Trouble with anti-Catholic book/website

[jmcrae]

By the 4th century these books were accepted as Scripture. This was not the case with the DC’s and for good reason.

This is incorrect. The Deuterocanon of the Old Testament was accepted much more quickly than the Deuterocanon of the New Testament.

 

[crazycow]

If it never happened why is the Assumption and Coronation of Mary in REv 12.

Mason
There is no historical proof for the Assumption of Mary. Because, it never happened. People discuss if it was “fitting”. That is not the issue. That has never been the issue. It never happened.
I suspect you know that now.

 

[jmcrae]

If it never happened why is the Assumption and Coronation of Mary in REv 12.

I pointed that out earlier in the thread. The counter-argument was, “Well, she was only standing up there in Heaven; it doesn’t say how she got there.”

I decided against pursuing the argument, because the subject had changed by then, but I think I would want to respond, “If she was not assumed bodily into Heaven, then how did she get there?”

 

[crazycow]

Where in the bible does it have a list of the books that are inspired and the one that were not? Nowhere in the bible is taught scripture alone or faith alone.

Absolutely. We do not need Peter to tell us. The same thing that made it scripture is the same thing that made it scripture. I understand you believe that it is the authority of a council under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Perhaps?

 

[Rightlydivide]

If it never happened why is the Assumption and Coronation of Mary in REv 12.

The word used is optanomai

It simply means to appear. Correct?
It does not say the person was assumed. It was not the person’s coronation; the crown with the twelve stars were already on her head.

I think I will quote the aforementioned site:

Rev 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

Catholics love to quote the first verse. For them, this is Mary appearing in heaven with all of the glory due her! She has a crown upon her head. For Catholics, based upon this verse, Mary is the Queen of Heaven! This is proof of her assumption! Indeed, it is a common representation found in Catholic artwork. Let us look at the next verse though:
Rev.12.:2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

Mary is assumed into heaven but she is pregnant and having tremendous labor pains!? When is the last time you saw a picture of Mary doubled over in pain and nine months pregnant wearing a crown in heaven? IF this is Mary, the Bible’s description does not match Catholic paintings or popular conceptions. You see, Catholics want the first verse to literal. However, that is the last verse they wish to be literal, as you will see.
Rev12:4 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Did the dragon literally stand before Mary? No. Catholics do not interpret this as literally happening to Mary.
Rev 12:5-6 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and [to] his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred [and] threescore days.

Did Mary flee into the wilderness and was fed for a thousand two hundred and threescore days? No. Catholics do not interpret this as literally happening to Mary.
Rev 12:13-14 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man [child]. And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

I am detecting a pattern. Catholics are fond of depicting Mary with a crown from the first verse but I have yet to see a single picture of Mary with two wings flying into the wilderness! Mary, Queen of Heaven, Catholic Church, I have seen that a time or two. “Flying Mary/Half Eagle Catholic Church” has yet to be built as far as I can tell!

 

[crazycow]

Jesus used the septuagint wich had the seven books that protestants dont have.Also they gave more importance to the Talmud which is the oral tradition than the Torah.
Septuagint - What is It?
Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC. Widely used among Hellenistic Jews, this Greek translation was produced because many Jews spread throughout the empire were beginning to lose their Hebrew language. The process of translating the Hebrew to Greek also gave many non-Jews a glimpse into Judaism. According to an ancient document called the Letter of Aristeas, it is believed that 70 to 72 Jewish scholars were commissioned during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus to carry out the task of translation. The term “Septuagint” means seventy in Latin, and the text is so named to the credit of these 70 scholars.

Septuagint - Influence on Christianity
The Septuagint was also a source of the Old Testament for early Christians during the first few centuries AD. Many early Christians spoke and read Greek, thus they relied on the Septuagint translation for most of their understanding of the Old Testament. The New Testament writers also relied heavily on the Septuagint, as a majority of Old Testament quotes cited in the New Testament are quoted directly from the Septuagint (others are quoted from the Hebrew texts). Greek church fathers are also known to have quoted from the Septuagint. Even today, the Eastern Orthodox Church relies on the Septuagint for its Old Testament teachings. Some modern Bible translations also use the Septuagint along side Hebrew manuscripts as their source text.

