News and views of Constance Cumbey concerning "Radical Middle", New Age Movement, Communitarianism, "planetary humanism," "global governance," European Union, Javier Solana, Jeremy Rifkin, "New Age Politics," law in the USA, combined with life in general -- sometimes humorous, sometimes not!
Pages
▼
Thursday, June 25, 2020
One of most significant messages I've heard in recent times -- "The time for detachment is now" Addition: Activist demands that images of Jesus come down! It's happening!
My very dear friend, Marie Fisher, formerly of Seattle and now of Spokane, Washington passed this on to me as "absolutely must viewing." I watched it and I agree with her opinion and feel it is a message that is for the times as I presently perceive them. It would be nice if I were wrong, but I feel that things are moving very, very quickly.
I'm getting questions about possible Zoom conferences. I do now have a microphone that works well with my desktop computer for doing same. Contact me via my landline phone at 248-253-0333 and/or send me an email if you would like to set one up and invite me to join as speaker. The equipment would work equally well with other software programs such as Team and/or Webinar.
Relatedly, after writing the article defending Dylan while exposing the illogical and syllogistic work of one vlogger, I was led to listening more of Dylan’s new release. I bought it. It’s fantastic. I’m sure many here are aware of Dylan’s conversion to Christianity in 1979, and the subsequent three overtly Christian-themed records. One may be inclined to debate whether or not his conversion “stuck”. His later records made oblique references, though nothing overt. Yet here are some interesting lyrics from his new “Crossing the Rubicon” that may relate to the admonition of Fr. Altier:
I feel the Holy Spirit inside See the light that freedom gives I believe it's in the reach of Every man who lives Keep as far away as possible It's darkest 'fore the dawn (Oh Lord) I turned the key, I broke it off And I crossed the Rubicon
Regarding the statues of “Jesus”, I note that the earliest Christians used symbolsto represent Jesus instead of overt depictions of Him. To vastly simplify, I’m going to copy and paste from an article I wrote a couple years ago on the subject of the ICHTHUS—the fish symbol.
Use of ΙΧΘΥΣ in early Christianity
In the first century AD, many Christian converts met in private homes. After the Christian faith gained wider acceptance, buildings were erected specifically for worship. These early places of worship were unadorned and plain, for Christians were concerned about possibly falling prey to idolatry.
In these early days, one would not find drawings or sculptures of Christ; however, eventually, symbols representing our Lord and our faith would be made. Rather than fashioning a likeness of Jesus’ human form, “they made a figure of a shepherd carrying a lamb on his shoulders, to signify the Good Shepherd who gave his life for his sheep” (John 10:11). The Messiah was also represented symbolically as a lamb. Other Christian symbols used were: a dove to represent the Holy Spirit; a ship, to signify the Church, the ark of salvation, sailing towards heaven; a lyre, to represent joy; an anchor, to symbolize hope; and, “a fish, which was meant to remind them of their having been born again in the water at their baptism”.
These symbols began to be used on everyday items at home, such as lamps, vases, rings, bowls, wall-hangings and the like. Fish symbols were also found in the Roman catacombs in pictures with bread and wine—in some the fish is swimming in the water with a plate of bread and a cup of wine on its back, evidently alluding to the Last Supper or Eucharist. The oldest known ΙΧΘΥΣ-monument, the Cœmeterium Domitillae (cemetery of Flavia Domitilla) in the catacombs, is dated perhaps as early as the late first century, to the middle of the second. This one depicts three persons with three loaves of bread and one fish, a likely reference to the miraculous feedings.
It is unknown when, but someone ingeniously invented an acrostic (backronym) based on the letters of ΙΧΘΥΣ: ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ ΘΕΟΥ ΥΙΟΣ ΣΩΤΗΡ (IĒSOUS CHRISTOS THEOU YIOS SŌTĒR), which translates to JESUS CHRIST, GOD’S SON, SAVIOR.
My point in putting up the second video of the Christian images destruction is to show that a spirit of mob violence and hatred against Christianity appears to be well unleashed. Read the warnings contained in the book of Daniel and the 4 Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John). It was not to argue whether images are right or wrong. If in the spirit of obedience to God, you make a decision to remove, that is one thing and not one I'm concerned about. If the mob makes a decision to remove based on Satanically inspired hatred, that is another, and of that, yes, I am concerned and the alerts posed by the speaker are valid.
Yes, I quite agree with "If in the spirit of obedience to God, you make a decision to remove, that is one thing and not one I'm concerned about. If the mob makes a decision to remove based on Satanically inspired hatred, that is another".
This guy gets it! I've timestamped at WSJ's Dan Henninger's summation of the historical background for the current 'cancel culture'. The entire 5 minutes segment is worth viewing:
Outrage as activists and journalists say the Star Spangled Banner should no longer be the National Anthem because it was written by slave owner Francis Scott Key - and suggest John Lennon's Imagine as a replacement
I can't wait to hear what the replacement names are going to be for Washington, DC and Columbus, Ohio, etc etc...and practically every city in the USA, and practically every state in the United States which are almost all named after places in England, which was so involved in the slave trade, one hundred and twenty years ago. This whole thing has gone so far past rational that it's completely in the realm of the absurd. We're experiencing the results of fifty years of United Nations dumbing-down education initiatives, which were quietly conceived in the Soviet Union. See: Robin Eubanks; Credentialed To Destroy.
NINETY-EIGHT percent of the murders of African Americans every year are perpetrated by other African Americans, mostly in drug related gang violence. TWO percent of the murders of African Americans every year are perpetrated by police.
ALL the anarchy, and rage, and fury is directed at the police and the system of law that we have in place, which always needs to be improved.
NO demonstrations, NO riots, NO burned buildings, NO marches, NO fury, NO signs are held up to say that BLACKS NEED TO STOP KILLING EACH OTHER. Black lives matter INDEED.
With all due respect, though I understand your intentions, we cannot escape from the issue of what a “White Jesus” represents. Perhaps you’ve heard about the Black Jesus or the Japanese Jesus—these examples make the point. Race should play no part in who Jesus is, yet some have made it so in these “White Jesus” depictions. It is just not right to depict Him in contradistinction to what he most likely looked like. Given, this, it is better, in my mind, to just do away with these sorts of things altogether, for they can only lead to unnecessary division.
As to the issue of the tearing down of other (Catholic) statues, this is merely the logical extension of such things as the ‘piss Christ’ “art” from a while ago, coupled with this more recent tearing down of statues generally. That is, our culture has been ‘at war’ with Christianity and Judeo-Christian values for quite a while, and this the culmination of it.
I was completely unfamiliar with the story of Theodotia, but now having heard it, I’m absolutely appalled. Not only did she rebel against the authority that God placed over her (Romans 13:1-7), she went so far as to shake the ladder of the man tasked with removing the statue—A STATUE—of Jesus such that the man fell to his death. That blood was/is on HER hands.
If/when the time should come, with the Spirit’s help, I will defend the Name (Person) of Jesus to my death, if necessary; however, I will never defend a STATUE or some other sort of representation of Jesus in such a manner, for THAT smacks of idolatry. It is one thing to view any given symbol or icon as REPRESENTING the P/person it is meant to represent; it is quite another to defend it AS IF the thing were the actual P/person Him/herself. In other words, it’s either a representative symbol OR it’s an idol. You cannot have it both ways.
All this reminds me of the lyrics by Neil Peart of the band RUSH in the track “Natural Science”:
When the ebbing tide retreats Along the rocky shoreline It leaves a trail of tidal pools In a short-lived galaxy Each microcosmic planet A complete society
A simple kind mirror To reflect upon our own All the busy little creatures Chasing out their destinies Living in their pools They soon forget about the sea...
Wheels within wheels in a spiral array A pattern so grand and complex Time after time we lose sight of the way Our causes can't see their effects … In their own image Their world is fashioned No wonder they don't understand
Always ready to talk about that which you do not know.
Firstly, Ohio was never named after any place in England. Ohio：
”U.S. state, admitted 1803, named for the river, which is from Seneca (Iroquoian) ohi:yo', a proper name from ohi:yo:h, literally "good river." The Seneca also used this of the Allegheny, which they considered the headwaters of the Ohio. Related: Ohian (1819); Ohioan (1818).”
https://www.etymonline.com/word/ohio
Secondly, slavery was outlawed in the United Kingdom (i.e., England, etc.) in 1772.
”I am really ashamed of my Country whenever I consider it [slavery]; and if ever I bid adieu to Virginia, it will be from that cause alone." Robert Beverly, 1761.
By the third quarter of the eighteenth century, Enlightenment ideals of freedom and equality for all men began to openly clash with the accepted practice of slavery. Highlighted by John Locke's examination of the nature of man and society in the 1690s, and reinforced and expanded upon by the works of David Hume, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and François-Marie Arouet (more commonly known by his pseudonym, Voltaire), intellectuals in the British world began to consider more closely the contrast between the natural rights of man and how they were governed in eighteenth-century society. The institution of slavery had embedded itself in the American colonies and elsewhere during the seventeenth century and became the basis for the creation of great wealth in the British Empire. Britain had no legalized slavery under English common law, but slave codes, endorsed by the Crown, had been developed in colonial assemblies. Moreover, slavery and the slave trade were endorsed by all European religious institutions and by international law.
The year 1772 was a watershed of sorts in the history of slavery-it might be called the beginning of its end, as the legal framework upon which slavery was based began to crumble, at least in England, beginning with the landmark decision in Somerset v. Stewart. James Somerset was a slave bought in Virginia by Charles Stewart, a Scots merchant and customs official with quite close Chesapeake ties. Stewart left Virginia for England in 1768, taking Somerset with him. In 1771, Somerset took his leave of Stewart and refused to return to a state of permanent servitude. He was soon arrested and imprisoned, but his case was taken up by Granville Sharp, an inveterate opponent to the institution of slavery as antithetical to the British constitution and English common law. In a decision handed down by William Murray, Baron (later Earl) of Mansfield and Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, the court narrowly held that "a master could not seize a slave in England and detain him preparatory to sending him out of the realm to be sold" and that habeas corpus was a constitutional right available to slaves to forestall such seizure, deportation and sale because they were not chattel, or mere property, they were servants and thus persons invested with certain (but certainly limited) constitutional protections. Although Mansfield took great care to phrase his holding in such a way that it could not be used for a broader precedent in determining the legal status of slaves or their rights, it was widely perceived quite differently on both sides of the Atlantic: Many, including many slaves, understood Somerset to have effectively abolished slavery in England (Somerset himself believed so). Its impact was profound in the colonies as some slaves invoked it to seek their own freedom.
Elsewhere (outside of the United Kingdom) in the then British Empire, slavery was abolished in 1833.
Racial discrimination was outlawed in 1965 in England too.
The Race Relations Act 1965 was the first piece of legislation in the UK to address the prohibition of racial discrimination and followed previously unsuccessful bills. The Act banned racial discrimination in public places and made the promotion of hatred on the grounds of ‘colour, race, or ethnic or national origins’ an offence.
The Bill received Royal Assent on 8 November 1965, and came into force a month later on 8 December 1965. It was introduced by the Government in response to the increasing number of people who had moved to the UK from other Commonwealth countries; at the time of the Act being passed there were nearly one million immigrants living in the UK. It was criticised for failing to address vital areas where discrimination was most prevalent, namely employment and wider aspects of acquiring accommodation. This led to the passing of the 1968 Race Relations Act, which made unlawful acts of discrimination within employment, housing and advertising.
I agree Craig. Could actually be akin to idolatry as you pointed out.
Christ in me as the Bible teaches, there by faith in the great Grace that God has afforded us, is what I will defend too. Outward expression means nothing really in the comparison to someone trying to topple, shake, or uproot Christ Who is in my heart. So they just might have to do that to get rid of that testimony of my life. I am not my own for I was bought at a price and who knows that may ultimately be it. Jesus was persecuted..crucified..for not fitting a worldview. I love His worldview instead, and may very well cost me. That has to be okay with a follower of Jesus because a follower is not greater than his Lord the Bibles also tells us.
So in my understanding it has never been about the externals really. Things may have a place, but not to be above God's plan and purpose. And God's kingdom is not of this world, anyway. The world is only acting as the world apart from the Lord acts like--and what I would very likely be like too, in some form or fashion, without the Lord reigning in my life--so no surprise is it?
Though I did learn some things from your comment, in all fairness, I must state you are in error on your first point. paul specifically mentioned Columbus, Ohio--the city--rather than Ohio the State in his example.
You're welcome. I fear that we are all quite prone to falling prey to dis-civil discourse in online exchanges. Though I try not to, I'm sure I've crossed this line at times. I'm making more of an effort to step back before making any comments, showing grace to anyone I criticize.
It's interesting how in the comments before this most recent post by Constance, the demonically hateful cultists went 'pit of hell' ballistic on RayB, and Paul, which is still evident in these newest comments here. But that's ok with the religionists who enjoy the quenching of the Spirit, and the endorphin release from exercising their fleshly minds. To the contentment of the master Pharisee. You Catholics in the last comments section proved that your ignorant children of the unholy one, but you would never realize that, because your blind with hatred! Shame on you, and those who failed to correct you. This is now the blog of hyper egotists, and religionists.
Indeed, Columbus, is where the emphasis should be placed and not on Ohio. Even so, the spirit of my point remains, in that it was a poor example for Paul to use as a run up to stating, ”almost all named after places in England, which was so involved in the slave trade, one hundred and twenty years ago”, and if Paul does not even understand that it was not from England that Columbus set sail in 1492, then there is no helping him.
Paul states things which are untrue and far too often come from a place of prejudice and ignorance. There are more than just Protestants or Americans visiting here. I have watched him insult and,attack people at whiim over the years. Sometimes, patience is a pearl others cannot appreciate.
Indeed, Columbus, is where the emphasis should be placed and not on Ohio. Even so, the spirit of my point remains, in that it was a poor example for Paul to use as a run up to stating, ”almost all named after places in England, which was so involved in the slave trade, one hundred and twenty years ago”, and if Paul does not even understand that it was not from England that Columbus set sail in 1492, then there is no helping him.
Paul states things which are untrue and far too often come from a place of prejudice and ignorance. There are more than just Protestants or Americans visiting here. I have watched him insult and attack people at whim over the years. Sometimes, patience is a pearl others cannot appreciate.
Sorry, 11:42 PM, but I think you are wrong about Paul. We can agree or disagree all we want, but I find him candid and without malice.
So many people are just too easily offended these days. Disagreeing without being disagreeable is something people have largely forgotten in these times we are living.
Anyone using Matthew 7:3-5 to criticize another completely misses Jesus’ point. This is an admonition for self-reflection, not a means by which to try to bludgeon another. When one uses this Scripture against another, the same is most often guilty of the very offense Jesus is warning about.
At the risk of inflaming non-RCC vs RCC 20.0, take 193, on this blog—which is definitely NOT my intent—I have a serious question for RCC adherents regarding statues of Jesus.
Before I get to this, let me restate my own background (briefly). I’m now just shy of being Sixty Years On (Elton John reference), and I’ve been a Christ-follower for 20. That means 2/3rds of my life was secular. I did have a decent Judeo-Christian moral grounding, and I was even sent off to various churches at times as a kid (probably to provide parents ‘alone time’), but I knew virtually nothing of the Christian faith in terms of doctrine. So I had a lot of catching up to do (and still do). Though I’m certainly not a Roman Catholic, I scarcely define myself as a “Protestant” (I’m not ‘protesting’!). I find most of these labels unhelpful. I’m a Bible-believing Christ-follower.
With that out of the way, my question will follow after my lead-off arguments to get to my point. If any point of my argument is incorrect with respect to RCC doctrine, I ask that you identify and correct it. Here goes.
Every good Catholic has a robust Christology, adhering to the Chalcedonian Definition (Creed). In short, Jesus is 100% God, 100% man. As part of the proceedings at Chalcedon 451, Leo I’s Epistola Dogmatica, aka “Leo’s Tome”, was accepted as describing proper Christology. In the “Tome”, Leo I rightly critiqued Nestorianism. This is based on what is the purported belief of Nestorious, which divided the human and Divine natures in Jesus to the point of implying two separate persons. This was declared heresy. In light of this, when speaking about Jesus, one must consider Him as one Person in two natures, indivisible. We might say, by concession, that when Jesus slept He did so because of His humanity, for God does not sleep. But we understand that Jesus slept as the Divine-human Person of Christ. My overarching point is that, while we recognize that Jesus is human, at the same time we NEVER consider Jesus as merely human at the expense of His Divinity. He is the God-man.
That said, how can statues of Jesus be justified? Since Jesus is God (the God-man), wouldn’t this necessarily be a direct violation of the first of the Ten Commandments?
That's alright, yet I do not find him candid. I find him to be downright rude insufferable, big-mouthed, and one to judge before knowing the facts of a situation. That is the reason I use Matthew 7:3-5 Hopefully Paul will research and self-reflect or ask before asserting things which his nation is far more responsible than England, for example.
Scanning back over the last few threads, it's clear that ALL the name-calling and vitriol, and ad-hominum, childish attacks are coming from some anonymous person; the same person who has hated my guts for a long time now, who is so obsessed with hating me that they still bring up little factoids about my life that they must have picked up many years ago. You sound like a really angry three year old girl.
For your information, there have been TWO Catholics posting on this blog recently (who, up until a few days ago, didn't even know each other). If you can't tell, from their two very different writing styles, that these are clearly two separate individuals... then you are not very observant. (Although, over the past 15 years, there were 4 of us.)
You refer to those of us who choose to DEFEND our Catholic faith against ATTACKS on this blog (which we have every RIGHT to do) as 'angry or childish'. Actually, we have managed to use a great deal of restraint... remaining very CALM (often using sarcasm and humor) in our responses to the vitriolic posts from both you and RayB.
If you are spending time scanning previous threads... clearly you have the same unhealthy OBSESSION with Catholics that RayB exhibits.
(And oh, by the way, neither of us posters is 'an angry 3 year old girl'... but, thanks for the laugh this morning.)
I get the impression that Constance, with this latest thread) may be attempting to heal any rifts on this blog.
Meanwhile, I am going to pray and ask God to heal you and RayB... and I truly hope that you both find peace.
Re: "... how can statues of Jesus be justified? Since Jesus is God (the God-man), wouldn’t this necessarily be a direct violation of the first of the Ten Commandments?"
Since we Catholics neither 'worship' or 'idolize' statues... we certainly do not see this as a violation of the first Commandment. Therefore, we are going to have to agree to disagree with your statement.
Meanwhile, why don't we just let God 'sort all of this out' (these differences between us) on Judgement Day... rather than here on this blog?
University of Idaho history professor Richard B. Spence has drawn many lines between revolutionary movements and esoteric societies. In addition to the parallel Constance draws between Nazis and New Agers, he shows connections between Synarchists and their like with French, Russian, German, Italian, and Mexican revolutionaries. He lays it all out here: https://www.thefarmpodcast.com/e/antimystery3
With respect, you’ve overlooked the most important aspect of my question, which I’ll more specifically identify after addressing your statement regarding worshiping or idolizing.
I fully understand the RCC distinction between veneration and worship. For example, a statue of, say, Athanasius is venerated rather than worshiped, for to worship the statue would be a form of idolatry. Accordingly, all statues and icons are venerated, not worshiped.
The logical conclusion of this position is such that a statue of Jesus must also be venerated, not worshiped, as you’ve stated. However, by necessary implication, this makes a statue of Jesus a depiction of a merelyhuman one, thereby denying His Divinity, exemplifying the very definition of Nestorianism, violating Chalcedon, and by extension, violating Scripture. On the other hand, if one maintains the proper balance of Chalcedon, affirming Christ as the Divine-human God-man, then one must simultaneously recognize that a statue of Jesus is a blatant violation of the first of the Ten Commandments. As I see it, you cannot have one without the other.
My question is how this inherent contradiction—as I perceive it—can be reconciled. Maybe it can be. At present, I just don’t see how, but I’m willing to be educated and shown to be in error.
Interesting how the 'catholics' all attacked vigorously in the last thread, and here again. Completely baseless demonic hatred toward two of the most prominent Christians who post here! AND, no rebuke of the Catholics from Mrs, Cumby! The same Mrs. Cumby who rebuked a poster on the last thread for supposed murderous thoughts against globalist criminal George Soros. All well and lovely but for the fact that Mrs Cumby was, until not that long ago, a decades long Democrat! The same Democrats who have satanically sacrificed the lives of unborn children to the tune of well over 50,000,000 million. Constance, for not unbiasedly policing your blog, for seemingly disliking Christians, and your support of the HOLOCAUST OF INNOCENT CHILDREN, you have ZERO credibility here. NONE!!!!! you should be ashamed of your yourself!
"THOU SHALT NOT MAKE UNTO THEE ANY GRAVEN IMAGE, OR ANY LIKENESS OF ANY THING THAT IS IN HEAVEN ABOVE, OR THAT IS IN THE EARTH BENEATH, OR THAT IS IN THE WATER UNDER THE EARTH:" Exodus 20:4 (Block lettering added for emphasis).
Constance Cumbey has proven herself to be a true Christian, full of wisdom and humility.
The New Age Movement has nothing to do with a person's political party. It is the final battle between good vs. evil / God vs. Satan. (She has spoken out time and time again against abortion and for the rights of the unborn.)
It must be very difficult for her to remain 'above the fray' on this blog.
We are all adults here, who should be able to 'police' ourselves. That is not her job.
Some "statues" come alive ! Some even shed "tears" (usually blood). But Mother Angelica had one of the most remarkable accounts ever recorded (actually ... there are lots and lots of these types of stories, but that a topic for another day).
Here is Mother Angelica's account:
In 1995, Mother Angelica visited the Sanctuary of the Divine Infant Jesus to attend Mass in Bogota, Columbia. After Mass, Father Juan Pablo took Mother Angelica into a small Shrine which housed the miraculous statue of the Child Jesus.
According to Mother Angelica, as she stood praying at the side of the statue, the "MIRACULOUS IMAGE SUDDENLY CAME ALIVE AND TURNED TOWARS HER. THEN THE CHILD JESUS SPOKE WITH THE VOICE OF A YOUNG BOY: "BUILD ME A TEMPLE AND I WILL HELP THOSE WHO HELP YOU." Thus began a great adventure that would eventually result in the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament, a Temple dedicated to the Divine Child Jesus, a place of refuge for all.
Don't miss this the "I WILL HELP THOSE WHO HELP YOU" promise made by the "statue." Translation: for all those that GIVE MONEY to BUILD the "temple," I will HELP THEM." WOW ! What a return on your investment, no wonder the fundraising went so well.
Mother Angelica went on to collect over $50 MILLION in order to "build the temple that was commanded by the talking statue. What's more, a replica of the miracle "Baby Statue" can be PURCHASED as well.
Have you ever asked yourself the question; WHO is it that benefits from the SALE of the LICENSED statues, images, etc. ? This is BIG BUSINESS folks ... literally MILLIONS of these images are sold every single year.
Who holds the Internationally protected license required to produce and SELL these items? I'll give you one guess. It starts with a V ... would you like to buy a vowel?
As long as he's quoting Scripture, here's a part of the Bible RayB has always avoided posting for some reason:
What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?
Can faith save him?
If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?
Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!
But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God.
You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Regarding your false claim (one that you have made on numerous occasions), I've never "avoided" the teachings of the Epistle of James, and have stated before on several occasions what is meant by "works" in James. Here I go again ...
"Works" is nothing other than faith put into practice. True faith is granted, by grace, and is a gift of the Sovereign God, as clearly stated in Ephesians 2:8,9
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: IT IS THE GIFT OF God: "Not of works, lest any man should boast." (block lettering for emphasis)
NOTE: Works is NOT a means by which JUSTIFICATION is obtained; works is a SIGN that a person has OBTAINED Justification through grace given faith. Works is a sign that faith has been put into action. Rehab had a fear of the God of Israel and revealed that faith based fear by her actions.
Many other passages and verses can be sited in order to clarify what James was writing, but here is just one such passage:
5 Not by WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH WE HAVE DONE, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Titus 3:5-7 (block lettering for emphasis)
If the parable of the fig tree's popular interpretation is correct, then you probably don't have much time left anyway. Next month Israel will annex territory, and I fear that will lead to a bust-up.
1948 - 2028 is 80 years. I reckon it's this decade. That's it.
You think you're nuts, then you read Matthew, Kicking down chairs, and knocking down statues, in a restaurant, in a west coast town, call the Trump, there's a madman around.
So sorry, I had not realized till I read you last post here how unwell you truly are. Your paranoid delusions of one person relentlessly stalking you as you frantically scan and scan,,seeing patterns which are not there. You really are not that important or interesting in my experience, Paul.
As I said in my earlier post, you really should take up that advice and seek out psychiatric care ASAP. Beg if you need to, just get that help. Narcissism is a difficult disorder to treat (just look at the state Ray B. is in). The problem with overt narcissists such as yourself, Saul, is you cannot pause for necessary self-reflection and you, to put it in language you can manage, get so triggered so very easily, as your post shows.
Don't let anyone, no matter how good intentioned, hold you back from getting the help you so clearly need.
Oh, it's really not easy for you now, is it?
It's clear you have very few, if any, real friends you can turn to. With ALL due respect, you cannot really blame them. Please get thst help now. Let the doc see your posts and others here ... be brave open and, if possible for you, honest with him or her.
"Outrage as activists and journalists say the Star Spangled Banner should no longer be the National Anthem because it was written by slave owner Francis Scott Key - and suggest John Lennon's Imagine as a replacement"
I have an idea. If they're so desperate, they can replace with 'Columbi, Gem of the Ocean'. Give a listen to it on YouTube. It's better.
So sorry, I had not realized till I read your last post here how unwell you truly are. Your paranoid delusions of one person relentlessly stalking you as you frantically scan and scan, seeing patterns which are not there. I do not wish to seem too unkind by inadvertently upsetting your fragile ego, however, you really are not that important or interesting in my experience, paul.
As I said in my earlier post, you really should take up that advice and seek out psychiatric care ASAP. Beg if you need to, just get that help. Narcissism is a difficult disorder to treat (just look at the state Ray B. is in). The problem with overt narcissists such as yourself, Saul, is you cannot pause for necessary self-reflection and you, to put it in language you can manage, get so triggered so very easily, as your post shows.
Don't let anyone, no matter how good intentioned, hold you back from getting the help you so clearly need.
Oh, it's really not easy for you now, is it?
It's clear you have very few, if any, real friends you can turn to. With ALL due respect, you cannot really blame them. Please get thst help now. Let the doc see your posts and others here ... be brave open and, if possible for you, honest with him or her.
Over the years, there have been several on this blog who did not get along with Paul. Our late friend, Dorothy was one who comes to mind (and she was not even a Catholic).
The problem with Ray B, to put it kindly, is when he's caught out and something threatens to unravel his narrative he goes into denial, silence, obfuscation, convenient "memory loss", etc. It seems Craig and Christine caught him out on that one, with his heresy regarding the nature and reality of the Resurrection.
Ray B doesn't understand that works are an expression of love, which is greater than faith. It is a real problem for Calvinists, whose perversion of God's character blinds them in the hardheartedness of their forever Protestant false "pope", the sociopath, John Murderous Calvin. Ray B, therefore, forgets the story of the good Samaritan, for example. Without works our faith is dead.
Over the years, I have noticed that Craig is always fair when debating Catholics... and he is always respectful. As a result, Catholics here on this blog respect Craig.
Just twisting truth as Catholics have been doing here for years. Exaggerating, deflecting, and lying. They say it's sarcasm, and humor!!! And, with no correction from the blog owner! Never,,, and for many years! Constance loves her religionists, and has contempt for 'born again' Christians. Your a disgusting person Constance. If you had 'fairly' policed your blog over the years things would have been much better. But it's just not in your 'non existent character'! Shame on you!
Even for the natural, sinful state of fallen man, I find it utterly amazing that anyone would support a "religion" that actually promulgates stories of "statues coming to life," while giving instructions to "build a temple, etc." Every year, stories of stone statues of "Mary" show "life" by weeping tears of "blood." The whole thing isn't a "miracle" at all, it's either a gigantic, purposeful fraud, or, it is a demonic deception. We know it CAN'T be of God because He very distinctly forbids creating images, as found in Exodus 20:4:
"THOU SHALT NOT MAKE UNTO THEE ANY GRAVEN IMAGE, OR ANY LIKENESS OF ANY THING THAT IS IN HEAVEN ABOVE, OR THAT IS IN THE EARTH BENEATH, OR THAT IS IN THE WATER UNDER THE EARTH:" (Block lettering added for emphasis).
Furthermore, such utter, complete nonsense has a very keen relationship and basis with the far out "channeling" with the dead that is found in the New Age Movement and in Sorcery.
As a long time admirer of Constance Cumbey... I believe that I speak for many of the long time posters here... who strongly OBJECT to anyone who would dare to slander her character (especially on her OWN blog!). I mean, that takes some nerve on your part. If you're not happy here... why don't you leave?
Interesting how the 'catholics' all attacked vigorously in the last thread, and here again. Completely baseless demonic hatred toward two of the most prominent Christians who post here! AND, no rebuke of the Catholics from Mrs, Cumby! The same Mrs. Cumby who rebuked a poster on the last thread for supposed murderous thoughts against globalist criminal George Soros. All well and lovely but for the fact that Mrs Cumby was, until not that long ago, a decades long Democrat! The same Democrats who have satanically sacrificed the lives of unborn children to the tune of well over 50,000,000 million. Constance, for not unbiasedly policing your blog, for seemingly disliking Christians, and your support of the HOLOCAUST OF INNOCENT CHILDREN, you have ZERO credibility here. NONE!!!!! you should be ashamed of your yourself!
11:24 AM
Anonymous said...
12:51 P.M.
Just twisting truth as Catholics have been doing here for years. Exaggerating, deflecting, and lying. They say it's sarcasm, and humor!!! And, with no correction from the blog owner! Never,,, and for many years! Constance loves her religionists, and has contempt for 'born again' Christians. Your a disgusting person Constance. If you had 'fairly' policed your blog over the years things would have been much better. But it's just not in your 'non existent character'! Shame on you!
2:08 PM
(Constance, no offense, but shouldn't you tell your jealous and bitter old ex-husband to take a hike?)
These self-appointed 'two most prominent christians' are exhibiting anything BUT christian-like behavior on this blog. They are like two very immature spoiled BRATS who, when they don't get their way, start attacking the leader of this blog... and attacking HER character with one NASTY comment after another!!!
(It looks like your TRUE 'character' is slowly being revealed here for ALL to see.)
Just for the record, and I've said this before, I'll say it again; I have never ... as in NEVER ... posted anything on this blog site by using any other name other than "RayB." I'm sure Constance has ways to verify the truthfulness of that statement.
I don't think Paul needs me to speak for him, but, having read his posts for years now, I can't imagine in even the slightest way, that he would post ANYTHING under another name either. Doing so is dishonest, IMO, and Paul does not seem to me to be anything other than sincere and honest, as revealed in his posts.
Once again, when these people have NOTHING, which they obviously don't, they resort to name calling, innuendo, lies, hatred, slander, etc.
Anyone with even two brain cells can see that they NEVER address anything of any substance regarding the CONTENT of the posts regarding Roman Catholicism, but rather, they attack the PERSON.
Their evil hatred, lies, slanderous attacks that they expressed in the previous thread might have reached an all time low in that regard, and that is really saying something for this blog.
" ...it CAN'T be of God because He very distinctly forbids creating images, as found in Exodus 20:4":
"THOU SHALT NOT MAKE UNTO THEE ANY GRAVEN IMAGE, OR ANY LIKENESS OF ANY THING THAT IS IN HEAVEN ABOVE, OR THAT IS IN THE EARTH BENEATH, OR THAT IS IN THE WATER UNDER THE EARTH:" (Block lettering added for emphasis).
The point is not the forbidding of graven images but the worship of them. Exodus 20 here, was written at a time whwn people had been worshiping the golden calf, etc.
The ban is not on images per se, as clarified in the, following verse that one should not:“bow down to them nor serve them” (Ex. 20:5).
If images in and of themselves were intended to be banned by God, then why did he instruct for two cherubim to stand either side of the Mercy Seat on the Ark of the Covenant? And yet the high priest would have bowed in front of it, yet the intention of his heart and the focus of his mind would have been on God Himself and what the Ark represented, and not on the Ark of the Covenant itself.
I think a distinction is to be drawn between bowing to statues with the intention of worshiping the statue and bowing, as one may before the flag of one's country or king (e.g., King David), which is not to worship but to show respect for that which they represent, and worshiping the statue itself.
