Paul's Warnings of False Apostles

[b said:
Quote[/b] (CCGR @ Oct. 26 2003,10:53)]we never called Mary a slut, she was a virgin like the Bible said.  But she had kids with Joseph (in marriage) which though marriage that's okay.

It has been said that when Elijah was on Mt. Carmel during the drought (1 Kings 18:44) and sent his servant 7 times to check the sky -- that it indicated that it would be 7 Generations until the Blessed Virgin. The Mystical Jews had an understanding that Prots seem incapable of -- that God could not be born out of Sin. God would need to be born of a Primordial Goodness -- from an uncorrupt and virtuous Eve.

If you people would pay the least attention to Divine Revelation, you would find this incontestable. But in regards to Divine Revelation there is no Atheist more obdurate than a Protestant.
Click to expand...
Dear CCGR,

Further thought.

The Immaculate Conception created Mary to be as Eve was before she was caste out of Paradice. Therefore, it is most likely that Mary did not even have ordinary physical genitalia.

Read Anne Catherine Emmerich's account. Just as the Conception was entirely Spiritual, the birth was painless. Mary was not a Human Being under the Curse

It is Prot Doctrine that all Humans have Sinned. Mary wasn't Human -- that is, She wasn't Original Sin Human.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (pieman3141 @ Oct. 26 2003,2:51)]did I say Mary was a slut, aso you said? I said she was human. And I said that humans are sinful. Sinful != slut.

* != is shorthand for not equal to. Programming lesson for the day.
smile.gif


And I am not being condescending. I think of you as a peer. Forum etiquette is just something I'm used to in the forums I hang out at.
Click to expand...
Dear Pieman,

Please see my responses to CCGR for the details, but, yes, the Actual Virtue of The Blessed Virgin Mary is so far above that of anybody who would even contemplate having physical sex for any reason whatsoever, that there is not a word in the english language that can express the degree of degradation if you would suggest even a hint that you can compare Her to them.

I wish you Prots would grasp that. This constant barrage of insults to the Unblemishable Virtue of Our Lady must make the Angels cry. Again, it must be the Strongest Argument that Protestantism is Ultimately Satanic, that when it comes to taking sides either for "The Woman who will Crush the Head of the Serpent", or for the "Serpent" -- we find the Prots lining up with the Snake everytime. Your eyes are blind, your ears are def, and your hearts are hardened. You spit in the face of The Mother's Love.
 
Mary's immaculate conception is not biblical, it's man made doctrine. No genitalia? Again the Bible does not mention this. It usually mentions unusual things about important people.

Again speculate as much as you want but if it's not documented in the Bible I'm not buying it. It's a reputable as the rumors of Jesus running off with Mary Magdeline. Again those are mentioned by people but not in the Bible so I'm not buying those stories either.
 
I'm just simply amazed at how you Leo, an apparently very educated person with many good thoughts running through your mind, with good intentions as well, simply miss a very important verse in the very last book of the Bible.

Something about not adding to what has already been given, possibly? The Pharisees were bad about doing that. Look where they wound up =\. Ever heard of the Aural Laws of the Jews? Yea. All of it made up of "Tradition" by the Jews, and very little, if any, Scriptural. The Jewish priests came up with the aural law.

Please, could we drop the animosity? I understand we're under conflicting ideas here, and I have no intentions of flaming anyone, particularly not Leo, because I see he has not fallen victim to doctrinization in the Protestant sense of the word (not that doctrinization is a bad thing, it can just lead to being closed minded towards other POV's and such.)

So please, I'm not even an administrator, and it's not my place to say who stays or leaves....but I will say this..In the name of our Lord Jesus, let's not abhor one another, but rather exhort one another to continue living this life for Christ.

