The Church Fathers, A Door to Rome!

Way of Life ^ | David Cloud

[RaceBannon]

The Church Fathers, A Door to Rome

Nov/14/12 07:15

Many people have walked into the Roman Catholic Church through the broad door of the “church fathers,” and this is a loud warning today when there is a widespread attraction to the “church fathers” within evangelicalism. 

The Catholic apologetic ministries use the “church fathers” to prove that Rome’s doctrines go back to the earliest centuries. In the book Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, David Currie continually uses the church fathers to support his position. He says, “The other group of authors whom Evangelicals should read ... is the early Fathers of the Church” (p. 4).

The contemplative prayer movement is built on this same weak foundation. The late Robert Webber, a Wheaton College professor who was one of the chief proponents of this back to the “church fathers” movement, said: 

“The early Fathers can bring us back to what is common and help us get behind our various traditions ... Here is where our unity lies. ... evangelicals need to go beyond talk about the unity of the church to experience it through an attitude of acceptance of the whole church and an entrance into dialogue with the Orthodox, Catholic, and other Protestant bodies” (Ancient-Future Faith, 1999, p. 89).

The fact is that the “early Fathers” were mostly heretics! 

This term refers to various church leaders of the first few centuries after the apostles whose writings have been preserved. 

The only genuine “church fathers” are the apostles and prophets their writings that were given by divine inspiration and recorded in the Holy Scripture. They gave us the “faith ONCE delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). The faith they delivered is able to make us “perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). We don’t need anything beyond the Bible. The teaching of the “church fathers” does not contain one jot or tittle of divine revelation. 

The term “church fathers” is a misnomer that was derived from the Catholic Church’s false doctrine of hierarchical church polity. These men were not “fathers” of the church in any scriptural sense and did not have any divine authority. They were merely church leaders from various places who have left a record of their faith in writing. But the Roman Catholic Church exalted men to authority beyond the bounds designated by Scripture, making them “fathers” over the churches located within entire regions and over the churches of the whole world.

The “church fathers” are grouped into four divisions: Apostolic Fathers (second century), Ante-Nicene Fathers (second and third centuries), Nicene Fathers (fourth century), and Post-Nicene Fathers (fifth century). Nicene refers to the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 that dealt with the issue of Arianism and affirmed the doctrine of Christ’s deity. Thus, the Ante-Nicene Fathers are so named because they lived in the century before this council, and the Post-Nicene, because they lived in the century following the council.

All of the “church fathers” were infected with some false doctrine, and most of them were seriously infected. Even the so-called Apostolic Fathers of the second century were teaching the false gospel that baptism, celibacy, and martyrdom provided forgiveness of sin (Howard Vos, Exploring Church History, p. 12). And of the later “fathers”--Clement, Origen, Cyril, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Theodore, and John Chrysostom--the same historian admits: “In their lives and teachings we find the seed plot of almost all that arose later. In germ form appear the dogmas of purgatory, transubstantiation, priestly mediation, baptismal regeneration, and the whole sacramental system” (Vos, p. 25). 

In fact, one of the Post-Nicene “fathers” is Leo, the first Roman Catholic “pope”! 

Therefore, the “church fathers” are actually the fathers of the Roman Catholic Church. They are the men who laid the foundation of apostasy that produced Romanism and Greek Orthodoxy.

The New Testament Scriptures warns frequently that there would be an apostasy, a turning from the faith among professing Christians. The apostles and prophets warned said this apostasy had already begun in their day and warned that it would increase as the time of Christ’s return draws nearer.

Paul testified of this in many places, giving us a glimpse into the vicious assault that was already plaguing the work of God. Consider his last message to the pastors at Ephesus (Acts 20:29-30). Paul warned them that false teachers would come from without and would also arise from within their own ranks. Consider his second epistle to Corinth (2 Cor. 11:1-4, 12-15). The false teachers who were active at Corinth were corrupting three of the cardinal doctrines of the New Testament faith, the doctrine of Christ, Salvation, and the Holy Spirit; and the churches were in danger of being overthrown by these errors. Consider Paul’s warnings to Timothy in 1 Timothy 4:1-6 and 2 Timothy 3:1-13 and 4:3-4. 

Peter devoted the entire second chapter of his second epistle to this theme. He warned in verse one that there would be false teachers who hold “damnable heresies,” referring to heresies that damn the soul to eternal hell. If someone denies, for example, the Virgin Birth, Deity, Humanity, Sinlessness, Eternality, Atonement, or Resurrection of Jesus Christ he cannot be saved. Heresies pertaining to such matters are damnable heresies. The corruption of the “doctrine of Christ” results in a “false christ.”

John gave similar warnings in his epistles (1 John 2:18, 19, 22; 4:1-3; 2 John 7-11). 

In addressing the seven churches in Revelation 2-3, the Lord Jesus Christ warned that many of the apostolic churches were already weak and were under severe stress from heretical attacks (Rev. 2:6, 14-15, 20-24; 3:2, 15-17). 

Thus the New Testament faith was being attacked on every hand in the days of the apostles by Gnosticism, Judaism, Nicolaitanism, and other heresies. 

And the apostles and prophets warned that this apostasy would increase. 

Paul said, “But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:13). This describes the course of the church age in terms of the spread of heresy!

Therefore it is not surprising to find doctrinal error rampant among the churches even in the early centuries.

Further, we only have a very partial record of the early centuries and the surviving writings have been heavily filtered by Rome. The Roman Catholic Church was in power for a full millennium and its Inquisition reached to the farthest corners of Europe and beyond. Rome did everything in its power to destroy the writings of those who differed with her. Consider the Waldenses. These were Bible-believing Christians who lived in northern Italy and southern France and elsewhere during the Dark Ages and were viciously persecuted by Rome for centuries. Though we know that the Waldenses have a history that begins in the 11th century if not before, their historical record was almost completely destroyed by Rome. Only a handful of Waldensian writings were preserved from all of those centuries. 

It is not surprising, therefore, that the extant writings from the early centuries are ones that are sympathetic to Rome’s doctrines. This does not prove that most of the churches then held to Roman Catholic doctrine. It proves only that those writings sympathetic to Rome were allowed to survive. We know that there were many churches in existence in those early centuries that did not agree with Roman doctrine, because they were persecuted by the Romanists and are mentioned in the writings of the “church fathers.” 

A LOOK AT SOME OF THE CHURCH FATHERS

IGNATIUS (c. 50-110)

Ignatius was the bishop of Antioch in the early second century. He was arrested in about A.D. 110 and sent to Rome for trial and martyrdom. 

He taught that churches should have elders and a ruling bishop; in other words, he was exalting one bishop over another, whereas in scripture the terms “bishop” and “elder” refer to the same humble office in the assembly (Titus 1:5-7).

He taught that all churches are a part of one universal church. 

He claimed that a church does not have authority to baptize or conduct the Lord’s Supper unless it has a bishop. 

These relatively innocent errors helped prepare the way for more error in the next century.

JUSTIN MARTYR (c. 100 – c. 165)

When Justin embraced Christianity, he held on to some of his pagan philosophy.