I myself as a Catholic, and the Catholics I know, do not bow to statues per se as to worship them as gods. They are mere depictions, which may remind us of God in Heaven and his loving mercy. Our hearts' intentions are, and the focus of our minds is to worship God in Heaven and He alone.
Otherwise, Ray B., you should avert your eyes from photos, paintings or television, and get rid of the wedding album, etc. Or do you never look adoringly at the image of your wife on her wedding day (though I trust, of course, your mind would be on her ... careful you're not worshiping her though)?
To the person blaming Democrats for abortion. Remember, 5 of the 6 Republican appointed judges in 1972 voted in favor of Roe v. Wade (and only 2 of the 3 Democrats appointed Judges approved it in a 7-2 decision). A Republican dominated court also gave us Gay marriage and, really all the progressive decisions the last 70 years The Republicans have controlled the Supreme Court since the 1950's. Thus the Republicans have just as much, if not more, blood on their hands. And, despite the platform, they don't really want to change anything. Almost 50 years and it still stands.
Here's a great film about the Abortion movement and issues with and failures of (the Catholic run) National Right to Life and, really republicans to end abortion.
"Babies are Still Murdered Here (full film)" - https://youtu.be/9-vyYE6C8MU
When conservative [and catholic] Matt Walsh went on the offensive when a Pennsylvania congressman from Philly verbally attacked a woman protesting in front of an abortion clinic, street apologist Si Ten Bruggencate challenged and exposed his lack of faith as well as that of the National Right to Life (i.e. - when you removed the bible from the debate - you give up the most powerful weapon - the Gospel saves)
"How to Answer Matt Walsh" - https://youtu.be/IIxjE2UIxkA
If you enjoyed the parts of the film about John Barros, a street preacher who has for years showed up at a large Orlando abortion clinic protesting and trying to save babies on the front lines as much as I did, then you may like this bonus interview.
"Answer Anyone: John Barros Full Interview" -https://youtu.be/xXaCmJaPAgc
If anyone is looking for something else interesting to watch this weekend that is poignant to the times, here's a link to the 1 hour and 48 minute film put out by Founders Ministries, featuring Dr. Thomas Ascol, R. Albert Mohler, Vodie Bauchamand and many others discussing and debating the concepts of critical race theory and intersectionality to the real-time backdrop of the SBC introducing and hurriedly passing "Resolution 9", incorporating such concepts "as a tool" into the SBC philosophies, at the 2019 SBC Convention last year.
Some of what I heard watching it again tonight. -perfect strategy to destroy the church -If it's in the SBC...it's everywhere -The culture war is over and it naturally leads to the left -inevitably a "great divide" is coming.
Here's the link: https://founders.org/cinedoc/
“The main consequence of Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality is identity politics, and identity politics can only rightly be described as antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We have to see identity politics as disastrous for the culture and nothing less than devastating for the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.” -John MacArthur https://baptistmessage.com/john-macarthur-rebukes-sbc-stance-on-critical-race-theory/
The IGNORANCE is, unfortunately yours. During the years I was active in the Democratic Party (1968 to 1980), much of the party leadership was staunchly and fiercely anti-Abortion. William A. Ryan was the speaker of the Michigan House of Representatives. He was my boss and was passionately pro-life and anti-abortion without compromise. The pro-abort in the Michigan legislature in those days was a REPUBLICAN Dearborn, Michigan State Senator by the name of Lorraine Beebe. She spoke passionately, loudly, and unashamedly of her own abortion of which she was very proud.
As long as William A. Ryan was in a position of power in the Michigan Democratic Party, anybody wishing to get anywhere in Democratic Party circles was well advised to decry abortion, which most then did.
A prominent Republican who was anti-abortion whom I also had the privilege of being acquainted was Senator Huebner. The pro-abortion activists liked to challenge him because of his pro-capital punishment position. Capital punishment is banned in Michigan. Huebner was advocating a change of the Michigan 1963 Constitution to permit it. The activists would ask him how he could reconcile his stance against abortion with his pro-capital punishment position. I did not see it myself, but the legendary account of his answer was this: He chomped on his cigar and then slowly said, "As I see it, the kid's innocent."
I personally have probably forgotten more about George Soros' position than most have ever known. I own and have read most of his books. He proudly proclaims his self-admitted Messianic complex -- believing himself God. Still, I am not going to clutter and defame this blogspot with statements perhaps even from agents-provocateur calling for violence against Soros. "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord."
Vis a vis the subject of images, I note that although the Torah forbade images, nevertheless, the Jews were ordered by God to make images of Cherubim and Seraphim angelic beings.
My guess as to why this was done was to defeat the later Gnostic argument (also advanced by Dave Hunt) that the Angels and Demons were spirit only and could not suffer hell fire. ) This was, unfortunabely, also advanced by Dave Hunt in his book WHATEVER HAPPENED TO HEAVEN, pages 27-29.
Vis a vis the subject of images, I note that although the Torah forbade images, nevertheless, the Jews were ordered by God to make images of Cherubim and Seraphim angelic beings.
My guess as to why this was done was to defeat the later Gnostic argument (also advanced by Dave Hunt) that the Angels and Demons were spirit only and could not suffer hell fire. ) This was, unfortunately, also advanced by Dave Hunt in his book WHATEVER HAPPENED TO HEAVEN, pages 27-29.
Regarding the first video referenced by Anon 11:44 PM, I started watching it, and @ about 6:50 Dr. Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr. claim that “the sexual abuse thing” within the SBC was “God’s judgment” because the SBC forbids women preachers, leading him to further make the ridiculous ‘analogy’ that such thinking led to the sexual abuse of women within the SBC. In response to such a non sequitur, such ridiculosity, someone from the audience interjects, after which Dr. Thomas Ascol says to McKissic, “Yeah, bro-, brother…” upon which McKissic looks his way stating “Bruh?”, which seems rude and dismissive to me, if not vaguely racist. I could just imagine if this were reversed with McKissic first saying “Yeah, bruh…” to which Ascol would look at him and say, “Brother?” Now, of course, I don’t know the heart and intent of either, so I’ll stop there.
Let me digress for a moment to add further perspective. About 1.5 years into my faith journey (18.5 years ago), I was going through a very difficult time as my wife was divorcing me, and in meeting with a prospective client, he discerned something was disturbing me (I’d not told him anything), prompting him to ask discernedly, “Are you a Christian?” When I answered in the affirmative, he recommended local Christian radio and a few specific preachers. Upon returning to my car, I tuned to the station he recommended, and I’ve been listening for the past 18+ years. One of the speakers I ended up enjoying and listening to regularly was Dr. Tony Evans (Urban Alternative ministry), a black preacher.
The church I was going to at the time had a “Divorce Care” class, which I began attending (I highly recommend this for anyone who is either going through and has been divorced). And some of Dr. Evans’ teaching was incorporated into the material.
However, I’d been noticing that recently he started bringing up race more and more in his sermons, making erroneous statements based on faulty statistics, that I think most likely came from secondary sources that he just assumed were correct. I began to lose respect for him, as he went more and more in this direction. The following recent video exemplifies this direction (though it’s not the most egregious example):
This is not to say Evans is incorrect in many of his statements regarding US history, but to implicitly maintain that ‘the system’ still has an anti-black bias without acknowledging the steps that have been taken since especially the mid-60s is a bit one-sided.
In viewing many of the comments, you can see he is being taken to task for this. “BrotherofWord” has a pretty good one: I love Tony Evans and have listened to Urban Alt since the 90's, but he is off target here unless the title is "What WAS Systemic Racism". Slavery, 3/5, Jim Crowe, segregation, redlining, unfair lending and unfair hiring were all egregious examples of evil and were systemic. What are examples TODAY, so we can tear them down together?
Your online stalker(s) are to be pitied. Imagine the mental state of somebody who would hang onto a grudge for years, and repeatedly seek petty vengeance on you; all because you once wrote something online that he/she disagreed with, misunderstood or disliked. Such a person has a tiny little Grinch heart on the inside.
To add more balance to my previous post, I recall one of the funniest things Tony Evans said. He is usually a pretty serious preacher, but he took me by surprise one time. He was preaching through Daniel and the account of the fiery furnace, speaking of “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-NEGRO”. I recall being in the car at the time, and upon hearing it bursting out laughing! His ministry is to inner city black youth, so I understood his intent.
Another favorite is Pastor Paul Sheppard, based out of Fremont, CA. In fact, he is so popular here in San Antonio, that his daily programming (M-F) is replayed back-to-back, all five broadcasts, early Sunday mornings. Another radio favorite is local Pastor Ray D. Brown of Resurrection Baptist Church. He is very articulate, yet delivers his sermons in a very down-to-earth manner, actively engaging his audience.
"Maybe you should learn from Pastor DAY D. Brown, Craig?" was at first glance what I thought was another 'Massa Craig'-type comment but on second thought I suppose that they DIDN'T deliberately misspell his name so the poster meant to say that Craig should endeavor to be more like Pastor RAY D. Brown: very articulate, yet delivers his sermons in a very down-to-earth manner, actively engaging his audience.
I agree with you that Exodus 20:4 must be put in context vs. 5 AND vs. 3, as the RCC does in its version of the Ten Commandments. That stated, I will post the section of the Catechism which pertains to this in my very next comment (it’s quite a bit), for the benefit of all. I will comment later as I gather some thoughts in order to critique. And I think critique is fair, given that this is one of the main subjects of Constance's blog post here.
2110 The first commandment forbids honoring gods other than the one Lord who has revealed himself to his people. It proscribes superstition and irreligion. Superstition in some sense represents a perverse excess of religion...
2112 The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of "idols, (of) silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see." These empty idols make their worshippers empty: "Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them." God, however, is the "living God" who gives life and intervenes in history.
2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and mammon." Many martyrs died for not adoring "the Beast" refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.
2129 The divine injunction included the prohibition of every representation of God by the hand of man. Deuteronomy explains: "Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure...." It is the absolutely transcendent God who revealed himself to Israel. "He is the all," but at the same time "he is greater than all his works."
2130 Nevertheless, already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim.
2131 Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons - of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new "economy" of images.
2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it." The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone:
Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. the movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.
Sorry, my second link above was defective. But it can be easily found by clicking “Next” from the previous one, as an alternative.
In any event, note the verbiage in 2132: "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it." The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone. By the RCC’s Catechism, Theodosia violated the spirit and intent of 2132 in defending the statue of Jesus. That is, the veneration is to go through the image and to the person portrayed in the image and NOT to the image itself. Theodosia is guilty of idolatry (Catechism 2113)—the very thing this section is warning against. So, why was she subsequently canonized as a Saint?
Whoops ... he seems to know you so well. He sounds like a former lodger with whom you were shacked. Strangely fond indeed. Or perhaps you've written the post yourself, paul? Aware or not of having done,so.
Do make it a priority to seek out a mental health professional, paul. You really are not well at all.
To the 9:36 AM provocateur (plus any others attempting to 'stir the pot'):
Regarding your following statement full of ERRORS: "Your online stalker(s) are to be pitied. Imagine the mental state of somebody who would hang onto a grudge for years, and repeatedly seek petty vengeance on you; all because you once wrote something online that he/she disagreed with, misunderstood or disliked. Such a person has a tiny little Grinch heart on the inside."
Over the past 15 years, there have been 4 primary traditional Catholics who have posted here on this blog. As we have read Constance's best selling books, "The Hidden Dangers of The Rainbow" and "A Planned Deception - The Staging of a New Age Messiah"... our only goal was to contribute by sharing information (links to articles, etc.) exposing the New Age Movement.
However, soon, we Catholics were blindsided by frequent attacks from Paul... who was clearly OBSESSED with Catholics We chose not to remain silent, but to fight back ~ as any devout traditional Catholic Christian would do. We soon learned that debating doesn't work with Paul. He attacks with venom and vitriol.
For many years, the only 'stalker' on this blog was Paul. Now, RayB has become Paul's 'partner in crime'. (Just imagine how devastated they are going to be if their wishful thinking doesn't pan out... and the Pope turns out NOT to be the antichrist?)
Paul's refusal to ACCEPT our God-given RIGHT to our belief in our one true Catholic faith, religion, church as founded by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in 33 AD... is clearly Paul's problem, not ours. It HAS become an obsession with Paul... lasting for at least 15 years (that we know of).
When someone has an OBSESSION (about anything)... it IS a mental health issue. Ask any psychiatrist, who would recommend treatment asap.
Yes, of course, we recognize that evil forces are at work in the world... infiltrating ALL of the churches (both Protestant and Catholic)... but that doesn't mean we are going to ABANDON our faith. That is just NOT going to happen. We have the promise of Jesus HIMSELF in 33 AD: "... And the gates of Hell shall NOT prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18).
So, continue to spin and distort the truth... and mock and slander our beliefs. We will ALL meet soon enough on Judgement Day!!! Looking forward to it.
Meanwhile, may God grant all of the HATERS on this blog PEACE... and forgiveness for failing to 'judge not lest ye be judged" (Matthew 7-l).
I remember how thoroughly rude Paul was to Susanna. She is such a lovely lady, great information, full of tje love of Christ, yet no matter how much she turned the other cheek, he tore into her over and again.
I would not be surprised if Paul's anonymous (p)sychophant is Paul himself or his former homosexual lodger with whom he shacked.
I fully agree, Paul really does need long term and intensive psychiatric help.
Perverted sadism is clearly showing through in what you are saying while you're attacking Paul. How nice. Perhaps 'Sandra' is single, she'd be a fitting partner to one of you.
…oh, and Elvis didn’t really “take” Little Richard’s act, he at least acknowledged his debt to him. And at least Elvis could dance AND sing, while Pat Boone could do neither. Boone’s version of “Tutti Fruiti” is so cringey, I couldn’t even listen to it as a seven-year-old—or whenever it was I first heard it. Boone just can’t, just can’t…
Regarding Susanna, yes I’ll agree that she is an upstanding and brilliant lady (“lovely” is a British-ism that doesn’t quite translate to American English). And the times when we’ve disagreed, we’ve done so amicably, even when things may have gotten a bit contestable (if that’s the right word). She has certainly shown grace to me and many others here. She may have done so imperfectly, as I know I have. Having said that, this sort of grace is found wanting from some of the words of some RCC adherents in this thread. And I daresay I don’t think Susanna would approve.
Of course, that’s not to say some Protestants (and etc.?) have not been acting in similar fashion in recent comments. They definitely have. And I don’t care for this lack of grace either.
I certainly believe one has every right to defend oneself and one’s own faith-belief, but fighting ad hominem with more ad hominem just breeds more ad hominem. Let’s all try to be the better person. The better Christian.
The China Coronavirus 5G Connection is a very important factor when trying to comprehend the coronavirus (formerly abbreviated 2019-nCoV, now COVID-19) outbreak. Various independent researchers around the web, for around 2-3 weeks now, have highlighted the coronavirus-5G link despite the fact that Google (as the self-appointed NWO Censor-in-Chief) is doing its best to hide and scrub all search results showing the connection. The coronavirus 5G connection doesn’t mean the bioweapons connection is false (it’s not a case of either-or), but rather broadens the scope of the entire event. Wuhan was one of the test cities chosen for China 5G rollout; 5G went live there on October 31st, 2019, almost exactly 2 months before the coronavirus outbreak began. Meanwhile, many scientific documents on the health effects of 5G have verified that it causes flu-like symptoms. This article reveals the various connections behind the coronavirus phenomenon, including how 5G can exacerbate or cause the kind of illness you are attributing to the new virus. The rabbit hole is deep so let’s take a dive.
5G – A Type of Directed Energy Weapon . . .
Much more at the link to this article (dated February, 2020) . . .
I watched the homily of Father Robert Altier. I was curious about him and looked him up. I read here about how he was silenced and transferred when he spoke out about "Talking about Touching". I was impressed by his integrity.
Then I scrolled down and noticed the sales pitch (not his sales pitch, but coming from the people who wrote sympathetically about him, so I had been prepared to think these were the good Christian Catholics). To be fair, lots of Protestant end times sites are also selling things (books and videos, mostly).
To be fair to Father Robert Altier the sales pitch cut quite the contrast to his homily in the video in this post. His homily was about, in part, being willing to lose any material thing in order to serve God.
What you are about to read represents probably the biggest waste of time in my life, though that does not mean it will be a waste for time for you. This is my magnum opus against the false and stupid Bayside apparitions. For the past three years I have spent my spare time reading through every single message of Bayside, going all the way back to the late 1960s. Thousands of them. The monotony. The stupidity. The banality. It was horrendous, mind-numbing work, and many times friends of mine urged me to just drop it and move on to something more rewarding. It is waste for two reasons - one, just wasting my years reading all these banal, stupid messages; and two, the fact that, for those caught up in Bayside, nothing will convince them otherwise. People who are sold out to questionable apparitions are obstinate in their stubbornness and exceptional in their ability to fabricate excuses and work-arounds for all the problems that inevitably crop up when one puts ones faith in something so inherently dumb. So yes, I fear this effort was a waste. But, who knows. God may bring something fruitful from it.
A word about the messages: the messages of Bayside delivered by Veronica Lueken are divided up by month and year. Some months have one or two messages; others have over a dozen. Some messages were short, others very, very long and rambling. They begin in 1968 and go up to June, 1994, when Veronica died. The text of the messages are taken from a website called These Last Days Ministries, commonly known as TLDM.org, which is the largest internet repository of the messages of Veronica. Now, there is some sort of schism among Baysiders regarding this website; some purists claim that the webmaster of TLDM has incorrectly transcribed some of the messages - these folks suggest the only "authentic" version of them are found in some books. However, this opinion is not universal, and even if TLDM has not transcribed the messages with 100% accuracy, they are not that different from what is found in the books, which I also had access to and compared some of the more saucier passages to.
I have here simply categorized all the problems I see with the messages. Not everything is "heresy"; I am not making that accusation. Some of it is, but some of it is incorrect history, failed prophecies, weirdness or just plain stupidity. These all constitute "red flags" that should give pause to anyone evaluating the credibility of this apparition. According to my own personal standards of credibility, even one of these problems would be sufficient to cast doubt on the whole thing, but I understand others' standards may be different.
Stefanie Stark: What are the moral implications of sacrificing a small number of individuals who we know will have severe adverse reactions, including death, to vaccines for the greater good of the community, the state, the country, the world?
ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR.: That raises a number of ethical issues. Also, it raises a question: what do we know about vaccine safety and efficacy? That is a threshold question because vaccines are not safety tested, and people find that hard to believe, but unfortunately, it’s true. And that is an artifact of CDC’s (CDC stands for “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention”) legacy of the public health service, which was originally a quasi-military agency. That is why CDC officials have military ranks such as “Surgeon General.”
The vaccine program was conceived as a national security defense against biological attacks on our country by the Russians or other Cold War enemies. The military objective was to be able to fabricate and deploy a vaccine very quickly to 200 million Americans without regulatory impediments. The regulators and generals understood that testing medicines for safety takes years, so they opted to call vaccines by a different name — “Biologics” — and exempt biologics from safety testing.
As a result of that decision, none of the 72 vaccines now mandated for American children have ever been safety tested against a double-blind placebo. Which means nobody knows the risk profile, and nobody can say with any certitude that the vaccine is averting more problems than it’s causing. That is why I say it’s a “threshold” issue because the ethical questions become much more clouded if we don’t even know if the vaccine is actually serving the greater good.
I have tried to create categories to make it easier to read. Within each category, the actual messages of Bayside (or descriptions of what the messages describe) appear in bold with the exact date appearing afterward for reference. My commentary follows each selection. I have researched many private apparitions over the years, true and false, notable and obscure - Medjugorje, Garabandal, Fatima, Pinckney, Emmitsburg, the "Army of Mary" - Bayside takes the cake as the absolute stupidest, most unbelievable and ridiculously ludicrous of them all.
I have created a table of contents for ease of browsing. For what its worth, enjoy.
1. Distracted, Absentminded Mary and Veronica 2. Bizarre Angelology 3. False/Failed Prophecies 4. Bad Grammar/Jesus and Our Lady Messing Up Their Words 5. Bayside Necessary for our Salvation? 6. Bad Theology 7. Frivolous Subject Matter 8. Simply Ridiculous 9. Television 10. Contradictions 11. Absurd Alleged Statistics about Satanism 12. Conclusion
Distracted, Absentminded Mary and Veronica
Mary frequently gets distracted during her apparitions. This is not unlike the absurd situation at Medjugorje where one of the visionaries, supposedly in an ecstasy, tried to explain her embarrassing flinching by saying that Mary looked as if she were going to drop the baby Jesus! Other times, the apparitions are described as being responsive to local temperature and conditions (Jesus wearing a cape because "it's very windy"). Here are some examples of Mary distracted at Bayside, or Veronica getting distracted during an alleged apparition:
Mary looks up and gets distracted by an airplane (June 18th, 1994)
You'd think Mary would not get distracted by shiny things in the sky.
"He [Jesus] has a beautiful golden - tinged robe about Him now. It’s pulled very tight, I don’t know if it’s because of the wind or what, but He’s pulling the gown about Him to prevent it from flying up, I guess. It looks very windy there." (June 18, 1994)
"And He has on a cape, an ecru, almost white-colored cape over His gown. It’s quite, it’s quite a bit chilly over here. That is why I would assume that Jesus is wearing His cape." (June 18, 1994)
Here, God the Son and His Mother depend upon Veronica to obtain a very trite piece of information for their records:
"Now you will continue, My child; look forward and find the other wheelchair, My child. It seems to be hidden. It is very necessary that you find that invalid, because we must have their name and address." (June 18, 1988)
Jesus and Mary need to get somebody's name and address!?
Mary tells Veronica to pray the Rosary. Veronica forgets Mary is coming back:
"I'm sorry, Our Lady. I had almost forgotten that You were coming back. I was so engrossed with the people in the infirm circle." (June 18, 1992)
You "forgot" that the Blessed Virgin Mother of God was returning to you?
Bayside has prompted devotions to questionable spiritual entities with no history in the Catholic Tradition. Ever heard of Tomdarius and Tusazeri? According to Veronica, St. Theresa encourages the faithful to interact with these strange beings, whatever they are:
Saint Theresa - "You know, my sister, many of the names. Will you give some this evening to others?"
Veronica - Yes. There's Tomdarius, Tusazeri…. He is my guardian angel, but he's quite a clown. He likes to circle around. And right now he’s turning and spinning again. He always does that when he sees me; he turns and spins. And now also, there's Razene and Nadina and many others.(Oct 1, 1988)
It has been a perennial discipline in the Catholic Church that spiritual beings are not to be summoned, communicated with, or invoked by name other than those whose names are specifically revealed in Scripture (Michael, Gabriel, Raphael). You simply don't know to whom you are speaking when you invoke Tusazeri. Tusazeri, explains Veronica, his not only her guardian angel, but one of the archangels:
"I ... have asked Our Lady if I could have permission to tell who Tusazeri is. Our Lady says I may. Tusazeri is one of the high archangels of Heaven who Jesus sent to be with me when Theresa started the Mission for Heaven in 1968. He was sent by Jesus to protect me in this work against satan. Many times I have forgotten to call upon him when there are difficulties" (Feb 1, 1973).
This would mean that Veronica, alone in all of Christian tradition, has an archangel - a "high archangel" - as her personal guardian angel, presumably of the same rank with Michael, Gabriel and Raphael, the only other "archangels" known to Tradition. What hubris.
In another place, Mary tells the faithful that they need no longer concern themselves with the work of evangelization in the world because this task has been entrusted exclusively to the angels!
“My child, you must not use the little strength you have to try to convert all upon earth. You will have to give this to the angels to do most of this work of conversion. (May 26, 1979).
The angels have many jobs in Scripture and Tradition, but evangelizing has always been the job of humans. As we shall see later, this withdrawal from active evangelization is part of the cultic exclusivity of Bayside, which encourages believers to simply withdraw among themselves and shun those who do not believe in the apparitions. And yet, on June 9, 1979, Jesus says through Veronica, "You cannot and must not break away and form your own groups."
After relating an angelic vision of St. Michael and the Archangels, Veronica is given this number to combat the forces of Satan:
Jesus: “All you will repeat, My child, are the numbers ‘77 3,’ ‘77 3,’ ‘77 3.’ Remember, My child, as Lucifer goes forward with his plan against the papacy watch for ‘77 3’!” (Sept. 28, 1979)
Repeat 77 3? Is this sound Catholic spirituality?
Veronica herself states that the initial apparitions were accompanied by bizarre supernatural phenomenon:
"On August 4, 1968, at about 5:30 a.m., Veronica was in the living room making preparations for the early morning Mass. Suddenly this same framed letter went floating across the living room, as though propelled by an unseen, unknown force, and crashed with a loud noise at Veronica's feet. This turned out to be a little much." ("Occulations from Heaven", pg. 5).
Is this how our Lord or the Holy Angels manifest themselves? Veronica's son Raymond, who was twelve years old in 1970, testified on tape on July 27, 1970 that the Lueken house was widely believed to be haunted by the neighbors due to some of these bizarre occurrences.
Jesus said "Anyone who obeys God’s laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
“But I warn you—unless your righteousness is better than the righteousness of the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven!
“You have heard that our ancestors were told, ‘You must not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment.’ But I say, if you are even angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the court. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell." Matt 5:19b-22
Is there something you’d like to say? Frankly, here in this thread, you’ve been the target of some unseemly comments, by more than one person. You could return fire. Or you could ignore it. Or you could apologize for your part in these exchanges. Or you could wait for one of the others to apologize instead. But they may not apologize. Then we’d have a stalemate. Maybe even a temporary ceasefire. Maybe even a permanent one. Maybe.
----
To the others,
Frankly, here in this thread, you’ve been the target of some unseemly comments, by more than one person. You could return fire. Or you could ignore it. Or you could apologize for your part in these exchanges. Or you could wait for one of the others to apologize instead. But they may not apologize. Then we’d have a stalemate. Maybe even a temporary ceasefire. Maybe even a permanent one. Maybe.
----
To all,
Maybe the Scriptures we claim as the bedrock of our faith provide some sort of guidance in these circumstances. Maybe.
paul is a good poster. Apologize for what? He's forthright, but not unkind. He does not attack people but he has sure been personally targeted lately.
I don't get why people can't just disagree, defend their position, and do it without turning nasty. If people's beliefs are so strong and good then they should be able to defend them and take some opposition but not feel somehow threatened by those questioning them. That is a sign of weakness somewhere along their line.
Frankly also Craig, did you apologize for your unseemly comments targeting Ray B? Your ugly exchange with him went on for sometime, and it turned very nasty. Even now, you occasionally write underhanded comments and we all know who you mean.
Nobody set you up as judge and jury here and you are no voice of authority when it comes to meekness. You are truculent, arrogant and hypocritical.
But seriously, Craig, 11:26 PM's fawning praises of you aside...
HOW CAN YOU LIVE WITH YOURSELF?
You talk about Christian behavior and inflict Pat Boone's rendition of Tutti Frutti on us poor, unsuspecting blogites?
I'm afraid I'll have to teach you a lesson and I hope you take your punishment like a man.
As the youngster caught drinking beer was given a glass of whiskey as punishment, in like manner you are given this to listen to in its entirety: The 200 Proof Nightmare
In looking at the comments here in this thread by paul, he's not engaged in any ad hominem exactly, though "You sound like a really angry three year old girl" is perhaps not the best way to respond. And if we're comparing, I'll agree that the other comments in this thread were much worse than paul's here, and some were clearly ad hominem. I've no recollection of past exchanges with RCC adherents, so I cannot comment either way.
None of this is to say or imply that I've been perfect in my responses either. I've never made such a claim. And if anyone remains offended by something I'd said, I will do my best to make it right. Just let me know.
In any event, I will agree that it would sure be nice to disagree without being disagreeable.
I am afraid I just cannot agree Paul has been somewhat mild in comparison. For years, we have endured his abrasive and deeply insulting posts, both against Catholic Christians here and falsehoods against Catholicism itself. Over the years Paul has insulted at will, without an ounce of Christian humility whatsoever. He often accused anonymous posters of shooting from the weeds, yet replied to many a post (both anonymous and otherwise) with as much venom as he could muster, even going "incognito" himself judging by the writing style and timing of certain posts.
Over the past month or so, he and Ray B. have increased their despicable behavior against Catholics and deeply misrepresenting our faith without having the decency (as always) of asking one of us or entering into gentle and civilized discourse. Again, this month they have pushed untruthful and hurtful caricatures of the Society of Jesus and its priests.
Enough is enough! Paul and Ray B are the originators of this sectarianism and so the onus is on them to sincerely apologize for their years of Anti-Christian attacks on Catholic Christians here and false representations of our faith.
Paul really should be the one sincerely apologizing here for years of hurt, misrepresentation and insult against Catholics here and our faith.
Please reread my comment a bit more closely. (A) I was referring to this particular post and the comments here (this thread); (B) I specifically stated: I've no recollection of past exchanges with RCC adherents, so I cannot comment either way. I've not been keeping score, and at times I've tuned out some of the exchanges.
In any event, being as objective as I can be, in viewing just this thread the Catholics have been worse in their vitriol than either paul or RayB. Now one can debate whether in the past month or so paul or RayB have been worse or better than the content here, and one party may feel more justifiably wounded by or than the other; but, what does that prove at this point? Let's ALL move past the disagreeable disagreeing over to much more polite discourse.
Though some may not agree, I think robust discussions and disagreements exchanged with a civil tone make us all more critical thinkers, which I deem a good thing. The key is to challenge ideas, not attack persons, in any sort of discussion, no matter what "side" one is on. With this last statement I'm not pointing fingers at any one individual specifically, or taking any sides, and I don't mean this to be some sort of springboard to things like "So and so was more offensive than this other." I've seen enough of this in the 'oppression Olympics' found in CRT/intersectionality.
When each side waits for the other to extend an olive branch, then we just keep on with the dis-civil discourse. I really don't think this pleases our Lord at all. Let the one without sin cast the next stone.
I don't believe anyone has been "hurt" by my comments on this blog. I haven't "attacked" anyone; only a New Age Vatican gone off the rails which can't even be called Christian, judging by its actions and lack of actions. I've mentioned over and over that I think Roman Catholics should abandon that ship and "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." (Revelations 18:4). I've always pointed out that the key part of that verse is "my people", and that there are many many good Christian people in the Roman Catholic religion, but that the Vatican is, very sadly, corrupt to the core. I agree with Constance in her pointing out that there are Agents Provocateur lurking about here, there and everywhere these days. All the name calling and hand-wringing and injured parties weeping and wailing are so over the top that it can only be deliberate divisiveness, not actual injury, even in this age of professional victimhood. How can anyone really be so delicate and fragile that they should cry foul and grinf their teeth over anything that gets thrown into the mix of a comments section of a blog site? I must say that whoever they are they clearly have dear old Dorothy's notes right on the top of their desk at all times.
Jesus and His apostles are still fresh after 2,000 years. Let the words pierce to your heart. Meditate on them. What do they mean to you? You do not need to repent to Craig. Do you need to repent to Jesus? Only you know, and if you do, you do not need to announce it here to anybody in this thread.
How often does somebody say that in of their blah blah blah? Hmmm? Not very often. But how salutary it is! When we are sick at heart, sometimes we may need the bitter herbs more than we need the treacle.
And speaking of herbs, there is this, too. There is a time for "doubtful disputations" and a time for God to support the weak as He wills, choosing as He will who He will consider to be His servant. Let the words inspired by the Holy Spirit speak again through all the blah blah blah on this thread:
1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. 2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. 4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. 7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
Notice how God was the judge as to the time for supporting the weak to stand with herbs -- instead of doubtful disputations -- and the time for giving the truth to those who may react to it as if to an enemy? Should we have more humility? Maybe? All of us?
Do we know how God regards each of us? Does everybody here believe God is watching? Or do some play to a different audience, primarily, as their idol above God who they seek to please? Search your heart, you know; nobody else does.
It was interesting the study found that online anonymity meant that one third of cyber bullying was being perpetrated by people who were not bullies in the brick and mortar world.
In other words they are not very nice people, but they are cowards, so people in the brick and mortar world may think they are nice people.
It makes me think of corporate life -- which seems always to include at least one or two employees who are mean in emails (frequently on a Friday night at 11:00 PM or so) -- and yet who are strangely nice in every face-to-face communication.
What about the two cyber bullies, who are 'not very nice' who DO show their NAMES here??? Yes, I'm talking to you, Paul and RayB.
'Cowards"??? It takes a great deal of guts and courage to confront such HATE here on an international blog. The only reason why we Catholics don't give up and 'just go away' (so you two HATERS can continue to DOMINATE this blog)... is because there are many individuals out there who silently read this blog and never comment. It is for those people that we want to share the truth and help them gain a perspective against all of the ANTI-Catholic BRAIN WASHING.