Leo - I understand where you're coming from, I have had previous struggles with "Oh, well the Bible isn't the end-all of our faith." Sure, our traditions and such are wonderful things, give us a sense of pride in our Christian heritage. I found though, that a large percent of the time, tradition got in th way of God's plans. God never changes, but He changes many things. Tradition can just make things go into a constant circle, becoming redundant and non-productive. Not ALWAYS, but in my experience, a good deal of the time. I do ask, though, that for at least me, since I do respect that you aren't a Protestant (and have no problems with it!), that you do respect that we do have our beliefs and OUR traditions. What we say may sound naive and strange to your ears, because you were raised in a different enviorment. Likewise, some of your beliefs may sound odd to us, as well. And hey, I'm not saying not to evangelize as Christ told us to. Telling us we're going to hell?....Well...Meh. I honestly believe I'm not going to hell. I know what I believe and why I believe it. I understand from your viewpoint that you're just trying to show us the error of our ways, and chances are we'll butt heads many times as two differect sects of the same religion. At least understand that we as Protestants have the best intentions to live for our God and our Lord, just as you do.

Everyone else --- Let's try to see where Leo comes from. I didn't say you have to believe every word that comes from his mouth, but respect the fact that he believes it, just as I hope he will continue to do for us.


In Christ be united, not separate.

This just has really disturbed me to see this sort of arguing between Christians, and I wish I had the words to make everyone understand how deeply I feel, but I really don't.

All I know is I have quite a few Catholic friends, and we both know that we won't always agree with one another, but we still continue to love one another and pray for each other.

Show Christ's LOVE, everyone. Leo! You say Christ died for our sins, do you not? You believe He suffered on the cross to make us redeemable, do you not?! If you want to help us find the error of our ways, pray your heart out. But KNOW that we believe in the Son of God, Christ our Lord, and according to His OWN WORDS, we are redeemed by His blood.

I think I wanna go cry now :-\.


God bless, everyone.
Tyler
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Vanaze @ Oct. 27 2003,1:12)]I'm just simply amazed at how you Leo, an apparently very educated person with many good thoughts running through your mind, with good intentions as well, simply miss a very important verse in the very last book of the Bible.

Something about not adding to what has already been given, possibly?  The Pharisees were bad about doing that.  Look where they wound up =\.  Ever heard of the Aural Laws of the Jews?  Yea.  All of it made up of "Tradition" by the Jews,  and very little, if any, Scriptural.  The Jewish priests came up with the aural law.  
Click to expand...

Van, I hate to break it to you, but that is concerning only Revelations.  If it applied to other scriptures, then we'd need to drop a few of the texts that come before it in the Bible (for they were written after Revelations).  I have oft wondered why we believe that Divine Revelation stopped towards the end of the first century.   It truly isn't scripturally sound to say it suddenly stopped.  That it would need to be thoroughly checked against existing scripture to ensure it doesn't go against established doctrine (such as the Book of Mormon) is a given, but WHY would God suddenly stop giving us Divine Revelation?

Think of it another way, if God did it yesterday, should He not also do it today and tomorrow?  Likewise, if He does it tomorrow, then He would have done it today and yesterday.  Part of our doctrine is the immutability of God.  He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.  We say that in the same breath that we say He will not give us anymore Divine Revelations.

Now the true discussion is should these books be canonized?  During that council of whatever it was, they put the requirement that it had to be written by an Apostle, and it had to not contradict the OT (there were a few other requirements that I can't remember off hand).  Yet again though, this was a man-made distinction.

I am truly undecided on this issue.  I want to say that we can seek Divine Revelation from contemperary authors, provided it doesn't contradict the existing manuscripts, yet another part of me says that to do so would cause irreparable harm to the church.
 
Heh, I wasn't talking about that verse concerning "Addeth or taketh away".

I was speaking more of Christ's comments on false prophesying. (Maybe it wasn't revelations, sorry, I was in a tizzy earlier).

Van
 
adding as in supplementing prophecy in a way that it changes previously given commands and such.

(Wanted to clarify)
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (CCGR @ Oct. 27 2003,8:54)]Mary's immaculate conception is not biblical, it's man made doctrine.  No genitalia?  Again the Bible does not mention this.  It usually mentions unusual things about important people.  

Again speculate as much as you want but if it's not documented in the Bible I'm not buying it.  It's a reputable as the rumors of Jesus running off with Mary Magdeline.  Again those are mentioned by people but not in the Bible so I'm not buying those stories either.
Click to expand...
Dear CCGR,

No, what Protestants have is Man Made Doctrine. What Catholics have is Post Biblical Divine Revelation. The Bible does not pretend to convey any information regarding Divine Revelation after the first generation of Apostles. This does not mean that there would be no Divine Revelation.

