There is only one true church

[BreadOfLife]

Meaningless commentary, as usual.

Try this instead, @BreadOfLife

-
View attachment 49166

That's a deppiction of Rev. 11-19 - 12:1 . . .

Rev. 11:19-12:1
Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.

A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

I LOVE God's Word . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Meaningless commentary, as usual.

Yeah - I didn't think you had a valid response.
Thanks for proving me right - again . . .

 

[Behold]

That's a deppiction of Rev. 11-19 - 12:1 . . .



A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

"A great SIGN... "SIGN" appeared in the SKY">


So, a SIGN, appeared in the SKY.


A.) A sign, is not a person, and the Sky is not Heaven.


So, do you still love the "word" Mr Non Catholic Forum Agitator?

Do you really believe that Mary's Feet are going to have the moon under her Feet?

See thats the other thing about cults........one of their worst propensities, is to read a Symbolic VERSE, as if its Literal, and not realize it and then use this to build a CULT Theology, that in one case, became "the cult of the Virgin".

 

[BreadOfLife]

"A great SIGN... "SIGN" appeared in the SKY">

So, a SIGN, appeared in the SKY.

A.) A sign, is not a person, and the Sky is not Heaven.

So, do you still love the "word" Mr Non Catholic Forum Agitator?

Do you really believe that Mary's Feet are going to have the moon under her Feet?

See thats the other thing about cults........one of their worst propensities, is to read a Symbolic VERSE, as if its Literal, and not realize it and then use this to build a CULT Theology, that in one case, became "the cult of the Virgin".

You ALWAYS wind up sticking your foot in your mouth – and this time is NO different.

First, you claim that a person cannot be a “sign”,
Then, you fully acknowledge that this text is symbolic. So, YES, a person CAN be a sign in a symbolic sense.

Figure it out, Einstein . . .

 

[Augustin56]

It means that the people who are standing at the foot of it, who seem like ANTS, as compared to a 100 Ft Tall Mary, are as Deceived as can be...

Here is one for you.
I posted this photos earlier..
So,; you tell me and the members here..and the MODS..... why your POPE< is bowing before a Plastic Mary, in front of a room full of photographers, and there is no JESUS anywhere in the Photo.
= No Baby Jesus, no Jesus on the Cross.....Just the big Plastic Mary.
So where is Jesus, ???? and why is your Pope in front of all these Cameras, "posing" a BOW before a Plastic Mary, and there is NO JESUS anywhere..

SEE the issue yet?

"cult of the virgin"...

See it yet?

Explain that.. @Augustin56
-
View attachment 49167
=

I can see how someone like yourself could be decieved. No background, no training, no real education in Scripture, etc. It's probably not your fault.

Mary is Queen of Heaven (Rev. 12). Jesus is our King. In Jesus' day, the Queen mother always had great influence over her son. The same applies today in heaven. No, she isnt' a god. But, like the wedding at Cana, she can intercede with her Son on our behalf. She is totally united to her Son, just like all the Saints in heaven.

Jesus never broke any of the 10 Commandments, including "Honor thy Father and Mother." Jesus honors His mother. We are to imitate Jesus as best we can, so we honor her, too. Honor is not worship.

For you to fully understand all this would require a lot more knowledge of Scripture, history, culture of ancient times, ancient languages as they were used then, etc. You seem to have none of this.

 

[RedFan]

The false doctrine of demanding that everythig must be proven by Scripture is a 16th century MAN-MADE invetion.
NOWHERE does the Bible itself teach this fallacy.

Since there is ZERO evidence of Mary having given burth to other children - the onus is on YOU, the anti-Catholic Sola Scripturist to prove this from Scripture

You may have me mixed up with someone else. I'm not anti-catholic, nor a sola scriptura guy. But the claim of Mary's perpetual virginity is not mine to prove, and certainly not my burden to disprove. The burden of proof is on the proponent of the proposition.

