Pomp and splendour

lmaopml

JimiTime wrote: »

Its entirely inconsaquential. No matter what scripture interpretting we do etc, we simply have to use Jesus' measuring rod. 'A tree will be known by its fruits'. The whole 'lets interpret this scripture in Matthew' is the biggest of red herrings. Not only is it open to interpretation, but even if Peter is the Rock referred to, it does not imply Peter being the first Pope etc. Wolfsbane touched on this a bit earlier. If someone is not willing to look to the question of fruitage, then the discussion is pointless. It just becomes about religion, and little to do with Christ.

Hi JimiTime,

I don't know if you see the irony of pointing out a piece of scripture to dubunk another part of scripture? and also maintain that Scripture is all fullfulling and most important!

Look, I have no problem with people being honest, it's probably for the best in all regards to the faithful to find their way - However, the only reason why I feel the urge to post, which perhaps I shouldn't really even bother with except for the fact that some people 'read' this stuff... is because the 'fruit' you speak of is entirely a part of my faith too - I see the 'fruit' very clearly... but I have no such ill will towards my Christian friends, to say they are non Christian, or I know their destiny, I quite simply do not! I do not know mine either - and in fairness, when one is called 'Romish' and non 'Christian' on the Christianity 'forum' in a small way, but in a larger way the impact that has on those who are seeking, I feel it's worth while to say that it's kinda 'convenient' to say all you need is a 'rod'...and a couple of quotes - especially from strictly Scripture based belief...



I find it kinda ironic also that the whole of Christendom, including the Orthodox, are heretics until the 1600's when all of a sudden the Gospel became clear to a few reformers who don't agree themselves.

The father's are there, and so is God's church....It always has been...and that is the most convincing truth..

Paul passed on the faith through the laying on of hands to Timothy...

I 1 Timothy 4:11 Paul reminds Timothy that he was ordained to teach truth to everybody, and in James 5 14-16 he tells us the elders of the 'Church' are called to excercise healing and forgiveness of sins..Also, in Timothy 1 3-4 Paul commands Timothy to authority over false teachers..

Let's not forget Ignatius who wrote his seven letters to the churches, he most likely knew John and Peter when they were at Antioch, He died in the year 108, he stressed the importance of the bishops and elders who were taught by the Apostles...

I wonder what God above meant when he said to Abraham that he had found a rock on which he could build and found the world....???

Jesus, imo echoes this with Peter the Apostle..

Another echo to 'the keys' is found in Isaiah,

In that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe, and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him..I will place on him the 'keys' to the house of David, what he opens no one can shut and what he shuts no one can open.'

and so Jesus said to Peter;

'I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven...

He established his church....

JimiTime

lmaopml wrote: »

Hi JimiTime,

I don't know if you see the irony of pointing out a piece of scripture to dubunk another part of scripture? and also maintain that Scripture is all fullfulling and most important!

I would if thats what I said/did. Firstly, I certainly done nothing like Debunk any part of scripture. I debunked your religiosity, and tried to reason the overall picture rather than arguing over the interpretting of a scripture in isolation by showing that it was rather a straining of the gnat. I.E. Inconsaquential, when looked at in considering Christs advice.

Look, I have no problem with people being honest, it's probably for the best in all regards to the faithful to find their way - However, the only reason why I feel the urge to post, which perhaps I shouldn't really even bother with except for the fact that some people 'read' this stuff... is because the 'fruit' you speak of is entirely a part of my faith too - I see the 'fruit' very clearly... but I have no such ill will towards my Christian friends, to say they are non Christian, or I know their destiny, I quite simply do not! I do not know mine either - and in fairness, when one is called 'Romish' and non 'Christian' on the Christianity 'forum' in a small way, but in a larger way the impact that has on those who are seeking, I feel it's worth while to say that it's kinda 'convenient' to say all you need is a 'rod'...and a couple of quotes - especially from strictly Scripture based belief...