Now, since Church Tradition can't really isolate the beginning of the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, we might assume that it was Original. Why did Luke omit telling us about it? Who knows. But, according to the the Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich, the Priests in the Temple, the Essenes, and the Brotherhood of Elijah at Mount Carmel all knew (and had a part in arranging) of the Immaculate Conception of Mary by Anne and Zachariah, who didn't use his 'manhood' but impregnated Anne with "The Holy Thing" that had been given to Abraham by Melchizadec, passed from Abraham to Issac, to Jacob, from whom it was taken back by The Angel of God because Jacob was a fraud and a sleezebag, returned to Joseph and was buried with him, rescued by Moses and placed in the Arc of the Covenant, which was again rescued by the Priests before the Arc was lost.

The Famous Apparition of Our Lady of Grace was productive of The Medal of the Immaculate Conception. Our Lady, in 1830 (twenty some years before the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially adopted) Our Lady told the young Nun that the words "O Mary, Conceived without Sin, Pray for us who have recourse to Thee" were to be inscribed on the Medal.

Again, in 1858, several years after the Doctrine was promulgated Our Lady appeared, this time in Lourdes, France. When a Priest insisted that the little girl to whom She was appearing identify Herself, She told the little girl to say "I am the Immaculate Conception" a phrase that the little ignorant girl thought a meaningless gumble of syllables and only remembered because she repeated it over and over.

So, with these Divine Sources, we can agree that the Doctrine is not "Man Made". Then the argument would turn on whether they are demonically inspired. Well, what do we know of Christian Eschatology that we can agree on? Well, we know that Satan's head will be crushed by The Woman. We know that the Lady of Revelations 12 will be chased into the Wilderness by Satan. Does this not tell us that The Lady will play a role in the End Times. So, then, wouldn't it make sense that This Lady make an Appearance or two (or three or four...) to fulfill this Destiny that already exists in Prophecy from YOUR Bible. So, who is Demonically Inspired when every Appearance of Our Lady is dismissed as a fraud? Who has chased Our Lady into the Wilderness except the Protestants?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Watcher @ Oct. 27 2003,12:55)]Did Mary have other children? Well the Bible sure teaches that...



Did Mary have other children?
Click to expand...
No, the Bible does not teach us that.

The Bible only uses the word Brethren which means cousin as much as it means brother.

The Bible uses the phrase, "Joe didn't have relations until the Birth" which only means that Joe did NOT have sex with Mary. The same syntax can be used to say that "the man did not eat until he starved" (a quote using the same words from the same language from the Old Testament).

Now, to support my argument. When Jesus was twelve and went back to the Temple and Mary and Joe had to go back, we find that Mary and Joe thought Jesus was with his "brethren" in another caravan. This would not mean "brothers" since they would have been riding together. It must certainly mean that Mary and Joe thought Jesus was with the children of his Aunts and Uncles.

Next, Jesus at the Crucifixion. Mary was alone. Where are all of Jesus's brothers now? Jesus gave over the care of Mary to John. Where are all Jesus's brothers now?

So, you see, from you absolute certainty that the Bible tells you that Mary had other children, you find that 1) You weren't that sure afterall. 2) Only the most careless people could have asserted such a thing with the certainty they claimed. 3) You were lied to, and if you persist, you will be lying.
 
Jesus' half brothers alienated him. I don't think they believed until Jesus rose from the dead. That somehow got their attention.
 
Dear Vaneze,

I appreciate that you seem to recognize my intelligence. Now keep that in mind when I point out some things to you. When John closed Revelations by "sealing" the work -- asking that no edit add or delete from it -- He was speaking only of that one Book, and then, only with the Authority of an Apostle. You make a great jump by saying that John was 'sealing' the Bible -- a collection of books that had not yet then been collated. Now, wasn't that smart? That is the kind of thinking you appreciate me for, no?

