Roman Catholics crawls with gifts to a piece of wood
http://ivarfjeld.com/2013/08/09/roman-catholics-crawls-with-gifts-to-a-piece-of-wood/
A local Rosary association in Italy crawl with gift to “St. Philomena” in Our Lady of Gace Church in Mugnano cel Cardinale.
These pictures are from the feast of “St. Philomena” taken during the celebration in 2009. The feast is held at 11th of August.
The challenge for Roman Catholics in Italy, is that the “saint” has not been properly canonized. Even though, Pope Gregory XVI on 13 January 1837 gave permission for public celebration of Philomena in some limited places, but not throughout the Church.
In Mugano del Cardinale in Italy, and several places in the US, the Roman Catholics challenge the Pope, and keep her feast.
How can an infallible Pope, change his mind, in regards to this sainthood?
Lets take a look at some more pictures:
The Society of St. Pius X is up in arms against the Papacy. Her is what Wikipedia has recorded:
Who was this lady “Philomena”?
She was supposed to have been born in 291 A.D, and died in 304 A.D. No other “saint” has died at the age of 13. The piece of wood that is kept in Churches for her “memorial” does not display such a young lady. The statues of “Philomena” are radically different from Church to Church. This is so common within Marianism, that there is no point in proving this facts by more pictures.
The bones of the claimed “saint”, were found in 1802 A.D, in a catacomb in Rome. There is no record of the whereabouts of these bones.
This is recorded by a Roman Catholic website in the US:
This is recorded by a Catholic web site:
The beautification declaration in 1837 A.D, was reversed. May be injustice to the remains. But more than 1500 years after the death and burial of a person, His or her bones and skulls could not give a trustworthy testimony. Neither oral, nor in writing. The miracle of liquid than sweated the made statue, did not fully convince the present Pope.
My comment:
To have “holy pieces of wood” over the altar of a Church, is by it self idolatry. But let us leave that topic aside.
When the Italians crawl through the street on their way to mass, they expose some kind of unhealthy bondage. Such faithful Roman Catholics gives the concept of “freedom in Christ” a vey different meaning.
When the crawlers bring gifts to honor a mythological figure, we must wonder: Who first told them to do this?
To crawl up to a wooden statue that symbolizes at the founding of a 1500 year old skeleton, is a pure and simple bastardization of history.
No doubts that paganism is adored and venerated as “holy” and ready to be presented as “Christendom”.
You have to look very deep in the religious world, to find a more blunt and damnable mockery of the gospel. The gospel is supposed to set people free. Since no biblical figure ever entertained wooden statues in this way. Please write off such falsehood.
Did I hear anyone, say: “Ooh, this is not worship….This is only adoration….”
Behold: These people have never been Christians. Please do not take a stand against Jesus, when you see these disconnected people performing this kinds of bizarre religious rituals.
I hope and pray that all of them will hear the gospel, and accept that they crawl in the spirit of an antichrist. Amen.
Written by Ivar
Italian citizens crawl into a “Church”, to present gifts to a wooden statue.
The challenge for Roman Catholics in Italy, is that the “saint” has not been properly canonized. Even though, Pope Gregory XVI on 13 January 1837 gave permission for public celebration of Philomena in some limited places, but not throughout the Church.
In Mugano del Cardinale in Italy, and several places in the US, the Roman Catholics challenge the Pope, and keep her feast.
How can an infallible Pope, change his mind, in regards to this sainthood?
Lets take a look at some more pictures:
A Roman Catholic priest held a mass, with the wooden doll hanging behind the altar.
The wooden statue do normally not participate in the masses in this “Church” in central Italy.
But she likes to be taken out for a walk…The gloves keep her warm.
The Italians crawls up the stairs with gifts in their hands.
The stairs of the Church is full of Marian worshipers.
They crawl in the direction of the doll above the altar.
The crawlers have to kiss the altar.
And bring costly gifts to the doll, who did not make it through the process of beautification.
The Catholics even bring their children among the crawlers.
A traditionalist Catholic group associated with the Society of St. Pius X sees the 1961 removal of the feast of Saint Philomena from those calendars in which it was inscribed as “the work of the devil in order to deprive the people of God of a most powerful Intercessor, particularly in the areas of purity and faith at a time when these virtues were so much being challenged as they continue to be up until now!Another group claims that Saint Philomena has given further revelations even in the twenty-first century.
Who was this lady “Philomena”?
She was supposed to have been born in 291 A.D, and died in 304 A.D. No other “saint” has died at the age of 13. The piece of wood that is kept in Churches for her “memorial” does not display such a young lady. The statues of “Philomena” are radically different from Church to Church. This is so common within Marianism, that there is no point in proving this facts by more pictures.
The bones of the claimed “saint”, were found in 1802 A.D, in a catacomb in Rome. There is no record of the whereabouts of these bones.
This is recorded by a Roman Catholic website in the US:
”The grandest festivities and processions take place in August and last for five days. This includes the liturgical feast within the diocese of Nola of the Translation of the Holy Relics from Rome to Mugnano del Cardinale on August 10th. Thousands of devotees attend annually and the Miraculous Statue, covered in gold donated jewelry is carried through every street in the town” .Source: Philomena.us
They carry a “Holy doll” on their shoulders.
In his Relazione istorica della traslazione del sacro corpo di s. Filomena da Roma a Mugnano del Cardinale De Lucia recounts that wonders accompanied the arrival of the relics in his church, among them a statue that sweated some liquid continuously for three days.Source: ask.com
The beautification declaration in 1837 A.D, was reversed. May be injustice to the remains. But more than 1500 years after the death and burial of a person, His or her bones and skulls could not give a trustworthy testimony. Neither oral, nor in writing. The miracle of liquid than sweated the made statue, did not fully convince the present Pope.
My comment:
Ezekiel 23:49Many Catholics feel worship of idols in their Church, is only a problem in the Third World. But this miraculous sweated piece of wood is revered in an Italian town nearby Naples. The faithful Catholics crawl trough the streets, to offer gifts to the “Madonna”. The priests offer a mass, with the wooden lady sleeping just above the altar.
You will suffer the penalty for your lewdness and bear the consequences of your sins of idolatry. Then you will know that I am the Sovereign LORD.”
The doll sits comfortably as Queen…..
When the Italians crawl through the street on their way to mass, they expose some kind of unhealthy bondage. Such faithful Roman Catholics gives the concept of “freedom in Christ” a vey different meaning.
When the crawlers bring gifts to honor a mythological figure, we must wonder: Who first told them to do this?
To crawl up to a wooden statue that symbolizes at the founding of a 1500 year old skeleton, is a pure and simple bastardization of history.
No doubts that paganism is adored and venerated as “holy” and ready to be presented as “Christendom”.
You have to look very deep in the religious world, to find a more blunt and damnable mockery of the gospel. The gospel is supposed to set people free. Since no biblical figure ever entertained wooden statues in this way. Please write off such falsehood.
Did I hear anyone, say: “Ooh, this is not worship….This is only adoration….”
Behold: These people have never been Christians. Please do not take a stand against Jesus, when you see these disconnected people performing this kinds of bizarre religious rituals.
I hope and pray that all of them will hear the gospel, and accept that they crawl in the spirit of an antichrist. Amen.
Written by Ivar
It makes me so sick to see these photos of people held in such bondage. I have many extended family member still held bondage to this filth. God help them all if they do not turn to the true and living God and ask for forgiveness for not believing his Word but man’s.
Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Exo 20:5 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;
And secondly those crawlers in red and white look like Hindu devotees. So weird indeed!!.
Shalom.
You wrote:
What a sad scene. The devil loves it. These poor people. My heart goes out to them.
My reply:
You can clearly identify the spirits behind the pieces of wood and stone. They demand submission. If a Roman Catholic do not bow, touch and kiss them, they are told by their priests that they do not “honor” God’s servants.
A Hindu lady I ministered to, said she was 25 per cent Christians. She claimed she believed in Jesus. I asked her: Why only 25 per cent?
She had to bow down to a particular Hindu piece of stone and wood.
I asked: Why?
Because that “god” would get angry on her, if she stopped doing this.
Shalom to you.
The church says that if anyone destroys a holy article or statue etc, they are “desecrating” it.
The word desecrate in the Websters dictionary is to “violate the sanctity of”
Sanctity means holy or sacred. Therefore, they call graven images holy and sacred, which in itself it quite telling and a mockery. So Catholics can claim “we don’t believe that” but the church itself claims the statues are holy in and of themselves.
Is it a wonder that statues bleed and drip oil and all sorts of demonic miracles to keep people in idolatry??
Below is an article of a catholic church saying a mass in reparation for their statues being vandalized. In other words they offered ‘jesus’ as a sacrifice in order to make up for the sin of destroying the holy statues.
This is the ABC of idolatry people. Please understand and take heed.
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=12157&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CatholicWorldNewsFeatureStories+%28Catholic+World+News+%28on+CatholicCulture.org%29%29
Shalom.
You wrote:
The church says that if anyone destroys a holy article or statue etc, they are “desecrating” it.
My reply:
Thanks for this information.
I wounder who told the Pope, that God is offended when statues of wood and stone are destroyed?
Was it the statues, or the spirits behind the statues?
The Holy Spirit can not contradict scripture, so it was not a voice from Heaven.
Exodus 34:13
Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles.
Deuteronomy 7:5
This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire.
(end of scriptures)
Statues of the “Queen of Heaven” is nothing but the good old “Asherah poles”.
The Roman Catholic priesthood hate the Word of God.
No doubt, that they banned Catholics from having Bibles, for hundreds of years. The Pope claimed that ordinary man can not understand what is written. God’s instructions have to be filtered through the Popes authorized priesthood.
But the above verses are plain language. Not to be misunderstood. Cut your “poles” of the “Queen of Heaven” down. Remove them from your house, and burn them in your garden.
Frågor kring Ulf Ekmans nattvardsteologi
I en bok på drygt 100 små sidor med titeln ”Tag och ät” har Ulf Ekman nedtecknat sin syn på nattvarden. Målet tycks vara att överbevisa läsaren om Jesu ”realpresens” (verkliga närvaro) i nattvardselementen. Bevisen försöker Ekman hämta både från Bibeln, kyrkofäderna och historien i övrigt. I magasinet ”Keryx” som utges av Livets Ord har han också skrivit en artikel om ”Sakramental teologi och väckelsekristendom” där han ger uttryck för samma tankar som i boken. Enligt min mening innehåller dessa utläggningar flera mycket bristfälliga förklaringar och leder dessutom till ett antal förhastade slutsatser. Ekmans tolkning både av Bibeln och historien är ofta starkt tendentiös. Många frågor förblir obesvarade. Här följer ett litet axplock av de frågor som uppstår då man tar del av Ekmans teologiska repertoar.
Vilka kyrkor är historiska?
Enligt Världen idag har Ulf Ekmans teologi förändrats på grund av inflytande från de historiska kyrkorna. Då frågar man sig givetvis vilka dessa kyrkor är. En biskop förklarade nyligen att han skiljde på ”historiska kyrkor” och ”moderna kyrkor.” I den förstnämnda kategorin placerar man då vanligen den romersk-katolska, den grekisk-ortodoxa och den anglikanska kyrkan samt säkert också den lutherska. De har alla en lång historia. Men en historia som inte bara är uppbygglig!
För omkring tusen år sedan skedde brytningen mellan den västliga och den östliga officiella kyrkan. Påven bannlyste då den östlige patriarken som svarade med att bannlysa påven och beteckna romersk kristendom som barbarisk och kättersk. Det kallar vi ”den stora schismen.” Sedan dess har i varje fall påvekyrkan ökat sitt antal av dogmer och läror så mycket att dess ansikte blivit åtskilligt förändrat. Den ortodoxa kyrkan är i stort sett densamma som för tusen år sedan. Anglikanerna befinner sig alltjämt någonstans mitt emellan protestantismen och Rom. Den lutherska kyrkans historia innehåller återupptäckten av bibliska sanningar men tyvärr också antisemitism och förföljelse av oliktänkande. Vad som är gemensamt för alla dessa s.k. ”historiska kyrkor” är att de lägger väldigt stor vikt på sakramenten. De är till sin natur mer eller mindre sakramentalistiska.
Vilka är de de moderna kyrkorna? Jo, det måste då vara våra nutida frikyrkosamfund och väckelserörelser som i vår del av världen är relativt unga. Men stopp ett tag! Har inte just den typen av församlingar och rörelser gång på gång sett dagens ljus i olika länder under hela historien? Är våra dagars friförsamlingar historielösa? Har inte också vi en historia? Är det ingen som har läst professor Gunnar Westins fantastiska bok Den kristna friförsamlingen genom tiderna? Eller Broadbents monumentala verk som i fransk översättning fick den långa men talande titeln: Den trogna församlingens smärtfulla pilgrimsvandring genom tiderna. I de böckerna får man veta att kristna friförsamlingar alltid har existerat och att de ofta varit förföljda av de officiella kyrkorna. Men jag har ännu en fråga. Var inte den första församlingen i Jerusalem en typisk friförsamling? Givetvis var den det. Den liknade varken en luthersk statskyrka, en ortodox ikonkyrka eller en romersk påvekyrka. Därmed står det klart att den kristna friförsamlingen har en mycket äldre historia än de kyrkor som av någon outgrundlig orsak idag har ensamrätt till epitetet ”historiska”. Någon gång använder Ekman faktiskt uttrycket i singularis, ”den historiska kyrkan.” Vad han lägger in i det begreppet förklarar han inte.
Men han varnar för att förkasta vad Gud har gjort i historien. Men vad är det då som är så farligt att förkasta? Är det den katolska, ortodoxa och protestantiska sakramentalismen? Ekman säger inte detta rent ut. Men helhetsintrycket av hans utläggning pekar faktiskt i den riktningen. Många vill nog hellre understryka att det andliga arv som den bibeltrogna kristenheten absolut måste ta vara på och aldrig tappa bort är av en helt annan karaktär. Det är gångna generationers modiga kamp för trosfrihet och sann väckelsefromhet.
Vad betyder ordet sakrament?
