Jump to content
IGNORED

Our mortal enemy has deceived the church with many lies!


ZacharyB

Recommended Posts

Guest Robert
On 10/2/2016 at 11:31 AM, Judas Machabeus said:

Actually the Bible wasn't compiled until the end of the 4th century. The books were written but there was no canon, and it was the Church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that determined which books belonged and which ones didn't. So your claim that when the last apostle died and the bible became the only true voice is incorrect. 

 

can you show me where in the bible it teaches that Apostolic teaching ends with the death of the last Apostle. Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, I agree with that. But their teaches continued on.

 

I can show you where Paul creates a line of ordained men and instructs Titus to continue doing so. 

Titus 1:5

5 This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders * in every town as I directed you,

Titus 1:9

9 he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it.

no where does scripture ever say that the oral teaching stops. Christ Church is visible AND structured. 

1) Scripture was in place even before the Council of Nicea, and all the Church did was to ratify those books that had already been in use.

Since this topic often comes up, it's time to explain about the "canon" (the accepted books of Scripture):

 

The Old Testament:

With the OT, when God authorized the writing of a manuscript, the people of God recognized it as being such and preserved it. To draw an example, Moses wrote "all the words of the Lord" (Exodus 24:4), and these writings were laid in the Ark of the Covenant (Deuteronomy 31:26), as were Joshua's (Joshua 24:26), Samuel's (1 Samuel 10:25), Jeremiah's and Daniel (Daniel 9:2). As time went on, the number of books grew and people honored them as the Word of God. Example: Ezra possessed a copy of the law of Moses and and the prophets (Nehemiah 9:14, 26-30). This law was read and considered the Word of God.

Not all Jewish religious writings were considered Scripture though. Some examples are the Book of Jashar (Joshua 10:13), Books of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14) and other books (1 Kings 11:41). Were these books inspired Scripture, the Lord would have insured that they were to be included in the Bible.

The canonicity (authenticity) of these books were not questioned largely by the Jewish scholars; the books were regarded as canonical as soon as they were written, and when properly interpreted are in complete harmony with the other books of the OT. The centuries have demonstrated that keeping these books in the biblical canon was a wise move.

As of 400 BC, the canon of the OT was considered closed by the Jewish with the prophecy of Malachi. We know this because 1) our OT is based on the Hebrew Old Testament canon accepted by the Jews, and 2) it's the same canon that Jesus Christ ratified by His continual references to the OT as the unbreakable Word of God. (note: Jesus never quoted any of the books of the "Apocrypha" such as Maccabees).

Keep in mind: the OT books were selected without the benefit of any "council" such as Nicaea to debate the merits or detractors of any of the books. They leaders who were responsible for the spiritual life of the nation recognized the books and selected them. That said, it was never a "select committee" that did so. And while a council in Jamnia in 90 AD met on the canon of the OT, all it did was to ratify what was already selected.

 

The New Testament:

The authority given to those who penned the books of the OT on the Lord's command was ascribed to the writers of the New Testament. This authority is not found in human intellect, brilliance or any type of speculation, but is rooted in God's character. Paul cited to the congregation that he was writing per the Lord's command, and could legitimately tell them that he was doing so (1 Corinthians 14:37).

The books of the OT were written around the last half of the First century.  With the books, some of them were letters to individuals (such as the letter to Philemon), and others being letters to the local churches. Then there were the books that had been were written to larger audiences (such as Europe and East Asia). Because of this, we need to understand that not all the books were immediately available as copies to all the churches due to travel being as fast as one could walk, ride a horse or sail; communication was also limited as well during this time and depended on travel as opposed to today's technology. So, it took some time before the final number of NT books were ratified and the canon was set.

Selecting and verifying Scripture was important to the early believers, and as long as the Apostles were alive they could verify everything (Luke 1:2, Acts 1:21-22). Had Paul or Luke been fakes or unreliable, they would have quickly been decried by Peter, John, James and those who had been there for Jesus' miracles and heard His teaching during His ministry on Earth. For example, John said:

"What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. " (1 John 2-3 NASB, emphasis mine).