Protesters camp outside City Hall in New York City for the fifth straight day demanding that Mayor de Blasio slash $1BN from the NYPD budget despite gun crime surge in the Big Apple and say they won't leave until he does
I am not quite sure why you became so personally defensive, as I was not aiming my comment at you personally. My intention was for anybody reading to quietly soul search, responding to the words that may apply, leaving aside for others the words that may not apply. I was actually worried Paul would think I aimed it at him, since I commented immediately after him. It was not aimed at anybody in particular. Is the Bible itself personally targeting anybody? And now I intend to soul search, myself. Have a nice day.
To clueless Paul @ 6:43 AM Re: "I don't believe anyone has been 'hurt' by my comments on this blog." ___________________________________________________________________________
Yes, and that's the whole problem with you, Paul. You are in deep DENIAL about how many people you have HURT over the years.
I have 9 friends who used to post here, and no longer do... who would BEG TO DISAGREE with you about all of the hurt you have caused over the past 15 years... including my late friend, Dorothy (who was one of the those on my group e-mail distribution list up until a few days before she died). One of her sons e-mailed our very close-knit group to let us know that his mom had passed away.
(So, keep on believing that you are 'right'... and everyone else is 'wrong'... and that 'denial' is just a river in Egypt.)
We Catholics only become 'offended'... when ARROGANT Protestant 'christians' insist that WE need 'saving'!!!
So, just save YOURSELVES... and please stop 'sharing' all of your watered-down bible passages... where there are so many different VERSIONS of your bible... that Jesus Himself would not recognize many of these words as having come from HIM!!!
FYI: All of this WILL be straightened out on Judgement Day. In the meantime, put a sock in it!!!
"All the name calling and hand-wringing and injured parties weeping and wailing are so over the top that it can only be deliberate divisiveness, not actual injury, even in this age of professional victimhood. How can anyone really be so delicate and fragile that they should cry foul and grinf their teeth over anything that gets thrown into the mix of a comments section of a blog site?"
No joke, paul. Tell it like it is. You honor and justify God, not men, and have done a kindness, though some will continue to be "victimized" by your mere telling them the truth. This is not the hatefulness some try to make it.
All I know is, people better toughen up because what is coming down the pike is going to test the faith of us all. Everyone's hopes better be in God. Religion saves no one. Jesus does.
Craig, I sure meant it when I posted about disagreeing without being disagreeable. Some may think that is what I am guilty of. So be it. God knows my heart, all hearts. It is to Him that we answer.
Just because a non-Catholic doesn't know that the Bayside apparitions are not Catholic church approved; therefore the non-Catholic must be intentionally posting disinformation against the Catholic church?
Is this an example of the things you keep track of to convince yourself that you and other Catholics are being persecuted? I hope your other examples are better than that.
When we Catholics are forced to DEFEND ourselves against CONSTANT lies, slander and disinformation by a few haters on this blog (over a period of 15 years)... we are not going to be 'gentle' in our response.
(We notice that being 'gentle' didn't work with Susanna. RayB and Paul went after her with even more venom.)
I bolded two parts as my reply to you. And please know that I don't keep a spreadsheet of every apparition the Catholic church approved and disapproved of.
◄ Matthew 6 ► Douay-Rheims Bible
Instruction about Giving
(Deuteronomy 15:7-11)
1 Take heed that you do not your justice before men, to be seen by them: otherwise you shall not have a reward of your Father who is in heaven.
2 Therefore when thou dost an alms-deed, sound not a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be honoured by men. Amen I say to you, they have received their reward. 3But when thou dost alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doth. 4That thy alms may be in secret, and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee.
The Lord's Prayer
(Luke 11:1-4)
5 And when ye pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites, that love to stand and pray in the synagogues and corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men: Amen I say to you, they have received their reward. 6 But thou when thou shalt pray, enter into thy chamber, and having shut the door, pray to thy Father in secret, and thy father who seeth in secret will repay thee.
7 And when you are praying, speak not much, as the heathens. For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard. 8Be not you therefore like to them for your Father knoweth what is needful for you, before you ask him.
9 Thus therefore shall you pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our supersubstantial bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen. 14 For if you will forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father will forgive you also your offences. 15 But if you will not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive you your offences.
So, the Roman Catholic church began in 33 AD, the year that Jesus died? Wow. Who knew that before Paul the Apostle ever went there, quite a few years later, and before Peter the Apostle was alleged to have gone there, that a Roman group of believers in Jesus Christ founded a Christian church, even though the word Christian hadn't even been coined yet, and the news of Jesus' death probably hadn't even reached Rome yet, and even the original believers in Jerusalem were all meeting in people's houses, and terms like "pope" and "vicar", and "cardinal" and "nuns" and "cathedral" and "penance" and "purgatory" and "mother of god" and "assumption" and "perpetual virginity", and "euchrist" and"transubstantiation", and, _certainly words like "indulgences" and "inquisition" _were not even invented yet, not by a long shot. These words and this religion took hundreds of years to come into existence.
The Catholic historian Peter de Rosa once wrote: "Not one of the early fathers of the church saw in the bible any reference to papal jurisdiction over the church. On the contrary, they take it for granted bishops, especially metropolitans, have the full right to govern and administer their own territory without interference from anyone. The Eastern Church never accepted papal supremacy; and Rome's attempt to impose it led to the schism."
That's right, Paul... and now, you act like you are just now hearing this for the very first time? We've been telling you that for the past 15 years.
There has been an UNBROKEN line of Popes from Peter in 33 AD (who Jesus HIMSELF named as our first Pope)... all the way up to the current Pope Francis. This is not an 'opinion'... it is a DOCUMENTED FACT / HISTORY!!!
So, please stop embarrassing yourself... with your complete LACK of knowledge.
Elder Aristocles of Moscow (+1918): "An evil will shortly take Russia, and wherever this evil goes, rivers of blood will flow. It is not the Russian soul, but an imposition on the Russian soul. It is not an ideology, nor a philosophy, but a spirit from hell. In the last days Germany will be divided. France will be just nothing. Italy will be judged by natural disasters. Britain will lose her empire and all her colonies and will come to almost total ruin, but will be saved by praying enthroned women. America will feed the world, but will finally collapse. Russia and China will destroy each other. Finally, Russia will be free and from her believers will go forth and turn many from the nations to God."
"Now we are undergoing the times before the Antichrist. But Russia will yet be delivered. There will be much suffering, much torture. The whole of Russia will become a prison, and one must greatly entreat the Lord for forgiveness. One must repent of one's sins and fear to do even the least sin, but strive to do good, even the smallest. For even the wing of a fly has weight, and God's scales are exact. And when even the smallest of good in the cup tips the balance, then will God reveal His mercy upon Russia."
"The end will come through China. There will be an extraordinary outburst and a miracle of God will be manifested. And there will be an entirely different life, but all this will not be for very long."
“God will remove all leaders, so that Russian people should look only at Him. Everyone will reject Russia, other states will renounce her, delivering her to herself – this is so that Russian people should hope on the help of the Lord. You will hear that in other countries disorders have begun similar to those in Russia. You will hear of war, and there will be wars. But wait until the Germans take up arms, for they are chosen as God’s weapon to punish Russia – but also as a weapon of deliverance later.
"The Cross of Christ will shine over the whole world and our Homeland will be magnified and will become as a lighthouse in the darkness for all." (1911)
the only sense in which the Roman church began in 33 AD is that the church at large did, IN JERUSALEM with James as first bishop, and later Paul and Peter caught up with Christians who had gone to Rome and and converted others and gave them an episcopate. Rome was originally ORTHODOX and gradually fell away from us till a full break happened that hasn't been mended. you now have various heretical and proto heretical problems, the filioque being the most obvious.
THERE IS AN UNBROKEN LINEAGE OF BISHoPS FOR ALL THE PATRIARCHATES BACK TO PETER OR HIS SON OR HIS BROTHER. Talk about ignorance. ALL bishops were originall called pope which is "papa."
BIBLE ONLY: never mentioned or implied. Where it seems to be implied (“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” 2 Timothy 3:16), it refers exclusively to the Old Testament. Even then, no "solas" to be found!
Sola Scriptura is contradicted by Scripture. (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Peter 3:16).
"Yes, of course, we recognize that evil forces are at work in the world... infiltrating ALL of the churches (both Protestant and Catholic)... but that doesn't mean we are going to ABANDON our faith. That is just NOT going to happen. We have the promise of Jesus HIMSELF in 33 AD: "... And the gates of Hell shall NOT prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18)."
"We Catholics only become 'offended'... when ARROGANT Protestant 'christians' insist that WE need 'saving'!!!"
"Paul's refusal to ACCEPT our God-given RIGHT to our belief in our one true Catholic faith, religion, church as founded by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in 33 AD... is clearly Paul's problem, not ours."
Demanding tolerance while being intolerant isn't really a valid or persuasive argument.
Demanding "acceptance" as a "God-given RIGHT" while refusing to accept yourself that our PROTESTANT faith leads us to believe we worship a true Jesus and the catholic church, according to our beliefs, does not is also intolerant and simply foolish. It's a free country. Believe what you want. Paul doesn't have to accept anything. I/we invite you to join our faith. No demands. No intolerance.
I'm sure you've been told before here (I haven't read 15 years of the back history between you all) but we are PROTESTANTS. Therefore, we protest. In response to such protest, the roman catholic church has labeled me/us anathema. Which, as you likely know, means the roman catholic church has institutionally eternally condemned me/us.
As I personally see it. I would like to save catholics because my faith, love of Christ and the Holy Spirit lead me to that endeavor. I KNOW it to be true. I don't do it because I "hate" the catholic church. I don't hate my still-catholic friends and family members if they refuse to be saved. Their salvation is not up to me. I just share the true Gospel and pray God leads them to repentance.
Protesting is not hate. Telling someone they are wrong is not hate. Reading scripture is not wrong. Attempting to save someone is not hate. But declaring anathema, upon us....that IS actually hateful and getting angry and offended over me/us sharing our beliefs and faith on this forum is pretty intolerant. But hey, you do you. Post whatever you feel lead to post and accept the gift of repentance should it be offered to you or not. I'll pray for you regardless.
Constance Cumbey, @ 4:38 AM said this (in part) in an obvious defense of the Roman Catholic practice of making images in violation to * Exodus 20:4:
"Vis a vis the subject of images, I note that although the TORAH forbade images, nevertheless, the Jews were ordered by God to make images of Cherubim and Seraphim angelic beings."
NOTE: Constance, I find it rather interesting that you would refer to the "Torah," and not the Bible in your comment. Here is the definition of what the Torah is ... hardly the rock solid foundation of God's all authoritative Word:
"Torah (/ˈtɔːrə, ˈtoʊrə/; Hebrew: תּוֹרָה, "Instruction", "Teaching" or "Law") has a range of meanings. It can most specifically mean the first five books (Pentateuch or five books of Moses) of the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible. This is commonly known as the Written Torah. It can also mean the continued narrative from all the 24 books, from the Book of Genesis to the end of the Tanakh (Chronicles), and it can even mean the totality of Jewish teaching, culture, and practice, whether derived from biblical texts or later rabbinic writings. This is often known as the Oral Torah.[1] Common to all these meanings, Torah consists of the origin of Jewish peoplehood: their call into being by God, their trials and tribulations, and their covenant with their God, which involves following a way of life embodied in a set of moral and religious obligations and civil laws (halakha)."
* "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." Exodus 20:4
Some people get theologically off track all too often because their particular mindset unconsciously substitutes their particular denomination for Christianity itself so that, for example, when one of their denomination's doctrines, policies or beliefs is seriously questioned, they automatically view it as an attack upon both Christianity itself and themselves as a Christian.
And many unconsciously treat denominations like rival high schools or rival colleges. It would be "unloyal" to their school and their schoolmates and the school staff to entertain serious questions about its standing as an institution for whatever reason(s).
Christianity is not about various competing schools of thought, it is about ever-striving to get (during our lifetimes) as close to following the ways of God as possible to the best of our understanding. When the human element (tradition) is allowed to be intermingled (especially on an equal basis) with the Divine (the Bible) it literally adulterates Christian doctrines and beliefs resulting in "making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down." Mark 7:13 NKJV
Which naturally results in unnecessary misunderstandings and confusion (and all too often ensuing angry arguments) about what (actual) Christianity is.
The solution is starkly simple:
#1) Don't take it personally.
#2) Do take it seriously: Take none of your beliefs for granted, instead: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good!" 1Thess 5:21 KJV
#3) And even though temporarily very upsetting it may prove to be, force yourself (asking His help) to fully accept and embrace with your heart and mind this philosophy given to us for our good by The Great God Almighty:
"To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20 NKJV
First and foremost, most assuredly, God forbids the creation of images as it relates to, for lack of a better word, "religious" activity. The language of the text makes it clear that God is COMMANDING MAN to follow these commandments because of His sovereignty over MAN, and as MAN's relationship with God is to be conducted. The following verse (Exodus 20:5) ADDS to the previous admonition against making images, by FURTHER admonishing not to "bowing down and serve them," a common practice among Pagans. In no way is God saying; "you can create these images as long as you don't bow down to them."
Attempting to negate all of this by making comparisons to "wedding albums, TV, photographs, etc." just doesn't hold water. You may as well be arguing apples and oranges. On the one hand you have God's command regarding serving HIM, on the other hand, you offer SECULAR life choices and attempt to equate the two.
The Sovereign God and Creator of the Universe makes rules, laws, commandments, etc. for MAN, and not for Himself. He and He alone has the sole authority to make changes according to His sovereign will. MAN is NOT given that authority, it rests with Him alone. Again, as the Sovereign King of the Universe, He can make exceptions to the commandments because He is not bound by such Commandments. When Christ and His disciples were admonished by the Pharisees for "violating" the Sabbath, what was His answer?
"And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath." Mark 2:27,28
When God gave very specific and detailed instructions regarding the building of the Temple, He did so because that is what HE sovereignly desired. He was building the Temple unto Himself, and not MAN, so His inclusion of "Cherubims and Seraphims" is not at all an accurate comparison to the MAN SANCTIONED statues and images of the Catholic church. It is really quite ridiculous to use such an example as a means to justify the violation of Exodus 20:4.
Furthermore, the "Cherubims and Serphims" were located in the "Holy of Holies," where the presence of God was, and, where ONLY the High Priest was allowed to enter ONCE PER YEAR.
AGAIN, God makes LAWS, COMMANDMENTS, etc. for MAN, and is not bound by the same that He has decreed to MAN. God, and God alone has the sole AUTHORITY to change what He has decreed. When MAN steps in and makes "changes" to what God clearly commands, he is acting in place of God.
Former Catholics like Martin Luther and Henry VIII (just to give two examples) left the Catholic Church, because things didn't go their way... to begin their own MAN-made (not GOD-made) religions. Over the centuries, there have been many MAN-made changes to the MANY VERSIONS of the bible(s)... in these MANY Protestant churches (Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc.)... changes which were contrary to what Jesus ORIGINALLY taught and passed down through His apostles and their writings.
Amen 1:26, Don't take it personally. Do take it seriously. Again they bust out with the insults and name-calling. oh well. People are like dogs in their loyalties. Probably men more so than women. I sometimes wonder if this thing called loyalty is ever really a good thing; whether it be to one's clan, or nation or denomination, or team or school, or boss, etc, etc Clearly the Ten Commandments tell us to be loyal God and to our parents, but it seems to me that all these other loyalties turn out to bite us.
To quote Dave Hunt; ..."The first of these bold forgeries was the Donation Of Constantine, which we have already mentioned. It was followed by pseudo-Isidorian Decritals, which were early papal decrees allegedly compiled by Archbishop Isadore (560-636) but actually fabricated in the ninth century. These frauds became the foundation for much of the "tradition" still relied upon today. Catholic historian J.H. Ignaz von Dollinger writes that 'prior to the time of the Isodorian Decritals no serious attempt was made anywhere to introduce the neo-Roman theory of infallability. The popes did not dream of laying claim to such a privilege.' "
WOW !!! Kind of like "icing on the cake" for the boatload of hatred, lies, slander, personal attacks, etc. that Constance has tolerated from her Catholic friends. AMAZING ! Yet, on the previous post, as she posts "one of the very best homilies/sermons I've ever heard" from a Catholic priest, she states that she will "probably be attacked by RayB" for doing so.
WHO IS IT CONSTANCE that is doing the personal "attacking" here?
Just look at the vulgar vitriolic hatred as expressed by "Anonymous" @ 1:59 PM & 2:08 PM !!
Jesus said "out of the abundance of the heart, the MOUTH SPEAKETH."
If you think you can still persecute us after neary 500 years of it and continuing, without a fight, you have another think coming paul. I know where in Portland Maine you are. Do you think attacking Catholics in the presence of the Irish is acceptable? You should mature as quick as you can.
You can disagree but if you want a war after 15 years of hurting us without compassion, honest enquory or concern, you should realise that sone of us have lived this war daily. I am not an idiot posting here, so you should realise I am fucking tired, you heathen orange filth!
To my fellow Catholics, I am sorry, but I am sick and tired of it. Growing up in the Six Counties durimg the Troubles then seeimg us all suffer the vile diatribes of paul for so long and tbat being excused as tbough we should 'shut up· and suck it up ... NO!
Not anymore. These people have persecuted us for far too long! There are seasons. Enough is enough.
What you just don't 'get' (and haven't for 15 years!!!) is that we Catholics are baptized Christians who are ALREADY saved... and certainly don't need to be 'saved' by Protestants.
You are the ones who are trying to convert us; not the other way around.
That is where your ARROGANCE (plus false pride) comes in.
So just leave us alone!!! This is where you come off sounding like CULT members.
Looking forward to seeing all of you on Judgement Day... when ALL of this WILL be sorted out. I can't wait... the sooner, the better.
I understand your anger, but please, this is not the way. We have all been sincerely tested by Ray B and Paul yet we should take the Christian approach and pray for those who persecute us. We should rebuke and correct but never threaten.
And NOTHING that happens on a blog site comments section can be construed to be persecution. What the heck are you going to do if you ever experience actual persecutiion?
Actually, I think being shot at; burned alive; or beheaded would be a huge IMPROVEMENT over the ABUSE that we Catholics have had to put up with on this blog over the past 15 years. LOL
Challenge me on ANYTHING you'd like regarding my BIBLE BASED faith through grace, and I will explain my position based upon what the Bible declares.
If you can't defend your "faith" with anything other than lies, slander, personal attacks, you should seriously re-examine your "faith." Being challenged as to what YOUR church teaches IS NOT PERSECUTION ... it's giving you an opportunity to defend your church's positions.
Biblical Christianity can be defended because the Word of God is our ROCK upon which the foundation of our faith is based.
Catholicism cannot be defended, because like the Pharisaic "religion" of the Jews, it is based upon "traditions" along with the "commandments of men, rather than the commandments of God." Hence, the constant deflection via lies, slander, personal attacks, and now, threats of violence and vulgarity !
And... as the BRILLIANT Susanna has often pointed out:
BIBLE ONLY: never mentioned or implied. Where it seems to be implied (“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” 2 Timothy 3:16), it refers exclusively to the Old Testament. Even then, no "solas" to be found!
Sola Scriptura is contradicted by Scripture. (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Peter 3:16).
BIBLE ONLY: never mentioned or implied. Where it seems to be implied (“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” 2 Timothy 3:16), it refers exclusively to the Old Testament. Even then, no "solas" to be found!""
But JESUS SAID: “It is written,
“‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” Matt 4:4
It is written, He said. As in already spoken and recorded. The Bible the Word of God predates catholic writing and doctrine. Jesus was speaking of the canon of Scripture. The inspired Word given to men by the Holy Spirit in those 66 books. 1 Peter 1:21 tells us: for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. It meant the men who wrote Scripture (Old and New Testament) before the popes began to take over. The authority was upon them, not the ones who took it upon themselves to start adding and subtracting from what Jesus was clearly talking about. Was good enough for Jesus what God had already said, and He also authenticated what would be written when the Apostles were given their portion to the Canon after Jesus' Sacrifice and Resurrection.
The popes and their religious system (that was by the will of man) was after that and not included in what Jesus said in Matt 4:4 so **Scripture only is most definitely what Jesus authorized**. He lived by it, so should we.
This is the strongest verse of all the quoted verses, to make a claim against Sola Scriptura, so let us consider this verse.
If I believed the answer to the following question was yes I would join the Catholic church.
Is there evidence that the apostles taught, through word or epistle, the following: veneration of Mary, veneration of Saints and relics, veneration of sacred statues, praying on rosary beads, purgatory, immaculate conception, papal infallibility, the papal role as the vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth, celibacy of the priesthood, last rites, confessionals, or transubstantiation?
"If I believed the answer to the following question was yes I would join the Catholic church."
I would too, 3:57 PM, but none of those traditions are in the Bible. Only in Catholic doctrine which came about after the Apostles had written by the Holy Spirit what was the conclusion of the Scripture Canon.
In the only two Epistles that Peter penned, he never mentioned or implied, in either word or tradition, ANY of the peculiar doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic church. NOT A SINGLE ONE.
If you are a Catholic, you should be asking why is it that the "first Catholic" aka "first pope" "peter" never mentioned anything of which you hold so dear.
Have you ever wondered why it is that the Catholic church does NOT emphasize the only TEACHINGS penned by Peter? You would think they would, after all, it's the ONLY writings we have of Peter. Why do YOU think they don't? Any theories???
Also, RayB... since you continue to be so OBSESSED with our Catholic Church... you must secretly want to BECOME one. Otherwise, IF you were genuinely and truly 'at peace' with your own beliefs (which obviously fall short)... you wouldn't spend so much time OBSESSING!!!
Some here have a very bad habit of being unnecessarily confrontational.
RayB's not the only one.
But just to make an illustration of how to get your points across without overdoing it I'll use his last post (4:25 PM at this writing) look again at it and now compare it with this (temporarily disregard your own particular point of view on the topic itself):
In the only two Epistles that Peter penned, he never mentioned or implied, in either word or tradition, ANY of the peculiar doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic church.
Not one.
So then if you are Catholic, please ask yourself this question:
"Why is it that Peter, whom we revere as the first Pope, never mentioned anything of these things in his letters?"
And think about this:
Why is it that the only TEACHINGS penned by Peter are NOT emphasized?
You would think they would be, wouldn't you? After all, it's the ONLY writings we have of Peter. Why do you think they don't?
I offer for discussion the assembly of Catholics at the site of where the statue of Junipero Serra formerly stood, as currently being streamed by Dr. Taylor Marshall. The statue was taken down by activists.
Did someone say Sola Scriptura? Well, that Latin, Catholic term is indeed not found in the Scriptures, of course, but; Jesus, in his ministry, quoted Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. He quoted Joshua and both Samuels and both Kings, and Chronicles. Jesus quoted extensively from The Psalms and the Proverbs. He quoted from Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon. Jesus quoted or referred to: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel. Jesus referred to Joel and Jonah and Habakkuk. He quoted Zephaniah and Zechariah, and Malachi. One might almost conclude that Jesus is in fact the author of the Old Testament... However Jesus never quoted from Socrates or Plato or Aristotle. Jesus did not make anything more than a passing reference to the Mishna, and then only to point out that it was flawed. He didn't quote Lau Tsu or Confucious. _But in Joshua we find these words: "THIS BOOK OF THE LAW shall not depart out of thy mouth but thou shall meditate therein both day and night that thou mayest observe to do all that is written therein, for then thou shall make thy way prosperous, and then thou shall have good success. (Joshua 1:8)
Isaiah 8:20 says: To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Jeremiah 10:3&4 says: For the customs of the people are vain: for one cuts a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman with the ax. They deck it with silver and gold, they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.
Jeremiah 17:5 says: Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusts in man and makes flesh his arm, and whose heart departs from the Lord.
Hebrews 10 is quoting Psalms 40 when it says: Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of THE BOOK it is written of me), to do thy will oh God.
Sola Scriptura? You betcha. Sacred Tradition? not so much.
Last thread I didn't pay close enough attention to a post and erroneously lumped it in with a serial poster's string of posts and subsequently compounded that error by grouping the poster his or herself in with the serial poster (who I do think has an issue that needs treatment and by that I am including consideration of the aberration of the same things being slightly reworded and reposted over and over and over again, such as the "33 AD" posts, etc. etc. etc.) and (quoting the one's own words about RayB and paul back at them) called them a real pair of clowns. They aren't. I apologize.
I had another interesting thought, this time, regarding Mary.
I did a search and found that outside of the Gospels, Mary is mentioned only ONCE, and that is found here in Acts 1:14 "These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren."
Nowhere else is she definitively mentioned. Now think about that; there is NOTHING written about Mary, after the four Gospels, other than the verse in Acts. How did all of these writers of the New Testament Epistles miss this person that is ranked extremely high within the Catholic Church?
Nothing about praying to her.
Nothing about her "Immaculate Conception."
Nothing about her "Ascension into Heaven bodily."
Nothing about her "Sitting on the Throne of God next to her Son."
Nothing about her "Making Intercession on our behalf."
Nothing about her being a "Co-Redemptrix."
Nothing about her being the "Queen of Heaven."
Nothing about instructions on praying "Hail Mary ..."
But then again, there is NOTHING in the Four Gospels on the above either !
Because Mary was chosen to be the mother of Jesus... she would have to be a woman who was conceived without the stain of original sin.
“And the angel said: ‘Hail, full of GRACE, the Lord is with thee: BLESSED ART THOU AMONG WOMEN'." (Luke 1:28)
Even Martin Luther stood firmly behind the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, as he saw that Mary would have to be a pure and sinless vessel in order to hold the sacred and holy body of Jesus. Here is the following quote from Martin Luther in the year 1527:
“It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin.”
It would also stand to reason that Jesus would honor His Mother Mary with a special place in Heaven... when she ascended body and soul into Heaven.
This is what Mary herself said about her future place in eternity:
"My soul magnifies the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. For He has regarded the lowly state of his maidservant; For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed." (Lk 1:46-49)
The idea that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is the queen of heaven has no scriptural basis whatsoever. ... While Mary was certainly a godly young woman greatly blessed in that she was chosen to bear the Savior of the world, she was not in any way divine, nor was she sinless, nor is she to be worshiped, revered, venerated, or prayed to. All followers of the Lord God refuse worship. Peter and the apostles refused to be worshiped (Acts 10:25–26; 14:13–14). The holy angels refuse to be worshiped (Revelation 19:10; 22:9). The response is always the same: “Worship God!” To offer worship, reverence, or veneration to anyone but God is nothing short of idolatry. Mary’s own words in her “Magnificat” (Luke 1:46–55) reveal that she never thought of herself as “immaculate” or deserving of veneration; on the contrary, she was relying on the grace of God for salvation: “And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.”
Only sinners need a savior, and Mary recognized that need in herself.
Furthermore, Jesus Himself issued a mild rebuke to a woman who cried out to Him, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you" (Luke 11:27), replying to her, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it." By doing so, He curtailed any tendency to elevate Mary as an object of worship. He could certainly have said, “Yes, blessed be the Queen of Heaven!” But He did not. He was affirming the same truth that the Bible affirms—there is no queen of heaven, and the only biblical references to the “queen of heaven” refer to the goddess of an idolatrous, false religion.
The phrase queen of heaven appears in two passages of the Bible, both in the book of Jeremiah. The first passage deals with the things the Israelites were doing that provoked the Lord to anger. Entire families were involved in idolatry. The children gathered wood, and the men used it to build altars to worship false gods. The women were engaged in kneading dough and baking cakes of bread for the “Queen of Heaven” (Jeremiah 7:18). This title referred to Ishtar, an Assyrian and Babylonian goddess also called Ashtoreth and Astarte by various other groups. She was thought to be the wife of the false god Baal, also known as Molech. The motivation of women to worship Ashtoreth stemmed from her reputation as a fertility goddess, and, as the bearing of children was greatly desired among women of that era, worship of this “queen of heaven” was rampant among pagan civilizations. Sadly, it became popular among the Israelites as well.
The second passage that refers to the queen of heaven is Jeremiah 44:17-25, where Jeremiah is giving the people the word of the Lord which God has spoken to him. He reminds the people that their disobedience and idolatry has caused the Lord to be very angry with them and to punish them with calamity. Jeremiah warns them that greater punishments await if they do not repent. They reply that they have no intentions of giving up their worship of idols, promising to continue pouring out drink offerings to the queen of heaven, Ashtoreth, and even going so far as to credit her with the peace and prosperity they once enjoyed because of God’s grace and mercy.
It is unclear where the idea that Ashtoreth was a “consort” of Yahweh originated, but it’s easy to see how the blending of paganism that exalts a goddess with the worship of the true King of heaven, Yahweh, can lead to the combining of God and Ashtoreth. And since Ashtoreth worship involved sexuality (fertility rites and temple prostitution), the resulting relationship, to the depraved mind, would naturally be one of a sexual nature. Clearly, the idea of the “queen of heaven” as the consort or paramour of the King of heaven is idolatrous and unbiblical.
There is no queen of heaven. There has never been a queen of heaven.
There are two texts of Scripture most commonly used to “disprove” the Assumption of Mary.
1. John 3:13:
No one has ascended up to heaven, but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man.
If “no man” has ascended into heaven, wouldn’t that include the Blessed Virgin Mary?
2. I Cor. 15:22-23:
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
If no one except Christ will be resurrected bodily before the Second Coming of Christ, would that not eliminate the possibility of Mary having been bodily assumed into heaven?
The Catholic response John 3:13 does not eliminate the possibility of the Assumption of Mary for four reasons.
1. St. John was quoting the actual words our Lord spoke when he wrote, “No one has ascended into heaven, but . . . the Son of man.” Jesus was merely saying that no one had ascended into heaven by the time he made that statement. That was long before the Assumption of Mary.
2. Jesus cannot be saying that no one else will ever be taken to heaven. If that is the case, then what is all this Christianity stuff about? You know, heaven and all.
3. If one interprets John 3:13 as speaking about Christ uniquely ascending to heaven, that would be acceptable. We would then have to ask the question: what is it about Jesus’ ascension that is unique? Well, the fact that he ascended is unique. Mary did not ascend to heaven. She was assumed. There is a big difference. Jesus ascended by his own divine power as he prophesied he would in John 2:19-21: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up . . . he spoke of the temple of his body.” Mary was powerless to raise herself to heaven; she had to be assumed. The same could be said of all Christians. Jesus raised himself from the dead. Christians will be entirely passive when it comes to their collective “resurrection.”
4. St. John is demonstrating the divinity of Christ in John 3:13. Historically, we know St. John was writing against his archenemy, the heretic Cerinthus, who denied the divinity of Christ. St. John quotes these words from Jesus to demonstrate that the Savior “descended” from heaven and was both in heaven and on Earth as the “only begotten Son” (cf. 3:16) sharing his Father’s nature (cf. 5:17-18). Thus, he was truly God. St. John also emphasizes that even while “the Son of Man” walked the Earth with his disciples in Galilee, he possessed the beatific vision in his human nature. In that sense, his human nature (Son of Man) had already “ascended” into heaven inasmuch as it possessed the beatific vision, which is at the core of what heaven is. That is John’s theme in the text, not whether someone years after Christ could be assumed into heaven or not.
1. We must remember that there are sometimes exceptions to general theological norms in Scripture. For example, consider Matt. 3:5-6: “Then went out to [St. John the Baptist] Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan, and they were baptized by him.” We know that “all” here does not mean “all” in a strict sense because we know, at least, Herod, Herodias, and her daughter, were exceptions to this verse (See Matt. 14:1-11). They conspired to put St. John to death. Not the best candidates for baptism! The bottom line: There are exceptions to Matt. 3:5-6. St. John the Baptist did not baptize everyone in “Jerusalem, Judea and the region around Jordan.” So Mary could be (and is, as we will see below) an exception to I Cor. 15:22-23.
2. There are exceptions to other general norms specifically laid out as true for “all” in Scripture. Hebrews 9:27 declares, “It is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment.” Yet we see exceptions to this norm many places in Scripture by way of resurrections from the dead. Not only do we have Elijah, Elisha, Jesus, St. Peter and St. Paul raising the dead in Scripture, but after Jesus’ Resurrection, “the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and [came] out of the tombs” (Matt. 27:52-53). These folks obviously did not “die once.” They died at least twice!
3. We have examples of other “assumptions” in Scripture. Both Enoch (cf. Gen. 5:24) and Elijah were taken up “into heaven” (II Kings 2:11) in a manner quite out of the ordinary. And so are the “two witnesses” of Revelation 11:3-13. Why couldn’t God do this with Mary?