I have said several times now that I think Mary's perpetual virginity -- a DIFFERENT question from her giving birth to other children, so PLEASE stop falling back on that subject -- can be neither proven or disproven from Scripture alone. If someone wants to show me a verse that suggests otherwise, I'm all ears. And if someone wants to advance a nonscriptural argument, I am open to that as well -- but thus far all my posts on this thread have been about whether Scripture proves or disporves the doctrine, so maybe another thread should be started if you want to take that tack.

 

[RedFan]

Okay, Sola Scripturist - using Scripture alone - prove that Mary wasn't a virgin.

I can't. (How many times do I have to say so?) And I am not a sola scriptura guy.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You may have me mixed up with someone else. I'm not anti-catholic, nor a sola scriptura guy. But the claim of Mary's perpetual virginity is not mine to prove, and certainly not my burden to disprove. The burden of proof is on the proponent of the proposition.

I have said several times now that I think Mary's perpetual virginity -- a DIFFERENT question from her giving birth to other children, so PLEASE stop falling back on that subject -- can be neither proven or disproven from Scripture alone. If someone wants to show me a verse that suggests otherwise, I'm all ears. And if someone wants to advance a nonscriptural argument, I am open to that as well -- but thus far all my posts on this thread have been about whether Scripture proves or disporves the doctrine, so maybe another thread should be started if you want to take that tack.

Not in THIS case or on this anti-Catholic forum.

You see – it doesn’t atter HOW much evidence I provide – and I have provided MUCH over the years here – you won’t believe it because of your anti-Catholic bias.

You claim not to be a Sola Scripturist – yet you demand explicit Scriptural evidence for Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.
YOU are the one denying this doctrine – so YOU need to provide some evidence as to WHY you reject it.

If you can’t – or won’t provide any – then step aside and let those who actually have an argument come forward . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I can't. (How many times do I have to say so?) And I am not a sola scriptura guy.

Then WHY do you demand proof from Scripture ALONE??
That is th very definition of "Sola Scriptura" . . .

 

[RedFan]

Not in THIS case or on this anti-Catholic forum.

You see – it doesn’t atter HOW much evidence I provide – and I have provided MUCH over the years here – you won’t believe it because of your anti-Catholic bias.

You claim not to be a Sola Scripturist – yet you demand explicit Scriptural evidence for Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.
YOU are the one denying this doctrine – so YOU need to provide some evidence as to WHY you reject it.

If you can’t – or won’t provide any – then step aside and let those who actually have an argument come forward . . .

We are wandering on the road to Mecca here.

My thesis is that Scripture is equivocal on Mary's perpetual virginity. In several posts @Behold has asserted that Scripture disproves it. I think he's wrong. In several posts you have asserted that Scripture proves it. I think you're wrong.

When Scripture is silent on something -- say, whether Mary ever cut her toenails -- declaring that therefore she did so, or that therefore she didn't do so, is just crazy. (Unless you don't know what "therefore" means, I suppose.)

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Well said. Except for the part about Mary's perpetual virginity being found in Scripture (if properly interpreted). She may well have been. But Scripture doesn't say so one way or the other. What verses need proper interpretation in order to support her perpetual virginity?

For one, the sense of the sacred, is affirmed by the typology of Mary as the Ark of the Old Covenant. THAT is a type. TYPE means FORSHADOW. Type in the OT is not affirmed by explicit proof text in the NT.
Grace, Concealed in the Old Testament, is Revealed in the New. You can't find the name "Jesus" in the OT, but we can find "Emmanuel" which means "God is with us".

I think one of the problems is the Christian Taliban has LOST the sense of the sacred, because the Ark is a physical object, not a box to store sandals in the off season. There is an automatic disdain for anything PHYSICAL: outward signs of an inward grace. That is a nutshell definition of a sacrament. Nothing can be sacred in this world, according the the Gnostics that St. Paul railed against. The ARK is a physical object.