Peter was able to assure us that he had personally seen the Lord at the Transfiguration, his testimony being an eyewitness account (2 Peter 1:16-18) Apostolic authority was a final "court of appeal"; as they were the Lord's representatives on Earth and were commissioned to pass on the truth Jesus had taught them:

"“These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you."" (John 14:25-26, NASB, emphasis mine)

 

Apostolic Authority:

The fact that some books were accepted as Scripture is demonstrated in Peter's own words in Scripture: he possessed a collection of Paul's letters and regarded them as Scripture. Peter soundly confirms Paul's authority on writing Scripture:

"Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:14-16, NASB, emphasis mine)

Other books in the Bible confirm the authority of each other: Paul confirms Luke's writing as Scripture (1 Timothy 5:18 quoting Luke 10:7) and  Jude quoted Peter (Jude 1:17-18 quoting  2 Peter 3;3) are examples. By the end of the 1st Century, more than 2/3 of our present NT was deemed inspired, with the remaining books deemed as authoritative even though they had not been fully circulated yet. When a heretic named Marcion in 135 AD decided to "publish" his own version of Scripture that completely omitted the OT and only selected a few books from the NT (Marcion was fiercely anti-Semitic), the Church was forced to respond and declare which books were authoritative. A document called the Muratorian Fragment, dating back to 175 AD, evaluates the various canonical books alongside those that were not deemed canonical. Although the document is mutilated by age, scholars have been able to identify a list of book that contain 23 of the present 27 books of the NT. It also listed some spurious (fake) writings ascribed to Paul that the author noted could not be accepted into the church. These books that were fake were not "banned"; they were brushed aside because they were fakes.

 

What about the Councils?

There is contention that the canon of the OT was not finalized until 40 years after the Council of Nicaea (convened in 325 AD). While it's true that the full list of 27 NT books first appeared in the Easter letter of Athanasius in 367 AD, the 27 books of the NT (along with 39 books of the OT), had been functioning as the rule of the church for 250 years.

As for the Council of Nicaea, the topic of canon did not even come up at it; Constantine did not decide what canon was. What was discussed at the Council was whether Jesus Christ (The Son) was fully God or not (a man by the name of Arius was spreading the heresy that Jesus was not). This, along with other doctrinal disputes that were tearing apart society, forced Constantine to convene the council. Constantine had no agenda as to what creed or doctrine was selected; he let the delegates decide that.

Arius was given the opportunity to voice his views. But the council decided overwhelmingly that Jesus was fully God and fully man, and that Arius' views on Jesus not being so were heresy (John chapter 1 pretty much blows Arius' views out of the water). The delegates recognized that if Jesus was not fully God, then He could not be the redeemer of Mankind; to say Jesus was created was to violate Scripture in a number of areas (Colossians 1:16, Romans 9:5, Hebrews 1:8, etc.). Once the divinity of Jesus was addressed and confirmed, they then determined that Christ could be fully God only if He had the very same nature as God (This was expressed by Marcellus, a bishop from Asia Minor and representative of Athanasius, who was present but not invited to the proceedings).

That said, what Constantine did do was commission Eusebius to make 50 Bibles on good parchment by trained scribes to be given to the churches of Constantinople for use. But while we presently don't have any copies of these Bibles to see which books were in the NT, scholar F.F. Bruce (Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester for 27 years), "the answer is not seriously in doubt. The copies contained all the books which Eusebius lists as universally acknowledged...in short, the same twenty-seven books as appear in our copies of the New Testament today". (F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, InterVarsity Press, 1988)

in short: all the early church could do was recognize which books were inspired and which were not. It did not have the power to imbue a non-canonical book with any sort of authority, nor remove authority from a book that was authentic and had authority. They could only determine which books were legitimate; only the Holy Spirit, inspiring the book from the beginning, could make it authoritative.  No council could do this either, and the process was not a "selective, deliberate committee with an agenda".

