Who is the woman in Revelations 12?

[Major1]

In the book of Acts it is used in reference to believers entering the Church -- the word of God "increased" and "grew and multiplied" as the Church grew.

Acts 6:7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith

Acts 12:24 But the word of God grew and multiplied.

But we agree that "logos" is not a reference to Scripture alone it seems. So it is always confusing to me when people attempt to use it to support a theology of Scripture alone.

Your previous example -- John 17:17 -- "Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth."
From the last supper where Jesus had just told the apostles that HE is the Truth (John 14:6). He is who sanctifies us. Sacred Scripture is certainly one of the ways he does that in our lives, but not the only way.

You are confusing Sola Scriptura with the word Logus.

Logus is the Greek word used to describe Jesus Christ and His divinity.

Sola Scriptura simply means that there is nothing else needed to be saved except what is found in the Word of God. And the Word of God says that to be saved we MUST BELIEVE UPON JESUS CHRIST plus NOTHING!

 

[bbbbbbb]

So is Scripture in error when it refers to Paul as an apostle since he doesn't meet the qualifications? It would seem you have to conclude it is based upon your comments here.

Paul refers to Timothy as an apostle in 1 Thessalonians 2:6

In truth, there are references to a vast host of apostles in the New Testament, not the least of whom is Jesus Christ (Hebrews 3:1). An apostle is, simply put, a person who is sent forth to perform a particular task. One can easily associate missionaries with apostles as they are sent forth to preach the gospel and to establish churches. It is absurd to associate a particular clique of men such as Cardinals as being the only legitimate successors of the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ.

 

[narnia59]

In truth, there are references to a vast host of apostles in the New Testament, not the least of whom is Jesus Christ (Hebrews 3:1). An apostle is, simply put, a person who is sent forth to perform a particular task. One can easily associate missionaries with apostles as they are sent forth to preach the gospel and to establish churches. It is absurd to associate a particular clique of men such as Cardinals as being the only legitimate successors of the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ.

The valid successors of the twelve apostles are those they laid hands on to ordain, and who in turn laid hands on to ordain others. This is what we see happening with Paul and Timothy, and instructions for him to do the same.

So, if someone who had never received ordination from an apostle showed up with their Bible and started to counter Timothy, who do you think Paul would say had the legitimate authority? Go back to the post up there ^^ and read all the things Paul said to Timothy before you answer.

 

[narnia59]

You are confusing Sola Scriptura with the word Logus.

Logus is the Greek word used to describe Jesus Christ and His divinity.

Sola Scriptura simply means that there is nothing else needed to be saved except what is found in the Word of God. And the Word of God says that to be saved we MUST BELIEVE UPON JESUS CHRIST plus NOTHING!

And what does it mean to believe on Christ? Is repentance required? Obedience? Or not?

I am not confusing anything. It's just that people tend to want to roll out Scriptures using "logos" to prove Sola Scriptura, which is a non-starter.

 

[Major1]

You should find better anti-Catholic resources.

First of all, several of those aren't "doctrines" at all.

Second, a doctrine is generally not formally defined until there is some need or heresy that requires clarification. That is why if you pulled this list from a Jehovah Witness site, it would include the Trinity, invented in 325 AD.

However, we both know the Trinity wasn't invented in 325 AD, that is simply when heresy required it to be formally defined.

So take, learn, and apply that knowledge to the other things on your list that are actually doctrines. The year they are formally defined is NOT the year they first appear in Church teaching. It is simply when a formal definition became necessary.

I can not do that. I will have to remove my head to do that and I am not going to clean up that mess.

I am amazed that you and most all Catholics will make a claim but then when presented with actual historical facts, walk back your claims.

History is history. It can not be changed but it can be explained away wherein lies destruction.

Of course the Trinity was not invented at any time in history. It was written in the Word of God thousands of years ago.

Genesis 1:1.........
"In the beginning God."

In that Scripture, the PLURAL (More than 1) noun “Elohim” (“God” in the ESV) is joined with the singular verb “created”: “In the beginning, [Elohim] created the heavens and the earth.”