4. We know that Mary is an exception to the “norm” of I Cor. 15:22-23 because she is depicted as having been assumed into heaven in Rev. 12. “And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun . . . she was with child . . . and . . . brought forth a male child [Jesus], one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron” (12:1-5). Who was the woman who gave birth to Jesus? Mary! And there she is in heaven!
Is the woman of Revelation 12 Mary? Many will object at this point and deny “the woman” of Revelation 12 is Mary. They will claim it is either the Church, or, as do dispensationalists, they will claim it is the Israel of old.
The Church acknowledges Scripture to have a polyvalent nature. In other words, there can be many levels of meaning to the various texts of Scripture. So, are there many levels of meaning to Rev. 12? Absolutely! Israel is often depicted as the Lord’s bride in the Old Testament (cf. Song of Solomon, Jer. 3:1, etc.). So there is precedent to refer to Israel as “the woman.” And Jesus was born out of Israel.
Moreover, the Book of Revelation depicts the New Covenant Church as “the bride of Christ” and “the New Jerusalem” (cf. Rev. 21:2). “The woman” of Revelation 12 is also depicted as continuing to beget children to this day and these children are revealed to be all “who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ” (vs. 17). The Church certainly fits this description.
In fact, we argue as Catholics “the woman” to represent the people of God down through the centuries, whether Old Covenant Israel or the New Covenant Church, “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16).
The first and literal sense All we have said about “the woman” of Revelation 12 representing the people of God down through the millennia of time does not diminish in any way the first and literal sense of the text as representing Mary. In fact, there are at least four reasons why one cannot escape including Mary when exegeting Revelation 12 and specifically the identity of “the woman.”
1. “The woman” in Rev. 12 “brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.” This child is obviously Jesus. If we begin on the literal level, there is no doubt that Mary is the one who “brought forth” Jesus.
2. Though we could discover many spiritual levels of meaning for the flight of “the woman” in 12:6, 14, Mary and the Holy Family literally fled into Egypt in Matt. 2:13-15 with divine assistance.
3. Mary is referred to prophetically as “woman” in Gen. 3:15, Jer. 31:22, and by Jesus as the same in John 2:4 and 19:26. Especially considering the same apostle, John, wrote the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation, it is no stretch to say St. John would have had Mary in mind when he used the familiar term “the woman” as the descriptor of the Lady of the Apocalypse.
4. There are four main characters in the chapter: “the woman,” the devil, Jesus, and the Archangel Michael. No one denies that the other three mentioned are real persons. It fits the context exegetically to interpret “the woman” as a person (Mary) as well.
Some may concede Mary to be the woman of Revelation 12, but the next logical question is: “How does this mean she is in heaven bodily? There are lots of souls in heaven, but they don’t have their bodies.”
It seems clear that “the woman” is depicted as having “the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown” (vs. 1). Elsewhere in Rev. and in other parts of Scripture, saints in heaven are referred to as the “souls of those who had been slain” (Rev. 6:9) or “the spirits of just men made perfect” (Heb. 12:23). Why? Because they do not have bodies! They are disembodied “souls” or “spirits.” But the “woman” of Rev. 12 is portrayed as having a body with a head and feet.
But perhaps even more important than this is the fact that “the Ark of the Covenant” is revealed as being in heaven in Rev. 11:19. This is just one verse prior to the unveiling of “the woman” of Rev. 12:1.
Some may respond at this point: “Who cares if the ‘Ark of the Covenant’ is said to be in heaven?”
This is crucial, because Hebrews 9:4 tells us what was contained within the ark: a portion of manna, the miraculous “bread from heaven” of Old Testament fame, Aaron’s staff, and the Ten Commandments. In fact, it was precisely because of these sacred contents that the ark was so holy, and that is precisely why it is here depicted as having been taken up to heaven.
The question is: Is the Ark of the Covenant depicted as being in heaven a “what” (an Old Testament box made of acacia wood overlain with gold in Exodus 25), or a “who?” I argue it not only to be a “who” but to be the Blessed Virgin Mary for these reasons:
Let’s first take a look at the text of Rev. 11:19:
Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within in his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, loud noises, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail.
In order to appreciate the identity of “the ark,” let’s first take a look at the identity of “the temple” that St. John sees as housing the ark. John 2:19-21 and Rev. 21:22 tell us quite plainly that the temple St. John speaks of is not a temple made of brick and mortar.
Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”. . . But he spoke of the temple of his body (Jn. 2:21).
I saw no temple [in heaven], for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the lamb (Rev. 21:22).
When St. John views the temple in heaven, he is not viewing the Old Testament temple. He is viewing the true temple, which is Christ’s body. In the same way, St. John is not seeing the Old Covenant ark. He sees the new and true Ark of the Covenant. And remember: this would not just be talking about Mary but Mary’s body! It was Mary’s body that housed the Son of God, the fulfillment of the various types of Christ that were contained in the Old Covenant ark.
The conclusion is inescapable. Where is Mary’s body? In heaven, according to the Book of Revelation!
A final objection Some may argue at this point our energy was wasted in asserting Mary to be identified with “the woman” of Revelation 12 because this “woman” is depicted as “travailing” with the pangs of labor in verse 2. Thus, this cannot be the “Catholic” Mary.
Two points in response:
1. No matter which interpretation you choose—Israel, the Church, Mary, or all of the above—all interpretations agree: the labor pains of Rev. 12:2 are not literal pains from a child passing through the birth canal. This really should not be a problem at all.
2. From the very beginning of Mary’s calling to be the Mother of the Messiah, she would have most likely known her Son was called to be the “suffering servant” of Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, and Wisdom 2.
Mary’s “labor pains” began at the Annunciation and would continue from the cradle to the cross, where she suffered with her Son as prophesied in Luke 2:34-35 and as painfully fulfilled in John 19. Mary’s deep love for and knowledge of her divine Son brought with it pains far deeper than any physical hurt could ever cause. A body can go numb and cease to feel pain. But you can’t deaden a heart that loves, as long as that heart continues to love. Mary clearly chose to love. She was uniquely present for our Lord, from the Incarnation of Luke 1:37-38, to the birthing of his ministry in John 2, to the cross in John 19, and into eternity in Revelation 12.
Rev. 12:1-2 says, “And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 2 and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth.”
Many Roman Catholics believe that Mary has an exalted position in heaven. Though Roman Catholic theology has not declared that Mary is divine, they are slowly inching toward that position. Please consider some of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church regarding her.
Mary is the Queen over all things: "Queen over all things" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 966).
Entrust our cares to Mary: "Holy Mary, Mother of God . . . we can entrust all our cares and petitions to her: she prays for us as she prayed for herself: 'Let it be to me according to your word.' [Lk 1:38] By entrusting ourselves to her prayer, we abandon ourselves to the will of God together with her: 'Thy will be done,' (CCC 2677).
Mary is Advocate, Helper, Mediatrix. “ . . . the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.'" (CCC 969).
Mary Delivers our souls from death: By Mary's prayers, she delivers souls from death (CCC par. 966).
Mary brings us the gifts of Eternal Salvation: Mary, " . . . by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . (CCC par. 969).
Mary is worshipped: " . . . when she [Mary] is the subject of preaching and worship she prompts the faithful to come to her Son . . . " (Vatican Council II, p. 420).
Mary sits at the right hand of Christ: " . . . she is the supreme Minister of the distribution of graces. Jesus "sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high" (Hebrews i. b.). Mary sitteth at the right hand of her Son . . . " (Pope Pius X, 1835-1914, Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum, 14).
As you can see, the Roman Catholic Church has exalted Mary to an incredibly high level. So, it is not surprising to find that Catholics would look at Revelation 12:1-2 and interpret “the woman clothed with the sun” as being a reference to Mary. Is this position correct? No, it is not.
If you notice the text in verse 2 it says that she was “with child and she cried out being in labor and in pain.” This is a problem because according to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, Mary did not inherit Original Sin.
CCC 491, “Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.”
If you’re not familiar with the concept of Original Sin, it is “the hereditary fallen nature and moral corruption that is passed down from Adam to his descendants. ”1 Sin entered the world through Adam (Romans 5:12). He is the first man who committed sin, and that sin is reckoned to all people (1 Corinthians 15:22; Romans 5:18). This means that all descendants of Adam are under the effects of original sin. Part of the curse of the Fall that caused Original Sin is spoken of by God in Genesis 3.
Gen. 3:16, "To the woman He said, 'I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. In pain you shall bring forth children. Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.'”
Notice that part of the curse is pain in childbirth. This is why women suffer during the birth process. So, when we look back to the text of Revelation 12:1-2, we see that the woman clothed with the sun is suffering birth pain. Since the Roman Catholic position is that Mary could not be suffering birth pain (because of her Immaculate Conception and no Original Sin), then these verses cannot be about Mary.
Mary’s title as “Queen of Heaven and Earth” is a great scandal to many non-Catholic Christians. After all, the Bible doesn’t mention anything about there being a queen in God’s kingdom. All this royal attention Catholics give to Mary—whether it’s singing “Hail, holy queen enthroned above” or portraying Mary in statues and paintings with a crown on her head—seems to many non-Catholics to detract from the royalty of Christ, who alone is King of Kings. Besides, how could Mary be a queen, since she is not the wife of the Jesus but only his mother?
One biblical theme sheds light on these questions and serves as a key for unlocking the mystery of Mary’s queenship: the Old Testament tradition of the “queen mother” in the Davidic kingdom.
In the monarchy of King David, as well as in other ancient kingdoms of the Near East, the mother of the ruling king held an important office in the royal court and played a key part in the process of dynastic succession. In fact, the king’s mother ruled as queen, not his wife.
The great pre-eminence of the king’s mother may seem odd from our modern Western perspective, in which we think of a queen as being the wife of a king. However, recall that most ancient Near-Eastern kings practiced polygamy. King Solomon had seven hundred wives (1 Kgs. 11:3)—imagine the chaos in the royal court if all seven hundred were awarded the queenship! But since each king had only one mother, one can see the practical wisdom in bestowing the queenship upon her.
A number of Old Testament passages reflect the important role of the queen mother in the Davidic kingdom. For example, almost every time the narrative of 1 and 2 Kings introduces a new monarch in Judah, it mentions the king’s mother as well, showing the mother’s intimate involvement in her royal son’s reign. Similarly, the queen mother is listed among the members of the royal court whom king Jehoiachin surrendered to the king of Babylon in 2 Kings 24:12.
Her royal office is also described by the prophet Jeremiah, who tells how the queen mother possessed a throne and a crown, symbolic of her position of authority in the kingdom: “Say to the king and the queen mother: ‘Take a lowly seat, for your beautiful crown has come down from your head. . . . Lift up your eyes and see those who come from the north. Where is the flock that was given you, your beautiful flock?’” (Jer. 13:18, 20). It is significant that God directed this oracle about the upcoming fall of Judah to both the king and his mother. Addressing both king and queen mother, Jeremiah portrays her as sharing in her son’s rule over the kingdom.
Probably the clearest example of the queen mother’s role is that of Bathsheba, wife of David and mother of Solomon. Scholars have noted the excellence of Bathsheba’s position in the kingdom once she became queen mother during Solomon’s rule. Compare the humble attitude of Bathsheba as spouse of King David (1 Kgs. 1:16–17, 31) with her majestic dignity as mother of the next king, Solomon (1 Kgs. 2:19–20). As spouse of the king, Bathsheba bows with her face to the ground and does obeisance to her husband, David, upon entering his royal chamber. In striking contrast, after her son Solomon assumed the throne and she became queen mother, Bathsheba receives a glorious reception upon meeting with her royal son:
“So Bathsheba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne and had a seat brought for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right. Then she said, ‘I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me.’ And the king said to her, ‘Make your request, my mother; for I will not refuse you’” (1 Kgs. 2:19–20).
This account reveals the sovereign prerogatives of the queen mother. Note how the king rises and bows as she enters. Bathsheba’s seat at the king’s right hand has the greatest significance. In the Bible, the right hand is the place of ultimate honor. This is seen in particular in the messianic Psalm 110 (“Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool”). In fact, many New Testament passages refer to the right-hand imagery of Psalm 110 to show Christ’s divinity and his reign with the Father over the whole universe (e.g., Hebrews 1:13). Thus, the queen mother sitting at the king’s right hand symbolizes her sharing in the king’s royal authority and illustrates how she holds the most important position in the kingdom, second only to the king.
This passage regarding Bathsheba also shows how the queen mother served as an advocate for the people, carrying petitions to the king. In 1 Kings 2:17, Adonijah asks Bathsheba to take a petition for him to King Solomon. He says to her: “Pray ask King Solomon—he will not refuse you—to give me Abishag the Shunammite as my wife” (1 Kgs. 2:17). It is clear that Adonijah recognizes the queen mother’s position of influence over the king, so he confidently turns to Bathsheba as an intercessor for his request.
A few Old Testament prophecies incorporate the queen mother tradition when telling of the future Messiah. One example is Isaiah 7:14, which originated during a time of dynastic crisis in Judah when Syria and Israel were threatening Jerusalem and plotting to overthrow King Ahaz. God offers Ahaz a sign that the kingdom will continue: “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Emmanuel” (Isa. 7:13–14).
On one level, this passage points to the next king (Hezekiah) as a pledge that the Davidic dynasty will continue despite the threats of invading armies. At the same time, the royal son who is to be named “Emmanuel” points to the future messianic king (cf., Isa. 9:6–7, 11:1–2). This is why the New Testament says Jesus fulfills this prophecy from Isaiah (Matt. 1:23).
For our purposes we should note how this prophecy links the mother to her royal son. Since the oracle is addressed specifically to the Davidic household and concerns the continuation of the dynasty, the young woman bearing forth the royal son would be understood as a queen mother. This has implications for our understanding of Mary. Since the mother of the king always ruled as queen mother, we should expect to find the mother of the messianic king playing the role of the true queen mother in the everlasting Kingdom of God.
With this Old Testament background, we can now more clearly see how the New Testament portrays Mary in light of the queen mother tradition.
The Gospel of Matthew has often been called the “Gospel of the Kingdom.” Matthew emphasizes that Jesus is “the Son of David,” who is the true King of the Jews establishing the “Kingdom of Heaven.” With all this kingly imagery, it should not be surprising to find queen mother themes as well.
Right away, Matthew shows explicitly how the infant Jesus is the “Emmanuel” child as prophesied in Isaiah 7:14 (Matt. 1:23). As we saw above, this prophecy links the royal messianic child with his queen mother. Further, Matthew singles out the intimate relationship between the mother and her royal son by using the phrase “the child and his mother” five times in the first two chapters, recalling the close association between queen mother and royal son as described in the Books of Kings. Just as the queen mother was constantly mentioned alongside the Judean kings in 1 and 2 Kings, so Mary is frequently mentioned alongside her royal son, Jesus, in Matthew’s infancy narrative (Matt. 1:18; 2:11, 13, 14, 20, 21).
We find Mary portrayed against the background of Davidic kingdom motifs in Luke’s Gospel as well, especially in his accounts of the Annunciation and Visitation. First, the angel Gabriel is said to appear to a virgin betrothed to a man “of the house of David” (1:27). Then the angel tells Mary, “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end” (Luke 1:31–33).
Hear the strong Davidic overtones describing Mary and her royal son: a woman from the house of David giving birth to a son who will be the new king whose reign will never end. With echoes from the queen mother tradition of the Davidic kingdom and the mother-son prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, we can conclude that Mary is being given the vocation of queen mother.
Mary’s royal office is made even more explicit in Luke’s account of the Visitation. Elizabeth greets Mary with the title “the mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43). This title is charged with great queenly significance. In the royal court language of the ancient NearEast, the title “Mother of my Lord” was used to address the queen mother of the reigning king (who himself was addressed as “my Lord”; cf., 2 Sam. 24:21). Thus with this title Elizabeth is recognizing the great dignity of Mary’s role as the royal mother of the king, Jesus.
The twelfth chapter of Revelation apparently presents a summary of the entire Gospel Age. The chapter opens with the impending birth of a male child, generally recognized as Christ, due to his destiny of ruling the world with a rod of iron (v. 5; cf. Ps. 2:9). A dragon, identified as Satan (v. 9), is seen anticipating the birth, intending to destroy the child (vv. 3–4). The dragon’s failure to achieve its purpose and the catching up of the child to the throne of God (v. 5) result in a battle between Christ’s “brethren” and the dragon (vv. 11, 17), which may depict the age-long spiritual warfare between the church and the forces of darkness.
The first character to appear, and to remain prominent throughout the story, is a pregnant woman (vv. 1–2). She gives birth (v. 5), is then persecuted by the dragon (v. 13), flees to the wilderness (vv. 6, 14), and births additional children (v. 17). Though there is general agreement among commentators concerning the identification of the male child, no such consensus exists in identifying the mysterious woman. She has variously been identified with Israel, with the church, with the believing remnant of the end times, and with the Virgin Mary.
The last of these theories is widely held among Roman Catholics. Its first appearance is found in the speculations of Epiphanias, in the late fourth century.1 It is not the only view espoused by the Roman Church, but it has been endorsed by two popes (Pius X and Paul VI)2 and is probably the most widely embraced view, on a popular level, among Roman Catholics. Having adopted the identification of this woman with the Virgin Mary as a first premise, a number of Roman Catholic doctrines are thought to be justified:
– The equating of Mary with the “new ark of the covenant,” owing to the proximity of this vision with the appearance of the ark in heaven (11:19);
– The exaltation of Mary as a heavenly luminary, since the woman is clothed with the sun, standing in the moon and crowned with stars (12:1);
– The idea that Mary is the “mother,” not only of Jesus but also of all Christians, since they are referred to as “the rest of her offspring” (12:17);
– From the last point, it has been extrapolated that Mary, being “the mother of all living” (Gen. 3:20), should be recognized to be the “new Eve,” whose role in bringing redemption parallels Eve’s role in introducing sin and condemnation.
Most Protestants do not attribute to Mary the status implied in these assertions. However, in dialogue with Roman Catholics, these points often are raised in support of the Marian doctrines, as if the identity of this woman with Mary was an unquestioned starting point for the discussion.
Apart from the question of the woman being, or not being, a reference to the Virgin Mary, it should be pointed out that the proximity, in Chapter 11, of the ark of the covenant provides no basis for an identification of the woman with that object. No suggestion of such a connection can be drawn from any statement in the text. Thus, there would be no exegetical reason to see Christ’s mother as a “new ark,” even if the woman in the following vision could be shown to refer to her.
The fact that the actuality of experiencing pain has its origins in sin does not mean that one who suffers pain (even in labor and childbirth) is sinful.
There are, in addition, occasionally exceptions to the rule either way.
Some people have a neurological condition where they are incapable of feeling physical pain. Some of these people are women, and again, some of these women give birth PAINLESSLY!
You wouldn't be such a heretic as to deny Jesus Christ was and is always free from sin, would you? Yet Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior felt intense physical pain. Or would you deny that too? After all, your "prominent" heretic in arms, Ray B., denied the bodily Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.
On that note, if you are for Luther and Calvin, I refer your Jew hating and Child murderer supporting self back to my post at 2:45 AM
The evidence that points toward the identifying of the woman with Mary (e.g., that she, in the vision, gives birth to Christ) is inconclusive. After all, in Revelation, the image of a woman needn’t be taken for a literal individual. There is another “woman” portrayed in the seventeenth chapter, who is given the name “Mystery Babylon the Great” (v. 5). Much disagreement over the identity of this “Babylon” has characterized the expositions, but one thing that all agree on is that “Babylon” is not a literal woman. The same may be said for the “bride” depicted in Revelation 21:2, 9–10. This use of female imagery to represent corporate entities in Revelation must inform our interpretation of the woman who bore the male child.
A major clue to her identity, besides her giving birth to Christ, is found in the imagery of the sun, the moon, and the twelve stars (12:1), which clearly hark back to Joseph’s dream in Genesis 37:9. Joseph’s father Jacob recognized these images as representing his own family (i.e., Israel). For this reason, the most ancient interpreters interpreted the woman relative to Israel—usually as the faithful remnant or “spiritual” Israel. The ancient (third century) commentary of Victorinus asserted: “The woman clothed with the sun, and having the moon under her feet, and wearing a crown of twelve stars upon her head, and travailing in her pains, is the ancient church of fathers, and prophets, and saints, and apostles, which had the groans and torments of its longing until it saw…Christ, the fruit of its people according to the flesh.”3 The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops concurs with Victorinus: “The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars…symbolizes God’s people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (Rev. 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church.”4
However, the Roman Church has come to adopt a double-identification of the woman as representing, on one level, the church, and, on another level, the Virgin Mary: “There is a longstanding tradition of interpretation in the Church which views this woman from two perspectives: as representative of God’s People and as the Mother of our Lord.”5 A respected Catholic commentary explains, “By this woman, interpreters commonly understand the Church….It may also, by allusion, be applied to our blessed Lady.”6
While Protestants may intuit that such a double-identification seems unlikely—and even theologically opportunistic—both ideas have prima facie plausibility. Even if the woman depicts the people of God, as the oldest traditions seem to suggest, it remains possible to see Mary as the individual member of the faithful remnant who brought forth the Messiah. On the other hand, if it is acknowledged that the woman (like other “women” in Revelation) represents a corporate entity, it does not seem necessary to add another layer of interpretation by identifying her with both the corporate church and the individual mother of Christ.
Although the woman’s giving birth to Christ may be one factor that could point to Mary, the subsequent description of the woman’s circumstances would seem to rule out any reference to Mary. The woman is seen as coming under special, post resurrection persecution from the dragon (Rev. 12:13), yet nothing in the Book of Acts, where Mary is last seen (1:14), would indicate that she was singled out from the Christian community in general as a target for persecution.
As a result of this persecution, the vision’s woman flees to, and finds refuge in, the wilderness (Rev. 12:6, 14). Did Mary actually make such a flight? No historical information would suggest that she did so. However, the faithful Jewish remnant (the Judean Church), which in other respects seems a good candidate for identification with the woman, did flee to the wilderness prior to the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70, and so found refuge from the Roman invasion of that city. Eusebius, writing in 325, reports: “The people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella.”7
In Revelation 12:17, the woman is said to have had other “offspring” who experienced persecution with her. While it seems probable that Mary and Joseph had additional children after the birth of Jesus (e.g., Matt. 13:55–56), we do not read of these children experiencing special persecution in the wilderness. On the other hand, if the woman is seen as the Jewish church, then the Gentile Christians, “who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ,” would be those referred to as “the rest of her offspring.” The woman, then, is she who is “the mother of us all”—a dignity elsewhere ascribed to “Jerusalem which is above” (Gal. 4:26), which is the church (Heb. 12:22–23).
While the fact of giving birth to Christ would seem to qualify the woman of Revelation 12 to be identified with Mary, there is nothing else in the chapter that would correlate with her, and, as we have observed, there is a tendency in Revelation to use women as figures for some corporate entities rather than for individual persons.
The identification that would better fit all the known facts inside and outside the passage would be that of the faithful Jewish remnant, through whom God brought the Messiah into the world, and which followed Him as His first disciples. The Judean remnant thus became the Judean church. The Book of Acts documents the beginning of the persecution of the woman by the dragon, and church history (Eusebius) records her flight into the wilderness.
This identification easily accommodates the reference to “the rest of her offspring,” since this is a very apt way of speaking of the Gentile churches, which were spawned through the labors of the Judean saints.
As for the idea of a “new Eve,” this would not be at all applicable to Mary, since Adam is a type of Christ (Rom. 5:14), and Eve was Adam’s wife, not his mother. The marriage of Adam and Eve seems to be identified by Paul as a type of Christ and His bride, the church (Eph. 5:31–32), which would, again, make the church, and not Mary, the “new Eve” and “the mother of all living.”
Thus, the identification of the woman with the Virgin Mary is hermeneutically tenuous, rendering this chapter of Revelation useless in the defense of any specific Marian doctrines.
My very dear friend, Marie Fisher, formerly of Seattle and now of Spokane, Washington passed this on to me as "absolutely must viewing." I watched it and I agree with her opinion and feel it is a message that is for the times as I presently perceive them. It would be nice if I were wrong, but I feel that things are moving very, very quickly.
ReplyDeleteConstance
I'm getting questions about possible Zoom conferences. I do now have a microphone that works well with my desktop computer for doing same. Contact me via my landline phone at 248-253-0333 and/or send me an email if you would like to set one up and invite me to join as speaker. The equipment would work equally well with other software programs such as Team and/or Webinar.
ReplyDeleteConstance
Here is a video I just watched where the speaker says he just watched one of the activists say that statutes of Jesus should come down.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWZ6FPNNlLY&feature=emb_rel_pause
Constance
Constance:
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for posting this excellent, timely and powerful homily from Father Robert Altier.
Yes, I agree that we all need to be prepared to do whatever God asks of us.
"Thy will be done" (not my will)... AMEN.
The statutes of 'Jesus' should come down! YES!
ReplyDeleteConstance, your Grandma is watching! Save the statutes of 'JESUS'!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteRelatedly, after writing the article defending Dylan while exposing the illogical and syllogistic work of one vlogger, I was led to listening more of Dylan’s new release. I bought it. It’s fantastic. I’m sure many here are aware of Dylan’s conversion to Christianity in 1979, and the subsequent three overtly Christian-themed records. One may be inclined to debate whether or not his conversion “stuck”. His later records made oblique references, though nothing overt. Yet here are some interesting lyrics from his new “Crossing the Rubicon” that may relate to the admonition of Fr. Altier:
ReplyDeleteI feel the Holy Spirit inside
See the light that freedom gives
I believe it's in the reach of
Every man who lives
Keep as far away as possible
It's darkest 'fore the dawn (Oh Lord)
I turned the key, I broke it off
And I crossed the Rubicon
Regarding the statues of “Jesus”, I note that the earliest Christians used symbols to represent Jesus instead of overt depictions of Him. To vastly simplify, I’m going to copy and paste from an article I wrote a couple years ago on the subject of the ICHTHUS—the fish symbol.
ReplyDeleteUse of ΙΧΘΥΣ in early Christianity
In the first century AD, many Christian converts met in private homes. After the Christian faith gained wider acceptance, buildings were erected specifically for worship. These early places of worship were unadorned and plain, for Christians were concerned about possibly falling prey to idolatry.
In these early days, one would not find drawings or sculptures of Christ; however, eventually, symbols representing our Lord and our faith would be made. Rather than fashioning a likeness of Jesus’ human form, “they made a figure of a shepherd carrying a lamb on his shoulders, to signify the Good Shepherd who gave his life for his sheep” (John 10:11). The Messiah was also represented symbolically as a lamb. Other Christian symbols used were: a dove to represent the Holy Spirit; a ship, to signify the Church, the ark of salvation, sailing towards heaven; a lyre, to represent joy; an anchor, to symbolize hope; and, “a fish, which was meant to remind them of their having been born again in the water at their baptism”.
These symbols began to be used on everyday items at home, such as lamps, vases, rings, bowls, wall-hangings and the like. Fish symbols were also found in the Roman catacombs in pictures with bread and wine—in some the fish is swimming in the water with a plate of bread and a cup of wine on its back, evidently alluding to the Last Supper or Eucharist. The oldest known ΙΧΘΥΣ-monument, the Cœmeterium Domitillae (cemetery of Flavia Domitilla) in the catacombs, is dated perhaps as early as the late first century, to the middle of the second. This one depicts three persons with three loaves of bread and one fish, a likely reference to the miraculous feedings.
It is unknown when, but someone ingeniously invented an acrostic (backronym) based on the letters of ΙΧΘΥΣ: ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ ΘΕΟΥ ΥΙΟΣ ΣΩΤΗΡ (IĒSOUS CHRISTOS THEOU YIOS SŌTĒR), which translates to JESUS CHRIST, GOD’S SON, SAVIOR.
If one is going to have images of Biblical figures regardless, here is A Far, Far More Realistic Depiction Of The Face Of Jesus As He Appeared As A Human
ReplyDeleteMy point in putting up the second video of the Christian images destruction is to show that a spirit of mob violence and hatred against Christianity appears to be well unleashed. Read the warnings contained in the book of Daniel and the 4 Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John). It was not to argue whether images are right or wrong. If in the spirit of obedience to God, you make a decision to remove, that is one thing and not one I'm concerned about. If the mob makes a decision to remove based on Satanically inspired hatred, that is another, and of that, yes, I am concerned and the
ReplyDeletealerts posed by the speaker are valid.
Constance
Constance,
ReplyDeleteYes, I quite agree with "If in the spirit of obedience to God, you make a decision to remove, that is one thing and not one I'm concerned about. If the mob makes a decision to remove based on Satanically inspired hatred, that is another".
I should have clarified.
12:03 PM
This big media outlet HIDES the KKK’s past ties to Democratic party
ReplyDeletehttps://www.naturalnews.com/2020-06-25-media-outlet-hides-kkks-ties-democratic-party.html
P.S. to my 1:07 PM post
ReplyDeleteI DO take issue with one aspect of the more realistic representation (besides the expression on the face) though.
And that is...
I daresay Christ (and others there and then) had access to and used...
COMBS
This guy gets it! I've timestamped at WSJ's Dan Henninger's summation of the historical background for the current 'cancel culture'. The entire 5 minutes segment is worth viewing:
ReplyDeleteBusiness in CHOP to sue Seattle for abandoning the area
Wall Street Journal columnist and Fox News contributor Dan Henninger reacts Seattle’s ‘CHOP’ zone and nationwide protests on ‘America’s Newsroom.’
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletePlease make it stop department . . .
ReplyDeleteOutrage as activists and journalists say the Star Spangled Banner should no longer be the National Anthem because it was written by slave owner Francis Scott Key - and suggest John Lennon's Imagine as a replacement
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8460515/Historian-activists-claim-Star-Spangled-Banner-no-longer-national-anthem.html
I can't wait to hear what the replacement names are going to be for Washington, DC and Columbus, Ohio, etc etc...and practically every city in the USA, and practically every state in the United States which are almost all named after places in England, which was so involved in the slave trade, one hundred and twenty years ago.
ReplyDeleteThis whole thing has gone so far past rational that it's completely in the realm of the absurd.
We're experiencing the results of fifty years of United Nations dumbing-down education initiatives, which were quietly conceived in the Soviet Union. See: Robin Eubanks; Credentialed To Destroy.
NINETY-EIGHT percent of the murders of African Americans every year are perpetrated by other African Americans, mostly in drug related gang violence.
TWO percent of the murders of African Americans every year are perpetrated by police.
ALL the anarchy, and rage, and fury is directed at the police and the system of law that we have in place, which always needs to be improved.
NO demonstrations, NO riots, NO burned buildings, NO marches, NO fury, NO signs are held up to say that BLACKS NEED TO STOP KILLING EACH OTHER. Black lives matter INDEED.
Please scroll down and click on this MUST SEE video . . .
ReplyDeleteNew York nurse (with hidden camera) tells what happened in Elmhurst Hospital in NYC . . .
https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-06-23-coronavirus-surges-in-texas-houston.html
Constance @ 12:37 PM,
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, though I understand your intentions, we cannot escape from the issue of what a “White Jesus” represents. Perhaps you’ve heard about the Black Jesus or the Japanese Jesus—these examples make the point. Race should play no part in who Jesus is, yet some have made it so in these “White Jesus” depictions. It is just not right to depict Him in contradistinction to what he most likely looked like. Given, this, it is better, in my mind, to just do away with these sorts of things altogether, for they can only lead to unnecessary division.
As to the issue of the tearing down of other (Catholic) statues, this is merely the logical extension of such things as the ‘piss Christ’ “art” from a while ago, coupled with this more recent tearing down of statues generally. That is, our culture has been ‘at war’ with Christianity and Judeo-Christian values for quite a while, and this the culmination of it.
I was completely unfamiliar with the story of Theodotia, but now having heard it, I’m absolutely appalled. Not only did she rebel against the authority that God placed over her (Romans 13:1-7), she went so far as to shake the ladder of the man tasked with removing the statue—A STATUE—of Jesus such that the man fell to his death. That blood was/is on HER hands.
If/when the time should come, with the Spirit’s help, I will defend the Name (Person) of Jesus to my death, if necessary; however, I will never defend a STATUE or some other sort of representation of Jesus in such a manner, for THAT smacks of idolatry. It is one thing to view any given symbol or icon as REPRESENTING the P/person it is meant to represent; it is quite another to defend it AS IF the thing were the actual P/person Him/herself. In other words, it’s either a representative symbol OR it’s an idol. You cannot have it both ways.
All this reminds me of the lyrics by Neil Peart of the band RUSH in the track “Natural Science”:
When the ebbing tide retreats
Along the rocky shoreline
It leaves a trail of tidal pools
In a short-lived galaxy
Each microcosmic planet
A complete society
A simple kind mirror
To reflect upon our own
All the busy little creatures
Chasing out their destinies
Living in their pools
They soon forget about the sea...