You can rant about what posters say about your church etc all you want. Wrap it in diplomacy and hand shakey language too. However, I have never called you or indeed ANY catholic here not Christian. Some of the most Christian people I know are Roman Catholic. Some of the most unchristian people I know are also Roman Catholic. The issue, yourself and alot of your co-religionists have IMO, is that its too much religion and not enough Christ.

The One True Church insistance is the error that is being pointed out here. NOT, that you or other catholics are not Christians. Your fruits will define if you are part of Christs Church, not your denomination. The big conflict here, is the RCC's insistance that this OTC is itself. I will forever condemn it as an institution, as long as I see worthy of condemnation. I will always however, differentiate between Christians in the truest sense, and the denomination to which they affiliate themselves with. Remember, that it is the RCC that is divisive not the other way round. I don't insist that one must be part of a certain denomination to be a REAL christian, or recieve the Fullness of Christ. I recognise that God is not a bearaucrat, and that his sheep can be found throughout the Christian world.

I find it kinda ironic also that the whole of Christendom, including the Orthodox, are heretics until the 1600's when all of a sudden the Gospel became clear to a few reformers who don't agree themselves.

Again, you completely miss Christs message and replace it with religiosity. Some Catholics are Christians, and some aren't. Some Baptists are Christians and some aren't. Your denominational affiliation does not set you straight before God. Your faith and its fruitage is what does that.

The problem in the RCC, was that it was keeping the message from people. It was actively keeping folk ignorant, and taking advantage of their ignorance in things like indulgences etc. It hoarded the gold coin of freedom that Jesus gave us. The release from the curse of the law he gave, and set up its own legislate to bind its adherants to. All the while, I have no doubt that their were true Christians within and without the RCC. Some folk said enough is enough.

You also spectacularly miss the legacy of the reformation. The legacy was not 'Lutheranism' or 'Calvinism' etc. The legacy, was people being free to read the message. The legacy was being out of the bindings of the Roman monolith and free in the good news of the kingdom.

I wonder what God above meant when he said to Abraham that he had found a rock on which he could build and found the world....???

I don't, quite simply put the Rock is Jesus. Its very, very obvious IMO.

Another echo to 'the keys' is found in Isaiah,

In that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe, and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him..I will place on him the 'keys' to the house of David, what he opens no one can shut and what he shuts no one can open.'

and so Jesus said to Peter;

'I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven...

He established his church....

And round and round we go. Again, some here, like Splendour, have the inclination to point out your faulty theology. I personally have had my fill of religiosity, and especially the silly statements of OTC. Christs church has indeed been with us, its every Christian. The question you need to ask, is WHAT is a christian. I assure you, the answer is not a religious one.

MrPudding

regi wrote: »

I think he's getting the pomp and splendour of a UK state visit, as would be accorded to any other major head of state.

It is arguable whether he is any kind of head of state, let alone a major one.

As Wolfie alluded to, the circumstances by which the "statehood" were awarded to the more are more than a little dodgy. That aside there are many areas where the Vatican City fail the Statehood test.

Personally I feel the status of the pope as a head of state is incorrect and only continues because of the general spinelessness of politicians and the downright nasty and bullying ways the Vatican handles its "state" affairs.

MrP

lmaopml

santing wrote: »

Peter doesn't mean "rock" but "stone, piece of rock." Petra, the female version means "Rock" Although Strongs dictionary gives nearly the same meaning to these words, if it had the same meaning, Christ would have said on this Petros I will build my Church. So it is significant that there is a difference!

Hi Santing,

The thread has been dragged ot just a tad, sorry op! Anyway, I have great respect for all Christians and people whatever denomination they come from or no, who have a little respect back, and their views on Christianity are no doubt important to them. The respect takes a bit of a nose dive when it comes with a side-order of - Roman Catholics are most likely not Christians, but some of them 'might' be, and neither are Orthodox Churches teaching true Christianity....