Ekman förklarar att det är ett gammalt latinskt ord som egentligen betyder ”ed” eller ”löfte”, vilket naturligtvis är rätt och riktigt men trots allt en något ofullständig förklaring i en avhandling om nattvarden. I olika katolska skrifter kan man läsa att kyrkofäderna utvidgade betydelsen av ordet ”sakrament” till att betyda detsamma som ”mysterium” (mysterion på grekiska). Den ortodoxa kyrkan använder helt naturligt hellre det grekiska språket än det latinska. Den utger sig därför som förvaltare av ”mysterierna”, medan påvekyrkan säger sig förvalta ”sakramenten”. Båda dessa sakramentala kyrkor blir därför säten för en slags mysteriereligion där frälsningen förmedlas genom olika slags ritualer. Ekman säger:
-Ett trosmysterium är något som är bortom vårt begränsade förstånd och som behöver uppenbaras för oss genom Anden och tas emot i tro.
Det är faktiskt en bra definition, men den blir missvisande då den tillämpas på nattvarden. Det nytestamentliga ordet ”mysterion” används nämligen aldrig med avseende på varken dop eller nattvard. Det finns egentligen inte någon sakramental teologi (mysterieteologi) i Nya testamentet. Det finns instiftelser, heliga handlingar och olika medel till hjälp och uppbyggelse. Men inga mystiska kulthandlingar.
Kan nattvarden jämförasmed inkarnationen?
Enligt Ekman kan den faktiskt det. Han skriver:
-Att Jesus Kristus, den andra personen i Treenigheten, inkarnerades och blev en verklig fysisk människa innebar att Gud förenar sig med, välsignar och verkar genom den fysiska skapelsen. När Jesus instiftar sakramenten gör han samma sak. Han låter sin nåd flöda genom fysiska, skapade ting. – Gud var reellt närvarande i Jesus och genom Jesus. Det är detta man i teologiska termer kallar för sakramental närvaro och inkarnationen är det stora exemplet på detta.
Dessa tankar har tydligt släktskap med modern katolsk förkunnelse som numera packar in sin extrema sakramentalism i ett filosofiskt och ibland nästan lyriskt språk, där när sagt allting plötsligt blir ”sakramentalt”. Är det möjligen så att den gamla sakramentalismens tydliga släktskap med magi måste döljas av ett religionsfilosofiskt resonemang för att passa den moderna människan? Man säger exempelvis att ”naturen är underbart sakramental i sin mångfald och rikedom.” Och den katolske biskopen Anders Arborelius har presterat följande aktstycke:
-Först finns den allmänna sakramentaliteten i skapelsen, sedan genom inkarnationen. Kyrkan är den förblivande inkarnationen. Detta utkristalliserar sig i de sju huvudmomenten, de klassiska sakramenten.
Skapelsen, inkarnationen, kyrkan med dess olika ritualer – allt blir sakramentalt i denna s.k. ”sakramentala teologi.” Det hela blir faktiskt en form av språkförbistring. En helt vanlig ordbok upplyser oss om att adjektivet ”sakramental” hänvisar till något som har med sakramenten att göra. De är två hos protestanterna och sju hos katolikerna. Hur kan någon då påstå att Guds närvaro i Kristus var sakramental! Behåller vi ordens vanliga mening blir ett sådant påstående totalt inadekvat. Att Gud verkligen var närvarande i den jordiske Kristus hör till det fundamentala i den kristna tron. Jesus sade ju själv:”Jag är i Fadern och Fadern är i mig.” Den levande personen Jesus Kristus kunde genom sin undervisning och sina undergärningar på ett helt speciellt sätt uppenbra Guds närvaro. Men hur kan någon tänka att Herren gjorde samma sak då han instiftade nattvarden som då han själv steg ned till oss i människogestalt? Oavsett vilken nattvardsuppfattning vi har kan vi väl knappast tänka oss att Gud kan vara närvarande i rent materiella ting, såsom bröd och vin, på samma sätt som Han var närvarande i den levande gudamänniskan Jesus Kristus. Inkarnationen kan inte jämföras med någon av de kyrkliga handlingar som man idag kallar ”sakrament”.
Men som biskop Arborelius själv säger så betraktar den katolska kyrkan sig själv som en förblivande inkarnation av Kristus. Ulf Ekman och den katolske biskopen tycks vara rörande eniga om detta. Ekman gisslar nämligen ”dem som inte har någon förståelse för Jesus inkarnerad och ständigt närvarande i sin kropp, Kyrkan.” Ekman har möjligen större ekumenisk bredd på begreppet ”kyrka” än Arborelius. Men båda tar fel och använder fel uttryck. I Nya testamentet gäller ”inkarnationen” uteslutande den stora och fantastiska händelsen då Gud i Kristus kom till oss i människogestalt för att bli vår Förlossare. Naturligvis tror vi att Han genom sin Ande är närvarande i sin församling på jorden. Men den närvaron är inte en ny inkarnation och den är heller inte ”sakramental”, dvs. bunden och begränsad till speciella gudstjänstformer.
Symboliskt eller bokstavligt ?
Ekman använder uttrycket ”realpresens” om Jesu närvaro i nattvarden. Det betyder alltså att Jesus är ”verkligt” närvarande. Någon egentlig definition av uttrycket ger emellertid inte Ekman. Han nöjer sig med att framställa det som ett mysterium. Och han anser sin tolkning så självklar att han inte behöver argumentera nämnvärt för den. Han menar att det räcker med en helt bokstavlig uppfattning av Skriftens ord. Jesus sade nämligen vad han menade och menade vad han sade, då han instiftade nattvarden med orden: ”Detta är min lekamen. Detta är mitt blod.” Ja, enligt Ekman är det självklart att lärjungarna uppfattade dessa Jesu ord helt bokstavligt. Först på 1500-talet och senare under upplysningstiden på 1700-talet började man ifrågasätta den bokstavliga betydelsen av nattvardens instiftelseord. De som inte är bokstavstroende förpassas av Ekman då till den kategori som förnekar det övernaturliga.
Alla kristna är nog överens om att Jesus menade vad han sade och sade vad han menade. Men precis som Jesus ord ibland kan ha bokstavlig betydelse, så händer det vid andra tillfällen att han brukar bilder, symboler, metaforer och liknelser. Frågan blir då inte om Jesus menade vad han sade men om vi alltid rätt förstår vad han menade. Det gjorde inte alla på Jesu tid. Då Jesus efter brödundret sade: ”Den som äter mitt kött och dricker mitt blod, han har evigt liv.” (Joh. 6:54), då var det många som missförstod hans ord. Det menar jag faktiskt att Ulf Ekman också gör, för han tillämpar de orden på nattvarden. Detta förefaller mig orimligt av flera orsaker. För det första uttalade Jesus de orden långt innan nattvarden blev instiftad. Varken lärjungarna eller någon annan visste heller vid den tidpunkten att Jesus senare skulle instifta en speciell måltid till minne av sitt försoningsoffer. Talade Jesus om nattvarden då han sade att det var nödvändigt att äta hans kött och dricka hans blod, då var hans ord obegripliga för alla som hörde dem uttalas. Dessutom sade han samma ord i negativ form. ”Om ni inte äter mitt kött och dricker mitt blod har ni inte liv…” Den som menar att dessa ord gäller nattvarden bör ta konsekvenserna av det. Utan nattvarden finns det då ingen frälsning! Då bör botbänken, samtalsrummet och förbönen efter väckelsemötet omedelbart bytas ut mot ett nattvardsbord! Till det bordet bör sökande själar inbjudas för att få liv.
Men det finns kanske ett annat sätt att förstå dessa missförstådda Jesus-ord. Det finns bibelord som talar om feta och märgfulla rätter men som avser andlig föda. Andligt liv får vi nämligen inte genom materiellt ätande. Jesus vill själv vara vårt liv och hans närvaro mat för vår själ. Det måste vara detta Herren menade då han talade om att äta hans kött och dricka hans blod.
Förtjänar pietismenatt svartmålas?
Enligt Ekman var naturligtvis det stora felet med pietisterna att de inte lade tillräckligt stor vikt vid sakramenten. Men efter min mening tecknar Ekman en grov karikatyr av pietismen:
.Vårt pietistiska väckelsetänkande har ofta haft en avoghet och misstänksamhet emot allt yttre. Väckelse är enbart Andens verkan på hjärtat med prioritering av det inre livets odlande och möjligen evangelisation. När detta renodlas och påverkas av rationalistisk filosofi blir väckelsen antisakramental. – Misstänksamheten emot allt fysiskt i pietistiska kretsar har gjort mycken skada. Man vill inte dra någon som helst gräns mellan det heliga och det profana och menar på ett falskt sätt att inga ordningar behövs och att den troende är fri till i princip vad som helst, både i gudstjänstliv och moral. Så tappas fullständigt förståelsen av det heliga.
Var Ekman har hämtat denna ”skräckbild” av den pietistiska väckelsen har jag ingen aning om. Alla väckelser har givetvis haft sina brister eftersom Gud alltid har brukat mänskliga redskap. Pietismen är inget undantag. Men Ekmans beskrivning av pietismen stämmer varken med vederhäftiga historieböcker eller trovärdiga kristna ledares uttalanden. Pietismen uppstod i en tid, då vanefromhet och död formalism var rådande. Behovet var då knappast en sakramental väckelse, för många gick till kyrkorna och tog del i sakramenten. Men det andliga livet flämtade svagt. Kristus hade många anhängare men få efterföljare, som någon uttryckte det. I sin bok understryker Ekman ”nattvardens förmåga att kunna förmedla andligt liv.” Att han då kommer på kollisionskurs med pietismen är inte så underligt. Pietismen föddes ju därför att varken renlärigheten eller sakramentsförvaltningen i den tidens kyrka hade förmedlat särskilt mycket andligt liv.
Den hemgångne norske teologen Carl Fr. Wislöff ställde en gång frågan: ”Har pietismen något att ge oss idag?” På den frågan svarade han med att räkna upp en rad signaler som pietisterna själva sände ut och som vi verkligen behöver idag. Vi sammanfattar dem helt kort. Låt Guds Ord rikligen bo ibland er! Låt det allmänna prästadömet komma i funktion! Kämpa för den sanna tron i kärlek! Ta vara på det kristna broderskapet! Wislöff understryker också att vi behöver pietismens förkunnelse om den nya födelsens nödvändighet och om försakelsens plats i det kristna livet. Ulf Ekman skriver märkligt nog att pietismen fört till att man ”fullständigt tappat förståelsen av det heliga.” Det är ett i högsta grad märkligt uttalande eftersom pietismen egentligen var en helgelseväckelse. Wislöff säger att vi idag har hamnat i en ”nöjeskristendom” utan verklig sälta. Till det yttre skiljer sig en stor del av den kristna ungdomen föga från världens lättsinniga ungdom. Därför behöver vi en sund pietism som för till frälsning från världsligheten, både i sinnet och till det yttre, säger han.
Nej, pietismen förtjänar inte att svartmålas. Wikipedia, den fria encyklopedin, säger exempelvis att vårt grannland Norge inte blev verkligt protestantiskt förrän det blev pietistiskt. Norges store folkväckare, Hans Nielsen Hauge, nämns också i det sammanhanget. Ekman kan ha rätt i att vissa grenar av pietismen, både i gången tid och i nyare tid, varit avgjort antisakramentala. Men att det skulle bero på inflytande från rationalistisk filosofi betvivlar jag. Det är verkligen en förhastad slutsats.
Blir det en stor framtida nattvardsväckelse?
I slutet av boken skriver Ekman att han mött ett behov, speciellt hos yngre, att:
-få del av de rikedomar som den helige Ande deponerat i Kyrkan genom tiderna. Nattvarden är definitivt en av dessa skatter. Man bryr sig helt enkelt inte om, om det är ”katolskt” eller ”protestantiskt”, om det är ”evangelikalt” eller ”karismatiskt” utan frågan blir istället om det är genuint kristet och då alltså är sant. – Vi kommer inom en snar framtid att se skaror av människor som flockas till nattvardsgudstjänsterna.
På ett annat ställe säger han:
-…det finns mycket att hämta och lära av dem som vårdat denna gåva (nattvarden) i århundraden.
Detta är väl ”ekumenisk vidsynthet” i högsta potens! Men vilket sammelsurium! Låt mig bara påpeka ett par saker. Då vi sätter oss in i den katolska kyrkans lära om nattvarden upptäcker vi genast att den är totalt oförenlig med en protestantisk och evangelikal uppfattning. Och vad värre är, den är helt oförenlig med Bibelns grundläggande undervisning. Olika protestantiska och evangeliska samfund uppvisar vissa olikheter i sin syn på nattvarden. Men ingen kan godta den katolska dogmatiken. I påvekyrkan är nattvarden eller mässan som den kallas, nämligen en förnyelse av Kristi försoningsoffer. Genom prästens händer offras Kristus på nytt på kyrkans altare, fast på ett oblodigt sätt. Att nutida katolska teologer försöker byta ut ordet ”förnyelse” med avseende på Kristi försoningsoffer i mässan mot sådana uttryck som ”verkliggöra”, ”aktualisera” m.fl. ändrar ingenting. Den kastolska mässan är en offergudstjänst. Även sentida påvar har tydligt sagt att prästen förnyar Jesu offer på korset. Då prästen uttalar instiftelseorden blir han enligt katolsk tro gripen av Andens kraft så att hans ord får samma verkan som då Jesus själv uttalade dem. Brödet och vinet förvandlas då bokstavligen till Jesu lekamen och blod. Det är möjligt att Ulf Ekman själv kan godta den uppfattningen. I en predikan för några år sedan sade han nämligen:
-Ordet åstadkommer lika mycket när en troende utsäger det som när Gud säger det. Du är Guds medskapare. Du talar och skapar med dina ord.
Oavsett hur det är med den saken, så kan inga bibeltroende kristna, antingen de kallar sig protestanter, evangelikala eller karismatiker skriva under på den katolska mässoffersläran. Guds Ord säger ju tydligt att Jesus har gett sitt liv på korset en gång för alla.
