Posted on 04/13/2012 4:35:34 PM PDT by stpio
Maybe this is the "May 31st" that the 5th Marian Dogma will be proclaimed? We'll see. Pray for the Holy Father.
Remember, co-...means with.
http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com/
~ ~ ~
message to Maria of Divine Mercy (Ireland))
Virgin Mary: The time for me to crush the serpent is drawing nearer
Friday, April 13th, 2012 @ 05:57 pm
I am your beloved Mother, Queen of the Earth. I am the Immaculate Conception, the Virgin Mary, Mother of Jesus who came in the flesh.
My child, the time for the triumph of My Immaculate Heart is close.
The time for me to crush the serpent is drawing nearer. But until the day when Satan and his demons are cast into the wilderness, much confusion will erupt on earth.
For believers in my Son, it will be a time of torment. They will be pulled into two different directions by the Catholic Church.
One half will believe, out of duty, the need to follow the False Prophet, the Pope who will follow Pope Benedict XVI
He, the beast, is dressed like a lamb but is not from my Father, God the Most High, and will fool poor souls including priests, bishops and cardinals.
Many will follow him and believe him to be sent by God to rule over His Church on earth.
Sadly, many souls will follow his teachings which will be insulting to My Father.
Others, filled with the Holy Spirit and given the graces of discernment because of their humble souls, will know instantly, that an imposter sits in the Church in Rome.
The new FALSE pope is already scheming, even before he ascends to the throne of the Seat of Peter, to denounce the teachings of my Son. Then he will denounce me, the Blessed Mother of God, and ridicule my role as Co-Redemptrix.
My child, your role is going to become even harder than before. For many of my children are very confused. The insults you face every day, the torments you endure on behalf of my Son, will increase.
Never be afraid to tell the world [u]the truth[/u] my child.
You are being made stronger as a result of the physical and mental suffering you accept on behalf of my Son in order to save souls.
Every effort, especially by one division in the Catholic Church, will be made to dismiss my messages given to you.
Your obedience and loyalty to me and my beloved Son will be tested as never before. This may lead you to pull away but, should this happen, it will not last long.
Pray, my child, for all of God’s children who, through no fault of their own, are being pulled into the final battle for souls.
All of this must come to pass for it is contained in my Father’s Book.
All the angels in Heaven protect you, my child, in this somewhat lonely mission.
Always remember how important prayer is.
Pray, pray, pray for without prayer, especially the recital of my Holy Rosary, Satan can pull you away from the Holy Word of my Precious Son.
Remember also the importance of fasting for it keeps the deceiver at bay.
Without regular prayer, my children, will find it hard to remain close to my Son.
Never fear the future children for once you remain close to my Son you will be protected
And given the necessary graces to prepare your souls and those of your families for the New Era of Peace foretold so long ago.
Your beloved Mother
Queen of the Earth
Mother of Salvation
The woman of Revelation is Israel.
100% agree! The woman referred to in Genesis as being at "enmity" with Satan is also Israel. Mary, though she admirably acted in faith and obedience to God's plan, was NOT pursued and persecuted by the devil, her and Joseph's trip to Egypt notwithstanding. Satan has ALWAYS sought to thwart the plans of God by trying to annihilate Israel. He failed and will continue to do so. Iran is just Satan's latest pawn to be at enmity with Israel.
That’s exactly right Iscool. When people begin to realize and accept that prophecy will begin to make sense to them.
A good site can be found here: http://endtimepilgrim.org/woman.htm
And here: http://www.lightofmashiach.org/woman.html
Absolutely it is.
This should be a BIG CLUE to those who are hung up on Mary. This is not Mary...
Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
I believe so as well. Good posts by so many making this quite clear....
And..NO..Mary certainly isn't....in fact she has no role at those times other than when she comes back to earth with us.
Her role in the coming of Christ was finished after she gave birth to Jesus Christ.