That's the reason why I responded...and no more. After this, I shall leave you to your respective views of what Christians are and are not, or what the Church of God is or is not...

Anways, just one thing on 'Peter'! I believe you are mistaken. Jesus didn't speak 'Greek' he spoke Aramaic. We only have the Greek texts left, but in order to understand the meaning you have to try to get to the Aramaic. The Greek word 'petra' is feminine, and can be used in the second part of Matthew 16:18 with no problems, but you can't use it as Simon's new name in 'Greek' because you can't give a man a feminine name...

Translating from the Aramaic version to Greek loses some of the impact, and I guess translating from Greek to English loses even more...

However, bearing in mind the structure of the verse it makes little or no sense to insert, 'stone' or 'piece of rock' or pebble or anything similiar, especially considering how important name changes are in biblical text...

You must bear in mind that Jesus spoke Aramaic...

For example:


17Jesus replied,
"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are an insignificant piece of rock or stone,URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2016&version=NIV#fen-NIV-23691c"]c[/URL and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of HadesURL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2016&version=NIV#fen-NIV-23691d"]d[/URL will not overcome it.URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2016&version=NIV#fen-NIV-23691e"]e[/URL 19I will give you, you insignificant stone that I have chosen herewith to rename, the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will beURL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2016&version=NIV#fen-NIV-23692f"]f[/URL bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will beURL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2016&version=NIV#fen-NIV-23692g"]g[/URL loosed in heaven."

^^This makes no sense whatsoever...^^



Peter denied Jesus three times...
After the resurrection, and on the third time Christ appeared to the Apostles, Jesus says to Peter...who had shown his faith and insight, but had been 'fearful' and had been warned of his transgression and lived to see it fullfilled...

John 21 15:17

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?"
"Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Feed my lambs." 16Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?"
He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."
17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?"
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Feed my sheep. 18 I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." 19Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!"


As a Christian, I believe there is an earthly Church that Christ established; that is, not only a spiritual one but - a physical one - as well as the view that Christ is found in many many other places and hearts too...and I can't judge them individually or guess at their numbers...:)

JimiTime

lmaopml wrote: »

Anyway, I have great respect for all Christians and people whatever denomination they come from or no, who have a little respect back, and their views on Christianity are no doubt important to them. The respect takes a bit of a nose dive when it comes with a side-order of - Roman Catholics are most likely not Christians, but some of them 'might' be, and neither are Orthodox Churches teaching true Christianity....

With the greatest of respect, it always seems to come to this victimhood stance. Nowhere is it said that some 'might' be. The point is, that YOUR DENOMINATION DOES NOT DEFINE IF YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN. Now take that in, it is SWEEPING. It has not singled out the RCC. The issue is, that the RCC is one of the only denominations that INSISTS that it is in fact the ONE TRUE CHURCH. Such a spectacular claim, will be met with opposition.

That's the reason why I responded...and no more. After this, I shall leave you to your respective views of what Christians are and are not, or what the Church of God is or is not...

Why?

As a Christian, I believe there is an earthly Church that Christ established; that is, not only a spiritual one but - a physical one

Obviously there is a Physical Church. The fact that the Church is made up of his people means it has a Physical presence. What you believe is that he set up a single monolithic organisation is it not?

- as well as the view that Christ is found in many many other places and hearts too...and I can't judge them individually or guess at their numbers...:)

How does that work then? What makes a Christian, and are you some kind of inferior Christian if your denomination is not RC?

santing

Hi lmaopml,
Just replying on one piece of your post:

lmaopml wrote: »

...Translating from the Aramaic version to Greek loses some of the impact, and I guess translating from Greek to English loses even more...

You must bear in mind that Jesus spoke Aramaic...

