To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address or Messenger. Significant Facebook comments on matters of faith and morals will also be posted on this page,
.
 |
| United Nations' new "Guardian for International Peace and Safety" |
Daniel 7:1-8
|
Revelation 13: 1-7
And I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten diadems, and upon his heads names of blasphemy. [2] And the beast, which I saw, was like to a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion. And the dragon gave him his own strength, and great power. [3] And I saw one of his heads as it were slain to death: and his death's wound was healed. And all the earth was in admiration after the beast. [4] And they adored the dragon, which gave power to the beast: and they adored the beast, saying: Who is like to the beast? and who shall be able to fight with him? [5] And there was given to him a mouth speaking great things, and blasphemies: and power was given to him to do two and forty months.
[1] "A beast": This first beast with seven heads and ten horns, is probably the whole company of infidels, enemies and persecutors of the people of God, from the beginning to the end of the world. The seven heads are seven kings, that is, seven principal kingdoms or empires, which have exercised, or shall exercise, tyrannical power over the people of God; of these, five were then fallen, viz.: the Egyptian, Assyrian, Chaldean, Persian, and Grecian monarchies: one was present, viz., the empire of Rome: and the seventh and chiefest was to come, viz., the great Antichrist and his empire. The ten horns may be understood of ten lesser persecutors.
[3] "One of his heads": Some understand this of the mortal wound, which the idolatry of the Roman empire (signified by the sixth head) received from Constantine; which was, as it were, healed again by Julian the Apostate.
[6] And he opened his mouth unto blasphemies against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. [7] And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them. And power was given him over every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation. [8] And all that dwell upon the earth adored him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb, which was slain from the beginning of the world. [9] If any man have an ear, let him hear. [10] He that shall lead into captivity, shall go into captivity: he that shall kill by the sword, must be killed by the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
[6] "His tabernacle": That is, his church and his saints.
 |
| Our Lady of Guadalupe appears to St Juan Diego (feastday December 9) |
Do not fear that sickness,
nor any other sickness or anguish.
Am I not here, who is your Mother?
Are you not under my protection?
Am I not your health?
Are you not happily within my fold?
What else do you wish?
Do not grieve nor be disturbed by anything.”
Ian Wisharts book 'Totalitaria' is a must read about the UN the great meditation room in its New York building etc.
ReplyDeleteAs soon as I read the words "peacea and safety" the ears of this bible soaked proddy pricked up.
ReplyDeleteI do not dispute the reference you make to to the beast of Daniel, later appearing in the Revelation to John, but there is one other reference directly linked to the words themselves
I Thesslonians 5:2-4 with special reference to verse 3
For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord is coming just like a thief in the night. 3 While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction [a]will come upon them like labor pains upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. 4 But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness, so that the day would overtake you [b]like a thief;
note verse 3 "while they are saying "peace and safety"
but another thing. If this is the Great Tribulation it is likely that none of us will survive. you yourself quote the scripture saying so. REv 13:7 " to make war on the saints AND OVERCOME THEM.
That is us. except for a few that may slip through the cracks to be those who are alive at the time of the rapture I Thessalonians 4:17.
IOW If this is the Great Tribulation the beast will kill us all.
as for the rest of men, the unbelivers, God will make them more scarce than the gold of Ophir Isaiah 13:12, in the ferocity of His wrath at His Second Coming.
However there is so much now that does not fit the end time scenario so it is my tentative opinion that the time is not yet right, and though Satan has tried his run to take over the world God will not allow him until the appointed time.
But if He chooses to do nothing to overthrow the covid tyrants I will be mistaken in my hope and this is the very last of days. Therefore we must learn to die well, for there will be no other option
Trevor Reith:
ReplyDeleteTeresa Coles:
The Evilness of it.
Peter Moore:
Julia, I share your concern that RCC people do not know Scripture well. Do you believe that the following quote on your post is Scriptural? ''Our Lady of Guadalupe to St Juan Diego: “Let not your heart be disturbed. Do not fear that sickness, nor any other sickness or anguish. Am I not here, who is your Mother? Are you not under my protection? Am I not your health? Are you not happily within my fold? What else do you wish? Do not grieve nor be disturbed by anything.”''
I say:
No of course I don't believe that quote is scriptural. I state that it isn't scriptural.
Gerry Walmisley:
Simply ghastly. More suitable World of Warcraft than outside UN. Sick, sick, sick.
I say:
ReplyDeleteHeartfelt apologies to a reader (I think an 'Unknown') who described him/herself as a "bible-soaked Proddy" and whose interesting, lengthy comment was mistakenly marked 'spam' and deleted, and there's no way apparently that spam can be unspammed. Would you mind repeating it please?
I am the "unknown" whose post you accidentally deleted. No problem, this happens.
ReplyDeleteI shall as requested try again
But my aging memory is not what it was. Here goes
The very first thing i noticed in this post was not the image, but the words "peace and safety."
with such Bible knowlege as I have I immediately recognized a direct quote from scripture.
It is from I Thessalonians 5:2-4 the specific quote being verse 3
For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord is coming just like a thief in the night. 3 While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction will come upon them like labor pains upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. 4 But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness, so that the day would overtake you like a thief
I do not dispute the comment about the image which is disturbing enough. MY intention is to offer complement to it.