Septuagint - What Does It Contain?
The Septuagint contains the standard 39 books of the Old Testament canon, as well as certain apocryphal books. The term “Apocrypha” was coined by the fifth-century biblical scholar, Jerome, and generally refers to the set of ancient Jewish writings written during the period between the last book in the Jewish scriptures, Malachi, and the arrival of Jesus Christ. The apocryphal books include Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus), the Wisdom of Solomon, First and Second Maccabees, the two Books of Esdras, additions to the Book of Esther, additions to the Book of Daniel, and the Prayer of Manasseh.

The Apocryphal books were included in the Septuagint for historical and religious purposes, but are not recognized by Protestant Christians or Orthodox Jews as canonical (inspired by God). Most reformed teachers will point out that the New Testament writers never quoted from the Apocryphal books, and that the Apocrypha was never considered part of the canonical Jewish scripture. However, the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches include the Apocrypha in their Bible (except for the books of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh).

First, he didn’t have a definitive list, since as you pointed out earlier, the Jews had no set canon of Scripture - anything from the Torah alone to the full 46-book canon of Alexandria is therefore possible.

But he would have known which books are generally thought of as sacred, by the authority of Moses, as expressed through the particular High Priest who sat upon his (Moses’) throne, and his idea of what constitutes sacred writings would be based on that particular person’s usage.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I pointed that out earlier in the thread. The counter-argument was, “Well, she was only standing up there in Heaven; it doesn’t say how she got there.”

I decided against pursuing the argument, because the subject had changed by then, but I think I would want to respond, “If she was not assumed bodily into Heaven, then how did she get there?”

The person or whomever is pregnant. Was Mary assumed pregnant?

But I think it is pretty clearly a vision. If this is an actual event that is actually occuring, and I think we can look at other visions in scripture to ascertain that it is not (you may disagree), the person is in heaven…with the moon under her feet…
is it a good time to discuss what constitutes a vision?

 

[crazycow]

That quote from 2 Tim 3:16 does not apply.The person that wrote Tim was a jew and the scriptures he was talking about was the O.T. not the N.T. Another reason your interpretation is wrong is that it doesnt say scripture alone.So the whole bible alone thing falls flat in all protestants face.Do you know who was the first protestant?The devil that is exactly what he did to Jesus when he was tempting him with the word of God all twisted.Anyway God is a God of organization and unity and not of chaos which is what is happening in the protestant world.Anuway Jesus told his disciples to teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father ,and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.Last chapter of Matthew.He did not say go and write.

1. So whatever they gave him was inspired?
2. Whatever they gave him is “given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”

 

[jmcrae]

The word used is optanomai

It simply means to appear. Correct?
It does not say the person was assumed.

What else would it mean? She was on the earth, and then she appeared in Heaven - how did she get there? (Walking? )

I think I will quote the aforementioned site:

Back up one verse. What is the Woman?

Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, because in the same way that the Ark of the Covenant bore God’s Word, the Ten Commandments inside itself, so also, Mary bore the God’s Word, Jesus Christ, inside of herself.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Where in the bible does it have a list of the books that are inspired and the one that were not? Nowhere in the bible is taught scripture alone or faith alone.

I have very little desire to explain dispensationalism to a person who probably is unfamiliar with it. That is not your fault. It is my fault because I am grumpy.
The Bible does not contain a list of uninspired books. You got me on that. It does not contain a list of stocks I should not have invested in as well. I did not realize that Catholicism taught that the Bible needed to list all the uninspired books. That is new to me.
Are you saying the Bible is not inspired? I love it when Catholics try to talk us out of believing in the inspiration of the Bible. I bet there is a day out of purgatory every time a Protestant loses faith in the Bible.
We contend that the Bible is inspired through the sovereignty of God. Humans are a mere vessel. We do not play God well.

 

[Rightlydivide]

What else would it mean? She was on the earth, and then she appeared in Heaven - how did she get there? (Walking? )

Back up one verse. What is the Woman?

Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, because in the same way that the Ark of the Covenant bore God’s Word, the Ten Commandments inside itself, so also, Mary bore the God’s Word, Jesus Christ, inside of herself.

Why do you think this person was on Earth just prior to this?
It does not say that. Do you also think the red dragon was on Earth? Why or why not?

