Prove it.
The ball is in your court.
You make the accusation, you prove it.
Who is the artist?
Where is it?
What is the year it was made?
Otherwise it's this
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 10/27/2009 12:40:43 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior. |
Posted on 07/25/2009 2:40:04 AM PDT by Quix
The Bible says we cannot know the time of the Lord's return (Matthew 25:13). But the Scriptures make it equally clear that we can know the season of the Lord's return (1 Thessalonians 5:2-6):
"You yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night... But you brethren, are not in darkness, that the day should overtake you like a thief; for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We are not of night or darkness; so then let us not sleep as others do, but let us be alert and sober."
This passage asserts that Jesus is coming like "a thief in the night." But then it proceeds to make it clear that this will be true only for the pagan world and not for believers. His return should be no surprise to those who know Him and His Word, for they have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to give them understanding of the nature of the times.
Furthermore, the Scriptures give us signs to watch for — signs that will signal that Jesus is ready to return. The writer of the Hebrew letter referred to these signs when he proclaimed that believers should encourage one another when they see the day of judgment drawing near (Hebrews 10:25-27). Jesus also referred to the end time signs in His Olivet Discourse, given during the last week of His life (Matthew 24 and Luke 21). Speaking of a whole series of signs which He had given to His disciples, He said, "When you see all these things, recognize that He [the Son of Man — that is, Jesus] is near, right at the door" (Matthew 24:33).
A Personal Experience
Every time I think of "Signs of the Times," I am reminded of a great man of God named Elbert Peak. I had the privilege of participating with him in a Bible prophecy conference held in Orlando, Florida in the early 1990's. Mr. Peak was about 80 years old at the time.
He had been assigned the topic, "The Signs of the Times." He began his presentation by observing, "Sixty years ago when I first started preaching, you had to scratch around like a chicken to find one sign of the Lord's soon return."
He paused for a moment, and then added, "But today there are so many signs I'm no longer looking for them. Instead, I'm listening for a sound — the sound of a trumpet!"
The First Sign
One hundred years ago in 1907 there was not one single, tangible, measurable sign that indicated we were living in the season of the Lord's return. The first to appear was the Balfour Declaration which was issued by the British government on November 2, 1917.
This Declaration was prompted by the fact that during World War I the Turks sided with the Germans. Thus, when Germany lost the war, so did the Turks, and the victorious Allies decided to divide up both the German and Turkish empires.
The Turkish territories, called the Ottoman Empire, contained the ancient homeland of the Jewish people — an area the Romans had named Palestine after the last Jewish revolt in 132-135 AD.
In 1917 Palestine included all of modern day Israel and Jordan. In the scheme the Allies concocted for dividing up the German and Turkish territories, Britain was allotted Palestine, and this is what prompted the Balfour Declaration. In that document, Lord Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary, declared that it was the intention of the British government to establish in Palestine "a national home for the Jewish people."
The leading Evangelical in England at the time was F. B. Meyer. He immediately recognized the prophetic significance of the Declaration, for he was well aware that the Scriptures prophesy that the Jewish people will be regathered to their homeland in unbelief right before the return of the Messiah (Isaiah 11:11-12).
Meyer sent out a letter to the Evangelical leaders of England asking them to gather in London in December to discuss the prophetic implications of the Balfour Declaration. In that letter, he stated, "The signs of the times point toward the close of the time of the Gentiles... and the return of Jesus can be expected any moment."
Before Meyer's meeting could be convened, another momentous event occurred. On December 11, 1917 General Edmund Allenby liberated the city of Jerusalem from 400 years of Turkish rule.
There is no doubt that these events in 1917 marked the beginning of the end times because they led to the worldwide regathering of the Jewish people to their homeland and the reestablishment of their state.
Since 1917
Since the time of the Balfour Declaration, we have witnessed throughout the 20th Century the appearance of sign after sign pointing to the Lord's soon return. There are so many of these signs today, in fact, that one would have to be either biblically illiterate or spiritually blind not to realize that we are living on borrowed time.
I have personally been searching the Bible for years in an effort to identify all the signs, and it has not been an easy task to get a hold on them. That's because there are so many of them, both in the Old and New Testaments.
I have found that the best way to deal with them is to put them in categories, and in doing that, I have come up with six categories of end time signs. We will explore these catetories beginning in Part 2 of this series.
Yes, Rome talks out of both sides of its mouth, as we’ve just seen. So was John Paul II wrong?
You seem to be confused. Yes, the Church is commonly called the Bride of Christ. The Song of Solomon has frequently been read typologically, as referring to both the marriage between Christ and the individual soul, and the marriage between Christ and His Church, spoken of by St. Paul.
I don’t recall St. Paul calling the Church the Bride of the Holy Ghost. But Mary can, in a sense, be called the Bride of the Holy Ghost since the Holy Ghost came to her and that was how she conceived Jesus, according to the Gospel accounts.
Similarly, Mary suffered when Jesus was on the Cross. Not by being on the cross herself, but because His suffering was like a sword piercing her heart, as Simeon prophesied when Jesus was presented at the Temple as a baby. Milton, a good Protestant, mentions this in Paradise Lost.
