are imminent, may regard it as the greatest advantage to depart from it as quickly as possible."

Referring to his hope of the approaching Rapture, he encouraged his readers as follows: "Do you not give God thanks, do you not congratulate yourself, that by an early departure you are taken away, and delivered from the shipwrecks and disasters that are imminent?"

Cyprian concludes his comments on the translation of the saints with these words: "Let us greet the day which assigns each of us to his own home, which snatches us hence, and sets us free from the snares of the world, and restores us to paradise and the kingdom" (Treatises of Cyprian - 21 to 26?). Ephraim the Syrian 373 AD On The Last Times 2 - ...because all saints and the elect of the LORD are gathered together before the Tribulation which is about to come and be taken to the LORD...

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 27, 2004.


Other thread Faith, this ones too long...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 27, 2004.

The entire catholic faith wa invented by Paul in contrast to the actual more Jewish birth, life, and death that Jesus lived with his family. Through the council of Nicea and following centuries, Jesus has become a supernatural being whose ties to his brothers, Father, And Wife have been downplayed or erased. To suggest that "reform" means going against Catholicism may be true, it is catholicism itself which is an abbomination against the true life of Jesus. But, it doesnt matter. As long as the world continues believe what it percieves (rightfully so) as a valid faith.

-- AudJuk (Easyjudge2@yahoo.com), December 27, 2004.

AudJuk--

Paul the apostle has nothing to do with Catholicism. It is not revealed in the Scriptures. If it could be found in the Scriptures-- it wouldn't be a false church--would it?

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 27, 2004.


1: To Gail- Tribulation is correct in the KJV. Indeed, the KJV, formerly the standard Bible Among Protestnats, is repsoncible for much of the language in Modern day rapture Theory, though unintenteonally so. You see, we hear the word Tribulation, and emideatley tink end Times Prophecy and rapture theory as this seems the only time its used, therefore we assume the Bibel tranlaitons slant int at direction.

The KJV predated Ra[ture theory, and the msiapplicaiton fo variosu verses from the KJV help shape the language of the Rapture Theory.

The Term Tribulaiton merley emans times if truble, or testing, or disturbance.

Thus, it is due to the archane nature of the kHV we see the archane use of the word, and thus applied, and acuratley so, to this.

2: Faith- I have checkedthe earlu Chruch Fathers, and even taken in Isolation, your own verses do NOT support the rapture, when seen in context where ocntext can be found, they reveal less rapture than before.

One quote I codl not find, the firts by eapharus of syria, I did manage to look up the others, and low and behold my suspicions wher ocrrect. Often they where either tlakign of our new Bodies in Heaven, or else they where talkign about Hell and Judgement, or else the end, ut none seem to indicate a removal of the Churhces true beelivers form the earth prior to a Tribulaiton, and all see the Beleivers suffer much. They do see many tribulaitons ( Plural, as i the older definitoon, see above) in which God woudl provide for us and shelter us, but none make refeence to a removal formt he world of the beleivers before THE Tribulaiton happens.

The websites you got yhe quortes form are unreliable, as thy are Biased toward rapture theory, and merley qote text sout of context to support there ends.

If you woidl like, i shall provide you evidnece of this.

3: Faith-This most crucial- where in the Bible tisself, the sole and absolute standard, is the Rapture relaly spoken of?

Most arigments I hear for it are takign verses form thesoloinains, mergign them with nrelated quotes form Corinthians, and addign them to bits and peices of revelations...

But no where des the Bibel plainly sell out the rapture theory, to my knowledge. If I am worng, I woudl enjoy beign shown it.

4: AudJuk- We hear the "Paul was evil" and "Paul is the eal foudner of chrisinity" claism often. They ar eboring. Please at leats allow the rapture discusison to go unabated, and if you liek open a new thread to discuss your Paul Bashing veiws.Thanks...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 27, 2004.


Zarove--

When I refer to the Tribulation period--it is a specific time., not just times of general tribulation.

About the Tribulation period or *Time of Jacob's Trouble.....