But you do bring up a point. If nobody was to add to the Doctrines of Christ, then why is not Paul condemned. Paul certainly added Doctrines to Christianity which Christ Himself never even imagined let alone spoke outloud. But we should believe Paul even after Luke, in the Book of the Acts, tells us that he is a murderer. Quite unique in the New Testament. If you were to merely read the Letters of Paul you would suppose that he had ever been a good citizen. If one can lie by sheer omission, Paul was a liar.

You ask me to respect Protestant Belief. Let me explain. Catholics and Prots are not on the same level. What Prots have is a Doctrine of Salvation by Minimal Requirements -- that if you have Faith, then you are Saved. Paul ridicules Works and even goes so far as to say that Righteousness insults God. Anyway, suppose this is True -- that Faith Alone Saves. Well, every Catholic AT LEAST has that Faith -- that Christ was the Redeemer. Therefore no Protestant can deny the Salvation of Any Catholic. But it does not flow the other way! Why? Because Catholics do not believe in a Minimal Salvation -- Catholics believe in a complete Judgment by every Criteria presented in the Gospels -- that a Christian should be Baptised, receive the Sacrament of the Body and Blood, should partake in the Suffering, Love ones Neighbor as Self, and do Charity. In a way, Faith was never named as a requirement. Faith is incidental to the Catholic who can qualify under all the other Criteria. What of those who do not qualify -- especially those who don't even make a 'good faith' effort to obey and comply? They are damned!

So, I, who both of us can agree is Saved, has real doubts about your Salvation. And you complain about my lack of tact. Well, I am not the first to bring up this point, am I? You Prots have had a pretty good record of persecuting those who would bring up this point. You lost your rights to common civility. Now, it has gotten to the point where on the Day of Judgment, when you are all being shovelled into the Flames of Hell, I will be able to jeer from the other side "Now you Condescending Prots!.. It wasn't like I didn't warn you! HA!"

Yes, it would be great to be United in Christ. But "a servant can not serve two Masters", and the Prots have put Paul's Separate Doctrine before the Doctrine of Christ. You must realize that simply saying "Christ, Christ" has no meaning when what you really mean is "Paul, Paul". Paul said that it was Christ speaking through Him. No Saint after Paul has ever said that. That is not how it works. None of the other Apostles ever claimed such a Thing. Read Luke's indictment of Paul in the Book of Acts. Read Paul's Letters -- Paul boasts about splitting the Church. Paul destroyed this Unity that you ask for. To re-achieve a Christian Unity we need to go back to the Doctrines of Christ, and renouce the Doctrines of the Antichrist who would do away with The Law, do away with Righteousness, Assert the Supremacy of the State over the Church, and reduce morality to the ethical nihilism of Predestination -- we can be united only if we exile Paul.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (LionOfJudah @ Oct. 28 2003,6:30)]His brothers did not believe he was the Messiah until after His ressurrection
Click to expand...
What are you talking about?

That Jesus had 'brothers' but that didn't want to go to their 'brothers' crucifixion because they weren't sure about whether or not He was the Messiah?

And you say you want to be a doctoral student. I can only shake my head.

1) A brother does not have to be a Messiah for you to attend his execution. If that Brother had a Mother then she would be your Mother too -- of is that logic too much for you, Doctor? Any true Brother would have been with his Mother.

2) Everyone who was part of Christ's immediate Family had no doubt that Christ was the Promised One. Do I have to prove it to you, Doctor? Well, 21 days after Jesus's birth he was presented at the Temple and both Simeon the High Priest and the Prophetess Anne declared Baby Jesus to be the Promised One. Simeon died that same day just to punctuate the Declaration. Other people may have had their doubts, but those in the Family and dear to the Family (Lazarus, Martha, Mary of Magdeleine) had always known the Truth. The Three Kings from the East -- they were coming to Visit the King of Kings that was Prophecized by All of the Higher Religions.

Now, if you really had the stuff of a Doctor in you, I wouldn't need to have to tell you all this. You might as well give up these unrealizable ambitions of yours and just go to ABC Trucking School and learn how to drive a Big Rig -- if you are smart enough even to do that.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Kidan @ Oct. 27 2003,1:59)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Vanaze @ Oct. 27 2003,1:12)]I'm just simply amazed at how you Leo, an apparently very educated person with many good thoughts running through your mind, with good intentions as well, simply miss a very important verse in the very last book of the Bible.

