Clarification appended
-
(Photo: New Line Cinema)This undated image provided by New Line Cinema pictures the three wise men from the movie 'The Nativity Story.'
The Archbishop of Canterbury, the spiritual head of the 77 million-strong Anglican Communion, recently dismissed one popular aspect of the Christmas story of the three wise men as “legend.”
Dr. Rowan Williams indicated that Scripture does not describe the magi as commonly depicted in nativity stories and scenes.
“Well Matthew's gospel doesn't tell us that there were three of them, doesn't tell us they were kings, doesn't tell us where they came from, it says they're astrologers, wise men, priests from somewhere outside the Roman Empire. That's all we're really told so, yes, 'the three kings with the one from Africa' - that's legend; it works quite well as legend,” he said in an interview with BBC Radio Five.
He noted there was no evidence of oxen or donkeys – popular characters in nativity scenes – in the stable and that the chances of snow falling around the stable in Bethlehem were “very unlikely.” Additionally, he said he doesn't know if there was a star above where baby Jesus lay. While the gospel of Matthew talks about the rising star and standing still, the Archbishop noted, he said "stars don't behave quite like that."
"There are various scientific theories about what it might have been at around that time and they (wise men) followed that trek; that makes sense to me," he said.
However, affirming some widely held beliefs of the Christmas story, the Archbishop said the detail that almost everyone agrees on is that Jesus’ mother is named Mary and his father, Joseph. Williams also affirmed his belief in the virgin birth and Jesus in a manger, but said the Gospels do not state if Jesus was born in December.
“Christmas is the time it is because it fitted very well with the winter festival,” Williams said in the interview.
The Anglican head explains that about a decade ago he was not too concerned about the literal truth of the doctrine of the virgin birth, but now sees it “much more as dovetailing with the rest of what I believe about the story.”
A recent Barna survey found that 75 percent of Americans said they believe in the gospel narrative of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ literally.
Williams did a literary-critical analysis of traditional Christmas cards and found that most featured a virgin Mary holding baby Jesus with shepherds on one side, the three wise men on the other, and oxen and donkeys surrounding them. The scene is sometimes depicted with snow falling and a bright star rising in the east, according to The Times of London.
The Anglican Archbishop contends that most of the happenings in the popular nativity scene could not take place as it is depicted. But the most important concept to take away from the Christmas story is the belief that God came to earth in human form as part of His plan for salvation.
Williams’ observation of the popular Christmas story is not new. Similar views are taught in the most conservative theological colleges, according to The Times. The Archbishop says his views on the Christmas story and other issues – including homosexuality, which is currently tearing up the Anglican Communion – are based on what the Bible says.
Clarification: Friday, Dec. 21, 2007:
An article on Thursday, Dec. 20, 2007, about Dr. Rowan Williams' comments on the nativity story ambiguously quoted the Archbishop of Canterbury from an interview he had with BBC Radio Five. Williams said the common depiction of one of the wise men being from Africa is a legend. He affirmed that there were magi but said Scripture does not indicate whether there were three of them or that they were kings.
He also affirmed that there was a star above the manger where Jesus lay but noted there are various scientific theories about whether it was a star, a constellation, or such, that the magi followed.
RSS
It takes one with the spirit of the LIVING GOD to understand the truth of the Bible. Bible understanding is not by academic aquisition in the four walls of the university/school but the wall of the heart. The question is this "has the Arch Bishop ever has an encounter with Christ?'Saul later Paul did and he told us as it is in 1st Corinthians 1 Vs19-21
"I'll stick with the word of God and my Catholic faith."
So Revelations isn't part of the Catholic Bible or faith?
Taj,
I am glad that others will be able to read your illogical and poor interpretations of scripture. Most KNOWLEDGABLE students of church history understands that the HISTORICIST interpretation of bible prophecy, PRECEED the SDA church. Your repetative assumption is extremely sad.
One last thing, I have no idea about the temple it's all conjecture just like your 10 representing the EU. I'll stick with the word of God and my Catholic faith. You go ahead and interpret the end times...good luck
Taj,
Go back and read Daniel 7; it says the the little horn was "DIFFERENT" from the previous powers. Once again you interpretation fails you.
I don't NEED to do anything. This Seventh Day Adventist stuff is so ridiculous it isn't even funny. You point to the 10 representing the EU ...how? the Vatican is incorrect but you'll twist it to make it sound correct. As for the Christian Fathers we already discussed this and I encourage people to read our previous postings. I'm done discussing this with you, it's bad enough when the SDAs come to my door and want to suck up my time discussing this ridiculous stuff. I'll stand by what has already been posted. All the best Online4Him....goodbye.
Taj,
So a denial of Jesus as the messiah and renewed animal sacrifces actually proves that a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem becomes the temple of God? This is ludicrous!!!!!!!!
Taj,
The Word of God, the Chruch Fathers, and the Reformers all support the Historicist position. Your position "futurism" is in the minority. You still think that a rebuilt Jewish temple can actually be a temple of "GOD". As I mentioned earlier; how can any re-built temple with renewed animal sacrifices and a disbelief that Jesus is the messiah, be the temple of God? You need to come up with something better than that.
I know it is difficult for you as a Seventh Day Adventist to believe this. You'd rather hold to aspects that don't even make sense. The 10 some how has something to do with the EU, the Vatican represents 4 mountains, even though it was yet to be founded and only sits on 1 hill, ..... I could go on and on but it's so ridiculous
Further confirmation is found in Revelation speaking of the Jewish temple as if it were still operating (11:1), but soon to be trampled by the gentiles, along with the holy city (11:2). Shortly after Nero's reign, the gentiles did indeed invade Jerusalem, trample it, and destroy the temple.
This suggests not only that the beast corresponded to the Roman empire in general and Caesar Nero in particular but also that the book of Revelation itself was written sometime in the early A.D. 60s, during Nero's reign, just before the Jewish War that led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70.
What Daniel's four beasts have in common is that they are all pagan kingdoms that persecuted and conquered God's people, Israel. John's beast is the same kind of thing—a conquering pagan empire. Since it comes after Daniel's four beasts, Rome is the logical candidate. But it's not a future, "restored Roman Empire." It's the real thing, the pagan Roman Empire of the early centuries. This is confirmed by several lines of evidence.
First, the book of Revelation is explicit in stating that it concerns events that will happen "soon" (1:1, 2:16, 3:11, 22:6, 7, 12, 20). This indicates that the bulk of the events of the book (those that precede the Millennium of Rev. 20:1-10, in which we are now living) should take place shortly after the book was written, likely in the A.D. 60s.
Second, we are told that the number of the beast is 666 and that this is the number of a man's name (13:18). Not coincidentally, the persecuting, pagan Roman Empire was headed in the A.D. 60s by Caesar Nero, whose name happened to add up to 666 in the Hebrew system of letters and numbers. (In Hebrew, "Caesar Nero" = "NRWN QSR" = N 50 + R 200 + W 6 + N 50 + Q 100 + S 60 + R 200 = 666; a variant spelling of the name, NRW QSR, adds up to 616, which some manuscripts have in place of 666).
Third, the seven heads of the beast are identified as seven mountains (17:9). Though this is not certain, these are likely the seven hills on which the city of Rome was built. (Vatican Hill, however, was not one of the seven; it is on the side of the Tiber River opposite the seven.)
Thus there is good evidence that the beast from the sea is the pagan Roman Empire of the first century and, in particular, the emperor at its head. This, again, is like Daniel's four beasts, who were described both as four kings (Dan 7:17) and four kingdoms (cf. Dan. 7:23).
Taj,
It is extremely obvious that you continue to grasp at any insignificant thing that will elevate your false unbiblical religion. Go back and “actually” read Daniel 7 and come up with another entity that fits this prophecy; you cannot. So, let us talk about denominations instead of “proving” your position from the bible; this is nothing more that “misdirection’s” to avoid the biblical text.
BOTTOM LINE: These are the identification marks mentioned in Daniel 7; so, who else can it be? You cannot find another based on these BIBLICAL PASSAGES.
It is well known from Daniel 7 that the antichrist would rise out of the fourth beast (Rome), remain in the midst of the ten horns (Europe), be different from the rest (a political & ecclesiastical power), uproot three kingdoms (Heruli, Vandals, & Ostrogoths), speak great words against the Most High (assume the titles of God), wore out the saints of the Most High (persecuted Christians), thought to change times and laws (tampered with the law of God), and would rule for a time, times, and half of time (1260 years).
GIVE ME ANOTHER ENTITY THAT FITS THIS PROPHECY? Instead of shooting down this obvious interpretation; give me something to replace it with!!!!!!!!!! The nations of Europe “are” kingdoms which ROME was divided into; anyone who knows basic history understands this. Not only do you attempt to re-write history, you also attempt to alter the Word of God. Your church “HAS” assumed the titles of the old Rome and they have always operated from the city of ROME. Go back and read a history book.
Go ahead and talk about “denominations” and secondary issues while I will continue to post “SCRIPTURE” :)
Sorry just flagged myself because I made a typo: It's not that the Word of God contradict itself it is that the person contradicts himself/herself. Just like your interpretations - you stated that the EU represents the 10 horns...what does the EU have 10 of? you stated that the Vatican sits on 4 hills/mountains...no it doesn't it sits on Vatican hill. I guess you are referring to Rome which sits on the opposite side of the river. I mean these statements are not even accurate, but represent a need by the seventh day adventists to point to the Church at the end times. Regardless that the statements aren't true.
One can come on to CP and open any topic regardless of the denomination and notice that there are people finding problems with it.
Online4Him,
Your beliefs are seventh day adventist - Sabbath is on Saturday, the evangelicals are wrong that once they accept Christ they are saved - once saved, always saved.... I agree there are various interpretations of scripture. Thus, there are thousands of different protestant faiths teaching different interpretations.
Taj,
Making a claim does not prove it. The Word of God does not contradict itself; can you say the same thing about the Catholic Church? I think not.
I guess anybody can use a quote here or there..now I really have to go.
of course it is a protestant site...one last thing:
Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinge in 1843 wrote strongly in favour of requiring Protestant soldiers to kneel at the consecration of the Host when compelled officially to be present at Mass. Moreover, in his works on The Reformation (3 vols. Regensburg, 1846-1848) and on Luther (1851, Eng, tr., 1853) he is very severe on the Protestant leaders, and he also accepts, in his earlier works, the Ultramontane view then current on the practical condition of the Church of England, a view he later changed. Meanwhile he had been well received in England; and he afterwards travelled in the Netherlands, Belgium and France, acquainting himself with the condition and prospects of the Roman Catholic Church. In 1842 he entered into correspondence with the leaders of the Tractarian movement in England, and some interesting letters have been preserved which were exchanged between him and Edward Pusey, William Gladstone and James Hope-Scott. When the last-named joined the Church of Rome he was warmly congratulated by Döllinger on the step he had taken.
