Another Catholic Question

It could be.

We were talking of "Moses Seat." Where did this sudden rabbit trail come from? Dispensationalism is a natural outgrowth of millennialism and pre-millennialism, both of which were believed by the ECF under the name of Chiliasm. Don't go saying this is a modern phenomena. It isn't. Because one is ignorant of the facts of history doesn't change the facts of history.

And so? His great desire was to compile a study Bible. That he accomplished. Many have been grateful for it. Are you his foremost critic? Scofield never took credit for dispensationalism and rightly so.

 

Lori...

Errors and false statements???

Ummmm, Lori, He quotes from Catholic documents (Council of Trent, Vatican II) and he refutes from the scriptures)

Yes, thats exactly what is exposed here, false teaching in the form of the heretical goddess worship of the catholic church.

No. One truth after another. The lies..as always...come from the catholic church.

Lori, I was a catholic for the 1st 24 years of my life. I can testify to the fact that what he says about the Catholic church is absolutely correct

Take it from someone who was been Catholic longer than you have been one...

They are lying to you Lori. Dont let them get away with it.

 

Alive in Christ, I challenge you to visit this sight and compare the actual teachings and refuting of the common objections raised by the 'teacher' on these videos.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html

Sorry you were not taught better as a Catholic.

 

Here is one section that I will use as an example.

--Do you always believe lies? This author lies.
What does the verse say?

John 19:26-27 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
--We take both verses together to get the context. From that hour the disciple (John) took her (Mary) into his own home.
Jesus words are clear. He was asking Mary to submit to the care of John, and John to care for Mary. Then John took Mary into his home and took care of her. That is what it says, and nothing more. Why does the article spout lies?

This verse proves nothing of the sort! Again what does the verse say. Let’s see it in black and white:

Revelation 12:13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.
Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
--Read through the entire context. When was Mary ever persecuted? The dragon is Satan. The “woman” that was persecuted is Israel. Christ came out of Israel. He was a Jew. Revelation is highly allegoric. But there are clues in how to interpret it. It is obvious that Mary was not persecuted in the way the chapter describes. There is nothing in this verse that speaks of the “motherhood of God.” That is garbage theology. It is not rightly dividing the word of truth. This author is proving that he knows little of God’s Word. This is the category that he belongs in:

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Again, look at the verse carefully. Why doesn’t he quote these verses so we can see what they really say? Isn’t that noteworthy enough that the man is a false prophet and deceiver?

John 2:3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
John 2:4-5 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
--First, Jesus does not refer to her as mother, and from this point onward never refers to her as mother again. He consistently refers to her as “woman.”
Secondly, it is Mary that becomes subservient to Christ. Mary said: “Whatsoever he says to you, do it.” In other words, Whatever Christ commands that do. Don’t do what Mary does; do what Christ commands. Christ is the commander-in-chief. Obey him; not Mary. This is the lesson to learn from here.
The words of your author are twisted and deceiving; that of a false prophet.

What is the verse?
John 2:7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
--I don’t see any intercession for the people on Mary’s part. Mary saw a need (vs.3), and went to Jesus. She was rebuked for doing so (vs.4). However, Jesus performed this miracle anyway, and probably would have even if Mary had not come to Him.

Where is the verse?
Psalms 45:6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
--This speaks of Christ. It is a Messianic prophecy.
Psalms 45:9 Kings' daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir.
--Christ is the bridegroom; the born again believers that make up the body of Christ; those true believers that have been justified by the blood of Christ (OSAS), those make up the bride, and this is the only bride that is referred to here.

Revelation 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

 

1 Kings 2:17 And he said, Speak, I pray thee, unto Solomon the king, (for he will not say thee nay,) that he give me Abishag the Shunammite to wife.
1 Kings 2:20 Then she said, I desire one small petition of thee; I pray thee, say me not nay. And the king said unto her, Ask on, my mother: for I will not say thee nay.[/quote]
This is incredibly ridiculous. Has he even read the context? The outcome?

Yeah, right! Out of the abundance of his ignorance he doth speak.

OK, Lori, now look at the context and at what really happened:

1 Kings 2:21-24 And she said, Let Abishag the Shunammite be given to Adonijah thy brother to wife.
22 And king Solomon answered and said unto his mother, And why dost thou ask Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? ask for him the kingdom also; for he is mine elder brother; even for him, and for Abiathar the priest, and for Joab the son of Zeruiah.
23 Then king Solomon sware by the LORD, saying, God do so to me, and more also, if Adonijah have not spoken this word against his own life.
24 Now therefore, as the LORD liveth, which hath established me, and set me on the throne of David my father, and who hath made me an house, as he promised, Adonijah shall be put to death this day.
--Use this as a parallel for Mary and the logical conclusion is that every request you ask of Mary will end in someone’s death, correct?
She made a request (interceded for Adonijah). And what was the result? Adonijah was put to death. Those are the historical facts. And this is what you compare Mary to!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What is the verse?
1 Kings 15:12-13 And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.
13 And also Maachah his mother, even her he removed from being queen, because she had made an idol in a grove; and Asa destroyed her idol, and burnt it by the brook Kidron.
1 Kings 15:14 But the high places were not removed: nevertheless Asa's heart was perfect with the LORD all his days.
--In Asa’s day it was hardly a perfected kingdom. The high places (places of idolatrous worship) were left in place. Asa did a lot of good, but he didn’t go all the way. He did not remove the high places. Even so, this verse has nothing to do with Mary. It depicts a wicked woman, possibly a lesbian, but certainly an idolatrous—one of the most wicked queens in the Bible. Is this a picture of Mary???

