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

Well I feel badly now for having posted those jokes, the Bible says to avoid jesting and joking. Also it was in poor taste and I do not believe it was right for me to do that.

I am sorry.

 

A couple of notes here:

The woman in Revelation, Chrissy, cannot be the church. The church did not give birth to Christ; the Jewish people did. They are the ones who, in the representation of the 144,000, will be hidden in the wilderness for a set time during the Tribulation.

The concept of the astrological signs is a clear indication of the time of year Christ was born.

It was there, to those shepherds, that the angels announced the birth of the Lamb of God who was to make the final sacrifice for the sin of the world. However, we can pinpoint the in the time of Messiah's birth more exactly. Revelation 12 tells of the birth of Messiah when the constellation Virgo (the woman in the heavens) was clothed with the sun and had the moon at her feet. This tells us that Jesus was born when the sun and moon were in Virgo. In other words, at the time of the September New Moon, or shortly thereafter. This fits the autumn lambing season. Furthermore, it coincides with the season of the three Jewish feasts, Trumpets, Atonement and Tabernacles. Interestingly, the apostle John records in John 1:14 that the "Word became flesh and tabernacled amongst us." As the New Moon was on the 10th and Tabernacles on the 25th September in 3 BC, the birth of Christ would be somewhere between those dates.
from http://www.ldolphin.org/birth.html

Secondly, there is a VERY scholarly work supporting what Chrissy is saying regarding the identities of the RC Mary and Jesus -- Hislop's "Two Babylons", available on the net here:
http://philologos.org/__eb-ttb/default.htm

Roman Catholics hate this book, but that does not mean it is not true and its research and scholarship are top notch. The simple, and historic, fact of the matter is that the RC Mary is NOT the Mary of the Bible. So trying to claim that their Mary was taken bodily into heaven is bizarre to say the least, but necessary to hold their doctrines together, since Mary takes such a central role (as Semiramis did in history).

And trying to make Mary into some kind of "Ark" is some of the worst twisting of simple Bible reading I have come across. It is truly a move of desperation, but it sure raked in money for the Roman Catholic church!

 

Apology completely accepted.

God bless you,

Grant

 

Rufus,

The Feast of the Assumption, meaning it was already believed so widely that they assigned a major feast day to celebrate it, dates back to, what, the 7th century? I'll have to check on that, but it's around that time.

Therefore, it was not "created" out of "thin air." Rather, a belief that had been in the church for a long, long time was finally and simply defined so that there be no more questions about it.

God bless,

Grant

 

Rufus,

Perhaps with all the digressing you missed my post. Quite clearly the doctrine of the assumption existed long before Pope Pius XII's declaration. Martin Luther threw out the feast of the assumption in his Church in the 16th century (I even believe that this fact was in some text you copied from a website in a reply you made to one of my posts on the St. Bernard issue, so I am surprized that you raised this issue) so we know that it existed before then. The feast of the assumption was celebrated throughout the Church, east and west, as early as the 7th century. I am sure there were dioceses that celebrated it much earlier than that. So Pius XIi could not possibly have created it out of thin air. Now perhaps you will be a good chap and admit your error. Then this thread is pretty much dead or can head in whatever direction it wants. Perhaps you can do some real research on the issue and make accusations about who really did start it. Who knows. But the issue you have raised is dead.

Blessings though.

PS. One mistake Protestants continuously make is that dogmatic statements of the Church are NEVER the creation of a doctrine. Rather they are the affirmation of a doctrine that has long been held and comes under specific attack in parts of the Church. Just for your edification.

 

Hi Helen,

I'm glad you posted that about that book "Two Babylons". I have the book here but didnt have time to type out a bunch of stuff from it. I had forgotten it was online. Thanks for posting that

About the woman being the church, I'm not sure if you read from the link I posted which explains the idea of the woman being the church... so I am just going to copy and paste that aprt of it below. The idea is that "God's People" ... throughout the ages, Jews- and His people of all time are identified and symbolized in the Bible as a "woman", just as the "woman" who sits upon the beast is identified Satan's people or church. And when you read what's below, think about Matthew 1:1-16.

-----------


"Turning back to Genesis 3, we find the story of how the dragon, under the guise of a serpent, beguiled Adam and Eve, and thus conquered the world. Note what God says:

'Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 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. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die. " Genesis 3:1-4.