He regretted the gradual and very natural trend of his new English allies towards extreme Ultramontane views, of which Archdeacon, afterwards Cardinal, Manning ultimately became an enthusiastic advocate. In 1845 Döllinger was made representative of his university in the second chamber of the Bavarian legislature. In 1847, in consequence of the fall from power of the Abel ministry in Bavaria, with which he had been in close relations, he was removed from his professorship at Munich, but in 1849 he was invited to occupy the chair of ecclesiastical history. In 1848, when nearly every throne in Europe was shaken by the spread of revolutionary sentiments, he was elected delegate to the national German assembly at Frankfurt - a sufficient proof that at this time he was regarded as no mere narrow and technical theologian, but as a man of wide and independent views.
Taj,
That still does not change their "statement of faith"!
Just like the person who runs the Catholic site on the homepage could tell you - there have been people on this site who have returned to their Catholic faith due to this protestant site - praise God. I have to go ...All the best.
Taj,
The passage says absolutely nothing about successors to Peter, and the unanimous consent of the Fathers actually opposes the Roman Catholic interpretation of Mt 16. The Fathers generally interpret the ‘rock’ in Matthew 16 to be Christ or Peter’s confession of faith in Christ. Some of the Fathers do refer to Peter as the rock but only in the sense of that he is the first to confess Christ to be the Son of God and is therefore representative of the entire Church. The Church is therefore built, not on Peter (or subsequently on the bishops of Rome), but on his confession of faith in the person of Christ. His confession points to Christ. The Fathers of the early centuries are not supporters of the Roman Catholic interpretation of Mt. 16:18 as proposed by Vatican One. Interestingly, it is the Protestant and Eastern Orthodox interpretation which is endorsed by the Fathers of the early church. This is affirmed by Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger, the most renowned Roman Catholic historian of the 19th century who taught Church history as a Roman Catholic for 47 years.
Von Dollinger states: ‘Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matt 16:18, John 21:17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter’s successors. How many Fathers have busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whose commentaries we possess-Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in catenas-has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter!
Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His Church of the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but they understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter’s confession of faith in Christ; often both together. Or else they thought Peter was the foundation equally with all the other Apostles, the twelve being together the foundation-stones of the Church (Revelation xxi. 14). The Fathers could the less recognize in the power of the keys, and the power of binding and loosing, any special prerogative or lordship of the Roman bishop, inasmuch as-what is obvious to anyone at first sight-they did not regard a power first given to Peter, and afterwards conferred in precisely the same words on all the Apostles, as anything peculiar to him, or hereditary in the line of Roman bishops, and they held the symbol of the keys as meaning just the same as the figurative expression of binding and loosing’ (The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1869), p. 74).
Taj,
Debating and demonstrating your faith to be true; is something else.
Taj,
You can also review the CP's statement of faith and recognize that it does not agree with the RCC. You have yet to prove anything from scripture.
I don't mind debating my faith, I love being a Roman Catholic.
Taj,
Here we go with quotations from "outside" biblical sources. Should I go back to cut and re-paste my comments from the early church fathers and their disagreements about Matt. 16?
THE primacy of Peter is clearly noted in the Bible:
"And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock ['Peter' is Greek for 'rock'] 1 will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19).
"I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers" (Luke 22:33).
God sent an angel to Peter to announce the Resurrection of Jesus (Mark 6:7).
The risen Jesus first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34).
Peter headed the meeting which elected Matthias as replacement for Judas (Acts 1:13-26).
Peter led the apostles in preaching on Pentecost (Acts 2:14).
Peter led the meeting which decided on which terms Gentiles would be allowed into the Church (Acts 15).
Peter was the judge of Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11).
Jesus entrusted Peter with his flock, making him too a Good Shepherd (John 21:15-17).
Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3).
After his conversion Paul went to see Peter, the chief apostle (Gal. 1:18).
Throughout the New Testament, when the apostles are listed as a group, Peter's name is always first. Sometimes it's just "Peter and the twelve. "
Peter's name is mentioned more often than the names of all the other apostles put together.
I realize there are many ex-Catholics on this site and can also understand why if you go to the top of the page and do a search of Catholic in the search engine under all CP and count all the stories that the Catholic faith is mentioned in more stories than any other denomination, I can understand why there is a link to a Catholic site on the homepage, because the Catholic faith is an extremely important aspect of Christianity in general. I realize the Catholic Church will always be attacked due its position in history and Christianity. Like mother Mary I'll try to hold on at the foot of the cross and remain with the Church the apostles established. May God continue to guide the Church and its members to do the right thing. There is a link to a Catholic site on CP I'd advise you to use it Online4Him.
Taj,
Claiming apostolic succession and proving it, are two separate things. Yes, Rome has made the claim but has not proved it. Instead of trutsting in what that church says; I will rather depend on the written record. The Word of the Living God is completely silent on this issue. Paul never addresses "Peter" in Rome as a prisoner nor does Peter come to visit Paul in prison. Peter never claims any superiority in his letters, etc, etc, etc.
Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).
For the early Fathers, "the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church's bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed 'an infallible charism of truth'" (ibid.).
Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be "profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field" (ibid., 41).
I feel the same way about my Catholic faith. Like the first Christians I have no doubts about how to determine which was and is the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.
Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).
Taj,
What was your point for bringing that up?
Taj,
We will get back to that; what happened to our other conversations about the "once saved, always saved?
GMG,
Well said!!!!!
For goodness sakes, I was raised RC, came to know the Lord in a Baptist church, and call myself a Christian seeking to grow always in the Lord's word, through His word first and foremost. I am not any denomination, I have a relationship with Christ. If you want to call me anything you could probably call me southern baptist, but I don't believe everything they say either. Would something like that tell you all that I believe, or how my growth would give me more wisdom in the future on any given issue? Give it a rest.
Maybe, if taj hears this from someone else; perhaps he will understand.
Taj,
Incorrect my friend; God himself has given us these prophecies. Until someone can give me an accurate explanation for these passages and refute the Historicist interpretation; I will have to stay put.
well then here is your chance: where is it in scripture?
Online4Him,
You stated you would back up your answers from scripture where is there that there is a future millennium in which the devil will roam the earth while Christians are with Christ in heaven
Taj,
Jesus used the Word of God as his sole rule of faith. Jesus never used "tradition" as his authority. You can have the church; just be me Jesus Christ.
well if you are referring to me church as the blank of Babylon then should be able to back up where you are coming from. If you are going to attack my Church then don't think I'm not going to put on the whole armor of God and want to know where the other person is coming from
ok then demonstrate to me from scripture that there is a future millennium in which the devil will roam the earth while Christians are with Christ in heaven
For goodness sakes, I was raised RC, came to know the Lord in a Baptist church, and call myself a Christian seeking to grow always in the Lord's word, through His word first and foremost. I am not any denomination, I have a relationship with Christ. If you want to call me anything you could probably call me southern baptist, but I don't believe everything they say either. Would something like that tell you all that I believe, or how my growth would give me more wisdom in the future on any given issue? Give it a rest.
You can't answer simple questions...very sad
Your views are seventh day adventist: you reject the teachings of the evangelicals that belief in Jesus Christ is enough ...once saved, always saved, that the Sabbath is Saturday. You haven't responded whether there is a future millennium in which the devil will roam the earth while Christians are with Christ in heaven...you are adventist
Taj,
Haha, you are to funny! Let's see - I have told you that I left, that I am done with denominations, that I observe the sabbath, that I adhere to the bible alone, that I adhere to the five solas of the Reformation, that you can have you choice of labels for me, that I am a Christian that can demonstrate what I believe from scripture and still you babble on with the same question. You need therapy my friend :)
Online4Him, can't even answer a yes/no question how sad is that??
Roman Catholics, don't believe the bible is the only way ...we never have and we never will. To do so would be to undercut the importance of the Church. The bible is the only way started at the protestant reformation the idea didn't exist previously. I answered your question now answer mine: Do you swear to God that you left the Seventh Day Adventists?
Taj,
There you go jumping from one subject to another again. Let's finish the "Sabbath" conversation and once saved, always saved before jumping to eschatology.
If you want to go back to eschatology; then figure out the specifics of Daniel 7.
Why will you not admit that you are seventh day adventist?
Taj,
You have been told already that I can defend my beliefs from the bible. Can you say the same thing?
new yes or no question: do you believe that there will be a future millennium in which the devil will roam the earth while Christians are with Christ in heaven?
Taj,
Yeah, right? Do not flatter yourself.
The denomination is a fair question because our conversations have been as me as the apologist defending my faith. If that is the case then Online can answer one fair question. All this person's beliefs are seventh day adventist yet the person doesn't want to admit it ...why?
GMG,
Thank you for recognizing that my friend.
Do you want me to set up another account and respond?
Taj,
There you go jumping from one subject to another again. Let's finish the "Sabbath" conversation and once saved, always saved before jumping to eschatology.
If you want to go back to eschatology; then figure out the specifics of Daniel 7.
That's probably you Online
do you believe that there will be a future millennium in which the devil will roam the earth while Christians are with Christ in heaven?
truthandjustice - our denominations are part of the debate only if someone wishes to include it, and it is true that you have at times used online's personal history in personal attacks. I am not sure that I could have been as gracious as online has been under the circumstances. Please let the issue drop.
I'm asking you these questions to find out your theological background since you will not tell me your denomination. If I'm going to debate someone then it would be easier to know what denomination the person is, we are both Christians.
do you believe that there will be a future millennium in which the devil will roam the earth while Christians are with Christ in heaven?
Taj,
First, you assume that all Protestant churches believe this doctrine; wrong. Secondly, intead of using a false premise; "Sabbath - Saturay" is wrong, show me from scripture.
ok, then let's continue to pull teeth then: do you believe that there will be a future millennium in which the devil will roam the earth while Christians are with Christ in heaven?
Taj,
Why not use God's Word to prove your point instead of using a labels "denominations" to prove your point?