The question to my mind is this: Is this the Great Tribulation, the last 7 years before the Second Coming?
If it is then the news for christians is not good, not at first sight.
You yourself quoted ReVelation 13:7 that the beast would make war on the saints, that is all christians, and over come them . ie kill us .
Our hope in this instanceis not to be spared death but the glorious resurrection of the dead.
Ther may be a few who fall through the net and escape our mass murder, for there will be a few who are alive at the time of the Rapture - the catching up to meet the Lord in the air I THess 4:17. But we, thedead in christ will be the ones who rise first (ibid)
"Rapture" is merely the latin form of the greek harpazo to snatch or seize. and i take it literally, but reject ourtright the notion that this will happen to christians before the troubles start.
No, it is at the End, when He returns.
So far we see that we christians will be essentially wiped out
What of the rest? He will make man as scarce as the gold ofOphir Isaiah 13:12.
He will destroy vast numbers at Armageddon when He returns
But are we in the Great Tribulation?
I submit that no we are not. The Beast has not arisen, He has not stood up in the rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem (Daniel) and declared himself God to the applause of the world.
And the second Beast, the false prophet REv 13:11, I take it that he emerges after the First Beast and he it is who will deceive and coerce the world into taking the MArk of the Beast, tied as it is to the direct and personal worship of the Antichrist as God.
Hence though it is a vile evil I seriously contend that thevaxx passport is not the mark of the beast.
One factor - namely no buying and selling without it - is not enough and i deplore the hysteria of mostly protestants on this one who show disregard for bible context
IMO there is so much that simply does not fit the Biblical scenario, so I conclude that this is a premature run by Satan to control the world, and as the time is not right God will smack him down and hard!!
So it is my hope that God Himself will stoip this for such can only happen in the time He decrees.
Hence i would see the statue heading your article here and the quote of "peacea and safety as signals that Satan is at work, but he has jumped the gun.
But if God does nothing and we are in thegreat tribulation, either now orin just a couple of years time, then I was mistaken
and all that remains to us who would stay true to Christ is to learn to die well
something our ancestors, in an age of no anaesthetics, instinctively knew
I say: I am in awe at your knowledge of Scripture; however that needs to be buttressed by knowledge of Church teaching. May I suggest Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano (former papal nuncio to the US, just Google him) for an overview of our current, lamentable situation, and/or Father Michel Robrigue (link below) as preparation for what is to come:
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UThQ6NPSTBQ&feature=youtu.be
I took a look at the video you asked me to. It was very interesting but i cannot agree with it.
Deleteunlike some rash individuals I see here i am not going to argue with anyone here about it.
This is a quarrel that has been going on for over 500 years now and it is not going to be stopped by any brilliance, real or imagined, here or anywhere else. So I refuse to join it.
AS a token of my attitude i will tell you8 that i was once banned from a group that dared call itself devoted to apologetics when i pointed out that the anti catholic wrangling going on there was ungodly.
I think you have noticed that I have kept conspicuously silent when you post things of a traditional catholic nature.
IF i can stay here by following that line that i will do.
If not I will feel obliged to leave
Theresa Rogers:
ReplyDeletePeter, how could she possibly think that was ‘scriptural’? Our Lady of Guadalupe didn’t appear when the bible was written. Are you being sarcastic?
Peter Moore:
Theresa, I am speaking Scriptural, that is in line with Scriptural teaching or what the Bible teaches as being sound. Apparitions of Mary or anyone else have no place at all in Biblical Christianity. If we were to expect such a thing God would have provided teaching in the Epistles to the churches. I hold to Sola Scriptura and the other 4 Sola's as being biblical. No one else apart from Christ is ever sanctioned and His passive and active work on the cross is the full and final payment.
I say:
Peter, that's the Protestant heresy, which is a denial of what the Church instituted by Jesus Christ taught to your ancestors and believed by them, until Luther rebelled.
Theresa Rogers:
Apparitions happened in the bible…
Feast of the Transfiguration, Christian commemoration of the occasion upon which Jesus Christ took three of his disciples, Peter, James, and John, up on a mountain, where Moses and Elijah appeared and Jesus was transfigured, his face and clothes becoming dazzlingly bright (Mark 9:2–13; Matthew 17:1–13; Luke 9:28–36).
Would you like to delete these apparitions? Since you believe they have no place in the bible.
Peter Moore:
ReplyDeleteJulia, Jesus Christ is the Rock. The church has existed from the start admittedly in its theocratic format but the church is one throughout the ages and is composed solely of the regenerate. In those OT times one became a believer by trusting in the promise of God bringing about union with God. That is the same today. Water (baptism) nor penance and claimed absolution by a man can ever bring about peace with God. It is Christ alone and that is by the grace of God alone apart from works. Works surface after one is united to Christ via the new birth. The revelation of God composed of the 66 books is alone the standard. Not any church or churches and not the RCC which due to its multiplied additions and subtractions means that as an organisation is not Christian. But the problem is you believe that God has vested in the RCC the authority as shown in Trent though embarrassingly for the RCC Vatican 2 could be thought of as a different organisation altogether. Compare the book of Romans to what the RCC (whether Trent or Vat 2 variant teach. The two are like chalk and cheese.