All the authorities i have sourced have the church as the primary meaning, contrary to you, including the notes in both your Bibles, and the Haydock commentary, etc. besides church “fathers.”
Why are you supporting in your words, the “RC authorities” as you say on this subject when you reject Catholicism and the Real presence?
I appeal to them for your sake, as you are supposed to be consistent with your church which you want us to submit to, but you oppose them in giving the church as the primary interpretation while the fact that we agree with Rome on Scripturally supported teachings such as the Deity of Christ does not mean we recognize hr claimed authority. We also affirm things which the Pharisees believed, but reject others. Hope you understand this.
Count how many times “woman” is written in Revelation 12. I believe it is eight times.
That is irrelevant; who is refers to is the issue, and your argument was that the Lord's repeated calling Mary “woman” in the Gospel meant that the women in Rv 12 is, but the fact which i showed was that the Lord called other females “woman as well (and only called Mary that twice in the gospels as i recall). Here, in case you do not believe me.
"Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. " (John 4:9)
"And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. " (Luke 13:12)
"When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? " (John 8:10)
"Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou?... " (John 20:15)
It was an “individual” who brought forth an individual, the “man child”, Jesus Christ. It wasn’t the Church or the nation of Israel so it is “likely” the “woman” is Mary.
So it was not Israel. The Holy Spirit disagrees:
"Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. " (Romans 9:4-5)
And
This is why no will discuss Revelation 12:13 or reply to why Our Lord keeps addressing Mary as the “woman.”
(Rev 12:13) "And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child."
That is easy, Israel as the people of God brought forth Christ, Mary being an Israelite, and to which nation the sun and moon typology fits, and the church became the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16) which the devil is the adversary of, as Peter says. (1Pt. 5:8)
However the book of revelation and this chapter spans more than the first century, unless you think most of all revelation is past, and the wilderness in Scripture is often a place of testing, and “a time, and times, and half a time easily refers to the Tribulation period spoken of in Mt. 24, in which wilderness the Lord shall protect His faithful from “the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth," (Rv. 3:10) the flood of persecution, though martyrdom will follow for many.
It is likely during this time that the natural branches, Israel after the flesh, will be granted repentance and come to faith, whether you believe that or not, and “so all Israel shall be saved,” (Rm. 11:26) thus the theme of Israel continues.
What is certain is that Scripture records no specific persecution of Mary after she brought forth the Christ, and of fleeing into the wilderness at that time much less her being the almost almighty Queen of Heaven and other aspects of extraBiblical Catholic hyper exaltation.
As for the the Lord continually addressing Mary as the “woman,” like your hyper exaltation of Mary, that is an exaggeration, as He only did that two times to my knowledge: Jn. 2:4; 19:26.
Thus you are wrong if you think that Mary is the primary interpretation of all Catholic authorities,
or that appealing to Roman sources means we sanction her claimed authority,
or that the nation of Israel did not bring forth Christ,
or that Mary fled into the wilderness after she brought forth the Christ,
or that the Lord keeps addressing Mary as the “woman,” while the typology best fits Israel, and by extension the church,
or that the “Lord keeps addressing Mary as the woman” is not misleading, or that this address was unique.
Meanwhile, it is over zealous Roman Catholics who insist the women must primarily mean Mary, and accuse all who will not accept that as being biased, and cannot allow even their own Catholic sources to disagree with them, while this is the Rome they seek to convert us to on the basis of surety of doctrine. And in which Scripture is not their supreme authority, nor it warrant necessary for all their teachings, regardless of their attempted use of it.
Her message of April 9, 2012 states: “The Era of Peace I spoke about in Fatima has been forgotten. This Era of Peace will take place AFTER the Second Coming of My Son and will last 1,000 years.”
I know the prophetic evidence better than most pertaining to the great era of peace, I believe 100% this “prophecy” of April 9 is simply UNTRUE, and that the era of peace occurs before the Antichrist’s reign and therefore BEFORE the Second coming.
