Catholicism vs Protestantism

[garee]

What two masters?

The written law of the fathers (corrupted mankind) law or doctrines of men as to what they must as a law call Sacred Tradition of the fathers. They take that written authority and make the authority of sola scriptura without effect. There losing the DIVINE power of God by which we can beleive as he works in us to make it possible .

Placing the what they Sacred Tradition of men over and above God's tradition. Following that pattern in order to make sola scriptura without effect. , Same kind of law of the fathers found with the Pharisees with Sadaucesss .two sect that had no faith exclusively coming from scripture

Sacred Tradition #80 the fathers bock of the law.

Sacred Tradition

and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."

There is a great parable in regard to mankind trying to serve two masters in Luke 14 that shows that kind of Catholic worldly mindset . Looking for alternative source of faith by what the eyes see. No faith need that comes by hearing God exclusively .

(No man can serve two teaching Masters)

 

[garee]

There interpretations on 1st, 2nd and 3rd beast are spot on,
but their interpretation of the 4th beast is lacking.

1. They make no attempt to match the 10 horns with the historical record of the roman empire.
   
2. They make no attempt to match the 3 uprooted horns with the historical record of the roman empire.
   
3. They go from the Greek Empire, to the Roman empire, leap frogging over the Roman Republic.

Why?
Because their approach to interpretation has changed. It has changed from a historicist approach to a futuristic approach. They jam these two approaches together by their use of the 4th beast. This error in their approach has caused them to gloss over some of the important descriptions of the 4th beast and therefore they have wrongly interpreted what the 4th beast represents.

The correct interpretation for the 4th beast is the Roman Republic, not the Roman Empire.

Once they went off the rails on the interpretation of the 4th beast they continue off the rails with their future predictions of the little horn.

Why Futuristic View is Incorrect:
The bible is not a crystal ball for predicting future historical events. Why? Because the bible works on witness and testimony. The making of future predictions is neither a witness nor a testimony to the biblical prophesies. Instead there is only witness and testimony to the prophesies once they are fulfilled by historical events.


To correct their mistake on the identification of the 4th beast an adherence to the historicist method must be kept.

Prophecy is not seeing future history , as fortune telling as some would restrict it a Nostradamus purpose..

But rather God revealing His will by a work of his faith . It as the tongue of God speaks to many nations (all) revealing it as it is written . . .the things past and present and future. God does not move in time retrains. But by a work of his faith or labor of His love he purifies the hearts of all men beginning with Abel the first martyr

Historicist method ?. . . literalize the signified understanding of parables that use the historical temporal in order to discover the things of faith. Mixing faith our gospel source of rest with the temporal. Making our load lighter

Then the proper 2020 tool for rightly dividing the parables are given to help aid in searching out the spiritual understanding . They could be added to the armor of God. In a way giving a believer night vision.

2 Corinthians 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

 

[Jackson123]

There interpretations on 1st, 2nd and 3rd beast are spot on,
but their interpretation of the 4th beast is lacking.

1. They make no attempt to match the 10 horns with the historical record of the roman empire.
   
2. They make no attempt to match the 3 uprooted horns with the historical record of the roman empire.
   
3. They go from the Greek Empire, to the Roman empire, leap frogging over the Roman Republic.

Why?
Because their approach to interpretation has changed. It has changed from a historicist approach to a futuristic approach. They jam these two approaches together by their use of the 4th beast. This error in their approach has caused them to gloss over some of the important descriptions of the 4th beast and therefore they have wrongly interpreted what the 4th beast represents.

The correct interpretation for the 4th beast is the Roman Republic, not the Roman Empire.

Once they went off the rails on the interpretation of the 4th beast they continue off the rails with their future predictions of the little horn.

Why Futuristic View is Incorrect:
The bible is not a crystal ball for predicting future historical events. Why? Because the bible works on witness and testimony. The making of future predictions is neither a witness nor a testimony to the biblical prophesies. Instead there is only witness and testimony to the prophesies once they are fulfilled by historical events.


To correct their mistake on the identification of the 4th beast an adherence to the historicist method must be kept.

You believe all the story in Daniel 7 had been happen, is that happen after Daniel have vision or before Daniel have vision?

 

[Nebuchadnezzer]

You believe all the story in Daniel 7 had been happen, is that happen after Daniel have vision or before Daniel have vision?

Book of Daniel written before 500 BC.
Just focusing on correct interpretation of 4th beast.
I will make next entry tomorrow.

 

[Jackson123]

Book of Daniel written before 500 BC.
Just focusing on correct interpretation of 4th beast.
I will make next entry tomorrow.