He interpreted the Scriptures allegorically and mystically. For example, the 1,000 years mentioned in Revelation 20 is not a literal 1,000 years but stands for something else.

He helped develop the idea of a “middle state” after death that was neither heaven nor hell. Eventually this doctrine became Rome’s purgatory. 

IRENAEUS (c. 125-202)

Irenaeus was a pastor in Lyons, France, who wrote a polemic titled Against Heresies in about A.D. 185. 

He supported the authority of the bishop as a ruler over many churches. 

He defended church tradition beyond what the Scripture allows. For this reason he is claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as one of their own. 

He taught the Catholic heresy of “real presence,” saying, “The Eucharist becomes the body of Christ.”

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (c. 150 – c. 230)

From 190 to 202, Clement headed the heretical school of Alexandria, Egypt, founded by Pantaenus, which intermingled the Greek philosophy of Plato with Christianity. 

Clement helped develop the false doctrine of purgatory and believed that most men would eventually be saved. 

He denied the unique Deity of Jesus and His atonement, saying, “The Logos of God became man so that you may learn from man how man may become God” (cited from Bernard McGinn, The Presence of God, Vol. 1 - “The Foundations of Mysticism,” p. 107). Jesus was, therefore, merely the supreme model toward the path of divinity.

TERTULLIAN (c. 155 – c. 255)

Tertullian lived in Carthage in North Africa (located on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea in modern Tunisia, between Libya and Algeria).

Though he fought against Gnosticism, he also exalted the authority of the church beyond that allowed by Scripture. He taught that the church’s authority comes through apostolic succession. 

He believed that the bread of the Lord’s Supper was Christ and worried about dropping crumbs of it on the ground. 

He adopted Montanism, believing that Montanus spoke prophecies by inspiration of God. 

He taught that widows who remarried committed fornication. Thus he exalted the condition of virginity in an unscriptural way, and this heresy was adopted by the Roman Catholic in its monastic system of unmarried monks and nuns and in its doctrine that priests cannot marry. The New Testament encourages younger widows to remarry (1 Tim. 5:14). 

He taught that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. 

He classified sins into three categories and believed in confession of sins to a bishop. 

He said that the human soul was seen in a vision as “tender, light, and of the colour of air.” He claimed that all human souls were in Adam and are transmitted to us with the taint of original sin upon them. 

He taught that there was a time when the Son of God did not exist and when God was not a Father. 

He taught that Mary was the second Eve who by her obedience remedied the disobedience of the first Eve. This was a stepping stone toward the Roman Catholic Church’s many heresies about Mary.

CYPRIAN (? – 258)

Cyprian was the “bishop of Carthage” in Africa. 

He was tyrannical and wealthy and he wrote against the Novatian churches for their efforts to maintain a pure church membership. He didn’t care if church members gave evidence of the new birth as long as they conformed to external rituals.

Cyprian defended the unscriptural doctrine that certain bishops had authority over many churches and that all pastors must submit to them.

He supported the heresy of infant baptism. 

No wonder Cyprian was made one of the “saints” of the Catholic Church. 

ORIGEN (185-254) 

Though he endured persecution and torture for the cause of Christ under the Roman emperor Decius in 250, and though he defended Christianity against certain heretics, he rejected the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3) and taught many gross heresies. Origen founded in a school in Caesarea from which he expounded his errors far and wide through his students and his writings. 

Origen “disbelieved the full inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures, holding that the inspired men apprehended and stated many things obscurely” (Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney, I, p. 383).

He rejected the literal history of the early chapters in Genesis and of Satan taking the Lord Jesus up to a high mountain and offering him the kingdoms of the world (Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Vol. III, p. 614). Durant quotes Origen: “Who is so foolish as to believe that God, like a husbandman, planted a garden in Eden, and placed in it a tree of life ... so that one who tasted of the fruit obtained life?” Origen denied the literal creation described in Genesis 1-2 and the literal fall of Genesis 3. 

He denied the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Origen’s “opinions on the Trinity veered between Sabellianism and Arianism. He expressly denied the consubstantial unity of the Persons and the proper incarnation of the Godhead” (Dabney, I, p. 384).

He believed the Holy Spirit was the first creature made by the Father through the Son. 

He taught that Jesus is a created being and not the eternal Son of God. “He held an aberrant view on the nature of Christ, which gave rise to the later Arian heresy” (“Origen,” Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics). That Origen believed Jesus Christ had an origin is evident from this statement: “Secondly, that Jesus Christ Himself, who came, was born of the Father before all creatures; and after He had ministered to the Father in the creation of all things,--for through Him were all things made” (Origen, quoted by W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers).

He taught that man can become divine as Jesus is divine. “For Christians see that with Jesus human and divine nature begin to be woven together, so that by fellowship with divinity human nature might become divine, not only in Jesus, but also in all those who believe and go on to undertake the life which Jesus taught...” (Against Celsus, 3:28). This statement is grossly heretical on three counts: It teaches that Jesus’ Deity is not unique but is a model for all men, that salvation is achieved by following Jesus’ teaching, and that man can become divine like Jesus.

Origen taught baptismal regeneration and salvation by works. “After these points, it is taught also that the soul, having a substance and life proper to itself, shall, after its departure from this world, be rewarded according to its merits. It is destined to obtain either an inheritance of eternal life and blessedness, if its deeds shall have procured this for it, or to be delivered up to eternal fire and punishment, if the guilt of its crimes shall have brought it down to this” (Origen, cited by W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers). “[He] evidently had no clear conception of the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith” (Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines, p. 65). This is an important fact, because it means that the gospel Origen taught was a false gospel, and he therefore was under God’s curse (Galatians 1:6-8). 

He believed in a form of purgatory and universalism (all men will be saved), believing that even Satan would be saved. “Now let us see what is meant by the threatening with eternal fire. ... It seems to be indicated by these words that every sinner kindles for himself the flame of his own fire and is not plunged into some fire which was kindled beforehand by someone else or which already existed before him. ... And when this dissolution and tearing asunder of the soul shall have been accomplished by means of the application of fire, no doubt it will afterwards be solidified into a firmer structure and into a restoration of itself” (Origen, cited by W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers).

He denied the literal fire of hell. 

He believed that men’s souls are preexistent and that stars and planets possibly have souls. “In regard to the sun, however, and the moon and the stars, as to whether they are living beings or are without life, there is not clear tradition” (Origen, cited by W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers).

He denied the bodily resurrection, claiming that the resurrection body is spherical, non-material, and does not have members. “He denied the tangible, physical nature of the resurrection body in clear contrast to the teaching of Scripture” (Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, “Origen”). He was condemned by the Council of Constantinople on this count.

Origen rejected the testimony of the apostle Paul in Colossians 2:16-23 and lived as an ascetic. He even castrated himself in his foolish zeal for the alleged superior holiness of “celibacy” over marriage.