For my own reasons, I do not care to defend my position on this unless provoked. So believe whatever.
The prophecies unmistakably speak of a Pope chosen by God. He is the “successor” of the Pope that flees Rome. He is the one charged with feeding the sheep(petrus romanus). If a false visionary plants the seeds of doubts against him and even contribute to some of his persecution, they will have to explain themselves to God, not to me.
As for the false Pope, mentioned in prophecy:
He is a Muslim.
(I believe he arrives after the Good Pope and after the great era of peace.)
Saint Hildegard revealed that he is Muslim.
According to the “Vatican Insider” St. Hildegard will be made a doctor of the Church this October by the Pope.
The La Salette prophecy of Antichrist having military victories at the age of 12 was first spoken to St. Hildegard.
St. Hildegard’s prophecy of that FALSE Pope: “one of the remaining Mohammadans will be converted, become a priest bishop and cardinal, and when the new pope is elected this cardinal will kill the pope before he is crowned, through jealousy, wishing to be pope himself; then when the other cardinals elect the next pope, this cardinal will proclaim himself Anti-pope, and two-thirds of the Christians will go with him.”
“Her message of April 9, 2012 states: “The Era of Peace I spoke about in Fatima has been forgotten. This Era of Peace will take place AFTER the Second Coming of My Son and will last 1,000 years.”
I know the prophetic evidence better than most pertaining to the great era of peace, I believe 100% this “prophecy” of April 9 is simply UNTRUE, and that the era of peace occurs BEFORE the Antichrist’s reign and therefore BEFORE the Second coming.
For my own reasons, I do not care to defend my position on this unless provoked. So believe whatever.”
~ ~ ~
I’ll say it again, I do no know yet if Maria of Divine Mercy
is true or not but some of things stated in this message
are true. They line up with other prophecy and Scripture.
My emphasis, my “position” is pro-private revelation, both
the approved and yet to be approved. I believe Heaven
speaks to us every day through the prophetic. Read and believe the messages if you wish. They are a help and in the list, after the Apostles, comes the prophets.
I disagree with you on the time of the Era of Peace, this is
the millenial spiritual reign of Christ AFTER the anti-Christ and the Great Tribulation and to follow, the Chastisement. The Era of Peace is the 7th Day.
When Our Lord speaks of the second coming in Maria’s messages, He is referring to His middle coming which is
spiritual too. The “second coming” is not the Final Judgement when Our Lord will come in His person.
The heresy of millenarinism is the belief, Jesus is returning physically to reign on the earth again.
take care,
1 Corinthians 12:28
And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors; after that miracles; then the graces of healing, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.
You are biased, the Church teaches it is Mary above other meanings which can be the Church but the Church is secondary according to your “the majority of RC authorities.
“All the authorities i have sourced have the church as the primary meaning, contrary to you, including the notes in both your Bibles, and the HAYDOCK commentary, etc. besides church “fathers.”
~ ~ ~
daniel,
You wrote a ton in reply, this will take forever. You say you cite “Catholic authorities” while you deny the same authorties, all of them profess the Eucharist is true.
How come you go with them “supposedly” concerning who
the “woman” is but reject their authority as far as the Eucharist? You’re the one being inconsistent.
Unless, correct me if I am wrong, you do believe in the Eucharist? Do you?
Haydock as your source, Haydock, was a devout Protestant, of course he would protest the “woman” is Mary.
Count how many times “woman” is written in Revelation 12. I believe it is eight times.
“That is irrelevant; who is refers to is the issue, and your argument was that the Lord’s repeated calling Mary “woman” in the Gospel meant that the women in Rv 12 is, but the fact which i showed was that the Lord called other females “woman as well (and only called Mary that twice in the gospels as i recall). Here, in case you do not believe me.”