Wheels within wheels in a spiral array
A pattern so grand and complex
Time after time we lose sight of the way
Our causes can't see their effects
…
In their own image
Their world is fashioned
No wonder they don't understand
Paul at 6:45 PM,
ReplyDeleteAlways ready to talk about that which you do not know.
Firstly, Ohio was never named after any place in England. Ohio：
”U.S. state, admitted 1803, named for the river, which is from Seneca (Iroquoian) ohi:yo', a proper name from ohi:yo:h, literally "good river." The Seneca also used this of the Allegheny, which they considered the headwaters of the Ohio. Related: Ohian (1819); Ohioan (1818).”
https://www.etymonline.com/word/ohio
Secondly, slavery was outlawed in the United Kingdom (i.e., England, etc.) in 1772.
”I am really ashamed of my Country whenever I consider it [slavery]; and if ever I bid adieu to Virginia, it will be from that cause alone." Robert Beverly, 1761.
By the third quarter of the eighteenth century, Enlightenment ideals of freedom and equality for all men began to openly clash with the accepted practice of slavery. Highlighted by John Locke's examination of the nature of man and society in the 1690s, and reinforced and expanded upon by the works of David Hume, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and François-Marie Arouet (more commonly known by his pseudonym, Voltaire), intellectuals in the British world began to consider more closely the contrast between the natural rights of man and how they were governed in eighteenth-century society. The institution of slavery had embedded itself in the American colonies and elsewhere during the seventeenth century and became the basis for the creation of great wealth in the British Empire. Britain had no legalized slavery under English common law, but slave codes, endorsed by the Crown, had been developed in colonial assemblies. Moreover, slavery and the slave trade were endorsed by all European religious institutions and by international law.
The year 1772 was a watershed of sorts in the history of slavery-it might be called the beginning of its end, as the legal framework upon which slavery was based began to crumble, at least in England, beginning with the landmark decision in Somerset v. Stewart. James Somerset was a slave bought in Virginia by Charles Stewart, a Scots merchant and customs official with quite close Chesapeake ties. Stewart left Virginia for England in 1768, taking Somerset with him. In 1771, Somerset took his leave of Stewart and refused to return to a state of permanent servitude. He was soon arrested and imprisoned, but his case was taken up by Granville Sharp, an inveterate opponent to the institution of slavery as antithetical to the British constitution and English common law. In a decision handed down by William Murray, Baron (later Earl) of Mansfield and Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, the court narrowly held that "a master could not seize a slave in England and detain him preparatory to sending him out of the realm to be sold" and that habeas corpus was a constitutional right available to slaves to forestall such seizure, deportation and sale because they were not chattel, or mere property, they were servants and thus persons invested with certain (but certainly limited) constitutional protections. Although Mansfield took great care to phrase his holding in such a way that it could not be used for a broader precedent in determining the legal status of slaves or their rights, it was widely perceived quite differently on both sides of the Atlantic: Many, including many slaves, understood Somerset to have effectively abolished slavery in England (Somerset himself believed so). Its impact was profound in the colonies as some slaves invoked it to seek their own freedom.
http://www.ouramericanrevolution.org/index.cfm/page/view/m0149
Continued from previous post to Paul at 6:45 PM
ReplyDeleteElsewhere (outside of the United Kingdom) in the then British Empire, slavery was abolished in 1833.
Racial discrimination was outlawed in 1965 in England too.
The Race Relations Act 1965 was the first piece of legislation in the UK to address the prohibition of racial discrimination and followed previously unsuccessful bills. The Act banned racial discrimination in public places and made the promotion of hatred on the grounds of ‘colour, race, or ethnic or national origins’ an offence.
The Bill received Royal Assent on 8 November 1965, and came into force a month later on 8 December 1965. It was introduced by the Government in response to the increasing number of people who had moved to the UK from other Commonwealth countries; at the time of the Act being passed there were nearly one million immigrants living in the UK. It was criticised for failing to address vital areas where discrimination was most prevalent, namely employment and wider aspects of acquiring accommodation. This led to the passing of the 1968 Race Relations Act, which made unlawful acts of discrimination within employment, housing and advertising.
https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/relationships/collections1/race-relations-act-1965/race-relations-act-1965/
Someone ealier had cited Matthew 7:3-5 regarding you. Finsihed work for the day, have you? I see you're still struggling with that beam.
You really are a most unlikeable person, do you realise that? Educate yourself before opening your big mouth!
I agree Craig. Could actually be akin to idolatry as you pointed out.
ReplyDeleteChrist in me as the Bible teaches, there by faith in the great Grace that God has afforded us, is what I will defend too. Outward expression means nothing really in the comparison to someone trying to topple, shake, or uproot Christ Who is in my heart. So they just might have to do that to get rid of that testimony of my life. I am not my own for I was bought at a price and who knows that may ultimately be it. Jesus was persecuted..crucified..for not fitting a worldview. I love His worldview instead, and may very well cost me. That has to be okay with a follower of Jesus because a follower is not greater than his Lord the Bibles also tells us.
So in my understanding it has never been about the externals really.
Things may have a place, but not to be above God's plan and purpose.
And God's kingdom is not of this world, anyway.
The world is only acting as the world apart from the Lord acts like--and what I would very likely be like too, in some form or fashion, without the Lord reigning in my life--so no surprise is it?
Anon 10:12/17 PM,
ReplyDeleteThough I did learn some things from your comment, in all fairness, I must state you are in error on your first point. paul specifically mentioned Columbus, Ohio--the city--rather than Ohio the State in his example.
Reiteration.
ReplyDeletePaul, regarding you, someone earlier had cited, Matthew 7:3-5.
Finished work for the day, have you? I see you're still struggling with that beam.
You really are a most unlikeable person. Do you realise that? Educate yourself before opening your big mouth!
Hi Craig,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the manners you have displayed in your comment and the fair tone you have used.
Anon 10:32 PM,
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome. I fear that we are all quite prone to falling prey to dis-civil discourse in online exchanges. Though I try not to, I'm sure I've crossed this line at times. I'm making more of an effort to step back before making any comments, showing grace to anyone I criticize.
It's interesting how in the comments before this most recent post by Constance, the demonically hateful cultists went 'pit of hell' ballistic on RayB, and Paul, which is still evident in these newest comments here. But that's ok with the religionists
ReplyDeletewho enjoy the quenching of the Spirit, and the endorphin release from exercising their fleshly minds. To the contentment of the master Pharisee. You Catholics in the last comments section proved that your ignorant children of the unholy one, but you would never realize that, because your blind with hatred! Shame on you, and those who failed to correct you. This is now the blog of hyper egotists, and religionists.
Hi Craig,
ReplyDeleteIndeed, Columbus, is where the emphasis should be placed and not on Ohio. Even so, the spirit of my point remains, in that it was a poor example for Paul to use as a run up to stating, ”almost all named after places in England, which was so involved in the slave trade, one hundred and twenty years ago”, and if Paul does not even understand that it was not from England that Columbus set sail in 1492, then there is no helping him.
Paul states things which are untrue and far too often come from a place of prejudice and ignorance. There are more than just Protestants or Americans visiting here. I have watched him insult and,attack people at whiim over the years. Sometimes, patience is a pearl others cannot appreciate.
Hi Craig,
ReplyDeleteIndeed, Columbus, is where the emphasis should be placed and not on Ohio. Even so, the spirit of my point remains, in that it was a poor example for Paul to use as a run up to stating, ”almost all named after places in England, which was so involved in the slave trade, one hundred and twenty years ago”, and if Paul does not even understand that it was not from England that Columbus set sail in 1492, then there is no helping him.
Paul states things which are untrue and far too often come from a place of prejudice and ignorance. There are more than just Protestants or Americans visiting here. I have watched him insult and attack people at whim over the years. Sometimes, patience is a pearl others cannot appreciate.
Sorry, 11:42 PM, but I think you are wrong about Paul.
ReplyDeleteWe can agree or disagree all we want, but I find him candid and without malice.
So many people are just too easily offended these days.
Disagreeing without being disagreeable is something people have largely forgotten in these times we are living.
This is a blanket statement.
ReplyDeleteAnyone using Matthew 7:3-5 to criticize another completely misses Jesus’ point. This is an admonition for self-reflection, not a means by which to try to bludgeon another. When one uses this Scripture against another, the same is most often guilty of the very offense Jesus is warning about.
At the risk of inflaming non-RCC vs RCC 20.0, take 193, on this blog—which is definitely NOT my intent—I have a serious question for RCC adherents regarding statues of Jesus.
ReplyDeleteBefore I get to this, let me restate my own background (briefly). I’m now just shy of being Sixty Years On (Elton John reference), and I’ve been a Christ-follower for 20. That means 2/3rds of my life was secular. I did have a decent Judeo-Christian moral grounding, and I was even sent off to various churches at times as a kid (probably to provide parents ‘alone time’), but I knew virtually nothing of the Christian faith in terms of doctrine. So I had a lot of catching up to do (and still do). Though I’m certainly not a Roman Catholic, I scarcely define myself as a “Protestant” (I’m not ‘protesting’!). I find most of these labels unhelpful. I’m a Bible-believing Christ-follower.
With that out of the way, my question will follow after my lead-off arguments to get to my point. If any point of my argument is incorrect with respect to RCC doctrine, I ask that you identify and correct it. Here goes.
Every good Catholic has a robust Christology, adhering to the Chalcedonian Definition (Creed). In short, Jesus is 100% God, 100% man. As part of the proceedings at Chalcedon 451, Leo I’s Epistola Dogmatica, aka “Leo’s Tome”, was accepted as describing proper Christology. In the “Tome”, Leo I rightly critiqued Nestorianism. This is based on what is the purported belief of Nestorious, which divided the human and Divine natures in Jesus to the point of implying two separate persons. This was declared heresy. In light of this, when speaking about Jesus, one must consider Him as one Person in two natures, indivisible. We might say, by concession, that when Jesus slept He did so because of His humanity, for God does not sleep. But we understand that Jesus slept as the Divine-human Person of Christ. My overarching point is that, while we recognize that Jesus is human, at the same time we NEVER consider Jesus as merely human at the expense of His Divinity. He is the God-man.
That said, how can statues of Jesus be justified? Since Jesus is God (the God-man), wouldn’t this necessarily be a direct violation of the first of the Ten Commandments?
That's alright, yet I do not find him candid. I find him to be downright rude insufferable, big-mouthed, and one to judge before knowing the facts of a situation. That is the reason I use Matthew 7:3-5 Hopefully Paul will research and self-reflect or ask before asserting things which his nation is far more responsible than England, for example.
ReplyDeleteScanning back over the last few threads, it's clear that ALL the name-calling and vitriol, and ad-hominum, childish attacks are coming from some anonymous person; the same person who has hated my guts for a long time now, who is so obsessed with hating me that they still bring up little factoids about my life that they must have picked up many years ago.
ReplyDeleteYou sound like a really angry three year old girl.
To Paul @ 7:41 AM
ReplyDeleteFor your information, there have been TWO Catholics posting on this blog recently (who, up until a few days ago, didn't even know each other). If you can't tell, from their two very different writing styles, that these are clearly two separate individuals... then you are not very observant. (Although, over the past 15 years, there were 4 of us.)
You refer to those of us who choose to DEFEND our Catholic faith against ATTACKS on this blog (which we have every RIGHT to do) as 'angry or childish'. Actually, we have managed to use a great deal of restraint... remaining very CALM (often using sarcasm and humor) in our responses to the vitriolic posts from both you and RayB.
If you are spending time scanning previous threads... clearly you have the same unhealthy OBSESSION with Catholics that RayB exhibits.
(And oh, by the way, neither of us posters is 'an angry 3 year old girl'... but, thanks for the laugh this morning.)
I get the impression that Constance, with this latest thread) may be attempting to heal any rifts on this blog.
Meanwhile, I am going to pray and ask God to heal you and RayB... and I truly hope that you both find peace.
Dear Craig @ 1:14 AM:
ReplyDeleteRe: "... how can statues of Jesus be justified? Since Jesus is God (the God-man), wouldn’t this necessarily be a direct violation of the first of the Ten Commandments?"
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Since we Catholics neither 'worship' or 'idolize' statues... we certainly do not see this as a violation of the first Commandment. Therefore, we are going to have to agree to disagree with your statement.
Meanwhile, why don't we just let God 'sort all of this out' (these differences between us) on Judgement Day... rather than here on this blog?
Thank you.
University of Idaho history professor Richard B. Spence has drawn many lines between revolutionary movements and esoteric societies. In addition to the parallel Constance draws between Nazis and New Agers, he shows connections between Synarchists and their like with French, Russian, German, Italian, and Mexican revolutionaries. He lays it all out here: https://www.thefarmpodcast.com/e/antimystery3
ReplyDeleteAnon 10:15 AM,
ReplyDeleteWith respect, you’ve overlooked the most important aspect of my question, which I’ll more specifically identify after addressing your statement regarding worshiping or idolizing.
I fully understand the RCC distinction between veneration and worship. For example, a statue of, say, Athanasius is venerated rather than worshiped, for to worship the statue would be a form of idolatry. Accordingly, all statues and icons are venerated, not worshiped.
The logical conclusion of this position is such that a statue of Jesus must also be venerated, not worshiped, as you’ve stated. However, by necessary implication, this makes a statue of Jesus a depiction of a merely human one, thereby denying His Divinity, exemplifying the very definition of Nestorianism, violating Chalcedon, and by extension, violating Scripture. On the other hand, if one maintains the proper balance of Chalcedon, affirming Christ as the Divine-human God-man, then one must simultaneously recognize that a statue of Jesus is a blatant violation of the first of the Ten Commandments. As I see it, you cannot have one without the other.
My question is how this inherent contradiction—as I perceive it—can be reconciled. Maybe it can be. At present, I just don’t see how, but I’m willing to be educated and shown to be in error.
Interesting how the 'catholics' all attacked vigorously in the last thread, and here again. Completely baseless demonic hatred toward two of the most prominent Christians who post here! AND, no rebuke of the Catholics from Mrs, Cumby! The same Mrs. Cumby who rebuked a poster on the last thread for supposed murderous thoughts against globalist criminal George Soros. All well and lovely but for the fact that Mrs Cumby was, until not that long ago, a decades long Democrat! The same Democrats who have satanically sacrificed the lives of unborn children to the tune of well over 50,000,000 million. Constance, for not unbiasedly policing your blog, for seemingly disliking Christians, and your support of the HOLOCAUST OF INNOCENT CHILDREN, you have ZERO credibility here. NONE!!!!! you should be ashamed of your yourself!
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete"THOU SHALT NOT MAKE UNTO THEE ANY GRAVEN IMAGE, OR ANY LIKENESS OF ANY THING THAT IS IN HEAVEN ABOVE, OR THAT IS IN THE EARTH BENEATH, OR THAT IS IN THE WATER UNDER THE EARTH:" Exodus 20:4 (Block lettering added for emphasis).
Constance Cumbey has proven herself to be a true Christian, full of wisdom and humility.
ReplyDeleteThe New Age Movement has nothing to do with a person's political party. It is the final battle between good vs. evil / God vs. Satan. (She has spoken out time and time again against abortion and for the rights of the unborn.)
It must be very difficult for her to remain 'above the fray' on this blog.
We are all adults here, who should be able to 'police' ourselves. That is not her job.
Some "statues" come alive ! Some even shed "tears" (usually blood). But Mother Angelica had one of the most remarkable accounts ever recorded (actually ... there are lots and lots of these types of stories, but that a topic for another day).
ReplyDeleteHere is Mother Angelica's account:
In 1995, Mother Angelica visited the Sanctuary of the Divine Infant Jesus to attend Mass in Bogota, Columbia. After Mass, Father Juan Pablo took Mother Angelica into a small Shrine which housed the miraculous statue of the Child Jesus.
According to Mother Angelica, as she stood praying at the side of the statue, the "MIRACULOUS IMAGE SUDDENLY CAME ALIVE AND TURNED TOWARS HER. THEN THE CHILD JESUS SPOKE WITH THE VOICE OF A YOUNG BOY: "BUILD ME A TEMPLE AND I WILL HELP THOSE WHO HELP YOU." Thus began a great adventure that would eventually result in the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament, a Temple dedicated to the Divine Child Jesus, a place of refuge for all.
Don't miss this the "I WILL HELP THOSE WHO HELP YOU" promise made by the "statue." Translation: for all those that GIVE MONEY to BUILD the "temple," I will HELP THEM." WOW ! What a return on your investment, no wonder the fundraising went so well.
Mother Angelica went on to collect over $50 MILLION in order to "build the temple that was commanded by the talking statue. What's more, a replica of the miracle "Baby Statue" can be PURCHASED as well.
Have you ever asked yourself the question; WHO is it that benefits from the SALE of the LICENSED statues, images, etc. ? This is BIG BUSINESS folks ... literally MILLIONS of these images are sold every single year.
Who holds the Internationally protected license required to produce and SELL these items? I'll give you one guess. It starts with a V ... would you like to buy a vowel?
As long as he's quoting Scripture, here's a part of the Bible RayB has always avoided posting for some reason:
ReplyDeleteWhat does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?
Can faith save him?
If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?
Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!
But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God.
You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
James 2:14-26 NKJV
No, I would rather buy an 'O' for OBSESSION!!!
ReplyDelete(Although we Catholics are no longer flattered that you are so obsessed with us.)
11:24 AM
ReplyDeleteI suppose that one of you 'prominent christians' actually believes that all Catholics are Democrats. Your ignorance is truly astounding.
And DARING to attack Constance here on her own blog??? How dare she be fair or neutral?
For once, I am at a complete loss for words!!!
ReplyDeleteRegarding your false claim (one that you have made on numerous occasions), I've never "avoided" the teachings of the Epistle of James, and have stated before on several occasions what is meant by "works" in James. Here I go again ...
"Works" is nothing other than faith put into practice. True faith is granted, by grace, and is a gift of the Sovereign God, as clearly stated in Ephesians 2:8,9
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: IT IS THE GIFT OF God:
"Not of works, lest any man should boast." (block lettering for emphasis)
NOTE: Works is NOT a means by which JUSTIFICATION is obtained; works is a SIGN that a person has OBTAINED Justification through grace given faith. Works is a sign that faith has been put into action. Rehab had a fear of the God of Israel and revealed that faith based fear by her actions.
Many other passages and verses can be sited in order to clarify what James was writing, but here is just one such passage:
5 Not by WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH WE HAVE DONE, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Titus 3:5-7 (block lettering for emphasis)
If the parable of the fig tree's popular interpretation is correct, then you probably don't have much time left anyway. Next month Israel will annex territory, and I fear that will lead to a bust-up.
ReplyDelete1948 - 2028 is 80 years. I reckon it's this decade. That's it.
You think you're nuts, then you read Matthew,
Kicking down chairs, and knocking down statues,
in a restaurant, in a west coast town,
call the Trump, there's a madman around.
11:24 AM.
ReplyDeleteYou are way, way out of line...to an extreme in being judgmental.
I am sick of this kind of posting.
Please rethink what you said because it is very unproductive, and hurtful besides.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteSo sorry, I had not realized till I read you last post here how unwell you truly are. Your paranoid delusions of one person relentlessly stalking you as you frantically scan and scan,,seeing patterns which are not there. You really are not that important or interesting in my experience, Paul.
As I said in my earlier post, you really should take up that advice and seek out psychiatric care ASAP. Beg if you need to, just get that help. Narcissism is a difficult disorder to treat (just look at the state Ray B. is in). The problem with overt narcissists such as yourself, Saul, is you cannot pause for necessary self-reflection and you, to put it in language you can manage, get so triggered so very easily, as your post shows.
Don't let anyone, no matter how good intentioned, hold you back from getting the help you so clearly need.
Oh, it's really not easy for you now, is it?
It's clear you have very few, if any, real friends you can turn to. With ALL due respect, you cannot really blame them. Please get thst help now. Let the doc see your posts and others here ... be brave open and, if possible for you, honest with him or her.
Take care now.
I didn't say "tried to explain away" I said...
ReplyDelete"As long as he's quoting Scripture, here's a part of the Bible RayB has always avoided posting for some reason."
Or did you, in fact, ever post the entirety of James 2:14-26 in a single comment?
No?
No.
Which was the sole point I made.
"Outrage as activists and journalists say the Star Spangled Banner should no longer be the National Anthem because it was written by slave owner Francis Scott Key - and suggest John Lennon's Imagine as a replacement"
ReplyDeleteI have an idea. If they're so desperate, they can replace with 'Columbi, Gem of the Ocean'. Give a listen to it on YouTube. It's better.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteSo sorry, I had not realized till I read your last post here how unwell you truly are. Your paranoid delusions of one person relentlessly stalking you as you frantically scan and scan, seeing patterns which are not there. I do not wish to seem too unkind by inadvertently upsetting your fragile ego, however, you really are not that important or interesting in my experience, paul.
As I said in my earlier post, you really should take up that advice and seek out psychiatric care ASAP. Beg if you need to, just get that help. Narcissism is a difficult disorder to treat (just look at the state Ray B. is in). The problem with overt narcissists such as yourself, Saul, is you cannot pause for necessary self-reflection and you, to put it in language you can manage, get so triggered so very easily, as your post shows.
Don't let anyone, no matter how good intentioned, hold you back from getting the help you so clearly need.
Oh, it's really not easy for you now, is it?
It's clear you have very few, if any, real friends you can turn to. With ALL due respect, you cannot really blame them. Please get thst help now. Let the doc see your posts and others here ... be brave open and, if possible for you, honest with him or her.
Take care now.
Over the years, there have been several on this blog who did not get along with Paul. Our late friend, Dorothy was one who comes to mind (and she was not even a Catholic).
ReplyDeleteIn trying to explain away the Book of James,
ReplyDeleteRayB said...
"NOTE: Works is NOT a means by which JUSTIFICATION is obtained;"
But James says...
"You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only."
I'll go with James.
Well said, 1:17 PM.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with Ray B, to put it kindly, is when he's caught out and something threatens to unravel his narrative he goes into denial, silence, obfuscation, convenient "memory loss", etc. It seems Craig and Christine caught him out on that one, with his heresy regarding the nature and reality of the Resurrection.
More hatred against Whites:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.rt.com/I'm/492971-jounalist-censored-twitter-videos/
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/06/25/nyt-1619-project-founder-demonized-the-white-race-as-barbaric-devils-bloodsuckers-in-1995-n578774
Ray B doesn't understand that works are an expression of love, which is greater than faith. It is a real problem for Calvinists, whose perversion of God's character blinds them in the hardheartedness of their forever Protestant false "pope", the sociopath, John Murderous Calvin. Ray B, therefore, forgets the story of the good Samaritan, for example. Without works our faith is dead.
ReplyDeleteOver the years, I have noticed that Craig is always fair when debating Catholics... and he is always respectful. As a result, Catholics here on this blog respect Craig.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely right, 2:03 PM
ReplyDelete12:51 P.M.
ReplyDeleteJust twisting truth as Catholics have been doing here for years. Exaggerating, deflecting, and lying. They say it's sarcasm, and humor!!! And, with no correction from the blog owner! Never,,, and for many years! Constance loves her religionists, and has contempt for 'born again' Christians. Your a disgusting person Constance. If you had 'fairly' policed your blog over the years things would have been much better. But it's just not in your 'non existent character'! Shame on you!
ReplyDeleteEven for the natural, sinful state of fallen man, I find it utterly amazing that anyone would support a "religion" that actually promulgates stories of "statues coming to life," while giving instructions to "build a temple, etc." Every year, stories of stone statues of "Mary" show "life" by weeping tears of "blood." The whole thing isn't a "miracle" at all, it's either a gigantic, purposeful fraud, or, it is a demonic deception. We know it CAN'T be of God because He very distinctly forbids creating images, as found in Exodus 20:4:
"THOU SHALT NOT MAKE UNTO THEE ANY GRAVEN IMAGE, OR ANY LIKENESS OF ANY THING THAT IS IN HEAVEN ABOVE, OR THAT IS IN THE EARTH BENEATH, OR THAT IS IN THE WATER UNDER THE EARTH:" (Block lettering added for emphasis).
Furthermore, such utter, complete nonsense has a very keen relationship and basis with the far out "channeling" with the dead that is found in the New Age Movement and in Sorcery.
2:08 PM
ReplyDeleteAs a long time admirer of Constance Cumbey... I believe that I speak for many of the long time posters here... who strongly OBJECT to anyone who would dare to slander her character (especially on her OWN blog!). I mean, that takes some nerve on your part. If you're not happy here... why don't you leave?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteInteresting how the 'catholics' all attacked vigorously in the last thread, and here again. Completely baseless demonic hatred toward two of the most prominent Christians who post here! AND, no rebuke of the Catholics from Mrs, Cumby! The same Mrs. Cumby who rebuked a poster on the last thread for supposed murderous thoughts against globalist criminal George Soros. All well and lovely but for the fact that Mrs Cumby was, until not that long ago, a decades long Democrat! The same Democrats who have satanically sacrificed the lives of unborn children to the tune of well over 50,000,000 million. Constance, for not unbiasedly policing your blog, for seemingly disliking Christians, and your support of the HOLOCAUST OF INNOCENT CHILDREN, you have ZERO credibility here. NONE!!!!! you should be ashamed of your yourself!
11:24 AM
Anonymous said...
12:51 P.M.
Just twisting truth as Catholics have been doing here for years. Exaggerating, deflecting, and lying. They say it's sarcasm, and humor!!! And, with no correction from the blog owner! Never,,, and for many years! Constance loves her religionists, and has contempt for 'born again' Christians. Your a disgusting person Constance. If you had 'fairly' policed your blog over the years things would have been much better. But it's just not in your 'non existent character'! Shame on you!
2:08 PM
(Constance, no offense, but shouldn't you tell your jealous and bitter old ex-husband to take a hike?)
Keep it up, you two.
ReplyDeleteThese self-appointed 'two most prominent christians' are exhibiting anything BUT christian-like behavior on this blog. They are like two very immature spoiled BRATS who, when they don't get their way, start attacking the leader of this blog... and attacking HER character with one NASTY comment after another!!!
(It looks like your TRUE 'character' is slowly being revealed here for ALL to see.)
How LOW will they go? Stay tuned . . .
5:36 PM
ReplyDeleteAre you implying anons 11:24 AM & 2:08 PM are RayB & paul, respectively?
(And here I thought they were both written by Constance's ex!)
4:42 PM
ReplyDeleteJust for the record, and I've said this before, I'll say it again; I have never ... as in NEVER ... posted anything on this blog site by using any other name other than "RayB." I'm sure Constance has ways to verify the truthfulness of that statement.
I don't think Paul needs me to speak for him, but, having read his posts for years now, I can't imagine in even the slightest way, that he would post ANYTHING under another name either. Doing so is dishonest, IMO, and Paul does not seem to me to be anything other than sincere and honest, as revealed in his posts.
Once again, when these people have NOTHING, which they obviously don't, they resort to name calling, innuendo, lies, hatred, slander, etc.
Anyone with even two brain cells can see that they NEVER address anything of any substance regarding the CONTENT of the posts regarding Roman Catholicism, but rather, they attack the PERSON.
Their evil hatred, lies, slanderous attacks that they expressed in the previous thread might have reached an all time low in that regard, and that is really saying something for this blog.
Either way, the VENOM and HATRED posted against Catholics AND the personal attacks on Constance's character are coming from the very SAME person.
ReplyDeleteSo, I hope and pray that Constance DOES find out exactly WHO that person is and blocks him or her from this blog permanently!!!
" ...it CAN'T be of God because He very distinctly forbids creating images, as found in Exodus 20:4":
ReplyDelete"THOU SHALT NOT MAKE UNTO THEE ANY GRAVEN IMAGE, OR ANY LIKENESS OF ANY THING THAT IS IN HEAVEN ABOVE, OR THAT IS IN THE EARTH BENEATH, OR THAT IS IN THE WATER UNDER THE EARTH:" (Block lettering added for emphasis).
The point is not the forbidding of graven images but the worship of them. Exodus 20 here, was written at a time whwn people had been worshiping the golden calf, etc.
The ban is not on images per se, as clarified in the, following verse that one should not:“bow down to them nor serve them” (Ex. 20:5).
If images in and of themselves were intended to be banned by God, then why did he instruct for two cherubim to stand either side of the Mercy Seat on the Ark of the Covenant? And yet the high priest would have bowed in front of it, yet the intention of his heart and the focus of his mind would have been on God Himself and what the Ark represented, and not on the Ark of the Covenant itself.
I think a distinction is to be drawn between bowing to statues with the intention of worshiping the statue and bowing, as one may before the flag of one's country or king (e.g., King David), which is not to worship but to show respect for that which they represent, and worshiping the statue itself.
I myself as a Catholic, and the Catholics I know, do not bow to statues per se as to worship them as gods. They are mere depictions, which may remind us of God in Heaven and his loving mercy. Our hearts' intentions are, and the focus of our minds is to worship God in Heaven and He alone.
Otherwise, Ray B., you should avert your eyes from photos, paintings or television, and get rid of the wedding album, etc. Or do you never look adoringly at the image of your wife on her wedding day (though I trust, of course, your mind would be on her ... careful you're not worshiping her though)?
To the person blaming Democrats for abortion. Remember, 5 of the 6 Republican appointed judges in 1972 voted in favor of Roe v. Wade (and only 2 of the 3 Democrats appointed Judges approved it in a 7-2 decision). A Republican dominated court also gave us Gay marriage and, really all the progressive decisions the last 70 years The Republicans have controlled the Supreme Court since the 1950's. Thus the Republicans have just as much, if not more, blood on their hands. And, despite the platform, they don't really want to change anything. Almost 50 years and it still stands.
ReplyDeleteHere's a great film about the Abortion movement and issues with and failures of (the Catholic run) National Right to Life and, really republicans to end abortion.
"Babies are Still Murdered Here (full film)" - https://youtu.be/9-vyYE6C8MU
When conservative [and catholic] Matt Walsh went on the offensive when a Pennsylvania congressman from Philly verbally attacked a woman protesting in front of an abortion clinic, street apologist Si Ten Bruggencate challenged and exposed his lack of faith as well as that of the National Right to Life (i.e. - when you removed the bible from the debate - you give up the most powerful weapon - the Gospel saves)
"How to Answer Matt Walsh" - https://youtu.be/IIxjE2UIxkA
If you enjoyed the parts of the film about John Barros, a street preacher who has for years showed up at a large Orlando abortion clinic protesting and trying to save babies on the front lines as much as I did, then you may like this bonus interview.
"Answer Anyone: John Barros Full Interview" -https://youtu.be/xXaCmJaPAgc
If anyone is looking for something else interesting to watch this weekend that is poignant to the times, here's a link to the 1 hour and 48 minute film put out by Founders Ministries, featuring Dr. Thomas Ascol, R. Albert Mohler, Vodie Bauchamand and many others discussing and debating the concepts of critical race theory and intersectionality to the real-time backdrop of the SBC introducing and hurriedly passing "Resolution 9", incorporating such concepts "as a tool" into the SBC philosophies, at the 2019 SBC Convention last year.
ReplyDeleteSome of what I heard watching it again tonight.
-perfect strategy to destroy the church
-If it's in the SBC...it's everywhere
-The culture war is over and it naturally leads to the left
-inevitably a "great divide" is coming.
Here's the link: https://founders.org/cinedoc/
“The main consequence of Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality is identity politics, and identity politics can only rightly be described as antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We have to see identity politics as disastrous for the culture and nothing less than devastating for the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
-John MacArthur
https://baptistmessage.com/john-macarthur-rebukes-sbc-stance-on-critical-race-theory/
To the Poster at 11:24
ReplyDeleteThe IGNORANCE is, unfortunately yours. During the years I was active in the Democratic Party (1968 to 1980), much of the party leadership was staunchly and fiercely anti-Abortion. William A. Ryan was the speaker of the Michigan House of Representatives. He was my boss and was passionately pro-life and anti-abortion without compromise. The pro-abort in the Michigan legislature in those days was a REPUBLICAN Dearborn, Michigan State Senator by the name of Lorraine Beebe. She spoke passionately, loudly, and unashamedly of her own abortion of which she was very proud.
As long as William A. Ryan was in a position of power in the Michigan Democratic Party, anybody wishing to get anywhere in Democratic Party circles was well advised to decry abortion, which most then did.
