Crying Statue?

[Stryder06]

And there is life after death.

Eventually. Once you die, you'll live again at the resurrection. But life directly after death...that's a no no.

 

[PaladinValer]

What would be nice is scriptural evidence showing that man received an immortal soul upon his creation.

Nicene understanding of the Trinity, please?

No one is saying crying statues are strictly a catholic thing.

When people start bringing up purgatory, yes they are. What other Apostolic churches besides the Vatican Catholic Church believe in it?

Simple process of elimination.

It doesn't make it any less demonic. The bible says that many will be deceived in the last days. It mentions no denomination specific deceptions.

There's nothing demonic about people getting healed by setting eyes on an icon of the Pantocreator. To call that demonic is nothing more than a slap in Jesus' face.

Eventually. Once you die, you'll live again at the resurrection. But life directly after death...that's a no no.

Historic Judaism and Christianity both disagree with you. Your idea isn't Jewish nor is it Christian.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I understand you do not believe in Purgatory, but how does Luke 16:26 apply as a prooftext against praying for the deceased?

That is an intersting verse as Abraham is talking to the rich-man then uses the plural "ye" in vs 26.

The greek word #1276 is interesting as it is generally used in the NT as a type of "ferrying" over water.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Luke 16:26 And upon all of these between us and ye a great chasm hath been established so that those willing to cross-over hence toward ye no may be able, neither thence toward us may be ferrying/diaperwsin <1276> (5725)

Textus Rec.) Luke 16:26 kai epi pasin toutoiV metaxu hmwn kai umwn casma mega esthriktai opwV oi qelonteV diabhnai *enteuqen proV umaV mh dunwntai mhde oi ekeiqen proV hmaV diaperwsin

[#1276 used as ferrying Matt 9:1, 14:34, Mark 5:21, 6:53, Acts 21:2]

1276. diaperao dee-ap-er-ah'-o from 1223 and a derivative of the base of 4008; to cross entirely:--go over, pass (over), sail over.

Rich-man and Lazarus True story or Parable - Christian Forums
Rich-man and Lazarus True story or Parable

 

[Stryder06]

Nicene understanding of the Trinity, please?

Let's see...The bible clearly shows the Trinity. It doesn't call them by such but they are clearly shown. We see Christ in the water, the Spirit as a Dove, and the Father speaking from heaven. So there goes the basis for the Trinity.

No such foundation is in the bible in regards to the soul. Nothing about it being immortal and being given to man. The bible says man became a living soul. The bible says that God alone has immortality.

But there's nothing in there about man having an immortal soul. It's not even hinted at.

When people start bringing up purgatory, yes they are. What other Apostolic churches besides the Vatican Catholic Church believe in it?

I try to avoid talking about purgatory as i'm unsure what the doctrine really says. As such if I say something incorrect please feel free to correct me.

There's nothing demonic about people getting healed by setting eyes on an icon of the Pantocreator. To call that demonic is nothing more than a slap in Jesus' face.

No, I'm certain that a slap in the face of Jesus is to say that tradition trumps His word. The healings are false. Satan has power to do these things. I'm not sure why people forget that he has power and can do these things. He can afflict someone and than simply remove said affliction. Christ doesn't work that way.

Historic Judaism and Christianity both disagree with you. Your idea isn't Jewish nor is it Christian.

Not sure about "historic Judaism" but I'm well aware of what modern day Christianity propagates. I'm more concerned about truth and what the bible says. From that stand point it's very Christian. Man never received an immortal soul. The term in the bible doesn't even refer to a separate living entity. The soul that sins shall perish. The dead know nothing. Death is the opposite of life.

I know I'm in the minority and as previously stated, I'm ok with that. The road that leads to salvation is narrow and only few find it. It's the broad path that we're to be careful of.

 

[PaladinValer]

Let's see...The bible clearly shows the Trinity.

If it did, then Arianism wouldn't have needed an Ecumenical Council to denounce it. Nor its substitute, Semi-Arianism. Nor Sabellianism. Nor any Christological issue like Docetism, Monophysitism, or Monothelitism.

No such foundation is in the bible in regards to the soul. Nothing about it being immortal and being given to man. The bible says man became a living soul. The bible says that God alone has immortality.

There are several places. Jonah for example speaks out of sheol. They are found throughout the non-disputed OT as well as the Deuterocanonical books.

