Who is the woman in Revelations 12?

[bbbbbbb]

The thing is that not "all of them" make sense.

What do you do when you decide that some of the doctrines of the Bible do not make sense to you?

 

[Not David]

What do you do when you decide that some of the doctrines of the Bible do not make sense to you?

I ask to Orthodox members or priests.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I ask to Orthodox members or priests.

What do they do to determine if things are really true?

 

[Not David]

What do they do to determine if things are really true?

The consent of Saints and Tradition. You are going over in circles.

 

[prodromos]

Absolutely. Unless there is an absolute, unchanging foundation for belief (the Bible) then we are left to the shifting winds of human thoughts and traditions.

Is that why there are so many different Protestant Churches?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Is that why there are so many different Protestant Churches?

Not to mention branches of Orthodoxy?

 

[prodromos]

Not to mention branches of Orthodoxy?

2, and they are very close in theology.

 

[bbbbbbb]

2, and they are very close in theology.

I never knew that Coptic Orthodoxy was so close to the Mar Thoma Orthodox Church of India. Thank you for enlightening me. Which of those two do you belong to?

 

[Major1]

I see their claims and check if they make sense. It is not complex science.

It does not matter if the Word of God makes sense or it does not to YOU.

The Bible is the Word of God whether you or me or anyone else says it does not make sense.

 

[Major1]

The thing is that not "all of them" make sense.

What are your credentials to be able to make such an assertion?

 

[Major1]

I never said that doctrine should come from "a man", but tradition which is a consensus of the Fathers, like Scriptures which didn't come from ONE man.

But you are neglecting to say that "Traditions" are in fact directions that came from MEN.

The Scriptures did not come from ONE man or even many men. The Scriptures came from God.

2 Timothy 3:16...…….
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness".

 

[packermann]

Even better, become Orthodox. Then you don't have to worry about all the other stuff the Catholic Church has added over the centuries.

Well, Orthodoxy is better than Protestantism. At least it sees the value of Tradition. But there is such a thing as bad tradition. For instance, there was the Council of Ephesus in 449 AD, called the Robber Council. It taught the heresy that Christ only had one nature, which is considered a heresy by Catholics and Orthodox. But why do the Orthodox reject it? Is it just a matter of private opinion? Then how is this any different than Protestantism? The Orthodox do not seem to have any justification for rejecting this Council. Their only reason is that they do not like it.


Not so with the Catholic. Pope Leo condemned it and excommunicated those who participated in it. So the Catholic does not reject the Robber Council simply because he does not like or because it is his opinion that it contradict the Bible. He rejects it because the Pope, who has the charism of infallibility, rejected it.


Also, the reason that the Orthodox do not worry about all the “stuff” the Catholic Church has “added” is because they have no central magisterium. They did not mind all that “stuff” that came out of the first seven Councils. But they have had no Council since the Catholic-Orthodox split. Did the Holy Spirit stop speaking? As a result, although the Orthodox church have done well in maintaining the liturgy, it has done not-so-well in social and moral issues. What is the Orthodox position on abortion? On euthanasia? On divorce and remarriage? Did the Orthodox Church speak out against the slave trade and slavery here in the 1800’s? In all these, the Catholic did Church stand up! The Orthodox submits to Caesar. As long as the civil ruler allows the Orthodox to worship they were satisfied. This is called “Caesaropapism” – Caesar is their new pope. The Russian Orthodox Church did not do much to stand up against the atheistic Soviet Union. And the Greek Orthodox Church has not officially spoken out against the evils of Socialism in Greece. Sure, there were individuals, such as Alexander Soltzinietzen, but not the church as a whole.

 

[Not David]

QUOTE="prodromos, post: 74270491, member: 19467"]Even better, become Orthodox. Then you don't have to worry about all the other stuff the Catholic Church has added over the centuries.

Well, Orthodoxy is better than Protestantism. At least it sees the value of Tradition. But there is such a thing as bad tradition. For instance, there was the Council of Ephesus in 449 AD, called the Robber Council. It taught the heresy that Christ only had one nature, which is considered a heresy by Catholics and Orthodox. But why do the Orthodox reject it? Is it just a matter of private opinion? Then how is this any different than Protestantism? The Orthodox do not seem to have any justification for rejecting this Council. Their only reason is that they do not like it.