~ ~ ~
The term “woman” is not relavent, what, it’s the whole point!! You have translations that changed the wording from the original. Instead of reference to the “woman” saying she, they bring in two terms, “He” or can you imagine “It.”
The “woman”, is reference to a female and is written eight times in Revelation Chapter 12. This is ridiculous to have to repeat. The masculine or “it” are not there.
Our Lord’s words aren’t my argument, they’re fact. I don’t care if he called other women “woman”, Jesus addressed His mother twice as “woman” at Cana and in His dying words from the Cross. No where in Scripture does a son call His mother “woman.” Our Lord must have a reason for doing this, try to figure it out.
This Maryolatry and it's diminishing of Jesus Christ is probably the path the Devil uses to manipulate RC's into blindly following the false prophet. I think the title to this thread is probably correct in that the false prophet will a Pope. I don't believe the Pope will be the Antichrist as many believed. I think that belief was a result of all the persecution and atrocities the RCC has committed over prior centuries.
In any of these discussions we always end up looking at why one group is more susceptible to manipulation by the Devil then another. It's clear to me that RC's will be easily manipulated into following the false prophet because they look to their church for the direction of their faith and leave interpretation in the hands of their hierarchy.
Well put.
Much agree.
Thx Thx
How come you go with them “supposedly” concerning who the “woman” is but reject their authority as far as the Eucharist?
How come you cannot understand my reply and instead ask the same question? I see that you have only been here less than a month, and that you evidence a lack of familiarity in apologetical debate, but this is elementary. Referencing your opponents own sources in order to show that the other party is opposed by the particular camp that he advocates, or even in affirming some truth he hopes they will accept, is a standard and justifiable practice, but such does not infer agreement with all such say. When Paul quoted a pagan poet (Acts 11:28) he was doing the former but not the latter. And when you reference Luther or Roman Catholic apologists quote certain Protestants as agreeing with them then that does not mean they affirm all that they say.
Haydock as your source, Haydock, was a devout Protestant, of course he would protest the “woman” is Mary.
Haydock was not my own only source, nor is your reasoning sound, but here again is your problem. If you determine Truth on the basis of Scriptural warrant then you are an evangelical and not a Catholic, for their real authority is not Scripture, but what their church says Truth is, under the premise of perpetual assured infallibility.
While you can attempt to debate Rv. 12 on the basis of Scriptural warrant, yet as a Catholic that is only your private interpretation, unless that is what your church officially teaches. But a problem here is that what one Catholic considers “official” or as representing official doctrine can vary (all stamped material, all encyclicals, all of Trent, all that the catechism teaches, etc.) as well as what it means (Lumen Gentium, etc.) depending on whether they agree with it. (And while infallible decrees require implicit assent of faith, whether a declaration is infallible can be open to interpretation, as well as what they precisely mean).
And thus you reject your own stamped notes in your own official Bible, as well as other weightier authorities than you, and while many other conservative Catholics esteem Haydock as supporting true Catholic teaching, you reject him under the specious reasoning that he was once a Protestant!. On this basis you must also dismiss no less a Catholic as the Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, a prime supporter of papal infallibility!
The fact is that it is not whether a Catholic source is conservative or liberal that determines your sanction, but whether they concur with you, while i can invoke such based on their own merits, or as showing the inconsistency of your supreme authority.
In addition, as regards the latter there is no unanimity in this among Catholic sources on this,
as said, the approved notes of the official Roman Catholic Bible (NAB) for America states
► “[12:1] The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Gn 37:9–10) symbolizes God’s people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (Rev 12:6, 13–17); cf. Is 50:1; 66:7; Jer 50:12. This corresponds to a widespread myth throughout the ancient world that a goddess pregnant with a savior was pursued by a horrible monster; by miraculous intervention, she bore a son who then killed the monster. *
[12:2] Because of Eve’s sin, the woman gives birth in distress and pain (Gn 3:16; cf. Is 66:7–14)...[12:6] God protects the persecuted church in the desert, the traditional Old Testament place of refuge for the afflicted, according to the typology of the Exodus; see note on Rev 11:2...
