Queen of Heaven

Share ways to witness to JW, Mormons, Scientology, and other cults and sects.

Queen of Heaven

Postby geauxsaints on Sat Jun 09, 2007 1:08 am

Queen of Heaven

In the Davidic Kingdom from Solomon all the way down the royal lineage of kings the mother was always queen. It was NOT the kings wife who was considered queen, it was his mother.


Why then is it not biblical to refer to Mary as queen?

Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.

Psa 45:6 Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness;
Psa 45:7 you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions;
Psa 45:8 your robes are all fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia. From ivory palaces stringed instruments make you glad;
Psa 45:9 daughters of kings are among your ladies of honor; at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.


If Heb 1:8 is a prophecy from the Psalms that Christ fulfilled who is the queen that stands at His right hand?
geauxsaints
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:19 am
Location: New Orleans

Fascinating point.

Postby Mario on Sat Jun 09, 2007 5:25 am

geauxsaints,

If one were to review the lineage of kings in 2Kings after the division of the Kingdom, only the Davidic dynasty maintained the position of Queen Mother. We see this in verses such as the following:

18:1-2 In the third year of Hoshea, son of Elah, king of Israel, Hezekiah, son of Ahaz, king of Judah, began to reign. His mother's name was Abi, the daughter of Zechariah.

It is interesting to note that the double-layered prophecy of Is 7:14 pertains to both this Abi and Mary, the mother of Jesus:

Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Verses 16-18 point to the emergence of Assyria as an influence in the region while the child is young (Hezekiah), while Mt 1:23 emphasizes Jesus as the ultimate fulfilment of this prophecy. Since the virgin, Abi, became queen mother, then Mary can also be viewed as queen mother of her royal son, the Christ.

In addition, Jeremiah 13:18 indicates that the position of Queen Mother was still intact at the time of exile:

Say to the king and the queen mother: "Take a lowly seat, for your beautiful crown has come down from your head."

This appears to confirm the verses you highlighted. If Hebrew confirms that Jesus is the fulfilment of Ps 45, then Mary is the fulfilment of v.9.
Image
User avatar
Mario
 
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 12:27 pm

Re: Queen of Heaven

Postby Abiding in His Word on Sat Jun 09, 2007 6:00 am

geauxsaints wrote:Why then is it not biblical to refer to Mary as queen?


Hi geauxsaints,

The study of the Queen Mother throughout biblical history is a very interesting one indeed. It stands to reason that among a people whose rulers are polygamists the mother of the new king or chief at once becomes a person of great consequence. The records of the Books of Kings prove this. The Queen Mother, occupied a position of high social and political importance; she took rank almost with the king.

However, those in scripture are referred to as Queens (i.e. Queen of Sheba) and Mary, the mother of Jesus, is not referred to as a Queen. She refers to herself as a handmaiden, or bondslave, of the Lord. It's not correct exegesis to confer a title when there is none referenced in the Bible.

Hope this helps.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28618
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Re: Queen of Heaven

Postby Mario on Sat Jun 09, 2007 6:14 am

Abiding in His Word wrote:
geauxsaints wrote:Why then is it not biblical to refer to Mary as queen?


Hi geauxsaints,

The study of the Queen Mother throughout biblical history is a very interesting one indeed. However, those in scripture are referred to as Queens (i.e. Queen of Sheba) and Mary, the mother of Jesus, is not referred to as a Queen. It's not correct exegesis to confer a title when there is none referenced in the Bible.

Hope this helps.


Abiding,

I think your reference to the Queen of Sheba is weak. That particular queen was ruler in Sheba. The queen mothers of Judah were not rulers.

Also, the fact that none of the queen mothers of Judah are personally addressed as "Queen Mother" in the Scriptures, does not detract from the fact that they each held that position. IMHO, it is logical to assume, then, that Mary can be viewed as queen mother of the final and forever Davidic King, Jesus, our Lord and Messiah.
Image
User avatar
Mario
 
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 12:27 pm

Re: Queen of Heaven

Postby Abiding in His Word on Sat Jun 09, 2007 6:33 am

Mario wrote:I think your reference to the Queen of Sheba is weak. That particular queen was ruler in Sheba. The queen mothers of Judah were not rulers.


Hi Mario,

I only referenced the Queen of Sheba as her title. I'm not understanding how that could be a "weak" reference when it's her title in scripture.

Also, the fact that none of the queen mothers of Judah are personally addressed as "Queen Mother" in the Scriptures, does not detract from the fact that they each held that position. IMHO, it is logical to assume, then, that Mary can be viewed as queen mother of the final and forever Davidic King, Jesus, our Lord and Messiah.


Again, Mario, it's not correct Biblical exegesis to confer a title or position or function to someone where none is mentioned. That the people of Judah in the days before the exile had given themselves over to the worst and vilest forms of heathen worship and incurred God's grievous displeasure. This made clear by the denunciation of the worship of the queen of heaven by Jeremiah.

Exalting Mary to a position by means of "assumption" is erroneous and it's my concern that this is where this thread is leading.
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28618
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Postby ruotsher on Sat Jun 09, 2007 9:18 am

When the mother of the sons of Zebedee approached Jesus and asked if one of her sons might sit at His right hand, Jesus Himself said only the Father knew who would have that position. If Jesus Himself didn''t know, how can people on earth presume to know?

My beliefs are that in heaven, after the judgement, Mary very well may sit at his right hand and sit as Queen. We don't know - but Jewish tradition points that way.

Right now, though, she's not.
User avatar
ruotsher
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:54 am
Location: In His Arms

A great reference.

Postby Mario on Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:08 am

ruotsher wrote:When the mother of the sons of Zebedee approached Jesus and asked if one of her sons might sit at His right hand, Jesus Himself said only the Father knew who would have that position. If Jesus Himself didn''t know, how can people on earth presume to know?

My beliefs are that in heaven, after the judgement, Mary very well may sit at his right hand and sit as Queen. We don't know - but Jewish tradition points that way.

Right now, though, she's not.


Hi ruotsher,

It's been awhile. I believe your reference is to Mt 20. However, Christ does not say he doesn't know who will sit at his right hand, but simply said it was the Father's perogative...

v. 23 ...but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.

