What about the apperations of the catholic church

[llm (llm)]

It is rooted in the Babylonian religion of Nimrod and his wife.

(see THE TWO BABYLONS)
http://www.biblebelievers.com/babylon/

[pro610 (pro610)]

aaron,
Let me clear this up for you Brother.

NOWHERE in Catholic literature will you ever find a document which directs Catholics to WORSHIP her. You will, however, find many documents which say we VENERATE her.

Here is what the dictionary says regarding the words venerate and worship:

Venerate: "To regard with respect, reverence, or heartfelt deference."
One of the 10 Commandments is "Honor your Father and your Mother." Do you honor your father and mother? Do you respect them? These are the things Catholics do for their parents, and for the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Worship: "The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or sacred object."
Do you worship your parents? Certainly not, and neither do Catholics worship theirs. However, it is perfectly alright to venerate them and for Catholics to venerate the Blessed Virgin Mary.

I would say the two words have quite different meanings wouldn't you? Why then, do some people continue to make this false charge?

[ba2 (ba2)]

pro610: Very well said. I think we would normally disagree on many issues, but this is one lie about the Catholic church that is really a far fetched ongoing lie of the fundamentalists. Thank Mr Chick for much of this misinformation. That being said, there is a lot of similarity between "Isis" and "Mary" so I can see why some might jump to that belief. And that being said, why don’t the fundamentalists talk about the similarity between “Mithras” and many of their traditions and beliefs. What is good for one should be good for the other.

[llm (llm)]

I watched a priest at Notre Dame in Paris sing a song of "veneration" to Mary in the sanctuary, which he apparently did every night before he locks the doors of that church. I thought it was kinda strange.

[pro610 (pro610)]

Instead of getting into a debate on Mary and Isis,New Advent has addressed many of these issue,s

Ecerpt;
A first class of writers have recourse to pagan mythology in order to account for the early Christian tradition concerning the virgin birth of Jesus. Usener [30] argues that the early Gentile Christians must have attributed to Christ what their pagan ancestors had attributed to their pagan heroes; hence the Divine sonship of Christ is a product of the religious thought of Gentile Christians. Hillmann [31] and Holtzmann [32] agree substantially with Usener's theory. Conrady [33] found in the Virgin Mary a Christian imitation of the Egyptian goddess Isis, the mother of Horus; but Holtzmann [34] declares that he cannot follow this "daring construction without a feeling of fear and dizziness", and Usener [35] is afraid that his friend Conrady moves on a precipitous track. Soltau [36] tries to transfer the supernatural origin of Augustus to Jesus, but Lobstein [37] fears that Soltau's attempt may throw discredit on science itself, and Kreyher [38] refutes the theory more at length.

In general, the derivation of the virgin birth from pagan mythology through the medium of Gentile Christians implies several inexplicable difficulties:


Why should the Christian recently converted from paganism revert to his pagan superstitions in his conception of Christian doctrines?
How could the product of pagan thought find its way among Jewish Christians without leaving as much as a vestige of opposition on the part of the Jewish Christians?
How could this importation into Jewish Christianity be effected at an age early enough to produce the Jewish Christian sources from which either the Evangelists or the interpolators of the Gospels derived their material?
Why did not the relatives of Christ's parents protest against the novel views concerning Christ's origin?
Besides, the very argument on which rests the importation of the virgin birth from pagan myths into Christianity is fallacious, to say the least. Its major premise assumes that similar phenomena not merely may, but must, spring from similar causes; its minor premise contends that Christ's virgin birth and the mythical divine sonships of the pagan world are similar phenomena, a contention false on the face of it.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm

[arron (arron)]

a docament may say many things but THE WORD OF GOD THE BIBLE. says nothing about mary other than she shall be blessed. that is paganism a nd is not of GOD.

[pro610 (pro610)]

ba,
Another good read on Mithraism

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10402a.htm

[egk (egk)]

Arron,

I was a born-again fundamentalism who studied the Bible, church history, and prayed. I studied Greek in college and read the NT in the original several times. I eventually came to recognize that the RCC is the most Biblical Church and joined.

Part of the "problem" in an Evangelical like you understanding how the RC teaching is Biblical is the underlining assumptions that Evangelicals bring into reading the Scripture. I don't mean this as an accusation, but a simple statement of fact. This is one of the things I had to examine and come to grips with as I headed to the RCC.

BTW There are some Catholics who have an unbalanced veneration of Mary, just as there are some Protestants that have an unbalanced devotion to the Scriptures.