Something about not adding to what has already been given, possibly?  The Pharisees were bad about doing that.  Look where they wound up =\.  Ever heard of the Aural Laws of the Jews?  Yea.  All of it made up of "Tradition" by the Jews,  and very little, if any, Scriptural.  The Jewish priests came up with the aural law.  
Click to expand...

Van, I hate to break it to you, but that is concerning only Revelations.  If it applied to other scriptures, then we'd need to drop a few of the texts that come before it in the Bible (for they were written after Revelations).  I have oft wondered why we believe that Divine Revelation stopped towards the end of the first century.   It truly isn't scripturally sound to say it suddenly stopped.  That it would need to be thoroughly checked against existing scripture to ensure it doesn't go against established doctrine (such as the Book of Mormon) is a given, but WHY would God suddenly stop giving us Divine Revelation?

Think of it another way, if God did it yesterday, should He not also do it today and tomorrow?  Likewise, if He does it tomorrow, then He would have done it today and yesterday.  Part of our doctrine is the immutability of God.  He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.  We say that in the same breath that we say He will not give us anymore Divine Revelations.

Now the true discussion is should these books be canonized?  During that council of whatever it was, they put the requirement that it had to be written by an Apostle, and it had to not contradict the OT (there were a few other requirements that I can't remember off hand).  Yet again though, this was a man-made distinction.

I am truly undecided on this issue.  I want to say that we can seek Divine Revelation from contemperary authors, provided it doesn't contradict the existing manuscripts, yet another part of me says that to do so would cause irreparable harm to the church.
Click to expand...
Dear Kidan,

Good!

Your point about at the Council of Nicea (@325 AD) that one of the Criteria be that they be written by an Apostle. That would have been good only if they had held by it. But Paul was not an apostle. He never met Jesus. There were 12 original Apostles. When Judas killed himself he was replaced by election of the other 11 with Thadius (I think). Paul didn't replace anybody. He murdered Stephen, but Stephen had only been appointed a Deacon in the Church. The Dead Sea Scrolls do say that Paul had beaten James the Apostle senseless and Paul only desisted because he thought James had died. But just because you beat an Apostle nearly to death, and kill a deacon, doesn't make you an Apostle.

But rules are rules. I will go to the Vatican immediately and have the Books of Paul thrown out on violation of this important rule you were able to remember..

Anyway, Hurray! for your perceptions and discernment regarding Modern Revelations. Our Lady has been appearing steadily and with increased frequency over the last several thousand years. Angles too. Many of the Saints could well have fit the roles of Prophet -- certainly Saints Bernard, Francis of Assisi, Francis of Paola, Dominic, Francis Xaxier, and Vincent Ferrer would have been recorded as Prophets had they come before rather than after Christ.

Don't be afraid to read up. You will not be damned to Hell if you walk into a Catholic Bookstore or go to a Catholic Web Page. www.tanbooks.com would take you to the largest publisher of Catholic Books, but don't buy from them if you can get the titles faster from Barnes and Nobles (www.bn.com).
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]There were 12 original Apostles. When Judas killed himself he was replaced by election of the other 11 with Thadius (I think).
Click to expand...

No, Thad was one of the original 12. Matthias was the one who replaced Judas. You can find that information in the 1st chapter of Acts.

Cory
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Thaddius @ Oct. 28 2003,9:28)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]There were 12 original Apostles.  When Judas killed himself he was replaced by election of the other 11 with Thadius (I think).  
Click to expand...

No, Thad was one of the original 12. Matthias was the one who replaced Judas.  You can find that information in the 1st chapter of Acts.

Cory
Click to expand...
Oh Good!

I'm so glad that people are reading with a sense of attention.

It brings to mind the fate of the Original Twelve. When you look at the demographic History of the Christianity, it becomes obvious that each of the Apostles must have done a splendid job of Converting the entire Roman World. Rome was Converted well before either Paul or Peter stepped in.