The pattern is repeated in Gen. 1:27: “So [Elohim] created man in his own image, in the image of [Elohim] he created him; male and female he created them.”

Gen. 1:26......
“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”.
That is an indication that the work of creation is the work of one God in three persons.

Now is the Book of Genesis 6000 years old or older. I believe it is much older. So then how old is the TRINITY????? As old as the book of Genesis.

 

[narnia59]

In truth, there are references to a vast host of apostles in the New Testament, not the least of whom is Jesus Christ (Hebrews 3:1). An apostle is, simply put, a person who is sent forth to perform a particular task. One can easily associate missionaries with apostles as they are sent forth to preach the gospel and to establish churches. It is absurd to associate a particular clique of men such as Cardinals as being the only legitimate successors of the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ.

And it would seem that you and Major1 have a disagreement on what Scripture means by apostle, so you should probably exercise Sola-Scriptura to figure it out....

 

[narnia59]

I can not do that. I will have to remove my head to do that and I am not going to clean up that mess.

I am amazed that you and most all Catholics will make a claim but then when presented with actual historical facts, walk back your claims.

History is history. It can not be changed but it can be explained away wherein lies destruction.

Of course the Trinity was not invented at any time in history. It was written in the Word of God thousands of years ago.

Genesis 1:1.........
"In the beginning God."

In that Scripture, the PLURAL (More than 1) noun “Elohim” (“God” in the ESV) is joined with the singular verb “created”: “In the beginning, [Elohim] created the heavens and the earth.”

The pattern is repeated in Gen. 1:27: “So [Elohim] created man in his own image, in the image of [Elohim] he created him; male and female he created them.”

Gen. 1:26......
“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”.
That is an indication that the work of creation is the work of one God in three persons.

Now is the Book of Genesis 6000 years old or older. I believe it is much older. So then how old is the TRINITY????? As old as the book of Genesis.

If your basic premise is that those doctrines aren't Biblical, that's another question entirely. But to claim they were "invented" in the years you provided is not historically accurate, any more than to claim the Trinity was "invented" at the Council of Nicea in 325 when it was formally defined.

 

[Major1]

The valid successors of the twelve apostles are those they laid hands on to ordain, and who in turn laid hands on to ordain others. This is what we see happening with Paul and Timothy, and instructions for him to do the same.

So, if someone who had never received ordination from an apostle showed up with their Bible and started to counter Timothy, who do you think Paul would say had the legitimate authority? Go back to the post up there ^^ and read all the things Paul said to Timothy before you answer.

Not so my friend. The laying on of hands does not equal Apostolic Succession.

Again....I know that you want to believ what the RCC has told you, however there is just no Scripture that says....."Laying on of hands makes an individual an Apostle".

We need to understand very carefully that there are no magical biblical formulas for the ministry of the church. Laying on of hands has no power in itself. Laying on of hands is only used by God when it is done in agreement with God’s Word and if there is nothing in the Word of God to validate an action then it is just the workings of man to support something he wants to do.

 

[Major1]

And it would seem that you and Major1 have a disagreement on what Scripture means by apostle, so you should probably exercise Sola-Scriptura to figure it out....

Not really!

 

[narnia59]

Not really!

Just answer this. Is Paul an apostle?

 

[Major1]

If your basic premise is that those doctrines aren't Biblical, that's another question entirely. But to claim they were "invented" in the years you provided is not historically accurate, any more than to claim the Trinity was "invented" at the Council of Nicea in 325 when it was formally defined.

Again.....YOU personally may not accept those dates, but even if that is the case......
WHAT does the dates have to do with heresy??????

Big picture my friend. You said the RCC has never invented any doctrinr not found in the Bible. I just gave you about 10. Forget the dates. Focus on the doctrines.

 

[narnia59]

Again.....YOU personally may not accept those dates, but even if that is the case......
WHAT does the dates have to do with heresy??????

Big picture my friend. You said the RCC has never invented any doctrinr not found in the Bible. I just gave you about 10. Forget the dates. Focus on the doctrines.

