Out of the Mouth of The Beast

[topcare]

Why is being uneducated a good thing here?

-CryptoLutheran

That's easy, they think that they are better than the educated, it is a form of pride in many Evangelical circles

 

[Extraneous]

http://www.christianforums.com/posts/69406424/

 

[Extraneous]

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ark-of-the-beast.7932183/page-4#post-69406366

 

[ViaCrucis]

It shows the Spirit of God... He is glorified not the young uneducated invalid who could never have written as she did.

Personally I think the Holy Spirit is glorified in the truth.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Extraneous]

Truth


1 Corinthians 3:18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”; [a] 20 and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.” 21 Therefore let no one boast in men. For all things are yours: 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world or life or death, or things present or things to come—all are yours. 23 And you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

 

[Noxot]

@ o p

well a fault of the catholic church is that they tend to take obedience to a very huge measurement. but if you want to see something positive then we can see how extremely humble Jesus is no matter how right he is, though he is by no means a slave.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I wholeheartedly disagree. If we must respect the office of the Pope, then we must necessarily be Catholics. The real issue is whether or not we show respect for each other, which is to say that we learn to approach each other with the gentleness and tact that lends itself to polite conversation. I never need respect the Pope, his office, officers or his religious institution, but I ought to approach the subject with kindness toward those who might read my post.

Really? Do we not expect non-Americans to respect the President, or put conversely, if our President isn't respected isn't there a consequence? Secondly, all humans deserve dignity, it's a God-given right.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I respect the historic Chair of St. Peter that is at Rome, the same as I do all the historic Sees of the Church. I take issue with the late medieval innovations which led to the development of the modern papacy, but it remains a firm and historic fact that Francis is the successor of St. Peter, in the same way that Theodorus II is the current successor of St. Mark, Theophilos III* the successor of St. James, Bartholomew I the successor of St. Andrew, etc.

*I understand that there are several claims to the historic See of Jerusalem, I'm not attempting to flippantly dismiss the Latin Patriarch or the Armenian Patriarch who also claim the Chair of St. James, mentioning Theophilos was merely an arbitrary choice in my list.

-CryptoLutheran

Regarding the first part of your post, you do realize that Constantine, by abandoning Rome for Constantinople, did, in fact, encourage the Papacy to govern land? That's where those medieval innovations came from-being forced to govern. Were it not for the pope, Rome probably would have been burned by the Huns and the Goths.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I understand you are ignorant to what she has said in her writings...

I have been reading her writings for 10 years now and have studied through a majority of her texts, There is nothing that contradicts the Bible or the Holiness of Christ.

Do you believe that God will send a prophet for these last days as He has promised? Why is one of the gifts of the Spirit the gift of prophesy, but according to you none exist?

How could a woman with a third grade education become the most prolific female writer in history? How did she know that Protestantism would reunite with Catholicism just before the end of time? Why is here prediction of a sunday law, that was scoffed at for over a hundred years, now be coming to fruition?

Really? Where does it say in the Bible that Jesus and St. Michael are the same?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Really? Where does it say in the Bible that Jesus and St. Michael are the same?

Daniel 12:1
And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people:

Who is that great prince?

Acts 5:31
Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Acts 7:55
But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

 

[Root of Jesse]

Daniel 12:1
And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people:

Who is that great prince?

Acts 5:31
Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Acts 7:55
But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

In other words, it doesn't, you just interpret it that way, or she did, and you believe it. Got ya. Wondering why this wasn't detected for 1800 years...

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

In other words, it doesn't, you just interpret it that way, or she did, and you believe it. Got ya. Wondering why this wasn't detected for 1800 years...

Why don't you tell us then who the great prince is in Daniel 12 that stands up for Daniels people?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Daniel 12:1
And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people:

Who is that great prince?

Acts 5:31
Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Acts 7:55
But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

Noting that none of these passages even come close to saying Michael is Christ.

Cyrus is called messiah, that doesn't make Cyrus Jesus. And that's a more significant term than "prince" in regard to the Lord.

If Michael is Jesus then so is Cyrus--both have exactly the same amount of biblical support; and if anything the argument that Cyrus of Persia is Jesus has more biblical support.

Of course, neither are true.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why don't you tell us then who the great prince is in Daniel 12 that stands up for Daniels people?