Online4Him,
The exact same rejection the SDAs use to reject the once saved always saved belief of evangelicals, then you add on your belief that the sabbath is on Saturday...you are a seventh day adventist admit it.
Taj,
First, I recognize the straw man that you have just set up. I do not believe in "once saved always saved" however, my answer will come from scripture -
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new 2Corinthians 5:17.
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his - Romans 8:9.
The question should be asked, "Is someone is in Christ"?
wow to stump you on the yes/no basic theological questions. I have to admit this is rather disappointing.
I guess you struggle with the Yes/No questions.
sad that you can't answer a yes/no answer. Ok, let me take a different approach. Do you believe that one can never lose one's salvation no matter what one does ("once saved, always saved")?
Taj,
The readers here have already heard your references to the SDA church and the sabbath several times; they do not care, because they have read sound biblical rebuttals to all of your claims.
sad that you can't answer a yes/no answer. Ok, let me take a different approach. Do you believe that one can never lose one’s salvation no matter what one does ("once saved, always saved")?
Taj,
I have already rebutted all of your suppoesd sunday passages; would you like to retry?
Taj,
I have already answered your question several weeks ago and tonight. If that is not enough for you, then so be it. Why not spend some time researching that "entity" to fit the prophecy of Daniel chapter 7?
I'm sure a lot of Christians on CP will scratch their heads with your belief that the Sabbath is a Saturday and that you will not answer my yes/no question.
Then answer yes or no to my question. Christian/protestant these are big words...I too am a Christian. My theological question is: have you as God is your witness left the Seventh Day Adventists? YES OR NO answer, why is this so difficult? It's a YES OR NO QUESTION
Taj,
I hope peope WILL read this and recognize that all of my postings have been from the Word of God. Those who have read our previous postings will understand why I will not share anymore info with you. Maybe they will remember everytime you became flustered; you shouted out the fact that I have left Catholicism, Adventism, etc. As if by highlighting these facts you claimed for yourself some victory??????
Prove your position from the Word of God and then you can claim victory. The majority of christians here on the CP with accept my five solas of the reformation and be able to review my biblical credentials. My identity is in JESUS and not in any denomination. I am done with denominations; I am a Christian, period :)
My theological question is: have you as God is your witness left the Seventh Day Adventists? YES OR NO answer, why is this so difficult? It's a YES OR NO QUESTION
I HAVE NEVER ASKED ANYTHING SPECIFIC ABOUT YOU OR YOUR BACKGROUND, I only want to know your denomination which I feel most people would agree is a very fair question
My theological question is: have you as God is your witness left the Seventh Day Adventists? YES OR NO answer, why is this so difficult? It's a YES OR NO QUESTION
It's not personal. I don't want to know about your background or anything specific about you. I just want to know your denomination.
Taj,
For the same reason why you will not share your testimony. You do not trust me and I will no longer share with you any personal info. My last testimony describes who I am and what I believe, so, get on with it.
My theological question is: have you as God is your witness left the Seventh Day Adventists? YES OR NO answer, why is this so difficult? It's a YES OR NO QUESTION
I hope people read our conversation and wonder why you will not answer a yes or no question about your denomination.
My theological question is: have you as God is your witness left the Seventh Day Adventists? YES OR NO answer, why is this so difficult? It's a YES OR NO QUESTION
Taj,
For the same reason why you will not share your testimony. Seriously, take your pick, it matters not to me. I am a Christian who holds to the five solas of the Reformation and yes I observe the sabbath - satruday. This should make it easier for you.
My theological question is: have you as God is your witness left the Seventh Day Adventists? YES OR NO answer, why is this so difficult?
My faith is always being attacked and judged, but that is ok because I feel that if you attend a place you should be able to justify why you are attending. I never want to be ashamed of any place I attend. I just want to know your denomination because we have theological differences! Have you as God is your witness left the Seventh Day Adventists? YES OR NO answer, why is this so difficult?
Taj,
I ALREADY ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION IN THE PAST; YOU ASKED ME TO NAME ANOTHER SABBATH KEEPING CHURCH. I HAVE NAMED A FEW; TAKE YOUR PICK, IT MATTERS NOT TO ME. DO YOU HAVE A THEOLOGICAL QUESTION?
Why can't you be honest and provide a yes or no answer?
IT'S THE MOST BASIC QUESTION IN THE WORLD! WE ARE ON A WEBSITE DISCUSSING RELIGION AND WE HAVE THEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES AND YOU WILL NOT TELL ME WHAT DENOMINATION YOU ATTEND. I just want to know your denomination because we have theological differences! Have you as God is your witness left the Seventh Day Adventists? YES OR NO answer, why is this so difficult?
Taj,
Yes, I brought it up as a friendly gesture; hoping for the same in return. Do you think that the info you share will be turned against you? The theological differences can be discussed from my bible and your traditions; so, lets get started.
IT'S THE MOST BASIC QUESTION IN THE WORLD! WE ARE ON A WEBSITE DISCUSSING RELIGION AND WE HAVE THEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES AND YOU WILL NOT TELL ME WHAT DENOMINATION YOU ATTEND. I just want to know your denomination because we have theological differences! Have you as God is your witness left the Seventh Day Adventists? YES OR NO answer, why is this so difficult?
Taj,
For the same reason why you will not share your testimony. You have proven to be nasty with my personal info, so why would I trust you with additonal info. You are so impersonable.
I just want to know your denomination because we have theological differences! Have you as God is your witness left the Seventh Day Adventists? YES OR NO answer, why is this so difficult?
I never asked about your background you brought it up. I just want to know your denomination because we have theological differences! Have you as God is your witness left the Seventh Day Adventists? YES OR NO answer, why is this so difficult?
Taj,
It appears that you are searching for some personal leverage to use against me. I have told you that my beliefs can be shared from the bible. If you want to make assumptions; then that is your choice. Yes, you are catholic; I am not, so what is your question?
WHY CAN"T YOU ANSWER A BASIC QUESTION THAT NOBODY ELSE On CP WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM ANSWERING? It's not even personal!!!!!
Taj,
Example, I have shared with you my personal upbringing, the churches I have attended, family members and their faith, etc. What is your story? Do you have a personal testimony?
Have you as God is your witness left the Seventh Day Adventists?
You can't even answer a yes or no question!!
I am being forth right I am a Roman Catholic
Have you as God is your witness left the Seventh Day Adventists? YES OR NO answer, why is this so difficult?
Taj,
If you are be forthright and truthful; why not share you personal testimony as I have. Are you afraid that I will use it against you, like you have done to me?
I am a Roman Catholic. I am not ashamed of the Church I attend and you?
Taj,
We are having theological discussions; what other doctrinal questions do you have? I use only the bible; so what is it?
I am a Roman Catholic. I am not ashamed of the Church I attend and you?
I think all CP chatters would have no problem stating their denomination. Have you as God is your witness left the Seventh Day Adventists? YES OR NO answer, why is this so difficult?
Taj,
I will not give you anymore personal info so you can use it as a "misdirection tool" - to change the subject in our discussions. Or use it whenever you have a new audience. Why not demonstrate a kind gesture and tell me your backround and personal story?
I think all CP chatters would have no problem stating their denomination. Have you as God is your witness left the Seventh Day Adventists? YES OR NO answer, why is this so difficult?
Let me go first then: As God is my witness I am a Roman Catholic.
Taj,
I have already told you. I am a Christian who can tell you my beliefs from scripture. What doctrinal question do you have and I will do my best to answer.
I will not give you anymore personal info so you can use it as a "misdirection tool" - to change the subject in our discussions. Or use it whenever you have a new audience. Why not demonstrate a kind gesture and tell me your backround and personal story?
Let me go first then: As God is my witness I am a Roman Catholic.
The fact that you will not answer this question makes one question the truthfulness of the person's comments. I think all CP chatters would have no problem stating their denomination. Have you as God is your witness left the Seventh Day Adventists? YES OR NO answer, why is this so difficult?
Have you as God is your witness left the Seventh Day Adventists? YES OR NO answer, why is this so difficult?
Taj,
I have already told you. I am a Christian who can tell you my beliefs from scripture. What doctrinal question do you have and I will do my best to answer.
Have you as God is your witness left the Seventh Day Adventists?
I just want to know your denomination. That is why we are chatting because we have theological differences
I'm sure every true Christian on CP would answer what denomination they are, I found that people who have been on CP who were mormon, baptist, anglican,....have always been quite forth coming with their denomination. It is a very straight forward question.
Taj,
Why should I share anything else with you? You have never answered one of my first questions to you. I shared a little of my personal life with you; but when I asked what was your personal story or backround; there was not answer.
Simple question, but you can't answer. I'm a Roman Catholic what are you? I'd like to know the denomination of the person who disagrees with my theology. what's wrong with that?
Taj,
It has nothing to do with your preconceived assumptions; I have shared with you a little bit of my personal life, only to have you throw it back in my face. You use it as a weapon to post whenever you get upset and when you have a fresh audience. Ingoditrust has not done this to me; he is down to earth and approachable. Do you really think that using such tactics is cool or christlike?
Come out and admit it, why is it so tough? Have you as God is your witness left the Seventh Day Adventists?
Taj,
Seventh-day Baptists, Seventh-day Apostolics, Seventh-day Church of God, Seventh-day Congregationalist, etc. You can search for the rest online.
Taj,
I am a Christian who can tell you my beliefs from scripture.
Name another denomination that believes that the Sabbath is Saturday?
You try to make things fit - wrong about EU (10), Vatican (1 Hill), dates, etc. because that is what you have been taught, but it is wrong. Why don't you be honest and state that you are still one. Are you ashamed of your faith?
Taj,
I have already answered your quetion; there are many churches that observe Saturday as the Sabbath.
YOU ARE STILL A SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST
Taj,
Take it easy; do not get touchy. I cannot type that fast; sheeeesh!
Taj,
Okay; we have already covered this subject in detail, remember? But since you ask again; I believe that the bible speaks of the "Sabbath" - Saturday, as the day of worship. But to answer your question; everyone must come to their own conclusion regarding the day. I do not find clear scriptural support for sunday observance.
do you believe that Catholics and Protestants are wrong to celebrate on Sunday? That the holy day should be Saturday? Simple YES or NO Answer
Taj,
I am not staling; did you read my last post? Please come up with a better explanation.
yes I read it and now I'm waiting for your answer
Why are you stalling? do you believe that Catholics and Protestants are wrong to celebrate on Sunday? That the holy day should be Saturday?