How sad it is that Adam and Eve decided that they would accept what the serpent had to say rather than believe God. You know the tragic results. Through this sin, man was separated from God; he was lost, without any hope of the future. But God never lets us down. Jesus came all the way from heaven into the Garden and gave Adam and Eve a plan whereby if they were obedient they could once again be restored into eternal happiness. Just think of it. Jesus was willing to give His life and to die in their place! Oh, how we should love Him. As Christ discussed His wonderful plan with Adam and Eve, He made a prophecy. Now notice this very carefully.

'And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this,...I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed, it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. " Genesis 3:14,15.

Right here we should stop and find out who the woman is that is mentioned in this text. The prophet Jeremiah tells us:

'I have likened the daughter of Zion to a comely and delicate woman." Jeremiah 6:2.

From this we learn that the woman represents Zion. But who is Zion? Well, let's read another verse.

"...say unto Zion, Thou art my people. " Isaiah 51:16.

Thus Zion is God's people; and the Lord has chosen the symbol of a pure woman to represent them. (See Figure #11).

Now back to our text. 'I will put enmity between thee (the serpent) and the woman (God's people)." Enmity means war, bloodshed, and a struggle. So it began. In this world there are two sides in the conflict-God's side and Satan's side. One is right and the other is wrong. The important factor that determines the difference is over the issue of how God is to be worshiped. This involves the question, "is absolute obedience necessary?" This was the problem that faced the angels in heaven. You know the answer-there was war and Satan was cast out. Since Satan is on the earth, these conditions have not changed. Let us read the story of Cain and Abel.

"And in Process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering.-

"But unto Cain and to his offering he had no respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fill." Genesis 4:3-5.

Now get the picture clearly. Abel has built an altar just as God had prescribed and placed a lamb thereon, representing the Lamb of God which was to take away his sins. Abel knelt down before this altar and asked God to forgive him of his sins and to accept the sacrifice. God answered by fire from heaven, thus acknowledging the offering.

But what about Cain? Cain built an altar just like Abel did. But he did not wish to obey God by sacrificing a lamb. He was a man who planted a garden, so he went out and picked some of the vegetables from his garden. These he placed upon his altar. This was not a sacrifice. No life was taken. It was not what God had asked. It was a substitute. If God had accepted that offering, man could have made any doctrine he wanted. But God never accepts a counterfeit. God would have nothing to do with Cain's offering. You will recall the familiar story in the following verses. Cain arose and slew his brother. True indeed were the words, "I will put enmity between thee (the serpent) and the woman (God's people)."

So now there were two distinct sides in this newly created world. Notice the parallel. There is God's side, called the "sons of God." The line of followers were Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah. The gate of Eden was considered their headquarters.

All those on Satan's side were called the "sons of man." The line of followers were Cain and his descendants. Their headquarters were in the land of Nod.

As time went by, the devil's side became so wicked that God found it necessary to completely destroy every descendant of the dragon power; but as soon as the Flood was past, the two sides reappeared.

God called Abraham to leave his country and his kindred and go to a new land that God would show him, to be made into a great nation. They were to settle in the land of Canaan. They worshipped the S-0-N, the Son of God. This was the original, the true, religion.

On the other hand, there was the dragon's side, whose followers were known as the Chaldeans. Their territory was Ur of the Chaldees. Their pagan capital was Babel, which later became Babylon. They worshipped the S-U-N, the sun in the heavens. This was known as Baal worship. This was the beginning of a pagan counterfeit religion in the world.

What a struggle went on between these two sides! Paganism continually made inroads into the true religion. You will find it recorded in the book of Kings.

"And he put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem; them also that burned incense unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets, and to all the host of heaven. "2 Kings 23:5.

As the pagan governments decayed or were overthrown, men continued their form of sun worship. Thus paganism was transferred from one nation to another, from Babylon into Medo-Persia, into Greece, and into Rome, sinking the world into its deepest, darkest hour.

It is right here that we discover the seed of the woman appears. Let's go back now to Genesis 3:15.

'And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed, it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. " Genesis 3:15.

This distinctly reveals that there was to be a time when the woman was to give birth to a seed and the dragon would have followers who would continue the struggle against God's Son and His followers until the climax was reached and the serpent crushed. Turning to Revelation 12, we are now ready to catch a picture of what happened when the Seed of the woman appeared.

"And there appeared a great wonder in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: and she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to he delivered .... And the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to he delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was horn. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. " Revelation 12:1-5. (See Figure #12).