[12:17] Although the church is protected by God’s special providence (Rev 12:16), the individual Christian is to expect persecution and suffering.” http://www.usccb.org/bible/revelation/12
► Roman Catholic theologian Father Hubert J. Richards agrees that the Revelation 12 woman refers to Israel. In his book, “What The Spirit Says to the Churches: A Key to the Apocalypse of John,” (Nihil obstat and Imprimatur), Richards writes:
The vision proper, then, begins with the figure of a Woman clothed with the sun and the stars. We think naturally enough of our Lady, to whom this description has traditionally been applied. After all, we say, of whom else could John be thinking when he speaks of the mother of the Messiah? However it is clear from the rest of the chapter that this interpretation will stand only if the verse is isolated: what follows has very little relevance to our Lady. Nor is it any honor to Mary to apply any and every text to her without thought....
And as explained here,
► Most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church; in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Modern exegetes have generally adopted the older interpretation, with certain modifications. In recent years several Catholics have championed the Marian interpretation. Numerous contextual details, however, are ill-suited to such an explanation. For example, we are scarcely to think that Mary endured the worst of the pains of childbirth (v. 2), that she was pursued into the desert after the birth of her child (vv. 6, 13ff.), or, finally, that she was persecuted through her other children (v. 17). The emphasis on the persecution of the woman is really appropriate only if she represents the Church, which is presented throughout the book as oppressed by the forces of evil, yet protected by God. Furthermore, the image of a woman is common in ancient Oriental secular literature as well as in the Bible (e.g., Is 50:1; Jer 50:12) as a symbol for a people, a nation, or a city. It is fitting, then, to see in this woman the People of God, the true Israel of the OT and NT.” — D’Argon J-L. “The Apocalypse.” The Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Roland E. Murphy [Pontifical Biblical Commission (1972); president of the Catholic Biblical Association, the Society of Biblical Literature (1976-7) and the Society of New Testament Studies (1986-7)] (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1969)
Thus while we have shown from Scripture (our supreme authority) why the typology and the women best represents Israel and thus the persecuted Israel of God, not the virgin mother Mary, you must not only show that it is Mary but if you will argue for submission to Rome then you must establish that this is the primary interpretation of your church, and that the Catholic sources which oppose that are censored as being wrong, but which you have not done. You want to convert us to Rome but it fails to officially support you here, and reject any who oppose you.
But of course, you assert that “The smoke of Satan has infiltrated the Vatican per Pope Paul VI” and defend propagating unapproved private revelations, resulting in censure from your own, while attacking another Catholic “prophet.” Quite a church you are promoting.
The term “woman” is not relavent, what, it’s the whole point!!
Please try to follow the argument. I did not say “woman” was not relevant, else i would not have provided how it is used, but i was referring to the weight you place upon how often it is used in Rv. 12, which is irrelevant, that is not determinative of who is represents.
The “woman”, is reference to a female and is written eight times in Revelation Chapter 12. This is ridiculous to have to repeat. The masculine or “it” are not there.
Of course the reference is to a female, for as pointed out, Israel was referred to as female, (Is. 54:1-6; Jer. 3:20; Ezek.16:8-14; Hosea 2:19-20) And the church is also referred to as female, and both fit the descriptions more than Mary, of whom nothing is said about her being crowned (the giving of which to the saints does not occur will the Lord's return: 2Tim. 4:8; Rv. 11:8)
For again, in Joseph’s dream, (Gn 37:9-11) “the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.” The sun represented Jacob (Israel) and the moon Rachel, of which Jacob said, “Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?” The 12 stars on the woman’s head represents the 12 patriarchs, “and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” (Rm. 9:5) And which was and will be persecuted, but God keeps her through it. This view is more fully articulated here: http://www.eternal-productions.org/PDFS/Revelation12Woman.pdf
Thus while you attack us as being biased, regardless of the evidence we bring forth, and assert that we need to submit to the teaching of Rome, yet you are so committed to your view that you cannot objectively allow any other, even though your own church that you promote does not infallibly define it!