 

Selection:

Now, how were these books determined to have inspiration and authority? These were the criteria:

A) Apostolic Writing/ Sanction: The books were either written by an apostle or sanctioned by one. Mark was not an apostle, but his words reflect his association with Peter; meantime, Luke traveled with Paul.

B) Tying in to the Rule of Faith: the book had to be consistent with both the teachings of the Old Testament prophets and the writings of the New Testament Apostles.

C) Acceptance: The book had to have continuous acceptance to remain in the canon. While times may change, the truth does not. Any book can be "true" in it's time, but does that book remain true and in harmony with established Scripture?

On that specific note: the Church is headed by Christ, and made up of fallible humans. And while humans do make mistakes, it is an infallible God who inspired a fallible Church to compile an infallible list of books that comprise our New Testament. And God is not so weak that he cannot ensure that man doesn't have His Word; if God is truly Almighty, He is capable of making sure the books of Scripture correspond to what He wants in there.

 

2) While Paul did set in place Timothy and instructed him to appoint elders, he also told him to "hold fast to the faithful word":

" For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict." (Titus 1:5-9, NASB, emphasis mine)

Paul was not creating a succession of elders whose verbal edicts were never to be questioned, but men who were to oversee the Church and who were expected to adhere to the Word as it had been taught and written down.

(info source: The Da Vinci Deception by Dr. Erwin Lutzer, 2004, Tyndale House. )

On 10/2/2016 at 8:40 AM, Judas Machabeus said:

You are factually incorrect regarding the Peter topic and I challenge you to produce 1st century teaching of sola scripture. Not only is sola scriptura nonbiblical it also was no taught until Luther. 

 

Actually, it's implicitly taught in Scripture:

1) "Paul Taught not to "exceed what is written": Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. For who regards you as superior? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it? "  (1 Corinthians 4: 6-7, NSAB, emphasis mine)

In chapter 3, Paul tells us that: " For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building." (1 Corinthians 3:4-9, NASB, emphasis mine)

When he continues on in chapter 4, Paul builds upon this and confirms that it is not upon men that the church is built, but upon the Word of God.

2) Paul also taught" You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. " (2 TImothy 3:14-17, NASB, emphasis mine)

It doesn't say "will equip us for some good works" or "most good works", buy "for all  good works".

3) When asked about eternal Life, Jesus replied in Luke: "And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” And he answered, “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE.” But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”" (Luke 10;25-29, NASB, emphasis mine)

Jesus did not go by "oral tradition

4) Jesus said repeatedly "it is written" in Matthew chapter 4. Yes, Jesus could have easily relied on "oral tradition", but instead refuted Satan with Scripture. BTW: ever notice that Satan chooses to twist Scripture first?

5) In Acts, we are told: "The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men." (Acts 17:11-12, NASB, emphasis mine)

 

Sola Scripture was taught also by the Early Church Fathers:

 

Iraneus (180 AD):

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 3, 1, 1, emphasis mine)

 

Clement of Alexandria (180 AD):

"But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves." (Clement of Alexandria, book 7, ch 16, Scripture the Criterion by Which Truth and Heresy are Distinguished)

 

Hippoyitus (200 AD):

"There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them." (Hippolytus, Against Noetus, ch 9, emphasis mine)

 

Cyril of Jerusalem (280 AD):

"Have thou ever in thy mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 4, 17, emphasis mine)

 

Gregory of Nyssa (375 AD):

"But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." (Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and the Resurrection, emphasis mine)

 

John Chrysostom (405 AD):

"For doctrine." For thence we shall know, whether we ought to learn or to be ignorant of anything. And thence we may disprove what is false, thence we may be corrected and brought to a right mind, may be comforted and consoled, and if anything is deficient, we may have it added to us. "That the man of God may be perfect." For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. Thou hast the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If thou wouldest learn anything, thou mayest learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us! "Thoroughly furnished unto all good works"; not merely taking part in them, he means, but "thoroughly furnished." (John Chrysostom, Homily 9, commentary on 2 Tim 3:16-17, emphasis mine)

(info source: http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-proof-texts.htm)

 

Admittedly, these are just a few names, but it proves the point.