I think here is one source of difference:

Statement of Faith wrote:

We believe that all Scripture (i.e. the 66 books of the Bible) is given by inspiration of God, is inerrant, infallible, possessing plenary inspiration in the original writings, and has been preserved with full integrity so that its teaching is absolute, final and our sole authority.

I do bear in mind that the Lord Jesus spoke Aramaic, but I also do bear in mind that it pleased God to have the Sacred Scripture, and in this case the Gospel of Matthew, being written in Greek (Koine Greek to be precise). So what Matthew wrote down is what matters most, and trying to find out what the Lord Jesus exactly said in Aramaic is making God's Word void. We do not need to be scholars in Aramaic, and we can trust the various Bible translators to have done a good enough job.

In this case, since there is (or might be) a good bit of overlap between the greek words Petros and Petra, the question must be answered, why did Matthew use two different words (even more so when the Lord Jesus may have used one word in Aramaic!) as he could have used the word Petros in both cases...

lmaopml

JimiTime wrote: »

With the greatest of respect, it always seems to come to this victimhood stance. Nowhere is it said that some 'might' be. The point is, that YOUR DENOMINATION DOES NOT DEFINE IF YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN. Now take that in, it is SWEEPING. It has not singled out the RCC. The issue is, that the RCC is one of the only denominations that INSISTS that it is in fact the ONE TRUE CHURCH. Such a spectacular claim, will be met with opposition.

Now now, no need for shouting

Of course it will be met with opposition, and no better man I see. However, I would not expect Christ's church to say anything else, and if you believed in an Apostolic succession, neither would you.. I suggest you re-read the thread though and see where anybody made that particular claim on this thread, before it was inundated with opportunistic fundamentalist opinion, as I alluded to above, on not only what the RC church is but also her faithful, and all the usual idolotry spew...

How does that work then? What makes a Christian, and are you some kind of inferior Christian if your denomination is not RC?

The RC church doesn't tell me what 'kind' of a Christian I am, don't mind you Jimi By the way, are you a Daddy yet or what?

Guys, I'll leave you to it....

Back to the Pomp and Splendour visit to Britain...

The Popemobile, is a necessary practicality. The 'mass' and the singing, Homily and Gospel at the mass I thought were lovely, and a celebration by the faithful, for the faithful.....I didn't see the Harlot in attendance that day thank God.

Festus

Is no one worried about the pomp, spleandour, ceremony and abject wealth of the supreme governor of the Church of England?

Come on now lads and lassies, be fair. If you're going to have a go at the Pope over his recent visit it's only fair to consider his opposite number in the UK

Festus

JimiTime wrote: »

Its entirely inconsaquential. No matter what scripture interpretting we do etc, we simply have to use Jesus' measuring rod. 'A tree will be known by its fruits'. The whole 'lets interpret this scripture in Matthew' is the biggest of red herrings. Not only is it open to interpretation, but even if Peter is the Rock referred to, it does not imply Peter being the first Pope etc. Wolfsbane touched on this a bit earlier. If someone is not willing to look to the question of fruitage, then the discussion is pointless. It just becomes about religion, and little to do with Christ.

Fruitage!

i love it. Maybe we should have a thread to examine the fruitage of the various churches and denominations that have appeared since the reformation.

Could be a good opportunity to discuss divorce and suchlike.

JimiTime

Festus wrote: »

Fruitage!

i love it. Maybe we should have a thread to examine the fruitage of the various churches and denominations that have appeared since the reformation.

Could be a good opportunity to discuss divorce and suchlike.

Be my guest. As I don't have any man made institution lord it over me though, I don't see what it will achieve. Maybe my agreement, but not alot else.

JimiTime

lmaopml wrote: »

Now now, no need for shouting

Just emphasis not shouting:)

Of course it will be met with opposition, and no better man I see. However, I would not expect Christ's church to say anything else, and if you believed in an Apostolic succession, neither would you..