I believe Jesus answered in this fashion not because of ignorance, but because James and John's mother began her request with, "Command that these two sons of mine...".

Perhaps you were thinking of Mk 13:32 where Jesus states the Son of Man knows not the hour.

You bring up a good point. In Davidic tradition, at what point was Abi, for instance, designated queen mother? Was it after Hezekiah's coronation? If so, when would we consider the coronation of Christ to be?
Image
User avatar
Mario
 
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 12:27 pm

Postby lesjay on Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:17 am

geuxsaints,
the queen being arrayed in gold of Ophir , is also believed to be the Bride of Christ, after he is coronated as King of Kings. The bride of christ rules and reigns with Him, according to His laws, commandments, etc.
Image
User avatar
lesjay
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 4:36 pm
Location: my living room

Postby bugtussle on Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:01 am

Lesjay, it has been my understanding also that this is the Bride of Christ.

We know that Jesus Christ is the King of kings and Lord of lords. These titles give definition to His diety. If Mary were given the status of queen mother, in relation to Christ being King of kings, that would mean that Mary would be Queen of queens and Lady of ladies, which would mean that she is deified also. Somehow, that would be a far stretch for me, since she needed Jesus' blood to cleanse her and set her free, just like the rest of us. I do not see anywhere in scripture any special power or dispensation granted to her.
For the Lord is good and His love endures forever. His mercy will never fail. Amen.
User avatar
bugtussle
 
Posts: 751
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:58 pm
Location: Louisiana

Re: A great reference.

Postby ruotsher on Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:09 am

Mario wrote:It's been awhile. I believe your reference is to Mt 20. However, Christ does not say he doesn't know who will sit at his right hand, but simply said it was the Father's perogative...

v. 23 ...but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.

I believe Jesus answered in this fashion not because of ignorance, but because James and John's mother began her request with, "Command that these two sons of mine...".

Perhaps you were thinking of Mk 13:32 where Jesus states the Son of Man knows not the hour.

You bring up a good point. In Davidic tradition, at what point was Abi, for instance, designated queen mother? Was it after Hezekiah's coronation? If so, when would we consider the coronation of Christ to be?


Hi Mario, yes it's been a while. Fair enough, He did not say He didn't know, but it was the Father's to give. We still can't presume here on earth to know and presume.

Again, it would be future anyway. It's not happened now.
User avatar
ruotsher
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:54 am
Location: In His Arms

Postby geauxsaints on Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:03 pm

the queen being arrayed in gold of Ophir , is also believed to be the Bride of Christ, after he is coronated as King of Kings. The bride of christ rules and reigns with Him, according to His laws, commandments, etc.


Lesjay, it has been my understanding also that this is the Bride of Christ.

We know that Jesus Christ is the King of kings and Lord of lords. These titles give definition to His diety. If Mary were given the status of queen mother, in relation to Christ being King of kings, that would mean that Mary would be Queen of queens and Lady of ladies, which would mean that she is deified also. Somehow, that would be a far stretch for me, since she needed Jesus' blood to cleanse her and set her free, just like the rest of us. I do not see anywhere in scripture any special power or dispensation granted to her.


How can this passage on the queen be the bride of Christ? It's not the bride of the King who becomes queen it is His mother. If those verses are making reference to our Lord then the queen can only be one person. If Christ is King then Mary has to definitley be Queen, the scriptures in Ps 45 point that out.

I suppose asking when did Christ's Kingship occur would give some detail into when Mary was or will be coronated as Queen.

Was it wrong to call Christ King beforehand if it was indeed beforehand?
John 12:15"FEAR NOT, DAUGHTER OF ZION; BEHOLD, YOUR KING IS COMING, SEATED ON A DONKEY'S COLT."
geauxsaints
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:19 am
Location: New Orleans

Postby Be still on Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:15 pm

Mary a queen? :eek:

Where does it say that in the bible?

I'm going to move this thread for the sake of geauxsaints to "How to Witness to Various cults and sects."
YSIC, Karen
Image
User avatar
Be still
 
Posts: 11028
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:25 am
Location: Mid-Atlantic

Postby geauxsaints on Sat Jun 30, 2007 12:25 am

It says it in the psalms, you should give it a read and tell me what you think.
geauxsaints
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:19 am
Location: New Orleans

Postby ruotsher on Sat Jun 30, 2007 9:40 am

Be still wrote:Mary a queen? :eek:

Where does it say that in the bible?

I'm going to move this thread for the sake of geauxsaints to "How to Witness to Various cults and sects."


Psalm 45 is what he's referring to, and I believe specfically to:

9Kings' daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir.

:roll:
User avatar
ruotsher
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:54 am
Location: In His Arms

Postby geauxsaints on Sat Jun 30, 2007 2:12 pm

God is to receive all glory through Jesus Christ. Anything less will not be tolerated here.


I agree 100%

My intent was never to take away glory due to God alone, sorry if that was the way this topic I posted came across.

Who does the queen in Psalms 45 refer to? If the King refers to the Messiah who would the queen be?
geauxsaints
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:19 am
Location: New Orleans

Postby ruotsher on Sat Jun 30, 2007 2:48 pm

geauxsaints wrote:
God is to receive all glory through Jesus Christ. Anything less will not be tolerated here.


I agree 100%

My intent was never to take away glory due to God alone, sorry if that was the way this topic I posted came across.

Who does the queen in Psalms 45 refer to? If the King refers to the Messiah who would the queen be?


It would seem that the queen would be the King's bride, and therefore the Bride of Christ. But, considering the Jewish traditions.....perhaps Psalms 45 was written for those before Jesus came, and for those after Jesus came.

The famous English author, C. S. Lewis, wrote that some of the psalms meant two things. He also wrote that Psalm 45 was a good example of this. What did C. S. Lewis mean? He thought that Psalm 45 meant one thing before Jesus came to the earth and something else after he came!

1) Before Jesus came to the earth, it meant this. The king in verses 2-9 was the king of Judah or Israel. He was the *messiah. The words "did this by pouring *oil over" in verse 7 are "*messiahed" in Hebrew! They poured *oil (from the fruit of a tree we call the olive) over him when he became king. All the kings of Judah and Israel were God’s *messiahs.