I also should note that time constraints prevent me from entering into a long debate at this time. There is a thread on "Apparitions are destroying the Catholic Church" under the Catholic section. In it I and Franklin debated calling Mary the Mother of God. (For what that is worth.)

EGK

[overseas (overseas)]

Quote: BTW There are some Catholics who have an unbalanced veneration of Mary, just as there are some Protestants that have an unbalanced devotion to the Scriptures.

Hello Egk. The comparison you made is out of place, in my respectful opinion. You are trying to show that protestantism (which are far from being perfect, I have to agree) is essentially no better that RCC. Even if this would be the case (I am not debating it here), you have to resort to other type of arguments. The Bible is unique as source and authority and there can be not such thing as 'unbalanced devotion' to what scriptures say. Of course, my view probably makes me one of those weirds that worship the scriptures :-)

[egk (egk)]

Hi Oversea,

I was refering to an attitude I've seen in some Fundamentalists circles that one can learn of God from

1. Nature
2. Jesus Christ
3. The Holy Scripture


and in that order! If one is so focused on the Scripture that one misses Jesus Christ, then it is an unbalanced devotion to Scripture. Jesus can and has, at times, revealed himself to persons without the Scriptures.

In all the posts I've read from you, I've never detected this attitude in you nor do I believe that just to believe in Sola Scriptura means one has this unbalanced view. (Although, I do believe that Sola Scriptura is not supported by Scripture.)

Peace in Our Common Lord Jesus,

EGK

[thekingsent1_again]

I know that anyone who is residing in the Catholic Church cannot accept the fact, as i was raised up in the Catholic Church.
But I am warning you to exit this apostasy as soon as possible.
Satan IS appearing as Mother Mary in disguise.
The pope is mr 666(vicarius filli dei), and his kingdom is the Latin one(Latienios)=666.
Got it? 666 is either(either = either both or one) the name of his kingdom or the number of his name. It is both!
His church is the Mother of Harlots.
I cannot understand how it is that you all can read the bible and pray to Mary, eat wafers, celebrate Easter bunnies and the like, and believe in all of this even though it is not included in the word of God.
Yet when it comes to scripture that warns against doing such things, you ignore it.
Scripture and history prove who is who.
Daniel 7, 2 Thess 2, and Revelations 13, 17, and 18, prove that the pope and his church is OF Satan.
We can erase every thing the Bible says and simply hold to 2 Commandments, as our only doctrine.
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind. Love your neighbor as yourself.
The history of the R.C.C. does neither and failed miserably at loving their neighbor as themself.
I am warning you......mother mary apperitioning is Satan in disguise. You would be wise to search this fact out for yourselves.

[egk]

Dear KingSentI,

1. I have no trouble accepting the fact that you were raised Catholic. Unfortunately, the RCC has done a very poor job of teaching the faith, particularly in the West. Most ex-Catholics I have spoken with, have little understanding of what the RCC teaches and how it is Biblical. With all due respect, you appear to be one of them.

2 The only persons who refer to the Pope as "vicarius filli dei" are anti-Catholics who wish to prove that Pope is the anti-Christ. vicarius filli dei is not a title of the Pope.

As for Latienios, I have not been able to locate this word in a Latin dictionary!

3. Easter Bunnies are not part of the Catholic faith. Reading the Bible is part of the Catholic faith.

4. I can accept the fact that you were raised Catholic. Can you accept that fact that as a born-again Christian I was led into the Catholic Church by God's guidance and that through mass I have grown in my love, commitment, and trust in Jesus my Lord and Saviour? Can you accept the fact that my most power experiences of Jesus have occurred during the mass? Granted, experiences are not the ultimate basis of our faith, but when one understands what the Bible teaches and what the RCC teaches, one sees that they teach the same thing.

[egk]

Dear KingSentI,

1. I have no trouble accepting the fact that you were raised Catholic. Unfortunately, the RCC has done a very poor job of teaching the faith, particularly in the West. Most ex-Catholics I have spoken with, have little understanding of what the RCC teaches and how it is Biblical. With all due respect, you appear to be one of them.

2 The only persons who refer to the Pope as "vicarius filli dei" are anti-Catholics who wish to prove that Pope is the anti-Christ. vicarius filli dei is not a title of the Pope.

As for Latienios, I have not been able to locate this word in a Latin dictionary!