 

Edited by RobertS
misspelled Iraneus
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  423
  • Content Per Day:  0.15
  • Reputation:   244
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  08/07/2016
  • Status:  Offline

20 hours ago, woundeddog said:

truth is , sadly, Roman Catholic Doctrine does not square with Bible teaching,

Really? Then what of the Maronite Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, and Chaldean Catholics? And what do you have to back up your claim of the "Catholic Church" not squaring up with Biblical teachings?

and without the dependence on oral tradition the RC church does not have a leg to stand on

You are right, The Catholic Church dosen't have a "single leg" to stand on...  it has "three legs" to stand on whereas Protestantism had only one, and that one legged stool fell to the ground and shattered into many pieces.

A three legged stool has strength, is sturdy, steadfast and stalwart. However, when you cut off one leg, or two legs as is the case with Protestantism, the stool becomes unstable and falls over into many pieces. The results...... Thousands of differnt Protestant sects with thousands of differnt interpretations of Scripture.

You see, the deposit of Faith the Catholic Church consists of Holy Scripture, Sacred tradition, and the Magisterium in conjuction with the Pope (Francis) Implanted firmly on solid rock. (Matt. 16:18;Jn.1:42;1Pet.2:4-8)

Peace

 

p.s. Do you adhere to the Sola Scriptura doctrine?

If so, could you show where the bible says we are to discard Apostolic Tradition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  44
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,370
  • Content Per Day:  0.25
  • Reputation:   1,054
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/21/2009
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  07/18/1868

1 hour ago, Hoddie said:

 And what do you have to back up your claim of the "Catholic Church" not squaring up with Biblical teachings?

Veneration of Mary, indulgences, praying to saints, the repeated sacrifice of Christ when he said it was finished, purgatory, Prohibition of eating meat on Friday (  oh that was repealed- wait wasn't that instituted by tradition of man-- oh no can tradition be wrong?) the teachings on legitimate marriages and non legitimate marriages, Call no man Father, veneration of relics when we see God not letting Satan have Moses body, and Joshua destroying the serpent on the staff because they were starting to worship it. The requirements of preforming the various sacraments to get to heaven when all the Lord requires is faith.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~oh and the BIG one Immaculate conception of Mary she was mother of Jesus- not mother of God--God is eternal and has no mother

 

1 hour ago, Hoddie said:

A three legged stool has strength, is sturdy, steadfast and stalwart

if you need a stool to sit I guess thats okay for you, but as for me, I will stand on the word of God

Edited by woundeddog
forgot Immaculate conception
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  320
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  6,829
  • Content Per Day:  0.85
  • Reputation:   3,570
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  02/16/2002
  • Status:  Offline

Satans lies began with Eve when he challenged her regarding the forbidden fruit, and she responded and told the first human lie when she said;

Gen 3:3, "But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."

God never told Adam and Eve they must not touch the forbidden fruit, God said you shall not eat of it.

 Gen. 2:17, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely8 die."

Over the years, All the teachings of pagan Babylon and Rome were gradually interspersed into the Christian religious organization.