 

[jmcrae]

The person or whomever is pregnant. Was Mary assumed pregnant?

She also appeared to Juan Diego pregnant, as a symbol of the impending birth of the American Church (9 million Aztecs converted to Christianity within ten years of her first appearance to Juan Diego) - it was, in one sense, a vision, but she was also very physically present; the roses she gave him were real enough for him to bring to the Bishop, and the image they left on his cloak remains until this very day, and you can go and see it for yourself at the Cathedral in Mexico City.

In the appearance to St. John, she re-enacts the birth of Christ, the persecution of King Herod and the flight into Egypt as a symbol or type of the birth of the Church, the persecution under pagan Rome, and the situation of the Church underground and in exile.

 

[Rightlydivide]

That quote from 2 Tim 3:16 does not apply.The person that wrote Tim was a jew and the scriptures he was talking about was the O.T. not the N.T. Another reason your interpretation is wrong is that it doesnt say scripture alone.So the whole bible alone thing falls flat in all protestants face.Do you know who was the first protestant?The devil that is exactly what he did to Jesus when he was tempting him with the word of God all twisted.Anyway God is a God of organization and unity and not of chaos which is what is happening in the protestant world.Anuway Jesus told his disciples to teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father ,and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.Last chapter of Matthew.He did not say go and write.

Of course it applies. We have scripture long before any little African synod.
The devil. No I think he was a Unitarian. I will have to check…
Shame on Matthew and John for writing then!!! I bet Jesus was UPSET!!

 

[Rightlydivide]

She also appeared to Juan Diego pregnant, as a symbol of the impending birth of the American Church (9 million Aztecs converted to Christianity within ten years of her first appearance to Juan Diego) - it was, in one sense, a vision, but she was also very physically present; the roses she gave him were real enough for him to bring to the Bishop, and the image they left on his cloak remains until this very day, and you can go and see it for yourself at the Cathedral in Mexico City.

In the appearance to St. John, she re-enacts the birth of Christ, the persecution of King Herod and the flight into Egypt as a symbol or type of the birth of the Church, the persecution under pagan Rome, and the situation of the Church underground and in exile.

I see. And the moon she was standing on…actual sized? Symbolism and visions. Goodness. I cannot argue with your visions to Juan Diego. I have never examined them.

 

[jmcrae]

Why do you think this person was on Earth just prior to this?

What do you mean, “why do I think she was on earth”?

The last time we see her is in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, up in the cenacle praying the world’s first Novena to the Holy Spirit (which ended with the Holy Spirit coming to them at Pentecost).

As far as I know, the cenacle was on earth.

It does not say that.

Why does it have to say that? First, she is the cenacle, and then she is in Heaven, in her body. Did she walk to Heaven? Or was she assumed into Heaven? (Which is more likely, to your way of thinking?)

Do you also think the red dragon was on Earth? Why or why not?

The action is taking place in Heaven. The dragon is re-enacting the role of King Herod, and also the role of Nero.

 

[Rightlydivide]

His Bishop actually was giving him another chance (one of many) to defend himself and justify his teachings, before excommunicating him (not killing him). It was his congregation that lynched him, because they thought the Bishop was being too slow to get rid of him. At the same time, they dug up the bones of Wyclif and threw them into the river alongside the ashes of Jan Hus, because Hus had been using Wyclif’s Bible in the liturgy. They also burned as many copies as they could find of that Bible, and also threw those ashes into the river, as well. The Bishop of course was horrified, and I suppose the ringleaders must have been brought to an account before the law. But it was because his congregation members were frustrated with him that he was killed; not because the Church wasn’t giving him freedom of speech or the chance to explain himself.

Just out of curiousity, do you agree with his teachings? (Do you even know what he taught?) Would you consider him a Protestant, if he lived today, or would you write him off as a kind of Branch Davidian or other cultic troublemaker?

And again, do you agree with the teachings of Peter Waldo? Would he be considered an upstanding member of your congregation, or would your people run him out on a rail?

Completely fanciful. Shockingly inaccurate actually. Site your source.
We are talking about people who believed Sola Scriptura. That is the subject and they both did. Now your source, please.