Theresa, yes and you have to ask 1) are those things normative (no). 2) Am I to look for such things or expect such things? (no). 3) Not all that glitters is gold! ie there are SO many warnings of falsehood, wolves in sheep's clothing. Jesus greatest warning (possibly) is found in Matt. 7:21-23: ''21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’'' In others words LOOKS can be deceiving! This is why God has provided THE standard: NOT the RCC or any other church but the Scriptures of the OT and NT. Look at the way Christ Himself defended Himself with the OLD TESTAMENT Scriptures in Matt. ch.4. It is written: 3 times! And He 'dug'deeper into the Scriptures when the devil tried to twist the Scriptures saying it is also written you shall not put God to a foolish test! Read and ponder. TBC
Theresa, 2 Peter 1:16-21: ''16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 18 And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.'' Here Peter is making it plain that the Scriptures take precedence. He speaks of the experience to validate the SCRIPTURES that they are from God and not man. It is the (Old Testament) Scriptures that the Bereans in Acts searched daily to see if the things that they had heard were correct. The NT had not been written at that point of course. I will remain a Berean.
Trent was a dogmatic council Vatican 2 was a pastoral council.
ReplyDeletePeter Moore:
ReplyDeleteTheresa, nothing you wrote there defends what you said here….”apparitions of Mary OR ANYONE ELSE have no place in the bible”
I’ve just shown you there were apparitions in the bible. And you’ve just tied yourself in circles blathering on about things being ‘normative’. And every other straw man protestant argument you can think of to change the subject.
Seeing Our lady is not ‘normative’, it happens to very few people. So when it does happen, most Catholics take note because they are usually warnings. Warnings which by the way have always been 100% accurate.
And if you want to talk about casting out demons, (completely off topic), I see many bible alone Protestants who believe they have the authority to do this and lay hands on anyone they please. Not realising they don’t have authority outside their own spouse or children, and that the demons they may cast out in Jesus name, may in fact come back ten fold to either the person they ‘freed’ or their loved ones.
So before you lecture Catholics about ‘lawlessness’ Protestants should take a look at their rebellious selves and their fractured splintered Christendom.
The bible was given to you by the Catholic Church. You should be entirely grateful. Not trying to bash Catholics with their own book which you usurped and twist to suit yourselves. You Protestants don’t even agree with each other about scripture. And here you are lecturing Catholics.
Peter Moore:
Theresa, there is no 'our lady'. She was a sinner in need of as saviour like any other and she received salvation like anyone ever has: by the grace of God alone, through Christ alone and by faith alone. Yet it is the rcc that has invented the concept of water applied by rcc which brings one into the kingdom of God and it is the rcc that says if you die of mortal sin you go to Hell. This is totally a fabrication. It is a shame you have been selective in what I said. I reiterate: the church was NEVER formed at the start of the NT. 2) the Scriptures were in existence all 39 books and was the AUTHORITY that Jesus Christ used against the devil! The bereans were commended for searching the SCRIPTURES NOT the church. The Epistles were written to individual churches in different locations. There is ONE universal church but this does not mean they have to be carbon copies of each other. It is the SCRIPTURES that God has ordained not fallible people and certainly not one who calls himself a successor of Peter. It is CHRIST alone who is perfect and only those who have come to saving faith in Him are saved, now and for eternity! NONE of His elect will end up in Hell and there is no class system as the rcc teaches with those who are saints and those who are on a lower level. Re off the rail religionists that you pointed out. Well of course. There is error all around! Christ said it would be so! Even as He said there will be false christs. I don't deny it one bit! But that does not let the rcc off the hook.
Theresa Rogers:
Mary was not a sinner. And it was you who was being selective…then went on to waffle irrelevantly. I was being specific about your claim by using an example from the bible. Which you are still sidestepping and dancing around. You claimed there are no apparitions in the bible. The bible says otherwise.
Theresa Rogers:
ReplyDelete“And there appeared to them Elias with Moses; and they were talking with Jesus.”
St Mark 9:3 DRC1752
https://bible.com/bible/55/mrk.9.3.DRC1752
St Mark 9:3 And there appeared to them Elias with Moses; and they were talking with Jesus. | Douay-Rheims Challoner Revision 1752 (DRC1752) | Download The Bible App Now
BIBLE.COM
St Mark 9:3 And there appeared to them Elias with Moses; and they were talking with Jesus. | Douay-Rheims Challoner Revision 1752 (DRC1752) | Download The Bible App Now
“And behold there appeared to them Moses and Elias talking with him.”
St Matthew 17:3 DRC1752
https://bible.com/bible/55/mat.17.3.DRC1752
St Matthew 17:3Douay-Rheims Challoner Revision 1752 (DRC1752) | Download The Bible App Now
“And behold two men were talking with him. And they were Moses and Elias, Appearing in majesty. And they spoke of his decease that he should accomplish in Jerusalem.”
St Luke 9:30-31 DRC1752
https://bible.com/bible/55/luk.9.30-31.DRC1752
St Luke 9:30-31 And behold two men were talking with him. And they were Moses and Elias, Appearing in majesty. And they spoke of his decease that he should accomplish in Jerusalem.