But there's nothing in there about man having an immortal soul. It's not even hinted at.

It is strongly implied all over.

No, I'm certain that a slap in the face of Jesus is to say that tradition trumps His word.

Scripture is Tradition. It is written Tradition.

The healings are false. Satan has power to do these things.

So does God.

And Satan has no authority over such holy items like icons and relics. The very presence of them is enough to make demons shudder and rage.

I know I'm in the minority and as previously stated, I'm ok with that. The road that leads to salvation is narrow and only few find it. It's the broad path that we're to be careful of.

The narrow path cannot be broken. Where is the historic continuity? Where is the line of succession? God's Church cannot fail least God cannot preserve it.

Apostolic Christianity is that historic continuity; that line of succession, where God has preserved orthodoxy.

 

[PT Calvinist]

If it did, then Arianism wouldn't have needed an Ecumenical Council to denounce it. Nor its substitute, Semi-Arianism. Nor Sabellianism. Nor any Christological issue like Docetism, Monophysitism, or Monothelitism.

Amen

Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning, God created heaven and earth ..... and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

Genesis1:26
"God said, 'let us make man in our image'." (word for God here is plural.)

John 1:1-2
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning."

John 1:14
"The Word became flesh and lived among us."

John 17:5, "Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."

Col 1:16
"For by him all things were created .............. all things were created by him and for him."

Heb 1:2
"in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son ...... through whom he made the universe."
Ezekiel, David and Jesus also speak of the Holy Spirit as being God's Spirit, or the Spirit of God, - who as we have already seen was with God at creation.

 

[Stryder06]

If it did, then Arianism wouldn't have needed an Ecumenical Council to denounce it. Nor its substitute, Semi-Arianism. Nor Sabellianism. Nor any Christological issue like Docetism, Monophysitism, or Monothelitism.

I can't speak for anyone else. Man decides what he will. I don't know anything about the council meeting however so I won't try to say why they did or didn't need to.

I didn't have a council and I figured it out. But hey I guess I'm just all for that whole being lead by the Spirit thing.

I bet they had problems because of some man made doctrines that were clashing.

There are several places. Jonah for example speaks out of sheol. They are found throughout the non-disputed OT as well as the Deuterocanonical books.



It is strongly implied all over.

Would you mind providing the actual scriptures. God said that Abel's blood cried out to Him, but we know that to be figurative speech.

Scripture is Tradition. It is written Tradition.

Scripture is the basis for tradition. It itself is not a tradition.

So does God.

Indeed He does. Not through crying idols though.

And Satan has no authority over such holy items like icons and relics.

Holy relics? At what point did they become holy? Only God has the ability to make anything holy. Last I checked He made no mention of any stone statues of Mary or any other dead person being holy. Of course He did make the Sabbath day holy. Other than that I'm drawing blanks.

The very presence of them is enough to make demons shudder and rage.

Rather like laugh in demonic glee that their deceptions are working better than they could have anticipated. What makes them shudder and a sound foundation on the word of God. Against that they have no power.

The narrow path cannot be broken. Where is the historic continuity? Where is the line of succession? God's Church cannot fail least God cannot preserve it.

God's church indeed will not fail. But what is the church of God? Is it a church that esteems the doctrines of man over the scripture? A church that places the dead in heaven and esteems a man to a place near that of (if not) god?

The bible clearly tells us that the remnant church keeps the commandments of God and has the testimony of Jesus Christ. It speaks according to the law and the testimony. It has the Spirit of Prophecy.

Apostolic Christianity is that historic continuity; that line of succession, where God has preserved orthodoxy.

History according to who? You have a long line of people teaching contrary to the word of God and claiming to be His church and that is some kind of indication that they must be the true church? What line of succession? Christ is the end all of all things. To Him alone do we cling. His authority dwells with His people, it isn't genetically passed along, or given one to another through some type of ceremony.

God has preserved the truth, but it isn't where you think.

 

[PaladinValer]

I can't speak for anyone else. Man decides what he will. I don't know anything about the council meeting however so I won't try to say why they did or didn't need to.

Then how can you say that the Nicene understanding is "perfectly clear"?

Ecumenical Councils are called for only instances of absolute necessity to declare definitive doctrine or practice; because something isn't clear and because there is too much debate on an issue of too great of importance.

Arius quoted the Bible just as well as any other. Of course he was wrong, but to say he didn't have Biblical support is silly; he got his ideas from the Bible just as St. Athanasius did. The difference was in correct interpretation.