A prominent Republican who was anti-abortion whom I also had the privilege of being acquainted was Senator Huebner. The pro-abortion activists liked to challenge him because of his pro-capital punishment position. Capital punishment is banned in Michigan. Huebner was advocating a change of the Michigan 1963 Constitution to permit it. The activists would ask him how he could reconcile his stance against abortion with his pro-capital punishment position. I did not see it myself, but the legendary account of his answer was this: He chomped on his cigar and then slowly said, "As I see it, the kid's innocent."
I personally have probably forgotten more about George Soros' position than most have ever known. I own and have read most of his books. He proudly proclaims his self-admitted Messianic complex -- believing himself God. Still, I am not going to clutter and defame this blogspot with statements perhaps even from agents-provocateur calling for violence against Soros. "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord."
Constance
Vis a vis the subject of images, I note that although the Torah forbade images, nevertheless, the Jews were ordered by God to make images of Cherubim and Seraphim angelic beings.
ReplyDeleteMy guess as to why this was done was to defeat the later Gnostic argument (also advanced by Dave Hunt) that the Angels and Demons were spirit only and could not suffer hell fire. ) This was, unfortunabely, also advanced by Dave Hunt in his book WHATEVER HAPPENED TO HEAVEN, pages 27-29.
Constance
Vis a vis the subject of images, I note that although the Torah forbade images, nevertheless, the Jews were ordered by God to make images of Cherubim and Seraphim angelic beings.
ReplyDeleteMy guess as to why this was done was to defeat the later Gnostic argument (also advanced by Dave Hunt) that the Angels and Demons were spirit only and could not suffer hell fire. ) This was, unfortunately, also advanced by Dave Hunt in his book WHATEVER HAPPENED TO HEAVEN, pages 27-29.
Constance
Regarding the first video referenced by Anon 11:44 PM, I started watching it, and @ about 6:50 Dr. Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr. claim that “the sexual abuse thing” within the SBC was “God’s judgment” because the SBC forbids women preachers, leading him to further make the ridiculous ‘analogy’ that such thinking led to the sexual abuse of women within the SBC. In response to such a non sequitur, such ridiculosity, someone from the audience interjects, after which Dr. Thomas Ascol says to McKissic, “Yeah, bro-, brother…” upon which McKissic looks his way stating “Bruh?”, which seems rude and dismissive to me, if not vaguely racist. I could just imagine if this were reversed with McKissic first saying “Yeah, bruh…” to which Ascol would look at him and say, “Brother?” Now, of course, I don’t know the heart and intent of either, so I’ll stop there.
ReplyDeleteLet me digress for a moment to add further perspective. About 1.5 years into my faith journey (18.5 years ago), I was going through a very difficult time as my wife was divorcing me, and in meeting with a prospective client, he discerned something was disturbing me (I’d not told him anything), prompting him to ask discernedly, “Are you a Christian?” When I answered in the affirmative, he recommended local Christian radio and a few specific preachers. Upon returning to my car, I tuned to the station he recommended, and I’ve been listening for the past 18+ years. One of the speakers I ended up enjoying and listening to regularly was Dr. Tony Evans (Urban Alternative ministry), a black preacher.
The church I was going to at the time had a “Divorce Care” class, which I began attending (I highly recommend this for anyone who is either going through and has been divorced). And some of Dr. Evans’ teaching was incorporated into the material.
However, I’d been noticing that recently he started bringing up race more and more in his sermons, making erroneous statements based on faulty statistics, that I think most likely came from secondary sources that he just assumed were correct. I began to lose respect for him, as he went more and more in this direction. The following recent video exemplifies this direction (though it’s not the most egregious example):
What Is Systemic Racism (Dr. Tony Evans)
This is not to say Evans is incorrect in many of his statements regarding US history, but to implicitly maintain that ‘the system’ still has an anti-black bias without acknowledging the steps that have been taken since especially the mid-60s is a bit one-sided.
In viewing many of the comments, you can see he is being taken to task for this. “BrotherofWord” has a pretty good one: I love Tony Evans and have listened to Urban Alt since the 90's, but he is off target here unless the title is "What WAS Systemic Racism". Slavery, 3/5, Jim Crowe, segregation, redlining, unfair lending and unfair hiring were all egregious examples of evil and were systemic. What are examples TODAY, so we can tear them down together?
To balance Evans, here’s David Webb:
David Webb - The United States is Not Institutionally Racist
Microsoft ADMITS Bing censors search results, says it’s necessary to promote “equality”
ReplyDeleteTo paul:
ReplyDeleteYour online stalker(s) are to be pitied. Imagine the mental state of somebody who would hang onto a grudge for years, and repeatedly seek petty vengeance on you; all because you once wrote something online that he/she disagreed with, misunderstood or disliked. Such a person has a tiny little Grinch heart on the inside.
To add more balance to my previous post, I recall one of the funniest things Tony Evans said. He is usually a pretty serious preacher, but he took me by surprise one time. He was preaching through Daniel and the account of the fiery furnace, speaking of “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-NEGRO”. I recall being in the car at the time, and upon hearing it bursting out laughing! His ministry is to inner city black youth, so I understood his intent.
ReplyDeleteAnother favorite is Pastor Paul Sheppard, based out of Fremont, CA. In fact, he is so popular here in San Antonio, that his daily programming (M-F) is replayed back-to-back, all five broadcasts, early Sunday mornings. Another radio favorite is local Pastor Ray D. Brown of Resurrection Baptist Church. He is very articulate, yet delivers his sermons in a very down-to-earth manner, actively engaging his audience.
Maybe you should learn from Pastor Day D. Brown, Craig?
ReplyDeleteHow We Arrived At The Globalists Calls For A "Great Reset"
ReplyDeletehttps://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/how-we-arrived-globalist-calls-great-reset
Melinda Gates Wants to Deliver Coronavirus Vaccine Based on Racial Groups, Blacks First
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/06/melinda-gates-wants-deliver-coronavirus-vaccine-based-racial-groups/
Correction:
ReplyDeleteArticle: "Microsoft Admits Bing censors search results, says it’s necessary to promote 'equality'"
"Maybe you should learn from Pastor DAY D. Brown, Craig?" was at first glance what I thought was another 'Massa Craig'-type comment but on second thought I suppose that they DIDN'T deliberately misspell his name so the poster meant to say that Craig should endeavor to be more like Pastor RAY D. Brown: very articulate, yet delivers his sermons in a very down-to-earth manner, actively engaging his audience.
ReplyDeleteAnon 8:19 PM,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Exodus 20:4 must be put in context vs. 5 AND vs. 3, as the RCC does in its version of the Ten Commandments. That stated, I will post the section of the Catechism which pertains to this in my very next comment (it’s quite a bit), for the benefit of all. I will comment later as I gather some thoughts in order to critique. And I think critique is fair, given that this is one of the main subjects of Constance's blog post here.
III. "You Shall Have No Other Gods Before Me"
ReplyDelete2110 The first commandment forbids honoring gods other than the one Lord who has revealed himself to his people. It proscribes superstition and irreligion. Superstition in some sense represents a perverse excess of religion...
2112 The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of "idols, (of) silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see." These empty idols make their worshippers empty: "Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them." God, however, is the "living God" who gives life and intervenes in history.
2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and mammon." Many martyrs died for not adoring "the Beast" refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.
"You Shall Not Make For Yourself a Graven Image . . ."
2129 The divine injunction included the prohibition of every representation of God by the hand of man. Deuteronomy explains: "Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure...." It is the absolutely transcendent God who revealed himself to Israel. "He is the all," but at the same time "he is greater than all his works."
2130 Nevertheless, already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim.
2131 Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons - of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new "economy" of images.
2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it." The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone:
Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. the movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.
Sorry, my second link above was defective. But it can be easily found by clicking “Next” from the previous one, as an alternative.
ReplyDeleteIn any event, note the verbiage in 2132: "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it." The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone. By the RCC’s Catechism, Theodosia violated the spirit and intent of 2132 in defending the statue of Jesus. That is, the veneration is to go through the image and to the person portrayed in the image and NOT to the image itself. Theodosia is guilty of idolatry (Catechism 2113)—the very thing this section is warning against. So, why was she subsequently canonized as a Saint?
Hi paul,
ReplyDeleteYou really should seek that help, regardless of what your misguided and deluded (p)sychophant at 9:36 AM vomits.
He seems to know you so well. He sounds like a former lover with whom you were shacked.
Whoops ... he seems to know you so well. He sounds like a former lodger with whom you were shacked. Strangely fond indeed. Or perhaps you've written the post yourself, paul? Aware or not of having done,so.
ReplyDeleteDo make it a priority to seek out a mental health professional, paul. You really are not well at all.
Take care now.
Wow 1:18 PM.
ReplyDeleteThe ugliness in your soul spills out, spells out, from your keyboard, with real bitter and sour fervor.
Jesus can take that from you.
Let Him.
Just a wondering question:?
ReplyDeleteHow many Protestant churches are "blessed" with pictures of Martin Luther, Dwight Moody, Billy Sunday, Ellen G. White, John Wesley, etc., etc.?
Just wondering????
Anon 1:28 PM,
ReplyDeleteEither you are deflecting, (and)/or you are missing my point. My challenge to you: show me how my post @ 1:05 PM is incorrect.
To the 9:36 AM provocateur (plus any others attempting to 'stir the pot'):
ReplyDeleteRegarding your following statement full of ERRORS: "Your online stalker(s) are to be pitied. Imagine the mental state of somebody who would hang onto a grudge for years, and repeatedly seek petty vengeance on you; all because you once wrote something online that he/she disagreed with, misunderstood or disliked. Such a person has a tiny little Grinch heart on the inside."
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Over the past 15 years, there have been 4 primary traditional Catholics who have posted here on this blog. As we have read Constance's best selling books, "The Hidden Dangers of The Rainbow" and "A Planned Deception - The Staging of a New Age Messiah"... our only goal was to contribute by sharing information (links to articles, etc.) exposing the New Age Movement.
However, soon, we Catholics were blindsided by frequent attacks from Paul... who was clearly OBSESSED with Catholics We chose not to remain silent, but to fight back ~ as any devout traditional Catholic Christian would do. We soon learned that debating doesn't work with Paul. He attacks with venom and vitriol.
For many years, the only 'stalker' on this blog was Paul. Now, RayB has become Paul's 'partner in crime'. (Just imagine how devastated they are going to be if their wishful thinking doesn't pan out... and the Pope turns out NOT to be the antichrist?)
Paul's refusal to ACCEPT our God-given RIGHT to our belief in our one true Catholic faith, religion, church as founded by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in 33 AD... is clearly Paul's problem, not ours. It HAS become an obsession with Paul... lasting for at least 15 years (that we know of).
When someone has an OBSESSION (about anything)... it IS a mental health issue. Ask any psychiatrist, who would recommend treatment asap.
Yes, of course, we recognize that evil forces are at work in the world... infiltrating ALL of the churches (both Protestant and Catholic)... but that doesn't mean we are going to ABANDON our faith. That is just NOT going to happen. We have the promise of Jesus HIMSELF in 33 AD: "... And the gates of Hell shall NOT prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18).
So, continue to spin and distort the truth... and mock and slander our beliefs. We will ALL meet soon enough on Judgement Day!!! Looking forward to it.
Meanwhile, may God grant all of the HATERS on this blog PEACE... and forgiveness for failing to 'judge not lest ye be judged" (Matthew 7-l).
1:25 PM,
ReplyDeleteShould I have used the kid gloves and sung rock a bye bye paulie on the tree top?
Only trying to help, even if the saline stings a little.
Atta boy. There, there.
Very well put, my friend in Christ at 1:49 PM.
ReplyDeleteI remember how thoroughly rude Paul was to Susanna. She is such a lovely lady, great information, full of tje love of Christ, yet no matter how much she turned the other cheek, he tore into her over and again.
I would not be surprised if Paul's anonymous (p)sychophant is Paul himself or his former homosexual lodger with whom he shacked.
I fully agree, Paul really does need long term and intensive psychiatric help.
He is so sad really.
Perverted sadism is clearly showing through in what you are saying while you're attacking Paul. How nice. Perhaps 'Sandra' is single, she'd be a fitting partner to one of you.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 2:12 PM
ReplyDeleteYes, Susanna (a traditional devout Catholic) is a BRILLIANT woman; extremely knowledgeable about our Catholic faith... and an excellent debater.
She is a very dear friend of mine, and we continue to stay in touch by e-mail.
Any perceived 'cancer' on this blog began many years ago... by the ANTI-Catholics.
ReplyDeleteIf you really want it to stop, take a long look at yourselves in the mirror... and END it now.
Again, Bill Maher is making sense when many aren’t. Though I’m no doubt right of center, I suppose I come from a bit of “old school liberalism”:
ReplyDeleteNew Rule: The Guardians of Gotcha | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)
But he might not perceive that much of the ‘fallout’ is from Critical Race Theory (CRT), aka intersectionality.
…oh, and Elvis didn’t really “take” Little Richard’s act, he at least acknowledged his debt to him. And at least Elvis could dance AND sing, while Pat Boone could do neither. Boone’s version of “Tutti Fruiti” is so cringey, I couldn’t even listen to it as a seven-year-old—or whenever it was I first heard it. Boone just can’t, just can’t…
ReplyDeleteAnon 2:12 and 3:07 PM,
ReplyDeleteRegarding Susanna, yes I’ll agree that she is an upstanding and brilliant lady (“lovely” is a British-ism that doesn’t quite translate to American English). And the times when we’ve disagreed, we’ve done so amicably, even when things may have gotten a bit contestable (if that’s the right word). She has certainly shown grace to me and many others here. She may have done so imperfectly, as I know I have. Having said that, this sort of grace is found wanting from some of the words of some RCC adherents in this thread. And I daresay I don’t think Susanna would approve.
Of course, that’s not to say some Protestants (and etc.?) have not been acting in similar fashion in recent comments. They definitely have. And I don’t care for this lack of grace either.
I certainly believe one has every right to defend oneself and one’s own faith-belief, but fighting ad hominem with more ad hominem just breeds more ad hominem. Let’s all try to be the better person. The better Christian.
AMEN, Craig!!
ReplyDeleteTHE CORONAVIRUS 5G CONNECTION COVERUP
ReplyDeleteThe China Coronavirus 5G Connection is a very important factor when trying to comprehend the coronavirus (formerly abbreviated 2019-nCoV, now COVID-19) outbreak. Various independent researchers around the web, for around 2-3 weeks now, have highlighted the coronavirus-5G link despite the fact that Google (as the self-appointed NWO Censor-in-Chief) is doing its best to hide and scrub all search results showing the connection. The coronavirus 5G connection doesn’t mean the bioweapons connection is false (it’s not a case of either-or), but rather broadens the scope of the entire event. Wuhan was one of the test cities chosen for China 5G rollout; 5G went live there on October 31st, 2019, almost exactly 2 months before the coronavirus outbreak began. Meanwhile, many scientific documents on the health effects of 5G have verified that it causes flu-like symptoms. This article reveals the various connections behind the coronavirus phenomenon, including how 5G can exacerbate or cause the kind of illness you are attributing to the new virus. The rabbit hole is deep so let’s take a dive.
5G – A Type of Directed Energy Weapon . . .
Much more at the link to this article (dated February, 2020) . . .
https://davidicke.com/2020/02/19/coronavirus-5g-connection-coverup/
I watched the homily of Father Robert Altier. I was curious about him and looked him up. I read here about how he was silenced and transferred when he spoke out about "Talking about Touching". I was impressed by his integrity.
ReplyDeleteThen I scrolled down and noticed the sales pitch (not his sales pitch, but coming from the people who wrote sympathetically about him, so I had been prepared to think these were the good Christian Catholics). To be fair, lots of Protestant end times sites are also selling things (books and videos, mostly).
To be fair to Father Robert Altier the sales pitch cut quite the contrast to his homily in the video in this post. His homily was about, in part, being willing to lose any material thing in order to serve God.
_________________________________________________________________________________
There are 4 Things You Must Have to Survive the End Times:
1.) The Douay-Rheims Holy Bible...(didn't notice dollar amount)
2.) The Complete Virgin Mary’s Bayside Prophesies in 6 Paperback Books..($33)
3.) Heaven's Home Protection Packet...(crucifixes to put outside all our outside doors, a four-pack for $14)
4.) Heaven's Personal Protection Packet...(sacramentals to wear around our necks, available for a donation of $7 plus $3 shipping)
Forgot the link:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.tldm.org/news9/sexedtalkingabouttouching2.htm
Problems with the Bayside Apparitions
ReplyDeleteWhat you are about to read represents probably the biggest waste of time in my life, though that does not mean it will be a waste for time for you. This is my magnum opus against the false and stupid Bayside apparitions. For the past three years I have spent my spare time reading through every single message of Bayside, going all the way back to the late 1960s. Thousands of them. The monotony. The stupidity. The banality. It was horrendous, mind-numbing work, and many times friends of mine urged me to just drop it and move on to something more rewarding. It is waste for two reasons - one, just wasting my years reading all these banal, stupid messages; and two, the fact that, for those caught up in Bayside, nothing will convince them otherwise. People who are sold out to questionable apparitions are obstinate in their stubbornness and exceptional in their ability to fabricate excuses and work-arounds for all the problems that inevitably crop up when one puts ones faith in something so inherently dumb. So yes, I fear this effort was a waste. But, who knows. God may bring something fruitful from it.
A word about the messages: the messages of Bayside delivered by Veronica Lueken are divided up by month and year. Some months have one or two messages; others have over a dozen. Some messages were short, others very, very long and rambling. They begin in 1968 and go up to June, 1994, when Veronica died. The text of the messages are taken from a website called These Last Days Ministries, commonly known as TLDM.org, which is the largest internet repository of the messages of Veronica. Now, there is some sort of schism among Baysiders regarding this website; some purists claim that the webmaster of TLDM has incorrectly transcribed some of the messages - these folks suggest the only "authentic" version of them are found in some books. However, this opinion is not universal, and even if TLDM has not transcribed the messages with 100% accuracy, they are not that different from what is found in the books, which I also had access to and compared some of the more saucier passages to.
I have here simply categorized all the problems I see with the messages. Not everything is "heresy"; I am not making that accusation. Some of it is, but some of it is incorrect history, failed prophecies, weirdness or just plain stupidity. These all constitute "red flags" that should give pause to anyone evaluating the credibility of this apparition. According to my own personal standards of credibility, even one of these problems would be sufficient to cast doubt on the whole thing, but I understand others' standards may be different.
RFK, Jr. speaks out on vaccine safety . . .
ReplyDeleteStefanie Stark: What are the moral implications of sacrificing a small number of individuals who we know will have severe adverse reactions, including death, to vaccines for the greater good of the community, the state, the country, the world?
ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR.: That raises a number of ethical issues. Also, it raises a question: what do we know about vaccine safety and efficacy? That is a threshold question because vaccines are not safety tested, and people find that hard to believe, but unfortunately, it’s true. And that is an artifact of CDC’s (CDC stands for “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention”) legacy of the public health service, which was originally a quasi-military agency. That is why CDC officials have military ranks such as “Surgeon General.”
The vaccine program was conceived as a national security defense against biological attacks on our country by the Russians or other Cold War enemies. The military objective was to be able to fabricate and deploy a vaccine very quickly to 200 million Americans without regulatory impediments. The regulators and generals understood that testing medicines for safety takes years, so they opted to call vaccines by a different name — “Biologics” — and exempt biologics from safety testing.
As a result of that decision, none of the 72 vaccines now mandated for American children have ever been safety tested against a double-blind placebo. Which means nobody knows the risk profile, and nobody can say with any certitude that the vaccine is averting more problems than it’s causing. That is why I say it’s a “threshold” issue because the ethical questions become much more clouded if we don’t even know if the vaccine is actually serving the greater good.
https://tinyurl.com/y9g7qdur
I have tried to create categories to make it easier to read. Within each category, the actual messages of Bayside (or descriptions of what the messages describe) appear in bold with the exact date appearing afterward for reference. My commentary follows each selection. I have researched many private apparitions over the years, true and false, notable and obscure - Medjugorje, Garabandal, Fatima, Pinckney, Emmitsburg, the "Army of Mary" - Bayside takes the cake as the absolute stupidest, most unbelievable and ridiculously ludicrous of them all.
ReplyDeleteI have created a table of contents for ease of browsing. For what its worth, enjoy.
1. Distracted, Absentminded Mary and Veronica
2. Bizarre Angelology
3. False/Failed Prophecies
4. Bad Grammar/Jesus and Our Lady Messing Up Their Words
5. Bayside Necessary for our Salvation?
6. Bad Theology
7. Frivolous Subject Matter
8. Simply Ridiculous
9. Television
10. Contradictions
11. Absurd Alleged Statistics about Satanism
12. Conclusion
Distracted, Absentminded Mary and Veronica
Mary frequently gets distracted during her apparitions. This is not unlike the absurd situation at Medjugorje where one of the visionaries, supposedly in an ecstasy, tried to explain her embarrassing flinching by saying that Mary looked as if she were going to drop the baby Jesus! Other times, the apparitions are described as being responsive to local temperature and conditions (Jesus wearing a cape because "it's very windy"). Here are some examples of Mary distracted at Bayside, or Veronica getting distracted during an alleged apparition:
Mary looks up and gets distracted by an airplane (June 18th, 1994)
You'd think Mary would not get distracted by shiny things in the sky.
"He [Jesus] has a beautiful golden - tinged robe about Him now. It’s pulled very tight, I don’t know if it’s because of the wind or what, but He’s pulling the gown about Him to prevent it from flying up, I guess. It looks very windy there." (June 18, 1994)
"And He has on a cape, an ecru, almost white-colored cape over His gown. It’s quite, it’s quite a bit chilly over here. That is why I would assume that Jesus is wearing His cape." (June 18, 1994)
Here, God the Son and His Mother depend upon Veronica to obtain a very trite piece of information for their records:
"Now you will continue, My child; look forward and find the other wheelchair, My child. It seems to be hidden. It is very necessary that you find that invalid, because we must have their name and address." (June 18, 1988)
Jesus and Mary need to get somebody's name and address!?
Mary tells Veronica to pray the Rosary. Veronica forgets Mary is coming back:
"I'm sorry, Our Lady. I had almost forgotten that You were coming back. I was so engrossed with the people in the infirm circle." (June 18, 1992)
You "forgot" that the Blessed Virgin Mother of God was returning to you?
Bizarre Angelology
ReplyDeleteBayside has prompted devotions to questionable spiritual entities with no history in the Catholic Tradition. Ever heard of Tomdarius and Tusazeri? According to Veronica, St. Theresa encourages the faithful to interact with these strange beings, whatever they are:
Saint Theresa - "You know, my sister, many of the names. Will you give some this evening to others?"
Veronica - Yes. There's Tomdarius, Tusazeri…. He is my guardian angel, but he's quite a clown. He likes to circle around. And right now he’s turning and spinning again. He always does that when he sees me; he turns and spins. And now also, there's Razene and Nadina and many others.(Oct 1, 1988)
It has been a perennial discipline in the Catholic Church that spiritual beings are not to be summoned, communicated with, or invoked by name other than those whose names are specifically revealed in Scripture (Michael, Gabriel, Raphael). You simply don't know to whom you are speaking when you invoke Tusazeri. Tusazeri, explains Veronica, his not only her guardian angel, but one of the archangels:
"I ... have asked Our Lady if I could have permission to tell who Tusazeri is. Our Lady says I may. Tusazeri is one of the high archangels of Heaven who Jesus sent to be with me when Theresa started the Mission for Heaven in 1968. He was sent by Jesus to protect me in this work against satan. Many times I have forgotten to call upon him when there are difficulties" (Feb 1, 1973).
This would mean that Veronica, alone in all of Christian tradition, has an archangel - a "high archangel" - as her personal guardian angel, presumably of the same rank with Michael, Gabriel and Raphael, the only other "archangels" known to Tradition. What hubris.
In another place, Mary tells the faithful that they need no longer concern themselves with the work of evangelization in the world because this task has been entrusted exclusively to the angels!
“My child, you must not use the little strength you have to try to convert all upon earth. You will have to give this to the angels to do most of this work of conversion. (May 26, 1979).
The angels have many jobs in Scripture and Tradition, but evangelizing has always been the job of humans. As we shall see later, this withdrawal from active evangelization is part of the cultic exclusivity of Bayside, which encourages believers to simply withdraw among themselves and shun those who do not believe in the apparitions. And yet, on June 9, 1979, Jesus says through Veronica, "You cannot and must not break away and form your own groups."
After relating an angelic vision of St. Michael and the Archangels, Veronica is given this number to combat the forces of Satan:
Jesus: “All you will repeat, My child, are the numbers ‘77 3,’ ‘77 3,’ ‘77 3.’ Remember, My child, as Lucifer goes forward with his plan against the papacy watch for ‘77 3’!” (Sept. 28, 1979)
Repeat 77 3? Is this sound Catholic spirituality?
Veronica herself states that the initial apparitions were accompanied by bizarre supernatural phenomenon:
"On August 4, 1968, at about 5:30 a.m., Veronica was in the living room making preparations for the early morning Mass. Suddenly this same framed letter went floating across the living room, as though propelled by an unseen, unknown force, and crashed with a loud noise at Veronica's feet. This turned out to be a little much." ("Occulations from Heaven", pg. 5).
Is this how our Lord or the Holy Angels manifest themselves? Veronica's son Raymond, who was twelve years old in 1970, testified on tape on July 27, 1970 that the Lueken house was widely believed to be haunted by the neighbors due to some of these bizarre occurrences.
http://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/spirituality/82-spirtuality/399-bayside-apparitions-problems-bayside-hoax-bayside-false.html
Jesus said "Anyone who obeys God’s laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
ReplyDelete“But I warn you—unless your righteousness is better than the righteousness of the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven!
“You have heard that our ancestors were told, ‘You must not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment.’ But I say, if you are even angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the court. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell." Matt 5:19b-22
Hi everybody,
ReplyDeletepaul here.
Hi paul,
ReplyDeleteIs there something you’d like to say? Frankly, here in this thread, you’ve been the target of some unseemly comments, by more than one person. You could return fire. Or you could ignore it. Or you could apologize for your part in these exchanges. Or you could wait for one of the others to apologize instead. But they may not apologize. Then we’d have a stalemate. Maybe even a temporary ceasefire. Maybe even a permanent one. Maybe.
----
To the others,
Frankly, here in this thread, you’ve been the target of some unseemly comments, by more than one person. You could return fire. Or you could ignore it. Or you could apologize for your part in these exchanges. Or you could wait for one of the others to apologize instead. But they may not apologize. Then we’d have a stalemate. Maybe even a temporary ceasefire. Maybe even a permanent one. Maybe.
----
To all,
Maybe the Scriptures we claim as the bedrock of our faith provide some sort of guidance in these circumstances. Maybe.
paul is a good poster. Apologize for what?
ReplyDeleteHe's forthright, but not unkind.
He does not attack people but he has sure been personally targeted lately.
I don't get why people can't just disagree, defend their position, and do it without turning nasty. If people's beliefs are so strong and good then they should be able to defend them and take some opposition but not feel somehow threatened by those questioning them. That is a sign of weakness somewhere along their line.
Frankly also Craig, did you apologize for your unseemly comments targeting Ray B? Your ugly exchange with him went on for sometime, and it turned very nasty. Even now, you occasionally write underhanded comments and we all know who you mean.
ReplyDeleteNobody set you up as judge and jury here and you are no voice of authority when it comes to meekness. You are truculent, arrogant and hypocritical.
Anon 11:26 PM,
ReplyDeleteBy "unseemly" I'm speaking of ad hominem.
If I've engaged in ad hominem with RayB--or anyone--please bring it to my attention, and I will apologize to the offended party.
-And those are your GOOD qualities.
ReplyDelete(Sorry, couldn't resist!)
But seriously, Craig, 11:26 PM's fawning praises of you aside...
HOW CAN YOU LIVE WITH YOURSELF?
You talk about Christian behavior and inflict Pat Boone's rendition of Tutti Frutti on us poor, unsuspecting blogites?
I'm afraid I'll have to teach you a lesson and I hope you take your punishment like a man.
As the youngster caught drinking beer was given a glass of whiskey as punishment, in like manner you are given this to listen to in its entirety: The 200 Proof Nightmare
Anon 10:48 (and 11:26?) PM,
ReplyDeleteIn looking at the comments here in this thread by paul, he's not engaged in any ad hominem exactly, though "You sound like a really angry three year old girl" is perhaps not the best way to respond. And if we're comparing, I'll agree that the other comments in this thread were much worse than paul's here, and some were clearly ad hominem. I've no recollection of past exchanges with RCC adherents, so I cannot comment either way.
None of this is to say or imply that I've been perfect in my responses either. I've never made such a claim. And if anyone remains offended by something I'd said, I will do my best to make it right. Just let me know.
In any event, I will agree that it would sure be nice to disagree without being disagreeable.
Maybe we can all learn from this one:
ReplyDeleteLet's bury the hatchet
Anon 11:53 PM,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry...I can't. Where's the whiskey?
Craig,
ReplyDeleteI am afraid I just cannot agree Paul has been somewhat mild in comparison. For years, we have endured his abrasive and deeply insulting posts, both against Catholic Christians here and falsehoods against Catholicism itself. Over the years Paul has insulted at will, without an ounce of Christian humility whatsoever. He often accused anonymous posters of shooting from the weeds, yet replied to many a post (both anonymous and otherwise) with as much venom as he could muster, even going "incognito" himself judging by the writing style and timing of certain posts.
Over the past month or so, he and Ray B. have increased their despicable behavior against Catholics and deeply misrepresenting our faith without having the decency (as always) of asking one of us or entering into gentle and civilized discourse. Again, this month they have pushed untruthful and hurtful caricatures of the Society of Jesus and its priests.
Enough is enough! Paul and Ray B are the originators of this sectarianism and so the onus is on them to sincerely apologize for their years of Anti-Christian attacks on Catholic Christians here and false representations of our faith.
Paul really should be the one sincerely apologizing here for years of hurt, misrepresentation and insult against Catholics here and our faith.
Anon 1:06 AM,
ReplyDeletePlease reread my comment a bit more closely. (A) I was referring to this particular post and the comments here (this thread); (B) I specifically stated: I've no recollection of past exchanges with RCC adherents, so I cannot comment either way. I've not been keeping score, and at times I've tuned out some of the exchanges.
In any event, being as objective as I can be, in viewing just this thread the Catholics have been worse in their vitriol than either paul or RayB. Now one can debate whether in the past month or so paul or RayB have been worse or better than the content here, and one party may feel more justifiably wounded by or than the other; but, what does that prove at this point? Let's ALL move past the disagreeable disagreeing over to much more polite discourse.
Though some may not agree, I think robust discussions and disagreements exchanged with a civil tone make us all more critical thinkers, which I deem a good thing. The key is to challenge ideas, not attack persons, in any sort of discussion, no matter what "side" one is on. With this last statement I'm not pointing fingers at any one individual specifically, or taking any sides, and I don't mean this to be some sort of springboard to things like "So and so was more offensive than this other." I've seen enough of this in the 'oppression Olympics' found in CRT/intersectionality.
When each side waits for the other to extend an olive branch, then we just keep on with the dis-civil discourse. I really don't think this pleases our Lord at all. Let the one without sin cast the next stone.
I don't believe anyone has been "hurt" by my comments on this blog.
ReplyDeleteI haven't "attacked" anyone; only a New Age Vatican gone off the rails which can't even be called Christian, judging by its actions and lack of actions. I've mentioned over and over that I think Roman Catholics should abandon that ship and "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." (Revelations 18:4). I've always pointed out that the key part of that verse is "my people", and that there are many many good Christian people in the Roman Catholic religion, but that the Vatican is, very sadly, corrupt to the core.
I agree with Constance in her pointing out that there are Agents Provocateur lurking about here, there and everywhere these days.
All the name calling and hand-wringing and injured parties weeping and wailing are so over the top that it can only be deliberate
divisiveness, not actual injury, even in this age of professional victimhood.
How can anyone really be so delicate and fragile that they should cry foul and grinf their teeth over anything that gets thrown into the mix of a comments section of a blog site?
I must say that whoever they are they clearly have dear old Dorothy's notes right on the top of their desk at all times.
Jesus and His apostles are still fresh after 2,000 years. Let the words pierce to your heart. Meditate on them. What do they mean to you? You do not need to repent to Craig. Do you need to repent to Jesus? Only you know, and if you do, you do not need to announce it here to anybody in this thread.
ReplyDeleteHow often does somebody say that in of their blah blah blah? Hmmm? Not very often. But how salutary it is! When we are sick at heart, sometimes we may need the bitter herbs more than we need the treacle.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Galatians 4:16
“Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?”