Can we find the time when the dragon attempted to destroy the child Jesus when He was born? Indeed we can! You will recall that when the Wise Men made inquiry of Herod after seeing the star of Bethlehem, this king became very suspicious. He was ruling under Caesar Augustus of Rome and he demanded of the Wise Men that they return and tell him where the child could be found. He wanted to find the Christ, that he might kill Him. Angels warned the Magi not to return to Herod, and they also warned Joseph to take the Child from Bethlehem into Egypt. As Herod's suspicions were aroused, he sent his soldiers into Bethlehem to kill every baby boy two years old and under in his attempt to kill Christ.

This clearly reveals how the dragon attempted to destroy the Child as soon as He was born, through his agency of pagan Rome."
-The Anti-Christ by Lawrence Nelson

 

Chrissy, although I am definitely anti-Roman Catholicism (which is NOT the same as being against the Catholics themselves, please!), I think your author is stretching it a little far. Remember Herod, who was certainly not connected to the Roman Catholic church, killed all the little boys 2 and under in Bethlehem and vicinity in an effort to rid himself of this new "King of the Jews."

Nor do I think the Jewish people and the Christian church can be lumped together. The former involve those God Himself created as a culture in order to show Himself to the world, and it is through them that the Messiah came.

It is these people who are consistently persecuted and hounded throughout the world, and whom God consistently intervenes to save a remnant of. He will not be thwarted!

The church, built with the Jewish Messiah as a cornerstone, came later. And far from being put into this world as an ethnic group (which we most certainly are not...LOL), we have been called OUT of this world.

But what I would encourage you and anyone here to do is to simply read the Bible over and over again for yourself instead of listening to me or anyone else. The more you will read it, the more clear it becomes, as your mind will learn to associate like passages and the Holy Spirit Himself will lead you into the truth.

God bless.

 

Grace Saves,

I am sorry but I just dont have time to write out much on here. I do web design and other computer-related things and am in the process of working on 4 websites right now. I do get to where I want a break though and so occasionally I have come here to read what is posted and will make a statement about something and provide Bible evidence to back it up. I dont really see where it matters if I wrote it or if someone else wrote it... what matters is, that it is Biblical evidence, Bible verses, to back up what I have said.

Besides that, because of doing so much work on the computer I have been having trouble with one of my wrists and thus, I try as much as possible to copy and paste something that either I or someone else have already written, to avoid typing so much.

I dont mean to sound derogatory but honestly I view the fact that someone would "pick on me" because of that... as just a way to try to avoid the things that have been proven, out of the scriptures. I have noticed that quite a bit on this Board. It seems that people will pick at little things like that, when really it is just that they are trying to come up with something to discredit what I have said. And all they can come up with is that it was copied and pasted.

So what?

I cant imagine that others here have never copied and pasted anything.

It is just picking at straws.

If I already have something all written out that either I've done or someone else has done... or else a link I can point people to- to go read Bible verses about what I have said... what is so awful about that? really? I make a statement and then give a link or whatever, so someone can read futher about it if they wish.

It just strikes me as using something... anything... to try to discredit me or what I have said and I think its not very good tactics.

I personally couldnt care less if something I read that someone else has posted may have been pre-written and copied and pasted on here. I cant see re-writing something if I dont have to. And I wouldnt ever use that against anyone, I think it is ridiculous.

Now if I happen to have lots of time I will do that.

Also, thank you for accepting my apology, I really appreciate it

 

Hi again, Chrissy,

Just a note about the cut and pastes -- they should be referenced as a matter of ethics and courtesy. We also don't want the BB to be put in a position of being accused of fostering or harboring plagiarism.

Thanks.

 

Chrissy,

The general concensus on this board is to defend your beliefs in your own words. Quoting is find, referencing is cool, linking to websites is dandy. But the majority should come from you. You can't expect us to read entire books or huge websites just to understand your POV. I'm not attacking you by telling you this; I'm telling you that your posts well be read by more people if they aren't monumental in size and if they are written from your own heart, and not someone elses.

God bless,

Grant

 

I'm assuming that it would matter to you though if someone were to simply take your website work and use it else where without your knowledge or permission, and without attribution.

Plagerism is theft of intellectual property.

 

I've had my website design copied and used by another party before. I know how that feels, and I'm sure Chrissy would feel the same.