I didn't have a council and I figured it out. But hey I guess I'm just all for that whole being lead by the Spirit thing.

Or maybe it was simply because you were taught how to?

I bet they had problems because of some man made doctrines that were clashing.

Great...now the Trinity is man-made.

Would you mind providing the actual scriptures. God said that Abel's blood cried out to Him, but we know that to be figurative speech.

The parable of Dives and Lazarus.

Parables don't make sense if what they show is unrealistic. Think of the Fox and the Grapes; the story wouldn't make sense if the Fox was after lettuce, for not only would a fox find lettuce easily, they don't eat them (but they do eat fruit). Same goes with the setting: it is in sheol. And we know the 1st century Jews believed in sheol because we have other documentation from around the time that tells us so.

Scripture is the basis for tradition. It itself is not a tradition.

Scripture to the Early Church is Tradition. It still is considered Tradition in Apostolic churches.

Indeed He does. Not through crying idols though.

He most certainly does if He wishes, and His power has flowed through images before.

Holy relics? At what point did they become holy?

The preserved remains of the Saints or items associated with them are holy because they have been set aside for God's use.

Only God has the ability to make anything holy.

When God has brought people to copious tears of faith through them, He most certainly has made them holy.

Last I checked He made no mention of any stone statues of Mary or any other dead person being holy.

This isn't classical sola scriptura at all. Again, you insinuate that, if it isn't directly mentioned in the Bible, out it goes. Sorry, but a lot of things aren't in the Bible but Christianity has for its entire history believed or done them.

Rather like laugh in demonic glee that their deceptions are working better than they could have anticipated. What makes them shudder and a sound foundation on the word of God. Against that they have no power.

I'll take the miracles of God through relics over your words.

God's church indeed will not fail. But what is the church of God? Is it a church that esteems the doctrines of man over the scripture? A church that places the dead in heaven and esteems a man to a place near that of (if not) god?

Not Vatican Catholic here; I'm Anglican. Nor are the EOs, OOs, OCs, or CAs.

The bible clearly tells us that the remnant church keeps the commandments of God and has the testimony of Jesus Christ. It speaks according to the law and the testimony. It has the Spirit of Prophecy.

For there to be a remnant, it has to be literally what is left. For it to be what is left, it has to have a real history of continuance from the beginning.

There is no remnance of what you suggest.

History according to who?

According to fact.

You have a long line of people teaching contrary to the word of God

Not at all. Ours is the complete and historical orthodoxy that history proves to be so.

What line of succession?

Apostolic Succession for one, which, beyond the continuance of a historic episcopate, is also the continuance of ancient orthodoxies.

God has preserved the truth, but it isn't where you think.

It is exactly where I think because God preserved it. He preserved the Deuterocanon, not just the Jewish list, to give an example. He preserved the entirety of orthodoxy, not parts rejected well over a thousand and a half years ago only to suddenly reappear in the 19th century in various bodies claiming "remnancy" but whose claims cannot be so because there cannot be remnancy without a direct historical trace.

 

[Stryder06]

Then how can you say that the Nicene understanding is "perfectly clear"?

When did I say that?

Ecumenical Councils are called for only instances of absolute necessity to declare definitive doctrine or practice; because something isn't clear and because there is too much debate on an issue of too great of importance.

Arius quoted the Bible just as well as any other. Of course he was wrong, but to say he didn't have Biblical support is silly; he got his ideas from the Bible just as St. Athanasius did. The difference was in correct interpretation.

The underlined portion is what matters. You can quote scripture all you want, but if you're applying it incorrectly than it doesn't matter.

Or maybe it was simply because you were taught how to?

Not really. I was taught of the Father, Son and Spirit, but I found it for myself when studying the gospels. I actually felt great.

Great...now the Trinity is man-made.

You totally missed what I was saying. It shouldn't have taken a council to "establish" the Trinity. But I guess that's just me.

The parable of Dives and Lazarus.

Parables don't make sense if what they show is unrealistic. Think of the Fox and the Grapes; the story wouldn't make sense if the Fox was after lettuce, for not only would a fox find lettuce easily, they don't eat them (but they do eat fruit). Same goes with the setting: it is in sheol. And we know the 1st century Jews believed in sheol because we have other documentation from around the time that tells us so.