That is the point of contention though. Apart from a grandiose self appointment, what is the apostolic fruitage? That was my point. Rather than concentrate on the interpreation of a verse of scripture in isolation, why not look at the whole picture and see if the claim matches what Christ tells us it should.

The RC church doesn't tell me what 'kind' of a Christian I am, don't mind you Jimi

But it does make the claim that it is the OTC, and does it not also have dogma about christians outside of communion with itself?

By the way, are you a Daddy yet or what?

Can't you tell by my 'take no prisoners' postings that I am deprived of sleep!!!

in a word Yes, God be praised:)

Back to the Pomp and Splendour visit to Britain...

The Popemobile, is a necessary practicality. The 'mass' and the singing, Homily and Gospel at the mass I thought were lovely, and a celebration by the faithful, for the faithful.....I didn't see the Harlot in attendance that day thank God.

What do you interpret the harlot as representing? I don't mean specifically, but rather what kind of thing is the harlot of revelation? A political power? A religious power? what is your take?

gbee

Caoimhín wrote: »

Surely these displays and veneration of a man is contrary to the teachings of christ (as i understand them).

You are perfectly correct. But these displays, pomp and ceremony are creations of the dying Roman Empire. The Roman Empire founded the Holy Roman Catholic Church ~ all the ceremony etc comes from them.

Christ did not found the Pope's Church, a Roman Emperor did.

georgieporgy

an earlier poster said something about judging people by their fruits. Presumably that means judging them by their actions. ie do good actions and we will judge you to be good. Do bad actions and we will judge you to be bad.

catholics would agree with that but I thought protestants thought actions didn't matter as long as one accepted Jesus as Saviour.

Have I picked it up wrong?

georgieporgy

Kevster wrote: »

Only 27 years old here... although at times I feel like I have multiple times more maturity than some in their 30s, 40s, and even 50s.

I would find it to be a tremendous honour to meet the Pope some day, even though I'm not religious. I would enjoy discussing various topics with him.

Kevin

Kevin, if you want to get to know the mind and personality of the man may I recommend a 1985 series of interviews he had with an Italian journalist. it's a very easy read and touches a lot of issues. He comes across as totally different than the media munufactured reputation we get bombarded with

http://www.ignatius.com/Products/RR-P/the-ratzinger-report.aspx

You can then pop down to Madrid next August for World Youth Day. You probably won't get a one on one meeting like Tony Blair did, but it will be the next best thing (and you won't be the only non catholic there)

PDN

georgieporgy wrote: »

an earlier poster said something about judging people by their fruits. Presumably that means judging them by their actions. ie do good actions and we will judge you to be good. Do bad actions and we will judge you to be bad.

catholics would agree with that but I thought protestants thought actions didn't matter as long as one accepted Jesus as Saviour.

Have I picked it up wrong?

Yes, I'm afraid you have picked it up wrong.

The Protestant view can be nicely summed up by Ephesians 2:8-10

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Verses 8 & 9 make clear salvation is solely on the grounds of your faith, not your works. However, verse 10 also makes clear that we are saved in order to carry out good works.

So, while good works are not the grounds or the basis of our salvation, they are the inevitable consequence of a truly saved life, and therefore are the fruit by which we can judge the authenticity of anyone's claims to be saved.

georgieporgy

OK I can see the logic there and it's quite close to the RCC view.

What you are saying therefore is that a "bad" Protestant may not necessarily be saved because as he is doing bad deeds his personal conversion cannot have been genuine. In other words lip service is not enough.

Please correct me if I am reading too much into your post.

If agreed I would venture to say that the RCC position is exactly the same on that point.

Fanny Cradock

georgieporgy wrote: »

In other words lip service is not enough.

There surely must be some sort of outward expression of inward belief.

lmaopml

JimiTime wrote: »

Just emphasis not shouting:)



That is the point of contention though. Apart from a grandiose self appointment, what is the apostolic fruitage? That was my point. Rather than concentrate on the interpreation of a verse of scripture in isolation, why not look at the whole picture and see if the claim matches what Christ tells us it should.