Jer. 30:1-10

This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: "This is what the LORD , the God of Israel, says: 'Write in a book all the words I have spoken to you. The days are coming,' declares the LORD , 'when I will bring my people Israel and Judah back from captivity and restore them to the land I gave their forefathers to possess,' says the LORD ."

These are the words the LORD spoke concerning Israel and Judah: "This is what the LORD says:

" 'Cries of fear are heard-

terror, not peace.

Ask and see:

Can a man bear children?

Then why do I see every strong man

with his hands on his stomach like a woman in labor,

every face turned deathly pale?

How awful that day will be!

None will be like it.

It will be a time of trouble for Jacob,

but he will be saved out of it.

" 'In that day,' declares the LORD Almighty,

'I will break the yoke off their necks

and will tear off their bonds;

no longer will foreigners enslave them.

Instead, they will serve the LORD their God

and David their king,

whom I will raise up for them.

" 'So do not fear, O Jacob my servant;

do not be dismayed, O Israel,'

declares the LORD .

The Tribulation is the "Age of the Jew" resumed, as in Daniels 70th week in Dan 9:24-27:

"Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy.

"Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty- two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."

The church is a mystery inserted between Daniels 69th and 70th week. These "weeks" are periods of 7 years. This is clear from the Jewish usage of the term "weeks" found in Gen 29:18-30....

The Church Age was not known to the Old Testament prophets..Eph 3:4-6

In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

...and is completed at the Rapture of the Church.

The Jewish Age then resumes...Rom 11:25:

I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.

The Church Age is "the times of the GENTILES" in Luke 21:24, and Romans chap 11, esp verse 25, and a MYSTERY hid in Christ in Eph 1:9 and 3:1-11, Col 1:26, Rom 11:25, and 1 Cor 2:7&8.

According to Rom 11:7-27 Israel was the branch that was "broken off" of God’s olive tree, and blindness came upon Israel as a result. The church was "grafted in" in place of Israel. The blindness that came upon Israel is removed when the Church Age, or "times of the gentiles" is completed.

The Tribulation is taught in the O. T. and Gospels, all in the Age of the Jew.

The two 3 ½ year periods that make up the Trib are taught in Dan 7:25, 9:27, 11:2&3, 12:7,11&12, Rev 12:6&14, and Rev 13:5.

It is inconceivable to me that the Church (Mystery Age) could continue at all, when the Jewish Age resumes for its last 7 years.

Even the New Covenant was promised to and pertains to the NATION of ISRAEL, Jer 31:31-35, Jer 32:37-40, Eze 11:17-21, Eze 16:60-63, Eze 37:26, and Rom 11:26-29.

The Church does not replace Israel in God’s plan. The Church was a mystery hid in Christ that just pops in and pops back out, and are temporary beneficiaries of the New Covenant to Israel, and are capable of partaking in a form of Millennial blessings, (Heb ch 4), but at the Rapture, the Mystery Age that popped in is GONE, and God’s plan for Israel RESUMES.

The Church only has access to the New Covenant given to Israel because Jesus is a natural descendant of Abraham, and the Church is "espoused" in marriage to Him, which is legally binding according to Jewish custom, and we are therefore, "in Him".

When you say this Zarove:

The websites you got yhe quortes form are unreliable, as thy are Biased toward rapture theory, and merley qote text sout of context to support there ends.

You prove my point that it isn't worthwhile to quote sources to you. All you do is claim they are unreliable--no matter who they are. You cannot claim these sites are biased towards a rapture theory! Lol! Well duh!! Does that disqualify them because they believe themselves right?



-- (faith01@myway.com), December 27, 2004.


Faith, great work! Yes, we know there is a "tribulation." Zarove was referring to your quoting of Rev. 3:1. That word in your paraphrase "tribulation" is not the same as the word "tribulation" that Jesus uses below (according to Strong's).

As I stated on the other thread:

Matthew 24 shows Jesus making a direct answer to a direct question, and goes into great detail on the "tribulation".