Taj,
Did you read my last post?
Online4Him,
Let me ask you something: do you believe that Catholics and Protestants are wrong to celebrate on Sunday? That the holy day should be Saturday?
Taj,
I am willing to leave this subject and move on to your question; but I would like for you come up with another entity that fits this description in its entirety. Do some research and get back to me; remember, it has to fit every single point. :)
It is well known from Daniel 7 that the antichrist would rise out of the fourth beast (Rome), remain in the midst of the ten horns (Europe), be different from the rest (a political & ecclesiastical power), uproot three kingdoms (Heruli, Vandals, & Ostrogoths), speak great words against the Most High (assume the titles of God), wore out the saints of the Most High (persecuted Christians), thought to change times and laws (tampered with the law of God), and would rule for a time, times, and half of time (1260 years).
Online4Him,
Let me ask you something: do you believe that Catholics and Protestants are wrong to celebrate on Sunday? That the holy day should be Saturday?
I did you just didn't agree with it, there is a difference.
Taj,
Give me another power that specifically matches these identifying passages.
Online4Him,
Let me ask you something: do you believe that Catholics and Protestants are wrong to celebrate on Sunday? That the holy day should be Saturday?
wilderness,
Hello.
Taj,
The prophecy states that the “little horn" would rise in the midst of the ten horns (rise in the early stages of the ten horns and remain among them). You still have not specifically come up with another entity that fits these passages in Daniel 7.
Taj,
I have already proven that the Church was not univerally unified in its infancy as you claim.
Online4Him,
I have proven that your theory has many holes. As for your latest. The papacy started with the apostle Peter and as Pope Clement I noted:
"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]). As for Napoleon he allowed the Pope to remain the head of the Catholic Church, he just didn't allow him to travel...thus the line remains intact ...over 2,000 years
Taj,
Listen, I do not want to "hammer" my point all night. I am content to know that "IF" these things come to pass, you will be willing to take a second look. The reason why I decided to discuss "prophecy" is because you continue to speak of "ecumenical" progress as if it has been determined to be a "GOOD" thing. I am just saying; let us continue to keep our "eyes" open to all scenarios. I continue to stand on the Historicist position until someone can prove otherwise. - :)
Taj,
Actually, the rule of the papacy began with the decree of Justinian in 533; this did not go into effect until 538, when the last Arian kingdoms were uprooted. Its rule continued until 1798 when Napoleon's general, Berthier, took the pope captive with hopes of destroying both Pope Pius VI and the political power of the papacy.
This time period of time is an exact fulfillment of the 1,260 year prophecy. The blow was a deadly wound for the papacy, but in 1929 Mussolini signed the Lateran Treaty which established the state of Vatican City. The papacy’s wound began and continues to grow today.
I'm taking off ....
Your perspective just doesn't fit together like the historical events I mentioned. Your wrong about the EU being 10 which is a lot larger now and then the Vatican is on the wrong side of the Tiber for you to be right about it. The whole aspect just doesn't fit together in your scenario.
I'm saying Jewish hands from the time of Jesus crucifixtion until now.
Online4Him,
The Catholic Church has an unbroken line for 2,000 years. However, Jerusalem (Israel) in Jewish hands would be closer to the 1260 years than the Catholic Church. However, I still side with the perspective that these events have already taken place. The EU is more than 10 now.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17990
Taj,
This power has to fulfill "ALL" of the specifics of Daniel 7:
It is well known from Daniel 7 that the antichrist would rise out of the fourth beast (Rome), remain in the midst of the ten horns (Europe), be different from the rest (a political & ecclesiastical power), uproot three kingdoms (Heruli, Vandals, & Ostrogoths), speak great words against the Most High (assume the titles of God), wore out the saints of the Most High (persecuted Christians), thought to change times and laws (tampered with the law of God), and would rule for a time, times, and half of time (1260 years).
http://www.templemountfaithful.org/Events/20070503.htm
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16718
Taj,
If they reject "Jesus Christ' as the messiah, then they also reject his atoning sacrifice. Any rebuilt temple will not be the "temple of God"!
Taj,
Antiochus IV ("Antiochus Epiphanes"), the Selucid king did not rise in the "midst" of Europe.
They are rebuilding the temple and want to offer sacrifices:
http://www.templemount.org/tempprep.html
Taj,
The "temple" refers to the church of God. Any rebuilt temple in palestine would not be the temple of God. Why? If the jews ever did rebuild a temple; they would resume animal sacrifices. These sacrifices would not be acceptable to God; since the Lamb of God - Jesus Christ has become our only sacrifice for the sins of the world. They deny Jesus as the messiah and therefore any temple would not be God's temple!
Taj,
I cannot accept Antiochus IV ("Antiochus Epiphanes"), the Selucid king because once again he does not fulfill the entire identification marks given in Daniel 7. This power was to rule for a time, times, and half a time – Daniel 7:25.
A “time” in Bible prophecy represents a “year”. A prophetic “time” or “year” had 360 days. In the prophetic time – periods of the Bible, each “day” has a symbolic value, and represents one literal year. (See Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6, “I have appointed thee each day for a year.”)
The 1260 “days” of the little horn’s supremacy symbolizes 1260 literal years. This 1260 years reign is also mentioned in Rev. 11:2 – “A Time, Times, and an half”, Rev. 11:3 – “Twelve Hundred and sixty days”, Rev. 12:6 - “Twelve Hundred and sixty days”, Rev. 12:14 - “A Time, Times, and half a time.”
A prophetic “month” had 30 days, therefore: 42 “months” - 42X30=1260 days. The day for a year principle applies to them also.
There is more evidence pointing to the events I listed then the conjecture of future happenings that you believe.
Further confirmation is found in Revelation speaking of the Jewish temple as if it were still operating (11:1), but soon to be trampled by the gentiles, along with the holy city (11:2). Shortly after Nero's reign, the gentiles did indeed invade Jerusalem, trample it, and destroy the temple.
This suggests not only that the beast corresponded to the Roman empire in general and Caesar Nero in particular but also that the book of Revelation itself was written sometime in the early A.D. 60s, during Nero's reign, just before the Jewish War that led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70.
Taj,
I would consider it; "IF", I was given another clear specific explanation for these prophecies.
What Daniel's four beasts have in common is that they are all pagan kingdoms that persecuted and conquered God's people, Israel. John's beast is the same kind of thing—a conquering pagan empire. Since it comes after Daniel's four beasts, Rome is the logical candidate. But it's not a future, "restored Roman Empire." It's the real thing, the pagan Roman Empire of the early centuries. This is confirmed by several lines of evidence.
First, the book of Revelation is explicit in stating that it concerns events that will happen "soon" (1:1, 2:16, 3:11, 22:6, 7, 12, 20). This indicates that the bulk of the events of the book (those that precede the Millennium of Rev. 20:1-10, in which we are now living) should take place shortly after the book was written, likely in the A.D. 60s.
Second, we are told that the number of the beast is 666 and that this is the number of a man's name (13:18). Not coincidentally, the persecuting, pagan Roman Empire was headed in the A.D. 60s by Caesar Nero, whose name happened to add up to 666 in the Hebrew system of letters and numbers. (In Hebrew, "Caesar Nero" = "NRWN QSR" = N 50 + R 200 + W 6 + N 50 + Q 100 + S 60 + R 200 = 666; a variant spelling of the name, NRW QSR, adds up to 616, which some manuscripts have in place of 666).
Third, the seven heads of the beast are identified as seven mountains (17:9). Though this is not certain, these are likely the seven hills on which the city of Rome was built. (Vatican Hill, however, was not one of the seven; it is on the side of the Tiber River opposite the seven.)
Thus there is good evidence that the beast from the sea is the pagan Roman Empire of the first century and, in particular, the emperor at its head. This, again, is like Daniel's four beasts, who were described both as four kings (Dan 7:17) and four kingdoms (cf. Dan. 7:23).
Online4Him,
However, I think it is important not to get ahead of ourselves. I think end times believers are so eager to see the future that they discount what has already occurred.
Among the horns of Daniel's fourth beast arose one particular little horn who blasphemed God (7:8). This little horn symbolizes Antiochus IV ("Antiochus Epiphanes"), the Selucid king who conquered Jerusalem, blasphemed God, and desecrated the temple, and set up the first "abomination of desolation" (Dan. 11:31, 12:11, 1 Macc. 6:7) by setting up an idol of Jupiter Olympus in the holy place. (There are other times an "abomination of desolation" is set up, cf. Matt. 24:15-16, Luke 21:20-21.)
Taj,
The book of Revelation clearly highlights the fact that this climatic event will occur and this will be the last battle. This will be the end of earth’s history as we know it. If we happen to witness these things; the only leader we need is Jesus -
Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen – 1Timothy 6:15, 16.
As you can see; Jerusalem cannot fulfill this (Daniel 7) prophecy. What are your thought of the “temple” in 2Thessalonians 2?
Now it's my turn to ask: what if I'm right and the anti-Christ becomes the head of Israel and sets up his kingdom in Jerusalem. Would you become a Catholic?
Online4Him,
However, I think you are wrong and believe that the anti-Christ will most likely take the seat in Jerusalem where the current government of Israel is located. Vatican City has no power over other nations; it certainly does not reign over them. In fact, the Vatican's very existence has been threatened in the past two centuries by Italian nationalism. Let me ask you a question: who has more power the Israeli country with its headquarters in Jerusalem or the Catholic Church with its headquarters in the Vatican. It seems more likely that God would come back to sit in his Kingdom of Jerusalem then at the Vatican. Daniel 8 points to the Middle East.
Online4Him,
If, and only IF, there is a schism in the Church and an anti-Christ takes Peter's role as our shepherd then yes like the traditional Anglicans who are leaving their church as we speak to leave their Church and join Catholicism then I will likewise leave with my conservative brothers and sisters. However, I highly doubt that our Lord and Savior would leave us without a shepherd. Throughout time in great emergencies he has always provided a Moses, Noah, ..... and the end times will be no different. If, and only IF, it occurs I could foresee an underground Catholic Church and a true Pope leading us.
Taj,
I disagree; take a look at my previous posting and consider that “Jerusalem” would have to fulfill this prophecy in its entirety. Jerusalem does not fit the specific details in this prophecy.