Man, people read into this parable much more than they should. And it's amazing how the point that Christ was trying to make is totally missed.

Scripture to the Early Church is Tradition. It still is considered Tradition in Apostolic churches.

Ok

He most certainly does if He wishes, and His power has flowed through images before.

He most certainly could if He wished, but He hasn't. If you're talking about the serpent on the staff, that was a representation of Christ, which is why when they looked upon it they lived. However the serpent didn't cry.

The preserved remains of the Saints or items associated with them are holy because they have been set aside for God's use.

I think I can go with you on that. Our communion table is set apart for God's use as well as the furniture on the pulpit. The line is drawn there though. We don't pray to it or expect it to work a miracle on our part.

When God has brought people to copious tears of faith through them, He most certainly has made them holy.

That remains to be seen. The great thing about God is that He can still rescue people brought to a knowledge of Him through the deceptions of the devil.

This isn't classical sola scriptura at all. Again, you insinuate that, if it isn't directly mentioned in the Bible, out it goes. Sorry, but a lot of things aren't in the Bible but Christianity has for its entire history believed or done them.

I'm not insinuating anything. I already said that I believe there can be things taught that aren't in scripture, as long as they don't contradict what the bible has already established. That's where we run into problems. The bible establishes that God alone has immortality and that the dead know nothing. It is for this reason that the crying statues can't be from God. Mary is dead.

I'll take the miracles of God through relics over your words.

If they were from God than I'd be all for that. But they're not. And you don't have to take my words. I'd suggest rather you take the Words of God however. The bible and the bible alone is what we ought to stand on.

Not Vatican Catholic here; I'm Anglican. Nor are the EOs, OOs, OCs, or CAs.

The only proponent of that statement that may not apply to your denomination is the one about setting up a man as if he was God.

For there to be a remnant, it has to be literally what is left. For it to be what is left, it has to have a real history of continuance from the beginning.

There is no remnance of what you suggest.

Of course there is. It goes way back to the beginning. You look to what your church leaders says is historic, I look to the bible. The remnant keeps the commandments of God. They are those left at the end of time who have not received the mark of the beast. The remnant will keep all the commandments of God, not some of them.

According to fact.

If you say so.

Not at all. Ours is the complete and historical orthodoxy that history proves to be so.

Apostolic Succession for one, which, beyond the continuance of a historic episcopate, is also the continuance of ancient orthodoxies.

It is exactly where I think because God preserved it. He preserved the Deuterocanon, not just the Jewish list, to give an example. He preserved the entirety of orthodoxy, not parts rejected well over a thousand and a half years ago only to suddenly reappear in the 19th century in various bodies claiming "remnancy" but whose claims cannot be so because there cannot be remnancy without a direct historical trace.

Again, to the law and the testimony. I trace the remnant as those who held fast to the word of God. That great cloud of witnesses spoken of in Hebrews that were martyred for their faith. The people whose names will never be known until we get to heaven, that died for the truth. If what you say God preserved contradicts what scripture says than it wasn't God that preserved it.

 

[PaladinValer]

When did I say that?

It seems, and perhaps I'm wrong, you still edge on "gotta be in the Bible."

The underlined portion is what matters. You can quote scripture all you want, but if you're applying it incorrectly than it doesn't matter.

To that, we are in complete agreement. The problem is, which interpretation and who decided on the interpretation.

Without necessarily agreeing with the concept of a magistrum (although again not saying that it isn't a terrible idea all the same), it is the Holy Spirit through the means of the Church that such matters were settled.

You totally missed what I was saying. It shouldn't have taken a council to "establish" the Trinity. But I guess that's just me.

The Council defined the Holy Trinity, but that is probably what you meant by your quoted "establish."

Should it had to have? In one way, no. However, that isn't the timeline we are in, in which it was very necessary.

Man, people read into this parable much more than they should. And it's amazing how the point that Christ was trying to make is totally missed.

Parables are a form of fable. Part of the structure of a fable is that it is, in characterization, as real as possible. You don't have foxes eating cabbage; you have them eating grapes. That's part of an authentic parable. Part of good Biblical interpretation involves not just the words themselves and not just in the context of the words but in the context of the idiom and syntax as well.

He most certainly could if He wished, but He hasn't. If you're talking about the serpent on the staff, that was a representation of Christ, which is why when they looked upon it they lived.

Yet they were healed.

However the serpent didn't cry.