St. Michael the archangel. It says so right in the text.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Regarding the first part of your post, you do realize that Constantine, by abandoning Rome for Constantinople, did, in fact, encourage the Papacy to govern land? That's where those medieval innovations came from-being forced to govern. Were it not for the pope, Rome probably would have been burned by the Huns and the Goths.

I think with the fall of the Western Empire in the 5th century the people now under barbarian control did look to the bishop of Rome for stability. I don't think that justifies those innovations. And if we even assume the argument that a temporary centralization of civil and spiritual authority to the Roman Patriarch, such would have ceased to be necessary before very long. Certainly with the establishment of the Frankish territories under Pepin and later Charles brought much of the stability back to Western Europe (well, more than what existed prior). Of course much more damage can be said to have occurred because the Roman Patriarch took it upon himself to crown Charles Emperor of the Romans (an act which damaged relations with the Byzantines).

I do not believe the circumstances of the middle ages are sufficient to justify the exponential growth of the power(s) of the papacy and the papacy itself. St. Peter's successor was called primus inter pares, the chair of St. Peter became much more than what was granted to it by conciliar and ecclesistical honor, and that's where the problem lay.

Yes, the pope sits in St. Peter's chair (as does the bishop of Antioch); but St. Peter's successor is only a bishop among bishops. Anything more than this is deviation and innovation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

St. Michael the archangel. It says so right in the text.

-CryptoLutheran

No, it just says Michael stands up for his people...

Let's look at the verse in context shall we?

Rev 12:1-2
And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Here's the problem of you thinking this is referring to a mere created angel... Michael stands up and God's people get delivered at the Resurrection... is it an angel that delivers us at the Resurrection? Whoever it is, he is also portrayed as having the voice of the archangel when He descends from Heaven.

You say that referring to Jesus as an angel means that He is somehow created but you know that the word angel means messenger, right?... Jesus was/is a messenger of the Father.

Who do you think this passage below is referring to? Do you think this if Jesus or a created angel?

Rev 10:1
And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire:

 

[ViaCrucis]

No, it just says Michael stands up for his people...

Let's look at the verse in context shall we?

Rev 12:1-2
And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Here's the problem of you thinking this is referring to a mere created angel... Michael stands up and God's people get delivered at the Resurrection... is it an angel that delivers us at the Resurrection? Whoever it is, he is also portrayed as having the voice of the archangel when He descends from Heaven.

You say that referring to Jesus as an angel means that He is somehow created but you know that the word angel means messenger, right?... Jesus was/is a messenger of the Father.

Who do you think this passage below is referring to? Do you think this if Jesus or a created angel?

Do you have an example of Christ being referred to as ἄγγελος? I'm not aware of Christ called such, but I am aware of what the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews writes,

"For to which of the angels did God ever say, 'You are My Son; today I have begotten You'? Or again, 'I will be His Father, and He will be My Son'? And again, when He brings the firstborn into the world, He says, 'Let all God's angels worship Him.' Of the angels He says, 'He makes His angels winds, and His servants flames of fire.' But of the Son He says, 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness beyond Your companions.'" - Hebrews 1:5-9

Rev 10:1
And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire:

Presumably an angel. Nothing in the 10th chapter of the Apocalypse suggests that this is Jesus, who is rather consistently described in the Apocalypse with the imagery of a lamb.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

No, it just says Michael stands up for his people...

Michael the prince. The "prince" here is Michael. So, yes, it mentions who the prince is in this context and it's St. Michael, not Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Presumably an angel. Nothing in the 10th chapter of the Apocalypse suggests that this is Jesus, who is rather consistently described in the Apocalypse with the imagery of a lamb.
-CryptoLutheran

The language used in Rev 10:1 is attributable to Christ as it denotes throne symbolism. I am not alone in my understanding of this verse referring to Christ as the mighty angel... many other denominations commentators understand it the same. So, if it is possible to have Jesus portrayed as an angel in Rev. 10, then it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the archangel is Christ as well.

 

[JCFantasy23]

MOD HAT ON
_________________________________

After staff review, this thread will remained closed because of the SOP Rule for the forum

When speaking about well-known, revered and highly regarded past or present leaders, theologians, saints (living or deceased) of other Nicene Christian denominations, please show a measure of respect. These public religious figures are respected by the members who belong to those denominations. Please avoid using inflammatory words or phrases in reference to these public religious figures.

_________________________________
MOD HAT OFF​