Peter Moore:
Theresa, I am not dancing around or waffling. You were making a claim regarding Mary. From there you tried to provide justification from the Bible. I never said there were no appearances of any kind. There is for example the angel who spoke pronouncing the birth of Christ. But there is no justification of any belief regarding Mary, who though you deny as being a sinner, indeed was for ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God: Mary included. It is rcc dogma that has invented the so called immaculate conception, quite recently set down ínfallibly' by the rcc. Here is what the Mary of the Bible had to say (Luke 1:46-50): '' 46 And Mary said: “My soul magnifies the Lord, 47 And my spirit has rejoiced in GOD MY SAVIOUR (uppercase is mine). 48 For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant; For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed. 49 For He who is mighty has done great things for me, And holy is His name. 50 And His mercy is on those who fear Him From generation to generation.'' NOTE only SINNERS need a Saviour! The ONLY sinless One is Christ! It is blasphemy to say otherwise and the Mary of Scripture is in full agreement. The IC is an rcc invention and a damnable heresy.
Theresa, those links are irrelevant. God spoke directly with Adam and others including Abraham. There is mention of angels of the Lord.... we are talking about the historical person called Mary who identified herself as someone who came to saving faith in Christ! There is NO elevation of Mary! The Bible has many, many warnings of lying wonders!
ReplyDeleteHere is a quote from catholic answers: ''But what about Romans 3:23, “all have sinned”? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. Paul’s comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary—but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain.'' Compare with Romans 3:10-20: 10 As it is written: “There is none righteous, no, not one; 11 There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. 12 They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one.” 13 “Their throat is an open tomb; With their tongues they have practiced deceit”; “The poison of asps is under their lips”; 14 “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.” 15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways; 17 And the way of peace they have not known.” 18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” 19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become [e]guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.'' And who is the actual author ultimately? It is God! (see Romans 1) The rcc say that Mary avoided the pollution of sin! WRONG! She came to saving faith as all others have (who HAVE) come to saving faith in Christ.
Peter Moore:
ReplyDeleteTheresa, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6pucfGK444
Roman Catholic's Dogma of the Immaculate Conception
YOUTUBE.COM
Theresa Rogers:
Since you like to misquote Catholic Answers…here’s a Catholic ex Protestant at Catholic answers to correct you.
The Catholic Answer
Not a few Protestants are surprised to discover the Catholic Church actually agrees that Mary was “saved.” Indeed, Mary needed a savior! However, Mary was “saved” from sin in a most sublime manner. She was given the grace to be “saved” completely from sin so that she never committed even the slightest transgression. Protestants tend to emphasize God’s “salvation” almost exclusively to the forgiveness of sins actually committed. However, Sacred Scripture indicates that salvation can also refer to man being protected from sinning before the fact:
Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you without blemish before the presence of his glory with rejoicing, to the only God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and for ever. (Jude 24-25)
Six hundred years ago, the great Franciscan theologian Duns Scotus explained that falling into sin could be likened to a man approaching unaware a deep ditch. If he falls into the ditch, he needs someone to lower a rope and save him. But if someone were to warn him of the danger ahead, preventing the man from falling into the ditch at all, he would be saved from falling in the first place. Likewise, Mary was saved from sin by receiving the grace to be preserved from it. But she was still saved.TBC
Theresa Rogers cont:
ReplyDeleteAll Have Sinned Except . . .
But what about “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23) and “if any man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him” (1 John 1:8)? Wouldn’t “all” and “any man” include Mary? On the surface, this sounds reasonable. But this way of thinking carried to its logical conclusion would list Jesus Christ in the company of sinners as well. No faithful Christian would dare say that. Yet no Christian can deny the plain texts of Scripture declaring Christ’s full humanity either. Thus, to take 1 John 1:8 in a strict, literal sense would apply “any man” to Jesus as well.
The truth is Jesus Christ was an exception to Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:8. And the Bible tells us he was in Hebrews 4:15: “Christ was tempted in all points even as we are and yet he was without sin.” The question now is: Are there any other exceptions to this rule? Yes—millions of them.
Both Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:9 deal with personal rather than original sin. (Romans 5 deals with original sin.) And there are two exceptions to that general biblical norm as well. But for now, we will simply deal with Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:8. First John 1:8 obviously refers to personal sin because in the very next verse, John tells us, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins . . .” We do not confess original sin; we confess personal sins.
Theresa Rogers cont:
ReplyDeleteThe context of Romans 3:23 makes clear that it too refers to personal sin:
None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave. They use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. (Rom. 3:10-14)
Original sin is not something we do; it is something we’ve inherited. Romans chapter three deals with personal sin because it speaks of sins committed by the sinner. With this in mind, consider this: Has a baby in the womb or a child of two ever committed a personal sin? No. To sin a person has to know the act he is about to perform is sinful while freely engaging his will in carrying it out. Without the proper faculties to enable them to sin, children before the age of accountability and anyone who does not have the use of his intellect and will cannot sin. So, there are and have been millions of exceptions to Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:8.