3. As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?" 4 And Jesus answered and said to them, "See to it that no one misleads you. 5 "For many will come in My name, saying, `I am the Christ,' and will mislead many. 6 "You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end. 7 "For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes. 8 "But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs. 9 "Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name. 10 "At that time many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another. 11 "Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many. 12 "Because lawlessness is increased, most people's love will grow cold. 13 "But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved. 14 "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come. 15 "Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. 17 "Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get the things out that are in his house. 18 "Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak. 19 "But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 "But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath. 21 "FOR THEN THERE WILL BE A GREAT TRIBULATION, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will. 22 "Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. 23 "Then if anyone says to you, `Behold, here is the Christ,' or `There He is,' do not believe him. 24 "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. 25 "Behold, I have told you in advance. 26 "So if they say to you, `Behold, He is in the wilderness, do not go out, or, `Behold, He is in the inner rooms,' do not believe them. 27 "For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. 28 "Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.

29 "But immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

30 "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. 31 "And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.

******

As I stated, Christ's own words "unless the time was shortened no flesh would survive, but for the sake of the Elect, the time will be shortened," is what Jesus says. Why would Christ give this great apocalyptic account of the suffering to come, and deliberately omit "but BTW, you guys won't be here, so don't sweat it; this is just for the "tribulation saints."

Quite an omission, wouldn't you say?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 27, 2004.


Zarove-- When I refer to the Tribulation period--it is a specific time., not just times of general tribulation.

{i WAS ADDRESSINGTHIS TO gAIL, WHEN SHE IMPIED THE kjv AND nasv WHER EIN ERROR. i DEFIEND THE WORD "TRIBULATION' AS IT WAS UNERSTOOD INT HE 1600'S AMD IS STILL DEFIEND TODAY.

One can say " The civil war wa a tme of tribulation for the United States". For example...}-Zarove

About the Tribulation period or *Time of Jacob's Trouble.....

Jer. 30:1-10

This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: "This is what the LORD , the God of Israel, says: 'Write in a book all the words I have spoken to you. The days are coming,' declares the LORD , 'when I will bring my people Israel and Judah back from captivity and restore them to the land I gave their forefathers to possess,' says the LORD ."

{This happened 70 years later... ths sin referign to any Modern tribulation Theory or the rapture, its talkignabouhthe Jewish return from babylonian excile...}-Zarove

These are the words the LORD spoke concerning Israel and Judah: "This is what the LORD says:

" 'Cries of fear are heard-

terror, not peace.

Ask and see:

Can a man bear children?

Then why do I see every strong man

with his hands on his stomach like a woman in labor,

every face turned deathly pale?

How awful that day will be!

None will be like it.

It will be a time of trouble for Jacob,

but he will be saved out of it.

" 'In that day,' declares the LORD Almighty,

'I will break the yoke off their necks

and will tear off their bonds;

no longer will foreigners enslave them.

Instead, they will serve the LORD their God

and David their king,

whom I will raise up for them.

" 'So do not fear, O Jacob my servant;

do not be dismayed, O Israel,'

declares the LORD .

The Tribulation is the "Age of the Jew" resumed, as in Daniels 70th week in Dan 9:24-27:

{Again, this refers to events that alreayd happened form our vantage point, and concens itselg withthe re-establishment of Israel... which happened about 5 centuries before Christ.}-Zarove

"Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy.

"Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty- two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."

The church is a mystery inserted between Daniels 69th and 70th week. These "weeks" are periods of 7 years. This is clear from the Jewish usage of the term "weeks" found in Gen 29:18-30....

{ No, this refers to JEWUSH CAPTIVITY, and ALREAYD IS FULFILLED...}- Zarove...

The Church Age was not known to the Old Testament prophets..Eph 3:4-6

In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

{But dont the Jews suffer persecution often? And arent raptured? if we are joint heirs, won we also endeure the sufferign, just as our Jewish forbarers? Woiudl this not be more logical?}-Zarove

...and is completed at the Rapture of the Church.

The Jewish Age then resumes...Rom 11:25:

{Again, you are cuting peices of daneil here, and aprts of romans there, to concoct your rapture evidence... you are NOT hwoever sowign clear text that lays outthhe rapture, you have to paste it togather form disparagent soruces.