Yep, sadly it seems to be 'contentious'...Jimi, we all find our way....I think it's best when it's honest. For me, personally on my faith journey I've never experienced it more 'whole'....and that's not trying to be uppity or smart, it's just 'my' journey and I personally feel scripture has more context and levels from where I am now.....I personally don't see the 'grandiose' appointment - I see in Scripture as plain as day.

But it does make the claim that it is the OTC, and does it not also have dogma about christians outside of communion with itself?

Yes, it does, as I would expect. It's not exactly advertising itself as the most fashionable church to gain membership - that's for sure...! It's strict in a way, but liberating in another...Hard to explain in a few short sentences...but 'short' seems only fair to the op..

Can't you tell by my 'take no prisoners' postings that I am deprived of sleep!!!



in a word Yes, God be praised:)

Sincere Congratulations!!! The sleep depravity is the first milestone..lol...but worth every single minute! I'm sure you agree...Nothing like it chick, best of luck to you, your wife and little one...A 'family'.

What do you interpret the harlot as representing? I don't mean specifically, but rather what kind of thing is the harlot of revelation? A political power? A religious power? what is your take?

Well, I have read 'Revelations' a few times, no more than the rest of the New Testament, and tbh I don't know where I am with it. I'm beginning to think that perhaps it may have been 'Ancient Rome' and some of those things have already come to pass....what with Nero and all.....but then I'm careful about digging my heels in too much...or to write people off too quickly and assess too quickly, because we don't really know the time or the hour - it could be a millenia or more away and our scerfuffles will be the least of their worries...

I think it will be revealed in time - I think Scripture in general reveals itself over time and revelation from the Scriptures is not quite finished yet, even now..

georgieporgy

Pope John Paul2 used to say that we are now living in the period described in Apoc 12.

(Not meant as an infallible statement mind you)

wolfsbane

Festus wrote: »

Is no one worried about the pomp, spleandour, ceremony and abject wealth of the supreme governor of the Church of England?

Come on now lads and lassies, be fair. If you're going to have a go at the Pope over his recent visit it's only fair to consider his opposite number in the UK

With pleasure!

The Anglican Church failed to purify itself when it left Rome, probably due to the non-spiritual reasons it did so. It was no surprise it replaced one imposter to the Headship of the Church with another. The ungodly love pomp and splendour is spiritual things, for they have no spiritual reality to rejoice in. Having the monarch as Head fulfilled that need.

The true Church has only one head - Jesus Christ.
_________________________________________________________________
Ephesians 1:22 And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

Ephesians 4:15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

Festus

georgieporgy wrote: »

Pope John Paul2 used to say that we are now living in the period described in Apoc 12.

(Not meant as an infallible statement mind you)

I forgot about that - without getting into "personal interpretation" I wonder is the Dragon persecuting the Blessed Virgin the Protestant nations or the Communist nations?

"17- And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ."

Given the attitude of Protestants towards Catholic veneration of Our Lady I suspect some are in a for a rude awakening.

wolfsbane

Festus wrote: »

I forgot about that - without getting into "personal interpretation" I wonder is the Dragon persecuting the Blessed Virgin the Protestant nations or the Communist nations?

"17- And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ."

Given the attitude of Protestants towards Catholic veneration of Our Lady I suspect some are in a for a rude awakening.

No, the dragon is Satan. But I take your point - his servants persecute the true Church on his behalf.

And if it turns out it was the pomp & splendour harlot church persecuting the True Church, others are in for the rude awakening!
_________________________________________________________________
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

Festus

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, the dragon is Satan.

Doesn't change mine - I see all non-Catholic denominations as being under the influence of Satan what with thier support for abortion, divorce, homosexuality etc etc etc, oh, and women priests and bishops etc etc etc

wolfsbane wrote: »

But I take your point - his servants persecute the true Church on his behalf.