Still, how do we know Mary is an exception to the norm of “all have sinned?” And more specifically, is there biblical support for this claim? Yes, there is much biblical support.
Theresa Rogers cont
ReplyDeleteThe Name Says it All
And [the angel Gabriel] came to [Mary] and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.” (Luke 1:28-30)
Many Protestants will insist this text to be little more than a common greeting of the Archangel Gabriel to Mary. “What does this have to do with Mary being without sin?” Yet, the truth is, according to Mary herself, this was no common greeting. The text reveals Mary to have been “greatly troubled at the saying and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be” (Luke 1:29, emphasis added). What was it about this greeting that was so uncommon for Mary to react this way? We can consider at least two key aspects.
First, according to biblical scholars (as well as Pope John Paul II), the angel did more than simply greet Mary. The angel actually communicated a new name or title to her. (cf. Redemptoris Mater, 8, 9). In Greek, the greeting was kaire, kekaritomene, or “Hail, full of grace.” Generally speaking, when one greeted another with kaire, a name or title would be found in the immediate context. “Hail, king of the Jews” in John 19:3 and “Claudias Lysias, to his Excellency the governor Felix, greeting” (Acts 23:26) are two biblical examples of this. The fact that the angel replaces Mary’s name in the greeting with “full of grace” was anything but common. This would be analogous to me speaking to one of our tech guys at Catholic Answers and saying, “Hello, he who fixes computers.” In Hebrew culture, names and name changes tell us something permanent about the character and calling of the one named. Just recall the name changes of Abram to Abraham (from “father” to “father of the multitudes”) in Genesis 17:5, Saray to Sarah (“my princess” to “princess”), in Genesis 17:15 and Jacob to Israel (“supplanter” to “he who prevails with God”) in Genesis 32:28.
Theresa Rogers cont:
ReplyDeleteIn each case, the names reveal something permanent about the one named. Abraham and Sarah transition from being a “father” and “princess” of one family to being “father” and “princess” or “mother” of the entire people of God (see Rom. 4:1-18; Is. 51:1-2). They become patriarch and matriarch of God’s people forever. Jacob/Israel becomes the patriarch whose name, “he who prevails with God,” continues forever in the Church, which is called “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). The People of God will forever “prevail with God” in the image of the patriarch Jacob.
What’s in a name? According to Scripture, quite a lot.
St. Luke uses the perfect passive participle, kekaritomene, as his “name” for Mary. This word literally means “she who has been graced” in a completed sense. This verbal adjective, “graced,” is not just describing a simple past action. Greek has another tense for that. The perfect tense is used to indicate that an action has been completed in the past resulting in a present state of being. “Full of grace” is Mary’s name. So what does it tell us about Mary? Well, the average Christian is not completed in grace and in a permanent sense (see Phil. 3:8-12). But according to the angel, Mary is. You and I sin, not because of grace, but because of a lack of grace, or a lack of our cooperation with grace, in our lives. This greeting of the angel is one clue into the unique character and calling of the Mother of God. Only Mary is given the name “full of grace” and in the perfect tense, indicating that this permanent state of Mary was completed.
Theresa Rogers cont:
ReplyDeleteArk of the (New) Covenant
The Old Testament Ark of the Covenant was a true icon of the sacred. Because it contained the presence of God symbolized by three types of the coming Messiah—the manna, the Ten Commandments, and Aaron’s rod—it had to be pure and untouched by sinful man (see 2 Sam. 6:1-9 and Ex. 25:10ff; Num. 4:15).
In the New Testament, the new Ark is not an inanimate object, but a person: the Blessed Mother. How much more pure would the new Ark be when we consider the old ark was a mere “shadow” in relation to it (see Heb. 10:1)? This image of Mary as the Ark of the Covenant is an indicator that Mary would fittingly be free from all contagion of sin to be a worthy vessel to bear God in her womb. And most importantly, just as the Old Covenant Ark was pristine from the moment it was constructed with explicit divine instructions in Exodus 25, so would Mary be pure from the moment of her conception. God, in a sense, prepared his own dwelling place in both the Old and New Testaments.
The Ark of the Covenant contained three “types” of Jesus inside: manna, Aaron’s rod, and the Ten Commandments. In Hebrew, commandment (dabar) can be translated “word.” Compare: Mary carried the fulfillment of all these types in her body. Jesus is the “true [manna] from heaven” (John 6:32), the true “High Priest” (Heb. 3:1), and “the word made flesh” (John 1:14).
The glory cloud (Hebrew Anan) was representative of the Holy Spirit, and it “overshadowed” the Ark when Moses consecrated it in Ex. 40:32-33. The Greek word for “overshadow” found in the Septuagint is a form of episkiasei. Compare: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). The Greek word for “overshadow” is episkiasei.
David “leapt and danced” before the Ark when it was being carried into Jerusalem in procession in 2 Sam. 6:14-16. Compare: As soon as Elizabeth heard the sound of Mary’s salutation, John the Baptist “leaped for joy” in her womb (cf. Luke 1:41-44).
After a manifestation of the power of God working through the Ark, David exclaims, “How can the Ark of the Lord come unto me?” Compare: After the revelation to Elizabeth about the true calling of Mary, who was carrying God in her womb, Elizabeth exclaims, “Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43)
The Ark of the Lord “remained in the house of Obededom . . . three months” in 2 Sam. 6:11. Compare: “Mary remained with [Elizabeth] for about three months” (Luke 1:56).