3. Easter Bunnies are not part of the Catholic faith. Reading the Bible is part of the Catholic faith.

4. I can accept the fact that you were raised Catholic. Can you accept that fact that as a born-again Christian I was led into the Catholic Church by God's guidance and that through mass I have grown in my love, commitment, and trust in Jesus my Lord and Saviour? Can you accept the fact that my most power experiences of Jesus have occurred during the mass? Granted, experiences are not the ultimate basis of our faith, but when one understands what the Bible teaches and what the RCC teaches, one sees that what the RCC teaches is truely Biblical.

[thekingsent1_again]

egk........

I understand that one who is a practising Catholic cannot see what is what.
Just the same, as when I was a Catholic, I would not believe someones condemenation of "my" church.
Just the same, as a practising homo will not repent because I tell him that he had better, while he practises his homosexuality joyously.
Just the same, as a practising drunkard will not listen to me warning him that he had better knock it off, while he drinks himself joyously into oblivion.
To see....God must move you to see or we have to step out of our own box and act as a detective to all things.
But I am warning you...for your own sake that God can not move someone into the Catholic church.
First off.....beyond anything to do with Catholics at all....God's "church" cannot be seen. God's "church" cannot be joined.
God, himself, decides who gains entry into his church.
Church simply means called out ones. And called out from the world and to God.
Our "physical" "churches" are not calling us out of the world but instead are calling us to take part in it.
So beyond anything "Catholic", lets get down to the whole world.
"Do not love the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man loves the world, the love of the Father is not in them."
This is why the Catholic church is the Mother of Harlots. She was the first "harlot" church, but she is not alone.
Egk...I once sat in the seat that you are in. But after I was called out, I learned the diffrence between the spiritual and physical.
I learned the diffrence that there is a spiritual church which will last forever and the apostate church that must be judged.
As a friend and not your enemy....I ask you to PLEASE just read over this web site.
www.biblicalhistorytimeline.com (http://www.biblicalhistorytimeline.com)
This site simply sets out the facts of history in a timeline fashion. It includes facts from all religions, and goes into detail about the start of Islam.
Just click on..enter the timeline.
The history contained there does not rip only on Catholisism, but on all religions from Buddahism to the Mormons to the 7th day advantests etc,,,,and it is not really ripping them but just laying out history for our eyes to see.

[egk]

Dear King,

I once believed that the RCC was the "Whore of Babylon" but after much studying Scripture, History, and a lot of prayer, I became Catholic.

I read your timeline and the other link you post. These are historically inaccurate, to say the least.

Continue to pray for me and I will pray for you.

EGK

[thekingsent1_again]

Egk..........


I am almost certain, but not 100%, as I am studying fevorishly to get to some truths, that the Earth beast will be some type of revived Roman Empire. I am also thinking that the Image of the beast, which comes alive will be "mother mary." I am thinking that since Islam is also praying to this "goddess", as Mohammed's teachings explains that she is specially revered; that this would bring Muslims and many Christians together under the banner of Peace. Thus, the 2 horns. Then everyone, who is tricked, will be thinking, peace!peace! But then comes destruction because they refused the simple gospel which gives glory to God alone.
Between 2 believers.........who are a league apart right now.......
Let's just say that we throw out all scripture and only go by the New Testament Commandments.
Then our only doctrine is to love the Lord with all our heart, soul, and mind; and to love our neighbors as ourselves.(even if we do not even like them.)
Then how is it that the R.C.C. murdered millions upon millions in the name of the God of these 2 commandments?
This God sure is not very far off from the god of Islam, is it?
They both hated and murdered Jews because they were Jews, as somehow they missed the fact that Jesus was a Jew. And Martin Luther did the same.
Please.....use the tree and it's fruit parable to see who was doing what for whom.
Or at least think about it...

[egk]

Dear King,

What of the parabole of the wheat and tares and that of the dragnet?

The kingdom will contain both the good and the bad until the end. Then God will send his angels to sort them out?

What would St Paul call a church that approved of an incestous marriage, of communion services where members got drunk, of persons who abused speaking in tongues and other spiritual gifts?

What would you call the members of such a church? St Paul called them saints! (read I and II Cort.)

The church is made up of saved humans, who sin and sin again. We can see that in the history of the RCC. (Although the "facts" about her crimes you give are distortion.)

Jesus promised to be with the church until the end; he did not promise that it would be perfect, sinless, or without mistake. God stayed with the Davidian dynasty even though manhy of its kings were very sinful, the same can be said of his church