Whether the serpent cried or not isn't the point. The fact that there was a physical effect is.

I think I can go with you on that. Our communion table is set apart for God's use as well as the furniture on the pulpit. The line is drawn there though. We don't pray to it or expect it to work a miracle on our part.

No one "expects" for a miracle to occur whenever they observe a finger bone or the staff of a Saint. They are sacramentals; physical objects that provide a source of spiritual depth and insight. God can work through them and He usually does. Does that mean we expect miracles from them? No, but they do happen.

That remains to be seen. The great thing about God is that He can still rescue people brought to a knowledge of Him through the deceptions of the devil.

Except that it has been seen. Do you really think those people who have been healed, cured, or made well in some other way have abandoned God? No! They are more devout for it than most people could be in ten or even a hundred lifetimes! They are probably among the most humble you could possibly ever expect to encounter as well.

I'm not insinuating anything. I already said that I believe there can be things taught that aren't in scripture, as long as they don't contradict what the bible has already established. That's where we run into problems. The bible establishes that God alone has immortality and that the dead know nothing. It is for this reason that the crying statues can't be from God. Mary is dead.

Except the Bible doesn't teach those things and that St. Mary the Theotokos is the most alive human, aside from Jesus, who ever lived.

If they were from God than I'd be all for that. But they're not. And you don't have to take my words. I'd suggest rather you take the Words of God however. The bible and the bible alone is what we ought to stand on.

Evangelical version of sola scriptura.

The only proponent of that statement that may not apply to your denomination is the one about setting up a man as if he was God.

I'm sorry, but that is beyond absurd. I disagree with the concept of Papacy as much as any other non-Vatican Catholic, but I would never go around and proclaim some outrageous claim like they believe or teach the Bishop of Rome to be God, like God, or set up as God. No one, including Vatican Catholics, deny the fact that the Papacy was for a long time one of the most corrupt institutions. Long past; Trent did quite a job reforming their church and Vatican II pretty much put a cap of iron and steel on the problem. I realize your particular denomination has a history of being rediculously anti-papal, but just as the popes haven't been corrupt in hundreds of years, you can very, very easily get over it just as well as they did.

Of course there is. It goes way back to the beginning. You look to what your church leaders says is historic, I look to the bible. The remnant keeps the commandments of God.

Judaizerism died out. It ended. There's a VERY VERY VERY long break between, say, the 4th century to the 16th, where there finally came a renewed idea of reclaiming "original, Hebraic Christianity," and I assure you, folks like Huss, Luther, and Calvin were just as unhappy as Henry VIII, the Popes, and the Ecumenical Patriarchs.

I am a trained historian. History is what I do; history is what I studied for a long time in college for. There is absolutely no question that the concept of Saturday Sabbath as practiced by Jews was abandoned by Christianity early in its history and didn't come back for a great length of time. If there is truly a remnant, it would require a historic line. That is what a remnant is; a trace of what used to be. Think of the Hebrew language itself; it didn't end, but there was a time in history were it nearly disappeared. During those times, it most certainly was a remnant.

Do you see the difference?

If you say so.

Yes, I do.

 

[Tonks]

We have icons of the Theotokos that shed tears of myrrh.

 

[PaladinValer]

We have icons of the Theotokos that shed tears of myrrh.

Now that's a sight (and smell!) to behold!

Glory to God in the highest!

 

[Stryder06]

It seems, and perhaps I'm wrong, you still edge on "gotta be in the Bible."

To clarify, I'm fine with believing things not specifically sated in the bible, as long as they do not contradict what the bible has clearly established.

To that, we are in complete agreement. The problem is, which interpretation and who decided on the interpretation.

Without necessarily agreeing with the concept of a magistrum (although again not saying that it isn't a terrible idea all the same), it is the Holy Spirit through the means of the Church that such matters were settled.

Agreed

The Council defined the Holy Trinity, but that is probably what you meant by your quoted "establish."

Should it had to have? In one way, no. However, that isn't the timeline we are in, in which it was very necessary.

I can agree with this.

Parables are a form of fable. Part of the structure of a fable is that it is, in characterization, as real as possible. You don't have foxes eating cabbage; you have them eating grapes. That's part of an authentic parable. Part of good Biblical interpretation involves not just the words themselves and not just in the context of the words but in the context of the idiom and syntax as well.

Christ spoke parables to teach lessons that only those who sought for the meaning would find.

