-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
New Chick Booklet Out
- Thread starter mozier
- Start date
GraceSaves
New Member
Perhaps he should have said "The mythology that catholicism creates around Mary is not of God nor is it found in scripture. It is a man made set of traditions that in some cases actually contradict Bible doctrine".
In Christ,
Bob </font>[/QUOTE]But then he would have been lying!! Of course, that seems to be on his agenda already...
God bless,
Grant
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
He would have been "Telling the Truth" if he was non-Catholic.
You have to "be Catholic" to pray to Mary, offer incense at her altars, adore Christ and then turn around and adore Mary as well, assign her as "coredemptrix with Christ" - etc.
You can "hardly expect" a non-Catholic to fall into those errors. In fact, why would you?
In Christ,
Bob
You have to "be Catholic" to pray to Mary, offer incense at her altars, adore Christ and then turn around and adore Mary as well, assign her as "coredemptrix with Christ" - etc.
You can "hardly expect" a non-Catholic to fall into those errors. In fact, why would you?
In Christ,
Bob
Glen Seeker
New Member
Isn't it amazing?
No matter how many times we say we don't worship or adore Mary, antiCatholics will say that that's exactly what we do.
Sometimes makes me wonder if talking to a brick wall would yield more results.
No matter how many times we say we don't worship or adore Mary, antiCatholics will say that that's exactly what we do.
Sometimes makes me wonder if talking to a brick wall would yield more results.
Glen Seeker
New Member
BTW,
Catholics aren't the only ones who pray to Mary.
Catholics aren't the only ones who pray to Mary.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Non-Catholics "pray to God" they "Adore God" they meditate on God and encourage others to devotion to God. They declare that He was born sinless, that He was assumed into heaven after His resurrection, that He can hear and answer our Prayers, that He is all powerful.
Catholics do the same for God "and Mary".
Then a few Catholics ask in feigned disbelief "wonder why so many non Catholics think we worship Mary along with God"???
hmmmmm that's a hard one. Pretty confusing.
In Christ,
Bob
Catholics do the same for God "and Mary".
Then a few Catholics ask in feigned disbelief "wonder why so many non Catholics think we worship Mary along with God"???
hmmmmm that's a hard one. Pretty confusing.
In Christ,
Bob
GraceSaves
New Member
Catholics pray "to" Mary in the sense that they pass on their petitions to her and ask her to pray for them. That is not the same as praying to God, so you cannot equivilate the too.
Catholics are only allowed to adore God. We do not adore Mary, but venerate Mary.
We don't meditate on Mary, per se. I can only assume you are referring to the Rosary, in which we use the Hail Marys as a means to allow us to meditate on the life and death of Christ, which does involve Mary. Of course, you are meditating on Mary when you read the Gospel of Luke, unless of course, you just stop meditating when you get to the verses about Mary...
Encourage devotion to her? Sure. Why not? There is something wrong with encouraging devotion to people? Are children not devoted to their mothers? Is this discouraged? Are hubands not devoted to their wives? Is this discouraged? Are loyal supporters of Pres. Bush not devoted to him? Is this discouraged?
No. You take devotion as something only meant for God. It is not. Merely, our strongest devotion should be for God. That does not mean we cannot have other devotions.
Because He was God. And Mary was born sinless by the grace of God. Again, not equal.
No, non-Catholics believe that Christ ASCENDED into heaven, where as Catholics beleive that Mary was ASSUMED (taken up, not by her own power) into Heaven. Not equal. And she was not resurrected in the sense that she got up and walked around the earth somemore. She was resurrected as all Christians will be after they die.
What's your point? Because Mary can hear prayers, that makes her God? Being omnipotent (in that one can hear all incoming prayers) doesn't make one God; being God means having ALL of these powers. Mary, being delegated certain powers, does not make her God.
You misuse this; I assume you are taking that one quote about God obeying Mary's commands. If so, I will elaborate on this separately. If not, please tell me what you are referring to.
Nope. Just showed ya so. Now, will you listen, or will you just later on restate all this stuff as if I never posted it?
It's not feigned. You are now no longer ignorant. If you post again on these matters, you will be the one with feigned ignorance, and your post will be unjustified.
God bless,
Grant
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
This particular tract claims that "they" (pray tell, who is "they"?) uncovered Peter's body in Jerusalem, not Rome.
"It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: ‘I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church’" (Gaius, Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, "Church History" 2:25:5).
"[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years" (Eusebius of Caesarea, The Chronicle [A.D. 303]).
"Peter, the first chosen of the apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome" (Peter of Alexandria, Penance, canon 9 [A.D. 306]).