Pick one and explain to me how it contradicts Scripture.

 

[narnia59]

Not so my friend. The laying on of hands does not equal Apostolic Succession.

Again....I know that you want to believ what the RCC has told you, however there is just no Scripture that says....."Laying on of hands makes an individual an Apostle".

We need to understand very carefully that there are no magical biblical formulas for the ministry of the church. Laying on of hands has no power in itself. Laying on of hands is only used by God when it is done in agreement with God’s Word and if there is nothing in the Word of God to validate an action then it is just the workings of man to support something he wants to do.

So anybody could have ordained Timothy. It didn't have to be an apostle?

And Timothy could have ordained anyone even if he had never been ordained?

 

[Major1]

Just answer this. Is Paul an apostle?

Paul encounter the Lord Jesus on the road to Damascus after Christ’s resurrection. Paul was a personal witness of the resurrected Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-9).

While Jesus’ appearance to Paul may have been different in character from Christ’s pre-ascension appearances, this encounter with Paul was no merely subjective vision, as both Jesus’ voice and the bright light were perceived by Paul’s traveling companions. The Lord chose Paul to proclaim His name to both Gentiles and the children of Israel.

The point is, ALL the apostles were personally called by Jesus Christ in a face to face confirmation.

It is also to be noted that ALL of the apostle were Jews.

 

[narnia59]

Paul encounter the Lord Jesus on the road to Damascus after Christ’s resurrection. Paul was a personal witness of the resurrected Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-9).

While Jesus’ appearance to Paul may have been different in character from Christ’s pre-ascension appearances, this encounter with Paul was no merely subjective vision, as both Jesus’ voice and the bright light were perceived by Paul’s traveling companions. The Lord chose Paul to proclaim His name to both Gentiles and the children of Israel.

The point is, ALL the apostles were personally called by Jesus Christ in a face to face confirmation.

It is also to be noted that ALL of the apostle were Jews.

Paul does not meet the other criteria you cited to have to be an apostle.

You spelled it out:

Acts chapter 1 is the only place in Scripture where we’re given the qualifications for being an apostle or becoming an apostle…the only place!

Now allow me to post that again for anyone who does not understand those words...........
“one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us.”

Paul does not meet that criteria. So either that is the criteria to be one of the 12, or Paul can't be an apostle.

And Christ did appoint apostles, but then he told them "All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you." Christ gave them his authority and that would certainly include the authority to appoint successors.

 

[Major1]

Pick one and explain to me how it contradicts Scripture.

Certainly my friend.

The Immaculate Conception.

Scripture says in Romans 3:23...........
"ALL have sinned and come short of God's approval".

From....What is the Immaculate Conception?------

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 490-494 tradition, not Scripture, concludes.....
"The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin".
(Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854: DS 2803).

They affirm Mary is the "New Eve" (CCC 508-509) who gave birth to the "New Adam" (CCC 504-505) - Jesus Christ. Overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, Mary is considered to be the holy "ark," sinlessly fit to carry the Son of God. As the ark of the Lord in Moses' day carried the Old Covenant within it (Deut 10:8), so Mary carried the author of the New Covenant within her (Matt 1:18). Catholic doctrine affirms that she was "highly favored" (Luke 1:28), meaning in Catholic terms that Mary had an abundance of grace, rendering her sinless from birth (CCC 490-494).

So then, in plain Alabama english, RCC doctrine states Mary was free from the stain of original sin. In other words, Mary did not have a sin nature and was sinless?

The Bible fact is that Mary carried Christ. She was indeed the Ark of the New Covenant (Matt 1:18).

However, even the Ark of the Old Covenant was made of "cursed" elements.
Read that in Genesis 3:17-18, and Rom. 8:22.

But as such, it could still hold things that were set apart (made holy) by God:
(1) the manna,
(2) Aaron's rod, and
(3) tablets stones.

So, Mary being the Ark of God does not make her sinless (c.g. Isa 6:1-8; 2 Tim 2:20-21).