Yet they were healed.
Whether the serpent cried or not isn't the point. The fact that there was a physical effect is.

Remember also that it was God that instructed Moses to create the serpent with the staff. Moses didn't think of it himself, create it, proclaim it holy and than once the people looked upon it, they were healed.

No one "expects" for a miracle to occur whenever they observe a finger bone or the staff of a Saint. They are sacramentals; physical objects that provide a source of spiritual depth and insight. God can work through them and He usually does. Does that mean we expect miracles from them? No, but they do happen.

Ok

Except that it has been seen. Do you really think those people who have been healed, cured, or made well in some other way have abandoned God? No! They are more devout for it than most people could be in ten or even a hundred lifetimes! They are probably among the most humble you could possibly ever expect to encounter as well.

I never claim to know the hearts of people. There are those who live their lives with an outward type of Christianity. We look at them and think them pious and humble etc, but what really matters is what God said. Once they have this deep connection with God are they digging deeper into His word to learn of Him? Do they study to show themselves approved? Do they hold to the traditions of man over the word of God? One can have a form of goldiness, a very strong form, but still be denying the power thereof.

Except the Bible doesn't teach those things and that St. Mary the Theotokos is the most alive human, aside from Jesus, who ever lived.

Let's see:
Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

1 Tim 6:16 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.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

So let's review. The dead know nothing. God alone has immortality. God breathed into man's nostrils and he became a living. Yup it's all right there in the bible.

Evangelical version of sola scriptura.

Que?

I'm sorry, but that is beyond absurd. I disagree with the concept of Papacy as much as any other non-Vatican Catholic, but I would never go around and proclaim some outrageous claim like they believe or teach the Bishop of Rome to be God, like God, or set up as God. No one, including Vatican Catholics, deny the fact that the Papacy was for a long time one of the most corrupt institutions. Long past; Trent did quite a job reforming their church and Vatican II pretty much put a cap of iron and steel on the problem. I realize your particular denomination has a history of being rediculously anti-papal, but just as the popes haven't been corrupt in hundreds of years, you can very, very easily get over it just as well as they did.

It's not that we're anti-papal per se. The bible is simply very clear on who the beast/anti-christ is. The number is the number of a man, etc etc. It's not about getting over anything. You are looking at the now, I am looking at the future. I have no problem with any member of the catholic church, it's the system that's the issue. Every person is in the same boat when it comes to salvation so it would be unbiblical and wrong for me to state that Catholics are some sort of exception.

God calls out to His people in the book of Revelation and tells them to come out of Babylon. This obviously implies that God has children in Babylon. Just like Lot had to be pulled out of S&G before it was destroyed and they with it, So God will (IMO) pull His people out of Babylon before the wine of the wrath of His indignation is poured out and they are forced to partake of her plagues.

Rome may be quiet now, but that doesn't mean she isn't at work, laying the foundation for that which is to come. It's not conspiracy, it's prophecy.

Judaizerism died out. It ended. There's a VERY VERY VERY long break between, say, the 4th century to the 16th, where there finally came a renewed idea of reclaiming "original, Hebraic Christianity," and I assure you, folks like Huss, Luther, and Calvin were just as unhappy as Henry VIII, the Popes, and the Ecumenical Patriarchs.

It's quite possible. Just because it died out however doesn't mean it should have. The first Christians were Jews. They didn't forsake their heritage, they followed Christ properly, that's all.

I am a trained historian. History is what I do; history is what I studied for a long time in college for.

That's cool. I do computers.

There is absolutely no question that the concept of Saturday Sabbath as practiced by Jews was abandoned by Christianity early in its history and didn't come back for a great length of time. If there is truly a remnant, it would require a historic line. That is what a remnant is; a trace of what used to be.

That works fine for me. Jesus kept the sabbath. The disciples kept the sabbath. And so on and so forth before that. So that whole remnant thing is looking pretty good to me.

Think of the Hebrew language itself; it didn't end, but there was a time in history were it nearly disappeared. During those times, it most certainly was a remnant.

Do you see the difference?

I do see your point. Clearly. The fortunate thing is that it's not how I, or for that matter history, define what a remnant should be. The angel in revelations says clearly: Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus

Now we compare that with the following: And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

I'm sure you see it. The saints, the remnant, during earths final hours, are those who keep the commandments of God. Christ is tracing that line. Those who keep the commandments, as His remnant. Whether history marks us or not is irrelevant, for our names our in the books of heaven.