Do you really see this as a debate in which there can be winners or losers? If the truth of theology is to be determined not by the truth, but by the skill or numbers of the participants than the truth will be the loser.
Isn't this more accurately an argument, not in the modern "quarrel" sense, but in the sense of a classic Thomistic or Platonic argument, as a collective endeavor from different perspectives to ultimately reveal the truth?
It is neither a debate or an argument when you begin with the premise that you win until proven wrong and then establish yourself as the judge. Most would call that bloviation. If you are truly interested in revealing the truth I would request that you state that, and not proving yourself right as your objective.
You write a book in reply each time daniel, enough already, the fact is you are wrong friend. St. Jerome knew what he was translating. The Bible is inerrant. You can’t justify the Protestant changes to Scripture. You are not to add or take away says the Bible.
This is why no will discuss Revelation 12:13 or reply to why Our Lord keeps addressing Mary as the “woman.”
(Rev 12:13) “And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman WHICH brought forth the man child.”
Daniel said:
“That is easy, Israel as the people of God brought forth Christ, Mary being an Israelite, and to which nation the sun and moon typology fits, and the church became the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16) which the devil is the adversary of, as Peter says. (1Pt. 5:8)”
~ ~ ~
Israel did not bring forth Christ just because you say it. Israel is a nation not a “woman.” The “woman WHO (it doesn’t say WHICH, another change in a Bible translation) brought forth the man child, Our Lord is His mother. You’re forgetting or rejecting again, Mary is the devil’s adversary. God speaks to the devil in Rev 14 and then in verse 15 God states ~ I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed:...
The church did not become the “Israel of God”, this is the New Covenant. Christ’s Church (singular) is the Roman Catholic Church. Protestantism rejected and broke away from the Church.
“This should be a BIG CLUE to those who are hung up on Mary. This is not Mary...
Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.”
~ ~ ~
Please don’t continue with your rejection of Mary. Mary is first, she is the “woman” in Genesis 3:15 and the “woman”
in Revelation, Chapter 12. The secondary meaning of the “woman” is referred to in the above verse, the “woman” represents the faithful, the Church.
God protects His children during persecution. There will
be a places of refuge during the Great Tribulation, it will be a time like the early Church when Christians are killed. Actually, by then, you’ll be Roman Catholic. The choice will have been lovingly presented to you by God. He respects our free will so remember and say “yes” when God asks you personally.
“As very few verses of Scripture have been “infallibly” defined by Rome, the RC has great liberty to interpret Scripture to support her traditions of men, and some are more “Catholic” than her scholars, such as those who adamantly insistent that the women of Rv. 12 must be Mary, and which is consistent with the hyper exaltation given to the Catholic Mary (versus the holy humble handmaid of the Lord in Scripture).”...
~ ~ ~
You do not understand Daniel, #1. you follow a heresy, private interpretation of Scripture. The Church canonized Scripture and it follows, God gave her the same authority to interpret it. The words of Genesis 3:15 in the first Bible were altered drastically because of the rejection of Mary. Go look at the difference again between the KJV and the Douay-Rheims.
2. Argue forever and it looks like you are friend. The prophecy given Anna Marie is being fulfilled, the awful rejection of Mary because of the revolters. You reject
Mary’s place in our Redemption and I pray not, you will
reject the 5th Marian Dogma.
Do you not see, Satan laughs, he was given knowledge of
Mary’s role at the fall and his pride, he could not stand
it. Who is doing the same?
You can change, love the mother, love the Son.
Your comment above, there must be a library full
of books written, why we need an authority, why the
Protestant heresies bring you to error and the
loss of grace. Sharing a quote to help you, read the last two sentences for sure...