It is well known from Daniel 7 that the antichrist would rise out of the fourth beast (Rome), remain in the midst of the ten horns (Europe), be different from the rest (a political & ecclesiastical power), uproot three kingdoms (Heruli, Vandals, & Ostrogoths), speak great words against the Most High (assume the titles of God), wore out the saints of the Most High (persecuted Christians), thought to change times and laws (tampered with the law of God), and would rule for a time, times, and half of time (1260 years).
Jerusalem did not rise out of Europe, is not in Europe, never claimed universal power over the world, did not uproot the three kingdoms from Europe, did not assumed the titles of God, did not persecute Christians, did not tamper with God’s law, and did not rule for 1260 years. There is only one power in history that has fulfilled these specific details from Daniel 7.
I have many other quotations from the church fathers; would you like to see them?
Remember, the papacy not only took Rome as the seat of its authority, but even took the title of Pontifex Maximus from Pagan Rome for its supreme bishop, the pope.
You did not answer my question:
What will you do “IF” this (end time scenario) happens?
Jester,
Once again you have shown how inept you are: taj..you said
"First of all, the Catholic church may have said that it was the only way to salvation at one point, but at least since Pope John Paul II, the Catholic church has taken the stance that virtually anybody can have salvation, even people who don't know or follow Christ." That wasn't me, it was somebody named Chris333. Once again you have proven your intellectual might.
taj..you said
"First of all, the Catholic church may have said that it was the only way to salvation at one point, but at least since Pope John Paul II, the Catholic church has taken the stance that virtually anybody can have salvation, even people who don't know or follow Christ." It was the current Pope who said that the Catholic Church was the only way to salvation.
you also said:
The fact that it is celebrated at this time of year indicates one thing: people have remained faithful to the teachings of the early Church...now what church would that be?
The only reason why I celebrate it in the winter is because its become so ingrained in the world culture, that even though it's false, to try and change it would be impossible. But you enjoy gloating over the Catholic's ability to mislead people so easily. That's something to brag about. I also have a Christmas tree (which is pagan), it doesnt mean i'm pagan. I also have tatoos...does that make me a rebel or something evil? No. You look at the outward traditions of men, just as the pharisees did in Jesus' day....and God looks at the inward heart of man. God doesn't care whether you celebrate Christmas in December or August. He doesn't even care if you even celebrate it at all! He cares nothing for traditions. He cares for hearts of fire. Humble hearts. Hearts that are turned to Him.
Your comment highlights that you are incorrect:
"When these early church fathers studied and understood the chronological order of events from Daniel 7; they only knew that this power would rise "AFTER" Pagan Rome. I am convinced that they never suspected it to be the church". Among the Church Fathers it was common to refer to Rome as "Babylon," but as you pointed out all those references were to pagan Rome, which martyred Christians, rather than to Christian Rome. There also would be the problem that Vatican City did not exist in the days of the Fathers. Thus, it doesn't make sense!!!
The phrase "Babylon the great" (Greek, Babulon a megala) occurs five times in Revelation (14:8, 16:9, 17:5, 18:2, and 18:21). Light is shed on its meaning when one notices that Babylon is referred to as "the great city" seven times in the book (16:19, 17:18, 18:10, 16, 18, 19, 21). Other than these, there is only one reference to "the great city,&quo;t (11:8), which states that the bodies of God's two witnesses "will lie in the street of the great city which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified."
This verse tells us that "the great city" is symbolically called Sodom. This refers to Jerusalem, which is called "Sodom" in Isaiah 1:10 and Ezekiel 16:1-3, 46-56. (Jerusalem is compared to Sodom in other verses). We know Jerusalem is the "the great city" of Revelation 11:8 because the verse says that city was "where [the] Lord was crucified." Jesus, of course, was crucified at Jerusalem.
Revelation consistently speaks as if there were only one "great city" ("the great city"), suggesting that the great city of 11:8 is the same as the great city mentioned in the other seven texts--Babylon (= Jerusalem). This suggests that Babylon the Great may not be Rome, but Jerusalem.
Online4Him,
Have you EVER been to the Vatican??? it doesn't sit on seven mountains or hills. The Vatican, not Rome. The Vatican is built on 1 hill - Vatican Hill. Now don't give me this close enough stuff like you do with scripture - it isn't correct - period. The hill is not even one of the seven Rome was constructed upon....it's a pain for you when history gets involved. This is just plain anti-Catholic seventh day adventist belief. I could easily give you a different interpretation and point to Jerusalem.
For God to go through all the trouble of re-establishing a personal relationship with sinners that call upon the name of their Saviour to save them from their sins and to help them to live as His as covered in His Covenant to us, He would not carry on a relationship through another party like a church, a priest,Mary, another saint, or even through the Holy Ghost since Jesus is the only Mediator between God and man. God the Father has provided one Way to approach Him and that is through His Son. It is by Him we have received the promise of the Spirit as sealed as His after being saved, thus all the invitations still points to His Son to approach God the Father in worship, and that is Whom the indwelling Holy Ghost is pointing the believer to also, Jesus; for His name is above every other name, and yet false prophest has broadened the Way and everybody follows routine in carrying on their relationships through someone else to Jesus, and Jesus said that all those that come before Him are thieves and robbers. To get to know God, you have to get to know Jesus. To relate to God, you have to go to Jesus. For all the trouble Jesus went through in re-establishing God's relationship with you, ignoring what is plainly written in scriptures in how to approach Him as all invitations points to Jesus and then by climbing up another way is building that relationship on sand where He will say,"I know ye not, depart from me ye workers of iniquity."
It's time to stop following leaders as if they are the shepherds when the Good Shepherd is Jesus Christ the Lord. Search the scriptures in the King James bible for they testify of Jesus. The indwelling Holy Ghost testifies of Jesus as faithful witnesses shall testify of Jesus. John 15:26-27 So once again, to have a relationship with God the Father, there is only One Way and that is through the Son, Jesus Christ the Lord. If you do not honor the Way God the Father has porvided, then you are not honoring God at all.
John 5:22For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: 23That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
John 14:6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
John 10:1,7-9 Luke 13:24-25
! Peter 2:25For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
Taj,
Good evening. These prophecies are biblically based; so how in the world can you blame the SDA church? This has nothing to do with, “which church” one attends; this is about what “God” has said in his word! These prophecies have been taught long before the SDA church; so why continue to ignore this fact?
Look; this has never been a personal attack on you. I have stated from the beginning; I am only concerned with what “the Word of God” says. These prophecies are given to us by God himself; why continue to set aside the express witness of scripture. In all honesty, what will you do “IF” the entire world comes under one banner (religiously and politically) and begins to persecute dissidents? For the book of Revelation talks about the entire world will be placed under a boycott and an eventual death decree (Rev. 13:15-17). What will you do “IF” this happens?
You are right; it does not say seven hills; but seven “mountains.” Hills/mountains, the point is that the Word of God specifically describes this power in detail, as I have noted earlier. The church fathers have shared their understanding of these prophecies which are in harmony with what the scriptures say (Historicism).
Here is the actual verse:
And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth – Revelation 17:9.
Only one city has for more than 2000 years been known as the city on seven hills. That city is Rome. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "It is within the city of Rome, called the city of seven hills, that the entire area of Vatican State proper is now confined”. The Catholic Encyclopedia (Thomas Nelson, 1976), s.v. "Rome."
Regarding Tertullian; this proves my point which I made earlier. Some of the early church fathers were not biblically orthodox on “everything they wrote” (Montanism, Gnosticism, etc). This is why we have been instructed to –“try the spirits whether they are of God” – 1John 4:1.
When these early church fathers studied and understood the chronological order of events from Daniel 7; they only knew that this power would rise “AFTER” Pagan Rome. I am convinced that they never suspected it to be the church.
I am not saying that they understood “what” the antichrist would be in its entirety; but they understood the chronological rise of these world powers that are mentioned in Daniel 2 & 7 – (Babylon, Persia, Greece & Rome). Daniel 7 is so specific as to the nature, location, time, and acts of this power; 2Thessalonians 2 speaks about this power rising from “within the church” – (temple).
Again, it is not about being Catholic or Protestant; it is about being “Christians- followers of Christ.” God has given “us” these prophecies; so, what other alternative explanation can we gather from these specific passages. I am not trying to win an argument; I am trying to highlight what God has said in his word and the relevance it has for us today.
I guess it is most incredible that you would use a quote from St. Jerome who produced many works in defense of the perpetual virginity of Mary. YOUR QUOTES DON"T MAKE ANY SENSE IN LIGHT OF WHO THESE PEOPLE WERE AND WHAT THEY BELIEVED!!!
Your quotes don't make any sense in regards to who these people were and how they lived - Origen himself was a faithful Catholic-indeed, he refused to apostatize even after lengthy and cruel torture. Modern scholars, such as Henri de Lubac, have reestablished his reputation as a spiritual teacher. I guess you could also take a quote out of context by Pope Benedict to try to show that he was also anti-Catholic. This is so bizarre!!!!
Your quotes don't even make sense. If Augustine thought the Catholic Church was bad, which he didn't, then why did he try to get groups breaking away to return to the Roman Catholic Church? it simply doesn't make sense!! Likewise the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is used in the Byzantine Catholic churches. It doesn't make any sense!!!
Let's not forget that Augustine won all his followers back to the Catholic Church when they realized the errors.
You quote Tertullian? A long-dead North African heretic. Tertullian later fell victim to the heresy of Montanism, a false-prophecy movement focusing on strict personal holiness and miraculous gifts of the Spirit. He broke with the Church around 212; the remnants of his followers were reconciled with the Church by Augustine around 400. Thus, if you are quoting from him then do you believe in Montanism???
One thing we know for sure about the end of the world: Christ's Second Coming will occur at an unknown time...or do I have to give bible references?
Could it be the revised Roman Empire? who knows. I mean you were wrong about the Vatican sitting on seven hills. Why don't you be honest and admit that you are still a member of the Seventh Day Adventists. You still hold to their beliefs and still see the Catholic Church in the same negative light as them. Do you think it is wrong to worship on Sunday?
Correction:
Tertullian -
“. . . . he who now hinder must hinder until he be taken out of the way, What obstacle is there but the “Roman state”; the falling away of which by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce antichrist” – “On the Resurrection,” chapts. 24,25. Christian Apologist in North Africa (200 AD).
continued:
John Chrysostom says,
“Only there is one that restraineth now, until he be taken out of the way, that is, when the Roman Empire is taken out of the way, then, he [antichrist] shall come.” – Holily on 2Thessalonians 2, Number 4. Bishop of Constantinople (390 AD).