Theresa Rogers cont:
DeleteThe New Eve
It is important for us to recall that New Covenant fulfillments are always more glorious and more perfect than their Old Testament types, which are “but a shadow of the good things to come” in the New Covenant (Heb. 10:1). With this in mind, let us consider the revelation of Mary as the “New Eve.” After the fall of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3, God promised the advent of another “woman” in Genesis 3:15, or a “New Eve” who would oppose Lucifer, and whose “seed” would crush his head. This “woman” and “her seed” would reverse the curse, so to speak, that the original “man” and “woman” had brought upon humanity through their disobedience.
It is most significant here to note “Adam” and “Eve” are revealed simply as “the man” and “the woman” before the woman’s name was changed to “Eve” (Hebrew, “mother of the living”) after the fall (see Gen. 2:21ff). When we then look at the New Covenant, Jesus is explicitly referred to as the “last Adam,” or the “New Adam” in 1 Cor. 15:45. And Jesus himself indicates that Mary is the prophetic “woman” or “New Eve” of Genesis 3:15 when he refers to his mother as “woman” in John 2:4 and 19:26. Moreover, St. John refers to Mary as “woman” eight times in Revelation 12. As the first Eve brought death to all of her children through disobedience and heeding the words of the ancient serpent, the devil, the “New Eve” of Revelation 12 brings life and salvation to all of her children through her obedience. The same “serpent” who deceived the original woman of Genesis is revealed, in Revelation 12, to fail in his attempt to overcome this new woman. The New Eve overcomes the serpent and as a result, “The serpent is 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. 12:17).
Theresa Rogers cont:
ReplyDeleteIf Mary is the New Eve and New Testament fulfillments are always more glorious than their Old Testament antecedents, it would be unthinkable for Mary to be conceived in sin. If she were, she would be inferior to Eve who was created in a perfect state, free from all sin.
Source Tim Staples
https://www.catholic.com/.../hail-mary-conceived-without-sin
Hail Mary, Conceived Without Sin
CATHOLIC.COM
Peter Moore:
It is good to talk with you Theresa. Did you watch the video I sent you by James White? I think he does a very good job of showing the rcc development of their teaching on Mary and how it is woefully in error. I hope you watch it. Regarding your quote you supplied: ''If Mary is the New Eve and New Testament fulfillments are always more glorious than their Old Testament antecedents, it would be unthinkable for Mary to be conceived in sin. If she were, she would be inferior to Eve who was created in a perfect state, free from all sin.'' However the facts are what matters. Mary like all others have come down from fallen Adam and Eve. None were conceived in that original state which was free from sin. Now concerning Adam and Eve, they were not perfect or immaculately created. They had an ability to sin but were prohibited or did not have permission to sin. But they exercised their free will and sinned. All humanity since have inherited a bound will. NONE are free toward God. This IS why Romans 3 speaks as it does. Thus only God is without the ability to sin! God can not sin. Via the transmission of sin, ALL without exception have inherited that sinful nature in their body and soul. That is why we die a physical death. It is the result of sin. This is why we are all born spiritually dead and why John 3 says unless you are born again (spiritually) you will die in your sins and not go to Heaven but Hell. This need of spiritual birth is a requirement for one and all. Mary included. Mary rejoiced in her Saviour because she came to saving faith in Christ.
· Reply · 23h
Theresa Rogers
I watched the beginning of your video. I’m not sure I want to invest 45 mins of my life into a video from a Protestant about what Catholics believe, having been a Protestant for a number of years I’ve heard most of the arguments and they are irrelevant to me now.
He begun with the pretext of ‘everything must be in the bible’ (ignoring the fact it was the Catholic Church who decided which infallible writings made it into the bible.) and that there was no bible for hundreds of years. Just letters and Catholic tradition.
The Catholic Church existed BEFORE the bible, not the other way around. There were many texts that never made it into the bible, and it was the Catholic Church that had the authority to determine which would be used.
Then he went onto other Catholic ideas based on Catholic writings and traditions outside the bible as though this is a problem and evidence of Catholic belief being incorrect. Again, Protestants thinking they can teach Catholics about the oldest Christian faith on earth predating Protestantism.
Peter Moore:
ReplyDeleteTheresa it is not appropriate to read the first part of a book or a small part of a video and make an assessment. If you watch the whole video you will find that White uses amongst other things rcc sources to show the error of the so called IC. It is not about Protestantism it is about truth. I am happy to talk about the Scriptures and the 66 books, the human and divine authorship but one thing at a time. The IC is hostile to ALL of Scripture as there is ONE alone who was immaculately conceived in His humanity. In His divinity He has always existed. IC and as well all other marion dogma is false and if you listened to the video to the end you would see it is not supported but built on no solid foundation at all. Your continued references to appearances etc in the Bible of other figures are of no significance whatsoever. The fact is that Mary has been elevated by rcc to something she never was in real life and that is absolutely appalling. That is the subject at hand. It is a damnable heresy.