I can make the Bibel read any way i want by cutting and pasting form differing parts...

Any texts that, on there own, reveal rapture theory?}-Zarove

I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.

The Church Age is "the times of the GENTILES" in Luke 21:24, and Romans chap 11, esp verse 25, and a MYSTERY hid in Christ in Eph 1:9 and 3:1-11, Col 1:26, Rom 11:25, and 1 Cor 2:7&8.

{You do what I told you I was tired of...you snip form one part of scirptur and paste to anotehr, to sew toather the rapture.

what you cannto do is show the raptue clealry outlined alone in any given seciton, you have to take peices form Various boosk and assemble them...}-Zarove

According to Rom 11:7-27 Israel was the branch that was "broken off" of God’s olive tree, and blindness came upon Israel as a result. The church was "grafted in" in place of Israel. The blindness that came upon Israel is removed when the Church Age, or "times of the gentiles" is completed.

{I thigt th e Gentiels where graphted in to Israel?}-Zarove

The Tribulation is taught in the O. T. and Gospels, all in the Age of the Jew.

{Only if yo ignore the plainr eading of the texts, and the accepted interpretations, and cut peiced form oen book to interpolute anotr with...}-Zarove

The two 3 ½ year periods that make up the Trib are taught in Dan 7:25, 9:27, 11:2&3, 12:7,11&12, Rev 12:6&14, and Rev 13:5.

{No, sicne daneil refered to the periods between the return to Israel fo the Babylonain Captiveds tot he time of Antiochus Epiphanus...}- Zarove

It is inconceivable to me that the Church (Mystery Age) could continue at all, when the Jewish Age resumes for its last 7 years.

{The jewis age never terminated, we where jyst grpahted in...}-Zarove

Even the New Covenant was promised to and pertains to the NATION of ISRAEL, Jer 31:31-35, Jer 32:37-40, Eze 11:17-21, Eze 16:60-63, Eze 37:26, and Rom 11:26-29.

{ Yes, and so?}-Zarove

The Church does not replace Israel in God’s plan. The Church was a mystery hid in Christ that just pops in and pops back out, and are temporary beneficiaries of the New Covenant to Israel, and are capable of partaking in a form of Millennial blessings, (Heb ch 4), but at the Rapture, the Mystery Age that popped in is GONE, and God’s plan for Israel RESUMES.

{God's paln for IUsrael is alreayd "resumed" and has been since 1948...}-Zarove

The Church only has access to the New Covenant given to Israel because Jesus is a natural descendant of Abraham, and the Church is "espoused" in marriage to Him, which is legally binding according to Jewish custom, and we are therefore, "in Him".

{ we ar grpheted on tot he bride of God, Israel, and becoem part of this tree which grows.

But what you cannot do, Faith, is show a clear, plain passage of scirpture that acutlaly, on its own , without addign other verses to interptet and add to it, the rapture theory.}-Zarove

When you say this Zarove:

The websites you got yhe quortes form are unreliable, as thy are Biased toward rapture theory, and merley qote text sout of context to support there ends.

You prove my point that it isn't worthwhile to quote sources to you.

{Faith, simple queatsion. Did you bother to read the quotes they provided? Think aboty hwat they rellay meant? Look up the quotes form websites that offer only the works form the churhc Fathers and no atmept to make them support any theory? I did...

Heck, I can prove Blakcs ar infiriot to whirtes and Jews are a corruptign parisite race by going to the Nazi webstes, it doest mean there quotes form sicnece jorunals to bakc them up are to be trusted...

My poiitn isn t disaprage, but to make you realsie that the wuotes, even taken alone, do not supprot the rapture, and you only think they do as th website insturcted yo to see them as such.

When read as part of the works they came orm, it is eenmore clear they arent rapture quoites... Shall I post linsk tot he acutls works fo the Hurhc Fathers?}-Zarove

All you do is claim they are unreliable--no matter who they are.

{I also posred links to ephaarus of Syria's works, noen of which seem to contain the quote youprovided for him.

I cna also link to any and every writign of the Chruch fathers, and show context, if you like.