Augustine says,
“. . . .it is not absurd to believe that these words of the apostle, ‘Only he who now holdeth, let him hold until he be taken out of the way,’ refer to the Roman Empire.” – The City of God, Book 20, Chapt. 19 – Christian Bishop in North Africa (400 AD).
Edward B. Elliot, Commentary on The Apocalypse, volume 3, p. 92 (1862) say, “We have the consenting testimony of the early fathers, from Irenaeus, the disciple of St. John, down to Chrysostom and Jerome, to the effect that it was understood to be the imperial power ruling and residing in Rome.”
“while the Caesars held imperial power, it was impossible for the predicted antichrist to arise. . . . on the fall of the Caesars he would arise.” – H. Grattan Guiness.
“Paul did not identify the restraining power which they knew to be Rome, for fear of reprisals. Remember the Christian Church was under persecution by Rome.” – Dr. Ron Thompson, Champions of Christianity in Search of the Truth, p. 47 (1996).
So, your claim that these teachings are of the SDA church is just plain wrong. All of the Reformers taught this same concept along with the early church fathers; concerning this subject. Why not accept the chronological testimony from the Word of God – Daniel 7?
Or better yet; why not give us a chronological answer to these specific passages from scripture itself?
Taj,
First, 2Thessalonians was brought up several times because you initially refused to comment on this passage; it is like pulling teeth, just to have you answer a question sometimes.
Second, Historicism has been taught prior to the arrival of the SDA church; you should know this if you read church history. Surely, it has been taught for centuries.
Next, you said, “We do not know who or what the antichrist is or what power restrains him.”
This is a fallacy; the early church fathers “knew” who the “restrainer” was! Listen:
Origen says in his famous book, “Against Celsus”-
“Since Celsus rejects the statements concerning antichrist, as it is termed, having neither read what is said of him in the book of Daniel, nor in the writings of Paul, nor what the Saviour in the gospels has predicted about his coming, we must make a few remarks on this subject. . . . . Paul speaks of him who is called antichrist, describing, though with a certain reserve, both the “manner” and “time” and “cause” of his coming.”
Jerome says,
“it is the man of sin, the son of perdition, who dares to sit in the temple of God, making himself as God” “The Fathers held that the Roman empire was the “let” or “hinderance”, referred to by Paul in 2 Thessalonians, which kept back the manifestation of the “man of sin”. – Est enim homo peccati, filius perditionis, ita ut in templo dei sedere audeat, faciens se quasi Deum.
England’s greatest prophecy teacher says – “Here we have a point on which Paul affirms the existence of knowledge in the Christian Church. The early church knew, he says, what the “hindrance” was. The early church tells us what it did know upon the subject, and no one in these days can be in a position to contradict its testimony as to what Paul had said” – H. Grattan Guinness, Romanism and the Reformation, p. 105 (1887).
Treutlen says,
“. . . . he who now hinder must hinder until he be taken out of the way, What obstacle is there but the “Roman state”; the falling away of which by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce antichrist” – “On the Resurrection,” chapts. 24,25. Christian Apologist in North Africa (200 AD).
Online4Him,
I recognize your anti-Catholic beliefs in the Seventh Day Adventist, but I doubt the majority of CP readers believe this seventh day adventist stuff.
When Christ failed to appear, Miller reluctantly endorsed the position of a group of his followers known as the "seventh-month movement," who claimed Christ would return on October 22, 1844 (in the seventh month of the Jewish calendar).
When this didn’t happen either, Miller forswore predicting the date of the Second Coming, and his followers broke up into a number of competing factions. Miller would have nothing to do with the new theories his followers produced, including ones which attempted to save part of his 1844 doctrine. He rejected this and other teachings being generated by his former followers, including those of Ellen Gould White.
Online4Him,
I know as a former seventh adventist you love to talk about end times:
The Seventh-Day Adventist church traces its roots to American preacher William Miller (1782–1849), a Baptist who predicted the Second Coming would occur between March 21, 1843, and March 21, 1844. Because he and his followers proclaimed Christ's imminent advent, they were known as "Adventists."
Pope Clement I
"Then the reverence of the law is chanted, and the grace of the prophets is known, and the faith of the Gospels is established, and the Tradition of the apostles is preserved, and the grace of the Church exults" (Letter to the Corinthians 11 [A.D. 80]).
Online4Him,
How many times have you brought up 2Thessalonians? 7, 8 times?
In this letter, the apostle, after encouraging them to remain steadfast in the faith, goes into more detail about "the day of the coming of the Lord." He tells them that it is not around the corner, for first two main things must happen: the great rebellion and the advent of Antichrist. We do not know who or what this Antichrist is, or what power restrains him: Paul reveals nothing about this. All he does is warn them not to be impressionable and not to be alarmed by mere rumors, because this could undermine their perseverance in the faith. "If any one will not work, let him not eat" (3:10), he tells them; they should follow the example he himself has given them. This shows that it is wrong to say Paul thought that the Lord's coming, the end of the world, was imminent, and that he spread this false idea among the early Christians. What these letters do contain is an echo of Jesus' prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 17 and Matt. 24) and of the persecutions the Church will experience until the end of time.
continued:
Jerome (347-420) –
“Says the apostle [Paul in the second epistle to the Thessalonians], ‘Unless the Roman Empire should first be desolated, and antichrist proceed, Christ will not come.”
Augustine, bishop of Hippo (354-430) –
“It can be doubted by none but that he [Paul] speaks these things [2Thessalonians 2:2-7] concerning antichrist, and that the day of judgment will not come unless he first appear.”
Taj,
It is evident from your constant quotations from the church fathers that you cannot support Rome’s false teachings from the bible. It is well known that some of the early fathers like Justin Martyr and Origen were highly influenced by the teachings of Gnosticism. So, they along with the rest of the fathers DO NOT have the final word.
Everyone here knows that Catholicism is just another religion based on works. Our faith is in Jesus Christ, period. You can keep your mystical pagan rituals and traditions; which are nothing more than the commandments of men.
The prophet Daniel, apostle Paul, and the apostle John speak of a system that will usurp the authority of God. It is well known from Daniel 7 that the antichrist would rise out of the fourth beast (Rome), remain in the midst of the ten horns (Europe), be different from the rest (a political & ecclesiastical power), uproot three kingdoms (Heruli, Vandals, & Ostrogoths), speak great words against the Most High (assume the titles of God), wore out the saints of the Most High (persecuted christians), thought to change times and laws (tampered with the law of God), and would rule for a time, times, and half of time (1260 years). Who could Daniel be identifying? Take a guess.
Paul says in 2Thessalonians 2:3-12 that Christ will not come UNTIL the falling away takes place and the man of sin is revealed; who opposeth and exalteth himself above God and will sit in the temple (church) of God, proclaiming to be God. The greek word used for “temple” in this passage is naos; this same word is used in 1Corinthians 3:17 & 1Corinthians 6:19 concerning us; the church. Hmmmm. . . . . . who has and continues to do this?
John speaks of an apostate power (woman – church) that is arrayed in purple, scarlet, and being drunk with the blood of the saints. She is also described as reigning over the kings of the earth – Revelation 17. Like Nathan before David, I would say to the papacy; “THOU ART THE MAN”!
Since you enjoy quoting the church fathers, you should enjoy this:
Tertullian (155-222) -
He spoke of the future break up of the Roman Empire, “whose separation into ten kingdoms will bring on antichrist.”
Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386) -
“There shall arise, at the same time, ten kingdoms of the Romans at different places indeed, the reigning all of them at the same time. After them, the eleventh will be antichrist, who, through magical wickedness, will seize the power of the Romans.” The papacy not only took Rome as the seat of its authority, but even took the title of Pontifex Maximus from Pagan Rome for its supreme bishop, the pope.
I would like to warn you that the following statements come from Christians shortly after the death and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Many of them were living at the time of the apostles and there statements might be found offensive by those only familiar with the protestant reformation until now Christians. Parental guidance is requested because some of these statements might not match with new age religious beliefs.
Fulgentius of Ruspe
"Anyone who receives the sacrament of baptism, whether in the Catholic Church or in a heretical or schismatic one, receives the whole sacrament; but salvation, which is the strength of the sacrament, he will not have, if he has had the sacrament outside the Catholic Church [and remains in deliberate schism]. He must therefore return to the Church, not so that he might receive again the sacrament of baptism, which no one dare repeat in any baptized person, but so that he may receive eternal life in Catholic society, for the obtaining of which no one is suited who, even with the sacrament of baptism, remains estranged from the Catholic Church" (The Rule of Faith 43 [A.D. 524]).
Augustine
"We believe also in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church. For heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God; and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor" (Faith and the Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]).
Jerome
"Heretics bring sentence upon themselves since they by their own choice withdraw from the Church, a withdrawal which, since they are aware of it, constitutes damnation. Between heresy and schism there is this difference: that heresy involves perverse doctrine, while schism separates one from the Church on account of disagreement with the bishop. Nevertheless, there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church" (Commentary on Titus 3:10–11 [A.D. 386]).
Lactantius
"It is, therefore, the Catholic Church alone which retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth; this, the domicile of faith; this, the temple of God. Whoever does not enter there or whoever does not go out from there, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. . . . Because, however, all the various groups of heretics are confident that they are the Christians and think that theirs is the Catholic Church, let it be known that this is the true Church, in which there is confession and penance and which takes a health-promoting care of the sins and wounds to which the weak flesh is subject" (Divine Institutes 4:30:11–13 [A.D. 307]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress [a schismatic church] is separated from the promises of the Church, nor will he that forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is an alien, a worldling, and an enemy. He cannot have God for his Father who has not the Church for his mother" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 6, 1st ed. [A.D. 251]).
Origen
"[T]here was never a time when God did not want men to be just; he was always concerned about that. Indeed, he always provided beings endowed with reason with occasions for practicing virtue and doing what is right. In every generation the wisdom of God descended into those souls which he found holy and made them to be prophets and friends of God" (Against Celsus 4:7 [A.D. 248]).
"If someone from this people wants to be saved, let him come into this house so that he may be able to attain his salvation. . . . Let no one, then, be persuaded otherwise, nor let anyone deceive himself: Outside of this house, that is, outside of the Church, no one is saved; for, if anyone should go out of it, he is guilty of his own death" (Homilies on Joshua 3:5 [A.D. 250]).