The *queen in verses 10-15 was the woman that the king married. Some Bible students think that the *sons of Korah sang Psalm 45 when King Solomon married his *queen. Others think that they sang it every time a king married. The "*sons of Korah" were the people that sang in the *Temple. The *Temple was the house of God. King Solomon built the *Temple in Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the capital city of Judah.

2) After Jesus came to the earth it meant something else. This is a more important meaning for Christians. They think that verses 2-9 describe Jesus, the King of kings. Verses 10-15 describe the Church, all Christians.

The Hebrew word is "*queen", or "the wife of a king", so in this verse (9)they were already married.

It would seem that the daughters of Tyre were/are the remnant Jews (Israel).
User avatar
ruotsher
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:54 am
Location: In His Arms

Postby geauxsaints on Sat Jun 30, 2007 9:03 pm

I love reading C. S. Lewis, do you have a link to that or a reference? I'd love to read it in its entirety. I concede that it could have dual meanings.

(9) At Your right hand stands the queen in gold from Ophir.

After Solomon was crowned King in
1 Kings 2:19
He had a throne brought for the king's mother, and she sat down at his right hand.
Image

Also nearly all the Kings of Israel are recorded with the names of their mother next to theirs.

Naamah, the Ammonitess, the mother of Rehoboam (1 Ki 14:21; compare 14:31, and 2 Ch 12:13); Maacah, the daughter of Abishalom (1 Ki 15:2) or Absalom (2 Ch 11:20) the mother of Abijah; Maacah, the daughter of Abishalom, the mother (grandmother?) of Asa (1 Ki 15:10; compare 2 Ch 15:16); Azubah, the daughter of Shilhi, the mother of Jehoshaphat (1 Ki 22:42; compare 2 Ch 20:31); Athaliah, the grand-daughter of Omri, the mother of Ahaziah (2 Ki 8:26; compare 2 Ch 22:2); Zibiah of Beersheba, the mother of Jehoash (2 Ki 12:1; compare 2 Ch 24:1); Jehoaddin (Jehoaddan, 2 Ch 25:1) of Jerusalem, the mother of Amaziah (2 Ki 14:2); Jecoliah (Jechiliah, 2 Ch 26:3) of Jerusalem, the mother of Azariah (2 Ki 15:2) or Uzziah (2 Ki 15:13,30, etc.; compare 2 Ch 26:3); Jerusha (Jerushah, 2 Ch 27:1), the daughter of Zadok, the mother of Jotham (2 Ki 15:33); Abi (Abijah, 2 Ch 29:1), the daughter of Zechariah, the mother of Hezekiah (2 Ki 18:2); Hephzibah, the mother of Manasseh (2 Ki 21:1); Meshullemeth, the daughter of Haruz of Jotbah, the mother of Amon (2 Ki 21:19); Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah of Bozkath, the mother of Josiah (2 Ki 22:1); Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah, the mother of Jehoahaz (2 Ki 23:31); Zebidah, the daughter of Pedaiah of Rumah, the mother of Jehoiakim (2 Ki 23:36); Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem, the mother of Jehoiachin (2 Ki 24:8); Hamutal (Hamital), the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah, the mother Of Zedekiah (2 Ki 24:18)

Rev 12 could be interpreted to be Mary also
geauxsaints
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:19 am
Location: New Orleans

Postby ruotsher on Sun Jul 01, 2007 5:52 am

I understand your reasoning when looking at Jewish tradition.

I will concede that Psalm 45 is rather cryptic, but I just think inserting *Mary* as queen is a big stretch. From verse 9 forward there is only mention of King's daughters, and specifically verse 13The king's daughter is all glorious within: her clothing is of wrought gold sounds like whoever is sitting at the King's right hand......since she is dressed in gold. There's no mention of mothers aside from Jewish tradition.

Who do you think the daughters are? And is the daughter of Tyre somebody special?

Also, the woman in Rev. 12 is not Mary, although I know that that is what you are taught. She is Israeal, and the 12 stars are the 12 tribes. This is lined out in Genesis.
User avatar
ruotsher
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:54 am
Location: In His Arms

Postby crmann on Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:00 pm

On the Queen of Heaven....

I have put this together as quickly as I could. But before I lose my internet connection, I am going to post what I have done. I will come back at a later time and edit.

The Old Timer...


Throughout history, Isis and various forms of goddess worship has played a significant role in our world’s religious and cultural makeup. Today, goddess veneration is still very much alive and well, and images of the goddess–in various forms–can be identified in every state and province.

Inscribed in the temple of Isis; "I, Isis, am all that has been, that is or shall be; No mortal man hath ever me unveiled. The fruit which I have brought forth is the ‘SUN’."

Isis is the "divine mother" of ancient Egypt. She was known as the great goddess of magic and "universal nature," and it was believed she used her powers to raise her dead (and dismembered) husband Osiris back to life (Osiris was represented as the Sun, he also ruled the underworld). As "Virgin of the World," Isis birthed Horus, the Egyptian god of the sun and moon, day and night. Metaphorically speaking, Isis is the celestial mother of the Sun (son) of god. It was her son, Horus, who eventually killed Typhon, the Egyptian devil. And, according to legend, Isis–mother of all–remains eternally virgin. She is often portrayed "as the virgin with child," and is regularly depicted as one crowned with a lunar orb and the horns of a bull.

Goddess veneration of the "virgin with child" has been a central belief for various societies throughout history, including some aspects of Christianity. Indeed, many leading occultists see striking parallels between the Roman Catholic "Virgin Mary"–the "Queen of Heaven"–and the goddess Isis. And the comparison is startling. Presently, Roman Catholicism holds Mary to be eternally virgin, just as Isis was. Catholicism also contends that Mary was without sin, making her into a type of "god." In fact, there are some who claim that Mary is the "fourth person" within the Trinity. This belief is linked to Catholicism’s claim that Mary now has a direct say in mankind’s salvation through her (Catholic) role of co-redemption and mediation. Hence, the elevated Mary becomes a "goddess" in the Catholic faith, just as Isis was a goddess in the pantheon of Egyptian deities. And just as Isis was (and still is) called "Mother of the World" and "Queen of Heaven," so too Mary is now exalted with these same titles.