 

[PaladinValer]

To clarify, I'm fine with believing things not specifically sated in the bible, as long as they do not contradict what the bible has clearly established.

By whose interpretation of "clearly established?" All reading is interpretation.

Christ spoke parables to teach lessons that only those who sought for the meaning would find.

That doesn't change the fact of syntax. Parables, as a subset of fables, are so because they meet a literary criteria that defines them.

Foxes don't eat lettuce. If Aesop were to have his Fox eat lettuce, his disciples would be confounded. He had his Fox try to get to grapes because foxes do eat them. That way, his students and we the reader won't get hung up on "foxes don't eat lettuce" and go directly to the point.

Remember also that it was God that instructed Moses to create the serpent with the staff.

Remember also that it was Abraham who bargained with God in chapter 18 to have increasing pity on Sodom and Gomorrah. It doesn't matter if we or God had the idea in the first place; what matters is that God uses it.

I never claim to know the hearts of people. There are those who live their lives with an outward type of Christianity. We look at them and think them pious and humble etc, but what really matters is what God said. Once they have this deep connection with God are they digging deeper into His word to learn of Him? Do they study to show themselves approved? Do they hold to the traditions of man over the word of God? One can have a form of goldiness, a very strong form, but still be denying the power thereof.

Go ask those healed. Go asked those cured. Go asked those whose senses have been restored. Go ask those whose eyes shed copious tears and turned their lives around.

As for your last sentence that I bolded, that's nothing more than a contradiction and you very well know it. Stop being so doggedly iconoclastic and investigate for yourself the lives of those touched by God's Grace through their experience with holy statuary, iconography, relics, and other sacred items.

Let's see:
Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

OT. Jesus happened and tore the gates of death to pieces. Not proof.

1 Tim 6:16 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.

In the sense of eternity, there is only God, who alone has immortality since the beginning. No question.

BTW, this was a verse utilized by the Arians to provide proof of their ideas of God and Christ.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Living in the sense of complete. Again, the Jews and Early Christians disagree with your interpretation here.

So let's review. The dead know nothing. God alone has immortality. God breathed into man's nostrils and he became a living. Yup it's all right there in the bible.

Your interpretation is modern, not ancient.

It's not that we're anti-papal per se.

Let's be honest here. We all know that is absolutely untrue. At least certain groups like the WELS Lutherans own up to the fact that their denomination still officially proclaims what it does about the Pope. I can respect that much of them; I would like to give the same for you.

The bible is simply very clear on who the beast/anti-christ is.

That is chiliasm, not orthodoxy. Long condemned by Ecumenical Council.

The number is the number of a man, etc etc. It's not about getting over anything. You are looking at the now, I am looking at the future.

No, I look at historic fact.

Rome may be quiet now, but that doesn't mean she isn't at work, laying the foundation for that which is to come. It's not conspiracy, it's prophecy.

False prophecy, just like the Great Disappointment. The only change is that it was twisted by an admittedly intelligent person to continue the same falsehood.

Rome had its dark point. No Vatican Catholic would disagree that Trent and Vatican II were necessary. Trent did a fantastic job reforming that particular church. The papacy is not corrupt anymore, despite its new role as of Vatican I. I disagree with it, but I'm not going to dwell on the past, which is what you are doing, not on the future.

It's quite possible. Just because it died out however doesn't mean it should have. The first Christians were Jews. They didn't forsake their heritage, they followed Christ properly, that's all.

It isn't just quite possible; it is absolutely historically factual. Furthermore, if it died out, then either we must come to the conclusion that

A. God failed to preserve the Church, in which case we come to the logical conclusion that God can fail which leads to nothing more than Christianity being a false religion.

or

B. God, being God, cannot fail to preserve the Church and as such, if a group dies out, then the distinctive traits that made that group particular obviously wasn't orthodoxy, otherwise God would have preserved it.

Logic can be cold, but it proves us with the tools we need.

That works fine for me. Jesus kept the sabbath. The disciples kept the sabbath. And so on and so forth before that. So that whole remnant thing is looking pretty good to me.

Council of Jerusalem ended that.

No remnant. The Hebrew disciples themselves ended it.

 

[alphonsus12]

By whose interpretation of "clearly established?" All reading is interpretation.