This isnt abot dismissal summerily, its baoththe fact hat the quotes arent about the rapture.Duspite wht your websites say.}-Zarove

You cannot claim these sites are biased towards a rapture theory! Lol! Well duh!! Does that disqualify them because they believe themselves right?

{No, what disqualified them was the fact that, even taken alone the wotes do not appear to support th rapture theory, and one ha to alreayd beleive they do before readign them to see them as evidence or such.

Likewise, when read within the context of the works sited, the rapture connectons fall further awy, revelaign no hint of Rapture ideology, and only the works of the Fathers.

Again, shall i post links to just the works and t you read them, Faith?}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 27, 2004.


Gail--

I am not waiting for the antichrist--I am waiting for Jesus.

If I thought that antichrist was coming first--my preparations would be far different.

The church is told to joyfully await Christ, not Antichrist: Phil 3:20, Heb 9:28. And a special crown to those who "love His appearing", 2 Tim 4:8.

When the Day of the Lord (Tribulation) is described to Israel, it’s the TERRIBLE Day of Wrath come upon all the earth! See Amos 5:18-22.!

If I had any idea that the church could go into the Tribulation, I would be looking for the Antichrist, and making plans to be self sufficient, and protect my family and loved ones from the system of Antichrist, in case it came to be in my lifetime.

Does Jesus warn us to be prepared for this?

Or does He reveal that when times are good and we are at peace and not expecting Him--He will come and take us?

Matt 24:37-44

As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

“Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

******************************

This verse above cannot be speaking of the same time described here:

Matt 24:29-31

"But immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

"And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. "And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.

******************

Can you see the differences? Of course by this point anyone with any ability to read--would be expecting Christ--no?

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 27, 2004.


Thanks for your opinion Zarove--

But I stand firm in my convictions and I provided plenty of Scripture for you to contemplate.

The Bible is a beautifully woven tapestry that tells one story. It interprets itself.

Can you find one specific part in the Scriptures that, alone, describes the doctrine of the Trinity? No. You can't.

The Rapture is a revelation within the Scriptures and is there only for those who can see it. That is why it is called a *mystery.*

The translation and Rapture of the church is a MYSTERY doctrine, 1 Cor 15:51 & 52. ,

I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed– in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

(Greek word MUSTERION was a secret society word meaning a teaching that the insiders know, but the outsiders can't know.)

The Rapture of the Church is a point in time where the dead in Christ and the living saints will be changed, at the speed of light, at the LAST TRUMP. (A trump blows at each change of dispensation)

God will see to it that the Rapture WILL BE A MYSTERY to the people left behind, 2 Thess 2:6-11:

And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back (Holy Spirit/church) will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 27, 2004.


italics off

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 27, 2004.

You are right, Faith, scripture DOES interpret scripture:

2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 NOW, we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, AND OUR GATHERING TOGETHER TO HIM that you may not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.

LET NO ONE IN ANY WAY DECEIVE YOU, FOR IT WILL NOT COME UNLESS THE APOSTACY COMES FIRST, AND THE MAN OF LAWLESSNESS IS REVEALED, THE SON OF DESTRUCTION, WHO OPPOSES AND EXALTS HIMSELF ABOVE EVERY SO-CALLED GOD OR OBJECT OF WORSHIP, SO THAT HE TAKES HIS SEAT IN THE TEMPLE OF GOD, DISPLAYING HIMSELF AS BEING GOD.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 27, 2004.


"The Bible is a beautifully woven tapestry that tells one story. It interprets itself."

That's right Faith, it is "beautifully woven," but when someone deliberately pulls out specific threads as you JUST DID with only part of the quote from Thessalonians, it changes the "story" doesn't it?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 28, 2004.


Gail--

You are confusing the second coming after the Tribulation --with the rapture of the church.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 28, 2004.


No, Faith, I am not confusing anything. Is Paul talking about the 2nd coming, or as you say "the rapture?" in the COMPLETE Thessalonians passage?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 28, 2004.