This grace hid itself under a veil in the Old Testament, but it has been revealed in the New Testament according to the most perfectly ordered dispensation of the ages, forasmuch as God knew how to dispose all things.

I'm surprised at you, @BOL. The issue of whether Mary was perpetually a virgin cannot be settled by determining that Jesus had no half-siblings.

The main argument against the PVM rests on a restricted single definition of "brother", the Bible doesn't do that.

Let's agree that he didn't. It doesn't answer the question.

Yes, it does.

Why even bother to waste ink on the sibling issue? It's a straw man.

No, it is not.

My son is an only child. Let me assure you, his mother and I have had sex a thousand times since he was born.

So it would be perfectly natural to suspend the sex drive for 9 months to force fulfilment of Scripture...no, wait...Joseph was a righteous man, but didn't know what THEE Temple was?!?. The prot says we are all temples, don't they?

Define "Temple" Redfan.

I think your argument over 2 Samuel 6:9 misses the point of Elizabeth's Humility. It's stupid.
google "humility protestant", gets 111.000 results.
google "humility catholic", gets 3.8 million results

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Behold, do you even know what that picture means? Tell me what YOU think it means.

@Behold thinks it's an idol. Strange things happen to poor souls who were abused by parent(s), if they even had no parents at all.
Who will join me in a 9 day novena to St. Dymphna for the health of Behold?

]​

They are desperate for inner healing, available free, through the sacraments, at any Catholic Church.

OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE,
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF MARY, QUEEN OF HEAVEN

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Pope’s peace prayer for Ukraine recalls Fatima prophecy​

 

[RedFan]

The main argument against the PVM rests on a restricted single definition of "brother", the Bible doesn't do that.

I will stipulate that Jesus had no half-siblings. We can agree on that. But that fact doesn't make Mary a perpetual virgin. And I am not looking for an argument "against the PVM." I am looking for an argument FOR the PVM. I can't find one in Scripture, although that's not the sole place we should be looking (do you finally hear me, @BOL? I am NOT a sola scriptura guy). Can you?

 

[Marvelloustime]

Let all know
to not sit under a HO .
For he or she who sits under a harlot , gonna get a nasty disease that will take and rot them to the core .
To the core
so sit not under a whore .
She has many daughters too my friends . many within the false religoins , politics , and the denominations of protestantism
do her will
watch out for many there be my friends who cry lets find common ground and unity . Watch out .

 

[BreadOfLife]

We are wandering on the road to Mecca here.

My thesis is that Scripture is equivocal on Mary's perpetual virginity. In several posts @Behold has asserted that Scripture disproves it. I think he's wrong. In several posts you have asserted that Scripture proves it. I think you're wrong.

When Scripture is silent on something -- say, whether Mary ever cut her toenails -- declaring that therefore she did so, or that therefore she didn't do so, is just crazy. (Unless you don't know what "therefore" means, I suppose.)

No - I’ve acknowledged that Mary’s Perpetual Virginity cannot be explicitly proven from Scripture alone.

Biblical truth come to us is TWO ways: Explicitly and Implicitly.
For example – the fact that Jesus is the Son of God is explicitly taught in Scripture (Luke 1:35, Mark 1:11, 9:7).

The concept of the Trinity is implicitly – not explicitly taught.
That Mary was a perpetual virgin is implicitly taught, as I have amply shown.

You CLAIM that you are not a Sola Scripturist – yet, you demand explicit Scriptural proof for Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.
You can't have it BOTH ways . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I think it would be a mistake to look for any intelligent, well thought out communicaton with amiigo de christo. He/she hasn't shown that capabilty. Very low-brow posts.

As usual, I'm under NO delusion that Amigo would post anything Scripturally-relevant or remotely-intelligent.
I respond his nonsense to expose him . . .

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

No - I’ve acknowledged that Mary’s Perpetual Virginity cannot be explicitly proven from Scripture alone.