It began with Nimrod. The city Babylon was built by Nimrod, the mighty hunter (Gen. 10:8-10). It was the seat of the first great apostasy against God after the flood. Here the Babylonian Cult was invented by Nimrod and his Queen, Semiramis. It was a system claiming the highest wisdom and ability to reveal the most divine secrets. This cult was characterized by the word "Mystery" because of its mysteries. Beside confessing to the priests at admission to this cult, one was compelled to drink of "mysterious beverages," which says Salvert (Des Sciences Occultes, Page 259) was indespensible on the part of those who saught initation into these mysteries. The "mysterious beverages' were composed of wine, honey, water, and flour. They were always of an intoxicating nature, and untill the aspirants had come under the influence of it and had their understanding dimmed they were not prepared for what they were to see and hear. The method was to introduce privately, little by little, information under seal of secrecy and sanction of oath that would be impossible to reveal otherwise. This has been the policy of the Roman Church and the secret of the power of the priests over the lives of men whom they could expose to the world for their sins that have been confessed to them. Once admitted, men were no longer Babylonians, Assyrians, or Egyptians, but were members of a mystical brotherhood, over whom was placed a Supreme Pontif or High Priest whos word was final in all things in thelives of the brotherhood regardless of the country in which they lived. The ostensible objects of worship were the Supreme Father, the Incarnate Female or Queen of Heaven, and her Son. The last two were only objects of worship, as the Supreme Father was said not to interfere with mortal affaires (Nimrod 111, Page 239). This system is believed to have come from fallen angels and demons. The object of the cult was to rule the world by these dogmas. Much more can be said but to simplify things, Damasus, Bishop of the Christian Church at Rome, was elected to the office of Supreme Pontif. He had been bishop for twelve years, having been made suchin 366 A. D. through influence of the monks of Mount Carmel, a college of the Babylonian religion originally founded by the priests of Jezebel and continued to this day in connection with Rome. So, in 378 A. D., the babylonian system of religion became part of Christendom, for the bishop of Rome, who later became the supreme head of the organized church, was already Supreme Pontiff of the Babylonian Order. All the teachings of pagan Babylon and Rome were gradually interspersed into the Christian religious organization. Soon after Damasus was made Supreme Pontiff, the rites of Babylon began to come to the front. The worship of the Roman Church became babylonish, and under him, the heathen temples were restored and beautified and the rituals established. Thus, the currupt religious system under the figure of a woman with a golden cup in her hand, making all nations drunk with her fornication, is called by God "MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT."

The first practice that grew up after this union was the introduction of the worship of the saints, especially of the virgin Mary. Thousands of pagans entered the church in those days who were accustomed to worshiping the gods of towns and places, who were not thoroughly Christianized. The veneration of saints and holy men became a worship. Saints were considered lesser dieties, whos intercession availed with God. Places connected with the lives of holy men were considered sacred and pilgrimages were started. Relics or bones of saints were believed to have miraculous power. The worship of the virgin Mary was set up in 381 A. D., three years after Damasus became bead of the Babylonian Cult.

Just as the Babylonian cult worshiped the "Queen of Heaven and her Son" and did not worship the Supreme Father because he simply did not interfere with mortal affairs, so the Roman Chrurch has a similar worship in that they worship Mary as the mother of God and her Son. The image of mother and child was an object of worship in Babylon long before Christ was born. From Babylon it spread to the ends of the Earth. The original mother was Semiramis, the beautiful queen of Nimrod, who was a paragon of unbridled lust and licentiousness.

In the "mysteries," which she had the chief part in forming, she was worshiped as Rhea (Chronicon Paschal, Volume 1, Page 65), the great "Mother of the God's" with such atrocious rites as identified her with Venus, the mother of all impurity. She raised Babylon, where she reigned to eminence among the nations as the great seat idolatry and consecrated prostetution (Hesiod, Theogonia, Volume 36, Page 435). The apocalyptic emblem of the harlot with cup in hand was one of idolatry derived from ancient Babylon, as they were exhibited in Greece, for thus the Greek Venus was originally represented (Herodotus, Historia, Book 1, cap. 199, Page 92).

Ironicilly the Roman Church has taken this as her emblem. In 1825 a medal was struck bearing the image of Pope Leo X11 on one side and on the other side Rome symbolized by a woman with a cross in her left hand and a cup in her right hand and a legend around her "Sedet Super Universum"; that is, "The whole world is her seat."