Irenaeus
"In the Church God has placed apostles, prophets, teachers, and every other working of the Spirit, of whom none of those are sharers who do not conform to the Church, but who defraud themselves of life by an evil mind and even worse way of acting. Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace" (Against Heresies 3:24:1 [A.D. 189]).
"[The spiritual man] shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, destroy it—men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. For they can bring about no 'reformation' of enough importance to compensate for the evil arising from their schism. . . . True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place [i.e., the Catholic Church]" (ibid., 4:33:7–8).
Justin Martyr
"We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid" (First Apology 46 [A.D. 151]).
Ignatius of Antioch
"Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism [i.e., is a schismatic], he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine [i.e., is a heretic], he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons" (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]).
Jester,
I also feel the name to correct Jester because as usual he is not an expert, this time about the Catholic Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, following historic Christian theology since the time of the early Church Fathers, refers to the Catholic Church as "the universal sacrament of salvation" (CCC 774–776), and states: "The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men" (CCC 780).
Many people misunderstand the nature of this teaching.
Indifferentists, going to one extreme, claim that it makes no difference what church one belongs to. Certain radical traditionalists, going to the other extreme, claim that unless one is a full-fledged, baptized member of the Catholic Church, one will be damned.
The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).
Notice that the same Fathers who declare the normative necessity of being Catholic also declare the possibility of salvation for some who are not Catholics.
As for salvation, "As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I'm also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13)."
Chris, I agree with you that since Vatican II the Church has been in trouble with regards to a struggle between the left and right wings, this is a common problem in all Christian churches around the world. We have been watching our protestant brothers and sisters in some churches ordain homosexual leaders and promote it as the new family, we have been witnessing their new teachings and yes we also not immune. Online4Him brought up liberation theology which was defeated but still waits in the wings, we like our conservative protestant brothers and sisters are under spiritual attack. However, I don't think the right thing to do is run away especially when the fight is ongoing. I know people like Mel Gibson have started pre - Vatican II churches are trying to pressure the church to return to those times. I don't think that is the best way to go, but then you see the great success of his movie the Passion of the Christ and you realize the hunger of returning to pre-Vatican II teachings. I believe that if the church does return to its more orthodox pre-Vatican II teachings that the church numbers will rise incredibly. Pope Benedict has taken steps to bring the Latin mass back and time will tell.
Jester,
My boys know the entire history of Christmas from the birth of Jesus, why we celebrate in winter, the history behind Santa Claus, and even why the United States has separation of Church and State, but also why the United States of America has official diplomatic ties with the Roman Catholic Church and not with any other denomination.
You have the whole internet - find me something that says that the worldwide # of Catholics have declined. 2nd, Online4Him, don't make a comment that I don't know history and the bible and then cry when I respond. As for the comment about JP II, completely not true.
Tom Breen, "Religion Today" (AP, December 12, 2007), writes:
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — As Christmas draws near, Pastor John Foster won't be decorating a tree, shopping for last-minute gifts or working on a holiday sermon for his flock. After all, it's been 50 years since Christmas was anything more than a day of the week to him.
He's one of very few American Christians who follow what used to be the norm in many Protestant denominations — rejecting the celebration of Christmas on religious grounds.
I notice Jester that you don't reject the celebration of Christmas you just pick and choose. How protestant of you, you don't even understand why we have Christmas in the middle of winter. The fact that it is celebrated at this time of year indicates one thing: people have remained faithful to the teachings of the early Church...now what church would that be? the bible is the only way became the rule of thumb at the time of the protestant reformation. I don't follow any of these new age religions.
First of all, the Catholic church may have said that it was the only way to salvation at one point, but at least since Pope John Paul II, the Catholic church has taken the stance that virtually anybody can have salvation, even people who don't know or follow Christ. Today the Catholic church looks more like a Protestant church than the old Catholic church. This is one of the reasons why I am not a Catholic (I actually like a lot about the Catholic church) but the simple fact is that a good Catholic today would have been a bad Catholic 1000 years ago, and vice versa. Another thing to mention is that while England may have more Catholics in it than members of the Church of England, that does not change the fact that worldwide and especially in Europe membership in the Catholic church is on the decline. Anyway, the Bible doesn't say that as long as you belong to the right church you will be saved, it says that those who believe in Christ will be saved.
taj...
and a merry popemass to you too! may the Pope bless you and your family this coming year.
i like it when I hit a nerve.
And yes, the Pope did say that the Catholic Church is the only true way to salvation. And Catholic believe the Pope without question.
I teach my children the truth about what Christmas is really about: celebrating the birth of Jesus. They know that the wisemen never met the sheperds but came sometime after them. The Bible doesn't state how many wisemen there even was. The the star didn't "shine down on where Jesus lay in the manger". Basically, they were taught to ignore all the lies perpetuated by the Catholic Church, and follow after truth.
And you said "could he explain what Tolkien's meaning was for the Lord of the Rings even thought he bragged about reading the whole trilogy? nope". I'm still laughing about that comment.
Who cares what Tolkein meant? Can you tell me under what pretense did I bring up the subject of reading the LOTR? Yes. Are you going to? No. You spout off about how I read the trilogy, but you refuse to acknowledge what I said about it, and why i said it.
Happy Birthday, Jesus!
Taj,
If you spent the same amount of energy and time in your bible as you do my personal life, you would recognize the difference “truth” and the tradition of men.
You have posted my personal past on several articles now, but no one cares; why? Perhaps it is because I have shared my beliefs from the bible while you continue to share the traditions of men. Most Christians here recognize that Rome does not preach the true gospel of Jesus Christ. We have a “thus saith the Lord” behind our beliefs while you again, have a poor substitute in a man.
Merry Christmas to you too - :)
Jester and Online4Him,
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!
As for this article and the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Associated Press just published the statistics that there are now more Catholics then members of the Church of England in England...more people are realizing the truth every day. As a result what does he do? returns to his early protestant reformers' attacks on Christmas because of its Catholic roots. People are returning to the Church and honoring Christmas.... Thank you God.
Online4Him,
You were first a Catholic, then a Seventh Day Adventist, and you are yet to tell me where you are going now...yes Online4Him you certainly know a lot about the bible and history. Unfortunately, it is your interpretation of history and the bible. Good Luck in the new place you find hopefully they will follow the interpretations of Online4Him
"how I proved that the Pope..." what's wrong with this phrase made be Jester? hmmm...could he explain what Tolkien's meaning was for the Lord of the Rings even thought he bragged about reading the whole trilogy? nope
Does he understand the council of Trent even though he was making fun of a mormon for not understanding it? nope
Now Jester feels that he actually proved something...why is it that he can never prove anything when I'm around?
Taj,
You said: . . . . . "just like the early Christians we have the Pope and the Catholic Church."
It is useless to ramble on with these incorrect statements; the majority of reader here on the CP realize that you do not know history or the bible.
taj,
You should talk to that friend you called to come help you on the other article....ingoditrust. And how I proved that the Pope is fallible in interpreting the scriptures.
Yes, and thank you and merry Popemass. Oh wait, it is about Jesus? Thanks for Christmas....without the Catholic church Jesus would have never been born. And thanks for all the unscriptural garbage....er...traditions that pollute the minds of the Catholic robots.
Yes, its apparent that you do not follow the Bible. The catholic church just makes up stories because they make the RCC look holy...because they "know somethine we don't". Which is true. We know the Truth. The RCC knows something else.
Ever since the protestants broke away from the "Church" and became part of the Bride of Christ (which is what Jesus is coming back for...not a church) the Catholics have been fuming because they discovered that they can't fool everyone.
Prophet,
I'm sorry I forgot you are protestant and don't have mass. Enjoy this Christ Service...what's that? it doesn't even sound right....nah I'll stick with the original again...enjoy this Christmas
Prophet,
Catholics don't believe the bible is the only way, we never have and we never will, just like the early Christians we have the Pope and the Catholic Church. Your new ideas and translations will never overcome the truth of the Church as defined in the bible (Matt 16:18). MERRY CHRIST MASS!!!! Enjoy this Catholic holiday brought to you by the Catholic Church!
Truthandjustice,
I'm glad you agree that those Catholic traditions are incorrect. It goes to prove how "big" isn't always right, and how easy it is for a entity like the RCC to corrupt the Word of God and get people to believe it. But I'm glad I've gotten one Catholic to realize that. I hope you will continue to have your eyes open to the erroneous teachings/traditions of the RCC. I'll be praying for you, that you will continue on your revelation of Truth.
Nice to see that prophet recognizes that Christ's Mass in a Catholic Tradition. Yes, Prophet history teaches us that the reason it is on this date is because of the Catholic Church and that many aspects of it are also based on Catholic Tradition. We will not get into the Christmas tree, Santa Claus (St. Nicholas), the manger,..... I always wondered how difficult it must be for the bible is the only way people to celebrate a Catholic tradition.
The Bible doesn't state where the magi are from or how many there are. Tradition say three because there were three gifts.
The magi did not arrive at the same time as the shepherds. They never met. The magi arrived sometime after them. We show them there at the same time in our Christmas plays because it makes it more effecient.
Jesus was not born in December, but most people know the history behind why we celebrate it in December.
And the star standing over the stable with a beam of light shining down on the family is grossly Roman Catholic false tradtiion.
But what Rowin Williams said is also true: "But the most important concept to take away from the Christmas story is the belief that God came to earth in human form as part of His plan for salvation."
That's what really matters.
Wait a minute. Double take. The archbishop of CANTERBURY? More like the archbishop of "Let's put our pretty pretty robes on and go get involved in politics because we know squat about religion"
It is true.
There is a song: What do we know, what do we know,
shepards came to their door, were there four, were there more
wisemen sought them from the East, two there were at very least.
We do not know the specific number, we say three because there are three gifts, one gift each.
Their is no legend in the Bible only the truth!
Isn't it wierd that they gave Jesus myrrh, the sign of someone who is going to die? This is a dialogue as i interpret it might be in some dumb comedy version:
Balthazar: I bring gold.
Mary: Oh, how pretty, what does it do?
Balthazar: It is the sign of kings, you can buy stuff with it.
Melkeor: I bring Frankincense, the sign of a priest.
Mary: What does it do?
Melkeor: Well if you put it on your wrists it will make you aromatic and make up for the fact that you have not bathed in several days.
Mary: That's nice.
Gaspar: I bring myrrh.
Mary: What does it do?