Yet we don't have their name emblazoned about or all of their letters published in the Bible. Why? Well, because the Better Apostle you are the less necessary you would find it to Add to the Doctrines of Christ. The Real Apostles did not have to make up "Christain" Doctrine... it was all "Christ said this...." and "Did this..." and they would heal and multiply loaves or whatever, and be Nameless Emissaries of Christ. Unlike Paul who never tired of calling them "His" churches -- of claiming everything for himself. Paul is more famous than any of the Real Apostles, and this, instead of being to His Glory, should be to his Shame.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (CCGR @ Oct. 28 2003,6:36)]Jesus' half brothers alienated him.  I don't think they believed until Jesus rose from the dead.  That somehow got their attention.
Click to expand...
Where do you guys get this stuff?

The one Cousin -- son of Mary's older sister's daughter (Mary had a sister 18 years older than she was who had baby daughters that were approximately Mary's age, and so Jesus had many cousins his own age) -- James the Righteous was perhaps the Greatest Apostle. I am making enough trouble with Paul to get into Peter, but I personally think that James was the True Spiritual Leader of the Church -- too spiritual for practical considerations and so Jesus put the Church into the hands of the more temporal minded Peter (or the Early Church factionalized and the Bible we have Received down is from the Peter Faction). The scant records we have point more to James in the Leadership role than Peter. There is even a Legend that James the Righteous never sinned. His Letter was so wonderful that Luther wanted it deleted from the Bible as it contradicted his own Doctrines (and those of Paul) so thoroughly.

I can't explain why he, James, was not at the Crucifixion with his Aunt Mary. John was also a Cousin of Christ, and may have been satisfied that John was with Her, as he took care of other important things.

But everyone in the Family knew of Jesus's Spiritual Status. Even John the Baptist had been a Relative -- Elizabeth, John the Baptist's Mother had been Mary's Aunt, whom Mary visited just after Conception. They all knew of Simeon's Prophecy. The Three Kings. The Flight to Egypt. The Three Days in the Temple when Jesus was Twelve became a much remembered event.

The former disciples of John the Baptist had developed such a loyalty to John the Baptist that they were blocked from really seeing Christ's Reality. And then the Upper Classes and Jewish Aristocracy didn't wish to recognize Christ because he would have been a detraction from the Status Quo -- in their Society they owned everything, and so things were just fine as far as they saw it. But most of the people were predisposed for Jesus. Remember, there had been the 3 Kings -- a Visit which would be remembered for at least a generation by anyone who heard of it -- and then the Slaughter of the Innocents. The People would have Suspected the Messiah. And when Jesus arose up 30 Years later you could see that the Whole Country would go "Oh Yes, there He is!"

So I don't know where you get this business that nobody knew He was the Messiah. They all KNEW!

Where they may have had difficulty, was in what being The Messiah entailed. I don't suspect any of them thought they were just to have the Three Years, and no establishment of a Kingdom on Earth. A bit anti-climatic. And then a generation wouldn't pass before the Entire Church wouldn't be hijacked by that Antichrist Paul.

Indeed, it appears that the Life of Christ was only a Step in the Process of Redemption. We still have a ways to go.
 
First off, it was the council of Carthage (397) not   Nicea that fully defined the New Testament Scriptures (This is when the colllection of writings was actually approved by the Bishop of Rome)

Yet  Paul is included because Paul met Christ on the road to Damascus and Peter recognized him as one, and  likewise sided with him during a discussion on doctrine of works versus faith (Acts 15:1-21) at the Council of Jeursalem (circa 49-50AD).  Yet you also must  remember that the Pope said  that Paul's writings were divine and inspired, and since as a Catholic you believe in the Pope's infallicy, by calling Paul a heretic,  you are saying that Catholic dogma is wrong.  By sayiing a decree of the Pope is a lie, that calls into question all the other dogma's that the papacy  has handed down (such as the full immaculate conception, the concept of a full sacrifice with the sacrement, Mary as co-author of salvation, etc..)

As I've stated before, there are to many doctrines and dogma, that do not correspond with  scripture, that plague catholicism for me to attend that church.  I have read up on it.  I have studied.  I've also studied Methodism, UPC, AoG, The Faith Movement, Salvationist, and a few other denominations.  Then I've also studied other religions.  |More importantly I continue to study. Yet I am still a protestant, and I will remain so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top