And then in 1965, Margherita Guarducci's (d. 1999) archaeological team confirmed the identity of St. Peter's tomb on the basis of ancient writings inscribed on the walls of the site under the high altar of St. Peter's Basilica. Her most famous work, The Tomb of St. Peter (1989), outlines the process through which the apostle's tomb was discovered.
I know that J. Chick tracts - for the sane reader - need not have their credibility examined, but I just had to point out this glaring factual discrepancy.
"It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: ‘I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church’" (Gaius, Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, "Church History" 2:25:5).
"[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years" (Eusebius of Caesarea, The Chronicle [A.D. 303]).
"Peter, the first chosen of the apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome" (Peter of Alexandria, Penance, canon 9 [A.D. 306]).
And then in 1965, Margherita Guarducci's (d. 1999) archaeological team confirmed the identity of St. Peter's tomb on the basis of ancient writings inscribed on the walls of the site under the high altar of St. Peter's Basilica. Her most famous work, The Tomb of St. Peter (1989), outlines the process through which the apostle's tomb was discovered.
I know that J. Chick tracts - for the sane reader - need not have their credibility examined, but I just had to point out this glaring factual discrepancy.
Carson, I see the dates of the history you recorded. And they all seem to be long after the new Testament ended. Is there any proof Peter was in Rome, written when he actually was in Rome ?
As far as Jack Chick goes, first he says Mary can't hear prayer, then he says Mary is crying about everyone praying to her. Is that what I'm to understand ?
Jack Chick may not be the best source of information. In fact, he may be one of the worst.
As far as Jack Chick goes, first he says Mary can't hear prayer, then he says Mary is crying about everyone praying to her. Is that what I'm to understand ?
Jack Chick may not be the best source of information. In fact, he may be one of the worst.
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Carson, I see the dates of the history you recorded. And they all seem to be long after the new Testament ended. Is there any proof Peter was in Rome, written when he actually was in Rome?
Yes, there is. In his first epistle, Peter tells his readers that he is writing from "Babylon" (1 Pet. 5:13), which was a first-century code word for the city of pagan Rome.
Also, Gaius' account in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History witnesses to the graves of Peter and Paul in his own day. This same grave of Peter was uncovered in 1965, as I have stated above. So, I would include these inscriptions, witnessed by Gaius, as proof that Peter was in Rome, written when he was actually in Rome, albeit postmortem.
Your question spurs on the question as to whether there is any proof Jesus was in Jerusalem, written when he actually was in Jerusalem? Is there any proof Terah was in Ur of the Chalde'ans, written when he actually was in Ur of the Chalde'ans?
Your question as to the date of the recording of historical fact is only relatively important when you consider the fact that much of the Biblical record itself is a recording of events that occurred long before the autographs were inscribed. This is all the more evident when you realize that oral tradition was a valid and authoritative means of transmitting factual information in antiquity.
[ April 24, 2003, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
Yes, there is. In his first epistle, Peter tells his readers that he is writing from "Babylon" (1 Pet. 5:13), which was a first-century code word for the city of pagan Rome.
Also, Gaius' account in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History witnesses to the graves of Peter and Paul in his own day. This same grave of Peter was uncovered in 1965, as I have stated above. So, I would include these inscriptions, witnessed by Gaius, as proof that Peter was in Rome, written when he was actually in Rome, albeit postmortem.
Your question spurs on the question as to whether there is any proof Jesus was in Jerusalem, written when he actually was in Jerusalem? Is there any proof Terah was in Ur of the Chalde'ans, written when he actually was in Ur of the Chalde'ans?
Your question as to the date of the recording of historical fact is only relatively important when you consider the fact that much of the Biblical record itself is a recording of events that occurred long before the autographs were inscribed. This is all the more evident when you realize that oral tradition was a valid and authoritative means of transmitting factual information in antiquity.
[ April 24, 2003, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
Umm...there IS biblical proof of Jesus being in Jerusalem. Also, every other writer uses the word "Rome", when talking about Rome. So why did Peter use "Babylon" ?
I'm not saying he was never there, or never was martyred, or anything like that. I'm saying, why worry about what happened to Peter ? Why make up stories about him when they just aren't important ?
I'm not saying he was never there, or never was martyred, or anything like that. I'm saying, why worry about what happened to Peter ? Why make up stories about him when they just aren't important ?
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Umm...there IS biblical proof of Jesus being in Jerusalem.
I didn't deny that there is. Curtis, listen to me, bro. I asked "whether there is any proof Jesus was in Jerusalem, written when he actually was in Jerusalem?" The Gospels were not written when Jesus was in Jerusalem, hence my statement: "the Biblical record itself is a recording of events that occurred long before the autographs were inscribed".