Theresa Rogers:
Peter I read books I’m interested in, and watch videos I’m interested in watching. I’m not going to waste my time listening to any more Protestants give their opinions about Catholic belief. I listened to them in the first place, it gave me rubbish Protestantism for 30 years. Then I discovered they were full of it. I’m not interested. I’ve found the truth. And it has set me free. By all means carry on protesting though. I’ll get on with being Catholic. The true and original Christianity.
I find your disrespect of Mary appalling.
Peter Moore:
ReplyDeleteThat is your choice though it is disappointing since you are offered an excellent refutation regarding the heresy of the so called immaculate conception. It is weak indeed to say you watch videos you wish to watch. You say you have found the truth yet your truth has no alignment to the God who is the author of Scripture and who has made it ultra plain that He alone is sinless! Thus Christ incarnate was likewise sinless! Mary most certainly was not and shows that your notion of truth is untruth! rcc is NOT the true origin of Christianity! Again, your choice Theresa. I will stay in the company of the Bereans who were commended and with Christ who used the Scriptures and with the Epistles which all demonstrate the Scriptures as being the standard. May God be merciful to you. Feel fee to resume the conversation any time:) The video is there if you change your mind. All the best!
· Reply · 18h
Peter Moore
Theresa Rogers Which Mary do I disrespect? Certainly not the historical Mary in the NT. One cannot disrespect something fictitious. The 'mary' of rcc is exactly that and it would be unloving if I did not say so because the biblical Mary would rebuke the rcc for its heresy!
Theresa Rogers:
Nothing weak about it. If I watched every video people wanted me to watch I’d be here till dooms day. So I look at a bit to see if I want to bother or not.
What is disappointing is that you are so desperate to try and disprove Catholicism, (although that could be a gift for you in the end if your honest with yourself), when there are literally tens of thousands of Protestant sects who disagree with you, but here you are.
I pray you find the truth one day. It is of course your choice not to want to. We were given that gift weren’t we. Freedom to choose.
And if he disagrees with Catholicism he nust also condemn the Eastern Orthodox.
ReplyDeleteI think you should ask for forgiveness for disrespecting Jesus Christ’s Mother.
ReplyDeleteI say:
Peter I'm sorry, Facebook put me in jail for 24 hours for posting Pf*izer's own stats on their vacci*ne's ad*erse effects so I've missed your ding-dong with Theresa, but will post it on the blog. Jesus did not say "I am Jesus and upon this rock I will build My Church': He said "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church." As a Protestant, and so literally-minded because Scripture is all you have, you should be able to see the difference and grasp the implications.
Theresa, like I say I am happy to discuss each point one by one. But order is needed. We started with the biblical and historical Mary and I have offered a video which has all the proof you need. Not many. One video. There is no point introducing other arguments when you will not do justice to this video. Like I say, your choice. However there is no point in trying to repeatedly introduce other things when you will not discuss this very thing that is on the table. That is to skip around and waste time. It is your choice but when you are ready to continue the discussion re IC let me know. It is logical and follows proper communication patterns and is the method Christ used in His conversation with the devil: systematic and kept to the subject at hand. A very good example to follow.
Peter Moore:
Theresa, like I say watch the video BEFORE forming your opinions as you would or should if you are in a conversation with someone. It is only fair, right and honest. Anything else is cherry picking. What I am saying with relation to your thought that I am being disrespectful is this: Mary is NOT whom you content she is. It would be disrespectful to Mary to elevate her the way that the rcc does if that is not who she is. Indeed it would be blasphemy, idolatrous and damnable. I contend it is all of those things. The HISTORICAL Mary, I have no disrespect for.
Peter Moore:
DeleteJulia, hi. Yes the FB Police and freedom of speech being eroded....terrible! I am happy to engage a topic at a time incl the one you raise re Peter. I will continue to converse with Theresa if she wishes to regarding the rcc dogma IC. I will give her the opportunity to see if she wishes to continue with that. Thanks.
Theresa Rogers:
Peter.I don’t need to watch your video. I have spent 30 years exploring what Protestants believe, only to discover they are full of themselves and totally ignorant of Catholicism. I don’t need Protestantism to help me form my ideas about Catholicism. This is the part you are not grasping. Protestantism has nothing more to teach me. They are a false religion.
Most Catholics are totally ignorant of Catholicism so I don’t entirely blame Protestants for their ignorance or arrogance. But it was because of Protestantism this occurred in the first place.
I’m not interested in discussing anything further with you. Because you are not actually open to discussion anyway. You believe you are here to educate Catholics. Like every other arrogant Protestant that believes the same. I am sick and tired of Protestants from every denomination believing they exist to educate Catholics when none of you even agree with each other. Seriously, the arrogance of it is astounding.
You are not educating anyone. And if you are trying to teach me to disrespect our lady. You have another thing coming. I flatly refuse to participate in your discussion. I find it repulsive and abhorrent. Protestants are so arrogant.
Theresa RogersL
ReplyDeletePeter yes, you say a lot of things endlessly. You call us heretics for believing Mary deserves respect. You blather on about a video, like it’s the be all and end all of Christian belief and thought.
I’ll stick with two thousand years of Catholic Christian history. You enjoy your individual version of Christian belief. But do t pretend you’re trying to have a discussion.