Origen was also one of the chief fathers of the allegorical method of Bible interpretation, which turns the Bible into a nose of wax to be twisted as the reader sees fit. He claimed that “the Scriptures have little use to those who understand them literally.” He described the literal meaning of Scripture as “bread” and encouraged the student to go beyond this to the “wine” of allegoricalism, whereby one can become intoxicated and transported to heavenly realms. Origen’s commentaries contained a wealth of fanciful interpretations, abounding in “heretical revisals of Scripture” (Frederick Nolan, Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, p. 367).

As for Origen’s character, he was “evidently dishonest and tricky, and his judgment most erratic. … As a controversialist, he was wholly unscrupulous (Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney, I, p. 383). 

EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA (270-340)

Eusebius collected the writings of Origen and promoted his false teachings. 

Constantine the Great, who had joined together church and state in the Roman Empire and had thereby laid the foundation for the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church, hired Eusebius to produce some Greek New Testaments. Many textual authorities have identified Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, the manuscripts so revered by modern textual critics, as two of the copies of the Greek New Testament made by Eusebius. Frederick Nolan and other authorities have charged Eusebius with making many changes in the text of Scripture. 

Many of the noted omissions in the modern versions can be traced to this period, including Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11. After intensive investigation, Frederick Nolan concluded that Eusebius “suppressed those passages in his edition” (Nolan, p. 240). These manuscripts also contained the spurious apocryphal writings, Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas. Origen considered these two fanciful books as Scripture (Goodspeed, The Formation of the New Testament, p. 103). 

JEROME (Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus) (340-420) 

Jerome was called upon by Damasus, the Bishop of Rome, to produce a standard Latin Bible. This was completed between A.D. 383 and 405 and became the Bible adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. It is commonly called the Latin vulgate (meaning common).

Modern textual critic Bruce Metzger says that the Greek manuscripts used by Jerome “apparently belonged to the Alexandrian type of text” (Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 76). This means they were in the same family as those underlying the modern versions. Kenyon and Robinson also affirm this (Kenyon, The Text of the Greek Bible, p. 88; Robinson, Ancient Versions of the English Bible, p. 113).

This means that the Jerome Latin vulgate adopted by Rome represents the same type of text as the critical Greek text underlying the modern versions. These commonly remove “God” from 1 Timothy 3:16 and contain many other corruptions.

Jerome was deeply infected with false teaching:

Jerome was deeply committed to the heresy of asceticism, believing the state of virginity to be spiritually superior to that of marriage and demanding that church leaders be unmarried. “... no single individual did so much to make monasticism popular in the higher ranks of society” (James Heron, The Evolution of Latin Christianity, 1919, p. 58). He lived a hermetic life in disobedience to the Bible’s command to go forth and preach the gospel to every creature (Mk. 16:15).

Jerome believed in the veneration of “holy relics” and the bones of dead Christians (Heron, pp. 276, 77). 

Jerome “took a leading and influential part in ‘opening the floodgates’ for the invocation of saints,” teaching “that the saints in heaven hear the prayers of men on earth, intercede on their behalf and send them help from above (Heron, pp. 287, 88).

Jerome taught that Mary is the counterpart of Eve, as Christ was the counterpart of Adam, and that through her obedience Mary became instrumental in helping to redeem the human race (Heron, p. 294). He taught that Mary is a perpetual virgin. 

Jerome believed in the blessing of “holy water,” which became a major practice in the Roman Catholic Church (Heron, p. 306). 

Jerome justified the death penalty for “heretics” (Heron, p. 323). 

As for his spirit and character, Jerome is described, even by an unwise historian who had high respect for him, with these words: “such irritability and bitterness of temper, such vehemence of uncontrolled passion, such an intolerant and persecuting spirit, and such inconstancy of conduct” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, III, p. 206).

Jerome had a particularly hateful attitude toward those that followed the simple New Testament faith and refused to accept the heresies that he and his fellows were preaching. His writings against these men were characterized by the most hateful, vicious sort of language. Vigilantius, Jovinian, and Helvidius were some of the men upon whom Jerome railed. These men rejected the false traditions that were being added by the early leaders of the Roman Church, including infant baptism, enforced celibacy, worship of martyrs and relics, and the sinlessness and perpetual virginity of Mary. Jerome heaped abuse upon these men, calling them dogs, maniacs, monsters, asses, stupid fools, two-legged asses, gluttons, servants of the devil, madmen, “useless vessels which should be shivered by the iron rod of apostolic authority.” He said Helvidius had a “fetid mouth, fraught with a putrid stench, against the relics and ashes of the martyrs.” Baptist historian Thomas Armitage observed, “The pen of Jerome was rendered very offensive by his grinding tyranny and crabbed temper. No matter how wrong he was, he could not brook contradiction” (A History of the Baptists, I, p. 207).

It is obvious that Jerome had imbibed many of the false teachings and attitudes that eventually became the entrenched dogmas and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. 

AMBROSE (339-397)

Ambrose was bishop of Milan, in Italy, from 374-397. Because of his commitment to many early doctrinal heresies, his writings have been appealed to by popes and Catholic councils. Ambrose had a strong influence upon Augustine. The Catholic Church made him a saint and a doctor of the church.

Ambrose used the allegorical-mystical method of Bible interpretation, having been influenced by Origen and Philo. 

He taught that Christians should be devoted to Mary, encouraged monasticism, and believed in prayers to the saints. 

He believed the church has the power to forgive sins. 

He believed the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice of Christ. 

He taught that virginity is holier than marriage and whenever possible he encouraged young women not to marry. His teaching in this helped pave the way for the Catholic monastic system. 

He offered prayers for the dead. 

AUGUSTINE (354-430)

Augustine was polluted with many false doctrines and helped lay the foundation for the formation of the Roman Catholic Church. For this reason Rome has honored Augustine as one of the “doctors of the church.”

He was a persecutor and one of the fathers of Rome’s Inquisition. He instigated persecutions against the Bible-believing Donatists who were striving to maintain biblical churches and require that church members give evidence of repentance and regeneration. 

Augustine was one of the fathers of a-millennialism, allegorizing Bible prophecy and teaching that the Catholic Church is the new Israel and the kingdom of God. 

He taught that the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are means of salvation. 

The ‘council’ of Mela, in Numidia, A.D. 416, composed of merely fifteen persons and presided over by Augustine, decreed: “Also, it is the pleasure of the bishops in order that whoever denies that infants newly born of their mothers, are to be baptized or says that baptism is administered for the remission of their own sins, but not on account of original sin, delivered from Adam, and to be expiated by the laver of regeneration, BE ACCURSED” (Wall, The History of Infant Baptism, I, 265). Augustine thus taught that infants should be baptized and that the baptism took away their sin. He called all who rejected infant baptism “infidels” and “cursed.”

He taught that Mary did not commit sin and promoted her “veneration.” He believed that Mary played a vital role in salvation (Augustine, Sermon 289, cited in Durant, The Story of Civilization, IV, p. 69). 

He promoted the myth of purgatory. 

He accepted the doctrine of “celibacy” for “priests,” supporting the decree of “Pope” Siricius of 387 which required that any priest that married or refused to separate from his wife should be disciplined. 