King James Version (KJV)
__________________________________________________________________________________
And speaking of herbs, there is this, too. There is a time for "doubtful disputations" and a time for God to support the weak as He wills, choosing as He will who He will consider to be His servant. Let the words inspired by the Holy Spirit speak again through all the blah blah blah on this thread:
___________________________________________________________________________________
Romans 14:4 Context
1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. 2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. 4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. 7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Notice how God was the judge as to the time for supporting the weak to stand with herbs -- instead of doubtful disputations -- and the time for giving the truth to those who may react to it as if to an enemy? Should we have more humility? Maybe? All of us?
Do we know how God regards each of us? Does everybody here believe God is watching? Or do some play to a different audience, primarily, as their idol above God who they seek to please? Search your heart, you know; nobody else does.
Is anybody reading this a secret cyber bully? Only you -- and God -- know.
ReplyDeleteCyberbullying linked to post traumatic stress for victims and perpetrators
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/06/200623185242.htm
It was interesting the study found that online anonymity meant that one third of cyber bullying was being perpetrated by people who were not bullies in the brick and mortar world.
In other words they are not very nice people, but they are cowards, so people in the brick and mortar world may think they are nice people.
It makes me think of corporate life -- which seems always to include at least one or two employees who are mean in emails (frequently on a Friday night at 11:00 PM or so) -- and yet who are strangely nice in every face-to-face communication.
What about the two cyber bullies, who are 'not very nice' who DO show their NAMES here??? Yes, I'm talking to you, Paul and RayB.
ReplyDelete'Cowards"??? It takes a great deal of guts and courage to confront such HATE here on an international blog. The only reason why we Catholics don't give up and 'just go away' (so you two HATERS can continue to DOMINATE this blog)... is because there are many individuals out there who silently read this blog and never comment. It is for those people that we want to share the truth and help them gain a perspective against all of the ANTI-Catholic BRAIN WASHING.
Have a nice day . . .
Protesters camp outside City Hall in New York City for the fifth straight day demanding that Mayor de Blasio slash $1BN from the NYPD budget despite gun crime surge in the Big Apple and say they won't leave until he does
ReplyDeletehttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8467361/Hundreds-protesters-camp-outside-City-Hall-NYC-demand-Mayor-slash-1BN-NYPD.html
(I'm no fan of de Blasio, but now their City Hall is under siege, as they attempt to turn New York City into another Seattle.)
To 8:43 AM,
ReplyDeleteI am not quite sure why you became so personally defensive, as I was not aiming my comment at you personally. My intention was for anybody reading to quietly soul search, responding to the words that may apply, leaving aside for others the words that may not apply. I was actually worried Paul would think I aimed it at him, since I commented immediately after him. It was not aimed at anybody in particular. Is the Bible itself personally targeting anybody? And now I intend to soul search, myself. Have a nice day.
To clueless Paul @ 6:43 AM
ReplyDeleteRe: "I don't believe anyone has been 'hurt' by my comments on this blog."
___________________________________________________________________________
Yes, and that's the whole problem with you, Paul. You are in deep DENIAL about how many people you have HURT over the years.
I have 9 friends who used to post here, and no longer do... who would BEG TO DISAGREE with you about all of the hurt you have caused over the past 15 years... including my late friend, Dorothy (who was one of the those on my group e-mail distribution list up until a few days before she died). One of her sons e-mailed our very close-knit group to let us know that his mom had passed away.
(So, keep on believing that you are 'right'... and everyone else is 'wrong'... and that 'denial' is just a river in Egypt.)
We Catholics only become 'offended'... when ARROGANT Protestant 'christians' insist that WE need 'saving'!!!
ReplyDeleteSo, just save YOURSELVES... and please stop 'sharing' all of your watered-down bible passages... where there are so many different VERSIONS of your bible... that Jesus Himself would not recognize many of these words as having come from HIM!!!
FYI: All of this WILL be straightened out on Judgement Day. In the meantime, put a sock in it!!!
9:20 AM,
ReplyDeleteGalatians 4:16-18
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
16 Am I then become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
FYI: The Bayside apparitions are NOT Catholic Church APPROVED.
ReplyDeleteThis is just one of MANY examples, where someone here is intentionally posting DISINFORMATION against the Catholic Church.
So, just keep it up. Jesus is taking names and getting ready to kick some a - - on Judgement Day!!!
9:32 AM
ReplyDeleteAnd your point IS . . .???
"All the name calling and hand-wringing and injured parties weeping and wailing are so over the top that it can only be deliberate
ReplyDeletedivisiveness, not actual injury, even in this age of professional victimhood.
How can anyone really be so delicate and fragile that they should cry foul and grinf their teeth over anything that gets thrown into the mix of a comments section of a blog site?"
No joke, paul. Tell it like it is. You honor and justify God, not men, and have done a kindness, though some will continue to be "victimized" by your mere telling them the truth.
This is not the hatefulness some try to make it.
All I know is, people better toughen up because what is coming down the pike is going to test the faith of us all. Everyone's hopes better be in God. Religion saves no one. Jesus does.
Craig, I sure meant it when I posted about disagreeing without being disagreeable. Some may think that is what I am guilty of. So be it. God knows my heart, all hearts. It is to Him that we answer.
9:40 AM,
ReplyDeleteJust because a non-Catholic doesn't know that the Bayside apparitions are not Catholic church approved; therefore the non-Catholic must be intentionally posting disinformation against the Catholic church?
Is this an example of the things you keep track of to convince yourself that you and other Catholics are being persecuted? I hope your other examples are better than that.
Dear Craig
ReplyDeleteRe: "in viewing just this thread the Catholics have been worse in their vitriol than either paul or RayB."
__________________________________________________________________________________________
When we Catholics are forced to DEFEND ourselves against CONSTANT lies, slander and disinformation by a few haters on this blog (over a period of 15 years)... we are not going to be 'gentle' in our response.
(We notice that being 'gentle' didn't work with Susanna. RayB and Paul went after her with even more venom.)
9:50 AM
ReplyDeletePlease don't insult our intelligence.
The person who posted the Bayside DISINFORMATION is obviously a person who HATES the Catholic Church.
Now, that this person has been 'called out'... is he or she going to google MORE disinformation to copy and paste here??? And for what purpose???
Your transparency is showing . . .
10:10 AM,
ReplyDeleteI bolded two parts as my reply to you. And please know that I don't keep a spreadsheet of every apparition the Catholic church approved and disapproved of.
◄ Matthew 6 ►
Douay-Rheims Bible
Instruction about Giving
(Deuteronomy 15:7-11)
1 Take heed that you do not your justice before men, to be seen by them: otherwise you shall not have a reward of your Father who is in heaven.
2 Therefore when thou dost an alms-deed, sound not a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be honoured by men. Amen I say to you, they have received their reward. 3But when thou dost alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doth. 4That thy alms may be in secret, and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee.
The Lord's Prayer
(Luke 11:1-4)
5 And when ye pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites, that love to stand and pray in the synagogues and corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men: Amen I say to you, they have received their reward. 6 But thou when thou shalt pray, enter into thy chamber, and having shut the door, pray to thy Father in secret, and thy father who seeth in secret will repay thee.
7 And when you are praying, speak not much, as the heathens. For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard. 8Be not you therefore like to them for your Father knoweth what is needful for you, before you ask him.
9 Thus therefore shall you pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our supersubstantial bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen. 14 For if you will forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father will forgive you also your offences. 15 But if you will not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive you your offences.
9:49 AM
ReplyDeleteRe: "No joke, paul. Tell it like it"
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Well that will certainly be a refreshing change... since Paul is used to telling it like it ISN'T!!! LOL
Father, forgive the Catholic haters (of the church that YOU created in 33 AD)... for they know not what they do. AMEN.
ReplyDeleteDear 10:35
ReplyDeleteSo, the Roman Catholic church began in 33 AD, the year that Jesus died?
Wow. Who knew that before Paul the Apostle ever went there, quite a few years later, and before Peter the Apostle was alleged to have gone there, that a Roman group of believers in Jesus Christ founded a Christian church, even though the word Christian hadn't even been coined yet, and the news of Jesus' death probably hadn't even reached Rome yet, and even the original believers in Jerusalem were all meeting in people's houses, and terms like "pope" and "vicar", and "cardinal" and "nuns" and "cathedral" and "penance" and "purgatory" and "mother of god" and "assumption" and "perpetual virginity", and "euchrist" and"transubstantiation", and, _certainly words like "indulgences" and "inquisition" _were not even invented yet, not by a long shot. These words and this religion took hundreds of years to come into existence.
The Catholic historian Peter de Rosa once wrote:
"Not one of the early fathers of the church saw in the bible any reference to papal jurisdiction over the church. On the contrary, they take it for granted bishops, especially metropolitans, have the full right to govern and administer their own territory without interference from anyone. The Eastern Church never accepted papal supremacy; and Rome's attempt to impose it led to the schism."
Paul @ 11:25 AM
ReplyDeleteRe: "So, the Roman Catholic church began in 33 AD, the year that Jesus died?"
___________________________________________________________________________________________
That's right, Paul... and now, you act like you are just now hearing this for the very first time? We've been telling you that for the past 15 years.
There has been an UNBROKEN line of Popes from Peter in 33 AD (who Jesus HIMSELF named as our first Pope)... all the way up to the current Pope Francis. This is not an 'opinion'... it is a DOCUMENTED FACT / HISTORY!!!
So, please stop embarrassing yourself... with your complete LACK of knowledge.
Elder Aristocles of Moscow (+1918): "An evil will shortly take Russia, and wherever this evil goes, rivers of blood will flow. It is not the Russian soul, but an imposition on the Russian soul. It is not an ideology, nor a philosophy, but a spirit from hell. In the last days Germany will be divided. France will be just nothing. Italy will be judged by natural disasters. Britain will lose her empire and all her colonies and will come to almost total ruin, but will be saved by praying enthroned women. America will feed the world, but will finally collapse. Russia and China will destroy each other. Finally, Russia will be free and from her believers will go forth and turn many from the nations to God."
ReplyDelete"Now we are undergoing the times before the Antichrist. But Russia will yet be delivered. There will be much suffering, much torture. The whole of Russia will become a prison, and one must greatly entreat the Lord for forgiveness. One must repent of one's sins and fear to do even the least sin, but strive to do good, even the smallest. For even the wing of a fly has weight, and God's scales are exact. And when even the smallest of good in the cup tips the balance, then will God reveal His mercy upon Russia."
"The end will come through China. There will be an extraordinary outburst and a miracle of God will be manifested. And there will be an entirely different life, but all this will not be for very long."
“God will remove all leaders, so that Russian people should look only at Him. Everyone will reject Russia, other states will renounce her, delivering her to herself – this is so that Russian people should hope on the help of the Lord. You will hear that in other countries disorders have begun similar to those in Russia. You will hear of war, and there will be wars. But wait until the Germans take up arms, for they are chosen as God’s weapon to punish Russia – but also as a weapon of deliverance later.
"The Cross of Christ will shine over the whole world and our Homeland will be magnified and will become as a lighthouse in the darkness for all." (1911)
the only sense in which the Roman church began in 33 AD is that the church at large did, IN JERUSALEM with James as first bishop, and later Paul and Peter caught up with Christians who had gone to Rome and and converted others and gave them an episcopate. Rome was originally ORTHODOX and gradually fell away from us till a full break happened that hasn't been mended. you now have various heretical and proto heretical problems, the filioque being the most obvious.
THERE IS AN UNBROKEN LINEAGE OF BISHoPS FOR ALL THE PATRIARCHATES BACK TO PETER OR HIS SON OR HIS BROTHER. Talk about ignorance. ALL bishops were originall called pope which is "papa."
And one more thing, Paul . . .
ReplyDeleteAs the BRILLIANT Susanna has often pointed out:
BIBLE ONLY: never mentioned or implied. Where it seems to be implied (“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” 2 Timothy 3:16), it refers exclusively to the Old Testament. Even then, no "solas" to be found!
Sola Scriptura is contradicted by Scripture. (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Peter 3:16).
ReplyDeleteThe complete list of Popes (from Peter up to Francis) . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes
___________________________________________________________________________________________
P.S. Only an IDIOT would deny documented HISTORY (even as it stares him or her in the face.)
Anonymous Catholic Poster(s) said:
ReplyDelete"Yes, of course, we recognize that evil forces are at work in the world... infiltrating ALL of the churches (both Protestant and Catholic)... but that doesn't mean we are going to ABANDON our faith. That is just NOT going to happen. We have the promise of Jesus HIMSELF in 33 AD: "... And the gates of Hell shall NOT prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18)."
"We Catholics only become 'offended'... when ARROGANT Protestant 'christians' insist that WE need 'saving'!!!"
"Paul's refusal to ACCEPT our God-given RIGHT to our belief in our one true Catholic faith, religion, church as founded by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in 33 AD... is clearly Paul's problem, not ours."
Demanding tolerance while being intolerant isn't really a valid or persuasive argument.
Demanding "acceptance" as a "God-given RIGHT" while refusing to accept yourself that our PROTESTANT faith leads us to believe we worship a true Jesus and the catholic church, according to our beliefs, does not is also intolerant and simply foolish. It's a free country. Believe what you want. Paul doesn't have to accept anything. I/we invite you to join our faith. No demands. No intolerance.
I'm sure you've been told before here (I haven't read 15 years of the back history between you all) but we are PROTESTANTS. Therefore, we protest. In response to such protest, the roman catholic church has labeled me/us anathema. Which, as you likely know, means the roman catholic church has institutionally eternally condemned me/us.
As I personally see it. I would like to save catholics because my faith, love of Christ and the Holy Spirit lead me to that endeavor. I KNOW it to be true. I don't do it because I "hate" the catholic church. I don't hate my still-catholic friends and family members if they refuse to be saved. Their salvation is not up to me. I just share the true Gospel and pray God leads them to repentance.
Protesting is not hate. Telling someone they are wrong is not hate. Reading scripture is not wrong. Attempting to save someone is not hate. But declaring anathema, upon us....that IS actually hateful and getting angry and offended over me/us sharing our beliefs and faith on this forum is pretty intolerant. But hey, you do you. Post whatever you feel lead to post and accept the gift of repentance should it be offered to you or not. I'll pray for you regardless.
Constance Cumbey, @ 4:38 AM said this (in part) in an obvious defense of the Roman Catholic practice of making images in violation to * Exodus 20:4:
ReplyDelete"Vis a vis the subject of images, I note that although the TORAH forbade images, nevertheless, the Jews were ordered by God to make images of Cherubim and Seraphim angelic beings."
NOTE: Constance, I find it rather interesting that you would refer to the "Torah," and not the Bible in your comment. Here is the definition of what the Torah is ... hardly the rock solid foundation of God's all authoritative Word:
"Torah (/ˈtɔːrə, ˈtoʊrə/; Hebrew: תּוֹרָה, "Instruction", "Teaching" or "Law") has a range of meanings. It can most specifically mean the first five books (Pentateuch or five books of Moses) of the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible. This is commonly known as the Written Torah. It can also mean the continued narrative from all the 24 books, from the Book of Genesis to the end of the Tanakh (Chronicles), and it can even mean the totality of Jewish teaching, culture, and practice, whether derived from biblical texts or later rabbinic writings. This is often known as the Oral Torah.[1] Common to all these meanings, Torah consists of the origin of Jewish peoplehood: their call into being by God, their trials and tribulations, and their covenant with their God, which involves following a way of life embodied in a set of moral and religious obligations and civil laws (halakha)."
* "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." Exodus 20:4
No one has been 'making any graven images' RayB.
ReplyDeleteJust YOU... stirring the pot, as usual.
Please just STOP.
Some people get theologically off track all too often because their particular mindset unconsciously substitutes their particular denomination for Christianity itself so that, for example, when one of their denomination's doctrines, policies or beliefs is seriously questioned, they automatically view it as an attack upon both Christianity itself and themselves as a Christian.
ReplyDeleteAnd many unconsciously treat denominations like rival high schools or rival colleges. It would be "unloyal" to their school and their schoolmates and the school staff to entertain serious questions about its standing as an institution for whatever reason(s).
Christianity is not about various competing schools of thought, it is about ever-striving to get (during our lifetimes) as close to following the ways of God as possible to the best of our understanding. When the human element (tradition) is allowed to be intermingled (especially on an equal basis) with the Divine (the Bible) it literally adulterates Christian doctrines and beliefs resulting in "making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down." Mark 7:13 NKJV
Which naturally results in unnecessary misunderstandings and confusion (and all too often ensuing angry arguments) about what (actual) Christianity is.
The solution is starkly simple:
#1) Don't take it personally.
#2) Do take it seriously: Take none of your beliefs for granted, instead: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good!" 1Thess 5:21 KJV
#3) And even though temporarily very upsetting it may prove to be, force yourself (asking His help) to fully accept and embrace with your heart and mind this philosophy given to us for our good by The Great God Almighty:
"To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20 NKJV
To Anonymous @ 8:19 PM & Constance @ 4:35 AM:
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, most assuredly, God forbids the creation of images as it relates to, for lack of a better word, "religious" activity. The language of the text makes it clear that God is COMMANDING MAN to follow these commandments because of His sovereignty over MAN, and as MAN's relationship with God is to be conducted. The following verse (Exodus 20:5) ADDS to the previous admonition against making images, by FURTHER admonishing not to "bowing down and serve them," a common practice among Pagans. In no way is God saying; "you can create these images as long as you don't bow down to them."
Attempting to negate all of this by making comparisons to "wedding albums, TV, photographs, etc." just doesn't hold water. You may as well be arguing apples and oranges. On the one hand you have God's command regarding serving HIM, on the other hand, you offer SECULAR life choices and attempt to equate the two.
The Sovereign God and Creator of the Universe makes rules, laws, commandments, etc. for MAN, and not for Himself. He and He alone has the sole authority to make changes according to His sovereign will. MAN is NOT given that authority, it rests with Him alone. Again, as the Sovereign King of the Universe, He can make exceptions to the commandments because He is not bound by such Commandments. When Christ and His disciples were admonished by the Pharisees for "violating" the Sabbath, what was His answer?
"And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath." Mark 2:27,28
When God gave very specific and detailed instructions regarding the building of the Temple, He did so because that is what HE sovereignly desired. He was building the Temple unto Himself, and not MAN, so His inclusion of "Cherubims and Seraphims" is not at all an accurate comparison to the MAN SANCTIONED statues and images of the Catholic church. It is really quite ridiculous to use such an example as a means to justify the violation of Exodus 20:4.
Furthermore, the "Cherubims and Serphims" were located in the "Holy of Holies," where the presence of God was, and, where ONLY the High Priest was allowed to enter ONCE PER YEAR.
AGAIN, God makes LAWS, COMMANDMENTS, etc. for MAN, and is not bound by the same that He has decreed to MAN. God, and God alone has the sole AUTHORITY to change what He has decreed. When MAN steps in and makes "changes" to what God clearly commands, he is acting in place of God.
RayB:
ReplyDeleteFormer Catholics like Martin Luther and Henry VIII (just to give two examples) left the Catholic Church, because things didn't go their way... to begin their own MAN-made (not GOD-made) religions. Over the centuries, there have been many MAN-made changes to the MANY VERSIONS of the bible(s)... in these MANY Protestant churches (Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc.)... changes which were contrary to what Jesus ORIGINALLY taught and passed down through His apostles and their writings.
And yet, here YOU are lecturing us Catholics???
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAmen 1:26,
ReplyDeleteDon't take it personally. Do take it seriously.
Again they bust out with the insults and name-calling. oh well.
People are like dogs in their loyalties. Probably men more so than women. I sometimes wonder if this thing called loyalty is ever really a good thing; whether it be to one's clan, or nation or denomination, or team or school, or boss, etc, etc
Clearly the Ten Commandments tell us to be loyal God and to our parents, but it seems to me that all these other loyalties turn out to bite us.
To quote Dave Hunt; ..."The first of these bold forgeries was the Donation Of Constantine, which we have already mentioned. It was followed by pseudo-Isidorian Decritals, which were early papal decrees allegedly compiled by Archbishop Isadore (560-636) but actually fabricated in the ninth century. These frauds became the foundation for much of the "tradition" still relied upon today.
Catholic historian J.H. Ignaz von Dollinger writes that 'prior to the time of the Isodorian Decritals no serious attempt was made anywhere to introduce the neo-Roman theory of infallability. The popes did not dream of laying claim to such a privilege.' "
Of course they didn't.
Dear 1:59 PM
ReplyDeletePlease be careful about using 'language' that may end up getting your post deleted.
I have to say that I know nothing of Paul's personal 'lifestyle'... and, even if I did, I would never mention it on this blog.
Anyway... just my opinion.
~ Another Catholic poster
ReplyDeleteWOW !!! Kind of like "icing on the cake" for the boatload of hatred, lies, slander, personal attacks, etc. that Constance has tolerated from her Catholic friends. AMAZING ! Yet, on the previous post, as she posts "one of the very best homilies/sermons I've ever heard" from a Catholic priest, she states that she will "probably be attacked by RayB" for doing so.
WHO IS IT CONSTANCE that is doing the personal "attacking" here?
Just look at the vulgar vitriolic hatred as expressed by "Anonymous" @ 1:59 PM & 2:08 PM !!
Jesus said "out of the abundance of the heart, the MOUTH SPEAKETH."
OK, 2:08 PM... you are sounding like a TROLL or provocateur.
ReplyDeletePlease STOP.
If you think you can still persecute us after neary 500 years of it and continuing, without a fight, you have another think coming paul. I know where in Portland Maine you are. Do you think attacking Catholics in the presence of the Irish is acceptable? You should mature as quick as you can.
ReplyDeleteYou can disagree but if you want a war after 15 years of hurting us without compassion, honest enquory or concern, you should realise that sone of us have lived this war daily. I am not an idiot posting here, so you should realise I am fucking tired, you heathen orange filth!
Very clever, TROLL (whoever you are) posting such filth... to make Catholic look bad.
ReplyDeleteVery clever indeed!!!
I am 'calling you out' right here and now!!!
Yes, Constance... please remove or permanently BLOCK anyone who is posting such FILTH here.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
~ A Catholic poster
To my fellow Catholics, I am sorry, but I am sick and tired of it. Growing up in the Six Counties durimg the Troubles then seeimg us all suffer the vile diatribes of paul for so long and tbat being excused as tbough we should 'shut up· and suck it up ... NO!
ReplyDeleteNot anymore. These people have persecuted us for far too long! There are seasons. Enough is enough.
12:32 PM
ReplyDeleteWhat you just don't 'get' (and haven't for 15 years!!!) is that we Catholics are baptized Christians who are ALREADY saved... and certainly don't need to be 'saved' by Protestants.
You are the ones who are trying to convert us; not the other way around.
That is where your ARROGANCE (plus false pride) comes in.
So just leave us alone!!! This is where you come off sounding like CULT members.
Looking forward to seeing all of you on Judgement Day... when ALL of this WILL be sorted out. I can't wait... the sooner, the better.
Anonymous 2:29 PM,
ReplyDeleteI understand your anger, but please, this is not the way. We have all been sincerely tested by Ray B and Paul yet we should take the Christian approach and pray for those who persecute us. We should rebuke and correct but never threaten.
Please reconsider.
A fellow Catholic.
Dear 2:29 PM
ReplyDeleteI understand that you are 'sick and tired'... I am too, and I feel your pain.
But, please do NOT allow your emotions to get in the way. It serves no purpose here.
Plus, offensive language will just get your post deleted and get you blocked... and we need you to stay.
God will sort ALL of this out on Judgement Day.
Take deep breaths... and just let go; let God.
I don't live in Portland.
ReplyDeleteBut I am Irish myself.
Scot's Irish.
And NOTHING that happens on a blog site comments section can be construed to be persecution.
ReplyDeleteWhat the heck are you going to do if you ever experience actual persecutiion?
Actually, I think being shot at; burned alive; or beheaded would be a huge IMPROVEMENT over the ABUSE that we Catholics have had to put up with on this blog over the past 15 years. LOL
ReplyDelete(It would certainly be quicker anyway.)
They call THIS "persecution?"
ReplyDeleteChallenge me on ANYTHING you'd like regarding my BIBLE BASED faith through grace, and I will explain my position based upon what the Bible declares.
If you can't defend your "faith" with anything other than lies, slander, personal attacks, you should seriously re-examine your "faith." Being challenged as to what YOUR church teaches IS NOT PERSECUTION ... it's giving you an opportunity to defend your church's positions.
Biblical Christianity can be defended because the Word of God is our ROCK upon which the foundation of our faith is based.
Catholicism cannot be defended, because like the Pharisaic "religion" of the Jews, it is based upon "traditions" along with the "commandments of men, rather than the commandments of God." Hence, the constant deflection via lies, slander, personal attacks, and now, threats of violence and vulgarity !
There is no 'debating' you, RayB.
ReplyDeleteWe are just not on the same page... and we never will be!!!
Period... end of subject.
Can't wait until you stand before Jesus and tell HIM that 'Catholicism cannot be defended.'
And... as the BRILLIANT Susanna has often pointed out:
ReplyDeleteBIBLE ONLY: never mentioned or implied. Where it seems to be implied (“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” 2 Timothy 3:16), it refers exclusively to the Old Testament. Even then, no "solas" to be found!
Sola Scriptura is contradicted by Scripture. (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Peter 3:16).
BIBLE ONLY: never mentioned or implied. Where it seems to be implied (“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” 2 Timothy 3:16), it refers exclusively to the Old Testament. Even then, no "solas" to be found!""
ReplyDeleteBut JESUS SAID: “It is written,
“‘Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” Matt 4:4
It is written, He said. As in already spoken and recorded. The Bible the Word of God predates catholic writing and doctrine.
Jesus was speaking of the canon of Scripture. The inspired Word given to men by the Holy Spirit in those 66 books.
1 Peter 1:21 tells us: for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. It meant the men who wrote Scripture (Old and New Testament) before the popes began to take over. The authority was upon them, not the ones who took it upon themselves to start adding and subtracting from what Jesus was clearly talking about.
Was good enough for Jesus what God had already said, and He also authenticated what would be written when the Apostles were given their portion to the Canon after Jesus' Sacrifice and Resurrection.
The popes and their religious system (that was by the will of man) was after that and not included in what Jesus said in Matt 4:4 so **Scripture only is most definitely what Jesus authorized**.
He lived by it, so should we.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
ReplyDeleteKing James Version
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
______________________________________________________________________________________
This is the strongest verse of all the quoted verses, to make a claim against Sola Scriptura, so let us consider this verse.
If I believed the answer to the following question was yes I would join the Catholic church.
Is there evidence that the apostles taught, through word or epistle, the following: veneration of Mary, veneration of Saints and relics, veneration of sacred statues, praying on rosary beads, purgatory, immaculate conception, papal infallibility, the papal role as the vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth, celibacy of the priesthood, last rites, confessionals, or transubstantiation?
"If I believed the answer to the following question was yes I would join the Catholic church."
ReplyDeleteI would too, 3:57 PM, but none of those traditions are in the Bible. Only in Catholic doctrine which came about after the Apostles had written by the Holy Spirit what was the conclusion of the Scripture Canon.
Traditions That Are Found In The Bible
ReplyDeleteIn the only two Epistles that Peter penned, he never mentioned or implied, in either word or tradition, ANY of the peculiar doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic church. NOT A SINGLE ONE.
ReplyDeleteIf you are a Catholic, you should be asking why is it that the "first Catholic" aka "first pope" "peter" never mentioned anything of which you hold so dear.
Have you ever wondered why it is that the Catholic church does NOT emphasize the only TEACHINGS penned by Peter? You would think they would, after all, it's the ONLY writings we have of Peter. Why do YOU think they don't? Any theories???
Tradition And Scripture
ReplyDeleteThe 2,000th year old birthday of our Catholic Church will be in the year 2033 (just 13 more years).
ReplyDeleteHow long has your MAN-made religion been around???
And how do you explain there has been no interruption in the UNBROKEN line of popes... from Peter in 33 AD all the way up to the current Pope Francis.
How do you explain this??? You can't!!!
Also, RayB... since you continue to be so OBSESSED with our Catholic Church... you must secretly want to BECOME one. Otherwise, IF you were genuinely and truly 'at peace' with your own beliefs (which obviously fall short)... you wouldn't spend so much time OBSESSING!!!
ReplyDeleteSome here have a very bad habit of being unnecessarily confrontational.
ReplyDeleteRayB's not the only one.
But just to make an illustration of how to get your points across without overdoing it I'll use his last post (4:25 PM at this writing) look again at it and now compare it with this (temporarily disregard your own particular point of view on the topic itself):
In the only two Epistles that Peter penned, he never mentioned or implied, in either word or tradition, ANY of the peculiar doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic church.
Not one.
So then if you are Catholic, please ask yourself this question:
"Why is it that Peter, whom we revere as the first Pope, never mentioned anything of these things in his letters?"
And think about this:
Why is it that the only TEACHINGS penned by Peter are NOT emphasized?
You would think they would be, wouldn't you? After all, it's the ONLY writings we have of Peter. Why do you think they don't?
Think about it.
I offer for discussion the assembly of Catholics at the site of where the statue of Junipero Serra formerly stood, as currently being streamed by Dr. Taylor Marshall. The statue was taken down by activists.
ReplyDeleteGood Bishops & Priests are Protecting Statues: Let’s Rally to Them - HERE'S THE GAME PLAN
Here's an LA Times article on why it was taken down:
At Los Angeles toppling of Junipero Serra statue, activists want full history told
The Papacy
ReplyDeleteDid someone say Sola Scriptura? Well, that Latin, Catholic term is indeed not found in the Scriptures, of course, but;
ReplyDeleteJesus, in his ministry, quoted Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. He quoted Joshua and both Samuels and both Kings, and Chronicles. Jesus quoted extensively from The Psalms and the Proverbs. He quoted from Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon. Jesus quoted or referred to: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel. Jesus referred to Joel and Jonah and Habakkuk. He quoted Zephaniah and Zechariah, and Malachi. One might almost conclude that Jesus is in fact the author of the Old Testament...
However Jesus never quoted from Socrates or Plato or Aristotle. Jesus did not make anything more than a passing reference to the Mishna, and then only to point out that it was flawed. He didn't quote Lau Tsu or Confucious.
_But in Joshua we find these words: "THIS BOOK OF THE LAW shall not depart out of thy mouth but thou shall meditate therein both day and night that thou mayest observe to do all that is written therein, for then thou shall make thy way prosperous, and then thou shall have good success. (Joshua 1:8)
Isaiah 8:20 says: To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Jeremiah 10:3&4 says: For the customs of the people are vain: for one cuts a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman with the ax. They deck it with silver and gold, they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.
Jeremiah 17:5 says: Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusts in man and makes flesh his arm, and whose heart departs from the Lord.
Hebrews 10 is quoting Psalms 40 when it says: Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of THE BOOK it is written of me), to do thy will oh God.
Sola Scriptura? You betcha. Sacred Tradition? not so much.
Can't wait till Paul and RayB meet Jesus and start trying to argue with HIM about HIS Catholic Church!!! LOL
ReplyDeleteLIFE SITE NEWS
ReplyDelete6/26/2020
Anglican archbishop of Canterbury: Statues 'will have to come down…names will have to change'
UN secretary general calls for "global governance" with ‘teeth’
US Catholic charity CEO: Catholic Church is racist because Jesus was 'white'
https://censored.news/LifeSiteNews.htm
The ANTI-Catholics just can't get ENOUGH of our Catholic Church.
ReplyDeleteCopy & paste; copy & paste; copy & paste.
OBSESSION; OBSESSION; OBSESSION.
(It must be because their church is so BORING, BORING, BORING!!!)
Last thread I didn't pay close enough attention to a post and erroneously lumped it in with a serial poster's string of posts and subsequently compounded that error by grouping the poster his or herself in with the serial poster (who I do think has an issue that needs treatment and by that I am including consideration of the aberration of the same things being slightly reworded and reposted over and over and over again, such as the "33 AD" posts, etc. etc. etc.) and (quoting the one's own words about RayB and paul back at them) called them a real pair of clowns. They aren't. I apologize.
ReplyDeleteI had another interesting thought, this time, regarding Mary.
ReplyDeleteI did a search and found that outside of the Gospels, Mary is mentioned only ONCE, and that is found here in Acts 1:14 "These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren."
Nowhere else is she definitively mentioned. Now think about that; there is NOTHING written about Mary, after the four Gospels, other than the verse in Acts. How did all of these writers of the New Testament Epistles miss this person that is ranked extremely high within the Catholic Church?
Nothing about praying to her.
Nothing about her "Immaculate Conception."
Nothing about her "Ascension into Heaven bodily."
Nothing about her "Sitting on the Throne of God next to her Son."