Om Ekman tänker på den katolska kyrkan då han säger att vi har mycket att lära av dem som förvaltat nattvardens gåva i århundraden, blir hans historieskrivning direkt missvisande. Påvekyrkan har gjort allt annat än att vårda den urkristna nattvardssynen. Det är först på 300-talet som vi har de första vittnesbörden om att nattvarden börjar betraktas som ett upprepande av korsoffret. Omkring år 850 omtalas för första gången den s.k. ”transsubstantiationsläran”, alltså vinets och brödets bokstavliga förvandling till Jesu lekamen och blod. Den läran blir dogm först år 1215. Om det aldrig funnits några andra uppfattningar om den saken hade en sådan dogmatisering varit överflödig. På ett kyrkomöte år 1416 bestäms att de troende får nöja sig med brödet då de deltar i mässan. Vinet i kalken förbehålls den officierande prästen. Denna förändring är speciellt underlig eftersom kyrkan lär att man måste både äta Kristi lekamen och dricka hans blod för att få liv. Från och med den tiden får de trogna bara ”en halv kommunion” så att säga. Numera har jag dock sett att katolska nattvardsgäster får lov att doppa sitt bröd i vinbägaren då de går till altaret.
Om det blir som Ekman hoppas att vår tids sökare inte kommer att bry sig om från vilka källor man hämtar synen på nattvarden, kan resultatet bara bli ett. Då får vi tidernas största förvirring. Den kan i sin tur bara växa och frodas i okunnighetens och ytlighetens jord. Om Ekmans budskap om nattvarden huvudsakligen möter bifall och entusiasm visar det att denna okunnighet och ytlighet redan är starkt förhärskande i vårt land.
Shalom.
This long text in Swedish is not suitable on an English blog. But. I agree with the warning. As a young Christian, I warned in a Norwegian Christian daily that Ulf Ekman is a false teacher. He is on his way back “home” to Rome.
He is not alone. Many Pentecostal Churches in Sweden and Norway use Ekman as one of their “bishops”. There is even a pastoral network who look on Ekman as an apostle.
Here is one article that exposes Ekman as a Papal knight.
http://ivarfjeld.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/ulf-ekman-is-temple-knight-of-the-pope/
Shalom.
I welcome your anti-blog, as a corrective of News That Matters. I hope and pray it will lead many more Roman Catholics to read both our blogs.
People who search for the truth, shall find it. People who open the Bible, will see who is telling the truth, and who is blaspheming God of the Bible.
May Jesus the Messiah bless your new online publication.
Also, during Mass, the focus is the altar, not what’s behind it. The altar is the table of the Lord’s supper. Nothing around it matters.
Shalom.
That an anti-reader of this blog is welcomed on News That Matters, might be a contribution to freedom of expression.
You wrote:
Also, during Mass, the focus is the altar, not what’s behind it. The altar is the table of the Lord’s supper. Nothing around it matters.
My reply:
Well done. Because on every altar in the Roman Catholic Church, “Jesus of Rome” is being sacrificed. Again, again, and again. The Roman Catholic priests demands that the faithful believe that the Son of God is physically present, and is slaughtered all over again. Repeated, but not in a bloody manner, explains the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church.
Those who do not believe this, is not permitted to take the Eucharist.
When Jesus shared the wine at the Passover table, there was no Jew who believed that the physical blood of God was in the wine.
The Messiah took the wine, and remembered the blood of the lamb in Egypt. When Jesus pointed towards this wine, He said: This blood (the wine in the Cup, not the blood in his body) is the blood of a new covenant.
Jesus spoke about the blood He was going to shed at the cross. NOT to be consumed by anyone. On the cross Jesus is the Lamb of God. He did not cut his finger, and leave some drops of blood into the cup during the supper.
The Roman Catholic Church has twisted the teaching of Jesus, and made it into an act of drinking physical blood. True religious cannibalism. What a perversion. What damnable blasphemy.
No doubt that many of the RCC manifestation, fruits of such Satanic worship, reminds me about insanity. The present article must be very disturbing for all who reads it.
The rest of the flock who knows the truth, either becomes corrupt or diseased hypocrites. May all the rest, who are not educated and ignorant, be saved. Amen.
Let the rest face the consequences of their falsehood. If they do not repent, Hell is waiting.
It’s not physical blood, therefore it’s not cannibalism.
And remember, at the Passover, if the Jew did all that was asked, except to eat the lamb, his firstborn was dead.
Christ said “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you.” Paul said if anyone eat the bread unworthily, they’d be damned. If it’s only bread and wine, how could you eat it unworthily?
Why are you calling Christ Satan? We worship Christ alone.
You wrote:
Why are you calling Christ Satan? We worship Christ alone.
My reply:
This is your private opinion, and your have the right to have one. But I am able to read, and I understand what the Vatican has written:
The victim is one and the same: THE same now offers through the ministry of priests, Who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.
(end of quote).
1. Jesus was not a victim. He offered Him self freely, as the perfect atonement for mine, yours and everyone’s sin.
2. If there was a “victim” at the cross, than the people who crucified him are criminals.
3. If the “victim” is ONE and THE SAME on the altars of ALL Roman Catholic masses, the priests makes all who participate criminals.
The Roman Catholic dogma say “his physical presence is real” at the altar during the mass.
In regards to the wine in the cup of Jesus:
1. It was not his physical blood. It never was, and never will.
2. The wine in the cup, was not even shed when Jesus spoke. It was shed on Calvary Hill. No one drank His blood there.
3. When Jesus says “This in my blood, the blood of the new Covenant, He spoke about an event in the future. It is absolutely amazing that Roman Catholics can not admit this. The gospel is not a “sim-sala-bim” message, where the priesthood of occultism can transform wine into the physical blood of Jesus.
Jesus in only physically present in Heaven, till his SECOND coming. We drink the wine, in remembrance of the blood He shed on Calvary. He shed this blood ONCE, and for all.
Shame on you for such blasphemy.
One of the first things my husband and I did after leaving Catholicism and understanding our participation in idolatry, was to get rid of all our Catholic objects. Statues, rosaries, icons, relics of bones, images and the like. Even the air felt cleaner.
To have these things in your home is to make it unclean, and I personally believe there are unclean spirits attached to these objects.
If you worship God in spirit and in truth you do not need to hold on to idols. You have the living God, and no idol can suffice, “protect” you etc. How many “blessed” palm branches did I have and blessed objects that are to ward off evil spirits when in reality welcomed them?
When you are not saved, you need every trinket, idol, holy water and physical thing to make you feel safe and protected. What a lie. You must be saved on the inside, then you truly have Him inside of you, and have no need for objects on the outside.
Shalom.
Praise Jesus, God the Son who saved you.
Isaiah 30:22
Then you will desecrate your idols overlaid with silver and your images covered with gold; you will throw them away like a menstrual cloth and say to them, “Away with you!”
Representation is mystagogy.
If it’s not blood then what is it? The church says it’s blood and flesh. That’s why they praise Eucharistic miracles. Wouldn’t you eat a bloody host id it was a miracle? Priests have. Julia Kim has.
One more point. Jesus drank the wine and ate the bread. What? Did he eat and drink himself? He also said ” I will not dtink again the cup of the vine” not the cup of blood. Sorry not to quote. Full scripture. On my phone. Internet down.
Sabbath Shalom.
For anyone who have tried to eat them selves, the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church makes no sense. It is not possible.
I do not know anyone who have tried.
In regards to the gospel, this kind of self-cannibalism is blasphemy. I can not eat my self. Neither could Jesus. If He could, He was not human. Anyone who deny that Jesus was a complete, 100 per cent human, walks in the spirit of antichrist.
The teaching of the RCC is some “Hocus Pocus” that must be rejected.
Sabbath Shalom.
You wrote:
Very interesting. I never thought of the point that Jesus drank his own ‘blood’. Not.
My reply:
Thanks for blessing me. The very idea of Jesus drinking His own blood, is absurd. So why do any priest think He can drink His blood? Would He stand at the cross, collect the blood in a cup, and drink it?
The cup that Jesus asks us to share in, is His death. Are you dead to this World, or do you love what the World has to offer?
Catholic Church worship “Maria Bambina” of a gnostic gospel
http://ivarfjeld.com/2013/04/17/catholic-church-worship-maria-bambina-of-a-gnostic-gospel/
The Catholic Church do not only venerate and adore adults. The Vatican even worship the claimed to be “Mother of God”, in the form of a statute of her claimed body during infancy.
Lets read from the official website:
To those who feel that “marianism” is not a part of mainstream Catholicism, think again. The late pope Paul II was a devoted worshiper of Catholic Mary, and did pay the shrine of Maria Bambina a visit.
We need to investigate, and look at more photo's:
To make this issue a matter of complete confusion. Maria Bambino can be found in many shrine around the World. And while Maria Bambina has blue eyes in Italy, she is a black eyed baby girl in Mexico.
Since "Maria Bambina" is the very foundation of "Catholic Mary", we can clearly see that the Catholic faith is a cult, and the first massive New Age Movement that took Christianity astray around 400 A.D. Since "Catholic Mary" is a gnostic personality, surely her son is also a gnostic copy of the Messiah.
What does the “gospel of James” tell us?
This book explains that Mary had a miraculous birth, and remind a virgin all her life. Her children mentioned in the canonized Gospels, are explained to be the children Joseph had from an earlier marriage. He was a widower, and remarried the young Jewish virgin. This gospel written down around 150 A.D, claims Joseph never had sex with his second wife.
The problem with this doctrine, is that not a single letter in the Bible can be used to support such “Christianity”. To the radical opposite it is blunt blasphemy, to suggest that the Jews would adore and venerate this Jewish girl, even before the Angles appears to her when she is a teen.
The Jewish virgin Miriam was never worshiped as a Queen, nor a holy Jewish baby girl. It is laughable to suggest that this pregnant teen would be lifted up high in the ancient Jewish society. It was an offense to even suggest that a virgin could become pregnant. Even today, teenage pregnancy is not saluted as something desirable.
And if any girl today, would have come home and told her parents that she has become pregnant without having sex, she would quickly have been admitted to a mental hospital.
If such a girl in 2010 has added to the “story” that she had become pregnant by the Holy Spirit, she would probably been driven to suicide or killed. Even in the most nobel and religious Catholic family in Italy.
Shame on all Catholic teachers, who have made their faith a complete falsehood and blasphemy against God of the Bible.
Rate this:
Like this:
58 Responses to Catholic Church worship “Maria Bambina” of a gnostic gospel
Soon the apparitions of HER(demonic) will speak the language of Islam as well…soon..
Perhaps thats just the point..
Shalom.
The issue of the worship of Maria Bambina is that this Catholic practice in gnostic paganism. This girl was born without sin, lived without sinning, and was taken up in Heaven in body and soul. She is not human, but a goddess, the banned Queen of Heaven from the book of Jeremiah.
Kind regards Brother-keep up the goood work in His name.
Thank you for this article.
This idol makes the “Bride of Chucky” look like an episode of “Touched by and Angel.” Have Catholics cut this passage out of their Bibles:
“Thou shalt have NO other gods before me. Thou shalt NOT make unto thee any GRAVEN IMAGE, or any likeness of ANYTHING 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” (Exodus 20:3)
It never ceases to amaze me how the supporters of the Roman Catholic church will not do everything they can to defend the blatant blasphemies taking place right before their eyes.
NO GRAVEN IMAGES MEAN NO GRAVEN IMAGES!
This includes demonic dolls named Maria Bambina. This includes pictures of a blond-haired, blue-eyed Jesus. This includes pictures of a dark-haired, brown-eyed Jesus. It includes ANY IMAGE OF JESUS at all. It includes statues, crucifixes, idols, pope memorabilia, Vatican snow-globes, pope lawn ornaments,
glossy photos of the pope in a frame, plastic souvenirs of the pope, mary, or any other “saint”, pope John Paul biographies on your living room table, pope night-lights in the bedroom, “mary” shaped cookie jars in the kitchen, pope Benedict TOILET BOWL BRUSHES in the bathroom, rosary beads, shot-glasses with the pope’s face on them, couch throw pillows with images of saints, Francis of Assisi idols in the birdbath, pope T-shirts, papal charms hanging from your cell phone, text messages to your friends on “veneration days”, and glow in the dark ceiling stick-ons depicting assorted pope faces.
Catholics and “secret” Catholics, STOP dancing on hot coals, playing idiotic word games defending Catholicism and putting your very salvation and/or rewards at risk — because you refused to COMPLETELY RENOUNCE this demonic “religion.” God is not mocked and any allegiance (ANY!) to this cult will be JUDGED!
“AND THE SMOKE OF THEIR TORMENT ASCENDETH UP FOR EVER AND EVER. (REV. 14:11).
“But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and IDOLATERS and all LIARS, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” (Rev. 21:8)
please get out of that prostitute called catholic.
Well, I just looked up the definition of GRAVEN IMAGE, in the Websters Collegiate Dictionary, it says:
“an object of worship carved usu. from wood or stone : IDOL”
The big thing in this definition is “object of WORSHIP,”
Our statues are not objects of worship, veneration or honor, yes but worship, NO
We usually have photographs of our loved ones, and sometimes kiss their pictures when we miss them. We often hang photographs on our wall, or mount them on a table so that they are always near us, almost like we do with images of saints. Photographs, like statues are likewise images, but keeping them certainly isn’t idolatry. We certainly don’t worship the paper with which the photo is made of. Photographs are simply a sophisticated and updated version of graven images, the product of modern technology, yet these are still images nonetheless.
Also did you know!!! That the early Christians lived in a mainly pagan and hostile society. During Nero’s persecution (64 A.D.) their religion was considered “a strange and illegal superstition”. The Christians were mistrusted and kept aloof, they were suspected and accused of the worst crimes. They were persecuted, imprisoned, sentenced to exile or condemned to death. Unable to profess their faith openly, the Christians made use of symbols, which they depicted on the walls of the catacombs and, more often, carved them on the marble-slabs which sealed the tombs. Like the ancient, the Christians were very fond of symbolism. The symbols were a visible reminder of their faith. The term “symbol ” refers to a concrete sign or figure, which, according to the author’s intention, recalls an idea or a spiritual reality. The main symbols are: the Good Shepherd, the “Orante”, the monogram of Christ and the fish. Think about you History, Scripture, and traditions……especially TRADITIONS!!!!