He exalted the authority of the church over that of the Bible, declaring, “I should not believe the gospel unless I were moved to do so by the authority of the Catholic Church” (quoted by John Paul II, Augustineum Hyponensem, Apostolic Letter, Aug. 28, 1986, www.cin.org/jp2.ency/augustin.html).

He believed that the true interpretation of Scripture is derived from the declaration of church councils (Augustin, De Vera Religione, xxiv, p. 45).

He interpreted the early chapters of Genesis figuratively (Dave Hunt, “Calvin and Augustine: Two Jonahs Who Sink the Ship,” Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views by Dave Hunt and James White, 2004, p. 230).

He taught the heresy of sovereign election, in that God has pre-ordained some for salvation and others for damnation and that the grace of God is irresistible for the true elect. By his own admission, John Calvin in the 16th century derived his TULIP theology on the “sovereignty of God” from Augustine. Calvin said: “If I were inclined to compile a whole volume from Augustine, I could easily show my readers, that I need no words but his” (Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, chap. 22).

He taught the heresy of apostolic succession from Peter (Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast, p. 230).

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (347-407)

Chrysostom was a leader in Antioch, in the Greek part of the Catholic church of that day, and became “patriarch” of Constantinople in 398. 

He believed in the “real presence” of the mass, that the bread literally becomes Jesus Christ. 

He taught that church tradition can be equal in authority to the Scriptures. 

CYRIL (376-444)

Cyril was the “patriarch” of Alexandria and supported many of the errors that led to the formation of the Catholic Church. 

He promoted the veneration of Mary and called her the Theotokos, or bearer of God. 

In 412, Cyril instigated persecution against the Donatist Christians.

A WARNING OF THE POWER OF THE CHURCH FATHERS TO LEAD TO ROME

Having seen some of the heresies that leavened the “church fathers,” it is not surprising that a non-critical study of their writings can lead to Rome. That is where they were all headed! And for the most part we have only looked at the more doctrinally sound “church fathers”! 

In the late nineteenth century JOHN HENRY NEWMAN (1801-90) walked into the Roman Catholic Church through the door of the church fathers. Newman, an Anglican priest and one of the leaders of the Oxford Movement in the Church of England, is one of the most famous of the Protestant converts to Rome. He said that two of the factors in his conversion were his fascination with the church fathers and his study of the lives of the “English saints,” referring to Catholic mystics such as Joan of Norwich. He converted to Rome in 1845 and was made a Cardinal by Pope Leo XIII in 1879. 

In more recent days many are following Newman’s lead. 

SCOTT AND KIMBERLY HAHN, Presbyterians who joined the Roman Catholic Church, were influenced by the church fathers. In their influential autobiography, Rome Sweet Rome, Kimberly recalls how that Scott studied the “church fathers” when he was still a Presbyterian minister.

“Scott gained many insights from the early Church Fathers, some of which he shared in his sermons. This was rather unexpected for both of us, because we had hardly ever read the early Church Fathers when we were in seminary. In fact, in our senior year we had complained loudly to friends about possible creeping Romanism when a course was offered by an Anglican priest on the early Church Fathers. Yet here was Scott quoting them in sermons! One night Scott came out of his study and said, ‘Kimberly, I have to be honest. I don’t know how long we are going to be Presbyterians. We may become Episcopalians’” (Rome Sweet Rome, p. 56).

In fact, they became Roman Catholics, and the influence of the “church fathers” on that decision is obvious.

In 1985 THOMAS HOWARD became another famous Protestant convert to Rome. In his 1984 book Evangelical Is Not Enough Howard had called upon evangelicals to study the church fathers. Howard was a professor at Gordon College for 15 years and is from a family of prominent evangelicals. His father, Philip, was editor of the Sunday School Times; his brother David Howard was head of the World Evangelical Fellowship; and his sister Elizabeth married the famous missionary Jim Elliot, who was martyred by the Auca Indians in Ecuador. 

The church fathers were also instrumental in the conversion of PETER KREEFT to Rome from the Dutch Reformed denomination. Kreeft, a very influential Catholic apologist, studied the church fathers as a student at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He writes:

“My adventurous half rejoiced when I discovered in the early Church such Catholic elements as the centrality of the Eucharist, the Real Presence, prayers to saints, devotion to Mary, an insistence on visible unity, and apostolic succession. Furthermore, THE CHURCH FATHERS JUST ‘SMELLED’ MORE CATHOLIC THAN PROTESTANT, especially St. Augustine, my personal favorite and a hero to most Protestants too. It seemed very obvious that if Augustine or Jerome or Ignatius of Antioch or Anthony of the Desert, or Justin Martyr, or Clement of Alexandria, or Athanasius were alive today they would be Catholics, not Protestants” (“Hauled Aboard the Ark,” http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/hauled-aboard.htm). 

Kreeft is absolutely right. Many of the “church fathers” do smell more Catholic than Protestant! 

The books Surprised by Truth edited by Patrick Madrid and The Road to Rome edited by Dwight Longenecker and Journeys Home edited by Marcus Grodi contain many examples of this phenomenon. One of the testimonies is by SHARON MANN, who says, 

“I started reading the early Church Fathers and realized that whatever they believed, they surely were not Protestant. Catholic themes peppered the landscape of Church history. I couldn’t deny it...” (Journeys Home, 1997, p. 88).

This is true, of course. Catholic themes do pepper the landscape of the “church fathers.” What she should have understood is that they were not doctrinally sound and they have absolutely no authority. Whatever they were, they are not our examples and guides. She should have compared them to the infallible truth in the Bible and rejected them as heretics. 

Instead, she allowed the “church fathers” to stir up her curiosity about Roman Catholicism and she ended up at a Mass. There she had a powerful emotional experience when the crowd knelt to idolatrously “adore” the blessed host as it passed by in its “monstrance.” She began weeping and her throat tightened and she couldn’t swallow. She said:

“If the Lord was truly passing by, then I wanted to adore and worship Him, but if He wasn’t, I was afraid to be idolatrous. That weekend left a very powerful imprint on my heart, and I found myself running out of good arguments to stay Protestant. My heart was longing to be Catholic and be restored to the unity with all Christendom” (Journeys Home, p. 89).

When she speaks of the Lord passing by, she is referring to the Catholic doctrine that the wafer or host of the Mass becomes the actual body and blood of Jesus when it is blessed by the priest and thereafter it is worshipped as Jesus Himself. Following the Mass the host is placed in a box called the tabernacle and Catholics pray to it. The host is the Catholic Jesus. 

Roger Oakland describes an experience he had in Rome at the feast of Corpus Christi when Pope Benedict XVI worshipped at the Major Mary basilica:

“Finally, after almost three hours of standing and waiting, the pope and his entourage arrived. The pope was carrying the Eucharistic Jesus in a monstrance. Earlier that day during a mass at St. Peter’s, this Eucharistic Jesus had been created from a wafer that had been consecrated. Later in the say, the same Jesus was transported to St. John’s for another ceremony. Finally, for a finale, the pope transported Jesus to the Major Church of Mary. The pope took the monstrance, ascended the stairs of the church, and held Jesus up for the masses to see. Then this Jesus was placed on an altar temporarily erected at the top of the steps. A cardinal then opened the glass window of the monstrance, removed the consecrated wafer (Jesus), and hustled him inside the church where he placed Jesus in a tabernacle. This experience gave me a sobering reminder of this terrible apostasy” (Faith Undone, p. 126).