While the Roman Catholic/Isis comparison shows a tangible link between Catholicism and the mystery religions, Mary as Biblically understood shows little connection. Yes, Mary was the virgin mother of Jesus, Son of God, but she didn't remain a virgin. Mark 6:3 actually lists four of Jesus’ brothers and mentions sisters as well. Nor was the Biblical Mary sinless. Romans 3:23 makes it clear that "all have sinned"–which would include Mary. The only exception to this rule is found in Jesus Christ (Hebrews 4:15 is one example among many that attests to Jesus’ sinless character).

The Bible makes it clear that Christ’s death and resurrection was a completed act. The Biblical Mary plays no direct role in His work of salvation. As Jesus Himself said, "It is finished." He didn’t say, "It’s finished, subject to the continuing work of Mother Mary."

So how is Isis as a symbol used today? While finding an actual statue of Isis may not be as easy as finding the "all seeing eye," goddess symbols are prevalent throughout America. The great seal of Virginia features the Roman goddess Virtus. The Statue of Liberty is a goddess representation, with her sun-ray spikes an allusion to the headgear of the Colossus of Rhodes, a monument to the Sun-God Helios (interestingly, Auguste Bertholdi, the creator of the Statue of Liberty, was seeking a commission to construct a giant Isis statue holding a torch overlooking the Suez Canal). From the goddess atop the downtown Indianapolis circle monument to the embossed goddess figures upon state and provincial legislative buildings, goddess symbols are well rooted within modern America. And now a group of New Agers has started the "Goddess 2000 Project," which seeks to have a goddess statue or other depiction "on every block." (Just thought I'd throw this in for good measure.)

Internationally, the Fellowship of Isis–an organization "dedicated to honoring the religion of the Goddess in Her many forms"–has chapters across Germany, the United Kingdom, and the US. It’s global headquarters is located in Clonegal Castle, Ireland. Presently, the Fellowship of Isis offers an entire program of correspondence studies, rites, rituals, prayers and degrees to those wishing to advance within the goddess mystery religions.

The secret doctrine of Isis, her mysteries and powers are, according to Manly P. Hall, purposely hidden from the average person. According to occult sages, properly understanding the spiritual depths of Isis requires initiation, study, and commitment. Hall explains in The Secret Teachings of All Ages, "…the great spiritual truths hidden from the world by the ignorance of the world, and the keys of the secret doctrines of the ancient philosophers, are all symbolized by the Virgin Isis. Veiled from head to foot, she reveals her wisdom only to the tried and initiated few who have earned the right to enter her sacred presence…" (Pay close attention to any statue of the virgin Mary, what you are seeing is the statue of Isis.)

The figure of Isis can also be used to manipulate the black arts. Hall states, "The figure of Isis is sometimes used to represent the occult and magical arts, such as necromancy, invocation, sorcery…" Hall continues by linking Isis and the order of Freemasonry, "In one of the myths concerning her, Isis is said to have conjured the invincible God of Eternities, Ra, to tell her his secret and sacred name, which he did. This name is equivalent to the Lost Word of Masonry. By means of this Word, a magician can demand obedience from the invisible and superior deities."

Obviously, the importance of Isis and the accompanying symbolism of goddess adoration is vital to understanding our society’s obsession with goddess worship and the occult in general. In our attempt as Christians to comprehend the roots of the New Age movement, we must be aware that Satan has tirelessly thrust the deities of ancient Egypt upon mankind for thousands of years. Ultimately though, it doesn’t really matter if "she" is called Isis, Diana, Virtus, Cybele, Rhea, or Mother Mary, the concept is always the same–the lifting up of a pagan goddess as a replacement for the true God.

Many Christian churches continue to bring paganism into the worship in the church, Catholic and protestant..
.
"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me." Exodus 20:2-3

Now think about what the Muslims believe about the Virgin Mary....
Along the path marked out by Abraham in his submission to the divine will, we find his descendant, the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of Jesus, who is also devoutly invoked by Muslims, especially in popular piety.
The Roman Catholic Church upholds the doctrine of the Trinity (Catechism paragraphs 261-267). It is therefore astounding that this Catechism contradicts everything the Catholic Church has taught about God and states that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God:

According to the Catholic Church’s relationship with Muslims, ‘The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 841, quoting Lumen Gentium 16, November 21, 1964).

According to the Catechism, “together with us (Catholics) they (Muslims) adore the one, merciful God.” Pope John Paul II repeats this statement even more clearly. Addressing Muslim youths, the Pope said: “We believe in the same God, the one and only God, the living God, the God who creates worlds and brings creatures to their perfection” (What Dialogue Means for Catholics and Muslims, US Conference of Catholic Bishops, http://www.usccb.org/seia/brunett.htm).

How could Catholics and Muslims worship the same God, since Muslims deny the Trinity, the Sonship and the Deity of our Lord? Quite frankly, the statement that Catholics and Muslims adore the same God is false. I will not speculate on the motives of the modern Catholic hierarchy for making this false assertion. However, it should be evident to every Catholic who has complete confidence in the infallibility and unchangeableness of the Roman magisterium, that in fact their teaching on this matter has changed and that it is both fallible and mistaken.

Does not the Catholic Church understand the following scriptures?

1 John 2:22
Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3
and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

If I understand these three scriptures, the entire Muslim religion is of the spirit of the Antichrist. So why would the Catholic Church accept them as fellow believers?