So Athaliah is a picture of Mary? Do you know what Athalia did?? Let’s see:

2 Chronicles 22:10 But when Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she arose and destroyed all the seed royal of the house of Judah.
--She was a mass murderer!!

Finally her wicked reign came to an end:
2 Kings 11:20 And all the people of the land rejoiced, and the city was in quiet: and they slew Athaliah with the sword beside the king's house.
--And this is a picture of Mary??

Nehemiah 2:6 And the king said unto me, (the queen also sitting by him,) For how long shall thy journey be? and when wilt thou return? So it pleased the king to send me; and I set him a time.
--Where does it say anything about the Queen being a mother, or figurative of Mary?
This is a historical situation where Nehemiah presents a request before the King. His wife, the queen, happened to be sitting beside him at the time. There is nothing unusual about this scene. It has nothing to do with Mary.
--Your false prophet is Biblically ignorant, and has a wild imagination. Don’t be led astray by him.

 

Lori...



This is a large section from the material you recommended that I work through...

(bolding mine)

Lori, every bit of what is being propagated here in this material is wicked to the core. This is pure goddess worship.

And the bolded parts can not come from anywhere but the heart of Satan.

This stuff is of the evil one, Lori. It is demonic. It is devilish.

It is anti-God, anti-Christ, anti-truth, anti-gospel, and anti-Holy Spirit.

What is become more and more clear to me is that I believe you are MUCH more heavilly into Catholicism than how you came across at 1st.

If you are able to justify and promote teachings as satanic as what is in these these passages from the Catholic website you linked to, then they *probably* have you "hook, line, and sinker".

And thats not a good place to be, Lori.

You are being lied to, Lori. And you know who the "father of lies" is.

 

Kinda looks like the Trinity is getting ready to admit one more member to deity.

Oh well... Mariolotry being what it is.

In a 1985 address at the Marian shrine in Guayaquil, Ecuador, Pope John Paul II said:

"Mary goes before us and accompanies us. The silent journey that begins with her Immaculate Conception and passes through the ‘yes’ of Nazareth, which makes her the Mother of God, finds on Calvary a particularly important moment. There also, accepting and assisting at the sacrifice of her son, Mary is the dawn of Redemption....Crucified spiritually with her crucified son




(cf. Gal. 2:20), she contemplated with heroic love the death of her God, she ‘lovingly consented to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth’ (Lumen Gentium, 58)....In fact, at Calvary she united herself with the sacrifice of her Son that led to the foundation of the Church; her maternal heart shared to the very depths the will of Christ ‘to gather into one all the dispersed children of God’ (Jn. 11:52). Having suffered for the Church, Mary deserved to become the Mother of all the disciples of her Son, the Mother of their unity....In fact, Mary's role as Coredemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son" (Inseg VIII/1 (1985) 318-319 [ORE 876:7]).
[/quote]

 

Next -- the subject of "Worship at Mary's Altars"

WORSHIP at Mary’s Altars

 

Nope - I can't explain it.

 

It's the immaculate conception thing. The woman's punishment for sin is set forth in Genesis 3:16.

Since sin brought on increased pain in childbirth, one born without original sin (Mary) would have minimal pain in childbirth. I think this concept originated with Aquinas.

When the movie The Nativity Story came out a few years ago, a number of Catholics criticized it because it portrayed Mary as experiencing great pain in childbirth.

I believe they also interpret Isaiah 66:7 as evidence of a painless childbirth by Mary.

 

Yeah, it's the whole 'Mary being the Second Eve' thing (and, no, I don't buy that either).

 

i buy it...because Mary's obedient submission to the will of God offset Eve's disobedience in Paradise. in Orthodoxy we teach that, as Christ is the "New Adam", Mary, the Theotokos is the "New Eve".

in the same way that sin and death come into the world by the rebellion of both man and woman; sin and death are overcome in the world by the faithfulness of both man and woman. thus, our Orthodox hymns of the feast of the Annunciation speak of this holy day being the "beginning of our salvation". it is by Mary willingly accepting her Divine calling to be the mother of the Messiah that the People of God see the gates of Paradise opening for them again - this is also the very reason that the icon of the Annunciation is on the Royal Doors of our iconostas found in all Orthodox Churches.

In XC
-

 

Because it purports to equate Mary with the Second Adam ie: Christ; I find that problematic.

 

I'd have to re-read the patristic writings concerned.

 

Matt:

No Mary, no Christ.

Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

I believe "the woman" God talks about here in the first prophecy of our salvation is Mary. Her offspring is Jesus. Mary wasn't some random Jewish girl that God choose from among the people of Israel. She was chosen specifically by him from the foundation of the world.

The disobedience of Eve was atoned for by the obedience of Mary.

Luk 1:38 And Mary said, "Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.

The disobedience of Adam was atoned for by the obedience of Jesus as he laid his life down for the salvation of all men.

It makes sense to me to consider Mary as the new Eve just as Jesus is the new Adam.

 

I've found the following, for example, in Irenaeus' Adv. Haer.:

OK, I'll buy it - but with reservations similar to those I have re the theotokos doctrine ie: as long as it doesn't have the effect of raising Mary's status to one of co-equality with her Son.