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
“The Protestant may want to assert that not having original Biblical manuscripts is immaterial, as God preserved the Bible by safeguarding its duplication down through the centuries. (24) However, there are two problems with this line of reasoning. The first is that by maintaining God’s providence with regard to copying, a person claims something which is not written in Scripture, and therefore, by the very definition of Sola Scriptura, cannot serve as a rule of faith. In other words, if one cannot find passages in the Bible which patently state that God will protect the transmission of manuscripts, then the belief is not to be held. The fact of the matter is that the Bible makes no such claim.
The second problem is that if you can maintain that God safeguarded the written transmission of His Word, then you can also rightly maintain that He safeguarded its oral transmission as well (recall 2 Thessalonians 2:14 [15] and the twofold form of God’s one revelation). After all, the preaching of the Gospel began as an oral tradition (cf. Luke 1:1-4 and Rom. 10:17). It was not until later on that some of the oral tradition was committed to writing – becoming Sacred Scripture – and it was later still that these writings were declared to be inspired and authoritative. Once you can maintain that God safeguarded the oral transmission of His teaching, you have demonstrated the basis for Sacred Tradition and have already begun supporting the Catholic position.”
search...from the writing, 21 reasons to reject Sola Scriptura by Jon Peters
“As very few verses of Scripture have been “infallibly” defined by Rome, the RC has great liberty to interpret Scripture to support her traditions of men, and some are more “Catholic” than her scholars, such as those who adamantly insistent that the women of Rv. 12 must be Mary, and which is consistent with the hyper exaltation given to the Catholic Mary (versus the holy humble handmaid of the Lord in Scripture).”...
~ ~ ~
You do not understand Daniel, #1. you follow a heresy, private interpretation of Scripture. The Church canonized Scripture and it follows, God gave her the same authority to interpret it. The words of Genesis 3:15 in the first Bible were altered drastically because of the rejection of Mary. Go look at the difference again between the KJV and the Douay-Rheims.
2. Argue forever and it looks like you are friend. The prophecy given Anna Marie is being fulfilled, the awful rejection of Mary because of the revolters. You reject
Mary’s place in our Redemption and I pray not, you will
reject the 5th Marian Dogma.
Do you not see, Satan laughs, he was given knowledge of
Mary’s role at the fall and his pride, he could not stand
it. Who is doing the same?
You can change, love the mother, love the Son.
Your comment above, there must be a library full
of books written, why we need an authority, why the
Protestant heresies bring you to error and the
loss of grace. Sharing a quote to help you, read the last two sentences for sure...
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
“The Protestant may want to assert that not having original Biblical manuscripts is immaterial, as God preserved the Bible by safeguarding its duplication down through the centuries. (24) However, there are two problems with this line of reasoning. The first is that by maintaining God’s providence with regard to copying, a person claims something which is not written in Scripture, and therefore, by the very definition of Sola Scriptura, cannot serve as a rule of faith. In other words, if one cannot find passages in the Bible which patently state that God will protect the transmission of manuscripts, then the belief is not to be held. The fact of the matter is that the Bible makes no such claim.
The second problem is that if you can maintain that God safeguarded the written transmission of His Word, then you can also rightly maintain that He safeguarded its oral transmission as well (recall 2 Thessalonians 2:14 [15] and the twofold form of God’s one revelation). After all, the preaching of the Gospel began as an oral tradition (cf. Luke 1:1-4 and Rom. 10:17). It was not until later on that some of the oral tradition was committed to writing – becoming Sacred Scripture – and it was later still that these writings were declared to be inspired and authoritative. Once you can maintain that God safeguarded the oral transmission of His teaching, you have demonstrated the basis for Sacred Tradition and have already begun supporting the Catholic position.”
search...from the writing, 21 reasons to reject Sola Scriptura by Jon Peters
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.