- Topic
Emil this is for you…
I just wanted to begin this thread to start the discussion on the WMSCOG's teaching that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) is the beast spoken of in Daniel chapters 2 & 7 and Revelation chapters 13 & 17. It startes off:
Daniel 7:25
25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time.
The same time Mary was taken up to heaven in bodily form!
Hal wrote:
Smurf wrote:
Sorry, when exactly did the King of Babylon fall from heaven?
It is similar to our expression "falling from grace." Falling from heaven, then, means to lose one’s role or power.
Its metaphoric.
Alright, when you read the last line Isaiah 14:12 it does make sense. Thanks 🙂
The Catholic Chruch teaches the Assumption of Mary. That she didnt die (unless your orothodox catholic) but she ascended into Heaven in bodily form.
Atlas Shrugged wrote:
The Catholic Chruch teaches the Assumption of Mary. That she didnt die (unless your orothodox catholic) but she ascended into Heaven in bodily form.
Do they back this up with scripture? Non-canonical even?
genny wrote:
Regarding the video which shows the Catholic church 'worshipping Lucifer'…
This problem of misunderstanding is related to the use of "morning star" in both Isaiah 14:12 (where is refers to Satan) and Revelation 22:16 (where it refers to Jesus). If you are careless with 'mated verses' like the wmscog, you could come to believe that Jesus is Satan because of this, but we know that is not so.
The Catholic Church uses Latin a lot. "Lucifer" is a Latin word that comes from luci- (light) and -fer (that which carries). "Lucifer" has become a common name for Satan, but that's not really what the word means.
This is a problem of misunderstanding the Latin language, not of the Catholic Church 'worshipping Lucifer' because they used the word in their song.
This kind of like when my family takes a drive and one child says "I see a beaver dam," and the other child says, "Mom, he's swearing!"
(By the way, I am not Catholic.)
wonderful explanation Genny. I was gonna say something when I got to my computer along the lines of
The latin Vulgate calls Jesus Lucifer because (as you said) its Latin for light bearer/light bringer which is EXACTLY what Jesus is..
Lucifer is not a name but a transliteration of a descriptor
Hal wrote:
If HaSatan (The Opposer in Hebrew) fell or was defeated, then why does "Satan" or "Lucifer" still reign as the deity of "hell".. ITs apart of Greek myth on hades…
Genesis 3:15, "And I will put an enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. It shall bruise thy head, and thou shall bruise his heel." The Christians attempt to strengthen their faith by maintaining that the words, "it shall bruise thy head," is a type of Jesus, who is to kill Satan, styled in holy writ "the serpent."
Refutation.—The interpretation is fallacious, for if the passage under consideration meant that Jesus was to kill Satan, that is to say, destroy the cause of sin, there ought not to be any sinners among his believers, but since they still continue committing sins, that opinion is overthrown both by their practical life and by the same verse on which they found this doctrine. The end of the passage (thou shalt bruise its heel) shows the unsoundness of such assertions. How could the serpent (sin) do injury after its being destroyed? Moreover, how could Satan induce the Jews and the heathen to kill Jesus and his disciples, he (Jesus) already having destroyed Satan. Paul himself affords a refutation by promising (Romans 16:20), "And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly." The same writer, in his first Epistle to the Thessalonians, states (chapter 2:18), "Wherefore we would have come unto you, even I, Paul, once and again, but Satan hindered us." This tends to show that, even after the death of Jesus, in the times of Paul, Satan had still preserved his existence and exercised his dominion over those who had been saved through Jesus, and that the Gospel is at variance with this symbolical interpretation.
He doesn't reign in hell. No scripture says that, that is myth among the bilically illiterate.
Atlas Shrugged wrote:
The Catholic Chruch teaches the Assumption of Mary. That she didnt die (unless your orothodox catholic) but she ascended into Heaven in bodily form.