I mean--do you honestly think that saved christians--those who have received Christ would have to go through such a time of judgement? Why? Doesn't the Bible say that for those found in Christ there is no condemnation? Doesn't the rest of 2Thess 2 say that The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing? Are saved Christians--those in the church perishing?

It continues...

They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Does that sound like the judgement of the church?

And finally....

For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

You don't think that that sounds like the final hour that Jesus said he would save us from min Revelation 3:10..Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth...????

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 28, 2004.


I think that Paul is refering to the Tribulation period and the second coming of Christ at the end of the age in 2Thess. chapter 2.

I don't think he is talking about the rapture here at all.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 28, 2004.


Faith, Christians have gone through horrendous tortures, mutiliations (and still are) throughout the centuries. Horrible horrible persecutions, and God did not rescue them, did He? We are not to "hang on to this world for dear life," but rather be "willing to die," for our Lord.

I am simply taking scripture at face value. If Paul says that the "gathering" will not occur until AFTER the man of sin is revealed and seats himself in the temple, then I gotta believe him.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 28, 2004.


Do you think Paul is refering to a gathering as in rapture?

The Tribulation period is a judgement of the unbelieving Jews as fortold in the Old Testament.

We do not partake of such a judgement for we are already judged innocent in Christ.

That judgement is not the same thing as general persecution which Jesus did tell us we would go through. The Time of Jacob's trouble is a specific judgement....

So what kind of gathering takes place if there is no rapture? Do you think Paul is refering to the resurrection when He says gathering?

I think that the resurrection happens at the rapture. But I think this happens before the Tribulation period.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 28, 2004.


Paul is referring to the PAROUSIA, as defined in 1st Thessalonians, Faith. There is no such thing as a secret taking away before the parousia. Everything you just stated in the post immediately above this one is dispensationalism; that new fangled teaching of Scofield and Darby.

I have got 30 radiology reports to type, so I'll have to keep my nose to the grindstone, and check back with you later.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 28, 2004.


Gail--Dispensation is revealed in the Bible--and just because it was a revelation that took time, doesn't make it false.

Early church fathers', for example, could not possibly understand the teaching about Tribulation (Judgement of the Jews) in the endtimes along with the Antichrist and Temple rebuilding in Israel because Israel no longer existed.

The Bible term "dispensations" describes the distinct "divisions of time" God designed into His plan for mankind.

The English word "dispensations" is in Eph 1:10 and 3:1&2, where it describes the Age we presently live in, the "Church Age", as the Age of "Grace" (unmerited favor), and the Age of the "fullness of times", (getting everything together).

The Greek word translated "dispensations" is "oikonomia", meaning "to manage a household". "Oikonomia" comes from a combination of two Greek words, "oikos", meaning "household", and "menos" meaning "to manage". God has "managed" His "household", or His people and their relationship to Him in distinctly different ways, depending on which "dispensation" you live in.

The study and knowledge of the Biblical teaching of Dispensations is necessary for God's people to "Rightly divide" God's Word (2 Tim 2:15). We must know what "dispensation" we are in, in order to understand our correct relationship with God.

There are four major "dispensations" revealed in God's plan:

INNOCENCE: From Adam to Abraham. (Approx 2000 Years). (Rom 5:13) The head of each family was responsible to God and sacrificed animals to God as a type and shadow of Jesus and His future work on the Cross. God also designed the constellations in the sky to teach His truth concerning His plan for man and His redemption in Christ. (Rom 1:18- 32). Without a written Law, God wrote His "Law" into the hearts of the people (all over the world, Rom 2:14&15) that He sovereignly made to be His own, through "regeneration", or the "new birth". Job is a good example of a person that lived prior to the Age of the Jew, a long way from Palestine, having no written "Law", but just read the book of Job to see the astounding knowledge of God that God sovereignly gave to Job!

AGE OF THE JEW: From Abraham to the day of Pentecost, in Acts Chapter 1. (Approx 2000 years). The Jews in the Age of the Jew were required to live by the Old Testament Law. But, gentiles during the age of the Jew were not required to live by this law, Rom 2:14 & 15. Note: The Gospels are part of the Old Testament. Jesus was a Jew who lived under the Old Testament Law, kept it perfectly, and redeemed us from it.