God bless,

Grant

 

Helen, ThreeAngelMom

Did you two notice that Crissy posted a piece that slammed the trinity?

"Their "Trinity" was Nimrod (the Sun God), "

AngelMom, I asked you the other day and never got a response on whether you reject the Trinity. Many SDA's do and it appears that Crissy does. Is this okay with you Helen? Most Christians would say that a person who rejects the Trinity is not Christian. Just wondering how far this we're all brothers and sisters against the pagan Roman Cathollicis goes.

Blessings ladies.

PS. I do find it interesting how you people say "just read the Bible and it will point you to the truth and yet when the mud starts flying you pull the books out of the closet and quote every tom, dick, and harry's interpruation of what scripture says. Just an observation. By the way, with regard to Helen's comment about us hating some anti-catholic book, I love many of them because as an apologist, books like Loraine Boetner's Roman Catholicicism, make him easy pickens for totally discrediting his historical, doctrinal, and exegetical skills. You can make a liar out of him real fast. Haven't seen Helen's book yet, but I am quite sure it will not stand in the end.

 

Hey Ruf,

Just bringing this forward as it seems to be getting buried again. I will keep doint it until you acknowledge your error that Pius XII created the Assumption doctrine. i.e. this thread is dead.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rufus:
Would everyone go back to my first post, please?

My point is that the Pope "created" the doctrine of the "Assumption of Mary" out of thin air. I have quoted from the historical documents to demonstrate it. And I could quote many, many more to show the actual process by which this doctrine was created.

CAN WE NOT CONCENTRATE ON THE <<<<<POPE>>>>> CREATING DOCTRINE OUT OF THIN AIR????

Catholic friends, check your own historical documents, unless you are AFRAID of the TRUTH!

rufus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rufus,

Perhaps with all the digressing you missed my post. Quite clearly the doctrine of the assumption existed long before Pope Pius XII's declaration. Martin Luther threw out the feast of the assumption in his Church in the 16th century (I even believe that this fact was in some text you copied from a website in a reply you made to one of my posts on the St. Bernard issue, so I am surprized that you raised this issue) so we know that it existed before then. The feast of the assumption was celebrated throughout the Church, east and west, as early as the 7th century. I am sure there were dioceses that celebrated it much earlier than that. So Pius XIi could not possibly have created it out of thin air. Now perhaps you will be a good chap and admit your error. Then this thread is pretty much dead or can head in whatever direction it wants. Perhaps you can do some real research on the issue and make accusations about who really did start it. Who knows. But the issue you have raised is dead.

Blessings though.

PS. One mistake Protestants continuously make is that dogmatic statements of the Church are NEVER the creation of a doctrine. Rather they are the affirmation of a doctrine that has long been held and comes under specific attack in parts of the Church. Just for your edification.

 

are you guys nuts or something?

 

I think I will follow the advice of Jesus... dont cast your pearls before the swine...

bye.

 

actually, according you you guys it should be "dont cast someone else's pearls before the swine" ... at least not without saying 5 times on the same post who it came from... and when I give a website addres... saying over and over again who it came from, even if some others do not.

LOL!

anyway, I've had it with this weird crew...(but I guess thats what you were hoping for). I've just got better things to do with my time than have to listen to this same garbage over and over again.

 

Chrissy,

I guess its easy to tear down other people's faiths on a website where you don't have to directly respond, but when it comes to actual discussion, you resort to calling us "weird" and then you leave. Is this speaking of your character? If your message is so true, why are you abandoning us?

I guess its because your message isn't true, and when it is time to defend it, all you can do is rely on your website work (or that of others), because outside of that, you don't have knowledge of the topic.

Countless questions and answers have been raised here by Catholics, and you ignore them. That doesn't bode well for your "truth." I hope you will honestly think on that before you blindly attack a faith that you clearly don't understand.

God bless,

Grant

 

Thessalonian, the 'trinity' that Chrissy mentioned is the false trinity which came down into the RC church from mystery Babylon. It is not the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

 

I see. I better stop worshipping this false trinity, which is hidden in three letters that numerologically reveal the three persons of the false trinity, which is contained on a wafer or on the monstrance. See, all these Catholics who are worshipping the One, True Triune God are really unknowingly worship the false trinity, even though they are not. Yes, this false trinity which spells 666 accorrding to a bogus numerological method. Gotcha. I'll stop that immediately.

Oh, shoot. I never started doing that. Oh well. Good for me anyway.

God bless,

Grant