Do you kneel before your dead relatives & friend’s photos? Do you put candles & flowers before their photos? Do you then pray to them? Would you like your dead sister’s body exhumed, waxed & put on display? Would you find it right in your heart to watch people kneeling in front of her displayed dead body? Would you like strange hands undressing her dead body, changing the clothes & re-dressing her dead bones again so she can be put on display and gawked at – because you say no one is worshiping her.
I will only kneel in front of my Lord Jesus. I would be ashamed if He came & found me kneeling before anyone or anything else.
Kay
None of us know where anyone is in the afterlife. If they are in Heaven, they do not require your prayers and God can use your prayers for the benefit of others. If they are in Hell (God forbid) they can not use your prayers and God can use your prayers for the benefit of others. If they are in Purgatory, God they can use all the prayers they can get.
And by the way there are no dead people; we all live forever from this life to the next. With that in mind, it makes sense to pray for them. Then you ask….why have relics????
If someone had the tunic Jesus wore, preserved all of theses years, would you want a small cutting?
I would. I think that would be awesome to have. And I do believe it would be a blessed article. Why? Because of my faith. Would I pray to the tunic if I owned it? No. That would be stupid, wouldn’t it? I would pray to Jesus, and be very glad I actually had something which he carried with him everyday. I would feel closer to him, as if time was not so distant and I could meditate easier on when he was walking on earth every day. I draw a clear line between worshipping God, and taking care of his tunic. His tunic didn’t create the universe, after all.
My feeling about collecting saint’s bones and hair, etc. is that many often run the risk of offering a great deal of honor to the creature, not the Creator. After all, even though the saint might have had an extraordinary will, the saint would not be a saint if it were not for the grace of God. The Doctrine of the Church freely embraces the use of saint’s relics. Therefore, having a saint’s relics must be with the understanding that to be a saint, one must have great humility, knowing that their salvation was a gift from God, and that without God’s mercy none of us would be saved. Saints do not deserve glory in their own right. But we can glorify God because of them.
Jesus said:
“…You…are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean.”. (Matthew 23:27).
Bones of the dead are unclean. I would not have anything to do with a church that prays to & plays with dead bones. It is very much an indicator of bad fruit.
Kay
You said: Yes I pray for relatives both living and dead, and its out of RESPECT!! of course you can, and should, pray for the dead and for those who have died.
My Comment: Why would you pray for someone that is already dead? For Jesus says: after death comes judgment. There is no reason to pray for them once they are dead, not even respect is a reason.
Hebrews 9:27 Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,
You said: If someone had the tunic Jesus wore, preserved all of theses years, would you want a small cutting? I would. I think that would be awesome to have. And I do believe it would be a blessed article. Therefore, having a saint’s relics must be with the understanding that to be a saint, one must have great humility, knowing that their salvation was a gift from God, and that without God’s mercy none of us would be saved
My Comment: I do not deserve what Christ did for me by dying on the cross, but I accept the free gift, and by accepting it– it would never make a sinner like me a saint.
The BIble says: For all have sinned, and fall short of the Glory of God.
Romans 1:25 Because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
It has been catholic tradition:-
To use diabolical cruelty and mental torment to oppress non catholics.
To be institutionally anti semitic.
To meddle in the internal political and economic affairs of nations, actively promoting quarrels and conflicts if they will serve the purposes of the papacy.
To bow down to and worship idols made of wood, stone, metal etc.
To allow most people to remain illiterate
To allow the clergy and their agents to prosper at the expense of mass poverty.
To value the opinions of catholic theolgians as of higher value than authentic Biblical revelation
To make the Lord’s passover communion into an idol feast
To give mary unwarranted and unecessary attention
Just a few for starters….
I am going to ask really simple and plain…….where in the Bible does it say the “Bible” is the Sole Authority???
Sola Scriptura protestants like it because it, by definition, negates the need for any church or any teaching authority. It leads to the completely illogical (which most prominent modern protestant biblical scholars admit) position that the bible is “self interpreting”. And we know how ridiculous that claim is – a book cannot authenticate itself, because when you finally go to the “first” of the books that supposedly starting the authentication process of all the other books, who or what authenticated that first book? We had a HUGE debate on this very issue several weeks ago on this blog site and that very question was never answered. You guys go off tagent on other dumb prejudice debates. The very reason why is simple: there IS NO ANSWER. There is no Sola Scriptura!
Finally, protestants like it because it gives THEM individual “command” to interpret the bible in a manner that suits them at any given point in time. The most difficult thing for a protestant to defend are the number of different protestant denominations that now exist for the sola rationis that they cannot all come to an agreement on what the bible means on very important points of doctrine.How many members are on this site or this denomination???
Definition of VENERATE
1
: to regard with reverential respect or with admiring deference
2
: to honor (as an icon or a relic) with a ritual act of devotion
Definition of DEVOTION
1
a : religious fervor : piety
b : an act of prayer or private worship —usually used in plural
“And by the way there are no dead people; we all live forever from this life to the next. With that in mind, it makes sense to pray for them. ”
We are all dead, we can do nothing more, our future is set. Even Lazarus could do nothing for the richman or his relatives because he was dead.
“If someone had the tunic Jesus wore, preserved all of theses years, would you want a small cutting?”
the answer, No. I have Jesus with me all the time, why would I want a tatter of garment that he may or may not have worn here in this life when I look forward to Him giving me my gloried body. Everything I have right now is personally given to me from Jesus, why live in the past where the dead reign?
“After all, even though the saint might have had an extraordinary will, the saint would not be a saint if it were not for the grace of God. The Doctrine of the Church freely embraces the use of saint’s relics. ”
All appearances, my friend. 1 Samuel 16:7
7 But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance… for I have rejected him. The Lord does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”
“Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”
Worshiping in Spirit and in Truth has nothing to do with what the human eyes and hands can physically see and touch (e.g. relics, dolls, etc.). It is about our hearts and spirits directly interacting with God through the blood of Jesus Christ and the help of The Holy Spirit who lives in us. It is a worship in which God alone (not physical things) is the focus.
“Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust does corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust does corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
Matthew 6:19-21
If you would set aside your elaborate papist dogmas, study your bible and take it seriously, you would know that God takes away your filthy rags and gives you a robe of righteousness. Jesus has no need of earthly raiment. Zechariah knew this, his change of clothing was a sign of things to come. He was a PRIEST, (a high priest actually), yet his robes were nevertheless filthy, symbolic of sin and self righteousness, and a pointer to the future revealing of the Lamb of God who TAKES AWAY sin. So too did the apostles know it, they who went on the mountain of transfiguration with the Lord Yaeshua/Jesus and saw his “tunic”?? (tallit, not tunic, get that right!) became dazzling white, because of the glory of God. I expect Moses’s and Elijah’s tallits were dazzling white too.
“And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.”
Revelation 19:8
The other problem is, sola Scriptura itself contradicts Scripture. You NEED an authoritative oral Tradition and Magisterium to go along with an authoritative written Tradition otherwise there turns out to be “lots of denominations” Christians that are “not one big group” a wide “range(s) of beliefs” on “doctrine and theology”, etc.
There are Traditions that are imperative to the existence of Scripture itself that are not within Scripture. But we NEED them to even have Scripture.
There are traditions of men that make void the commandments of God too and we need to beware of them. I would say sola Scriptura (any definition that I’ve seen) is one of those traditions of men that nullify the commandments of God.
The other thing is, I’ve talked to many Bible-ONLY Christians who DO hold to the same sola Scriptura attitude you are trying to tell me you don’t hold to (i.e. some my own extended family members are/were Bible ONLY Christians came in from Lutheranism and deny any authoritative oral Tradition). But WHO has the ultimate authority to make such decisions in your tradition? Who is right—you or them?
You might say “Well I’ve talked to Catholics who don’t believe such and such”. But these “Catholics” are by definition taking themselves out of the communion of believers and thus can be called Catholic in name only. Why? Because they are doing in essence the same thing Lutherans are doing by denying the Apostolic authority of the Magisterium or admitting it and refusing to submit to it (or both). Possibly they are doing this as what they perceive as being in “good conscience”. That’s another discussion beyond this thread (if interested see CCC paragraphs 1776-1802 for a reasonable start) and would concern “forming your conscience,” “spiritual sloth”, etc.
Who is the FINAL authority of interpretation of Christ’s teachings? Either it’s YOU, or it’s someone you follow and accept as authoritative. WHO says what tradition is authoritative or not and harmonizes with Sacred Scripture? YOU or the Baptist who says Lutherans shouldn’t Baptize babies because it’s “unscriptural”. I’d agree with you that Baptizing babies IS Scriptural, but that’s not the issue. It doesn’t matter what I say merely because I say it. The issue is WHO has the final authority to interpret Christ’s teachings?
In your tradition it’s either you or someone you follow (neither of which even claim apostolic authority).
You said “Sola Scriptura was never meant to mean “Bible Only”. But I (and I’ll bet many here) have talked to many Bible ONLY Christians who say YOU Alix1912 are wrong and that’s exactly what it means; and proceed to quote verses to try to stuff their definition of sola Scriptura into the particular verse they are quoting to me. A definition you just denied.
Any why appeal to Luther’s tradition of sola Scriptura but reject his Marian devotion themes or his teachings on the contraception issue, or other teachings that were in line with classic Christianity that Lutherans sometimes reject now.
You also stated: “Lumping us all together or treating us like the redheaded stepchild only weakens your argument and reinforces the misconception that Catholics are elitist and don’t know anything about any other faiths.”
That’s just it. We don’t “lump you all together”. In a certain sense you are all separate “boats” sailing in different directions on your own—in a very turbulent sea. That’s the issue.
This is why I’ve said before, it is very difficult to say what Protestants affirm and what they don’t affirm because as soon as you quote Luther (or someone else) to them they say something like “Well Luther doesn’t speak for me.” And they’re right. Because nobody’s got Apostolic authority in the Lutheran (or any other Bible ONLY) tradition. Protestantism seems to be more easily defined by what they DENY instead of what they AFFIRM.
What it all boils down to is WHO has the ultimate authority to interpret the word of God (both oral and written). Who has this Apostolic authority?
And if you honestly don’t think it’s the Catholic Church, don’t violate your conscience but then you ought to be looking within Christendom WHERE this Apostolic authority is being proclaimed and lived out.
If you undertake this search with a repentant heart for all sins, a willingness to go wherever God calls you, and to search prayerfully and carefully with an open heart, this search (and of course the Holy Spirit) will lead you to where the authentic Apostolic authority is. I believe this search will lead you to the Catholic Church.
One thing’s for sure, if there are 11,000 (or 33,000) bible only groups or denominations all claiming to follow the bible ALONE as their ultimate authority, all claiming to follow the dictates of the Holy Spirit, and yet all coming to differing conclusions on various issues, you KNOW at least 10,999 (or 29,999) of them are going to be wrong somewhere. The Holy Spirit does NOT author chaos.
Because men are fallible, and the only guarantee of infallibility in the bible is for the bible itself. Like it or not, tradition and magisterium are man made, and do not carry any promise of infallibility.
Yes the bible is infallible, but what you are effectively stating is that nobody can have the complete and infallible teachings from it. A book can’t talk to you or communicate with you. It’s a one-way thing: you read the book and come to a conclusion about what it teaches, and lots of other people will likely disagree. You can talk to certain people and by way of communication determine that you and another person either agree or disagree, but the book can’t do that for you.
So in the end, all these Protestants saying “Well that’s not Scriptural,” “Repent and return to the truth here in the bible, look!” are effectively claiming that they are properly interpreting this book and the book can’t speak up for itself to agree with any of them.
Fortunately we have God, who works wonders by his Holy Spirit, even through men, allowing them to not only write Scripture (his Holy Prophets) but to assemble and interpret them (the Church.) And we can go to the Church, and talk to a priest, and they will be able to come to agree or disagree with us so that we know if we are in agreement with the Scriptures or not.
But unfortunately, too many are so eager to have nobody to turn to so that they may be affirmed in their faith, and too eager to believe that they are somehow led by God and have the infallible truth even though they disagree with countless others who say the same for themselves.
You said: “Fortunately we have God, who works wonders by his Holy Spirit, even through men, allowing them to not only write Scripture (his Holy Prophets) but to assemble and interpret them (the Church.) And we can go to the Church, and talk to a priest, and they will be able to come to agree or disagree with us so that we know if we are in agreement with the Scriptures or not.”
If you believe this, how can you possibly approve of the nonsense that the RCC has peddled for so many centuries–such as the teachings of the Mary cults? NOWHERE in Scripture is there any indication that we should think of Mary as “the mother of God” or “the co-redemptrix”!
You said: “But unfortunately, too many are so eager to have nobody to turn to so that they may be affirmed in their faith, and too eager to believe that they are somehow led by God and have the infallible truth even though they disagree with countless others who say the same for
themselves.”
The fog count on that statement is pretty high but I’ll take a crack at refuting it. We have the Truth—over and over, the Scriptures assert that the word of God is the Truth. We ALL should be interpreting the Scriptures for ourselves under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit. (see 1 John 2:27 and Philippians 2:13). To insist that mere men can teach us
more about the Scriptures than can the Holy Spirit is clearly contradicting Scripture. As for divisions among Protestants, the Apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11:18-19: “For, in the first place, when you come together
as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.” The Holy Spirit is an infallible interpreter of Scripture—men are not. Those who closely abide in the word of God, typically agree on what the Bible says. However, wishful thinking (that is, desiring to believe lies) and sinful thoughts and attitudes toward each other is the source of division among church men and women. RCC priests are just as much subject to these forces in this world full of evil. Those inside the Vatican would likely disagree with your naive assertion that there are not major disagreements between members of the Magisterium.
But that is NOT what the Bible teaches…
2 Cor 13: 5 Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you–unless, of course, you fail the test?
Again I say …….where in the Bible does it say the “Bible” is the Sole Authority???
Sola Scriptura protestants like it because it, by definition, negates the need for any church or any teaching authority. It leads to the completely illogical (which most prominent modern protestant biblical scholars admit) position that the bible is “self interpreting”. And we know how ridiculous that claim is – a book cannot authenticate itself, because when you finally go to the “first” of the books that supposedly starting the authentication process of all the other books, who or what authenticated that first book? We had a HUGE debate on this very issue several weeks ago on this blog site and that very question was never answered. You guys go off tagent on other dumb prejudice debates. The very reason why is simple: there IS NO ANSWER. There is no Sola Scriptura!