Also, every other writer uses the word "Rome", when talking about Rome. So why did Peter use "Babylon"?
"Babylon" was used for "Rome" because Peter was the head of the Christian Church. If the authorities under Nero's reign were to intercept his epistle, they would be directed to the location of the prime minister of Christ's kingdom. It's a strategic ploy.
Babylon was then in ruins, and there was no tradition for five centuries that Peter had been there, whereas the tradition connecting him with Rome is one of the strongest in the Church. Babylon is used for Rome in the Sibylline Oracles and in Revelation (cf. 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2,10).
Also, consider these non-Catholic historians:
"Some Protestant controversialists have asserted that Peter was never in Rome...I think the historical probability is that he was...Protestant champions had undertaken the impossible task of proving the negative, that Peter was never in Rome. They might as well have undertaken to prove out of the Bible that St. Bartholomew never preached in Pekin...For myself, I am willing, in absence of any opposing tradition, to accept the current account that Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome. If Rome, which early laid claim to have witnessed that martrydom, were not the scene of it, where then did it take place? Any city would be glad to claim such a connexion with the name of the Apostle, and none but Rome made the claim...If this evidence for Peter's martydom be not be deemed sufficient, there are few things in the history of the early Church which it will be possible to demonstrate"
G. Salmon "Infallibilty of the Church" (Grand Rapids:Baker,1959) pp. 348-9(a critic of the Catholic faith)
"...to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is not blind. The Martyr death of Peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice.'
A. Harnack
'It is sufficient to let us include the martyrdom of Peter in Rome in our final historical picture of the early Church, as a matter of fact which is relatively though not absolutely assured. We accept it, however facts of antiquity that are universally accepted as historical. Were we to demand for all facts of ancient history a greater degree of probability, we should have to strike from our history books a large portion of their contents."
Oscar Cullman "Peter, Disciple, Apostle, Martyr" (London:SCM,1962) p. 114
"That Peter and Paul were the most eminent of many Christians who suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero is certain..."
F.F. Bruce "NT History" (New York
oubleday,1971) p. 410
"It seems certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome"
JND Kelly "The Oxford Dictionary of Popes" (Oxford:Oxford,1986) p. 6
"The martrydom of both Peter and Paul in Rome...has often been questioned by Protestant critics, some of whom have contended that Peter was never in Rome. But the archeaological researches of the Protestant Historian Hans Lietzmann, supplemented by the library study of the Protestant exegete Oscar Cullman, have made it extremely difficult to deny the tradition of Peter's death in Rome under the emperor Nero. The account of Paul's martydom in Rome, which is supported by much of the same evidence, has not called forth similar skepticism."
Jaroslav Pelikan, "The Riddle of Catholicism", (New York:Abingdon,1959) p. 36
why worry about what happened to Peter ? Why make up stories about him when they just aren't important?
Because Christianity is a religion based on historical fact. God formed his People over the time in the medium of space and matter. The Eternal Son of God became a man in Palestine in a particular year, and he appointed flesh and blood men to whom he entrusted his pastoral authority with Peter as head of the apostles:
He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep." (Jn 21:15-17)
Peter's Roman residency shows that he was indeed the overseer of the Roman Church, which further validates the episcopal office in Rome as being that which rests upon the Kepha, whom Christ appointed (cf. John 1:42; Mt 16:16-19).
I didn't deny that there is. Curtis, listen to me, bro. I asked "whether there is any proof Jesus was in Jerusalem, written when he actually was in Jerusalem?" The Gospels were not written when Jesus was in Jerusalem, hence my statement: "the Biblical record itself is a recording of events that occurred long before the autographs were inscribed".
Also, every other writer uses the word "Rome", when talking about Rome. So why did Peter use "Babylon"?
"Babylon" was used for "Rome" because Peter was the head of the Christian Church. If the authorities under Nero's reign were to intercept his epistle, they would be directed to the location of the prime minister of Christ's kingdom. It's a strategic ploy.
Babylon was then in ruins, and there was no tradition for five centuries that Peter had been there, whereas the tradition connecting him with Rome is one of the strongest in the Church. Babylon is used for Rome in the Sibylline Oracles and in Revelation (cf. 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2,10).
Also, consider these non-Catholic historians:
"Some Protestant controversialists have asserted that Peter was never in Rome...I think the historical probability is that he was...Protestant champions had undertaken the impossible task of proving the negative, that Peter was never in Rome. They might as well have undertaken to prove out of the Bible that St. Bartholomew never preached in Pekin...For myself, I am willing, in absence of any opposing tradition, to accept the current account that Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome. If Rome, which early laid claim to have witnessed that martrydom, were not the scene of it, where then did it take place? Any city would be glad to claim such a connexion with the name of the Apostle, and none but Rome made the claim...If this evidence for Peter's martydom be not be deemed sufficient, there are few things in the history of the early Church which it will be possible to demonstrate"
G. Salmon "Infallibilty of the Church" (Grand Rapids:Baker,1959) pp. 348-9(a critic of the Catholic faith)
"...to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is not blind. The Martyr death of Peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice.'
