Pope Pius XII "creates" doctrine out of THIN AIR!

http://www.biblerevelations.org/antichrist/chapter2.htm

http://www.biblerevelations.org/antichrist/chapter3.htm

forgot to put that too, for the 1260 days prophecy
(you should read both the chapters) I went back and edited my other post and put the other one in there too

 

Mt:11:25: At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.


I can read my Bible. I can also pray and ask GOD to send me His Holy Spirit to reveal to me what is IN my Bible.

 

I'm reading an excellent book I picked up from the library yesterday: Sinners and Saints: A History of the Popes

It's a really enjoyable read. I'm reading on the popes of the 7th century right now, and how the Christian world was split on the nature of Jesus Christ. Did He have a purely divine nature? A purely human nature? Were the two natures equal? Are the natures inseperable, or can they be seperated? Can you have Jesus the man without Jesus the God? Is the incarnate Christ, Jesus, fully man, or partially man? Does his divine will have precedence over his human will?

I'm only mentioning this because you seem to reject that Mary is the "Mother of God," something settled by the Church in the 5th century. You say that she is only the mother of Jesus, the man. But, if that is the case, then you are saying that Jesus is only human, and not divine. That, or that his two natures are completely seperatable. He is either human, or He is either divine, or He neither, or He is more one than the other, or He is completely both.

I fully believe that He was, is, and will continue to be completely both. Jesus is fully God, and fully man. Therefore, Mary did not give birth to a man. Mary gave birth to the God-man, the Son of God. She is "the Mother of Our Lord," exclaims Elizabeth in the Gospel of Luke. Who is our Lord? I know that my Lord is Jesus Christ, who is God Himself.

Jesus human nature is completely united with His divine nature, and in total, He is God. He will never simply be a man. Therefore, Mary did not give birth to a man. She gave birth to God Himself. She is the mother of God himself.

Now, YOU take this as somehow saying that Mary is above God. As Catholics, we do no such thing. By establishing that Mary is the mother of God, we establish that Jesus Christ has two natures, and is not merely a man, but is God himself. He was BORN of a woman, and He was God.

If you don't understand that, you simply don't want to understand that. You take Marian doctrine completely out of context for what its intent and focus is all about: Jesus Christ.

God bless,

Grant

 

I can read my Bible. I can also pray and ask GOD to send me His Holy Spirit to reveal to me what is IN my Bible.

Well, He hasn't done it yet. Or you aren't listening, either one.

Yet you are quite willing to listen to the writings of one who came 1800 years after the apostles. That is a very strange schizophrenia. You will believe what Ellen White writes about the Bible as trustworthy, yet those men who were taught by the apostles you will not listen to.

Don't you find that to be a tad inconsistent with logic? I would certainly think that what the apostles taught to their disciples, what they shared of Christ's meaning and understandings of what He said, would be far more reliable than that of a woman who lived 1800 years after the fact.

And BTW -- Scripture:

Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

This promise is made to ONE GROUP of men only -- the apostles. Our Lord gave to them alone the Christian Faith and they guarded that truth zealously and passed it down to the next generation of Christians. There is no promise to mankind or individuals that the Holy Spirit will guide them into all truth. The only thing remotely like it is the promise that the Holy Spirit will validate to us the teachings of the apostolic band -- IF -- we have "ears to hear and eyes to see".

And that is a BIG IF when you are laboring under having your mind poisoned by those who have made a career out of mistranslating the Bible, trashing the Catholic Faith, and teaching outright lies.

I know -- I was deceived by such for 25 years until God, by His grace, opened my eyes to see.

You should pray for the same. Would He Who loves you decieve you?

Brother Ed

 

Hey Grant --

Click on that link: Mary, Spouse of the Holy Spirit.

It'll bless ya right outta yer socks!!

Brother Ed

 

Jesus is rebuking the arrogance of the pharisees and scribes here, and promoting what He always has: the faith of a child. That does not mean that we are not to pursue knowledge of Christ or understanding of His words. Are you promoting ignorance? I doubt it. And if not, then you can't take this verse at face value and apply it to us because we have a yearning to understand the true meanings of Christs words.

So, in a nutshell, you will always get the right answer, or if you get the wrong answer, you just didn't pray hard enough, eh? Man, now THAT is some stable theology.

God bless,

Grant

 

One thing at a time, dear friend!
I still have over 200 pages on this other book, and it has a due date. I've downloaded the PDF file, though, and will read through it as soon as I have a chance.

God bless,

Grant

 

a side note:

The Roman Catholic idea of Mary being "God's Spouse" by the way, came from the ancient Mystery Religion of Babylon. Their "Trinity" was Nimrod (the Sun God), Semiramis, his wife, and Tammuz, the child

in this case they substitute of course... God (represented by the Pope, of course) Mary, and Jesus... that is why the Old Testament said in Ezekiel chapter 8 that God showed Ezekiel His people in God's Temple were doing abominations, including weeping for Tammuz, facing toward the East worshipping the sun, and so on... what Ezekiel was really describing was Roman Catholic Mystery Religion originating in ancient Babylon... being secretly practiced in God's sanctuary by some.