Mother Teresa exemplified this. She stated plainly that her Christ was the wafer of the Mass. Consider the following quotes from her speech to the Worldwide Retreat for Priests, October 1984, in Vatican City:

 “I remember the time a few years back, when the president of Yeman asked us to send some of our sisters to his country. I told him that this was difficult because for so many years no chapel was allowed in Yemen for saying a public mass, and no one was allowed to function there publicly as a priest. I explained that I wanted to give them sisters, but the trouble was that, without a priest, without Jesus going with them, our sisters couldn’t go anywhere. It seems that the president of Yemen had some kind of a consultation, and the answer that came back to us was, ‘Yes, you can send a priest with the sisters!’ I was so struck with the thought that ONLY WHEN THE PRIEST IS THERE CAN WE HAVE OUR ALTAR AND OUR TABERNACLE AND OUR JESUS. ONLY THE PRIEST CAN PUT JESUS THERE FOR US” (Mother Teresa, cited in Be Holy: God’s First Call to Priests Today, edited by Tom Forrest, C.Ss.R., 1987, p. 109).

“One day she [a girl working in Calcutta] came, putting her arms around me, and saying, ‘I have found Jesus.’ ... ‘And just what were you doing when you found him?’ I asked. She answered that after 15 years she had finally gone to confession, and received Holy Communion from the hands of a priest. Her face was changed, and she was smiling. She was a different person because THAT PRIEST HAD GIVEN HER JESUS” (Mother Teresa, Be Holy, p. 74).

It is a great spiritual blindness to think that the Lord Jesus Christ can be worshipped legitimately in the form of a piece of bread!

A more recent convert to Rome is FRANCIS BECKWITH, former president of the Evangelical Theological Society. In May 2007 he tendered his resignation from this organization after converting to Rome. His journey to Rome was sparked by reading the church fathers. He said, “In January, at the suggestion of a dear friend, I began reading the Early Church Fathers as well as some of the more sophisticated works on justification by Catholic authors. I became convinced that the Early Church is more Catholic than Protestant...” (“Evangelical Theological Society President Converts,” The Berean Call, May 7, 2007).

Again, he is correct in observing that the church fathers were very Catholic-like, but that proves nothing. The truth is not found in the church fathers but in the Bible itself. 

This is a loud warning to those who have an ear to hear the truth. We don’t need to study the “church fathers.” We need to make certain that we are born again and have the indwelling Spirit as our Teacher (1 John 2:27), then we need to study the Bible diligently and walk closely with Christ and become so thoroughly grounded in the truth that we will not be led astray by the wiles of the devil and by all of the fierce winds of error that are blowing in our day.

“That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive” (Ephesians 4:14).

[johngrace]

Jesus was born with divinity.

[johngrace]

http://scripturecatholic.com/jesus_christ_divinity.html

[af_vet_1981]

That’s a lot of interpretting right there. Oh, Israel is the woman, all right. “He came”..(born)..”to his own, and his own received him not”.

**Joseph’s dream** has Joseph (not Judah) as the center of attention. Mary was of Judah, and therefore was one of the “twelve stars” of the nation of Israel.

What a tangled web we weave......

Thanks for replying though!

As you pointed out, Joseph's dream, in similar sun, moon, and star symbols, was about a person, Joseph. The stars were Joseph's brothers, progenitors of the other tribes of Israel. Your reference to his own receiving him not and being the woman is totally out of character with Revelation Twelve. Instead, it fits the one who stood faithfully by the Holy One, in conception, birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension. It is about a real woman, Miriam, the blessed Virgin of Israel, who personifies and incompasses not only Israel, but the holy catholic apostolic church..

[Zuriel]

**Your reference to his own receiving him not and being the woman is totally out of character with Revelation Twelve.**

That’s your church’s vain imagination. After Jesus ascended, she was in the upper room for days waiting for the Holy Ghost, not in the wilderness.

You believe it literally is Mary.
Is it literally the Sun that clothes her?
Is it literally the moon that she stands on?
Was there literally a dragon, as described, in the stable?

“And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he he might cause her to be carried away like a flood. And the earth opened HER mouth and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth. And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the REMNANT of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testamony of Jesus Christ.” Rev.12:15-17

The earth is in the feminine, just like Israel.

The REMNANT of her seed. The Israel of God.

**It is about a real woman, Miriam, the blessed Virgin of Israel, who personifies and incompasses not only Israel, but the holy catholic apostolic church..**

Wow, you folks really do believe she is equal with God.

[Zuriel]

They sure leave out a lot in their study.

Where were these verses?

14:10 “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak NOT of MYSELF: but the Father that DWELLETH IN ME, HE doeth the works”.
14:11 “Believe me that I am IN the Father, and the Father IN me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.” And he just told us in the previous verse WHO DOETH the WORKS.

And this one..

Jesus praying to the Father (John 17:1), “And this is life eternal, that they might know THEE the ONLY TRUE GOD, ........AND........JESUS CHRIST, whom THOU hast SENT.” John 17:3.

So, do you disagree with the Son, who declares the Father to be the “ONLY TRUE GOD”?

I have much more, but over 720 miles, almost half of it 2 lane. The climbing up and down, chaining, strapping, etc. I can’t stay up any more tonight.

Thanks for you opinion.

[af_vet_1981]

**Your reference to his own receiving him not and being the woman is totally out of character with Revelation Twelve.** That’s your church’s vain imagination. After Jesus ascended, she was in the upper room for days waiting for the Holy Ghost, not in the wilderness. You believe it literally is Mary. Is it literally the Sun that clothes her? Is it literally the moon that she stands on? Was there literally a dragon, as described, in the stable? “And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he he might cause her to be carried away like a flood. And the earth opened HER mouth and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth. And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the REMNANT of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testamony of Jesus Christ.” Rev.12:15-17 The earth is in the feminine, just like Israel. The REMNANT of her seed. The Israel of God. **It is about a real woman, Miriam, the blessed Virgin of Israel, who personifies and incompasses not only Israel, but the holy catholic apostolic church..** Wow, you folks really do believe she is equal with God.

It seems to me you stumble at literalism. The woman is Miriam.
1. The sun is a symbol
2. The moon is a symbol
3. The dragon is a symbol
4. The woman is Miriam, who also encompasses Israel and the holy catholic apostolic church. The symbolism is compatible with the first mention of the symbols in Joseph's dream.
5. Without Miriam, you have no she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne, no remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
6. You cannot separate Miriam from her son, the man child, who is God with us, nor from Israel, nor from the holy catholic apostolic church.
7. You falsely accuse me of equating Miriam with God. She is not equal with God and to falsely accuse me, or her, is unprofitable for you.

Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.
James, Catholic chapter three, Protestant verses thirteen to eighteen, as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[Zuriel]

**The sun is a symbol
The moon is a symbol
The dragon is a symbol**

You agree to symbolism, but reserve the woman to literally be a woman (Mary/Miriam). Adjusting the story fit a preconceived notion is private interpretation.

As I said, the nation of Israel is the woman. Here are just a few references of Israel in the feminine:

Jeremiah 31:4; Amos 5:1,2, speak of the ‘virgin of Israel’ in prophetic passages about the nation.

Jer. 6:2, speaks of the ‘daughter of Zion’ in a passage clearly about the nation.

Jer. 4:30,31. “And when thou art spoiled, what wilt thou do? Though thou clothest thyself with crimson, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though thou rentest thy face with painting, in vain shalt thou make thyself fair; thy lovers will seek thy life. For I have heard a voice as of a woman in travail, and the anguish as of her that bringeth forth her first child, the voice of the daughter of Zion, that bewaileth herself, that spreadeth her hands, saying, Woe is me now! for my soul is wearied because of murderers”.

Isaiah 40:2, “Spesk comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the lord’s hand double for all her sins.”

Isaiah 51:3 “For the Lord shall comfort Zion: he will comfort all her waste places; and he will make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the Lord; joy and gladness shall be found therein, thanksgiving, and the voice of melody”.

I said before: After Jesus ascended, Mary was in the upper room for days waiting for the Holy Ghost, not in the wilderness.

The REMNANT of her seed, is the remnant that the Lord saves after the tribulation.

Mary is of Israel, not Israel of Mary. And know that neither Jesus Christ, nor his apostles EVER used the phrase ‘God the Son’, but always used the phrase ‘Son of God’. I believe that they completely understood the Godhead.

Are you ‘Free Republic the af_vet_1981’, or are you ‘af_vet_1981 of Free Republic’?

[af_vet_1981]

**The sun is a symbol The moon is a symbol The dragon is a symbol**

You agree to symbolism, but reserve the woman to literally be a woman (Mary/Miriam). Adjusting the story fit a preconceived notion is private interpretation.

As I said, the nation of Israel is the woman.

Following the principle of first mention, In Genesis I see the symbols for the sun, moon, and stars in Joseph's dream, not to mention Israel, who is a man.

Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age: and he made him a coat of many colours. And when his brethren saw that their father loved him more than all his brethren, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him. And Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it his brethren: and they hated him yet the more. And he said unto them, Hear, I pray you, this dream which I have dreamed: For, behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and, lo, my sheaf arose, and also stood upright; and, behold, your sheaves stood round about, and made obeisance to my sheaf. And his brethren said to him, Shalt thou indeed reign over us? or shalt thou indeed have dominion over us? And they hated him yet the more for his dreams, and for his words. And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me. And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth? And his brethren envied him; but his father observed the saying.
Genesis, Catholic chapter thirty seven, Protestant verses three to eleven, as authorized, but not authored, by King James

Since you must agree that the sun represents Jacob, the moon Rachel, and the stars Joseph's brothers, you cannot avoid the inference that similar symbols in the Revelation vision also represent similar people (ie., Sun => Jewish Patriarchs, Moon => Jewish Matriarchs, Twelve Stars => Twelve Tribes of Israel), and thus the woman herself is adorned with Israel, but is not simply Israel. Further, this woman must have given birth to a man child who ascended up to heaven. Your list of candidates grows thin.

Here are just a few references of Israel in the feminine:

Jeremiah 31:4; Amos 5:1,2, speak of the ‘virgin of Israel’ in prophetic passages about the nation.

Jer. 6:2, speaks of the ‘daughter of Zion’ in a passage clearly about the nation.

Jer. 4:30,31. “And when thou art spoiled, what wilt thou do? Though thou clothest thyself with crimson, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though thou rentest thy face with painting, in vain shalt thou make thyself fair; thy lovers will seek thy life. For I have heard a voice as of a woman in travail, and the anguish as of her that bringeth forth her first child, the voice of the daughter of Zion, that bewaileth herself, that spreadeth her hands, saying, Woe is me now! for my soul is wearied because of murderers”.

Isaiah 40:2, “Speak comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the lord’s hand double for all her sins.”

Isaiah 51:3 “For the Lord shall comfort Zion: he will comfort all her waste places; and he will make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the Lord; joy and gladness shall be found therein, thanksgiving, and the voice of melody”.

Indeed

And the pride of Israel doth testify to his face: therefore shall Israel and Ephraim fall in their iniquity; Judah also shall fall with them. They shall go with their flocks and with their herds to seek the LORD; but they shall not find him; he hath withdrawn himself from them. They have dealt treacherously against the LORD: for they have begotten strange children: now shall a month devour them with their portions.

And the pride of Israel testifieth to his face: and they do not return to the LORD their God, nor seek him for all this.

For Israel hath forgotten his Maker, and buildeth temples; and Judah hath multiplied fenced cities: but I will send a fire upon his cities, and it shall devour the palaces thereof.

When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

And Jacob fled into the country of Syria, and Israel served for a wife, and for a wife he kept sheep. And by a prophet the LORD brought Israel out of Egypt, and by a prophet was he preserved.

O Israel, return unto the LORD thy God; for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity. Take with you words, and turn to the LORD: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips. Asshur shall not save us; we will not ride upon horses: neither will we say any more to the work of our hands, Ye are our gods: for in thee the fatherless findeth mercy. I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely: for mine anger is turned away from him. I will be as the dew unto Israel: he shall grow as the lily, and cast forth his roots as Lebanon. His branches shall spread, and his beauty shall be as the olive tree, and his smell as Lebanon. They that dwell under his shadow shall return; they shall revive as the corn, and grow as the vine: the scent thereof shall be as the wine of Lebanon. Ephraim shall say, What have I to do any more with idols? I have heard him, and observed him: I am like a green fir tree. From me is thy fruit found. Who is wise, and he shall understand these things? prudent, and he shall know them? for the ways of the LORD are right, and the just shall walk in them: but the transgressors shall fall therein.
Hosea, Catholic chapters five, seven, eight, eleven, fourteen,
Protestant verses five to seven, ten, fourteen, one, twelve to thirteen, one to nine,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

I said before: After Jesus ascended, Mary was in the upper room for days waiting for the Holy Ghost, not in the wilderness.

The REMNANT of her seed, is the remnant that the Lord saves after the tribulation.

I think I see a preconceived notion here.

Mary is of Israel, not Israel of Mary.

You are forgetting that Miriam bore the Messiah, and the holy catholic apostolic church of which she is an integral part, so to speak. Remember also that Matthew records a fulfillment of "Israel" from Hosea in And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way. And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.. Matthew, Catholic chapter two, Protestant verses twelve to fifteen, as authorized, but not authored by King James

And know that neither Jesus Christ, nor his apostles EVER used the phrase ‘God the Son’, but always used the phrase ‘Son of God’. I believe that they completely understood the Godhead.

How can you know that ? Which faith community do you belong to ? This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.John, Catholic chapter twenty one, Protestant verses twenty four to twenty five, as authorized, but not authored by King James

Are you ‘Free Republic the af_vet_1981’, or are you ‘af_vet_1981 of Free Republic’?