I will ignore all other nonsense answers you all have until this is answered!
Allow me to do a simple math problem for you.
Scripture – Tradition = Only Scripture.
Kay
Sola scriptura is ONE of the five solas.
Where in the Bible does it say that we are to replace the living Word of God with any doctrine?
…Do you not realize that Christ is IN You – unless of course, you fail the test? 2 Cor 13: 5
“You have nullified the word of God, for the sake of your tradition” (Matt. 15:3, 6).”
Not only did Jesus say that, but this too (and several times!): Get thee behind me, Satan: FOR IT IS WRITTEN.
He also used the Scriptures to rebuke the devil.
You said: “…Of course you all have not answered my very first Question as usual! Again I say …….where in the Bible does it say the ‘Bible’ is the Sole Authority???…”
It is implied by a great many passages of Scripture. If you really understood the roots of our faith—how deeply they penetrate into Israel of God, you would not ask such a question. The Tanakh definitively shows how absolutely vital “the Law and the Prophets” were to the life of the believer. Israel vacillated in its adherence to and reverence for Torah. When it was at low ebb—Israeli society (a theocracy, remember) was far from God. As an example, see 2 Kings 22 (and 23) for the history of King Josiah. When King Josiah was brought the dusty books of the Law (discovered by the High Priest Hilkiah during the renovation of the Temple) Josiah wept and tore his clothes in despair. It was quite clear, from the reading of the Law, that Israel had fallen far into disobedience of God’s commands. But yet—they had a High Priest and a priestly class still intact. What does this suggest to you about the importance of God’s word over the judgment of mere men?
In addition, Jesus stressed over and over the importance of “abiding in the word” and He also said that “…the word cannot be broken”. (John 10:35) On the night that He died, He prayed for His followers, that the Father would, “…sanctify them in the truth—your word is truth.” (John 17:17) The Apostle Paul speaks of women being “washed in the water of the word” by her husband (Ephesians 5:26) just as Christ Jesus did for His Church.
Let us have no more debate on this point. Pagan priests have always made up their religion as they went along—just as many priests and popes in the RCC have clearly done down through the centuries? The true Church of Christ would never be so foolish. You greatly insult God by questioning the authority of His word over the life of the believer.
You said: “…Sola Scriptura protestants like it because it, by definition, negates the need for any church or any teaching authority…”
This is a ridiculous assertion and displays your ignorance.
“…It leads to the completely illogical (which most prominent modern protestant biblical scholars admit) position that the bible is “self interpreting…”
Name these so-called “protestant biblical scholars” please. The fact remains that any serious student of the Bible knows that the Bible is the only book that does “…weave a seamless garment” and proves itself by the fulfilled prophecy that it contains. Fulfilled prophecy is a major source of authentication.
You said: “There is no Sola Scriptura!”
God’s word stands—Jesus said so. Matthew 5:17, in the words of our Lord says, “I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.”
Let us have no more of your defense of the RCC. No one here is buying it.
I venture to suggest that the King Josaih heard the shema prayer, that was what cut his heart and induced him to weep.
Check out the texts of the Shema prayers, the ones that observant jews pray daily…..
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. And these words, which I command you this day, shall be in your heart: And you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up. And you shall bind them for a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. And you shall write them on the posts of your house, and on your gates.
And it shall come to pass, if you shall listen diligently to my commandments which I command you this day, to love the LORD your God, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul, That I will give you the rain of your land in his due season, the first rain and the latter rain, that you may gather in your corn, and your wine, and your oil. And I will send grass in your fields for your cattle, that you may eat and be full. Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and you turn aside, and serve other gods, and worship them; And then the LORD’s wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain, and that the land yield not her fruit; and lest you perish quickly from off the good land which the LORD gives you. Therefore shall you lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign on your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes. And you shall teach them your children, speaking of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. And you shall write them on the door posts of your house, and on your gates: That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers to give them, as the days of heaven on the earth.
And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put on the fringe of the borders a ribbon of blue: And it shall be to you for a fringe, that you may look on it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that you seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which you use to go a whoring: That you may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy to your God. I am the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am the LORD your God.
From the outset, God commanded His people to be focussed and centred on his WORD. It was and still is His word that is the connection between Him and His people, the written word and Yeshua?Jesus the living word. Didnt God say He would write His words on the hearts of his people, move them to follow His commands.
“if you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it will be done for you”
Michael old chap you do waffle a lot! I dont particularly hold to a sola scripture view, (was it you that said I did????) Mystified (again) although you seem to assume that every non catholic DOES. I suppose its a convenient way to fend off awkward questions about the way popes have used unbiblical doctrines, torments, persecution, anti-semitism murder, etc etc. Like a querrelous child, oh theres no need to take notice of what they say, because they accept sola scripture. I dont even know why we use that word, latin is a dead language….
Just as an aside, the papacy executed the men who translated the Bible into English. What possible justification could there be to act like that?
I actually have no objection to reading commentary from Christians that lived in past eras. Their testimonies and writings can be extremely helpful. It is often informative and encouraging to see how previous brethren lived, its fine-as long as what they are saying agrees with what is in the Bible of course.
“But continue you in the things which you have learned and have been assured of, knowing of whom you have learned them; And that from a child you have known the holy scriptures, which are able to make you wise to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to all good works.”
The danger, as can be seen actually in modern charsimatic extremes, is when human authority stamps itself as of having equal, or superior influence than the word of God itself.
1. The Bible does not list which books should be IN the bible
2. The Bible did not even exist during the time of the apostles (except, perhaps, while John was alive – and even he probably did not have access to the other writings, considering he was exiled to a cave on the Isle of Patmos, which he says himself in writing Revelation).
Sola scriptura causes a “circular headaches” because once one argues “scripture is infallible”, you need the person interpreting scripture to also be infallible; but if the interpreter is not infallible, how does one know that the scripture the interpreter is referring to is an infallible interpretation? And on, and on, and on . . .
I don’t why you want to talk about the TaNaK which is not only scriptures, but also contains Jewish traditions which some are still practiced today!!!
My freind these Three passages seem to address specifically, the issue of WHO authorized the Bible:
1. Mt. 16: 15 to 19 and verse 19 in particular
“He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Verses 18 and 19 are to be taken togeather.
2. Mt. 28:19-20 “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
3. John 20: 19-22 “[19] On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit”
Of the greatest significance are the words of Christ to Peter and the Apostles: “As the FATHER SENT ME [with all my Divine Powers and Authority] SO I SEND YOU.” That my friend is the Official Founding of the CC in and with the Power and Guidence of God Himself.”
Plus the Fact remains that the Bible does not come into full Canonization until the 4th century…..THAT is FACT and CHURCH put the Bible together!!!
I can cite several synods and popes and councils where it is obvious various churches called “Catholic” accepted the current 27 NT books as canon, but it was not until Trent that it was formally declared (because of the threat of heresy by Luther and others during the Protestant Revolt) that only a certain list of 27 books should be considered part of the NT canon.
Even Luther began to question some of the 27 that all Christians today accept as inspired by God. To appease some of his followers, Luther backed down somewhat, but still relegated some NT books – such as James and Hebrews – as “back benchers” that we should read, but were in no way shape or form the equivalent of “God breathed” as the four gospels or the Acts of the Apostles.
Are you born again (like Peter was)?
Are you filled with the Holy Spirit?
Have you experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit (like Peter and the other early church apostles did)?
Have you ever seen the fire of God?
Have you ever been under conviction of sin?
“I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.”
Why not mention the torah? Its an important part of Gods word. You are right in one sense of course, there are many Jewish traditions, some that originated with God, but many, as with the catholic religion, that do not.
“No one shall be declared righteous in Gods sight by observing the law”-wether God given Jewish laws-or pope-made catholic ones-they still amount to mere rules taught by men, and cause people to strive in “forms of godliness that deny the poweer thereof”
It seems to me that obsession with sola scriptura is of more importance to catholics than any one else. It seems it offer people like yourself the license to interfere, edit, selectively apply biblical principles, or simply, conveniently ignore them if it suits the purposes of your stupidly obstinate religious system.
Only God is infallible.
For 40 years, I allowed your church to tell me what the Bible meant. Never again! I have found the great pearl in God’s Word. We can read any book on this planet, yet you tell me I cannot read & treasure God’s Word with someone else interpreting it for me!!! Ha!!!
I do not care who assembled the Bible hundreds of years ago. I am not following them. The Council of Trent was dictating the world of Catholics. Bible-believing Christians were not following your decrees. In fact, they were being killed by the catholic church. Believe your interpretation of scripture or die. That same condemning spirit is still alive & well in your church.
Only God is infallible. Therefore, God’s Word is enough for me b/c it burns in my soul and transforms me from the inside like a fire. That is called the Holy Spirit – a reality to me now and not when I was a devout catholic. For this, I will die. For Jesus-not for a church.
Kay
Shalom.
I was blessed by your latest comment. I am also ready to die for Him. May many come to faith, seeing some antichrists killing my body. They can not kill my soul, who belongs to Lord Jesus, my Master and best friend.
Your comment: What you just said is still all irrelevant since, even if we agree that Scripture’s infallible, the interpreter must be infallible to know what Scripture means to say. IOW, how do we know which of the various interpretations of infallible Scripture is infallible? SS remains a bankrupt, unworkable doctrine-wishful thinking. You know this to be a problem!
My Comment: You are so determined to have someone here, say you are right, that you have managed to not see the error of your words.Yes, God’s word is infallible, but Jesus told us that men like you would come and will not put up with sound doctrine.The men who wrote the Word of God did so under the direction of the Holy Spirit.
2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
This is one of the many verses which proves the Word of God is infallible.
2 Tim. 3:16-17 “All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instruction in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work.”
Have you not read —- “I will make KNOWN my words unto you”
Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you” (Proverbs 1:23).
This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. (1 Corinthians 2:13)
You said: “What you just said is still all irrelevant since, even if we agree that Scripture’s infallible, the interpreter must be
infallible to know what Scripture means to say. IOW, how do we know which of the various interpretations of infallible Scripture is infallible?”
This is typical RCC obfuscation. Do you read the Bible, Michael? There can be no justification for insisting that only a priest (or indeed, pope) can tell us what it means. I have a young friend who has a mild intellectual impairment but he gives some interesting insights into Scripture.
You said: “SS remains a bankrupt, unworkable doctrine-wishful thinking. You know this to be a problem!” Why do you insist on attacking Sola Scriptura when most of us here are not in some rigid adherence to that view? Beside that, I believe it was pointed out to you that Sola Scriptura was only ONE of the Five Solas which were watchwords of the Reformation—more political than a statement on ecclesiology.
I will write more later.
You said: “Political???? You better have good source of how that comes to play! You have to remember and know
the time period during Luther. religion and politics are in one essence.”
My response: And who do we have to “thank” for that but the Roman Catholic hierarchy?!! The RCC was political from the moment that it identified itself as “Roman” in its marriage to temporal power. Jesus specifically eschewed political power (“My Kingdom is not of this world…”). The RCC leads many, many people to hell in its obsessive drive for power.
You said: “That all changes with the American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1798.”
Yes, the Americans were wary of state churches, having seen what the RCC, and its “daughter” church, the Church of England had done to Europe and Britain. And those who spearheaded the French Revolution positively despised the RCC for the political power it wielded.
2 Tim 3:16-17 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete (artios), equipped (exartizo) for every good work.
This has the Greek terms for understanding for saying it is a good tool, but still not the sole authority!!
It is indeed true that without scripture, we can’t be completely equipped to do the will of God. But this verse doesn’t say that scripture is the “only” thing we need. Furthermore, the scripture referred to in this verse is, by definition, the Hebrew scriptures (the NT not being written yet and the preceding verses referring to the writings he studied in his youth (e.g., the Hebrew scriptures)). By the logic of your friends, this verse would mean the Hebrew scriptures alone are sufficient (and they certainly don’t mean that).
In addition, not only is there not a single verse in the Bible which says “scripture alone” is sufficient, there are in fact many that suggest we are to rely on teachings “oral and written”.
You must remember this passage from Paul….
2 Thes 2:15 (So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.)
Shalom.
You wrote:
2 Thes 2:15 (So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
My reply:
You are yet one more example, that it is rather useless to debate faith with committed Roman Catholics. My best guess is that the Holy Spirit do not want to have anything to do with you, because of your multiple rejections of the truth, and refusal to surrender to the Messiah of the Bible. I am getting rather tired of repeating the same message to Roman Catholics, who rather obey the Pope than the scriptures.
But I will make one more attempt, before I will request you to leave this blog, so you can return back to your Roman Catholic priests and bishops.
Paul the Apostles had the Hebrew Bible in his hand. There was no New Testament, who could give the Jews a deeper insight in what Jesus had explained to them, when the Messiah walked the Earth. Paul do not change a single line of the Hebrew Scripture, not a single letter of the Law. To the rather opposite, the Holy Spirit inspire Him to write down apostolic letters of instructions to the Church.
These letters were included in the Biblical Cannon, around 400 A.D. Every single word of the letters of Paul, Peter, John and Jude confirm the authority of the Hebrew Bible, as the highest authority in matters of faith.
Paul even writes: – This is a command I lay down in the Church, I, not the Lord. This were practical issues, most of them matters of making local arrangments in Churches where there were disorder and confusion. His submission to the Torah and the Tannakh (Prophetic Word) is absolute and total.
The Roman Catholic Church re-opened the Biblical Cannon in 1540 A.D. The present Pope set Him self above God the Holy Spirit, who had closed the cannon 1.000 years earlier. The Pope acted like “god”, and changed the very scriptures that had stood like a rock for 3.000 years. He took in pagan books that promotes witchcraft, like the book of Tobit. This book had never, for 3.000 years, been a book in the Hebrew Bible.
The Pope needed the witchcraft book of Tobit in the Catholic Bible, verses that confirmed the Popes paganism, like man being able to save him self by his good works, not by faith alone.
Now, pack up and leave this site. Because you support those who have sinned against the Holy Spirit, you will probably never be lead into repentance. You have been deceived from childhood by the priesthood of Satan, and have continued to call curses down on your own head by your endless blasphemy against the Word of God.