You may as well call her Se- Mary -mis

 

Brother Ed!!!

I know you know a whole lot more than most of us silly little girls here, (your aga alone gives you that) but do you have to be so condescending???

Firstly, cut Chrissy a break, she is new here, and doesn't have the hard skin that most of us who are used to you have

Secondly, we do not doubt that Christ gives immortality to those who die in Christ. The problem you are encountering is that there is NO evidence in the Bible that says that any of us GET that eternal life UNTIL the resurrection.

There is no question as to us getting it. The problem is WHEN.

Since the Bible doesn't support the idea that people die and go RIGHT to heaven or hell, in 'spirit' form and then return to earth to their decaying dead bodies to re enter them and then be translated, so that they can be judged and given their reward, we must assume that MARY, is just like every other person that has died 'in Christ' since the Ascention. She is in her grave (where ever that is) awaiting the resurrection.

"The whole purpose of the redemption was that Christ defeated death and redeemed all creation back to the Father"

I couldn't agree more! But there is something missing. He has not yet made that come to pass. If He had, then from the Ascention forward, there would have been NO sin, and NO death.

It is very important to remember this passage:

1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
1Co 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
1Co 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

THEN. It hasn't happened yet. And while we are looking at this passage, please note that it says that we MUST put on immortality. We don't have it yet.

NOW, on to the meat of the matter. Chrissy may not have known what you were getting at, but I got ya as soon as I read it.

The WOMAN on the Moon is NOT Mary. It IS indeed the TRUE, untainted, pure, undefiled, un apostated church of Christ.

I have a challenge for you.

Who are the ten virgins? Are they literally women who haven't done the deed? Or do they represent something else? That word 'virgin' in the Greek is the same 'virgin' as in the Hebrew regarding 'taking a virgin'. (you know TAKING)

How about the Bride of Christ BEING the church of Christ? The original Greek says bride, not church, yet it is WIDELY excepted that the Bride of Christ is the Church of Christ.

How about the body of Christ? The original Greek says 'body' of Christ. However it is said that WE are the body of Christ, and are all different members.

How about the Woman in Revelation 17. The whore. Is she just some prostitute? IF that is the case, explain away all the things that she does. ONE woman makes ALL the nations drink the 'wine' of HER fornication? Since when does fornication produce wine?

MAN should this country be flooded by now if that were the case!

ONE more.

HOW can Mary be the WIFE of the Holy Spirit, when it specifically says in the BIBLE, in the resurrection, we will be as the Angels in heaven, where we will neither BE MARRIED or be GIVEN in MARRIAGE??????

Happy chewing.

God Bless

 

A ROMAN MIRACLE (just a joke for you)


A pretty maid, a Protestant, was to a Catholic wed.

To love all Bible truths and tales, quite early she’d been bred.

It sorely grieved her husband’s heart that she would not comply.

And join the Mother Church of Rome and heretics deny.



So day by day he flattered her, but still she saw no good

Would ever come from bowing down to idols made of wood.

The mass, the host, the miracle, were made but to deceive;

And transubstantiation, too, she’d never dare believe.



He went to see his clergyman and told him his sad tale.

“My wife is an unbeliever, sir; you can perhaps prevail.

“For all your Romish miracles, my wife has strong aversion.

“To really work a miracle may lead her to conversion.”



The priest went with the gentleman—he thought to gain a prize.

He said, “I will convert her, sir, and open both her eyes.”

So when they came into the house, the husband loudly cried,

“The priest has come to dine with us” “He’s welcome,” she replied.



And when at last the meal was o’er, the priest at once began,

To teach his hostess all about the sinful state of man;

The greatness of our Saviour’s love, which Christians can’t deny.

To give Himself a sacrifice and for our sins to die.



“I will return tomorrow, lass, prepare some bread and wine;

“The sacramental miracle will stop your soul’s decline.”

“I’ll bake the bread,” the lady said. You may he did reply.

“And when you’ve seen this miracle, convinced you’ll be, says I.”



The priest did come accordingly, the bread and wine did bless.

The lady asked, “Sir, is it changed?” The priest answered “Yes.”

“It’s changed from common elements to truly flesh and blood.

“Begorra, lass, this power of mine has changed it into God.”



So having blessed the bread and wine, to eat they did prepare.

The lady said unto the priest, “I warn you, take care.”

“For half an ounce of arsenic was mixed right in the batter.

“But, since you have its nature changed, it cannot really matter.”



The priest was struck real dumb—he looked as pale as death.

The bread and wine fell from his hands, and he did gasp for breath.