Dr Robert Reymond comments on the odd stand of Roman Catholicism on Islam:

“I should note in passing that Islam’s doctrinal hostility to Biblical Christianity apparently does not bother the Roman Catholic Church, for Rome declared in its 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraph 841) that Muslims are included within God’s plan of salvation because they "acknowledge the Creator,...profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with [Christians]...adore the one merciful God [Muslims and Christians hardly "adore" the same "one merciful God"]." Never mind that Islam’s Allah is not the triune God of the Old and New Testaments; never mind that Muslims think our Trinity is made up of God, a human Jesus, and Mary his mother, the last two of whom we blasphemously worship along with God; never mind that they deny that Jesus Christ is the divine Son of God and that he died on a cross a sacrificial death for his people’s sin and rose again because of their justification; never mind that Muslims believe that Christians are idolaters because we worship Christ who they contend was simply a human Messiah and a human prophet; never mind that they see no need for Christ’s substitutionary atonement or for that matter any substitutionary atonement at all. According to Rome’s teaching, in spite of their unbelief, Muslims are still salvifically related to the People of God and may go to Heaven as Muslims, all of which shows how serious is Roman Catholicism’s departure from Christianity” (Reymond, R. What’s Wrong with Islam?).

Yes, no faith or holy book has honored Virgin Mary and held her in high esteem as did Islam and the Holy Qur’an, not even the Bible. A full-chapter of the Qur’an was titled Maryam (Arabic of Mary). You would also find that simply many Muslims love to call their daughters Maryam out of love and respect.

The Holy Qur’an portrays the character and merits of Virgin Mary since her birth till her miraculous pregnancy and birth of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him). In doing so, Qur’an, which is a divinely revealed book, does not give much emphasis on detailing the events. This is typical of human authors, as it is outlining the significance, wisdom and lessons learnt.

Thus the virtues, high status and moral excellence of Virgin Mary are exposed: a chaste and pious human woman who was chosen, purified, and preferred over all of the women of creation to be the one to give birth to the Messenger Jesus through the command of God. This is without any father whatsoever.

There a number of Qur’anic verses, which narrate the story of Virgin Mary. These verses with their inimitable divine eloquence and superb rhetoric - are so moving that they bring tears into the eyes of Arab listeners, Muslims and Christians alike.


Now I quote Fr. Stephen Somerville from The Abomination of Desolation in Machabees and in the Present ...

If you’d like to read the entire writing, you can find it here:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTop ... rville.htm

Catholics often talk about the "end of the world". This has been so since the very time of Christ on earth. The disciples of Jesus once asked Him, "What shall be the sign of Thy coming and of the consummation (that is, the end) of the world?" (Matt 24:3) Every year in the Liturgy at the end of November, we hear readings at Mass about the end of the world, and the final coming of Christ.

So you see, our talking about the end of the world, although it may be frightening or mysterious, still it is not something unimportant or mistaken or superstitious. Notice that the disciples asked Jesus, not when will be the end, but what sign shall there be of Thy coming, and of the end of the world? For we know from Jesus that the day or the hour of the end is God's secret. But as for the signs of it, Jesus does speak abundantly, especially in the end-of-the-world discourse in the Matthew, Mark and Luke Gospels. We call this discourse eschatology, which means the study of the eschata, which is Greek for the Last Things. These are, in tradition, four things: Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell.

One of the most significant signs of the end of the world will be the so-called abomination of desolation. Jesus himself says this in Matthew 24:15. He says that Prophet Daniel predicted the abomination of desolation and he adds, "He that readeth, let him understand."

This means that some of us must read Prophet Daniel, and also books I and 2 of the Machabees at the end of the Old Testament because these books also speak of the abomination actually happening, for example in I Machabees 6, verse 7.

There we read that the conquering faithful Jewish army had re-taken Jerusalem, and they had "thrown down the abomination from the altar" in the temple. These words indicate the abomination was some kind of pagan statue that the pagans and the pagan-minded, unfaithful Jews had set up on the holy Temple altar.

It also suggests what other Bible evidence shows, that the abomination or evil sacrilegious thing is the abolition, the doing away with, of the daily, holy sacrifice on the Temple altar, and the substitution of a false-god statue with some false sacrifice or worship, on the holy altar.

This comparison between high-priest and Pope is part of the comparison between the Machabees and present day Church, under the theme of abomination of desolation. Jesus himself predicts this final or end-time abomination, and he says, "He that readeth, let him understand.”

I have been reading much, and striving to understand. I hope that you have all learned to understand a little better this mystery of the final abomination from these present reflections.

All of us traditional Catholics see that the last four Popes, after Pope Pius XII, have to share serious responsibility for the grave troubles afflicting the Catholic Church today. Although many of the 260-plus Popes have become canonized saints for their holiness and heroism, there have been throughout Catholic History a considerable number of truly bad Popes. The last four of these are not the first four.

Holy Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.

I appreciate what Fr. Stephen Somerville has written, however consider his closing prayer. To whom was Fr. Stephen Somerville praying?

Where in God’s word are we told to pray to the mother of Jesus?

Who is the one mediator between God and Man?

1 Timothy 2: 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, This excludes Mary.

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, This includes Mary.

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, This includes Mary.

Matthew 11:11 "Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; Where does this put Mary the mother of Jesus?

Respectfully yours,

The Old Timer
Last edited by crmann on Sun Jul 01, 2007 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
crmann
 
Posts: 10409
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:06 am
Location: Mountains, Western NC

Postby geauxsaints on Sun Jul 01, 2007 2:09 pm

I agree that Ps. 45 is a stretch unless you look at it in light of Jewish tradition. To me Jewish tradition confirms Mary's place in the royal court of the Messiah. I don't see it as her being equal to Jesus or that it diminshes the role Christ has as King of Kings.


Also, the woman in Rev. 12 is not Mary, although I know that that is what you are taught. She is Israeal, and the 12 stars are the 12 tribes. This is lined out in Genesis.



Rev 12 is another one that has dual meaning in fact I think it could be interpreted 3 ways:

Israel
Mary
The Church

Mary makes the most sense in the passage to me. Especially when I already consider her a queen. :wink:
geauxsaints
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:19 am
Location: New Orleans

Postby crmann on Sun Jul 01, 2007 3:17 pm

I agree that Ps. 45 is a stretch unless you look at it in light of Jewish tradition. To me Jewish tradition confirms Mary's place in the royal court of the Messiah.


Dear Geauxsaints.. Do we believe in tradition of the Jews or in God's Word?

May I suggest that Ps. 45 is referring to the Church... no other.