I provided biblical evidence that you are wrong with your claim. You’re the one cherry picking what bits of the bible you like and what you want to attribute to something else.
Sacred scripture collated by the Catholic Church. I’m glad you like our book. Maybe you can stop giving it your own interpretation one day.
Peter Moore:
Theresa, you really wont divert me. As I have said, if you want to discuss things objectively and methodically fine. There is one topic on the table. You choose to raise a smoke screen and keep repeating yourself re things off topic of IC and that is your choice. However please do not think I will not engage. I really am willing. There is a topic you have chosen to abandon. I will address every topic you raise just in order. God is not the author of confusion (1Cor. 14:33). And: ''let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God.'' (James 1:19-20). And: ''To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:20). It is you who wishes not to continue the discussion that is on the table yet you keep responding with repetitions of off topic things. There is no IF Theresa. I do wish you God's best.
Theresa Rogers:
DeleteI’m well aware you won’t be diverted from your personal religion. It’s actually you who diverted the discussion in the first place. And you making demands about watching videos.
Typical Protestant trying to bash Catholics with the bible and twisting scripture to suit yourself. While throwing insults around and issuing fake blessings.
Seriously. Give it up.
You could take your own advice about ‘being slow to speak’. Calling Catholics
‘Blasphemous, idolatrous and damnable’.
Honestly, your veiled insults followed by cherry picked scripture does not make me want to discuss anything with you.
Andy Wilson:
ReplyDeleteThis might all sound a bit wacky but their is actual proof of UN involvement with a Satanic connection found with the Lucis Trust who run and operate a Chapel underneath the UN building. Lucis Trust are listed as a consultive partner in UN discussions. The likes of Kofi Annan got married in the Chapel . You can actually find the Lucis Trust previously named Lucifer Publishing openly promote that Satan is good and misunderstood - go directly to their site for confirmation below . Sponsors of the Trust among many include Bill Gates, Rockefeller, Bono of U2
etc
This is the link confirming their consultive status with the UN:
https://www.lucistrust.org/about_us/support_un
And this is the Lucis Trust site, they openly try to discredit their old name which had Lucifer in its title but then undo themselves by stating that Lucifer is not Satan - their organisation was setup by Alice Bailey who openly promoted the occult .
https://www.lucistrust.org/about_us/history
And here they confirm Lucifer is all good according to them :
https://www.lucistrust.org/.../the_esoteric_meaning_lucifer
Support of the United Nations (Lucis Trust)
LUCISTRUST.ORG
I say:
Andy,yes it might sound a bit wacky - but totally credible. Thank you.
Sarah Oconnor:
Wacky but true
Russell Armitage:
Are you all serious. Satan is an invention of the mind. There is no such thing.
I say:
Wait till you meet him - as you're likely to do.
Bob Gill:
Russell, I'm sure you can give us some great supporting evidence for that 'invention of the mind'.
Wally Hicks:
"Art comforts the disturbed and disturbs the comfortable"
- Banksy…
"Art is exaggeration in the direction of Truth"
- Jonathan Fox
"Art is the act of expressing emotions, ideas and observations" - official definition
"Art 'becomes' Life" - me.
"Church doctrines inimical to life" must certainly be confronted, so that Humanity can evolve in Natural Ethics.
Russell Armitage
Of course. Look around you.
Russell Armitage
Of course. Look around you.
Russell Armitage:
DeleteJulia, you have a wicked sense of humour.
Steven Senn:
ReplyDeleteThe greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist...
Shane Harlen:
Russell, then you will have the concrete evidence to prove your statement?
Ross A Smith:
Shane, in the heart of man resides evil. We must be dragged kicking and screaming away from our natural inclination.
Just look at your average 2 year old…you don’t need to teach them to lie. You have to teach them to do the opposite of what comes naturally.
Kiri K Gee:
DeleteRussell, obviously you can prove that?
Russell Armitage:
ReplyDeleteRoss, sounds as though you had come across some odd 2 year olds.
Ross A Smith:
Russell: little Timmy, did you get into the cookies?
…”no”…
(Crumbs and chocolate surrounding the oral cavity).
AKA: dishonesty
· Reply · 22h
Ross A Smith
Russell Armitage I’d say, “spirited”.
But immoral nonetheless.
We teach them not to be immoral.
Brendon Lyons:
Russell be very careful
Russell Armitage:
Ross I'd call it self preservation.
Shane Harlen:
Russell Armitage you seem to not have given me any concrete evidence to back your statement of there is no Satan.
When one uses the word “no” in the context, it is usually a definitive meaning a known conclusion.
So the question is what is in my third draw down in my hallway chest? If you cannot give me an answer on what it contains then your best claim would be “I do not know” rather than making a definitive claim that there is nothing there, there is no chest.
Just because you cannot see something doesn’t mean it’s not there if other people can attest to it.
Your only claim could be is that you personally have seen no evidence so you cannot make a call and will have to sit on the fence on the subject.
To say “there is No” is intimating that you have all knowledge on everything and can prove it.
David Greer:
Russell, just like you count money God counts sin.
Russell, I'd call it self-destruction. In the long run.
Delete