From this original practice, practically all nations have copied a similar worship, but in each land the same figure is carried out under different names. In Egypt the mother and child are known as Isis and Osiris; in India, Isi and Iswara; in Eastern Asia, Cybel and Deoius; in pagan Rome, Fortuna and Jupiter-puer; In Greece, Ceres or as Irene with Plutus in arms, etc. In Thibet, China, and Japan the Jesuits were suprised to find the counterpart of the madonna (the Italian name for virgin) and her child as devoutly worshiped as in Rome itself. Shing Moo, the mother of China, is there represented with child in her arms and a glory around her exactly as if a Roman artist had paintd her. Where did these nations get this common worship if not from Babylon before the dispersion by God in the days of Nimrod (Gen. 11). Thus the worship of Mary in connection with her Son is of Babylonian origin for there is no mention of such worshipin Scripture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  44
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,370
  • Content Per Day:  0.25
  • Reputation:   1,054
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/21/2009
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  07/18/1868

15 minutes ago, HAZARD said:

 the worship of Mary in connection with her Son is of Babylonian origin

Good research- on the whole piece-- could not say it better

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  423
  • Content Per Day:  0.15
  • Reputation:   244
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  08/07/2016
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, woundeddog said:

Veneration of Mary, indulgences, praying to saints, the repeated sacrifice of Christ when he said it was finished,

Do you follow the Bible? I asked if you adhere to the Sola Scriptura doctrine and you didn't respond (along with others) so until I here differnt, I will assume you do.

Mary is venerated in the Bible. At least twice. Lk.1:28, 1:42. Then I must ask...Do you obey the commands of Holy Scripture? I would certainly hope your replyto be, yes. If so, do you do as it says to do in Luke 1:48?" Henceforth", (means from the moment she said it until the end of time.) "All generations", (that I would presume includes you too.) "Shall / will", (denotes a command and not a suggestion.) "Call me Blessed". (you mentioned her name in this post but you never once called her "Blessed Mary".)
Now, please tell me why you ignore this unmistakably clear command from Holy Scripture?

indulgences

What to you is an indulgence?

praying to saints

Rev. 5:8;8:3-4. Of course for those in heaven there is no need for prayers, so the prayers of the saints are for those on earth. If saints are praying for us, why not implore them with something specific? That is how we on earth ask each other. If the Body of Christ is not separated, then it would be wrong to say we can’t ask members of the Body of Christ in heaven to pray for us, because that would be a denial of the unity of Christ.

And lets not forget the role of Bathsheba in the Old Testament as the Queen Mother to Solomon, who interceded for people on their behalf. So too the Queen Mother of heaven can intercede for us.

the repeated sacrifice of Christ when he said it was finished

I'll be willing to bet you don't realize it, but Christ Himself offered the first Mass at the Last Supper when He offered (sacrificed) Himself to His Father in an unbloody manner, that is, under the form of bread and wine, in anticipation of His bloody sacrifice on the cross to be offered on the following day. In the Mass, Christ continues to make that offering of Himself to His Father, by the hands of the priest. "And while they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: "Take and eat. This is my body." And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying: "All of you drink of this. For this is my blood of the new covenant, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins", Mt 26:26-28.

Christ ordered His Church to perpetuate that sacrificial rite for the continued sanctification of His followers, saying, "Do this in remembrance of me," Luke 22:19.
The Catholic Church complies with His order in the Mass. The Mass is a re-enactment of Our Lord's one sacrifice of Calvary. It is that same sacrifice, not another, Heb 10:12.
We, are in time, and to us it would seem that this one sacrifice was consummated 2000 years ago. GOD, however is outside of time and space.Everything is now in GOD's eyes, and so we are taken back to that one sacrifice as if it were happening now at each and every Mass.The Catholic Church teaches that the sacrifice on the Cross was a complete and perfect sacrifice of the Lamb of GOD, offered once. St. Paul bears witness that the sacrificial rite which Christ instituted at the Last Supper is to be perpetuated, and that it is not only important for man's sanctification, but is the principal factor in man's final redemption.