Now, everyone should take notice that as the Ark in Noah's day carried sinners (Noah and his family), so Mary did after she bore Christ, as she had other children (Matt 1:24-25; 13:56; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; 7:3; 7:5, 10, Acts 1:14, 1 Cor 9:5; Gal 1:19). So what do we now know..............
**********************************************************************
1: The Ark of the Old Covenant was made of corruptible things
2: Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant
Conclusion: Mary was a sinner.

In Mark 3:20-21, Mary and others believed Jesus was out of his mind. They even acted on their false belief seeking to take Jesus home (Mark 3:31-32). So, Mary and others demonstrated that they were of little faith. Such lack of faith is sin (2 Chron 30:7; Psa 119:158; Jer 3:12; Matt 8:26; 14:31; Rom 14:23; Jas 1:6). So, what do we now know..........

1: Lack of faith is a sin
2: Mary had a lack of faith
Conclusion: Mary was a sinner!!!!
**************************************************************

Mark 6:4 states, "A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household" (cf. 1 Sam 2:30). This group includes Mary. Even the Catholic commentator Richard P. McBrien remarks, "We find a somewhat negative portrait of Mary in the Gospel of Mark. . ."
(Catholicism: Completely Revised & Updated, HarperCollins, 1994, p. 1079).
So, what do we now know.................

1. Jesus' family held him in dishonor at times
2. Mary was a member of Jesus' family
Conclusion: Mary was a sinner


Do you need me to continue or would you like for me to pick another false doctrine????

 

[Major1]

Paul does not meet the other criteria you cited to have to be an apostle.

You spelled it out:

Acts chapter 1 is the only place in Scripture where we’re given the qualifications for being an apostle or becoming an apostle…the only place!

Now allow me to post that again for anyone who does not understand those words...........
“one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us.”

Paul does not meet that criteria. So either that is the criteria to be one of the 12, or Paul can't be an apostle.

And Christ did appoint apostles, but then he told them "All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you." Christ gave them his authority and that would certainly include the authority to appoint successors.

1 Corinthians 15:3-8
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

1 Corinthians 15:12-15
Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.

 

[narnia59]

1 Corinthians 15:3-8
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

1 Corinthians 15:12-15
Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.

I am not denying Christ appeared to Paul. I am saying that Paul was not "one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us." So are those things listed in Acts 1 the qualification to be an apostle, or not?

 

[Major1]

So anybody could have ordained Timothy. It didn't have to be an apostle?

And Timothy could have ordained anyone even if he had never been ordained?

No, anybody could not have.

“Ordinations” are simply appointments. The word can even be used negatively, as an appointment to punishment

Paul regularly ordained pastors for the churches he planted. He and Barnabas directed the appointment or ordination of elders “in each church” in Galatia. He instructed Titus to “appoint elders in every town” on Crete and Titus was not an Apostle. Titus himself had been ordained earlier, when “he was chosen by the churches” . In the above passages, the ordination of elders involves the whole congregation, not just the apostles.

 

[Major1]

I am not denying Christ appeared to Paul. I am saying that Paul was not "one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us." So are those things listed in Acts 1 the qualification to be an apostle, or not?

Paul never claimed to be one of the twelve, or to be qualified as apostle in the sense of Acts 1:21.

Now, It is a FACT that Barnabas was called an apostle. It is also a fact that Paul was called an apostle, both by himself and by those who he ministered among, otherwise he would not have used the word of himself in his letters to those he ministered to. It was not just Paul and Luke who used this term of Paul. It was also many of the Christians in the first century.

It is clear in the New Testament, Paul is not and never claimed to be among the twelve, whose qualifications are mentioned in Acts 1:21. I assume you are aware that Luke, who calls Paul an apostle, is the one who included the definition in Acts 1:21, so he obviously was well aware that, if Paul or Barnabas were “apostles,” then they were not apostles in the Acts 1:21 sense.

But here is the fact, which is that the Greek word apostle was used of people not among the twelve by the early church, and certainly they were not all considered false apostles. They were simply messengers (apostles), but for them, the usage of the word was different, as Luke and Paul were obviously aware.