That doesn't change the fact of syntax. Parables, as a subset of fables, are so because they meet a literary criteria that defines them.

Foxes don't eat lettuce. If Aesop were to have his Fox eat lettuce, his disciples would be confounded. He had his Fox try to get to grapes because foxes do eat them. That way, his students and we the reader won't get hung up on "foxes don't eat lettuce" and go directly to the point.



Remember also that it was Abraham who bargained with God in chapter 18 to have increasing pity on Sodom and Gomorrah. It doesn't matter if we or God had the idea in the first place; what matters is that God uses it.



Go ask those healed. Go asked those cured. Go asked those whose senses have been restored. Go ask those whose eyes shed copious tears and turned their lives around.

As for your last sentence that I bolded, that's nothing more than a contradiction and you very well know it. Stop being so doggedly iconoclastic and investigate for yourself the lives of those touched by God's Grace through their experience with holy statuary, iconography, relics, and other sacred items.



OT. Jesus happened and tore the gates of death to pieces. Not proof.



In the sense of eternity, there is only God, who alone has immortality since the beginning. No question.

BTW, this was a verse utilized by the Arians to provide proof of their ideas of God and Christ.



Living in the sense of complete. Again, the Jews and Early Christians disagree with your interpretation here.



Your interpretation is modern, not ancient.



Let's be honest here. We all know that is absolutely untrue. At least certain groups like the WELS Lutherans own up to the fact that their denomination still officially proclaims what it does about the Pope. I can respect that much of them; I would like to give the same for you.



That is chiliasm, not orthodoxy. Long condemned by Ecumenical Council.



No, I look at historic fact.



False prophecy, just like the Great Disappointment. The only change is that it was twisted by an admittedly intelligent person to continue the same falsehood.

Rome had its dark point. No Vatican Catholic would disagree that Trent and Vatican II were necessary. Trent did a fantastic job reforming that particular church. The papacy is not corrupt anymore, despite its new role as of Vatican I. I disagree with it, but I'm not going to dwell on the past, which is what you are doing, not on the future.



It isn't just quite possible; it is absolutely historically factual. Furthermore, if it died out, then either we must come to the conclusion that

A. God failed to preserve the Church, in which case we come to the logical conclusion that God can fail which leads to nothing more than Christianity being a false religion.

or

B. God, being God, cannot fail to preserve the Church and as such, if a group dies out, then the distinctive traits that made that group particular obviously wasn't orthodoxy, otherwise God would have preserved it.

Logic can be cold, but it proves us with the tools we need.



Council of Jerusalem ended that.

No remnant. The Hebrew disciples themselves ended it.

While I certainly do appreciate the your kind words about the Roman Catholic Church not being the beast, could you refer to us as Roman Catholics and not "Vatican Catholics." It would be about the same as calling Anglicans "Canteburians," or something along those lines.
Pax Christi.

 

[Tyndale]

tittle tattle, don't fall out now LOL.

 

[wiselife]

Nothing biblical about idols of a dead woman crying.

Every time I hear things like that I want to be Catholic.

 

[Tyndale]

Every time I hear things like that I want to be Catholic.

you do?,,, that's strange. Maybe its your destiny

 

[wiselife]

you do?,,, that's strange. Maybe its your destiny

perhaps

 

[PaladinValer]

While I certainly do appreciate the your kind words about the Roman Catholic Church not being the beast, could you refer to us as Roman Catholics and not "Vatican Catholics." It would be about the same as calling Anglicans "Canteburians," or something along those lines.
Pax Christi.

Please allow me to explain why I coined the phrase:

1. Not all members of your church are of the Roman or Latin Rite. Vatican Catholic is therefore inclusive of all members of your church. I think Eastern Riters, and there are a few who post here, would not appreciate their implied non-membership under the good Pope Benedict.
2. I have had enough of people offer the utter...let's just say "nonsense"...of the Pope being the anti-Christ/your church is the You-Know-What of Babylon/your church is Satanic/etc etc etc. The Vatican is on Vatican hill, which isn't of the seven hills of Rome if I recall. Therefore, it not only does pt 1 above, but it completely quashes and directly confronts and corrects such detractors mentioned here in pt 2.

As you can see, I coined the phrase "Vatican Catholic" out of charity and compassion. I apologize if you think it offensive, but I hope my explanation above is enough for you. I personally have never had any poster who is also a member of your church complain before and a few have even been supportive and outright liked it.