In 1Cor 11:23-26, St. Paul told how, at the Last Supper, Our Lord said: "For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes."During the Breaking of the Bread, we say twice, "Lamb of GOD, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us," and a third time, "Lamb of GOD, you take away the sins of the world, grant us peace."Thus at every Mass the faithful have a new opportunity to worship God with this one perfect sacrifice and to absorb more of Christ's saving and sanctifying grace of Calvary. This grace is infinite, and the faithful should continuously grow in it. The Mass is offered again and again, because of our imperfect capacity to receive.

Finally, the holy sacrifice of the Mass fulfills the Old Testament prophecy:
'For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts'. (Mal 1:11). The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered every day throughout the world, and in every Mass the only truly clean oblation is offered, that is, Christ Himself; thus the Mass is the perfect fulfillment of this prophecy.

Prefigurements of the sacrifice of the Mass:
Gen 14:18,22:9-14, Ex 16:4,13-36, Num 11:6-9, Deut 8:3-16, Josh 5:12,
Neh 9:15-20, Wis 16:20, Psa 78:24,105:40, Isa 55:10, Dan 12:11, Mal 1:11, John Chapt 6, Heb 9:4, Rev 2:17

The Mass: Mt 26:26-28, Lk 22:19, Acts 2:42,20:7, 1Cor 10:16,11:17-34,
Heb Chapt 7-10, 1Pet 2:5, Rev 8:1-5

His Sacrifice was once for all: Heb 9:22-28,10:10-14

I'll finish with the rest later, for it's dinner time for me. But in the mean time, how about you looking up for me where in Scripture is "The Altar Call", "The Sinners Prayer", "Using grape juice for communion", and once again, where it states we are to discard Apostolic Traditions? Just to name a few.

 

Peace

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  44
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,370
  • Content Per Day:  0.25
  • Reputation:   1,054
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/21/2009
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  07/18/1868

6 minutes ago, Hoddie said:

I'll finish with the rest later,

ya know- you may worship in the manner you feel is correct- Truthfully I just don't have the energy to to enter into futile debates- unless the Spirit works in your heart you will continue in your beliefs. It has been my experience that Most Followers of Catholicism  are not comfortable with  change.

Bible says the watchman is responsible for sounding the warning- but if the people do not respond- it is not the watchman's fault-

Please consider the Shofar blown---

also check Hazards lengthy post on this topic--- its very good

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Judas Machabeus
3 hours ago, RobertS said:

As of 400 BC, the canon of the OT was considered closed by the Jewish with the prophecy of Malachi. We know this because 1) our OT is based on the Hebrew Old Testament canon accepted by the Jews, and 2) it's the same canon that Jesus Christ ratified by His continual references to the OT as the unbreakable Word of God. (note: Jesus never quoted any of the books of the "Apocrypha" such as Maccabees).

This is incorrect. There were at least 3 canons and possible 4.

The Septuigent which accounts for 80% of the OT quotes found in the new Testement so the NT writers considered it scripture. Also the the Parasees and Sadusees (forgive the spelling) each had their own Canons. It wasn't until after the temple was destroyed that the canon was closed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert
3 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said:

This is incorrect. There were at least 3 canons and possible 4.

The Septuigent which accounts for 80% of the OT quotes found in the new Testement so the NT writers considered it scripture. Also the the Parasees and Sadusees (forgive the spelling) each had their own Canons. It wasn't until after the temple was destroyed that the canon was closed. 

If the OT canon wasn't closed until after the destruction of the temple, then there would have been far more than just the Apocrypha. What is your supposed source for claiming 3-4 canons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Judas Machabeus
54 minutes ago, RobertS said:

If the OT canon wasn't closed until after the destruction of the temple, then there would have been far more than just the Apocrypha. What is your supposed source for claiming 3-4 canons?

I told you already. 

1. The Septuagint 

2. The Pharisee Canon

3. The Saducéen Canon

the possible forth one is the Essenes might have had their own canon. 

This is a matter of historical fact, google it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...