To assume that it refers to Mary's place in the royal court is wishful thinking.
We very quickly get into false beliefs when we stretch and assume in understanding the scriptures. Throughout the new testament we read about the bride of Christ, and that bride of Christ is the Church.

Respectfully,
The Old Timer
Image
User avatar
crmann
 
Posts: 10409
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:06 am
Location: Mountains, Western NC

Postby crmann on Tue Jul 03, 2007 7:01 am

More on the Queen of Heaven....

Catholicism contends that at Mary's death, the Lord took her up into heaven and gave her the title, "Queen over all things:"

"Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things." THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH Pg. 252, #966

This Catholic doctrine and the Word of God have a head-on collision here. Scripture not only never teaches such a doctrine, it condemns it. In Jeremiah 44: 9, we read about the worship of a false goddess known as the "Queen of Heaven," a practice which made God furious:

"The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger." Jeremiah 7:18

Why did these people worship this false goddess called the Queen of heaven? It was a tradition of men that had been handed down to them:

"But we will... burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes..." Jeremiah 44:17

God doesn’t change. If this practice was condemned by God in the Old Testament, then its teaching in Catholicism is the same pagan ritual that infuriates God today?

I find it interesting to study the many false religions which have worshipped a "Queen of heaven." Why is it that Catholicism remains insistent that God gave Mary a name so often used by false goddesses?

And, who should be exalted? Though Catholicism insists upon exalting Mary, the Bible exalts only God Almighty:

"Be thou exalted, O God, above the heavens; let thy glory be above all the earth." Psalm 57:5

"...thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all." 1 Chronicles 29:11

"...let the God of my salvation be exalted." Psalm 18:46

"Be thou exalted, LORD, in thine own strength..." Psalm 21:13

"Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth." Psalm 46:10

"...the shields of the earth belong unto God: he is greatly exalted." Psalm 47:9

"The LORD is exalted; for he dwelleth on high..." Isaiah 33:5

God receives glory through Jesus Christ, and through Him only....

The Bible clearly declares that God receives glory through the Lord Jesus Christ. In the New Testament, the name " Jesus" appears 943 times. The name "Christ" appears 533 times, while the words "Lord Jesus" appear 115 times.

The first four books of the New Testament chronicle the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus, while the rest of the New Testament revolves around Him.

Mary, on the other hand, appears in God's Word only a handful of times, and is never referred to as a queen of anything:

"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him (Jesus), and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; Philippians 2:9-10

"...Worthy is the Lamb that was slain (Jesus) to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing." Revelation 5:12

And who should receive all glory? God... through Jesus Christ:

"...that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." 1 Peter 4:11

"Him (Jesus) hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." Acts 5:31

Do you see the pattern here? While the Bible strives to exalt Jesus Christ, Catholicism is determined to exalt Mary.

Why is a mere mortal woman, given almost equal adoration, as our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, the One who sacrificed His life and suffered the cruel torture of the cross for us?

Catholicism insists that the Lord elevated Mary to the rank of "Queen of all things." Yet, the Bible proclaims that worshipping a "Queen of heaven" provokes God to anger.

Where asre we to place our trust, in the traditions of men, or the Word of God?

"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him (Jesus), and given him a name which is above every name..." Philippians 2:9-11

The "queen of heaven" is a very ancient, and very modern, pagan religious term that is described in the Scriptures as the worship of the Babylonian idol Ishtar (pronounced in the original language as easter, but also known as Astarte and Ashtoreth) throughout the ancient world. The Jews were corrupted by it during the Old Testament time, as shown in the Scriptures, just as are a great number of Christian-professing people today who now claim the same term, by the same reasoning, for Mary, a very righteous woman who would be absolutely horrified (if Mary weren't still among the dead, on earth, completely oblivious to what the living are doing, to see herself idolized, prayed to, or regarded on a divine level by millions of misled and deceived people.

This is what Rome teaches:
966. "'Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death.'[LG 59; cf. Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus (1950): DS 3903; cf. Rev 19:16.] The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:
"In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.[Byzantine Liturgy, Troparion, Feast of the Dormition, August 15th.]--Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), 2nd Ed., (c) 1994/1997 United States Catholic Conference, Inc., p. 252

Now, this iswhat the Bible teaches:
Exodus 20:1-5, "And God spake all these words, saying, I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 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: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;"

Isaiah 45:20-23, "Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save. Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

God is a jealous God, and every reference in the Bible concerning the Queen of Heaven or Tammuz, is ALWAYS shown to be idolatry and an abomination before God.

When Jesus' assumption happened, the entire Christian world knew about it from the eye witnesses within months, it is recorded in the Bible. It seems that when Mary died, there was no record kept by anyone of when or where she died or was buried. If there was nothing written down or passed down orally, then how could a man three hundred fifty years later have known about it??? None of the Apostles wrote or taught about it. None of the Early Church Fathers in the first hundred years wrote or taught it. By all of the evidence, the Assumption of Mary never took place. Instead it is the imagination of those who cannot accept Jesus for who He is. Jesus says He is the truth and the light, and no man comes to the Father except through Him. Even the Church itself resisted this teaching for almost 1500 years.

God is a jealous God. He chose Mary to birth our Savior, and even Mary needed a savior.

Rest assured that God is angry with these false teachings of Mary being accepted by many.

Even Jesus, the Son of God, knew His position in relation to God the Father.

Exodus 20:4-6 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: {5} Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve
them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the
iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and
fourth generation of them that hate me; {6} And showing mercy
unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Exodus 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

Deuteronomy 6:15 (For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among
you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against
thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.

God expects faithfulness. Faithfulness in heart and action.
He wants love and obedience. He does not take well to the
cheating heart. Just as we do not take well to a cheating
heart in our spouse he does not take well to a cheating heart
either. Just as we are not able to accept infidelity in our
spouse he does not accept infidelity either. And Mary is no exception.

Respectfully,

The Old Timer
Image
User avatar
crmann
 
Posts: 10409
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:06 am
Location: Mountains, Western NC

Postby ruotsher on Tue Jul 03, 2007 8:13 am

The problem you see, is that Roman Catholic *Tradition* equals and surpasses the Word of God, in effect, RCC doctrines trump the Word of God.