Please take this message to your heart. Because there will be no further warnings.
T = Torah (Law or Instructions)……Canonization 400BC (Around no exact date…impossible)
N= Neviium (Prophets)………….200BC
K = Kethuviim (Other Writings) 90AD…..Long after the Temple destroyed 70AD…..and Paul died in 65AD….their was no full Tanak!!! You are misstaken!!!
TNK= TaNaK!!!!
you said also “The Roman Catholic Church re-opened the Biblical Cannon in 1540 A.D.” Not re-opened but reaffirmed the Canon Works because it was never questioned until Luther…..so 1500s yrs was it accepted until Luther’s actions of heresy!!! That is FACT and TRUTH……you are not the EXPERT!!!!
You love twisting History and Theology!!! Plus I am not Roman Catholic…….I am High Anglican….Church of England. I hold both Scriptural and Theological degrees from Cambridge University. So, I know you are no expert in this field!!! Well , you are in my prayers! Good Bye!
Shalom.
Roman Catholic or High Anglican, it makes no difference. The present Archbishop of the Church of England has bowed before the papacy, and kissed the gold idol on the finger of the Pope.
The book of Tobit includes pure witchcraft. You can blame whoever you want for including this book into any kind of corrupt versions of the Bible.
I feel no need to defend the Lutheran Church, whom I am not a member of. But I understand the dilemmas faced by former Roman Catholic monk Martin Luther. He was not sure if it was possible to reform the high Church of the Vatican. Or if the Germans needed to scrap the whole religious institution, corrupted beyond repairable. I wish Luther had done the latter.
May Jesus find a way beyond your theological degrees from Cambridge. Every soul is more worth than any diploma, and I pray that you will leave the falsehood you are presenting as the truth. Amen.
Dear Ivar, I disagree with this statement. I think God wants everything to do with Michael and wants so badly for Michael to know the awesome love he has for him. God’s desire is to break these chains of religion Michael is shackled to.
Michael, my prayer for you is that you will submit yourself to God by trusting completely in him to teach you. Let him show you. Let him teach you. He loves you so much.
Jayna
Shalom.
Jesus said very sternly that He HATES the practices of the Nicolaitans. The Messiah also said that those who blaspheme against the Holy spirit have committed a sin that will never be forgiven.
Revelation 2:6
But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
If you feel that there is a possible disagreement between Jesus and the Holy Spirit on these issues, you need to explain this to me.
You said, “Jesus said very sternly that He HATES the practices of the Nicolaitans. The Messiah also said that those who blaspheme against the Holy spirit have committed a sin that will never be forgiven.
Revelation 2:6
But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
If you feel that there is a possible disagreement between Jesus and the Holy Spirit on these issues, you need to explain this to me.”
Yes, Jesus hates the PRACTICES of the Nicolaitans. Jesus also loved them enough to die for them. Even those who crucified our Savior, he prayed “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.”
As far as blaspheming the Holy Spirit, when I study the context of Jesus’ words, wasn’t he speaking to those who witnessed his miracles and yet attributed his power to the devil? I don’t see Michael doing that, do you?
Michael is trapped in bondage to religion. God loves him and cherishes him dearly and desires for Michael to know him as we do. I just don’t think it is Biblical to say the Holy Spirit wants nothing to do with him. The Holy Spirit desires to reveal Christ to him.
Peace,
Jayna
You said: “The Bible did not even exist during the time of the apostles (except, perhaps, while John was alive – and even
he probably did not have access to the other writings, considering he was exiled to a cave on the Isle of Patmos, which he says himself in writing Revelation).”
My response: “As Ivar has pointed out to you, the Hebrew Scriptures were the ones that the Apostles referenced over and over. The Book of Acts refers to the nascent New Testament as the “teachings of the Apostles”. The Jewish nation was set aside by God because of their refusal to accept their Messiah Yeshua which was clearly the fulfillment of the what the Tanakh teaches. Have you ever read the book of Hebrews, Michael. I strongly suggest that you do, paying special attention to chapter 11.
You said: “I don’t why you want to talk about the TaNaK which is not only scriptures, but also contains Jewish traditions
which some are still practiced today!!”
My response: No. You are speaking of the extra-Biblical writings of the rabbis such as the Talmud. No Orthodox Jew would ever accept that the Talmud is at the level of the inspired “Law and Prophets”. Our Old Testament is basically word for word from the Tanakh.
You said: “Even Luther began to question some of the 27 that all Christians today accept as inspired by God. To appease some of his followers, Luther backed down somewhat, but still relegated some NT books – such as James and Hebrews – as ‘back- benchers’ that we should read, but were in no way shape or form the equivalent of ‘God breathed’ as the four gospels or the Acts of the Apostles.”
My response: Your point just shows that you could take the former RCC priest, Luther out of the RCC but that he still retained some of the RCC in him. Infant baptism was another Lutheran blooper. Luther apparently found the Book of James antagonistic to his position of Sola Fide. When understood in the wide context of the whole counsel of God, the Book of James serves as a “testing point” for believers to make sure that they are truly in the faith. Are you sure that you are in “the faith that was once given to the saints”, Michael?
How far Cambridge University has sunk! The very place where Hugh Latimer (by his own admission “as obstinate a papist as any was in England.”) was wonderfully converted and was delivered out of popery. And where Thomas Cranmer and John Rogers were educated. All of them exceptionally great men of (eventual) humilty Bible study, prayer, and biblical holiness, who were burned alive by order of the pope and his rapaciously cruel and bloodthirsty little helper, mary.
As for high anglican, its the same as romanism, they just havet yet made the formal arrangement (not publically any way) Why else would you get banal plastic mary statues, inane shrines to this or that saint, or signs advertising mass at anglican churches? They were doing that (defiantly) at St James the great in Darlington over 20 years ago. I went past there every day. They are official papists now.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9178325/More-Anglicans-leave-Church-of-England-for-Rome.html
People like yourself, blessed with the advantages and privelige of higher education in a so called prestigious seat of learning, and who really should know better, are mere pawns, useful idiots in the hands of an anti christ spirit, whose eventual destiny is to try to kill off the body of Christ.
“They shall put you out of the synagogues: yes, the time comes, that whoever kills you will think that he does God service. And these things will they do to you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.”
PS Ivar if the telegraph link doesnt work or you dont want it included, please delete
Shalom, Jonathan
You said: “T = Torah (Law or Instructions)……Canonization 400BC (Around no exact date…impossible)
N= Neviium (Prophets)………….200BC
K = Kethuviim (Other Writings) 90AD…..Long after the Temple destroyed 70AD…..and Paul died in 65AD….their was no full Tanak!!! You are misstaken!!!”
Not true, Michael. The scrolls had obviously not been compiled into any kind of a Codex yet, but all elements of the Tanakh were well known in Jesus’ day. All were included in the Septuagint from circa 300 B.C. You need to brush up a bit on the Hebrew Scriptures.
They crawl, bow and kiss wood and stone
If these Roman Catholics were willing to obey the Bible, they would never have remained in such bondage. The Holy Spirit would have come and set them free.
Through history, people who have renounced the Papacy, have been badly persecuted. In hundreds of thousands, they were martyred. Beaten and killed by the religious people who refused to obey the truth.
Here are some more pictures:
You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols…..
The “Jesus” they crawled towards is not “Lord of Heaven”. May all of them one day scrap their wooden idols, and enjoy carrying the true Messiah inside their hearts. Amen.
Written by Ivar
Rate this:
Like this:
79 Responses to They crawl, bow and kiss wood and stone
As appealing as that powerful Summertime “chocolate god” you mentioned may be — I’m sticking with Jesus!
You have a powerful anointing and should get behind a microphone.
“And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that hears say, Come. And let him that is thirsty come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely” (Rev. 22:17).
Even So, Come, Lord Jesus!
Anyone who tries to enter through another gate, through another gospel, id est, “mary” worship, rosary beads, icon adoration, etc. will be cast into outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Jesus said that when old salt loses its saltiness it can NEVER be made salty again. You’ve chosen a very prophetic name for yourself, Old Salt. You are deceived and don’t even know it.
“You are the salt of the earth; BUT if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is NO LONGER GOOD FOR ANYTHING, except to be THROWN OUT and TRAMPLED under foot by men” (Matthew 5:13).
Repent of the lies of the Roman Catholic “church” before your salt-less soul is not even be strong enough to kill a garden snail.
It’s even more heartbreaking to see the excuses used to justify Mary worship (like in the comments on this thread):
http://defendingcontending.com/2008/06/23/its-all-about-mary/
Sabbath Shalom.
You wrote:
It is so heartbreaking to see such idol worship.
My comment:
There are people who really hate God of the Bible. They hate Him. They hate his words, and they will continue doing what God hates to they find them selves in the burning flames of Hell.
May prayer is that some of them might see this article and repent. Because if they do not repent, they will perish.
So sad.
Jude 1:8-19 They said to you, “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.” “These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.”
Bad shepherds making people slaves to their ungodliness.
Bea, the Catholic Church was started by Satan it is his master piece that has deceived men, women, boys and girls since it’s inception..and it was created for this purpose for this time in History for these days..the Last Days…it’s so ingrained into society that many are afraid to say out loud ‘the Catholic Church is a Cult, a Deceiver of all that is Holy, right and decent…FACT
Praise be to God for leaving us his One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church here on earth so that we may be guided in the fullness of truth that we may know Christ fully! Amen and God be with you all
Were in the Bible does it say it is the absolue source and Authority??? AHHHHH…..NONE!
http://christi…(Link deleted. Not permitted to link up external links from this site. Editor).
May the True God the Only Father open your eyes. God Bless you!
Not believing in the entire Word of God is dangerous. And by that statement of the “priests” not acknowledging the very beginning of God’s word, a believer in Jesus christ can tell they and the Catholic church are filled with lies., They twist the Word to suit their own need.
It is very clear: Psalm 33:4-6
For the word of the LORD is right and true; he is faithful in all he does. The LORD loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of his unfailing love. By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth.
Your Comment: And there are many many other verses where our Lord tells us he is the truth, his words are the truth.
Was the world created in 6 days……….WE have NO idea???? We were not there and ancients have whole perspective idea of time, details……ect
My Comment:
Proverbs 30: 5 Every word of God is tried and purified; He is a shield to those who trust and take refuge in Him.
Hebrews 4:12 For the Word that God speaks is alive and full of power [making it active, operative, energizing, and effective]; it is sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating to the dividing line of the breath of life (soul) and [the immortal] spirit, and of joints and marrow [of the deepest parts of our nature], exposing and sifting and analyzing and judging the very thoughts and purposes of the heart.
Why would someone who sees His Word in black and white and reject it? Jesus said why they do that..”Because they love their sins more than they love HIM….! FACT
Your zeal is admirable and I commend you on that. But zeal for a cause contrary to God’s plan is going against God. To accuse and judge your siblings in Christ whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant is wrong! Christ prayed that his Church may be one but you keep promoting division within the body of Christ with such sensational theology.
Challenge : The Catholic Church contains the fullness of divine truth necessary for salvation. I ask you to present one instance where the church has taught a dogma or doctrine contrary to the teachings of Christ. Just one…
You see the Catholic Church’s teachings line up with the bible… No let me rephrase that : The Bible lines up with the teachings of the Catholic Church for the Bible is a product of Church Tradition. Just as the Bible says. About the church that “The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth!”.
Just look through History and you will see that the Church Christ left over is the one that you oppose in protest — The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. May God soften your heart to this truth so that he may use you as a tool for spreading His truth.
God be with You.
Shalom.
It is always exiting to face Roman Catholics who claim the Pope teach no dogma that is contrary to scripture.
I will advice you to debate on topic at the time, and not jump my question:
1. Where in the Bible, do the Pope find permission to be addressed as “The holy father”?
Jesus gave power and authority to the Church alone.
The Church later produced the Bible.
The Bible also requires proper interpretation, if it’s to be of much practical value.
The guys who made up a whole new religion based on the Bible ALONE still haven’t been able to agree on much.
That’s because interpreting the Bible properly remains the official job of the Church, too.
I wonder how the Early Christians before the year 367 AD could have practiced the “Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone)” doctrine.
There were many disputes over the canonicity and inspiration of many Books.
Some Books were inspired, some books were heretical.
The inspired Books that make the Bible were not available to everyone like today. So how could they use the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura”?
It was until 367 AD that Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon. Some of you folks need to do proper research and history check!!
Plus Can you give us chapter and verse where the bible tells us that it is the absolute authority? It is a book, and you can find very few people who will agree about what it says. 1 Tim. 3:15-16 tells us where the true authority lies.
Before I answer the question I need to clarify a few points. Catholics are not Sola Scripturists and thus we don’t base all our theology on the Bible alone. We base it on the Bible and Sacred Tradition handed down to us by the Apostles and their successors. The Bible is a product of this tradition as I mentioned earlier. So don’t expect all our theology to come from the bible. Our theology does not however contradict anything in the Bible for the bible was compiled to agree our beliefs for Catholics compiled the bible .
Answer to your questions :
Why Catholics use the term “Holy Father”
Is because the Pope (Bishop of Rome) is called upon to practice exceptional
sanctity in imitation of Jesus Whose office he serves. The pope is also the “Father” to all the catholic churches while alive.
Jesus chose the apostles to be the earthly
leaders of the Church. He gave them his own authority to teach and to govern not as
dictators, but as loving pastors and fathers.
That is why Catholics call their spiritual
leaders “father.” In doing so we follow Paul’s example:
“I became your father in Jesus
Christ through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:15).
Catholics and Orthodox Christians call priests “Father” based on St. Paul’s theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests:
“I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:14-15).
God be with you and I hope this helped
Shalom.
You used one scripture:
“I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:14-15).
Let me first quote two more verses, and than put them into context with the 1.Cor 4:14-15:
First:
Matthew 23:9
And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
Paul never demanded that anyone should call him father. He said “I became your father”. Than is a radical different message. Nowhere, will you see anyone addressing Paul as “father Paul”. That would be a sin, and making a mockery of the instruction of Master Jesus.
Second:
John 17:11
I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one.
Jesus Him self, call His Father in Heaven “Holy Father”. To copy this for the Pope, is blunt and damnable blasphemy. In particular in regards to Matthew 23:9. Because the Pope claim to be like a “god” in matters of moral and understanding of scripture: Infallible.
In context:
We as Christians can have countless guides, and even a father figure in our fellowships, a person who we trust is a man of God. But we will never mock God, and call any spiritual leader for “Father”. And never, never, until the point of death, call any man the “Holy Father”.
in their millions, people were rather martyred that to bow before the papacy. From 325 A.D onwards.
and admit they don’t base their theology on the Bible alone….Who would of guessed???? ….(smile)
Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Luk 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
1. Mary had several children after she had Jesus (smile) which means that Jesus had several half brothers and sisters…there’s one…
Your commendation about my zeal was a big mistake, to some you use that flattery as a fly to lure to lure many into your web…for I have nothing but what my LORD has given me..even prayers for you to flee that lie from the pit of hell ….be careful Wandile you yourself have been in a web for years unable to recognize the center of that web is Satan waiting for his appointed time to make you one of his ‘Blue-Plate-Specials’ ….your only hope is Jesus Christ ..denounce your wicked ways and flee to Jesus less you join with Satan in receiving the Wrath of God kept for all who reject Jesus and His Word….(which is the same as teaching and sharing the lies of Catholicism and any other heresy.
Then you go on and say that ‘the Catholic Church’s teachings line up with the Bible you said ‘bible’…then you said No let me rephrase that…The Bible lines up with the teachings of the Catholic Church.
NOW I SPEAK TO THE DEMON THAT RULES YOU,…In the Name of Jesus , You damnable spirit from the pit of Hell you think you can slide by with your slime filled words that some would think this was a mistake and twist their words to blatantly say that the Bible lines up with the Catholic Church…NO ONE NO THING is above The Word of GOD…for any reason for anytime…ALL have to line up with HIS Word…HIS WORD NEVER has to line up with YOU or Anyone….
Now to you Wandile…May GOD have Mercy on your ignorance and choice to defame The Word of GOD…& teaching others that damnable lie….but this is your time….you will continue to press forward in defense of your lovers and leaders…till the appointed time that GOD has for you and the demons who rule you.
“1. Mary had several children after she had Jesus (smile) which means that Jesus had several half brothers and sisters…there’s one…”
see that is where you are wrong. mary was an ever virigin. this is a doctrine still believed to this day by the oldest forms of christianity( Catholicism and Orthodxy) since the time of the apostles as its a teaching handed down by the apostles themselves. who better than them to trust?
secndly to understand what scriptures mean when they say ‘the bretheren of the Lord” or jeus’ ;brothers and sisters (Joses and all…) you need to ubderstand the hebrew. Hebrew has no word for cousin so they call their cousins ‘brother” or “sister”. secondly it is held that Joseph possibly had hilderen from a previous marriage. i advise you to read a document from the early chucrh called the protoevngilum of St James.
“Ha ha ha ha,…well well well…a Catholic to admit ‘the Pope imitates Jesus…Catholics are not Sola Scripturists and thus we don’t base all our theology on the Bible alone…
and admit they don’t base their theology on the Bible alone….Who would of guessed???? ….(smile)”
Sola Scriptura is a heresy from the reformatiom. no other christians befor this believed in thw bible alone.Protestantism is a true heresy and you expecting the Church to adhere to some new doctrines of heretics is a heesy i itself. but you see the Church of Rome iis the oilar and foundatuion of truth and thus can speak no erromor embrace doctrinal ero for the Holy Spirit abides in Her. Amen and i pray for you also that God my humble you and soften your heart that you may come to the fullness of truth in the Church of Christ.
Shalom, and love in Jesus.
What do you think of the infallible Pope, after seeing the papacy promoting two claimed to be skulls of the same “saint”?
Kindly write a short reply, and focus on this point only.
Shalom.
You wrote:
Sola Scriptura is a heresy from the reformation. no other Christians before this believed in the bible alone.
My reply:
From the reformation? Really.
To you really believe Moses came down from Mount Sinai, to tell the Jews that He would add something to the 10 commandments?
For the Love of God Flee from that or you too will be just kindling wood for the fires of Hell to be tormented forever and no one can buy a candle from a Catholic Church or Priest and get you transferred to Limbo…there is NO escape from Hell…Please listen !!
You wrote: see that is where you are wrong. mary was an ever virigin. this is a doctrine still believed to this day by the oldest forms of christianity( Catholicism and Orthodxy) since the time of the apostles as its a teaching handed down by the apostles themselves. who better than them to trust?
My Comment: The Word of God is the complete truth. And the Word of God says Jesus did have siblings.
Matthew 12:46-47 – “While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.”
Matthew 13:55 – “Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”
How can you believe “man” instead of what God has written?
The Word does not lie…here we see 4 half brothers and more than one Sisters…plural ”sisters” not sister..
Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Matthew 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Yet the Catholic Church wants the world to believe that Mary was married a Virgin and remained a Virgin…even after she had Jesus…thus also disobeying The Word of God (The Law of Moses and the Prophets) on the wifely duties to their husband…thus to Joseph…for the Word says that Joseph did not touch her till ‘after’ the birth of Jesus…AND THE WORD DON’T LIE!
“Dear Wandile
Shalom, and love in Jesus.
What do you think of the infallible Pope, after seeing the papacy promoting two claimed to be skulls of the same “saint”?
Kindly write a short reply, and focus on this point only.”
The Pope is not infallible on his own accord. He is but a mere man, a bishop of Christ. The only time he ever speaks infallibly is when he speaks Ex Cathedra. the last time a Pope did this was a number of decades ago.
to deal with your question shortly as you asked :
The papacy can only speculate on the truth of who these skulls are. One of them is the saint in question. The Pope sternly reminds all Catholics that we are not bound to believe this or to venerate the saint. It is not a doctrine nor a dogma and hence it is not binding upon the faithful of the church. you may venerate the saint and his skull if you so wish.
Jeremiah 5:21 Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:
Jeremiah 5:22 Fear ye not me? saith the LORD: will ye not tremble at my presence, which have placed the sand for the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it: and though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it?
Jeremiah 5:23 But this people hath a revolting and a rebellious heart; they are revolted and gone.
Jeremiah 5:24 Neither say they in their heart, Let us now fear the LORD our God, that giveth rain, both the former and the latter, in his season: he reserveth unto us the appointed weeks of the harvest.
Jeremiah 5:25 Your iniquities have turned away these things, and your sins have withholden good things from you.
“From the reformation? Really.
Do you really believe Moses came down from Mount Sinai, to tell the Jews that He would add something to the 10 commandments?”
i don’t get your point. Nothing was added to the ten commandments.
Again i say that Sola scriptura is from the reformation and was formulated by Martin Luther. the earliest Christians had no bible and only had scriptures a fw decades after the resurrection. how did they practice Sola scriptura f there was no scripture????
they practiced what we Catholics do now —– Scripture (for them was the OT) along with the traditions handed down to them from the apostles.
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. ”
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Amen
Shalom.
I wrote:
Do you really believe Moses came down from Mount Sinai, to tell the Jews that He would add something to the 10 commandments?”
Your reply:
i don’t get your point. Nothing was added to the ten commandments.
My comment:
You are a brave man, trying to defend what is wrong. But this kind of reply, shows that you are simply not interested in obeying the truth.
The Jews have kept the Torah in firm condition for 3.000 years. 98 per cent of the Words give to Moses and the Prophets are the same today. The scrolls of Qumran display a God who have faithful servants on Earth, who do not add “masala” to the instructions He gave them.
Mark 7:13
Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”
In regards to the Papacy, and his servants, there is only eternal shame, pain and agony in the pipeline. By your dogmas and traditions, you have tried your best to make the Word of God, the scriptures, null and void. You have twisted the scriptures, manipulated some verse, and made a mockery out of the true faith.
Those who deny Mary’s perpetual virginity most commonly refer to two texts:
Matthew 13:55-56: Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all of his sisters with us?
Matthew 1:24-25: And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn (Greek. prototokon) son: and he called his name Jesus. (Douay-Rheims)
first, we must understand that the term brother has a wide semantic range in Scripture. It can mean a uterine brother, an extended relative, or even a spiritual brother. In Genesis 13:8 and 14:12, we see one example of brother being used to describe an extended relationship: Abraham and Lot. Though they were actually uncle and nephew, they called one another “brother.” Moreover, in the New Testament, Jesus told us to call one another “brothers” in Matthew 23:8. The passage obviously does not mean to suggest that all Christians have the same physical mother
Second, if we examine more closely the example of James, one of these four “brothers of the Lord” mentioned in Matthew 13:55, we discover him to be a cousin or some other relative of Jesus rather than a uterine brother. For example, Galatians 1:18-19 informs us: “Then after three years I [Paul] went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”
Notice, the “James” of whom Paul was speaking was both a “brother of the Lord” and an “apostle.” There are two apostles named James among the 12. The first James is revealed to be a “son of Zebedee.” He most likely would not be the “James” referred to because according to Acts 12:1-2 he was martyred very early on. Even if it was him, his father was named Zebedee, not Joseph
Paul is referring to the second James who was an apostle, according to Luke 6:15-16. This James is revealed to have a father named Alphaeus, not Joseph. Thus, James the apostle and Jesus were not uterine brothers.
Until Then
Scripture’s statement that Joseph “knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn” would not necessarily mean they did “know” each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, “Until we meet again, God bless you.” Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples:
* 2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
* 1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
* 1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”)
In recent years, some have argued that because Matthew 1:25 uses the Greek words heos hou for “until” whereas the texts I mentioned above from the New Testament use heos alone, there is a difference in meaning. The argument goes that Heos hou indicates the action of the first clause does not continue. Thus, Mary and Joseph “not having come together” would have ended after Jesus was born.
The problems with this theory begin with the fact that no available scholarship concurs with it. In fact, the evidence proves the contrary. Heos hou and heos are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Acts 25:21 should suffice to clear up the matter: “But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until (Gk. heos hou) I could send him to Caesar.”
Does this text mean that Paul would not be held in custody after he was “sent” to Caesar? Not according to the biblical record. He would be held in custody while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in Rome for a time (see Acts 29:16). The action of the main clause did not cease with heos hou.
Sorry for the long
God says: Romans 3:23 says 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
This verse DOES NOT say: For all have sinned, EXCEPT MARY
You wrote: Jesus told us to call one another “brothers” in Matthew 23:8.
My Comment: That does not nullify the fact that Jesus had half siblings.
Matthew 12:46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, HIS MOTHER AND HIS BROTHERS stood outside, asking to speak to him.
But based on your answers Wandalie, all can tell you have chosen to believe the lie of Catholics.
I just read an article this morning, where a priest said, “it is the often the teenage boys who seduce priests.”
To accuse young boys of this wickenedness, makes me sick, and a sign that Christ is coming very soon.
Romans 1
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Gloria I am sorry that your heart has to see and hear such filth yet it is only the heart that is molded by Our Lord can be of any help to any of the ones who really are seeking His Majesty! I use to wonder how knowledge could be painful, till The Lord opened my eyes to the loving heart He has toward all of these ‘sicko’s..and I too was no better for The Word says ‘If you broke one of the Commandments you are guilty of the all’….so when people ask me what did the Lord free me from what sin they want to know..I tell them look in His Word, from Genesis to Revelation and pick one,..(smile) Awesome huh…that we were enemies of The Lord our God and we’re put to work…..Finally ….(smile) and Gloria I just love the pay….”A Penny a Day”…! I think he is over paying me ! (smile)
Shalom.
One of the values of News That Matters, must be to treat deceived souls as a piece of china. Those who search for the truth, will be welcomed on this site.
But those who have rejected the truth, and have arrived to quarrel, they will be shown the door.
There are two major source of deception:
1. Islam:
The Koran teach lies about Jesus. His divinity as eternal God is rejected. Muhammad also told the Arabs that “god” had chosen them to be his people, and that they are the original Jews who came out of Egypt.
2. Roman Catholicism:
Multiple papal dogmas are based on lies. The main issue is that the humanity of Jesus is rejected. He has no human parents. Born by the Holy Spirit, and a sinless pagan goddess. Pure fiction.
In between, we encounter some false teachings here and there. Like the fake Prosperity gospel. There are also some false prophets, that must not be permitted to continue their falsehood.
I have a sister in law who goes to hospitals, nursing homes to preach the Word of God. One day a muslim who had heard her speak about Christ walked up to her, and said, “Tell me about this Jesus that you believe in.”
That same day the man rejected everything that had to do with mohammed, and accepted Jesus Christ as his Savior. (All glory to Jesus forever and always.)
“2. Roman Catholicism:
Multiple papal dogmas are based on lies. The main issue is that the humanity of Jesus is rejected. He has no human parents. Born by the Holy Spirit, and a sinless pagan goddess. Pure fiction.”
The Catholic Church has always taught:
•that Jesus is both God and man,
•that He has both a divine and human nature but that He is one person,
•that He always exists as God the Son, that He is equal to God the Father,
•that He was begotten of the Father; He is not a created being,
•that He was born as a human,
•that He died and rose again,
•that He ascended into heaven,
•that He will come again to judge the living and the dead,
•and that mankind’s salvation is through Christ alone.
The humanity of Jesus is a DOGMA taught by the Catholic Church since the beginning. it defended the Church of Christ against heresies like Monophysitism, Docetism and the Gnostic-Docets.
i don’t know who lied to you about Catholicism but we believe that Jesus had human parents Ivar. THEY WERE CALLED MARY AND JOSEPH.
A sinless pagan goddess? lol this one made me laugh!!!
Mary was sisnless through her immaculate conception for the specific purpose of her being the pure wom from which God will be housed! Jesus Christ our Lord! she was not sinless by her own doing but because of Jesus. this is why Jesus is her saviour too justlike everyone else!
Shalom.
Copies are difficult to discern. A counterfeit currency note looks almost the same an the true, and even have the same elements and graphics. But the validity of the look-a-like symbols are different.
Her are some few examples:
Roman Catholicism teach.
1. The Pope is the “Holy Father”.
1. The truth is that only God the Father is the Holy Father, and only him.
Conclusion: The Holy father of the Christians faith and the “Holy father” of the Roman Catholic religion are not the same.
2. The Pope say the mother of Jesus was ever virgin. Never had sex, and was born without sin.
2. The truth is that the mother of Jesus had many children, obviously had sex with her husband, and was born a sinner like all human beings.
Conclusion: The mother of Jesus of the Bible, and the mother of Jesus of the Roman Catholic religion are not the same.
3. The Pope say that the mother of Jesus is the “Queen of Heaven”
3. The truth is that the Hebrew Bible says the “Queen of heaven” is a pagan goddess, and that the use of this title provokes God of the Bible to anger.
Conclusion: The Queen of Heaven of the Bible and the Queen of heaven of the Roman Catholic religion are not the same. On is a pagan goddess, promoted as “holy” and the “Mother of God”.
4. The Pope says He is the replacement of “Christ” on Earth, the very “vicar of Christ”.
4. The truth us that the Holy Spirit is the only replacement for Jesus on the Earth, and that no man can claim to have this authority.
Conclusion: The Roman Catholic religion is a copy of the truth. They promote a carefully invented religion, that leads people into promotion of blasphemy and sin.
You better repent, or you will surely perish.
“First:
Matthew 23:9
And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
Paul never demanded that anyone should call him father. He said “I became your father”. Than is a radical different message. Nowhere, will you see anyone addressing Paul as “father Paul”. That would be a sin, and making a mockery of the instruction of Master Jesus.”
Discussion: In Matthew 23:9 Jesus says, “And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.” Many people interpret this to mean, “Do not call a priest “father,” and do not call your dad “father.” Some who hold this opinion go further and believe that calling a priest “father” is a sin because it directly violates a command from Jesus. Many Protestants make this a common objection against Catholicism.
If we believe these opinions, then what are we to make of the Scriptures that contradict this one? For example, in Mark 7:9-13, Jesus criticizes the Pharisees and scribes for not honoring their “fathers.” Furthermore, calling the apostles and their successors “father” was common within the early Christian communities (1 Cor. 4:15, 1 Jn. 2:12, Acts 7:2, 22:1). As in the case of all scriptural interpretations, we must understand this passage in light of the rest of Scripture (cf. 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:16). This interpretative principle is called the “analogy of faith” [Catechism of the Catholic Church (Catechism), no. 114].
First, as we’ve seen, the imperative “call no man father” does not apply to one’s biological father. It also doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors “father,” as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to “our father Abraham,” or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of “our father Isaac
a careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally. The whole passage reads, “But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ” (Matt. 23:8–10).
Jesus is not forbidding us to call men “fathers” who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. (See below on the apostolic example of spiritual fatherhood.) To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.
As the apostolic example shows, some individuals genuinely do have a spiritual fatherhood, meaning that they can be referred to as spiritual fathers. What must not be done is to confuse their form of spiritual paternity with that of God. Ultimately, God is our supreme protector, provider, and instructor. Correspondingly, it is wrong to view any individual other than God as having these roles.
sorry for the long post post. hope this helped.God be with you.
Shalom.
Even a child would have understood my comment. But Roman Catholic priest are not able, for an obvious reason. You have sold your souls to the devil.
Roman Catholic theology is the very art of explaining what Jesus said to be something different. And only the Pope shall be trusted.
I have decided to believe Jesus, and obey. You have not.
Ivar you need to do some theolical assesment of the passages you quote or else you will fall in to the trap of flse interperetation
to andere : Well salvation is for all who come to Christ not only in coffession but in humility and worshi. i hope you override your judgemental and close minded tendencies so that you may realise the truth that is right infront of you. the turht of Christ’s One Holy Catholic and A postolic Church
1Kings 14:13 And all Israel shall mourn for him, and bury him: for he only of Jeroboam shall come to the grave, because in him there is found some good thing toward the LORD God of Israel in the house of Jeroboam.
If you look at this scripture you’ll also see another ”gold nugget”…”because in him there is found some good thing toward the LORD God of Israel….” The Lord is so awesome HE sees that which is good and reveals it to His people ..that we too may pray for that person…Wow…
Jesus walked among men, not requiring them to study a catechism to know Him. Put down the books of other men and place your trust in Jesus alone.
Kay
Acts11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
Matt 25:40 “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
CORRECT VERSE…
Matthew 25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
Matthew 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Do you realize that you accept that their decision was inspired by the Holy Spirit?
Do you realize that Martin Luther, a Catholic priest, got his Bible from the Catholic Church, tore out seven books, and invented the first protestant Bible, something that hadnt existed since Christ built his Church on the rock, nor did it exist before that.
By accepting martin Luther’s decision to remove the Apocrypha(Deuterocanonicals), you are saying that the people who put together your New Testament, made a mistake, and Martin Luther, infallibly corrected that mistake. (“Even Martin Luther called the Letter of James “an epistle of straw,”…)
He also had harsh words for the Revelation of St. John, saying that he could “in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.”
from his Table Talk Contents) In his translation of the New Testament, Luther moved Hebrews and James out of the usual order, to join Jude and the Revelation at the end, and differentiated these from the other books which he considered “the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. “)
You believe this, which has no Scriptural support, yet you claim the Bible to be the sole authority.
You trust Luther the the priest who violated his promise of celibacy to God, and married a runaway nun who also took a vow of chastity, a man who instituted the faith alone Doctrine, a Doctrine condemned by Scripture and by our Lord himself, a man who even changed certain words of Scripture when he invented the Protestant Bible, a error of his, that protestants later had to correct.
Plus many of you might be quoting King James Verison of the Bible! Also a Catholic product! In England today the COMPLETE KJV does have the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals. In fact, it is illegal in the UK to print one without them. I admit, however, it’s tricky to find a complete KJV in USA! So funny how you all use quotes of scripture which Chapters, verses, and ect……were all made by the Roman Catholic Church!!! Hahaha
Shalom, and love in Jesus.
My guess is that you are trying to be critical to the doctrine of Sola scripture, as the highest authority in matters of faith.
First: What else do you want to add to scripture, to get the perfect revelation from God?
If you are here to debate, please answer me.
To Ivar!
The Protestants have seven less books. The Christian Church always and everywhere included them in their canons up until the European Protestants decided that the Jewish canon – which also excludes the New Testament – would be their Old Testament.
The Protestants refused to include those seven books for several reasons, two of which are: 1) they are not accepted by the Jews and 2) they teach doctrines that go against Protestantism.
Well, the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were written between 250 BC and 70 AD included the deuterocanonical books (Google Dead Sea Scrolls).
The city of Alexandria in Egypt possessed the greatest library of the ancient world and during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 BC), a translation of the entire Hebrew Bible into Greek was begun by 70 or 72 Jewish scholars (6 from each of the 12 tribes). The Septuagint is Latin for 70 (this is why the Septuagint is often referred to as LXX). Greek was the common language at the time and Hebrew was dying out and being replaced by Aramaic. This is further evident by the fact that we know that the Jews at the time of Christ were quiet familiar with the Aramaic language as well as the Greek. The Hebrew canon (where Protestants get their Bible) was established by Jewish rabbis at Jamnia Palestine in about the year 100 AD. The Jews at Jamnia rejected the seven books from the Hebrew canon (found in the LXX) chiefly on the grounds that they could not find any Hebrew versions of these books which the LXX supposedly translated into Greek. These Rabbis used 4 criteria to determining which books would be included in their new canon:
1) It had to be written in Hebrew
2) It had to conform with the Torah
3) It had to be older than the time of Ezra (400 BC)
4) It had to have been written in Palestine
During the time that these Rabbis were trying to compile their new canon, the relatively new cult of Christianity was growing among the Jews and Gentiles alike. The majority of these upstarts continued to use the Greek translation (the LXX) and this caused great concern amongst the Rabbis who viewed this new religion as a threat to Judaism. A separation needed to take place between the ancient Jewish religion and Christianity, and this new canon was a good place to take a stand.
Here are some others facts concerning the LXX that Protestants never seem to like to bring up:
1) Martin Luther actually included the 7 books in his first German translation.
2) The first King James Version (1611) included them as well.
3) The first Bible ever printed, the Guttenberg Bible (printed a century BEFORE the council of Trent) included them.
4) Luther in his writings on the New Testament, noted that the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were inferior to the rest, and they followed “the certain, main books of the New Testament.” In 1519, this same attitude fueled his debate against Johannes Eck on the topic of purgatory. Luther undermined Eck’s proof text of 2 Maccabees 12 by devaluing the deuterocanonical books as a whole. He argued that the New Testament authors had never quoted from the seven books, so they were in a different class than the rest of the Bible (never mind the fact that eight other Old Testament books such as the Song of Songs were also not quoted in the New Testament).
5) These seven books were included in almost every Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised them in 1825. Until then, they had been included at least in an appendix of Protestant Bibles. It is historically demonstrable that Catholics did not add the books, Protestants took them out.
Now this is called Research and Sources which some of you don’t do!!!
Let say a person accepted Christ. Subsequently he experienced sincere hunger for righteousness. He lived a life that pattern after the life of Jesus. He lived a life that was confirming excellently to 2 Pet 1:4-11. He continued to live this life for 30 years, one day without fail.
Then his wife died suddenly and he lost his job. He could not get over it. In the course of trying to recover after experiencing his sudden misfortune, he became ‘stray’ and mixed with wrong company because it so happened that these people were there for him at that oppurtune moment. He eventually delved into sin and became non-believer.
Is this person saved?
or this I ‘ve heard!!!
I once asked someone who professed OSAS whether, if Billy Graham were to go on a one-day spree of robbery and murder after his long life spent bringing people to Christ, would he be saved?
The answer was that, in that case, he had never been saved to begin with!
“I accept Jesus Christ as my personal Savior.” This makes it sound like the “magic words” that unlock the gates of Heaven. And, in my searching days, I met several people who seemed to think that those words were some kind of formula for salvation. Where is that in the Bible?
Before I go, though, I have not found anywhere that says ‘I accept Jesus Christ my personal Savior. yet it is an acceptable question and in some denominations it’s expected as a requirement. Jesus said ‘Repent and Believe’ …his Disciples also said the same ‘Repent and Believe’…You don’t have to do 7 Hail Mary’s and swing a bloody headless-chicken over your head while reciting the Lords’ prayer or any other such man made rhetoric.
It’s simple ‘Believe in your heart …you and your house shall be saved’….
Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Your comment: I accept Jesus Christ as my personal Savior.” This makes it sound like the “magic words” that unlock the gates of Heaven. And, in my searching days, I met several people who seemed to think that those words were some kind of formula for salvation. Where is that in the Bible?
My comment:—Acts 13:38-39 Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses.
As to you obvious love of the roman Catholic church, they are guilty of many sins, with idolatry being at the very forefront.
I always wonder why Catholics cannot turn away from praising statues and dead bones. It is clear in the Word of God this is something not of God, but of man and filled with evil.
God stated it early on. Exodus 20:3-6 “You shall have no other gods before me. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Then he stated it again.
1 John 5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols.
Jonah 2:8 Those who pay regard to vain idols forsake their hope of steadfast love.
And again.
Galatians 5:19-21 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
In various forms. Yet, the pope, catholics, and other false religions refuse to ignore God, and continue praising something that is dead, and can do nothing for you.
But thank you Jesus for you are ALIVE AND COMING SOON!
Why do so many “protestants” get disillusioned, and become romanists instead?
Answer:-
Because they didnt have an encounter with Almighty God, there was no fire, no power, no presence (of Almighty God at any rate)
In the shrines and temples they once went to to worship in there was no conviction of sin, righteousness or judgement. No proper preaching of the full gospel of salvation healing and deliverance. Rather, bible criticism, lots of theological opinions and social events. God never changes, He is the same yesterday, today, and forever more. When he speaks the earth shakes.
Even now, today as I type, the xian chuirches of the western world have become dry, dead, empty; revelling in their many and varied forms of godliness that deny the power therof. Empty ways of life handed down to us by our forefathers (especially patristic and also rabbinic ones…) Taken captive by hollow and deceptive philosphy that depends on human tradition rather than on Christ. Compromising with worldiness, revelling in entertainment, tolerating, condoning, even celebrating sin and unrighteous lifestyle choices….Rife with anti semitism, false prophecy, jezebel and replacement theology. Our God is a consuming fire….
The trump card of the romanist stiff necked proud and arrogant bigot has been, and always will be, the threat (or eventual actuality) of violence, torture and death directed at dissenters. It is a religion of oppression and voodoo induced deceptions. Yeshua WONT be setting foot on the 7 hills of rome, rather he will descend onto the Mount of Olives in Israel. Rome is not the centre of the world. The pope is not the head of the church.
Shalom, Jonathan
Cuba: Pope blesses “Virgin” Yemaya and witchcraft
March 24, 2012Black Yemaya from Nigeria came up from the sea with a white boy. In Cuba she merged with Roman Catholic Lady of Regla, “Our Lady of charity”.
In Cuba you can find the patroness presented in the same city with different skin colors. The Cuban origin of the Goddess is Yemaya. She came with the slaves across the Atlantic from Nigeria.
The negres came up from the sea with a little white boy in her hands. Also the Hispanic version of this goddess of Cuba came up from the sea. But the Roman Catholic Church did not like the mix of white and black colors in the idols of mother and son. So on the official Vatican ikons the mother is rather dusky.
Lets take a deeper look at this goddess of syncretism:
Source: Hemisphere Institute.org
On of the challenges for the Pope is to face all the Cuba “Espiritistas”. They are mediums who use prayer to the patroness together with Tarot cards. These Cuban ladies are nothing but modern day witches. Here is a typical cross-faith prayer in Cuba. It underline that the “black madonna” came from across the sea. In other words: An African.
You will not find a better proof of witchcraft from Africa being mixed into Catholicism. But for all who have the Pope as their “Holy father” is will not make a difference. The Pontiff might be color blind, but is still infallible.
For all who know Messianic Judaism: To present this kind of prostitute as the Mother of Jesus, is a tasteless, laughable abomination.
For all who know what the Spaniard did with the female negro slaves among them: The image of this African lady with a small Spaniard on her arms, makes perfectly sense.
Still people will continue to claim that this whore of Babylon is the “Mother of God”, and the “Queen of Heaven”.
Written by Ivar