Not so with the Catholic. Pope Leo condemned it and excommunicated those who participated in it. So the Catholic does not reject the Robber Council simply because he does not like or because it is his opinion that it contradict the Bible. He rejects it because the Pope, who has the charism of infallibility, rejected it.


Also, the reason that the Orthodox do not worry about all the “stuff” the Catholic Church has “added” is because they have no central magisterium. They did not mind all that “stuff” that came out of the first seven Councils. But they have had no Council since the Catholic-Orthodox split. Did the Holy Spirit stop speaking? As a result, although the Orthodox church have done well in maintaining the liturgy, it has done not-so-well in social and moral issues. What is the Orthodox position on abortion? On euthanasia? On divorce and remarriage? Did the Orthodox Church speak out against the slave trade and slavery here in the 1800’s? In all these, the Catholic did Church stand up! The Orthodox submits to Caesar. As long as the civil ruler allows the Orthodox to worship they were satisfied. This is called “Caesaropapism” – Caesar is their new pope. The Russian Orthodox Church did not do much to stand up against the atheistic Soviet Union. And the Greek Orthodox Church has not officially spoken out against the evils of Socialism in Greece. Sure, there were individuals, such as Alexander Soltzinietzen, but not the church as a whole.[/QUOTE]
If the Roman Pope was the one who ratifies Ecumenical Councils, then there wouldn't be Ecumenical Councils who ratify the previous ones.

And don't talk about Orthodox not being strong with social issues when you have Cardinals and Bishops approving homosexual unions, being silent about "pro-choice Catholics" and denying the existence of the devil.

Also I always hear how Pope Francis is a liberal socialist.

 

[prodromos]

Well, Orthodoxy is better than Protestantism. At least it sees the value of Tradition. But there is such a thing as bad tradition. For instance, there was the Council of Ephesus in 449 AD, called the Robber Council. It taught the heresy that Christ only had one nature, which is considered a heresy by Catholics and Orthodox. But why do the Orthodox reject it? Is it just a matter of private opinion? Then how is this any different than Protestantism? The Orthodox do not seem to have any justification for rejecting this Council. Their only reason is that they do not like it.


Not so with the Catholic. Pope Leo condemned it and excommunicated those who participated in it. So the Catholic does not reject the Robber Council simply because he does not like or because it is his opinion that it contradict the Bible. He rejects it because the Pope, who has the charism of infallibility, rejected it.


Also, the reason that the Orthodox do not worry about all the “stuff” the Catholic Church has “added” is because they have no central magisterium. They did not mind all that “stuff” that came out of the first seven Councils. But they have had no Council since the Catholic-Orthodox split. Did the Holy Spirit stop speaking? As a result, although the Orthodox church have done well in maintaining the liturgy, it has done not-so-well in social and moral issues. What is the Orthodox position on abortion? On euthanasia? On divorce and remarriage? Did the Orthodox Church speak out against the slave trade and slavery here in the 1800’s? In all these, the Catholic did Church stand up! The Orthodox submits to Caesar. As long as the civil ruler allows the Orthodox to worship they were satisfied. This is called “Caesaropapism” – Caesar is their new pope. The Russian Orthodox Church did not do much to stand up against the atheistic Soviet Union. And the Greek Orthodox Church has not officially spoken out against the evils of Socialism in Greece. Sure, there were individuals, such as Alexander Soltzinietzen, but not the church as a whole.

Lord have mercy, what an ignorant post.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Lord have mercy, what an ignorant post.

And you despair over my posts?

 

[Major1]

QUOTE="prodromos, post: 74270491, member: 19467"]Even better, become Orthodox. Then you don't have to worry about all the other stuff the Catholic Church has added over the centuries.

