New Chick Booklet Out

Taken from Jack chick web site:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0040/0040_01.asp

 

^ Oh great, now Jack Chick is having visions of Mary and talking to her

 

Is what he says wrong.

seem right to me.

 

3AM>>>That's a nice thought to try to apply the 'Woman' vision to Mary, but it is impossible to do so.

The Characteristics that identify who the woman is, and what she does, DOES NOT point to Mary.<<<

Hello 3AM, Enda, BobRyan, and all!

Let me get this straight...The woman of Revelation who bears the Messiah is not really the woman who bears the Messiah?

I think I heard about a book on this topic a couple of years back....
"It Takes a Village to Bear a Child"

btw, BobRyan, Jack Chick did indeed write that Mary is Satan's Creation. Please go back to his site and check it out. He might need some help on this one. It reminds me of how some of former President Clinton's statements needed his handlers to explain what he really meant. or didn't mean.....

your brother

raymond

 

The above is also true!

taken from

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0040/0040_01.asp

 

John,

I am assuming these two cartoons come from the Chick classic 'Why is Mary Crying' which I had the 'pleasure' of reading a few years ago.

I have some questions I would like you to think about.

1. Does Chick believe that apparitions of Mary are genuine appearances of Mary.

If he doesn't, then why is he claiming that they are real and that The Virgin Mary is crying because catholics are praying to her?

If he does not believe that Mary is appearing to catholics then why does he show her crying. There are no tears in Heaven. Why would any child of God, let alone Mary be suffering/sorrowful in Heaven?

If he does believe in these apparitions wouldn't this be strengthening the catholic position.

 

Raymond.

It is clear from the Chick tract that "Mary is Satan's creation" is refering to the "The Myths about Mary that have sprung up in some churches - are the creation of Satan" -

As opposed to "Satan created a human being".

-------------------

Also it appears that the points about Mary not be a mediatrix - or even co-mediatrix, and not being "Queen of the Universe" nor being someone we should "pray to" or "offer incense to on her altars" -- fits in well with non-Catholic doctrine.

So do Catholics "Accept" that non-Catholics will not be teaching Catholic doctrine? If so - how do they "expect" non-Catholics to "view" non-Catholic doctrine?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Obviously only Catholics would think that aparitions are real people/dead-saints/whatever.

The "cartoon" could just as easily picture Christ or an Angel in heaven saying something - it is not a claim to be having a vision or seeing an aparition.

As to whether "Mary is really in heaven watching events on earth" - all we know for sure is that based on Matt 17 "Elijah and Moses" are in Heaven watching events on earth - but no mention is made in the NT of Mary doing so.

Odd that the NT would list Moses and Elijah in that regard - but not a word about Mary. Especially considering how late John was writing.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob

How would YOU expect a Catholic to view non-catholic doctrine?

 

The "woman" in Rev 12 is the same as the branches in Romans 11 grafted into Christ. It is the "SAINTS" of all ages. Both Jews and Gentiles. -

Christ was born of a Jew - in fact in John 4 John is focused on telling us "Salvation is OF the JEWS" and so in Rev 12 he shows that Jewish "Hebrew Nation Church - the ONE true Church started by God at Sinai" giving birth to the promised Messiah and then being persecuted by the beast after Christ's ascension - the church of the saints is driven into exile.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

Would you not agree that by using these apparitions to make a point he is in one sense supporting the belief among catholics that they are genuine?

 

Is what he says wrong.

seem right to me. </font>[/QUOTE]No, I'm just curious as to why he's depicting Mary as speaking to Catholics when he's against the idea

 

When you see him depicting Christ 2000 years ago - it does not lead you to assume "Well then, he DOES believe we can go back in time".

When you see him depicting God or Christ in heaven - it does not lead you to assume "well then he Does believe we can pop into heaven and visit God for a while then come back to earth".

When you see him depicting Mary it does Not lead you to believe "Well then -- he thinks Mary pops in and out of our world and talks to people".

But what it DOES lead you to - is the idea that HE DOES think Mary is alive in heaven, is watching what is happening on earth and is said about the Catholic doctrines regarding adoration/veneration/worship of Mary.

So in fact - his picture and the words that go with it DO confirm that HE DOES think of her as living, active, watching events on earth and saddened by them. But not that he thinks she is vising earth.

Of course, I think he is wrong in teaching that she is alive in heaven - when in fact she is the 1Thess 4 "Dead in Christ" - but that might be another story.

I only bring it up to show that his use of her in that way DOES convey SOME absolute assumptions that are needed to make it work. Namely that Mary is conscious, living and in heaven watching what happens on earth. At a minimum that has to be true for his story to work.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

You don't seem to understand what this tract is all about.

The title of the tract is 'Why is Mary Crying'.
He's not talking about Mary being in heaven. He's referring to Catholic visions of the virgin Mary - very often Mary is weeping when she appears to catholics. He's also referring to the 'weeping statue' phenomenon and by doing so he is clearly suggesting that these things are genuine.

 

I would "expect" a Catholic to think of it - as their priest instructs them. They make the claim that non-Catholics are in ignorance without having leaders that can authorotatively define truth as the Catholics have. Therefore thinking as your priest instructs you to think - is in fact a "distinctive". And thinking of non-Catholic doctrine as instructed - would be consistent.

But more precisely - I asked how Catholics THINK a non-Catholic should view the Catholic instution given DIFFERENCES in doctrine and given ACCEPTANCE of the Historic actions of the Catholic church in the dark ages.

Conversely YOU could ask "How does a protestant expect a Catholic to view non-catholic churched GIVEN the history of non-Catholic groups and given the DOCTRINAL differences".

Clearly I would say that protestants "Might" expect Catholics to view non-Catholics as ex-Catholics, or as those to whom the Catholic instituion owes a confession, or as those who are in error doctrinally, who errored historically in terms of violence at a miniscule rate as compared to the dominant power of Europe that reigned for 1200 years.

Protestants might "expect" the Catholic institution to be JUST as opon and forthright as the Germans in "owning up to the past".

However, surprise surprise - not only is the Catholic church NOT willing to apologize - it is not even willing to "admit" to error - in fact you often hear the "DEFENSE" of past atrocities in the form of "men were superstitious back then"
or " other people did bad things - why point the Catholic church out as if IT was the dominant controlling power of Europe for 1200 years?"


Those flimsy "excuses" are not how Germany deals with its own history.

In Christ,

Bob

 

BobRyan&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;
It is clear from the Chick tract that "Mary is Satan's creation" is refering to the "The Myths about Mary that have sprung up in some churches - are the creation of Satan" -

As opposed to "Satan created a human being".&lt;&lt;&lt;

BobRyan,

perhaps you are right. But Chick did not say that. He said that MARY is Satan's masterpiece. Do you agree with the statement "Mary is Satan's masterpiece", or do you think he could have said it better?

Maybe Chick meant exactly what he said.

your brother

 

Jack Chick lost it years ago. I didn't used to feel like that, but the last year I have found that we could do a lot better without relying upon him so much.

The Bible isn't all that hard to understand. Perhaps we should pass those out instead of Chick tracts.

 

Amen to that.

God bless,

Grant

 

The moon must be blue; we're agreeing with the Catholics.

 

Well . . . I still say they're "Chicklets."