Nothing about her "Making Intercession on our behalf."
Nothing about her being a "Co-Redemptrix."
Nothing about her being the "Queen of Heaven."
Nothing about instructions on praying "Hail Mary ..."
But then again, there is NOTHING in the Four Gospels on the above either !
Because Mary was chosen to be the mother of Jesus... she would have to be a woman who was conceived without the stain of original sin.
ReplyDelete“And the angel said: ‘Hail, full of GRACE, the Lord is with thee: BLESSED ART THOU AMONG WOMEN'." (Luke 1:28)
Even Martin Luther stood firmly behind the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, as he saw that Mary would have to be a pure and sinless vessel in order to hold the sacred and holy body of Jesus. Here is the following quote from Martin Luther in the year 1527:
“It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin.”
____________________________________________________________________________________________
It would also stand to reason that Jesus would honor His Mother Mary with a special place in Heaven... when she ascended body and soul into Heaven.
This is what Mary herself said about her future place in eternity:
"My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the lowly state of his maidservant;
For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed." (Lk 1:46-49)
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Mary is absolutely NOT a Co-Redeemer. THAT IS DISINFORMATION!!!
We Catholics do NOT worship Mary... We HONOR her (as the Mother of Jesus).
Regarding the statement "when [Mary] ascended body and soul into Heaven."
ReplyDelete"No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven." John 3:13
https://biblehub.com/john/3-13.htm
Who is the Queen of Heaven?
ReplyDeleteThe idea that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is the queen of heaven has no scriptural basis whatsoever.
...
While Mary was certainly a godly young woman greatly blessed in that she was chosen to bear the Savior of the world, she was not in any way divine, nor was she sinless, nor is she to be worshiped, revered, venerated, or prayed to. All followers of the Lord God refuse worship. Peter and the apostles refused to be worshiped (Acts 10:25–26; 14:13–14). The holy angels refuse to be worshiped (Revelation 19:10; 22:9). The response is always the same: “Worship God!” To offer worship, reverence, or veneration to anyone but God is nothing short of idolatry. Mary’s own words in her “Magnificat” (Luke 1:46–55) reveal that she never thought of herself as “immaculate” or deserving of veneration; on the contrary, she was relying on the grace of God for salvation: “And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.”
Only sinners need a savior, and Mary recognized that need in herself.
Furthermore, Jesus Himself issued a mild rebuke to a woman who cried out to Him, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you" (Luke 11:27), replying to her, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it." By doing so, He curtailed any tendency to elevate Mary as an object of worship. He could certainly have said, “Yes, blessed be the Queen of Heaven!” But He did not. He was affirming the same truth that the Bible affirms—there is no queen of heaven, and the only biblical references to the “queen of heaven” refer to the goddess of an idolatrous, false religion.
The phrase queen of heaven appears in two passages of the Bible, both in the book of Jeremiah. The first passage deals with the things the Israelites were doing that provoked the Lord to anger. Entire families were involved in idolatry. The children gathered wood, and the men used it to build altars to worship false gods. The women were engaged in kneading dough and baking cakes of bread for the “Queen of Heaven” (Jeremiah 7:18). This title referred to Ishtar, an Assyrian and Babylonian goddess also called Ashtoreth and Astarte by various other groups. She was thought to be the wife of the false god Baal, also known as Molech. The motivation of women to worship Ashtoreth stemmed from her reputation as a fertility goddess, and, as the bearing of children was greatly desired among women of that era, worship of this “queen of heaven” was rampant among pagan civilizations. Sadly, it became popular among the Israelites as well.
The second passage that refers to the queen of heaven is Jeremiah 44:17-25, where Jeremiah is giving the people the word of the Lord which God has spoken to him. He reminds the people that their disobedience and idolatry has caused the Lord to be very angry with them and to punish them with calamity. Jeremiah warns them that greater punishments await if they do not repent. They reply that they have no intentions of giving up their worship of idols, promising to continue pouring out drink offerings to the queen of heaven, Ashtoreth, and even going so far as to credit her with the peace and prosperity they once enjoyed because of God’s grace and mercy.
It is unclear where the idea that Ashtoreth was a “consort” of Yahweh originated, but it’s easy to see how the blending of paganism that exalts a goddess with the worship of the true King of heaven, Yahweh, can lead to the combining of God and Ashtoreth. And since Ashtoreth worship involved sexuality (fertility rites and temple prostitution), the resulting relationship, to the depraved mind, would naturally be one of a sexual nature. Clearly, the idea of the “queen of heaven” as the consort or paramour of the King of heaven is idolatrous and unbiblical.
There is no queen of heaven. There has never been a queen of heaven.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Queen-of-Heaven.html
The Assumption of Mary.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-assumption-of-mary
There are two texts of Scripture most commonly used to “disprove” the Assumption of Mary.
1. John 3:13:
No one has ascended up to heaven, but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man.
If “no man” has ascended into heaven, wouldn’t that include the Blessed Virgin Mary?
2. I Cor. 15:22-23:
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
If no one except Christ will be resurrected bodily before the Second Coming of Christ, would that not eliminate the possibility of Mary having been bodily assumed into heaven?
The Catholic response
John 3:13 does not eliminate the possibility of the Assumption of Mary for four reasons.
1. St. John was quoting the actual words our Lord spoke when he wrote, “No one has ascended into heaven, but . . . the Son of man.” Jesus was merely saying that no one had ascended into heaven by the time he made that statement. That was long before the Assumption of Mary.
2. Jesus cannot be saying that no one else will ever be taken to heaven. If that is the case, then what is all this Christianity stuff about? You know, heaven and all.
3. If one interprets John 3:13 as speaking about Christ uniquely ascending to heaven, that would be acceptable. We would then have to ask the question: what is it about Jesus’ ascension that is unique? Well, the fact that he ascended is unique. Mary did not ascend to heaven. She was assumed. There is a big difference. Jesus ascended by his own divine power as he prophesied he would in John 2:19-21: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up . . . he spoke of the temple of his body.” Mary was powerless to raise herself to heaven; she had to be assumed. The same could be said of all Christians. Jesus raised himself from the dead. Christians will be entirely passive when it comes to their collective “resurrection.”
4. St. John is demonstrating the divinity of Christ in John 3:13. Historically, we know St. John was writing against his archenemy, the heretic Cerinthus, who denied the divinity of Christ. St. John quotes these words from Jesus to demonstrate that the Savior “descended” from heaven and was both in heaven and on Earth as the “only begotten Son” (cf. 3:16) sharing his Father’s nature (cf. 5:17-18). Thus, he was truly God. St. John also emphasizes that even while “the Son of Man” walked the Earth with his disciples in Galilee, he possessed the beatific vision in his human nature. In that sense, his human nature (Son of Man) had already “ascended” into heaven inasmuch as it possessed the beatific vision, which is at the core of what heaven is. That is John’s theme in the text, not whether someone years after Christ could be assumed into heaven or not.
I Cor. 15:22-23:
ReplyDelete1. We must remember that there are sometimes exceptions to general theological norms in Scripture. For example, consider Matt. 3:5-6: “Then went out to [St. John the Baptist] Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan, and they were baptized by him.” We know that “all” here does not mean “all” in a strict sense because we know, at least, Herod, Herodias, and her daughter, were exceptions to this verse (See Matt. 14:1-11). They conspired to put St. John to death. Not the best candidates for baptism! The bottom line: There are exceptions to Matt. 3:5-6. St. John the Baptist did not baptize everyone in “Jerusalem, Judea and the region around Jordan.” So Mary could be (and is, as we will see below) an exception to I Cor. 15:22-23.
2. There are exceptions to other general norms specifically laid out as true for “all” in Scripture. Hebrews 9:27 declares, “It is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment.” Yet we see exceptions to this norm many places in Scripture by way of resurrections from the dead. Not only do we have Elijah, Elisha, Jesus, St. Peter and St. Paul raising the dead in Scripture, but after Jesus’ Resurrection, “the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and [came] out of the tombs” (Matt. 27:52-53). These folks obviously did not “die once.” They died at least twice!
3. We have examples of other “assumptions” in Scripture. Both Enoch (cf. Gen. 5:24) and Elijah were taken up “into heaven” (II Kings 2:11) in a manner quite out of the ordinary. And so are the “two witnesses” of Revelation 11:3-13. Why couldn’t God do this with Mary?
4. We know that Mary is an exception to the “norm” of I Cor. 15:22-23 because she is depicted as having been assumed into heaven in Rev. 12. “And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun . . . she was with child . . . and . . . brought forth a male child [Jesus], one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron” (12:1-5). Who was the woman who gave birth to Jesus? Mary! And there she is in heaven!
Is the woman of Revelation 12 Mary?
ReplyDeleteMany will object at this point and deny “the woman” of Revelation 12 is Mary. They will claim it is either the Church, or, as do dispensationalists, they will claim it is the Israel of old.
The Church acknowledges Scripture to have a polyvalent nature. In other words, there can be many levels of meaning to the various texts of Scripture. So, are there many levels of meaning to Rev. 12? Absolutely! Israel is often depicted as the Lord’s bride in the Old Testament (cf. Song of Solomon, Jer. 3:1, etc.). So there is precedent to refer to Israel as “the woman.” And Jesus was born out of Israel.
Moreover, the Book of Revelation depicts the New Covenant Church as “the bride of Christ” and “the New Jerusalem” (cf. Rev. 21:2). “The woman” of Revelation 12 is also depicted as continuing to beget children to this day and these children are revealed to be all “who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ” (vs. 17). The Church certainly fits this description.
In fact, we argue as Catholics “the woman” to represent the people of God down through the centuries, whether Old Covenant Israel or the New Covenant Church, “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16).
The first and literal sense
All we have said about “the woman” of Revelation 12 representing the people of God down through the millennia of time does not diminish in any way the first and literal sense of the text as representing Mary. In fact, there are at least four reasons why one cannot escape including Mary when exegeting Revelation 12 and specifically the identity of “the woman.”
1. “The woman” in Rev. 12 “brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.” This child is obviously Jesus. If we begin on the literal level, there is no doubt that Mary is the one who “brought forth” Jesus.
2. Though we could discover many spiritual levels of meaning for the flight of “the woman” in 12:6, 14, Mary and the Holy Family literally fled into Egypt in Matt. 2:13-15 with divine assistance.
3. Mary is referred to prophetically as “woman” in Gen. 3:15, Jer. 31:22, and by Jesus as the same in John 2:4 and 19:26. Especially considering the same apostle, John, wrote the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation, it is no stretch to say St. John would have had Mary in mind when he used the familiar term “the woman” as the descriptor of the Lady of the Apocalypse.
4. There are four main characters in the chapter: “the woman,” the devil, Jesus, and the Archangel Michael. No one denies that the other three mentioned are real persons. It fits the context exegetically to interpret “the woman” as a person (Mary) as well.
How do we know Mary is bodily in heaven?
ReplyDeleteSome may concede Mary to be the woman of Revelation 12, but the next logical question is: “How does this mean she is in heaven bodily? There are lots of souls in heaven, but they don’t have their bodies.”
It seems clear that “the woman” is depicted as having “the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown” (vs. 1). Elsewhere in Rev. and in other parts of Scripture, saints in heaven are referred to as the “souls of those who had been slain” (Rev. 6:9) or “the spirits of just men made perfect” (Heb. 12:23). Why? Because they do not have bodies! They are disembodied “souls” or “spirits.” But the “woman” of Rev. 12 is portrayed as having a body with a head and feet.
But perhaps even more important than this is the fact that “the Ark of the Covenant” is revealed as being in heaven in Rev. 11:19. This is just one verse prior to the unveiling of “the woman” of Rev. 12:1.
Some may respond at this point: “Who cares if the ‘Ark of the Covenant’ is said to be in heaven?”
This is crucial, because Hebrews 9:4 tells us what was contained within the ark: a portion of manna, the miraculous “bread from heaven” of Old Testament fame, Aaron’s staff, and the Ten Commandments. In fact, it was precisely because of these sacred contents that the ark was so holy, and that is precisely why it is here depicted as having been taken up to heaven.
The question is: Is the Ark of the Covenant depicted as being in heaven a “what” (an Old Testament box made of acacia wood overlain with gold in Exodus 25), or a “who?” I argue it not only to be a “who” but to be the Blessed Virgin Mary for these reasons:
Let’s first take a look at the text of Rev. 11:19:
Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within in his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, loud noises, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail.
In order to appreciate the identity of “the ark,” let’s first take a look at the identity of “the temple” that St. John sees as housing the ark. John 2:19-21 and Rev. 21:22 tell us quite plainly that the temple St. John speaks of is not a temple made of brick and mortar.
Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”. . . But he spoke of the temple of his body (Jn. 2:21).
I saw no temple [in heaven], for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the lamb (Rev. 21:22).
When St. John views the temple in heaven, he is not viewing the Old Testament temple. He is viewing the true temple, which is Christ’s body. In the same way, St. John is not seeing the Old Covenant ark. He sees the new and true Ark of the Covenant. And remember: this would not just be talking about Mary but Mary’s body! It was Mary’s body that housed the Son of God, the fulfillment of the various types of Christ that were contained in the Old Covenant ark.
The conclusion is inescapable. Where is Mary’s body? In heaven, according to the Book of Revelation!
ReplyDeleteA final objection
Some may argue at this point our energy was wasted in asserting Mary to be identified with “the woman” of Revelation 12 because this “woman” is depicted as “travailing” with the pangs of labor in verse 2. Thus, this cannot be the “Catholic” Mary.
Two points in response:
1. No matter which interpretation you choose—Israel, the Church, Mary, or all of the above—all interpretations agree: the labor pains of Rev. 12:2 are not literal pains from a child passing through the birth canal. This really should not be a problem at all.
2. From the very beginning of Mary’s calling to be the Mother of the Messiah, she would have most likely known her Son was called to be the “suffering servant” of Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, and Wisdom 2.
Mary’s “labor pains” began at the Annunciation and would continue from the cradle to the cross, where she suffered with her Son as prophesied in Luke 2:34-35 and as painfully fulfilled in John 19. Mary’s deep love for and knowledge of her divine Son brought with it pains far deeper than any physical hurt could ever cause. A body can go numb and cease to feel pain. But you can’t deaden a heart that loves, as long as that heart continues to love. Mary clearly chose to love. She was uniquely present for our Lord, from the Incarnation of Luke 1:37-38, to the birthing of his ministry in John 2, to the cross in John 19, and into eternity in Revelation 12.
Is Rev. 12:1-2 about Mary as the Queen of Heaven?
ReplyDeleteby Matt Slick
Rev. 12:1-2 says, “And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 2 and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth.”
Many Roman Catholics believe that Mary has an exalted position in heaven. Though Roman Catholic theology has not declared that Mary is divine, they are slowly inching toward that position. Please consider some of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church regarding her.
Mary is the Queen over all things: "Queen over all things" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 966).
Entrust our cares to Mary: "Holy Mary, Mother of God . . . we can entrust all our cares and petitions to her: she prays for us as she prayed for herself: 'Let it be to me according to your word.' [Lk 1:38] By entrusting ourselves to her prayer, we abandon ourselves to the will of God together with her: 'Thy will be done,' (CCC 2677).
Mary is Advocate, Helper, Mediatrix. “ . . . the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.'" (CCC 969).
Mary Delivers our souls from death: By Mary's prayers, she delivers souls from death (CCC par. 966).
Mary brings us the gifts of Eternal Salvation: Mary, " . . . by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . (CCC par. 969).
Mary is worshipped: " . . . when she [Mary] is the subject of preaching and worship she prompts the faithful to come to her Son . . . " (Vatican Council II, p. 420).
Mary sits at the right hand of Christ: " . . . she is the supreme Minister of the distribution of graces. Jesus "sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high" (Hebrews i. b.). Mary sitteth at the right hand of her Son . . . " (Pope Pius X, 1835-1914, Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum, 14).
As you can see, the Roman Catholic Church has exalted Mary to an incredibly high level. So, it is not surprising to find that Catholics would look at Revelation 12:1-2 and interpret “the woman clothed with the sun” as being a reference to Mary. Is this position correct? No, it is not.
ReplyDeleteIf you notice the text in verse 2 it says that she was “with child and she cried out being in labor and in pain.” This is a problem because according to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, Mary did not inherit Original Sin.
CCC 491, “Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.”
If you’re not familiar with the concept of Original Sin, it is “the hereditary fallen nature and moral corruption that is passed down from Adam to his descendants. ”1 Sin entered the world through Adam (Romans 5:12). He is the first man who committed sin, and that sin is reckoned to all people (1 Corinthians 15:22; Romans 5:18). This means that all descendants of Adam are under the effects of original sin. Part of the curse of the Fall that caused Original Sin is spoken of by God in Genesis 3.
Gen. 3:16, "To the woman He said, 'I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. In pain you shall bring forth children. Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.'”
Notice that part of the curse is pain in childbirth. This is why women suffer during the birth process. So, when we look back to the text of Revelation 12:1-2, we see that the woman clothed with the sun is suffering birth pain. Since the Roman Catholic position is that Mary could not be suffering birth pain (because of her Immaculate Conception and no Original Sin), then these verses cannot be about Mary.
https://carm.org/catholic/revelation12mary
Is Mary’s Queenship Biblical?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-marys-queenship-biblical
Mary’s title as “Queen of Heaven and Earth” is a great scandal to many non-Catholic Christians. After all, the Bible doesn’t mention anything about there being a queen in God’s kingdom. All this royal attention Catholics give to Mary—whether it’s singing “Hail, holy queen enthroned above” or portraying Mary in statues and paintings with a crown on her head—seems to many non-Catholics to detract from the royalty of Christ, who alone is King of Kings. Besides, how could Mary be a queen, since she is not the wife of the Jesus but only his mother?
One biblical theme sheds light on these questions and serves as a key for unlocking the mystery of Mary’s queenship: the Old Testament tradition of the “queen mother” in the Davidic kingdom.
In the monarchy of King David, as well as in other ancient kingdoms of the Near East, the mother of the ruling king held an important office in the royal court and played a key part in the process of dynastic succession. In fact, the king’s mother ruled as queen, not his wife.
The great pre-eminence of the king’s mother may seem odd from our modern Western perspective, in which we think of a queen as being the wife of a king. However, recall that most ancient Near-Eastern kings practiced polygamy. King Solomon had seven hundred wives (1 Kgs. 11:3)—imagine the chaos in the royal court if all seven hundred were awarded the queenship! But since each king had only one mother, one can see the practical wisdom in bestowing the queenship upon her.
A number of Old Testament passages reflect the important role of the queen mother in the Davidic kingdom. For example, almost every time the narrative of 1 and 2 Kings introduces a new monarch in Judah, it mentions the king’s mother as well, showing the mother’s intimate involvement in her royal son’s reign. Similarly, the queen mother is listed among the members of the royal court whom king Jehoiachin surrendered to the king of Babylon in 2 Kings 24:12.
Her royal office is also described by the prophet Jeremiah, who tells how the queen mother possessed a throne and a crown, symbolic of her position of authority in the kingdom: “Say to the king and the queen mother: ‘Take a lowly seat, for your beautiful crown has come down from your head. . . . Lift up your eyes and see those who come from the north. Where is the flock that was given you, your beautiful flock?’” (Jer. 13:18, 20). It is significant that God directed this oracle about the upcoming fall of Judah to both the king and his mother. Addressing both king and queen mother, Jeremiah portrays her as sharing in her son’s rule over the kingdom.
Probably the clearest example of the queen mother’s role is that of Bathsheba, wife of David and mother of Solomon. Scholars have noted the excellence of Bathsheba’s position in the kingdom once she became queen mother during Solomon’s rule. Compare the humble attitude of Bathsheba as spouse of King David (1 Kgs. 1:16–17, 31) with her majestic dignity as mother of the next king, Solomon (1 Kgs. 2:19–20). As spouse of the king, Bathsheba bows with her face to the ground and does obeisance to her husband, David, upon entering his royal chamber. In striking contrast, after her son Solomon assumed the throne and she became queen mother, Bathsheba receives a glorious reception upon meeting with her royal son:
ReplyDelete“So Bathsheba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne and had a seat brought for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right. Then she said, ‘I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me.’ And the king said to her, ‘Make your request, my mother; for I will not refuse you’” (1 Kgs. 2:19–20).
This account reveals the sovereign prerogatives of the queen mother. Note how the king rises and bows as she enters. Bathsheba’s seat at the king’s right hand has the greatest significance. In the Bible, the right hand is the place of ultimate honor. This is seen in particular in the messianic Psalm 110 (“Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool”). In fact, many New Testament passages refer to the right-hand imagery of Psalm 110 to show Christ’s divinity and his reign with the Father over the whole universe (e.g., Hebrews 1:13). Thus, the queen mother sitting at the king’s right hand symbolizes her sharing in the king’s royal authority and illustrates how she holds the most important position in the kingdom, second only to the king.
This passage regarding Bathsheba also shows how the queen mother served as an advocate for the people, carrying petitions to the king. In 1 Kings 2:17, Adonijah asks Bathsheba to take a petition for him to King Solomon. He says to her: “Pray ask King Solomon—he will not refuse you—to give me Abishag the Shunammite as my wife” (1 Kgs. 2:17). It is clear that Adonijah recognizes the queen mother’s position of influence over the king, so he confidently turns to Bathsheba as an intercessor for his request.
A few Old Testament prophecies incorporate the queen mother tradition when telling of the future Messiah. One example is Isaiah 7:14, which originated during a time of dynastic crisis in Judah when Syria and Israel were threatening Jerusalem and plotting to overthrow King Ahaz. God offers Ahaz a sign that the kingdom will continue: “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Emmanuel” (Isa. 7:13–14).
On one level, this passage points to the next king (Hezekiah) as a pledge that the Davidic dynasty will continue despite the threats of invading armies. At the same time, the royal son who is to be named “Emmanuel” points to the future messianic king (cf., Isa. 9:6–7, 11:1–2). This is why the New Testament says Jesus fulfills this prophecy from Isaiah (Matt. 1:23).
For our purposes we should note how this prophecy links the mother to her royal son. Since the oracle is addressed specifically to the Davidic household and concerns the continuation of the dynasty, the young woman bearing forth the royal son would be understood as a queen mother. This has implications for our understanding of Mary. Since the mother of the king always ruled as queen mother, we should expect to find the mother of the messianic king playing the role of the true queen mother in the everlasting Kingdom of God.
With this Old Testament background, we can now more clearly see how the New Testament portrays Mary in light of the queen mother tradition.
The Gospel of Matthew has often been called the “Gospel of the Kingdom.” Matthew emphasizes that Jesus is “the Son of David,” who is the true King of the Jews establishing the “Kingdom of Heaven.” With all this kingly imagery, it should not be surprising to find queen mother themes as well.
ReplyDeleteRight away, Matthew shows explicitly how the infant Jesus is the “Emmanuel” child as prophesied in Isaiah 7:14 (Matt. 1:23). As we saw above, this prophecy links the royal messianic child with his queen mother. Further, Matthew singles out the intimate relationship between the mother and her royal son by using the phrase “the child and his mother” five times in the first two chapters, recalling the close association between queen mother and royal son as described in the Books of Kings. Just as the queen mother was constantly mentioned alongside the Judean kings in 1 and 2 Kings, so Mary is frequently mentioned alongside her royal son, Jesus, in Matthew’s infancy narrative (Matt. 1:18; 2:11, 13, 14, 20, 21).
We find Mary portrayed against the background of Davidic kingdom motifs in Luke’s Gospel as well, especially in his accounts of the Annunciation and Visitation. First, the angel Gabriel is said to appear to a virgin betrothed to a man “of the house of David” (1:27). Then the angel tells Mary, “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end” (Luke 1:31–33).
Hear the strong Davidic overtones describing Mary and her royal son: a woman from the house of David giving birth to a son who will be the new king whose reign will never end. With echoes from the queen mother tradition of the Davidic kingdom and the mother-son prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, we can conclude that Mary is being given the vocation of queen mother.
Mary’s royal office is made even more explicit in Luke’s account of the Visitation. Elizabeth greets Mary with the title “the mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43). This title is charged with great queenly significance. In the royal court language of the ancient NearEast, the title “Mother of my Lord” was used to address the queen mother of the reigning king (who himself was addressed as “my Lord”; cf., 2 Sam. 24:21). Thus with this title Elizabeth is recognizing the great dignity of Mary’s role as the royal mother of the king, Jesus.
The “Woman” of Revelation 12: Is She Mary?
ReplyDeleteOct 19, 2017
By: Steve Gregg
The twelfth chapter of Revelation apparently presents a summary of the entire Gospel Age. The chapter opens with the impending birth of a male child, generally recognized as Christ, due to his destiny of ruling the world with a rod of iron (v. 5; cf. Ps. 2:9). A dragon, identified as Satan (v. 9), is seen anticipating the birth, intending to destroy the child (vv. 3–4). The dragon’s failure to achieve its purpose and the catching up of the child to the throne of God (v. 5) result in a battle between Christ’s “brethren” and the dragon (vv. 11, 17), which may depict the age-long spiritual warfare between the church and the forces of darkness.
The first character to appear, and to remain prominent throughout the story, is a pregnant woman (vv. 1–2). She gives birth (v. 5), is then persecuted by the dragon (v. 13), flees to the wilderness (vv. 6, 14), and births additional children (v. 17). Though there is general agreement among commentators concerning the identification of the male child, no such consensus exists in identifying the mysterious woman. She has variously been identified with Israel, with the church, with the believing remnant of the end times, and with the Virgin Mary.
The last of these theories is widely held among Roman Catholics. Its first appearance is found in the speculations of Epiphanias, in the late fourth century.1 It is not the only view espoused by the Roman Church, but it has been endorsed by two popes (Pius X and Paul VI)2 and is probably the most widely embraced view, on a popular level, among Roman Catholics. Having adopted the identification of this woman with the Virgin Mary as a first premise, a number of Roman Catholic doctrines are thought to be justified:
– The equating of Mary with the “new ark of the covenant,” owing to the proximity of this vision with the appearance of the ark in heaven (11:19);
– The exaltation of Mary as a heavenly luminary, since the woman is clothed with the sun, standing in the moon and crowned with stars (12:1);
– The idea that Mary is the “mother,” not only of Jesus but also of all Christians, since they are referred to as “the rest of her offspring” (12:17);
– From the last point, it has been extrapolated that Mary, being “the mother of all living” (Gen. 3:20), should be recognized to be the “new Eve,” whose role in bringing redemption parallels Eve’s role in introducing sin and condemnation.
Most Protestants do not attribute to Mary the status implied in these assertions. However, in dialogue with Roman Catholics, these points often are raised in support of the Marian doctrines, as if the identity of this woman with Mary was an unquestioned starting point for the discussion.
Apart from the question of the woman being, or not being, a reference to the Virgin Mary, it should be pointed out that the proximity, in Chapter 11, of the ark of the covenant provides no basis for an identification of the woman with that object. No suggestion of such a connection can be drawn from any statement in the text. Thus, there would be no exegetical reason to see Christ’s mother as a “new ark,” even if the woman in the following vision could be shown to refer to her.
Anonymous 2:49 AM,
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the actuality of experiencing pain has its origins in sin does not mean that one who suffers pain (even in labor and childbirth) is sinful.
There are, in addition, occasionally exceptions to the rule either way.
Some people have a neurological condition where they are incapable of feeling physical pain. Some of these people are women, and again, some of these women give birth PAINLESSLY!
You wouldn't be such a heretic as to deny Jesus Christ was and is always free from sin, would you? Yet Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior felt intense physical pain. Or would you deny that too? After all, your "prominent" heretic in arms, Ray B., denied the bodily Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.
On that note, if you are for Luther and Calvin, I refer your Jew hating and Child murderer supporting self back to my post at 2:45 AM
The evidence that points toward the identifying of the woman with Mary (e.g., that she, in the vision, gives birth to Christ) is inconclusive. After all, in Revelation, the image of a woman needn’t be taken for a literal individual. There is another “woman” portrayed in the seventeenth chapter, who is given the name “Mystery Babylon the Great” (v. 5). Much disagreement over the identity of this “Babylon” has characterized the expositions, but one thing that all agree on is that “Babylon” is not a literal woman. The same may be said for the “bride” depicted in Revelation 21:2, 9–10. This use of female imagery to represent corporate entities in Revelation must inform our interpretation of the woman who bore the male child.
ReplyDeleteA major clue to her identity, besides her giving birth to Christ, is found in the imagery of the sun, the moon, and the twelve stars (12:1), which clearly hark back to Joseph’s dream in Genesis 37:9. Joseph’s father Jacob recognized these images as representing his own family (i.e., Israel). For this reason, the most ancient interpreters interpreted the woman relative to Israel—usually as the faithful remnant or “spiritual” Israel. The ancient (third century) commentary of Victorinus asserted: “The woman clothed with the sun, and having the moon under her feet, and wearing a crown of twelve stars upon her head, and travailing in her pains, is the ancient church of fathers, and prophets, and saints, and apostles, which had the groans and torments of its longing until it saw…Christ, the fruit of its people according to the flesh.”3 The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops concurs with Victorinus: “The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars…symbolizes God’s people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (Rev. 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church.”4
However, the Roman Church has come to adopt a double-identification of the woman as representing, on one level, the church, and, on another level, the Virgin Mary: “There is a longstanding tradition of interpretation in the Church which views this woman from two perspectives: as representative of God’s People and as the Mother of our Lord.”5 A respected Catholic commentary explains, “By this woman, interpreters commonly understand the Church….It may also, by allusion, be applied to our blessed Lady.”6
While Protestants may intuit that such a double-identification seems unlikely—and even theologically opportunistic—both ideas have prima facie plausibility. Even if the woman depicts the people of God, as the oldest traditions seem to suggest, it remains possible to see Mary as the individual member of the faithful remnant who brought forth the Messiah. On the other hand, if it is acknowledged that the woman (like other “women” in Revelation) represents a corporate entity, it does not seem necessary to add another layer of interpretation by identifying her with both the corporate church and the individual mother of Christ.
Although the woman’s giving birth to Christ may be one factor that could point to Mary, the subsequent description of the woman’s circumstances would seem to rule out any reference to Mary. The woman is seen as coming under special, post resurrection persecution from the dragon (Rev. 12:13), yet nothing in the Book of Acts, where Mary is last seen (1:14), would indicate that she was singled out from the Christian community in general as a target for persecution.
As a result of this persecution, the vision’s woman flees to, and finds refuge in, the wilderness (Rev. 12:6, 14). Did Mary actually make such a flight? No historical information would suggest that she did so. However, the faithful Jewish remnant (the Judean Church), which in other respects seems a good candidate for identification with the woman, did flee to the wilderness prior to the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70, and so found refuge from the Roman invasion of that city. Eusebius, writing in 325, reports: “The people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella.”7
ReplyDeleteIn Revelation 12:17, the woman is said to have had other “offspring” who experienced persecution with her. While it seems probable that Mary and Joseph had additional children after the birth of Jesus (e.g., Matt. 13:55–56), we do not read of these children experiencing special persecution in the wilderness. On the other hand, if the woman is seen as the Jewish church, then the Gentile Christians, “who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ,” would be those referred to as “the rest of her offspring.” The woman, then, is she who is “the mother of us all”—a dignity elsewhere ascribed to “Jerusalem which is above” (Gal. 4:26), which is the church (Heb. 12:22–23).
While the fact of giving birth to Christ would seem to qualify the woman of Revelation 12 to be identified with Mary, there is nothing else in the chapter that would correlate with her, and, as we have observed, there is a tendency in Revelation to use women as figures for some corporate entities rather than for individual persons.
The identification that would better fit all the known facts inside and outside the passage would be that of the faithful Jewish remnant, through whom God brought the Messiah into the world, and which followed Him as His first disciples. The Judean remnant thus became the Judean church. The Book of Acts documents the beginning of the persecution of the woman by the dragon, and church history (Eusebius) records her flight into the wilderness.
This identification easily accommodates the reference to “the rest of her offspring,” since this is a very apt way of speaking of the Gentile churches, which were spawned through the labors of the Judean saints.
As for the idea of a “new Eve,” this would not be at all applicable to Mary, since Adam is a type of Christ (Rom. 5:14), and Eve was Adam’s wife, not his mother. The marriage of Adam and Eve seems to be identified by Paul as a type of Christ and His bride, the church (Eph. 5:31–32), which would, again, make the church, and not Mary, the “new Eve” and “the mother of all living.”
Thus, the identification of the woman with the Virgin Mary is hermeneutically tenuous, rendering this chapter of Revelation useless in the defense of any specific Marian doctrines.
NOTES...
https://www.equip.org/article/woman-revelation-12-mary/