Well, Orthodoxy is better than Protestantism. At least it sees the value of Tradition. But there is such a thing as bad tradition. For instance, there was the Council of Ephesus in 449 AD, called the Robber Council. It taught the heresy that Christ only had one nature, which is considered a heresy by Catholics and Orthodox. But why do the Orthodox reject it? Is it just a matter of private opinion? Then how is this any different than Protestantism? The Orthodox do not seem to have any justification for rejecting this Council. Their only reason is that they do not like it.


Not so with the Catholic. Pope Leo condemned it and excommunicated those who participated in it. So the Catholic does not reject the Robber Council simply because he does not like or because it is his opinion that it contradict the Bible. He rejects it because the Pope, who has the charism of infallibility, rejected it.


Also, the reason that the Orthodox do not worry about all the “stuff” the Catholic Church has “added” is because they have no central magisterium. They did not mind all that “stuff” that came out of the first seven Councils. But they have had no Council since the Catholic-Orthodox split. Did the Holy Spirit stop speaking? As a result, although the Orthodox church have done well in maintaining the liturgy, it has done not-so-well in social and moral issues. What is the Orthodox position on abortion? On euthanasia? On divorce and remarriage? Did the Orthodox Church speak out against the slave trade and slavery here in the 1800’s? In all these, the Catholic did Church stand up! The Orthodox submits to Caesar. As long as the civil ruler allows the Orthodox to worship they were satisfied. This is called “Caesaropapism” – Caesar is their new pope. The Russian Orthodox Church did not do much to stand up against the atheistic Soviet Union. And the Greek Orthodox Church has not officially spoken out against the evils of Socialism in Greece. Sure, there were individuals, such as Alexander Soltzinietzen, but not the church as a whole.[/QUOTE]

That is your personal opinion and of course it is slated because you are an Orthodox believer.

However, there are many things that are not Biblical which the Orthodox church supports.

1. Apostolic succession.

There is NOT ONE single Scripture that supports such a doctrine.

2. Bible Composition.

Orthodox church Accepts the 39 Old Testament and 27 New Testament books, but also a collection of books not found in the original Hebrew Bible. These are known as Deuterocanonicals or a second canon of scripture.

3. Clergy Qualifications.

Bishops must be celibate.

4. Purgatory.

An intermediate state between earth and heaven is recognised, but cleansing and purification occur in this life, not the next.

So, to say that Orthodoxy is "better" is a personal opinion because it is not rooted in the Word of God.

 

[Major1]

Lord have mercy, what an ignorant post.

Now I actually agree with your opinion, however I would not have used the phrase...……..
"What an ignorant post".

 

[Not David]

Well, Orthodoxy is better than Protestantism. At least it sees the value of Tradition. But there is such a thing as bad tradition. For instance, there was the Council of Ephesus in 449 AD, called the Robber Council. It taught the heresy that Christ only had one nature, which is considered a heresy by Catholics and Orthodox. But why do the Orthodox reject it? Is it just a matter of private opinion? Then how is this any different than Protestantism? The Orthodox do not seem to have any justification for rejecting this Council. Their only reason is that they do not like it.


Not so with the Catholic. Pope Leo condemned it and excommunicated those who participated in it. So the Catholic does not reject the Robber Council simply because he does not like or because it is his opinion that it contradict the Bible. He rejects it because the Pope, who has the charism of infallibility, rejected it.


Also, the reason that the Orthodox do not worry about all the “stuff” the Catholic Church has “added” is because they have no central magisterium. They did not mind all that “stuff” that came out of the first seven Councils. But they have had no Council since the Catholic-Orthodox split. Did the Holy Spirit stop speaking? As a result, although the Orthodox church have done well in maintaining the liturgy, it has done not-so-well in social and moral issues. What is the Orthodox position on abortion? On euthanasia? On divorce and remarriage? Did the Orthodox Church speak out against the slave trade and slavery here in the 1800’s? In all these, the Catholic did Church stand up! The Orthodox submits to Caesar. As long as the civil ruler allows the Orthodox to worship they were satisfied. This is called “Caesaropapism” – Caesar is their new pope. The Russian Orthodox Church did not do much to stand up against the atheistic Soviet Union. And the Greek Orthodox Church has not officially spoken out against the evils of Socialism in Greece. Sure, there were individuals, such as Alexander Soltzinietzen, but not the church as a whole.