The assumption of Mary doesn't teach she didn't die
By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
Nothing in that says she didn't die
Thank you Genny. I just saw the video that Smurf posted and I was rather shocked by its contents. In so many years of attending Easter vigils in English, I had never heard it spoken as Lucifer. I found it odd. I also thought it odd that there are over a billion catholics and many know Latin or derivative languages and would have heard that in Latin and understood what it meant.
If they thought for a moment it was Satan, I believe 99% of them would have left the church, as I would have done myself. Hope Smurf understands now. About the wise(?) men, it doesn't matter what they believe.
Simon is right about the assumption. The teaching does not claim she didn't die. There is circumstantial evidence for the claim.
I see that our friends still want to avoid the purpose of this thread. That is to support their claim that the RCC is the beast of scripture.
Simon wrote:
Atlas Shrugged wrote:
The Catholic Chruch teaches the Assumption of Mary. That she didnt die (unless your orothodox catholic) but she ascended into Heaven in bodily form.
The assumption of Mary doesn't teach she didn't die
By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
Nothing in that says she didn't die
It's common belief and teaching in the RCC that she didnt die. But it is not dogma, you are correct. That means she either didn't die, or resurrected and went to heaven. Either way, this is shocking to me.
They also beleive that Mary was free from sin at birth, known as the Immaculate conception.
Atlas Shrugged wrote:
Simon wrote:
Atlas Shrugged wrote:
The Catholic Chruch teaches the Assumption of Mary. That she didnt die (unless your orothodox catholic) but she ascended into Heaven in bodily form.
The assumption of Mary doesn't teach she didn't die
By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
Nothing in that says she didn't die
It's common belief and teaching in the RCC that she didnt die. But it is not dogma, you are correct. That means she either didn't die, or resurrected and went to heaven. Either way, this is shocking to me.
They also beleive that Mary was free from sin at birth, known as the Immaculate conception.
I don't believe you have cared to read what the actual teaching of the catholic church is. You are groping in the dark. You have some wierd ideas about the teaching which you haven't taken the trouble to read.
Your first big error is in saying Mary ascended into heaven. The CC does not teach that. There is a vast difference between ascending and being assumed. Stemming from that comes your logical error, which decides that either it means she didn't die or resurrected. Neither of these is true.
Sad that your ignorance leads you to so much error.
Now do you have the courage to get back on the dicussion about how the RCC fits the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation?
ascend means to move up
assume means to be taken up Can you pelase explain the vast difference between ascending and assumption?
Ascend implies going up by ones own power, being assumed is through an external power. That is why the implication is vastly different. Your own two sentences make it clear ("to move up" vs "to be taken up") yet you ask.
But again you are avoiding the topic of this thread. What are you afraid of? You can't refute?
You said vast difference. Meaning GREAT in size. The point is the body went in the upward direction into heaven. LOL. Your chruch teaches that Mary's physical body went up into Heaven, and up in Heaven she is listening to all the RCC chruch prayers and interceding for us (or you)
In the RCC there is a feast day for the Assumption of Mary, August 15. Its a feast of obligation (a law) in the RCC.
Also there is the the feast of the Immaculate Conception Dec 8 which is also a feast of obligation (a law) in the RCC. The RCC Chruch teaches and beleives that Mary was born without sin.
Atlas Shrugged wrote:
You said vast difference. Meaning GREAT in size.
Your logic is stunning. But you fear is showing. Are you afraid of proving how the RCC is the beast of Daniel and Revelation? I am sure that wmscog members visiting this thread will be wondering why you cannot defend you position.
First century Jews didn’t even keep Torah
Interesting to know that, Genny. Had no idea. I’d rather not call Jesus Lucifer though, since like most, I identify that word with Satan. I’d probably confuse a bunch of poor souls. Lol.
Sarah2013 wrote:
Interesting to know that, Genny. Had no idea. I'd rather not call Jesus Lucifer though, since like most, I identify that word with Satan. I'd probably confuse a bunch of poor souls. Lol.
We shouldn't call either lucifer really (unless speaking latin)
Does anyone still speak Latin? Not as in prayers or songs.
not as a first language
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.