In studying Roman Catholicism, one observes that the Roman Catholic Church is grounded on circular logic, which involves unfalsifiable self-validation. To further elucidate this point, consider the following:

To establish its theological legitimacy, the Catholic Church appeals to:
(1) written Scripture [Paragraph 76 and 81 of CCC],
(2) the unwritten teachings of the Apostles, or [Catholic] Tradition [Paragraph 76 and 83 of CCC], and
(3) Revelation from the Holy Spirit [Paragraph 82, 108, and 113 of CCC].

However, at the same time:
(1) the Roman Catholic Church declares itself the sole authoritative interpreter of Scripture [Paragraph 85 and 119 of the CCC], which includes the authority to establish the canon of Scripture by using [Catholic] Tradition [Paragraph 120 of the CCC]
(2) the Roman Catholic Church declares itself the (a) sole preservative vehicle and (b) sole authoritative interpreter of the unwritten teachings of the Apostles, or [Catholic] Tradition [Paragraph 85, 890, 2051 of the CCC]
(3) the Roman Catholic Church is the sole authoritative evaluator of revelation from the Holy Spirit [Paragraph 67 and 82 of CCC].

In addition, the Roman Catholic Church declares itself infallible in matters of teaching doctrine [Paragraph 890 and 2051 of CCC].

Hence, the Roman Catholic Church is the supreme authority over what it appeals to for theological legitimacy. Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church serves as its own basis of justification.
User avatar
ruotsher
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:54 am
Location: In His Arms

Postby crmann on Tue Jul 03, 2007 9:41 am

Oh, the traditions of men.....

Mark 7:8
"For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men."

Mark 7:9
He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition."

Mark 7:13

"making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do."

1 Peter 1:18
knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers,

Dear, Ruotsher....

As we study and read the history of the RCC, it is interesting to read of the many changes it has made in the past in its doctrines, but God's word and commandments have never changed.

God Does Not Change.........

"I the LORD do not change" (Malachi 3:6).  Think deeply about this; God is eternally the same—the immovable "rock" (Deuteronomy 32:4), unchanging in his nature, his attributes, and his will.

Our eternal God is perfect and complete in his nature.  Nothing can be added to him and he cannot be diminished.  And so he declares, "I AM WHO I AM" (Exodus 3:14).

God is unchanging in his attributes.  His power, wisdom, holiness, mercy, patience, and love are infinite and eternally present, "For the LORD is good and his love endures for ever" (Psalms 100:5).

God's will is established from eternity—proceeding from "the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change" (James 1:17).

Scriptures demand that, "God is not a man…that he should change his mind" (Numbers 23:19, also 1 Samuel 15:29).

God has no limitations.  He is omniscient (all knowing) and omnipotent (all powerful), and so, "The plans of the LORD stand firm forever" (Psalms 33:11).  How thankful we can be that this is so, for God's plans include our salvation.

God has already willed everything for our good.  And our prayers should be directed toward seeking and doing that perfect will.  Christ taught us to pray that God's "will be done on earth as it is in heaven" (Matthew 6:10).

God's heavenly will never changes.  We never have to be in doubt about God.  He is always merciful, always patient—always there!  We should stand in awe, both humbled and encouraged to know that God does not change.

................................

How does the RCC stand up to this?
Image
User avatar
crmann
 
Posts: 10409
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:06 am
Location: Mountains, Western NC

Postby ruotsher on Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:08 am

crmann wrote:How does the RCC stand up to this?


I think you missed my last sentence.....

The Roman Catholic Church serves as its own basis of justification.

The answer to your question: It doesn't. I just can't get the RCC'rs to see that.
User avatar
ruotsher
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:54 am
Location: In His Arms

Postby crmann on Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:10 pm

Ruotsher wrote:

How does the RCC stand up to this?

I think you missed my last sentence.....

The Roman Catholic Church serves as its own basis of justification.

The answer to your question: It doesn't. I just can't get the RCC'rs to see that.


NO, Ruotsher, I saw and read your last sentence.

Only God can open eyes and minds to see what we have been talking about.

And Ruotsher, there is apostasy in many present day churches, not just the Roman Catholic Church...

I'm Southern Baptist, and the more I dig into the scriptures, the more apostate I realize my own church has become. This is very upsetting to me, especially since my own pastor cannot see it.

Love ya,

The Old Timer
Last edited by crmann on Tue Jul 03, 2007 1:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
crmann
 
Posts: 10409
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:06 am
Location: Mountains, Western NC

A question for ruotsher.

Postby Mario on Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:37 pm

ruotsher wrote:
In studying Roman Catholicism, one observes that the Roman Catholic Church is grounded on circular logic, which involves unfalsifiable self-validation. To further elucidate this point, consider the following:



ruotsher,

You bring up a very legitimate concern: circular reasoning. I will be honest with you; I cannot discuss this point as fully as I would like. Herb had personally stated that defending my Caitholic Faith was incompatible with Board rules (no. 11) and asked me to desist. At times I have slipped into a defensive posture, but I've tried to be obedient. What I have attempted to do is make stands strictly from Scripture.

Let me ask you this: on whose authority does the canon of NT stand as Holy Writ?

Jesus makes one of the most precious and important promises in Jn 14:26-

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

If we were to summarize Christ's commands to one line it might be: to preach and live the Gospel. No where, however, during his earthly ministry did he command anything to be written down. Now you and I both believe the Scriptures to be the inerrant Word of God. We treasure it and feed on it daily.

Yet, internally, no list of books is articulated, the authorship of Hebrews, 2Jn and 3Jn is inconclusive. In the early centuries, the place of 2Pet and Rev was challenged a number of times. And it was argued by many, that works such as the Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, and 1Clement be included.

Even the quote in 2Pet 3:16, testifying Paul's writings to be Scriptural, would be circular itself, since we would first have to conclude 2Pet is Scriptural.

Arguments that use reasonableness as a criteria are helpful but not authoritative. If we resort to how inspiring it is, then one begins to sound like a Mormon and his trust in the Book of Mormon. The argument of apostolic authority is close, but not complete, since we cannot be certain of the authorship of each and every book.