Gaspar: Oh it means you are going to die.
Mary: ... is that it?
Gaspar: Pretty much ummm you put it on the body when he dies.
Mary: So he is going to die?
Gaspar: Oh yea, Pharisees, Romans, the whole deal. Crucified, blood everywhere, it is gonna be nasty.
Mary: ... What is your problem?
Gaspar: Don't you want your son's blood-drenched body to smell nice?
We know that the Persians were some of the greatest astronomers of that time period... and the only reason for King Herod to know that 3 Persians were in Judea is if they were Kings, or one was a King (who was probably Phraates IV of Parthia) since they would have had a very large caravan with them. Another interesting tid bit is that in 2BC, Phraates IV of Parthia was murderedby Musa and her son... in my mind, they were probably put up to it by King Herod.
I tend to pay little attention to these people who make these statements.
There seems to be a lot of over reaction to the Arbishop's comments. He is correct there is no mention in the Bible of "3" kings, only wisemen (plural) and 3 gifts. There is not mention of animals in the stable, that is just an obvious assumption. Really the only thing that is totally wrong with his statement is about the star. He is right though, that under normal circumstances, stars don't act like that. BUT I WOULD VENTURE TO STATE THAT THE SON OF GOD COMING TO EARTH IS NOT A NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCE. If God can create the earth out of nothing and can cause a virgin birth, then making a shiny object in the sky move around to lead the wisemen is not a big deal.
If God can come to earth as a man, then died on a cross for our sins, overcome death so those who trust in Jesus will have eternal life, what is it to Him, we we put shepherds, lambs, goats and wisemen all in the nativity scene? The importance of the story is Easter. Christmas is only the introduction.
First, you either believe all of the Bible or none of it. It's either God's word or it's not. We don't get to pick and choose what we want to believe & what we want to throw out. We may not totally understand all of it but that does not make it false.
Second, there is substantial evidence throught scripture & secular texts supporting the events as mention in the Gospels (see Isaiah, Psalms, Revelation, Job, the writings of Josephus & the highly regarded astronomy records of the Chinese). You can find more details & much more extensive research at www.bethlehemstar.net. Astrological evidence seems to point to Christ's conception in September 3 BC, his birth in June 2 BC, and the visit of the magi in December 2 BC. The "star", which was actually several moving stars (or planets as we know them today) that converged into the brightest light anyone had ever seen in the night sky. The planets appeared to move around one another & did in fact appear to stop over Bethlehem. Again, for a more in-depth explanation & to download software to see the skies in action, visit www.bethlehemstar.net.
Ok, I give up. What politically correct group is a head of the Anglican/Episcopal leadership trying to pander to now? Next thing- maybe there were three wise men one black/gay, one arabic/transgender, one latin/unsure (but on medication). All denominations aside, there is only one thing, the main, thing a person's presonal relationship with Jesus Christ.
Many thanks to "wilderness" for posting the link to the actual conversation. If one were to read it, one would see that this news story fails in several significant ways to characterize accurately the Archbishop's remarks (especially regarding the Magi and the behavior of the Star).
And that those remarks firmly uphold the Biblical accounts, as distinct from popular mythology, which (it appears) many think is God's Own Truth.
It astonishes me that so many seem to think that what isn't in the Bible is, what is in the Bible isn't, and that their own interpretation of what is and isn't, is the only faithful interpretation one may have.
This is the same stuff they were saying during the protestant reformation. He notes that it fitted very well with the winter festival. The Christmas celebration was created by the early Church in order to entice pagan Romans to convert to Christianity without losing their own winter celebrations. The early church was the Catholic Church. You can read how the protestant reformers wrote against Christmas because they saw it correctly as being a Catholic celebration. Thus there are some aspects of it that the Church added to help in conversions to Christ. Now the bible is the only way crowd had and still have a problem with it, but Catholics don't believe the bible is the only way we also base our beliefs on tradition. It makes you wonder how many Christian celebrations you would have to remove if it weren't for the Catholic church.
His comment about stars not behaving like that is a little ridiculous, but everything else seems to be *gasp* Biblical.
What's weird to me is the "Shame on him" comment. We applaud Christian leaders who try to take Christmas away from Santa and refocus it on Christ, but we condemn Christian leaders who try to take Christmas away from religious stereotypes and refocus it on the Bible?
I just thought I'd post the Scriptre as it appears in the ASV. I think it's fairly obvious that this did not occur right after birth, but there certainly was a star (or some light source) that stopped over the child.
Matthew 2 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, Wise-men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, 2Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we saw his star in the east, and are come to worship him. 3And when Herod the king heard it, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4And gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ should be born. 5And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written through the prophet, 6And thou Bethlehem, land of Judah, art in no wise least among the princes of Judah: for out of thee shall come forth a governor, who shall be shepherd of my people Israel. 7Then Herod privily called the Wise-men, and learned of them exactly what time the star appeared. 8And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search out exactly concerning the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word, that I also may come and worship him.
9And they, having heard the king, went their way; and lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. 10And when they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. 11And they came into the house and saw the young child with Mary his mother; and they fell down and worshipped him; and opening their treasures they offered unto him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh. 12And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.
In some ways I agree with the Archbishop - that there are a lot of added legends and elements to the Christmas story that do not fit well with both Scripture and with the context of Scripture - such as the birth being in winter, 3 kings to the baby Jesus, December 25 (though many believe this could be the date of the acutal miracle - the conception of Christ), Angels SINGING (the account actually says they were talking), etc.
I think it is important that we, as believers, speak the truth in love. We need to tell the story as accurately as possible and acknowledge what Scripture says and what our imagination or speculation has added.
Mr. Williams and "Christian" leaders like him are one of the reasons that the Body of Christ is has lost it's impact upon the not-yet followers of JESUS.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Ben and Bunny Wardlaw
ALMOST PARADSIE
Hilton Head Island, SC
If Williams rejects as legend the magi following the star "because stars don't behave like that," then presumably the reason he accepts the virgin birth is because the female body does bahave like that?!
You either have to accept the whole Bible as 'gospel', or you have no basis for believing any particular part of it. Once you start to pick and choose, your own reason replaces scripture as the basis of faith. I don't think any of our intellects, including those of highly intelligent archbishops, merit that level of trust.
The 'intellectual progress' of our generation seems to be making a very poor job of making the world a better place. Mankind has probably never had more knowledge at the same time as having so little wisdom. Nor has the church been so clever and powerless at the same time.
Okay....SO NOW WE GOTTA BELIEVE THE "archbishop?" C'mon, Rowan, are you next going to dismiss the birth of Christ as a legend, and the Christ of Calvary as legend??? It would surprise me!!!
The fact is - NO ONE REALLY CARES WHAT THIS GUY SAYS, BECAUSE HE'S LOST ALL HIS CREDIBILITY IN THE WORLD!!! HE DOESN'T OFFEND ANYONE, AND HE CERTAINLY DOES HAVE ANY PARTICULAR CONVICTIONS. HE'S NOT ONLY POLITICALLY CORRECT, BUT RELIGIOUSLY CORRECT AND CULTURALLY CORRECT!!
It's time for a new Head, but then again....Christ is the Head of the Church. We don't need the Archbishop of Canterbury. All he's doing is spinning more Canterbury Tales!!!!
Okay....SO NOW WE GOTTA BELIEVE THE "archbishop?" C'mon, Rowan, are you next going to dismiss the birth of Christ as a legend, and the Christ of Calvary as legend??? It would surprise me!!!
The fact is - NO ONE REALLY CARES WHAT THIS GUY SAYS, BECAUSE HE'S LOST ALL HIS CREDIBILITY IN THE WORLD!!! HE DOESN'T OFFEND ANYONE, AND HE CERTAINLY DOES HAVE ANY PARTICULAR CONVICTIONS. HE'S NOT ONLY POLITICALLY CORRECT, BUT RELIGIOUSLY CORRECT AND CULTURALLY CORRECT!!
It's time for a new Head, but then again....Christ is the Head of the Church. We don't need the Archbishop of Canterbury. All he's doing is spinning more Canterbury Tales!!!!
I've decided that I don't believe in the Archbishop of Canterbury.
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/sermons_speeches/071219.htm
I agree with "Online4Him." We should also remember that the above article is in a newspaper. As such, it has been edited, reworked and things may have been taken out of context to fit in the allowable space. The Archbishop may have indeed gone into great detail and fully explained his views on the subject, but it was not included for the sake of brevity. Just a thought. Peace.
We can see why the Anglican/Episcopal church is heading in such an heretical direction.
I say sahame on the man! He knows that we know that everyone knows that there is a biblical version of the birth of Christ and a Xmas card and embriodered version. The biblical version is introduced in Matthew 2: 1 - 2 which refers to some men from the east who studied stars and who came to Jerusalem and asked "where is the king of the Jews for we have seen his star in the east and have come to worship him".
The Xmas card version is the same story at a glance. The little family from Nazareth, the animals [possibly some donkeys], the wise men and the star! Where is the man's imagination?
Shame on him for saying that there was no star leading the Magi from the east and standing still over the stable "because stars don't behave like that". Ye men of little faith! That was not just any star, it was a star on a special assignment and designed for one heart-stopping moment in history. It was a star from the fingertips of God himself to let the watchers know it is time!
let's just throw away the supernatural hand of God because we are smarter than that, shame on this man, and i dont think he should be leading a people, because he could cause a brother weak in the faith to stumble, which is sin, and a leader should be above reproach.
The Archbishop is correct. However, he should have taken pains to affirm his belief in the Gospel while dispelling popular myths about the Nativity. A distinction should have been made affirming the truth of the virgin birth while pointing out the pagan infuences of modern Christmas. All of this has been covered in the mass media before; most people are aware that December 25th is probably not the Lord's birthday. Why is this a big deal?
I agree and disagree with Mr. Williams; there is some truth to what the Anglican head is saying here. The bible does not mention how many wise men there were. People have assumed there were three wise men because of the three gifts that were presented to Christ. It is also true that the scriptures do not say that the wise men were kings; however, to doubt the star’s leading of the wise men from the east is questionable. The Creator of the universe would have no problem utilizing a star to fulfill his purpose; it could have been angels but to say he doubts the biblical narrative is unfortunate.
To blame the bible for the current homosexual scandal within his communion is absolute nonsense. This current scandal would not be occurring if the Anglican & Episcopal leadership would have stood their ground on a “thus saith the Lord" instead of caving in to cultural pressures.