THE CHURCH AGE: From the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 1, to the Rapture of the Church. (Approximately 2000 years?). We live by the Church Age Epistles to the Church, Romans to Jude, and are not under the Old Testament Law. The Church was a mystery hid in Christ and not revealed to the Old Testament prophets, Eph 3:1-5 and Col 1:25-27.

Note: The 7 year Tribulation is the Age of the Jew RESUMED.

THE MILLENNIUM: (Exactly 1000 years, Rev 20:1-7) From the Second Advent, (at the end of the 7 years Tribulation), to the Great White Throne of Judgement in Rev 20:11-15. There are approximately 500 prophecies in Scripture concerning the 1000 year Millennium.

During our present Age, the "Church" Age, we live by God's Word for this Age, contained in the Book of Romans to the Book of Jude. The Old Testament Books and the Gospels give us history, and pictures, shadows and types of present truth. The Book of Acts is a "transitional" Book that describes the beginning of the Church Age and how God established His Church at one place, and at one point in time and then spread it throughout the whole known world. The transition ended when the Bible was completed in 96 AD. The book of Revelation portrays past, present and future, (Rev 1:19), with chapter 1 past, chapter 2 & 3 present, and chapter 4-22 future. I believe that we are presently on the Revelation time line at chapter 3:14-22, the Laodicean Church, meaning in the Greek, the Church of "human rights", which is described as making Jesus sick at His stomach, saying that they are rich, but really spiritually poor, blind, naked (not clothed by God's righteousness, see 1 John 1:9) and shameful.

An illustration of the drastic difference between the previous "Jewish age" and the present "Church age" is the relevance of the Old Testament Law that God gave the Nation of Israel. The "Old Testament Law" refers to the "decalogue" or "Ten Commandments", and the "Ceremonial Law" and "Dietary Law" that God gave the Jews in the book of Leviticus.

In the Jewish Age, the Jews were required to live by these Laws, but in the Church Age, we are no longer under these Laws:

No longer under the Law, but under grace, Rom 6:14, 7:6&6.

The Law was a curse, Gal 3:13, and Christ redeemed us from it.

The Law was our "schoolmaster" to bring us to Christ. No one can keep God's Law, so that leaves us hopeless and helpless and in need of a savior. Gal 3:23-26.

Jesus nailed it to His cross and took it out of the way Col 2:14.

Under the Old Testament Law, there was a priest who operated in a temple, the Spirit of God resided in the temple, and the priest offered sacrifices to God in accordance with the Law.

Now, in the Church Age, as a child of God, we are a priest, 1 Peter 2:5 & 9 and Rev 1:6, our body is God's temple and the Spirit of God lives in us, 1 Cor 6:19, and we offer spiritual sacrifices to God through our High Priest Jesus Christ. Our Church Age sacrifices:

Our body, a living sacrifice, Rom 12:1

Our praises to God, Heb 13:15

Our sharing and fellowshipping with one another, Heb 13:16

Our Divinely motivated good works, Phil 2:17

Our Divinely motivated giving, Phil 4:18

Now that I understand God's Dispensations I can no longer see non- Church Age Scriptures as New Testament/church Truths:

For example, can we really see "Matt 24:36-44" - as the Rapture of the Church? (Possibly it is the OPPOSITE?) Could it be that in this passage is the Second Coming at the end of the age/Tribulation, where, just like in the flood/judgement of Noah's time, the wicked unbelievers are taken and the righteous remain to repopulate the earth for the Millennium (Matt 24:43-47)?

A correct knowledge of DISPENSATIONS (Rightly dividing the truth, 2 Tim 2:15) can add to the joy of your salvation, make the Bible come alive with rich meaning, promote rapid growth in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, 2 Pet 3:18, and prevent false teachings from stealing your rewards, Col 2:8-18.



-- (faith01@myway.com), December 28, 2004.


Hi Faith,

I hope you don't mind, but I copied your last post and started a new thread called "Dispensation," and I posted a question to you on that thread.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 28, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