And if it turns out it was the pomp & splendour harlot church persecuting the True Church, others are in for the rude awakening!

Ah, so who are being persecuted?

wolfsbane

Festus said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But I take your point - his servants persecute the true Church on his behalf.

And if it turns out it was the pomp & splendour harlot church persecuting the True Church, others are in for the rude awakening!
Ah, so who are being persecuted?

Throughout its history, the Roman Catholic Church was the big persecutor of those who followed Christ outside its ranks, and indeed it put to imprisonment and death many of its own who dissented on gospel matters.

If you consider the 20th C, Ireland knew something of a powerful Catholic Church. As did Spain, Portugal and Croatia.

But if you mean today, since the RCC has little civic power it is rather toothless in most places. Some persecution of Evangelicals goes on in RC dominated regions - parts of Mexico, East Timor for example. But generally the atheists are doing the persecution, including of the former persecutor.
_________________________________________________________________
Revelation 17:12 “The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast. 13 These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast. 14 These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful.”
15 Then he said to me, “The waters which you saw, where the harlot sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues. 16 And the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17 For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled. 18 And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.”

lmaopml

georgieporgy

Festus wrote: »

I forgot about that - without getting into "personal interpretation" I wonder is the Dragon persecuting the Blessed Virgin the Protestant nations or the Communist nations?

"17- And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ."

Given the attitude of Protestants towards Catholic veneration of Our Lady I suspect some are in a for a rude awakening.

One interpretation I read somewhere was The Woman means the Church (which is the spouse of Christ, remember in Scripture, Christ is aluded to as the Bridegroom). The red dragon= communism, and the beast = freemasonry. Both of course being agents of you know who.

The prophecies of St John Bosco regarding the latter part of the 20th century make for interesting reading also. Seems to have been reasonably accurate. The Ship on a stormy sea being attacked on all sides etc, The captain finally falling in battle after a difficult struggle. To the surprise of its enemies a new captain is quickly chosen who soon brings the ship safely to harbour between two solid pillars - the BVM and the Eucharist. The attacking ships seeing there is no hope of success scatter in disarray. Soon lots of of straglers are climbing aboard the safety of the Good Ship.

Remember this is all private prophesy stuff and is best reserved for late night discussions and a grain or two of salt.

wolfsbane

georgieporgy wrote: »

One interpretation I read somewhere was The Woman means the Church (which is the spouse of Christ, remember in Scripture, Christ is aluded to as the Bridegroom). The red dragon= communism, and the beast = freemasonry. Both of course being agents of you know who.

The prophecies of St John Bosco regarding the latter part of the 20th century make for interesting reading also. Seems to have been reasonably accurate. The Ship on a stormy sea being attacked on all sides etc, The captain finally falling in battle after a difficult struggle. To the surprise of its enemies a new captain is quickly chosen who soon brings the ship safely to harbour between two solid pillars - the BVM and the Eucharist. The attacking ships seeing there is no hope of success scatter in disarray. Soon lots of of straglers are climbing aboard the safety of the Good Ship.

Remember this is all private prophesy stuff and is best reserved for late night discussions and a grain or two of salt.

Your last sentence is spot-on.

We shouldn't give a hearing to them at all, beyond general curiosity. True prophets speak only the truth; false prophets speak both truth and error, the pinch of truth to help one swallow the bigger lie.
_________________________________________________________________
Deuteronomy 18:20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ 21 And if you say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?’— 22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

santing

Festus wrote: »

I forgot about that - without getting into "personal interpretation" I wonder is the Dragon persecuting the Blessed Virgin the Protestant nations or the Communist nations?

"17- And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ."

Given the attitude of Protestants towards Catholic veneration of Our Lady I suspect some are in a for a rude awakening.

Re: "the woman: and the rest of her seed," I knew it! official RC proof that the BVM was no V.