A. Harnack
'It is sufficient to let us include the martyrdom of Peter in Rome in our final historical picture of the early Church, as a matter of fact which is relatively though not absolutely assured. We accept it, however facts of antiquity that are universally accepted as historical. Were we to demand for all facts of ancient history a greater degree of probability, we should have to strike from our history books a large portion of their contents."
Oscar Cullman "Peter, Disciple, Apostle, Martyr" (London:SCM,1962) p. 114
"That Peter and Paul were the most eminent of many Christians who suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero is certain..."
F.F. Bruce "NT History" (New York
oubleday,1971) p. 410"It seems certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome"
JND Kelly "The Oxford Dictionary of Popes" (Oxford:Oxford,1986) p. 6
"The martrydom of both Peter and Paul in Rome...has often been questioned by Protestant critics, some of whom have contended that Peter was never in Rome. But the archeaological researches of the Protestant Historian Hans Lietzmann, supplemented by the library study of the Protestant exegete Oscar Cullman, have made it extremely difficult to deny the tradition of Peter's death in Rome under the emperor Nero. The account of Paul's martydom in Rome, which is supported by much of the same evidence, has not called forth similar skepticism."
Jaroslav Pelikan, "The Riddle of Catholicism", (New York:Abingdon,1959) p. 36
why worry about what happened to Peter ? Why make up stories about him when they just aren't important?
Because Christianity is a religion based on historical fact. God formed his People over the time in the medium of space and matter. The Eternal Son of God became a man in Palestine in a particular year, and he appointed flesh and blood men to whom he entrusted his pastoral authority with Peter as head of the apostles:
He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep." (Jn 21:15-17)
Peter's Roman residency shows that he was indeed the overseer of the Roman Church, which further validates the episcopal office in Rome as being that which rests upon the Kepha, whom Christ appointed (cf. John 1:42; Mt 16:16-19).
I have heard that Jack Chick is dead. Maybe someone else knows if that is so. As for the man and his works my opinion is that he was a heretic himself. He constantly broke the 2nd commandment in his publications, just as Peter Ruckman. This is popery. The Roman Catholic whore church likewise has been breaking the 2nd commandment throughout centuries. Jack Chick preached a decisionist gospel, not the true Gospel of the Bible. He was a sinner's prayerist. Some would probably call him pelagian or semipelagian. My country has suffered from many false conversions due to Chick's cartoon tracts with their false gospel. And myself has been among those deceived people who disseminated these wicked tracts.
Chick was also quite void of spiritual discernment. He has published books by persons espousing many heretical beliefs. Examples would be Rebecca Brown, William "Bill" Schnoebelen. Chick may have exposed the RCC to a certain degree, granted, but that won't make up for all heretical teachings propagated through his publications and his organization.
Harald
Chick was also quite void of spiritual discernment. He has published books by persons espousing many heretical beliefs. Examples would be Rebecca Brown, William "Bill" Schnoebelen. Chick may have exposed the RCC to a certain degree, granted, but that won't make up for all heretical teachings propagated through his publications and his organization.
Harald
Glen Seeker
New Member
I just read "WHY IS MARY CRYING?" and just had to find this quote from Ralph Woodrow in the Christian Research Journal Volume22/ Issue 2 2000 Book Reviews 54-56
In talking about the book "THE TWO BABYLONS" on which he based his book "BABYLON, MYSTERY RELIGION" Woodrow had this to say,
Yet, many claim that they came to know the TRUTH through his tracts.
Go figgah...one can come to the TRUTH by reading lies. Just boggles the imagination!
BTW, Ralph Woodrow has stopped publication of BABYLON, MYSTERY RELIGION because much of it was based on Hilsop's book.
In talking about the book "THE TWO BABYLONS" on which he based his book "BABYLON, MYSTERY RELIGION" Woodrow had this to say,
It seems that Jack Chic doesn't care to do any research into his tracts. If he finds something that slams the Catholic Church, he will use it regardless of truth or lie. He took Hilsop's book's "inventions" and ran with them.
Yet, many claim that they came to know the TRUTH through his tracts.
Go figgah...one can come to the TRUTH by reading lies. Just boggles the imagination!
BTW, Ralph Woodrow has stopped publication of BABYLON, MYSTERY RELIGION because much of it was based on Hilsop's book.