That is your personal opinion and of course it is slated because you are an Orthodox believer.

However, there are many things that are not Biblical which the Orthodox church supports.

1. Apostolic succession.

There is NOT ONE single Scripture that supports such a doctrine.

2. Bible Composition.

Orthodox church Accepts the 39 Old Testament and 27 New Testament books, but also a collection of books not found in the original Hebrew Bible. These are known as Deuterocanonicals or a second canon of scripture.

3. Clergy Qualifications.

Bishops must be celibate.

4. Purgatory.

An intermediate state between earth and heaven is recognised, but cleansing and purification occur in this life, not the next.

So, to say that Orthodoxy is "better" is a personal opinion because it is not rooted in the Word of God.[/QUOTE]
1) What do you think "laying hands" mean?
2) Nothing wrong with Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon or 1 Esdras.
3) Nothing wrong with that, priests can marry anyways.
4) Orthodox don't believe in Purgatory.

 

[packermann]

That is your personal opinion and of course it is slated because you are an Orthodox believer.

No, I am Catholic, not Orthodox.

However, there are many things that are not Biblical which the Orthodox church supports.

1. Apostolic succession.

There is NOT ONE single Scripture that supports such a doctrine.

Actually, that is not true.

23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
Acts 1:23 - 26

Judas committed suicide so now there were only eleven apostles.Our Lord was with them for over a month between His resurrection and ascension, and He never told them about finding a replacement for him. But after his ascension, Peter told them that need to replace Judas with someone else. This was proper for Peter to do, since Jesus said to said whatever he binds on earth be will be bound in heaven. The apostles chose two, and then they cast lots - which is like the rolling of the dice. No matter! The Holy Spirit was guiding the whole process. And the lot feel to Mathias.

Now, I have not ever known a Protestant who questioned Matthias' apostleship, even though Jesus himself never selected him. Matthias was selected by the apostles, at the direction of Peter. Now, if they had the authority to select someone to replace Judas, it is logical that when they started dying off, they would have selected those to replace them as well.

I grant you this is not much, but there are doctrine that both of us believe that have even smaller support from the Bible than this one. What day do you honor the Sabbath? Is it Saturday or Sunday? My guess is that you honor Sunday. But the Ten Commandments says that we should honor the Sabbath on the seventh day, which is Saturday. Now, the rationale for worship on Sunday is that this is the day that Jesus rose from dead. But there is no verse in the Bible that allows for that! It is based on Church tradition, the Church changed it to Sunday. If the Church is not infallible then we should go back and honor Saturday instead of Sunday. Also, I think you, along with me, are a Trinitarian. You would believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - three persons in one God. BUT there is no verse in the Bible that states that there are three persons in one God. In fact, the word "Trinity" is no where to be found in the Bible! Protestants pick and choose which doctrines have to be supported from Bible and which do not.

2. Bible Composition.

Orthodox church Accepts the 39 Old Testament and 27 New Testament books, but also a collection of books not found in the original Hebrew Bible. These are known as Deuterocanonicals or a second canon of scripture.

At the time of Jesus, there were two texts of the Jewish Bible, the Masoretic (or Hebrew) Text and the Greek Septuagint. Both were authoritative. In fact, Jesus and the NT writers quoted mostly from the Greek Septuagint, not the Masoretic text. For instance Isaiah 7:14 says "Behold, a young woman gave birth to son" in the Masoretic text but the Greek Septuagint say "Behold, a virgin gave birth to a son". The Jews had a conference after the time of Christ and decided that the Masoretic text would be the only authoritative text, probably because the embarrassment of verses like Isaiah 7:14.

Now these Deuterocanonicals were in the Greek Septuagint but not in the Masoretic text. So this was in the Christian Bible up until the Reformation. The Reformers wanted to rejected the Deutercanonicals because there was a passage in 2 Maccabees that strongly supported Purgatory. So the Reformers rejected Deutercanonicals, arguing that since the Jews rejected them that we should, too. But they neglected to point out that the Jews only rejected Greek Septuagint, which included the Deutercanonicals, after they had rejected Christ. So why should we take the Jews, who rejected Christ, over centuries of Christianity in determining the canon of the OT?

