The Christ of RCC is the Son of Lucifer

[Thomas Helwys]

What I find curious is that taking the bible as a whole we find a consistency in theme when it comes to a connection between the physical and the spiritual. For instance God asked Moses to build a box. Now boxes of themselves are of no special significance but the ark of the Covenant was the place of God's real presence to Israel. So much so that if anyone touched it they would die. Also as the Israelites were poisoned by snakes if they looked up to the object God told Moses to make they would be healed. And so it goes through out scriptures. Therefore I believe it is reasonable from scriptures that the physical sign of a spiritual effect is itself the means which God uses to make that spiritual effect. It would seem to me to separate the two and hold to a "spiritual event" not related to its physical sign would be contradictory to this theme we find throughout scripture.

I agree that the initial intent of the Anabaptist were to attempt to shed what they held as "traditions of men" and stick to what they believed the scriptures taught solely on its own statements. Though even at the very beginning of the movement we see a pretty wide understanding of what that actually entailed. Such as some held to single wives other allowed for multiple wives. The only unity really was in believers baptism, relying solely on scriptures as their guide, and disdain for anything Catholic. I find it curious that the inheritors of their views have fallen into extremely divergent groups from Amish to several different "levels"/groups of Mennonites to more varieties of Baptists than Baskin Robbins has ice cream flavors all holding to their personal views of how to "get back to what the bible actually taught." Almost as if as a whole this people seem rudderless. Which makes me question if they all hold to the same authority is that authority flawed?. If not then maybe their supposition is? I have to admit that these were some of the question I struggled with before returning to the Catholic church. That is not to say it is all I struggled with but one of the obvious questions that occurred to me.

Let me add the following to my comment: I don't agree with my fellow Baptist brethren that the reason for being baptized is as an act of obedience. If baptism is not salvific, there must be a reason other than "obedience" to do it. After all, there is more of an explicit command to footwashing than for baptism, and in fact according to the scriptures Jesus Himself didn't baptize at all. So, if, as Baptists believe, baptism is not salvific and doesn't bestow grace, what does it do? I believe it is a compelling picture of salvation, of the gospel message. It demonstrates the Christian faith as in a moving picture. That's why a mode other than immersion is insufficient. I would allow for non-immersion in cases of necessity, but normally I believe immersion should be done.

In brief, when immersion baptism takes place, the essence of the Gospel is presented for all to see: the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus is the assurance of those who have faith in Him, that they too will be resurrected.

To me, this is the significance, reason for, and meaning of baptism.

So, I am opposed to baptismal regeneration, but obedience is not sufficient reason for water baptism, either.

P.S. I suppose we have gone off topic, but considering the original topic, well.............

 

[BobRyan]

Let me add the following to my comment: I don't agree with my fellow Baptist brethren that the reason for being baptized is as an act of obedience. If baptism is not salvific, there must be a reason other than "obedience" to do it. After all, there is more of an explicit command to footwashing than for baptism, and in fact according to the scriptures Jesus Himself didn't baptize at all. So, if, as Baptists believe, baptism is not salvific and doesn't bestow grace, what does it do? I believe it is a compelling picture of salvation, of the gospel message. It demonstrates the Christian faith as in a moving picture. That's why a mode other than immersion is insufficient. I would allow for non-immersion in cases of necessity, but normally I believe immersion should be done.

In brief, when immersion baptism takes place, the essence of the Gospel is presented for all to see: the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus is the assurance of those who have faith in Him, that they too will be resurrected.

To me, this is the significance, reason for, and meaning of baptism.

So, I am opposed to baptismal regeneration, but obedience is not sufficient reason for water baptism, either.

P.S. I suppose we have gone off topic, but considering the original topic, well.............

What if the case is that water baptism not only is a "Fruit" of Matt 7 - Good trees -- obedience, but also in response to that fruit other events happen related to God's anointing/ministry/mission given to the believer.

A believer in rebellion is not much use to God.

So while I do not believe in baptismal regeneration - I do believe in the act as one of obedience and that obedience leads to more usefulness as a believer. I also believe in foot washing as Christ recommended to us.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

KJV is correct!

How can Ben in Hebrew become Star?

Is Son of Morning (Satan) the same as Morning Star( αστηρ ορθρινοσ)?

I believe this is the name of the unfallen angel - in heaven - Lucifer whose name is later changed to Satan - the way Saul's name is changed to Paul.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thomas Helwys]

What if the case is that water baptism not only is a "Fruit" of Matt 7 - Good trees -- obedience, but also in response to that fruit other events happen related to God's anointing/ministry/mission given to the believer.

A believer in rebellion is not much use to God.

So while I do not believe in baptismal regeneration - I do believe in the act as one of obedience and that obedience leads to more usefulness as a believer. I also believe in foot washing as Christ recommended to us.

in Christ,

Bob

If baptism is primarily an act of obedience, why would Jesus command something which He did not practice Himself?

Also, do you think churches such as the Quakers and Salvation Army are being disobedient? They believe the true baptism is spiritual, and they think it's more important to be obedient in another area: Love your neighbor as yourself.

 

[Eliyahu]

Eliyahu,

I haven't read everything nor have I watched the video.
But isn't the crux of the matter the translation of Isaiah 14:12?

The KJV says:
Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

The 1899 Douay Rheims Bible, long time official Bible of the Catholic Church says this:

Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations?

Does this really make your case?

Thanks for your comment. I do understand you may not have enough time to read all the posts in your area.

As you said, this matter is very much connected with the translation of Isaiah 14:12. But in that case the supporters for RCC here didn't have to be panic with the statements that I titled OP, because, in that case, it is a matter of translating Isaiah 1412 and the meaning of Lucifer.

In fact the Lucifer is not mentioned in the original Hebrew verse of Isaiah 14:12 but it is a translation of Halel.
The problem is that most of the other translations are wrong again in that verse because they render the same word Morning Star to Jesus and to Satan together.

Also, Son of Morning ( Isaiah 14:12) should be distinguished from Morning Star again.

What I brought was the Chanting in Latin by the RCC.

What they could verify is whether such chanting is really performed at Easter Vigil, and its translation is correct or not.

My opponents objected to me as if I had brought what had not existed.

But it was found in Wikipedia also. Therefore such Latin original is correct.

Then the Translation was the question.

My translation of Christus Filius Tuus was Christ Thy Son, while RCC translation is Christ the Morning Star, hiding and disguising the Lucifer in the prvious verses.


It is not surprising that RCC modify the original text of the Latin Exultet.

In fact there are some more doubtful verses in the translation of the Exultet, but I do not raise that issue at the moment.