Biblical truth come to us is TWO ways: Explicitly and Implicitly.
For example – the fact that Jesus is the Son of God is explicitly taught in Scripture (Luke 1:35, Mark 1:11, 9:7).

The concept of the Trinity is implicitly – not explicitly taught.
That Mary was a perpetual virgin is implicitly taught, as I have amply shown.

You CLAIM that you are not a Sola Scripturist – yet, you demand explicit Scriptural proof for Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.
You can't have it BOTH ways . . .

​

 

[Augustin56]

As usual, I'm under NO delusion that Amigo would post anything Scripturally-relevant or remotely-intelligent.
I respond his nonsense to expose him . . .

I keep in mind that although folks like Amigo post really crazy things, our answers are important, because it's not just Amigo that reads them. There very well may be intellectually honest, intelligent folks passing by that read these posts. And, if there are, they can benefit.

I recall St. Pope John Paul II that said that when we tell Christ's truths, His grace accompanies that truth. And when the soul is going to need that grace, it will be there for them.

 

[PinSeeker]

...ALRIGHT, GLOVES OFF!!!

LOL!

Yea, 5 or 6 misconceptions, conjuring scripture to attack the CC, (typical Protestant methodology)...

Not attacking anything, JT. That you perceive it that way is troubling, and... Well, yes, troubling.

Mary did crush the head of the serpent...

Nope. Only her seed... Jesus. Nothing like that is ever said of Mary, or anyone but Jesus. He and He alone accomplished our redemption and is thus our Savior.

"co" does not mean "equal to".

I didn't suggest that. But assigning to Mary any credit for ~ shall we say ~ assisting Jesus in accomplishing the redemption of God's people is just terribly wrong. That she was found favor with and was chosen by the Father for a very special purpose and was blessed in such a magnificent way is absolutely true, but even Mary knew her place as a servant of the Lord (as we all should) and submitted humbly to His will (again, as we all should).

The Taliban have trouble with plain English too.

<eye roll>

Are you trying to tell me "...a sword will pierce your soul" has nothing to do with the Crucifixion??? "that the thoughts of many hearts will be laid bare..." Was Simeon a holy man or not? WHO ARE THE MANY???

Was this a comment regarding some quote from some poster other than me? This comment seems a total departure from anything we were really discussing, just a total "where did that come from?" thing...

...you quote me with out-of-context snippets of my post. <smack>

I do no such thing. <smackback> <smile>

I'm still waiting for a verse in the Bible that forbids Scripture in art form.

Why? Did you think that's what I was saying? Because I didn't even suggest that.

Ah, well, the apostles and prophets are not the foundation but a collection of individual believers is???

What I said... Jude Thaddeus... was that Jesus is the Cornerstone, and thus what we might call the Foundation of the foundation. Yes, as Paul says in Ephesians 2:19-22... I'm just going to quote him again here... all we in Christ are "saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the Cornerstone, in Whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In Him (we) also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit." So, in no way am I even suggesting the apostles and prophets are not the foundation. Of course they are, as Paul says, but, again, I am saying that Christ is the Cornerstone ~ which Paul says ~ and thus, again, the true Foundation ~ you may recall Isaiah 28:16, where Isaiah quotes the Lord God saying, “Behold, I am the One who has laid as a foundation in Zion, a stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation..." This is Christ Jesus, and is precisely the passage Paul is referring to in the Ephesians passage quoted here. Paul did the same in his letter to the Christians in Corinth, specifically in 1 Corinthians 3:11, saying, "no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." So was Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:11 contradicting what he said in Ephesians 2:19-22? No, of course not...

A typical Calvinoid false dichotomy.

LOL!

But you are no Calvinist.

Well, yes I am, an unapologetic five-point Calvinist. But certainly, John Calvin is not my Savior, nor is he anyone else's ~ but only Jesus.

I caught on after the third time I studied your post...

Apparently not. <smile>

THIEF!!!