Both and more

[Zuriel]

**Following the principle of first mention, In Genesis I see the symbols for the sun, moon, and stars in Joseph’s dream, not to mention Israel, who is a man.**

The dream is told, and then interpretted by Jacob (Israel), making it clear who is the sun, moon, and stars. They are all equal in submission to Joseph. Joseph, as himself, is lord over them all.

In Revelation 12, John breaks away from the order of the tribulation events, to tell a history of the Jews, their long fight against Satan, and the promise of a deliverer. The vision is told, but the description is not the same layout as Joseph’s dream. The ‘woman’ is wearing the sun and stars. They make up the chosen and annointed nation of Israel (consisting of the twelve tribes). The moon is ‘under her feet’, which is not a place of honor. The ‘moon’ is more than submissive; it is defeated. In this vision the ‘moon’ is Satan, imo. Do you think that the ‘matriarchs’ are to be under foot?

There is no witness for your interpretation that the woman is specifically Mary. But as the nation of Israel, there are numerous witnesses by the prophets, speaking of the 3 1/2 years, and that it pertains to the nation of Israel as a whole, not to an individual. Ditto for the ‘remnant’.

**And Jacob fled into the country of Syria, and Israel served for a wife, and for a wife he kept sheep. And by a prophet the LORD brought Israel out of Egypt, and by a prophet was he preserved.**

Jacob (’Israel’) entered Egypt with his family, but was buried in Canaan. His descendants left as the nation of Israel, led by the prophet Moses. Likewise, God called the child Jesus out of Egypt.

The Rev. 12 account is not the only story ‘tweaked’ to build a case for Mary being something other than she really is. The denial of Mary having more children is based on interpretting ‘brethern’ and ‘sisters’, as cousins, since in some cases the Greek word can be used for both siblings or cousins. But, context is key to understanding:

In Matthew 13:53-58 (also Mark 6:1-6, and Luke 4:16-30), we find Jesus Christ leaving an area, and coming back “into his own country”, where “had been brought up” (Lk 4:16)(He had already made a name for himself elsewhere, with his teaching and miracles). After teaching in the synagogue in Nazareth, the people said, “Whence hath THIS man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not THIS the carpenter’s son? is not HIS mother called Mary? and HIS brethern, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And HIS sisters, are they not all with us? whence then hath THIS man ALL THESE THINGS? And they were offended in him.......And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.”

His hometown folks couldn’t understand how he could be so DIFFERENT from his siblings, seeing that they had known the whole family for YEARS. They had watched all the kids grow up. WHY did HE turn out so different from the other kids. It didn’t make sense. So much so, they were offended that this hometown boy, this man that had grown up right there, would be displaying such authority.

They were offended.......just like Jacob and Joseph’s brothers were offended that Joseph would seem to place himself in such a high position.

An only child would have had no such comparisons.

“And his brethern therefore said unto him, depart hence, and go into Judea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.......for neither did his brethern believe in him.” John 7:3,5

**You are forgetting that Miriam bore the Messiah**

You are forgetting that before ‘Miriam’ was, ‘I AM’ had been around a LONG time.

I said: And know that neither Jesus Christ, nor his apostles EVER used the phrase ‘God the Son’, but always used the phrase ‘Son of God’. I believe that they completely understood the Godhead.

You replied: How can you know that ? Which faith community do you belong to ?

It doesn’t matter that there is so much not written about the Lord. He hasn’t changed, and neither has his words, or his doctrine. So it doesn’t matter what church I attend, if all I do is testify to his written words as true. (I’m a Oneness Apostolic)

[af_vet_1981]

In Revelation 12, John breaks away from the order of the tribulation events, to tell a history of the Jews, their long fight against Satan, and the promise of a deliverer. The vision is told, but the description is not the same layout as Joseph’s dream. The ‘woman’ is wearing the sun and stars. They make up the chosen and annointed nation of Israel (consisting of the twelve tribes). The moon is ‘under her feet’, which is not a place of honor. The ‘moon’ is more than submissive; it is defeated. In this vision the ‘moon’ is Satan, imo. Do you think that the ‘matriarchs’ are to be under foot?

Revelation is not a history of the Jews. It is prophecy .

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
Revelation, Catholic chapter one, Protestant verses one to three, as authorized, but not authored, by King James

There is no witness for your interpretation that the woman is specifically Mary.

I call the angel Gabriel to the stand.

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
Luke, Catholic chapter one, Protestant verses twenty six to thirty three, as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[Zuriel]

**Revelation is not a history of the Jews. It is prophecy.**

God tells the truth in prophecy,
It is no lie, it’s history.

Revelation does indeed tell of the things that must come to pass. But, in chapter 12, we both agree the the child was born, and has been caught up to God. That HAS come to pass. (verses 1-5) If you use the twelve sons (twelve stars) of Jacob (Israel) as a starting point, there is almost 2,000 yrs of ‘labor pains’ leading up to the Christ child’s birth.

Israel still has to see the 3 1/2 weeks “into the wilderness”, where the nation is allowed by the beast to set up temple worship. (verse 6)

Then it is plunged into the 3 1/2 weeks of great tribulation, and the ‘remnant of her seed’ saved. (7-17)

**I call the angel Gabriel to the stand.**

Mary absolutely is the individual that gave birth to the Son of God. But Mary is of the tribe of Judah, which is of the nation of Israel. I pointed out that the ‘3 1/2 weeks’, and the ‘remnant of her seed’ do not refer to an individual, but to the nation of Israel, referred to in the feminine, as so often has been done.

[af_vet_1981]

Mary absolutely is the individual that gave birth to the Son of God.

We agree. Whatever prophetic truths come to pass, there is no one, save Messiah himself, who more personifies Israel than Miriam, and Messiah is not a woman, but is Miriam's son. So, for the woman in Revelation, in order to get Israel, you must have Miriam.

[Zuriel]

**Whatever prophetic truths come to pass, there is no one, save Messiah himself, who more personifies Israel than Miriam, and Messiah is not a woman, but is Miriam’s son.**

To you she is the symbol of Israel. You elevate her higher than the apostle Paul does: “....the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.”

Mary was not an apostle or prophet. You place her second only to God. Truly, you folks are obsessed with her more than Jesus Christ.

I pointed out that Jesus’ own half-brothers were among the unbelievers in Nazareth, showing a similar situation to what the dreamer,Joseph, had with his half-brothers (his only full brother, Benjamin, had nothing to do with rejecting him).

After telling his dream, Joseph’s father interpretted it.

“And his brothers envied him; but his father observed the saying”. Gen. 37:11

When the twelve year old Jesus tells his mother, “How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?” Luke 2:49

“..but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart”.

Joseph was elevated to be over Israel (the man, his sons, and their families).

Jesus Christ is over Israel (the faithful, whether Jew or Gentile).

Mary, aside from raising the Child, was not elevated in power over any individual or nation.

She is still asleep in Christ, waiting for the trump to sound, just like the others that have died in the faith.

Your organization has built so many traditions about her, and have dwelt on them so much, you can’t believe anything else.

**So, for the woman in Revelation, in order to get Israel, you must have Miriam.**

So Mary is the mother of Jacob.........That seems to be your position.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

[af_vet_1981]

To you she is the symbol of Israel.

To me, she is the holy, blessed, and faithful Virgin of Israel and spiritual mother to every disciple that Jesus loves.

To you she is the symbol of Israel. You elevate her higher than the apostle Paul does: “....the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.”

It seems to me you aver the Messiah did build his church on the Apostle Cephas.

**Whatever prophetic truths come to pass, there is no one, save Messiah himself, who more personifies Israel than Miriam, and Messiah is not a woman, but is Miriam’s son.**

To you she is the symbol of Israel. You elevate her higher than the apostle Paul does: “....the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.”

Mary was not an apostle or prophet. You place her second only to God. Truly, you folks are obsessed with her more than Jesus Christ.

I love and honor her. Perhaps you could look in the mirror for obsession and contemplate its source. Whence cometh hatred of the woman ?

I pointed out that Jesus’ own half-brothers were among the unbelievers in Nazareth, showing a similar situation to what the dreamer,Joseph, had with his half-brothers (his only full brother, Benjamin, had nothing to do with rejecting him).

Joseph and his brethren had the same father, but different mothers. We do not know geneaologies of Jesus' brethren. We know those of Joseph and his brethren.

After telling his dream, Joseph’s father interpretted it. “And his brothers envied him; but his father observed the saying”. Gen. 37:11 When the twelve year old Jesus tells his mother, “How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?” Luke 2:49 “..but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart”. Joseph was elevated to be over Israel (the man, his sons, and their families). Jesus Christ is over Israel (the faithful, whether Jew or Gentile).

Mary, aside from raising the Child, was not elevated in power over any individual or nation.

You will wait and see.

She is still asleep in Christ, waiting for the trump to sound, just like the others that have died in the faith.

Where are Moses and Elijah (not to mention other saints raised from the dead) ?

Your organization has built so many traditions about her, and have dwelt on them so much, you can’t believe anything else.

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.
Phillipians, Catholic chapter four, Protestant verses eight to nine, as authorized, but not authored, by King James

**So, for the woman in Revelation, in order to get Israel, you must have Miriam.**

So Mary is the mother of Jacob.........That seems to be your position.

Since Jesus loves Jacob, and Jacob loves Jesus, then I suppose Miriam can be Jacob's honored spiritual mother too.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

As you wish

[Zuriel]

**To me, she is the holy, blessed, and faithful Virgin of Israel and spiritual mother to every disciple that Jesus loves.**

See, there you go, giving her a status that isn’t scriptural. When people are born of the Spirit, they are born of God, not born of Mary.

**It seems to me you aver the Messiah did build his church on the Apostle Cephas.**

Just like Paul, Peter (Cephas) says that Jesus Christ is the “chief corner stone”. (1Peter 2:6).

**I love and honor her.**

Nothing wrong with that. I do as well. It’s the make believe stuff your organization has said about her: ‘immaculate conception’, ‘forever a virgin’, ‘Queen of Heaven’, ‘Co-Redemptrix’, ‘Mother Of God’, etc.

God has no mother, no beginning or ending. “Wherefore when He cometh into the world, he saith,” (Jesus Christ, whose goings forth have been from old, said to God the Father) “Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me.” Heb. 10:5

God the Father made Christ’s body in Mary’s womb. Mary didn’t make the soul or the Spirit that dwelled in that body. And Peter (Cephas) said, “..God hath MADE that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, BOTH Lord and Christ.

God made Jesus Lord and Christ, not Mary. Being chosen to carry the tabernacle of flesh, that the Son would dwell in, was a blessed honor. I simply don’t give credit for making more of God, for that is not possible.

**Whence cometh hatred of the woman ?**

Because I disagree with your traditions, I’m a hater? Are you a Democrat, that accuses hate or racism, when disagreeing with the prez?

**Where are Moses and Elijah (not to mention other saints raised from the dead) ?**

Did Jesus tell you to pray to Moses or Elijah?

[af_vet_1981]

See, there you go, giving her a status that isn’t scriptural.

Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did. Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church. Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you. But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?
John, Catholic chapter nineteen, Protestant verses twenty three to twenty seven,
First Corinthians, Catholic chapter four, Protestant verses fourteen to twenty one,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[af_vet_1981]

Just like Paul, Peter (Cephas) says that Jesus Christ is the “chief corner stone”. (1Peter 2:6).

Cephas is the Apostle to the Circumcision. Messiah founded the holy catholic apostolic church on Cephas as well. Messiah is the chief cornerstone of that foundation, which also consists of the historical Jewish apostles and prophets.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
Matthew, Catholic chapter sixteen, Protestant verses seventeen to nineteen,
Ephesians, Catholic chapter two, Protestant verses eleven to twenty two,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[af_vet_1981]

**Where are Moses and Elijah (not to mention other saints raised from the dead) ?**

Did Jesus tell you to pray to Moses or Elijah?

Where are Moses and Elijah (not to mention other saints raised from the dead) ?

And Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the inhabitants of Gilead, said unto Ahab, As the Lord God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word.

And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.

Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there. But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months. And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth. These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands standing before the God of the earth. And if anyone wants to harm them, fire proceeds from their mouth and devours their enemies. And if anyone wants to harm them, he must be killed in this manner. These have power to shut heaven, so that no rain falls in the days of their prophecy; and they have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to strike the earth with all plagues, as often as they desire. When they finish their testimony, the beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit will make war against them, overcome them, and kill them. And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. Then those from the peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations will see their dead bodies three-and-a-half days, and not allow their dead bodies to be put into graves. And those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them, make merry, and send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth. Now after the three-and-a-half days the breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and great fear fell on those who saw them. And they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, Come up here. And they ascended to heaven in a cloud, and their enemies saw them. In the same hour there was a great earthquake, and a tenth of the city fell. In the earthquake seven thousand people were killed, and the rest were afraid and gave glory to the God of heaven. The second woe is past. Behold, the third woe is coming quickly.
First Kings, Catholic chapter seventeen, Protestant verse one,
Second Kings, Catholic chapter one, Protestant verse ten,
Revelation, Catholic chapter eleven in its entirety, as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[Zuriel]

....**When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.**

It’s pretty simple, Jesus told Mary to accept John as his replacement, and assigned John to look after his mother in his stead.

You need a verse where Jesus Christ and/or his apostles specifically say that Mary is to be ‘spiritual mother’ to believers. The apostles don’t even mention her by name in any of the epistles.

The Lord is wise. He didn’t address her as ‘mother’ while on the cross (or any other time in the scriptures). As it was, He knew people would be trying to make a goddess out of her.

[Zuriel]

..**That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church;**..

You really need that to say: “That thou art Peter, and upon you, the rock, I will build my church.”

Jesus didn’t say that, because he was referring to the revelation Peter had of the Lord. Which Peter comfirms by declaring the Lord as the ‘chief corner stone’. Paul is also witness to that revelation.