3. Clergy Qualifications.

Bishops must be celibate.

Well, Orthodoxy have married priests. However, their bishops can be married. Catholics do not have married priests. But since I am Catholic, I deal with this.

Celibacy is in the Bible. Most of the OT prophets were celibates. John the Baptist, Paul, and our Lord were celibates. In the Apostle John's vision, he sees in the future men so dedicated to God that they "did not defile themselves with women"(Revelation 14:4). In Cor 7, Paul writes that for Lord's sake it would better to be celibate but he allowed marriage if it was too difficult for person to remain celibate. But still the ideal was celibacy. The Church allowed priest to marry for the first thousand years. But many men and women chose celibacy in order to get closer to Christ.

The Church changed this in 1076 AD. Just as the apostles had the right on their own to replace Judas, their replacements had the authority to determine the qualifications of a priest. I noticed that you called them clergy qualifications. Actually, it was only some in the clergy. Deacons, even to this day, can be married. It is only the priests and the bishops that are required to be remain celibate. And that is only in one rite, the Latin Rite. But a deacon can be married, and a deacon does what a Protestant minister does. So if a married man feels called to preach sermons, baptize people, and marry people, he can be become a deacon. He cannot become a priest, which I doubt you believe is a valid calling in the clergy. So you are criticizing the Catholic Church for not allowing married priests but your church does not allow priests at all.

4. Purgatory.

An intermediate state between earth and heaven is recognized, but cleansing and purification occur in this life, not the next.

Actually, I do not think the Orthodox believe in Purgatory, but since we Catholics do I will address this.

Is this purification complete in this life? If yes, then that means you would have to believe in sinless perfection. In this life, all of us Christians would reach being totally pure before we die and go to heaven. If no, and there is no intermediate purification process before we are in heaven. That would mean that that there would be many impure souls in heaven.

I am sure you agree that we none of us reach perfection in this and yet once we are in heaven we will be perfect. So there has to be some sort of purification process after we die but before we enter heaven - even if the purification is instantaneous. All of will go from being impure to being pure. The only issues are how long will this purification will take and will this purification will entail some pain or deprivation. I would say it would take some kind of pain or deprivation based on 1 Corinthians 3:

10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.

Paul wrote that every one adds to the foundation of Jesus Christ. If his work does not survive, he will suffer loss but only as one who escapes through the flames.It is not just his work will go through flames. It is he himself going through the flames. That is Purgatory.

And Paul wrote this in 2 Cor 5:10:

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

We must ALL appear before the judgement seat of Christ - non-Christians AND Christians. Paul wrote "WE", including his Christian readers and even himself. Now, Evangelicals try to argue that Christians are only judged by how many rewards they will receive. But Paul writes that we will be judged on what we did WHETHER GOOD OR BAD! That means the recompense could be a reward, or it could be a punishment.

 

[bbbbbbb]

[/QUOTE]
1) What do you think "laying hands" mean?
[/QUOTE]

Leviticus 1:1 Then the Lord called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying, 2 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When any man of you brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering of animals from the herd or the flock. 3 If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer it, a male without defect; he shall offer it at the doorway of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the Lord. 4 He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, that it may be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf. 5 He shall slay the young bull before the Lord; and Aaron’s sons the priests shall offer up the blood and sprinkle the blood around on the altar that is at the doorway of the tent of meeting. 6 He shall then skin the burnt offering and cut it into its pieces. 7 The sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire. 8 Then Aaron’s sons the priests shall arrange the pieces, the head and the suet over the wood which is on the fire that is on the altar. 9 Its entrails, however, and its legs he shall wash with water. And the priest shall offer up in smoke all of it on the altar for a burnt offering, an offering by fire of a soothing aroma to the Lord.

Laying your hand on an animal is the first thing you do before you kill it.