 

[cfrancis]

I have very little desire to explain dispensationalism to a person who probably is unfamiliar with it. That is not your fault. It is my fault because I am grumpy.
The Bible does not contain a list of uninspired books. You got me on that. It does not contain a list of stocks I should not have invested in as well. I did not realize that Catholicism taught that the Bible needed to list all the uninspired books. That is new to me.
Are you saying the Bible is not inspired? I love it when Catholics try to talk us out of believing in the inspiration of the Bible. I bet there is a day out of purgatory every time a Protestant loses faith in the Bible.
We contend that the Bible is inspired through the sovereignty of God. Humans are a mere vessel. We do not play God well.

Yet again, unwilling to address the issue presented. I suppose you never tire of creating the straw man, nor of dashing your creations to the ground.
You’ve yet to actually deal with this issue: while we agree Scripture - whichever book of the Bible to which we refer - was Scripture when quill met parchment, without these books identifying themselves as inspired by God (and the vast majority do not), how do you determine what belongs in the Bible?

Such is not about doubting the inspiration of the Bible, nor detracting from God and His written Word.

 

[crazycow]

If you believe in bible alone then all of the inspired books list should also be contained in the bible.The problem is that the list is not there wich would contradict the bible alone man made doctrine.Of course the bible is inspired by God but the question is if your bible is complete or not.I know mine is complete.Jesus used the septuagint which had the 7 books that your bible does not.Catholicism does not teach that we need a list.These will only apply to you since you are the one that believes in the bible alone man made doctrine.The RCC doesnt teach bible alone.I know that my bible is inspired by God and was put in the canon by the authority of the church that he left behind.I wonder who put the canon of the bible you own? Since you hate tradition so much then why dont you put your bible in the trash because what you hold is pure Oral Tradition in written form.Also I wonder what did the first Chirstians do without a bible before it was put in one book by the council of Matt 16:18.1 Cor 15:3-4
For I handed on (paredoka) to you as of first importance what I also received …
2 Tim 2:2
And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust (parathou) to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.
The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time. There was no canon of scripture in the early Church; there was no Bible. The Bible is the book of the Church; she is not the Church of the Bible. It was the Church–her leadership, faithful people–guided by the authority of the Spirit of Truth which discovered the books inspired by God in their writing. The Church did not create the canon; she discerned the canon. Fixed canons of the Old and New Testaments, hence the Bible, were not known much before the end of the 2nd and early 3rd century. Scripture Alone Disproves “Scripture Alone”

Anyway what is the pillar of foundation and truth?

I have very little desire to explain dispensationalism to a person who probably is unfamiliar with it. That is not your fault. It is my fault because I am grumpy.
The Bible does not contain a list of uninspired books. You got me on that. It does not contain a list of stocks I should not have invested in as well. I did not realize that Catholicism taught that the Bible needed to list all the uninspired books. That is new to me.
Are you saying the Bible is not inspired? I love it when Catholics try to talk us out of believing in the inspiration of the Bible. I bet there is a day out of purgatory every time a Protestant loses faith in the Bible.
We contend that the Bible is inspired through the sovereignty of God. Humans are a mere vessel. We do not play God well.

 

[Rightlydivide]

What do you mean, “why do I think she was on earth”?

The last time we see her is in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, up in the cenacle praying the world’s first Novena to the Holy Spirit (which ended with the Holy Spirit coming to them at Pentecost).

As far as I know, the cenacle was on earth.

Why does it have to say that? First, she is the cenacle, and then she is in Heaven, in her body. Did she walk to Heaven? Or was she assumed into Heaven? (Which is more likely, to your way of thinking?)

The action is taking place in Heaven. The dragon is re-enacting the role of King Herod, and also the role of Nero.

Let us try this once more. If Mary died, round guess, 50 AD at the latest and John was on Patmos in 80 AD. Where was she those other thirty years? Why are you saying that this person, even if it is Mary, is going straight from Acts to the 12th chapter of Revelation?
So the dragon appeared…is already in heaven but Mary is not? Why do you say that?

 

[cfrancis]

Completely fanciful. Shockingly inaccurate actually. Site your source.
We are talking about people who believed Sola Scriptura. That is the subject and they both did. Now your source, please.

Care to present your sources to support your claim of “shockingly inaccurate”?