As for that cross, with Mary on the other side, it is not Catholic in spirit. There may have been such a thing shown in a church somewhere, but there’s nothing Catholic about it. Nor have you provided any evidence that it is normally to be found in the Church of Santa Maria Maggiore.
I’m not sure why you are wasting everyone’s time with these silly accusations.
It’s not dogma and therefore not the teachings of the Catholic Church. I can think that are angels flying around my head, it’s not dogma. Padre Pio could say that ravioli is a mainstay in the diet, it’s not dogma. Padre Pio said that women shouldn’t wear pants, Honey that ain’t dogma.
So let me say it again slowly.. I-t i-s n-o-t D-o-g-m-a. There, not so hard.
As for this....>>Please note the lack of any Roman Catholic voices against naming Mary as a “co-redeemer.”<<
The big guy already spoke...
The Pope on Co-redemptrix
“Yet when asked, in a 2000 interview by Peter Seewald contained in the book God and the World, whether the Church would go along with the desire to solemnly define Mary as Co-redemptrix, Ratzinger’s response doesn’t look good. He says that the title Co-redemptrix “departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings” (53). He also says that “for matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language” (54). “
And anyone who says different should be referred to him.
So have a little fit and keep quoting those silly websites, but the Pope gave the word and we’re all down wit dat.
And anyone who isn’t Catholic, what do you (plural) care anyway? We know what we are talking about.
Mary’s assent to be the Mother of Christ (2nd person of the Trinity, ie God) makes her the Mother of God. As God is our Father, (see the prayer, “Our Father) so she is our Mother in spirit and in truth. She ever points us to Christ her Son and says, “Do whatever He tells you.” So she aids, in pointing us to Him.
The priest who taught me the initial essentials of the Gospels is my spiritual father. The nun who worked with me when I volunteered at my childrens’ school is my spiritual sister. The nurse nuns I worked with at the hospital are also my spiritual sisters.
Anyone who offends them, offends me. Nevertheless, following Mary’s example, I point them to Christ and say with her, “Do whatever He tells you.” I sincerely doubt He tells you to mock His mother.
How about JPII? Just another muddle-headed pope who kisses Korans and deifies Mary?
Prove it.
The ball is in your court.
You make the accusation, you prove it.
Who is the artist?
Where is it?
What is the year it was made?
Otherwise it's this
I bookmarked that. I’ll cruise around there tomorrow and PM you.
That would be nice if it worked!
Those statues comport with Rome's teachings. I don't know why you and your husband are so perplexed.
Maybe you and hubby could check out your catechism and assorted pope's teachings...
"Mary suffered and, as it were, nearly died with her suffering Son; for the salvation of mankind she renounced her mother's rights and, as far as it depended on her, offered her Son to placate divine justice; so we may well say that she with Christ redeemed mankind." - - Inter Sodalicia - pope Benedict XV, Inter Sodalicia. 973 By pronouncing her "fiat" at the Annunciation and giving her consent to the Incarnation, Mary was already collaborating with the whole work her Son was to accomplish. She is mother wherever he is Savior and head of the Mystical Body.
We”re all familiar with Roman Catholic apologists who cannot face the truth about their own religion and so they close their eyes and shout “I can’t see a thing!”
Again, how are your quotes untrue?
Great.
Hey, "big guy," read your own catechism and stop preaching heresy.
973 By pronouncing her "fiat" at the Annunciation and giving her consent to the Incarnation, Mary was already collaborating with the whole work her Son was to accomplish. She is mother wherever he is Savior and head of the Mystical Body.
How is that false?
You’re the one pushing Co-Mediatrix here.
Give me that Catechism quote again about Co-Mediatrix.
Mary is no one's "co-redeemer." She was a young, fallible and virginal Jewish girl who was in need of a Savior just as much as you and I.
***But I believe those statues with Mary on the cross with Christ are in Rome and Poland, and not a figment of some gigantic Protestant hoax. ***
I don’t care what you believe. You have made a charge. Now prove it.
>>There are TWO CHURCHES and TWO PHOTOS [convert this document.] , one in Rome and one in Poland. <<
WHERE? Both the City of Rome and the Country of Poland (Lord Love her) are pretty big.
Where are they?
What churches?
Who are the artists?
What is the story behind them?
Why did some anti-Catholic blogger Photoshop a hornet’s nest on the back of a crucifix and try to proclaim that it’s Mary at the Vatican.
Quick, someone call Instapundit! It’s another bad Photoshop with no reference!
***INCREDIBLE Blasphemy, YET AGAIN.
The BLOOD OF JESUS
is the furthest thing one can get from threadbare!***
The Body and Blood of Jesus are our spiritual food, as He teaches us. When you repudiate His teachings, His food and His Church, I’d say that you are left with only the threadbare, indeed. Do you have anything left?
And yet...
Oh I can see the picture.
What I can’t see is the references to WHERE the photo was taken.
Rome is a big place
So is Poland.
Where is this?
I’m not trying to be sarcastic, but what are you talking about?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.