So, on what basis can we be assured that the NT canon is certain, without resorting to circular reasoning?

My basis for believing the 27 books of the NT are the Word of God is that the Church said so in the Councils of Carthage and Hippo at the end of the 4th century.
Image
User avatar
Mario
 
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 12:27 pm

Postby ruotsher on Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:41 pm

crmann wrote:Ruotsher wrote:

How does the RCC stand up to this?

I think you missed my last sentence.....

The Roman Catholic Church serves as its own basis of justification.

The answer to your question: It doesn't. I just can't get the RCC'rs to see that.


NO, Ruotsher, I saw and read your last sentence.

Only God can open eyes and minds to see what we have been talking about.

And Ruotsher, there is apostasy in many present day churches, not just the Roman Catholic Church...

I'm Southern Baptist, and the more I dig into the scriptures, the more apostate I realize my own church has become. This is very upsetting to me, especially since my own pastor cannot see it.

Love ya,

The Old Timer



Ooooooooh, I do know this. The apostate daughters of the RCC are every bit as guilty of many of the same sins........ :(
User avatar
ruotsher
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:54 am
Location: In His Arms

Re: A question for ruotsher.

Postby ruotsher on Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:45 pm

Mario wrote:My basis for believing the 27 books of the NT are the Word of God is that the Church said so in the Councils of Carthage and Hippo at the end of the 4th century.


And my basis for believing the 27 books of the NT are the Word of God is my faith in Him to provide such, by whatever method HE chose to. Not based on some particular council. The scriptures were intact and written and preserved from the 1st century going forward. Not due to a council, but because of the power of our awsome God. No, I do not believe the scriptures fell out of the sky.
User avatar
ruotsher
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:54 am
Location: In His Arms

Postby OBXBob on Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:00 pm

I believe that God, the creator of the universe, who inspired all the authors of the Bible, is capable of making sure the books that He felt we needed to read, study, and live by became part of the present-day Bible.

The other thing is that the teachings of the 66 books are in harmony with one another. Many of the teachings and man-made traditions of the RCC are not in harmony with the 66 books of the Bible, IMO.

Cults like the Jehovah Witnesses like to twist or contort a hand-full of verses to try to justify their claims. The litmus test, as I see it, is to make sure the interpretation of any one verse is in harmony with the composite message of the Bible. If one's interpretation of a given verse goes against many other 'plain and clear' teachings of the Bible, chances are very good that this interpretation is incorrect.

YBIC,


Bob
Image
User avatar
OBXBob
 
Posts: 15257
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:37 am

Postby Abiding in His Word on Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:25 pm

OBXBob wrote: If one's interpretation of a given verse goes against many other 'plain and clear' teachings of the Bible, chances are very good that this interpretation is incorrect.


:a3:
User avatar
Abiding in His Word
SITE ADMIN
 
Posts: 28618
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: SW Florida

Postby crmann on Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:00 pm

Want to read and learn something about the 66 books of our Bible. Go to:

http://www.biblebookorder.org/home/welcome/discovery/
Image
User avatar
crmann
 
Posts: 10409
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:06 am
Location: Mountains, Western NC

Re: A question for ruotsher.

Postby Mario on Tue Jul 03, 2007 7:38 pm

ruotsher wrote:And my basis for believing the 27 books of the NT are the Word of God is my faith in Him to provide such, by whatever method HE chose to. Not based on some particular council. The scriptures were intact and written and preserved from the 1st century going forward. Not due to a council, but because of the power of our awsome God. No, I do not believe the scriptures fell out of the sky.


ruotsher,

It is praiseworthy that you and I believe (Praise God!) that the Holy Spirit inspired fallible men to write inerrant truth and guided them to preserve it through the centuries.

Some Christians believe that Acts 15:28- For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us... sets God's pattern for discerning truth and that this also has been preserved through the centuries under his guidance.

Shalom!
Image
User avatar
Mario
 
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 12:27 pm

Postby PerishNot on Thu Oct 11, 2007 3:24 pm

This video called Messages from Heaven gives some insite on this topic. It tracks the apparitions of Mary on the earth. It is well worth taking the time to check out. You can view the movie at the following link.

Messages from Heaven
http://perishnot.com/node/22

Perishnot
"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." 2Pe 3:9
PerishNot
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2007 9:44 pm
Location: California

Postby jgilberAZ on Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:15 pm

Jer 44:24
Then Jeremiah said to all the people, including all the women, "Hear the word of the LORD, all Judah who are in the land of Egypt,
Jer 44:25
thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, as follows: 'As for you and your wives, you have spoken with your mouths and fulfilled {it} with your hands, saying, "We will certainly perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn sacrifices to the queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her." Go ahead and confirm your vows, and certainly perform your vows!'
Jer 44:26
"Nevertheless hear the word of the LORD, all Judah who are living in the land of Egypt, 'Behold, I have sworn by My great name,' says the LORD, 'never shall My name be invoked again by the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, "As the Lord GOD lives."
Jer 44:27
'Behold, I am watching over them for harm and not for good, and all the men of Judah who are in the land of Egypt will meet their end by the sword and by famine until they are completely gone.
Jer 44:28
'Those who escape the sword will return out of the land of Egypt to the land of Judah few in number. Then all the remnant of Judah who have gone to the land of Egypt to reside there will know whose word will stand, Mine or theirs.
Jer 44:29
'This will be the sign to you,' declares the LORD, 'that I am going to punish you in this place, so that you may know that My words will surely stand against you for harm.'
2 Timothy 2:24a..And the servant of the Lord must not strive ...
The meaning is, that the servant of Christ should be a man of peace. He should not indulge in the feelings which commonly give rise to contention, and which commonly characterize it. He should not struggle for mere victory, even when endeavoring to maintain truth; but should do this, in all cases, with a kind spirit, and a mild temper; with entire candor; with nothing designed to provoke and irritate an adversary; and so that, whatever may be the result of the discussion, "the bond of peace" may, if possible, be preserved.
.
User avatar
jgilberAZ
 
Posts: 1895
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:49 am
Location: Arizona


Return to How to Witness to Various cults and sects

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron