S
SIA
Guest
Rev. 12 says Mary? Not in my Bible.
- Status
S
SIA
Guest
You are making assertions that Mary is being referred to in Revelation. There is nothing that specifically says that.
R
RobGentner
Guest
**
Hi SIA, Since 2002 the Luminous Mysteries have become my favorite.
The Site: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosary has some very interesting facts about the rosary. At the 40 Days for life we pray the rosary to end abortion. Every tuesday night we go to church and pray for vocations and end of abortion. I also pray a personal rosary everyday to end abortion. The “funny” thing is I do not consider myself tohave a prayful enough lifestyle. .
I know that many converts have problems with Marian Devotion.
I attempt to tell them that:“Since Mary is of all creatures the one most conformed to Jesus Christ, it follows that among all devotions that which most consecrates and conforms a soul to our Lord is devotion to Mary, his Holy Mother, and that the more a soul is consecrated to her the more will it be consecrated to Jesus Christ.” — Saint Louis de Montfort:
The rosary is prayed separately and is usually not necessarily a part of a Marian devotion, although Hail-Marys are included.
GOD BLESS
**
R
RobGentner
Guest
**SIA, You are being sola scriptura in your thinking.:nope:
Even Stevey Wonder and Ray Charles could see it is refering to Mary
Remember that since you swam the Thames you adopted the RCC and our teachings as your new beliefs! :yup:
Jimmy Adkins, sums up the Catholic belief very well in this article:
THE WOMAN OF REVELATION 12
By James Akin **
“And a great portent appeared in heaven, a Woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. . . .
There is a lot of debate about what the symbol of this Woman represents. Different aspects of the symbol point to different possible meanings for it.
Unfortunately, most of the debate over what the Woman represents is misdirected because it does not take into account the way that Revelation uses symbolism.
The vision contains “fusion imagery,” in which one symbol is composed of elements from several different things. For example, the four living creatures John sees around God’s throne (4:6–8) are a fusion of elements from the cherubim seen in Ezekiel (Ezek. 10:1–14) and the seraphim seen in Isaiah (Isa. 6:1–5).
Similarly, the priest-elders John sees around the throne (4:4) are numbered twenty-four because they are a fusion of the twelve patriarchs of Israel and the twelve apostles of Jesus, a symbolism which occurs at the end of the book (21:12–14), where New Jerusalem is seen to have twelve foundations with the names of the twelve apostles and twelve gates with the names of the twelve patriarchs.
The beast from the sea in chapter 13 is a fusion of elements from the all four of the beasts the prophet Daniel saw emerge from the sea in chapter 7 of his book.
Polyvalent symbolism, in which symbols have more than one meaning, also is part of Revelation’s imagery. For example, the seven heads of the beast are said to be both seven mountains (Rev. 17:9) and seven kings (17:10).
The Woman in Revelation 12 is part of the fusion imagery/polyvalent symbolism that is found in the book. She has four referents: Israel, the Church, Eve, and Mary.
She is Israel because she is associated with the sun, the moon, and twelve stars. These symbols are drawn from Genesis 37:9–11, in which the patriarch Joseph has a dream of the sun and moon (symbolizing his father and mother) and stars (representing his brothers), which bow down to him. Taken together, the sun, moon, and twelve stars symbolize the people of Israel.
The Woman is the Church because, as 12:17 tells us, “the rest of her offspring” are those who bear witness to Jesus, making them Christians.
The Woman is Eve because she is part of the three-way conflict also involving her Seed and the Dragon, who is identified with the ancient serpent (the one from Eden) in 20:2. This mirrors the conflict in Genesis 3:15 between Eve, the serpent, and her unborn seed—which in turn is a symbol of the conflict between Mary, Satan, and Jesus.
Finally, the Woman is Mary because she is the mother of Jesus, the child who will rule the nations with a rod of iron (19:11–16).
Because the Woman is a four-way symbol, different aspects of the narrative apply to different referents. Like Mary, she is pictured as being in heaven and she flies (mirroring Mary’s Assumption). Like the Church, she is persecuted by the Devil after the Ascension of Christ. Like Israel, she experiences great trauma as the Messiah is brought forth (figuratively) from the nation. And like Eve, it is her (distant) seed with which the serpent has his primary conflict.
Conversely, portions of the narrative do not apply to each referent. Mary did not experience literal pain when bringing forth the Messiah, but she suffered figuratively (the prophecy that a sword would pierce her heart at the Crucifixion). Eve did not ascend to heaven. And the Church did not bring forth the Messiah (rather, the Messiah brought forth his Church).
G
Gara3987
Guest
All I have to say to you is read chapter twenty-one of the Apocalypse of Saint John, that entire Chapter is on Our Blessed Mother.
What does Apoc. 4, 3 mean? what is it talking about?
And he that sat, was to the sight like the jasper and the sardine stone; and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald. [Apoc. 4, 3]
This one verse is explaining the Life and Creation of The Blessed Virgin Mary. She was born without Original Sin, She was to be perfect as our Lord was to be born from her. Why would our Lord God want to have His Onlybegotten born of a creature that is impure? The best way to describe this one verse is in the words of Venerable Maria de Agreda:
The life of this Phœnix (the Blessed Virgin Mary) among the works of God is a book so sealed up that none is found among all the creatures of heaven and earth, worthy to open it (Apoc. 4, 3). It is evident then, that only the powerful Lord can unseal it; He who made Her more perfect than all the creatures; or She herself, the Mistress, our Queen and Mother, who was worthy to receive and properly to appreciate her ineffable gifts.
What is sad is that you act as if God is incapable of performing certain actions, as if He is limited to your understanding. Because you don’t understand it [when it is even in scripture, though it is hard to understand it (II Peter 3, 16) and your private interpretation is not sufficient (2 Peter 1, 20) , for if it was you wouldn’t be asking these type of questions] it doesn’t exist. God is God, He created everything from nothing, who are you to say that it is not possible for His Mother, and Spouse to be born with Sanctifying Grace. You don’t seem to understand the Scriptures very well because you would understand that they are not the ultimate authority, and that Tradition came before Scriptures. Even the Scriptures talk about Tradition:
Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. (II Thess. II, XIV)
you could also look up (Matth. 15:2, 3, 6; Mark 7:3, 5, 8, 9, 13; Luke 1:2; Acts 16:4; 1Cor. 11:2, 23; 15:3; 1Ptr. 1:18; 2Ptr. 2:21.)
You would also understand that the Scriptures are not complete: “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.” (John 21, 25)
At any rate Something that Saint Michael Said to Lucifer before he cast him into hell:
Code:
“Worthy is the Highest of honor, praise and reverence, and of being loved, feared and obeyed by all creation. He is mighty to work whatever He desires. He that is increate and without dependence on any other being, cannot seek any thing that is not most just. To us He gave grace such as we have, creating us and forming us out of nothing. He can create other beings, as many and in what manner He pleases. It is reasonable that we, submissive and prostrate in his presence, adore his Majesty and kingly grandeur. Come then, ye angels, follow me, let us adore Him, and extol his admirable and secret judgments, his most perfect and holy works. God is most exalted and above all creatures, and He would not be the Most High, if we could attain or comprehend his great works. Infinite He is in wisdom and goodness, rich in the treasures of his benefits. As Lord of all and needing none, He can distribute them to whomsoever He wishes, and He cannot err in the selection. He can love and confer his favor to whomsoever He chooses, and He can love whom He likes; He can raise up, create and enrich according as it is his good pleasure. In all things He will be wise, holy and irresistible. Let us adore and thank Him for the wonderful work of the Incarnation which He has decreed, and for his favors to his people and for its restoration to grace after its fall. Let us adore this Person endowed with the human and the divine nature, let us reverence It and accept It as our Head; let us confess, that He is worthy of all glory, praise and magnificence, and, as the Author of grace, let us give Him glory and acknowledge his power and Divinity.”-Saint Michael The Archangel-
Code:
“While they argue from the Scriptures, they make poor exhibition of the Scriptures... because truth cannot be found by those who do not know Tradition, for not through writing, but by the living voice, Tradition was delivered.” Saint Irenæus (born between 135 – 140 Anno Domini., Smyrna / died 202 Anno Domini., Lyons., disciple of Saint Polycarp)
G
Gara3987
Guest
That is very interesting, it is true that it has multiple meanings, it is also past tense.**SIA, You are being sola scriptura in your thinking.:nope:
Even Stevey Wonder and Ray Charles could see it is refering to Mary
Remember that since you swam the Thames you adopted the RCC and our teachings as your new beliefs! :yup:
Jimmy Adkins, sums up the Catholic belief very well in this article:
THE WOMAN OF REVELATION 12
By James Akin **
"And a great portent appeared in heaven, a Woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under …
Code:
Of the earth Moses says, that it was void, which he does not say of the heavens; for God had created the angels at the instant indicated by the word of Moses: God said: Let there be light, and light was made.” He speaks here not only of material light, but also of the intellectual or angelic lights. He does not make express mention of them, but merely includes them in this word, on account of the proclivity of the Hebrews to attribute Divinity to new things, even of much greater inferiority than the angels. But the metaphor of light was very appropriate to signify the angelic nature and mystically, the light of their science and grace, with which they were endowed at their creation. God created the earth conjointly with the heavens, in order to call into existence hell in its centre; for, at the instant of its creation, there were left in the interior of that globe spacious and wide cavities, suitable for hell, purgatory and limbo. And in hell was created at the same time material fire and other requisites, which now serve for the punishment of the damned. The Lord was presently to divide the light from the darkness and to call the light day and the darkness night. And this did happen not only in regard to the natural night and day, but in regard to the good and bad angels; for to the good, He gave the eternal light of his vision and called it day, the eternal day; and to the bad, the night of sin, casting them into the eternal darkness of hell. Thus we were to be taught the intimate relation between the merciful liberality of the Creator and Vivifier and the justice of the most just Judge in punishment.
In the second place, the angels were informed that God was to create a human nature and reasoning creatures lower than themselves, in order that they too should love, fear and reverence God, as their Author and eternal Good. They were informed that these were to stand in high favor, and that the second Person of the blessed Trinity was to become incarnate and assume their nature, raising it to the hypostatic union and to divine Personality; that therefore they were to acknowledge Him as their Head, not only as God, but as God and man, adoring Him and reverencing Him as Godman. Moreover, these same angels were to be his inferiors in dignity and grace and were to be his servants. God gave them an intelligence of the propriety and equity, of the justice and reasonableness of such a position. For the acceptation of the merits foreseen of this Mangod was exhibited to them as the source of the grace which they now possessed and of the glory which they were to obtain. They understood also that they themselves had been, and all the rest of the creatures should be created for his glory, and that He was to be their Head. All those that were capable of knowing and enjoying God, were to be the people of the Son of God, to know and reverence Him as their Chief. These commands were at once given to the angels.
To this command all the obedient and holy angels, submitted themselves and they gave their full assent and acknowledgment with a humble and loving subjection of the will. But Lucifer, full of envy and pride, resisted and induced his followers to resist likewise, as they in reality did, preferring to follow him and disobey the divine command. This wicked prince persuaded them, that he would be their chief and that he would set up a government independent and separate from Christ. So great was the blindness which envy and pride could cause in an angel, and so pernicious was the infection that the contagion of sin spread among innumerable other angels.
Then happened that great battle in heaven, which St. John describes (Apoc. 12). For the obedient and holy angels, filled with an ardent desire of hastening the glory of the Most High and the honor of the incarnate Word, asked permission and, as it were, the consent of God, to resist and contradict the dragon, and the permission was granted. But also another mystery was concealed in all this: When it was revealed to the angels that they would have to obey the incarnate Word, another, a third precept was given them, namely, that they were to admit as a superior conjointly with Him, a Woman, in whose womb the Onlybegotten of the Father was to assume flesh and that this Woman was to be the Queen and Mistress of all the creatures. The good angels by obeying this command of the Lord, with still increasing and more alert humility, freely subjected themselves, praising the power and the mysteries of the Most High. Lucifer, however, and his confederates, rose to a higher pitch of pride and boastful insolence. In disorderly fury he aspired to be himself the head of all the human race and of the angelic orders, and if there was to be a hypostatic union, he demanded that it be consummated in him.Ven Maria de Agreda
R
RobGentner
Guest
** Gara - I will save you time; READ THE UNDERLINED PARTS!
This “Divine History of the Mother of God” was first conceived in 1627; It was printed in Madrid, in 1670. Its lengthy title contains no less than ninety words. “The Mystical City” purports to be the account of special revelations, which the author declares were made to her by God, Who, after raising her to a state of sublime contemplation, commanded :her to write it, and then revealed to her these profound mysteries. She declares that God gave her at first six angels to guide her, the number being afterwards increased to eight, who, having purified her, led her into the presence of the Lord. She then beheld the Blessed Virgin, as she is described in the Apocalypse, and saw also all the various stages of her life: how when she came into the world In the twentieth chapter she describes all that happened to the Blessed Virgin during the nine months she was in her mother’s womb; and tells how, when she was three years old, she swept the house with the help of the angels. The fifteenth chapter enters into many details, which by some were denounced as indecent. Görres, on the other hand, while expressing his admiration for the wonderful depth of its speculations, finds that the style is in the bad taste of the period, pompous and strained, and very wearisome in the prolixity of the moral applications appended to each chapter.
The book did not attract much attention outside of Spain until Croset, a Recollect friar, translated and published the first part of it, at Marseilles, 1696. This was the signal of a storm, which broke out especially in the Sorbonne. It had already been condemned in Rome, 4 August, 1681, by the Congregation of the Inquisition, and Innocent XI had forbidden the reading of it, but, at the instance of Charles II, suspended execution of the decree for Spain. But Croset’s translation transgressed the order, and caused it to be referred to the Sorbonne, 2 May, 1696. According to Hergenröther, Kirchengeschichte (trad. franc., 1892, V, vi, p. 418), it was studied from the 2d to the 14th of July, and thirty-two sessions were held during which 132 doctors spoke. It was condemned 17 July, 102 out of 152 members of the commission voting against the book. It was found that
it gave more weight to the revelations alleged to have been received than to the mystery of the Incarnation; that it adduced new revelations which the Apostles themselves could not have supported; that it applied the term ‘adoration’ to Mary; that it referred all her graces to the Immaculate Conception; that it attributed to her the government of the Church; that it designated her in every respect the Mother of Mercy and the Mediatrix of Grace, and pretended that St. Ann had not contracted sin in her birth, besides a number of other imaginary and scandalous assertions. This censure was confirmed on the 1st of October. The Spanish Cardinal Aguirre, although a friend of Bossuet who fully approved the censure, strove to have it annulled, and expressed his opinion that the Sorbonne could easily do so, as their judgment was. based on a bad translation. Bossuet denounced it as “an impious impertinence, and a trick of the devil.” He objected to its title, The Divine Life, to its apocryphal stories, its indecent language, and its exaggerated Scotist philosophy. However, although this appreciation is found in Bossuet’s works (Œuvres, Versailles, 1817, XXX, pp. 637-640, and XL, pp. 172 and 204-207), it is of questionable authenticity. As to the reproach of indecency, her defenders allege that, although there may be some crudities of expression Which more recent times would not admit, it is absurd to bring such an accusation against one whose sanctity is generally conceded. Near investigations of the book were made in 1729, under Benedict XIII, when her canonization was again urged. On 16 January, 1748, Benedict XIV, in a letter which La Fuente, in his Historia eclesiástica de España, finds “sumamente curiosa”, wrote to the General of the Observantines instructing him as to the investigation of the authenticity of the writings, while conceding that the book had received the approbation of the Universities of Salamanca, Alcalá, Toulouse, and Louvain. It had meantime been fiercely assailed by Eusebius Amort, a canon of Pollingen, in 1744, in a work entitled De revelationibus, visionibus, et apparitionibus privatis, regulae tutae, which, though at first imperfectly answered by Mathes, a Spaniards, and by Maier, a Bavarian, to both of whom Amort replied, was subsequently refuted in another work by Mathes, who showed that in eighty places Amort had not understood the Spanish text of Maria de Agreda. With Mathes, in this exculpation, was P. Dalmatius Kich, who published, at Ratisbon, 1750, his Revelationum Agredanarum justa defensio, cum moderamine inculpatae tutelae. Hergenröther, in his Kirchengeschichte (trad. franc., VI, p. 416 – V. Palmé, Paris, 1892), informs us that the condemnation of the book by the Roman Inquisition, in 1681, was thought to have come from the fact either that, in its publication, the Decree of Urban VIII, of 14 March, 1625, had been disregarded, or because it contained apocryphal stories, and maintained opinions of the Scotist school as Divine revelations. Some condemned her for exaggerating the devotion to the Blessed Virgin and for obscuring the mystery of the Incarnation. **
R
RobGentner
Guest
**
My brother Tony
Post #748: SIA said : "Okay, fair enough. Let me start by asking you if you agree with what Fr. Corapi did say. As far as what I believe; I believe that Mary is the greatest woman who ever lived. I believe that she is foremost of all the Saints in Heaven. She and the Saints pray with us to God. I love Mary for her “yes”.
I think SIA is bipolar or got water on the brain while swimming the Thames.:bounce: Read back in his postings. illogical is one word that fits.:takeoff:
He seems like a nice person,:hug3: I enjoy waiting to see which side he will be on the next posting!
Vivat Jesus:knight1: GK Rob**
S
Sailka
Guest
brother GK Rob,
(1) Have Green Tea in Belly. :coffeeread: Tastes better than water on the brain.
(2) Have trouble reading/typing forward. Am not about to try to read backward! :hypno:
(3) I can verify SIA is a Real Nice Person!
What Proof? The Church says so, and we love him as brother in Christ. :hug1:
(4) Am also curious to see SIA’s next posting, with same breathlessness as next Lines by Fr Groeschell or Fr Corapi. Tried Fr Groeschell, SIA?
Humor Rules, conquers all!
Vivat Jesus. :knight1:
brother Tony
R
RobGentner
Guest
Then two threads later SIA says:
**“You are making assertions that Mary is being referred to in Revelation. There is nothing that specifically says that” **** A strange one, that SIA. His Meds wore off is my guess. **
**Br Tony,
On Thread : Is killing in war justified? One guy, JosephDavid is almost going crazy.:whacky: He is trying to understand me! :extrahappy:
He is a bleed heart wanting us to right the “wrongs of past ages”. So I recommended HE sells everything he has and pay to obtain healthcare for all the children in his area (That seems to be his biggest concern…Not abortion. His priority is healthcare after the children are born!
) I have quoted scripture to him in attempts to get him to give up all HIS worldly possessions before he tells us to provide healthcare to 8 million children. Would believe it? He called me arrogant!
Imagine that! Me? Arrogant!:dancing: Boy, the nerve of some people!Actually, JosephDavid and I have had some very interesting :coffeeread: conversations.
I have recommended that everyone Vote for him this year as our “Dictator”
That way he could impose his will on all of us.Tony, come to the Thread and visit. It is a “fun” Thread even though JosephDavid wouldn’t agree. He doesn’t want it to be! :extrahappy:
How he got from this subject: Is killing in war justified? to providing Healthcare and wanting us to defend other nations and give back land to Indians is fun to read!
later
Br Rob
**
S
SIA
Guest
**SIA, You are being sola scriptura in your thinking.:nope:
Even Stevey Wonder and Ray Charles could see it is refering to Mary
Remember that since you swam the Thames you adopted the RCC and our teachings as your new beliefs! :yup:
Jimmy Adkins, sums up the Catholic belief very well in this article:
THE WOMAN OF REVELATION 12
By James Akin **
“And a great portent appeared in heaven, a Woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. . . .he brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne. . . . Then the dragon was angry with the Woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus” (Rev. 12:1–2, 5, 17).
There is a lot of debate about what the symbol of this Woman represents. Different aspects of the symbol point to different possible meanings for it.
Unfortunately, most of the debate over what the Woman represents is misdirected because it does not take into account the way that Revelation uses symbolism.
The vision contains “fusion imagery,” in which one symbol is composed of elements from several different things. For example, the four living creatures John sees around God’s throne (4:6–8) are a fusion of elements from the cherubim seen in Ezekiel (Ezek. 10:1–14) and the seraphim seen in Isaiah (Isa. 6:1–5).
Similarly, the priest-elders John sees around the throne (4:4) are numbered twenty-four because they are a fusion of the twelve patriarchs of Israel and the twelve apostles of Jesus, a symbolism which occurs at the end of the book (21:12–14), where New Jerusalem is seen to have twelve foundations with the names of the twelve apostles and twelve gates with the names of the twelve patriarchs.
The beast from the sea in chapter 13 is a fusion of elements from the all four of the beasts the prophet Daniel saw emerge from the sea in chapter 7 of his book.
Polyvalent symbolism, in which symbols have more than one meaning, also is part of Revelation’s imagery. For example, the seven heads of the beast are said to be both seven mountains (Rev. 17:9) and seven kings (17:10).
The Woman in Revelation 12 is part of the fusion imagery/polyvalent symbolism that is found in the book. She has four referents: Israel, the Church, Eve, and Mary.
She is Israel because she is associated with the sun, the moon, and twelve stars. These symbols are drawn from Genesis 37:9–11, in which the patriarch Joseph has a dream of the sun and moon (symbolizing his father and mother) and stars (representing his brothers), which bow down to him. Taken together, the sun, moon, and twelve stars symbolize the people of Israel.
The Woman is the Church because, as 12:17 tells us, “the rest of her offspring” are those who bear witness to Jesus, making them Christians.
The Woman is Eve because she is part of the three-way conflict also involving her Seed and the Dragon, who is identified with the ancient serpent (the one from Eden) in 20:2. This mirrors the conflict in Genesis 3:15 between Eve, the serpent, and her unborn seed—which in turn is a symbol of the conflict between Mary, Satan, and Jesus.
Finally, the Woman is Mary because she is the mother of Jesus, the child who will rule the nations with a rod of iron (19:11–16).
Because the Woman is a four-way symbol, different aspects of the narrative apply to different referents. Like Mary, she is pictured as being in heaven and she flies (mirroring Mary’s Assumption). Like the Church, she is persecuted by the Devil after the Ascension of Christ. Like Israel, she experiences great trauma as the Messiah is brought forth (figuratively) from the nation. And like Eve, it is her (distant) seed with which the serpent has his primary conflict.
Conversely, portions of the narrative do not apply to each referent. Mary did not experience literal pain when bringing forth the Messiah, but she suffered figuratively (the prophecy that a sword would pierce her heart at the Crucifixion). Eve did not ascend to heaven. And the Church did not bring forth the Messiah (rather, the Messiah brought forth his Church).
Okay, hold on here. This has nothing to do with sola scriptura. This whole premise is being way over used here. If Scripture doesn’t depict this as Mary, who has the authority to go ahead and say that it does? How do they know? It goes beyond sense and reason. Scripture is the Word of God, unchanged for 2000 years. The truth doesn’t change ever. Sola Scriptura is on Mars for all I care.
R
RobGentner
Guest
Okay, hold on here. This has nothing to do with sola scriptura.
**Then for Gosh sake (Aside:" People that don’t believe in Gosh, are going to heck!") don’t ask, “where does it say” … This or That in scripture! That my friend is the first stage of soloscripturias! (A new disease I just discovered!**
This whole premise is being way over used here.
**Amen! I wish that people would stop using it to argue. Where does it say that in scripture? How do we know it is Her? Boy the way some people abuse the scripture. It does make you wonder doesn’t it? They aren’t 100% with us, they probably on Mars or some other place! **
If Scripture doesn’t depict this as Mary, who has the authority to go ahead and say that it does?
The RCC. And unless you are a strict believer in solo scriptura, our beliefs are backed up by scripture (Rev. 12:1–2, 5, 17) That plus our church’s interpertation of the facts as revealed by God to His church.
How do they know?
** Actually, God told them! **
It goes beyond sense and reason.
**SIA in all Christian kindness, what would you know about sense and reason? :angel1: Yes, God is a mystery and He goes beyond sense and reason. After all He is God. Psssss…Mary is His Mother! :tsktsk: Be careful, He may get pissed at you! **
Scripture is the Word of God, unchanged for 2000 years.
SIA , that is a false statement. Nuts change the Bible everyday. They twist the words or even go as far as to print new bibles changing the words. Why they even deny what the Catholic Church teaches saying show me where it says that in the Bible! Then when shown, the stupid people deny that is what it says. Crazy aren’t they? :whacky: The RCC decides what it true and what we should believe. Thank God, all we have to do is the easy part. We only have to believe by FAITH what God has revealed.
The truth doesn’t change ever.
**That is true unless you are human and then: Truth is perception and Perception is truth. Your truth might not be my truth. But God’s Truth never changes!
Sola Scriptura is on Mars for all I care.
**Yea, By the way, I was going to ask you. What color is the sky there?
Anyway my head is hurting. Repeating myself gives me a headache for some reason! :banghead:
Are you sure you finished your swim?People that swam the Thames accepts the RCC and our teachings as their own beliefs! **
S
Sailka
Guest
:compcoff:
Revelation depicting Mary is not an ‘authority decision’. Its Common sense, and very best guess, as brother Rob disertatted extensivelly and expansivelly. :ehh: :yawn:
Yes, Scripture is the Word of God, but was not written in modern English. Luckily our Church Fathers wrote the words, and we know the Contexts and meanings from them. Like was no Aramaic word for cousin, uncle, follower, so the modern ethnic word brother, sister were used then.
Vivat Jesus.
:bible1: Tony
:tiphat: Welcome back SIA. We worried about not seeing you a few days.
Revelation depicting Mary is not an ‘authority decision’. Its Common sense, and very best guess, as brother Rob disertatted extensivelly and expansivelly. :ehh: :yawn:Yes, Scripture is the Word of God, but was not written in modern English. Luckily our Church Fathers wrote the words, and we know the Contexts and meanings from them. Like was no Aramaic word for cousin, uncle, follower, so the modern ethnic word brother, sister were used then.
Vivat Jesus.
:bible1: Tony
R
RobGentner
Guest
Welcome back SIA. We worried about not seeing you a few days.
**We Did? OK! SIGH, I will admit it :sad_yes: , **
Revelation depicting Mary is not an ‘authority decision’. Its Common sense…
**Hey wait, SIA said it doesn’t make sense! Are you saying SIA has no common sense?**
… and very best guess,…
**Actually, It is not a “guess” Tony. **
… as brother Rob disertatted extensivelly and expansivelly.
**HEY! Are you calling me verbose?:bounce: **
Yes, Scripture is the Word of God, but was not written in modern English. Luckily our Church Fathers wrote the words, and we know the Contexts and meanings from them. Like was no Aramaic word for cousin, uncle, follower, so the modern ethnic word brother, sister were used then. **NOW you have done it! Here comes another argument! Thanks a lot!**
** Tony, Be careful, I could report you to the Supreme Knight! :bigyikes: :knight1:
I predict that SIA will soon be arguring with himself!:extrahappy: Here is a sample posting: **
**Quote SIA: I love Mary~!
Quote SIA: Where does it say you can love her in scripture? **
Quote SIA: Mary is the Mother of God and deserves our Love!
Quote SIA: "You are making assertions that Mary wants to be loved. There is nothing in Revelations that specifically says that
Quote SIA: I just believe it!
Quote SIA: Solo Scriptura! solo scriptura, solo scriptura!!!
**You have to love the guy!**
P
Peter_J
Guest
Isn’t there a forum rule against abusive posting?
R
RobGentner
Guest
**Good catch Pete!Isn’t there a forum rule against abusive posting?
Of course there is! :sad_yes: I noticed it first and told Sailka! I corrected Sailka when he “insinuated” that SIA had no common sense! :whacky: : SIA is a very nice guy he just changes his mind every other posting!He is my buddy! Why Tony even had the nerve to said I talk to much. But I forgive him!With you and me on the ball, Pete, we will make sure no one gets abusive! :ehh:
I will keep an eye on Sailka! :coffeeread:
God Bless! **
P
Peter_J
Guest
S
Sailka
Guest
Peter, don’t be so serious! Rob and I are Very Jokers. Pls reread our postings in Humor, as they were intended.Isn’t there a forum rule against abusive posting?
Vivat Jesus. Tony
Rob, lighten up! The world would be doomed without your humor! Is best way to Teach, reason, and convert…the dreary to humor :dancing: :tiphat:
Tony
- Status