“Bring me my horse!” the priest cried. “This is a cursed home!”

The lady replied, “Begone, ‘tis you who share the curse of Rome.”



The husband, too, he sat surprised, and not a word did say.

At length, he spoke. “My dear,” said he, “the priest has run away;

“To gulp such mummery and tripe, I’m not for sure quite able.

“I’ll go with you, and we’ll renounce this Roman Catholic fable.”

—Author Unknown

 

Wow, a story condoning the killing of priests to prove them "wrong." What a great tale.

Perhaps you should read up on real Catholic theology, and understand that the accidents of the bread and wine (the interaction with our senses) remains, even though the bread and wine do not.

Oh, and your joke was not funny. At all.

God bless,

Grant

 

Please point me to a single scholarly work regarding this. C'mon, I dare you.

God bless,

Grant

 

Grant, you actually read those ponderously long cut and paste things?

You're probably in pretty thin company.

Ron

 

Grant, you actually read those ponderously long cut and paste things?

You're probably in pretty thin company.

Ron </font>[/QUOTE]Trying,

If I don't read ignorance, how will I spot it?

God bless,

Grant

 

Gee, what a grouch.

I was only playing.

One time I was on a protestant forum and I suspected that a couple of them were really Catholics. And so I devised a plan.

I started saying little catholic jokes that I made up, like this:

What does the Pope use for air freshener?
Pope-pourri

(How do you spell that, I dont know, Im not a scholar)

anyway, continuing on...

What would the Pope use to take a bath with?

Pope Soap-on-a-Rope

What would the Pope eat at the movie theater?

Pope Corn

What would the Pope drink for lunch?

Soda Pope

Where would the Pope go swimming at?

...in the Holy Sea

and my final one..

What would the Pope use as his restroom facility?

The Vati-Can

Anyways, when I saw who all got real upset over it, I knew who the real Catholics were, who were only pretending to be Protestants...


(I am only kidding)

... gee you guys can't take a joke.

 

Your last joke spoke of attempting to give a priest arsenic., and then making fun of him.

It was not a joke to be enjoyed by both sides.

God bless,

Grant

 

wellllll... maybe if you Catholics dont like other people making fun of you, then you shouldnt make fun of them either.

Its like you can dish it out but you cant take it. You have made fun of my website, made fun of my "Unscholarlyness" and so on.

So you oughta learn to be a good sport. If you dont like it, dont say things like that to me either.

:-/

 

I am not aware of instances in which I have made fun of your or your faith. If I have, I apologize for them.

I don't consider posting long works that you didn't write to be scholarly, no. Nor posting website links. That isn't providing discussion, or your beliefs (or your beliefs about what I believe) in your own words, and I have much less respect for that when you want me to believe your side of the story.

Again, I'm unaware of personally attacking you anywhere, or personally attacking your faith, especially in a manner that was for the direct purpose of "joking."

God bless,

Grant

 

Grant --

Chrissy is angry with me that I would take her lack of scholarly approach to task. What she doesn't realize as a newbie is that we all regularly beat on one another when we think we see someone making a real uneducated statement. I respond much better to someone using several verses and parsing the Greek than I do to cut and paste jobs from a Jack Chick anti - Catholic comic book.

And 3AM -- with that little "poem" of hers, Chrissy just entered the "big leagues" and she's a big girl now. That kind of gratuituous insult puts her in a whole nother league now.

I will git to yer responses later. Obviously they are good questions, especially the one about the fornication=wine. As I think about it, I will be putting it into a covenantal context.
The Revelation is not about some future coming apocalypse. It is about the end of the Old Covenant and the beginning of the New. It is a detailed description of the destruction of Jerusalem.

You see, while you insist that the resurrection has not occurred yet, you fail to understand that there are TWO resurrections mentioned in the Scriptures. The first has already happened in AD 70 upon Christ's return. The second, which is mentioned in Rev. 20, is yet to happen. It it the promised resurrection of the bodies of all mankind from the graves, spoken of by Jesus in John 5: 28-29.

If Christ has not returned from cleansing the heavenly temple (Heb. 9 and 10) as the Great High Priest, performing YOM KIPPUR with His own precious Blood, then we are still in our sins.

Do you know how to do type/antetype comparisons?

The antetype must follow the type. Christ, as our Great High Priest, acts in the same manner as the type pointing to Him, the high priest of the Old Covenant. Therefore, in following the type, unless Jesus returned from the temple in the heavenlies back to where He came from, the sacrifice is not complete and we are still under the Old Covenant and the Law. In the Old Covenant, when a high priest went into the "holiest of all", if he did not return, it meant that God had NOT accepted the sacrifice, the covenant was not renewed, and the people we no longer in a covenantal relationship with God.

Christ Jesus said "This is the New Covenant in my Blood". When did that covenant actually begin for real if He is our High Priest?

Brother Ed

(get to your other questions later)