<eye roll>

You rob metaphors of their meaning.

<eye roll>

Shepherd of the flock (singular) refers to Jesus.

That's... literally what I just said... Pointing out Psalm 23:1 and John 10:14...

Shepherds of the flock (plural) refers to the Apostles, NOT a collection of individual believers.

Hmmm, well the Apostles were certainly a collection of believers... A small collection, but a collection none the less... <smile> But yes, the Apostles certainly were shepherds of the flock... So I say the Apostles were... both... <chuckles> I mean, I chuckle, but I don't mean to make light of any of this.

To that point, though, there are no more Apostles (you agree with that, I think). However, we, as believers, can certainly serve as shepherds of the flock, making use of the gifts of the Spirit ~ one of which is prophecy, which is to say we can relate to others what God has said in His Word... in word and deed ~ which God empowers in everyone, each given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good, apportioned to each one individually as He wills (1 Corinthians 12:4-11).

This 'reply' denies the fact that words in scripture can have more than one meaning...

No, I would say the same thing you have, here, JT, and have.

Jesus builds His Church on PEOPLE, not confessions.

Hmmm, well, I don't disagree, but people, yes, who make the same confession as Peter did in Matthew 16:16, saying and believing in their hearts, "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God." And because of this, all believers together are the City of God that Augustine himself wrote about in his great work. An excerpt: “...the division of the earthly city against itself; while the conflict between Cain and Abel displayed the hostility between the two cities themselves, the City of God and the city of men... The whole of history since the ascension of Jesus into heaven is concerned with one work only: the building and perfecting of this 'City of God.'”

As I said, JT, we are the Church of Christ Jesus. To what you say about confessions, though... think of it in this way: A trial attorney makes his or her case in court by compiling and presenting evidence of different kinds, sometimes hard articles (like a weapon, or a document, for example), but primarily testimonies of witnesses, primarily, and together these things are the foundation of his or her case, they are what his or her case is built upon. Peter is an eyewitness... or, at least at the time of what we read in Matthew 16, would be soon, of Jesus's crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. The rock Christ Jesus is speaking of in Matthew 16:18, is Peter's confession, His belief. Yes, "you are Peter," Jesus says, "and on this rock I will build my church..." That should not be understood as "You are the rock on which I will build my church..." At the very least, He addressed Peter specifically as "you" in verse 15, but then does not in the very same breath refer to Peter as "this" in verse 16.

The Eucharistic Sacrifice in the Upper Room is ONE AND THE SAME SACRIFICE AS THE CRUCIFIXION.

Jesus gave this sacrament to His disciples (and by extension us) so that they would have (and now we have) a visible reminder of Him and what He would do for them in the coming days (and what He has done for us). He said this very thing to them, saying, as Paul relates to the Christians in Corinth, "Do this in remembrance of me... as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes" (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). So, in that sense, I agree with what you say here. But no, the crucifixion was the crucifixion; there was only a need for it to actually happen once, of course.

leave Mary out of the picture. <smack>

I'm certainly not doing that, but I'm not making making Mary out to be... well, a bigger part of the picture than she is. <smackback> <smile>

That's the first sensible thing you have said in your entire post.

LOL! Well, yeah, I'll say it again... Knowing Mary should help us in knowing ourselves. Her faith was certainly great. She certainly delighted in the Lord, and He directed her paths (Psalm 37:4; 119:47). She certainly delighted to do His will (Psalm 40:8). Oh, to have a faith like hers..

Butcher my posts the way you did once more, and this discussion is over. <smack>

I butcher nothing. And if this discussion is over, I literally do not care. I don't like to have "discussions" with mean-spirited people. Sometimes I have to, but here not so much... <smackback> <smile>

You know, it strikes me as a bit odd that you went to the effort of quoting me but deleting the links to my actual post. Methinks that had to be intentional... in an effort to get the last word, maybe... <smile>

Grace and peace to you, Jude Thaddeus.