Ok brother I am waiting

 

[Nebuchadnezzer]

Ok brother I am waiting

Neo-babylonian empire (1st beast)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Babylonian_Empire
626 to 539 BC

was conquered by medo persian empire (2nd beast).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire
550 – 330 BC

Which was conquered by Alexander the Great's Greek empire (3rd beast)
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/alexander.htm

Greece (3rd beast) then split into 4 kingdoms
https://www.wdl.org/en/item/11739/

and began being conquered by Roman Republic (4th beast with 10 horns).
https://www.ducksters.com/history/ancient_greece/decline_and_fall_of_ancient_greece.php
battle of Corinth 146 BC

The Roman Republic (4th beast with 10 horns) then morphed into Roman Empire (4th beast with little horn) and completed the conquest of the Greek kingdoms
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/article/romes-transition-republic-empire/

So you have three distinct and separate empires (beasts 1, 2, and 3) and then the 4th empire (beast) is its own (kingdom) beast, but this kingdom (beast) existed as two different entities, first a beast lead by many horns (existed as a republic), and then it became a beast led by just one horn (became an empire).

The historical record matches perfectly with Daniel 7s biblical record of his visions. One empire (beast) flows right into the next empire (beast) leaving no gaps in the timeline.

Strictly following the historicist interpretation every detail of the beasts from daniel's vision align with the historical record. This creates a witness of one to the other and leaves no missing gaps.

Next post I will match each detail of the 4th beast to roman republic history.

 

[Dan_473]

I am not interprate in letter, but I compare with what Jesus say
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

that's a good idea!
at the same time, I think it's good to remember that Jesus is talking about believing, and Paul is talking about being zealous.

It is my personal believe that Jesus never lie

we agree there!

Jesus say they aren't believe Moses, don't believe Jesus, why they have zeal for true God.

I would say it's because zeal and belief are two different things.

And Paul also say

10 Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

I don't think a man have zeal to God but not submit to God

again, I believe you are confusing zeal with submission.

I think we may have reached a point where we just have to agree to disagree about Romans 10:2.

so moving on to another verse
Matthew 15:7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, 8 'These people draw near to me with their mouth, and honor me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 And in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine rules made by men.'"

notice the phrase in the last verse
"in vain do they worship me".

this verse says that the Israelites alive during Isaiah's time were worshipping God, but in vain.
would you agree with that?

 

[Dan_473]

The Church that is in communion with the successor of the See of Peter.
That is the Church the Scriptures document and lives up to it's mission as the primary obstacle to the evil forces in the world that attack Faith in Christ.

kind of like
the Gates of hell shall not prevail against it?

 

[Dan_473]

There is no alternative to the living abiding word of God as it is written (sola scriptura)

hi!
in your view, what were Christians to do during the long periods of history when Bibles were not easily available?

 

[Jackson123]

that's a good idea!
at the same time, I think it's good to remember that Jesus is talking about believing, and Paul is talking about being zealous.


we agree there!


I would say it's because zeal and belief are two different things.


again, I believe you are confusing zeal with submission.

I think we may have reached a point where we just have to agree to disagree about Romans 10:2.

so moving on to another verse
Matthew 15:7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, 8 'These people draw near to me with their mouth, and honor me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 And in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine rules made by men.'"

notice the phrase in the last verse
"in vain do they worship me".

this verse says that the Israelites alive during Isaiah's time were worshipping God, but in vain.
would you agree with that?

Like I say
Why people have a zeal to real God but not submit to?

1. I don't agree with you opinion If there are people have zeal to God but not worship god

2. I don't believe there is people don't believe in God but have zeal to God.

My brother, I am Sorry but I convince you try to make an argument that only have one purpose. To defend catholic. And for that you ignore the Honesty

 

[Dan_473]

Like I say
Why people have a zeal to real God but not submit to?

1. I don't agree with you opinion If there are people have zeal to God but not worship god

2. I don't believe there is people don't believe in God but have zeal to God.

My brother, I am Sorry but I convince you try to make an argument that only have one purpose. To defend catholic. And for that you ignore the Honesty

Like I say
Why people have a zeal to real God but not submit to?

because zeal and submission are two different things.

1. I don't agree with you opinion If there are people have zeal to God but not worship god

I believe the Bible teaches that Jews have a zeal for God, and that they worship God.

clearly they don't worship God in spirit and in truth!

2. I don't believe there is people don't believe in God but have zeal to God.

that is your choice.

the Bible teaches that Jews have a zeal for God.

and the Bible teaches that it is possible to worship something you don't know.

My brother, I am Sorry but I convince you try to make an argument that only have one purpose. To defend catholic. And for that you ignore the Honesty

then you are convinced of something that is not true, my brother.

 

[Jackson123]

Neo-babylonian empire (1st beast)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Babylonian_Empire
626 to 539 BC

was conquered by medo persian empire (2nd beast).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire
550 – 330 BC

Which was conquered by Alexander the Great's Greek empire (3rd beast)
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/alexander.htm

Greece (3rd beast) then split into 4 kingdoms
https://www.wdl.org/en/item/11739/

and began being conquered by Roman Republic (4th beast with 10 horns).
https://www.ducksters.com/history/ancient_greece/decline_and_fall_of_ancient_greece.php
battle of Corinth 146 BC

The Roman Republic (4th beast with 10 horns) then morphed into Roman Empire (4th beast with little horn) and completed the conquest of the Greek kingdoms
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/article/romes-transition-republic-empire/

So you have three distinct and separate empires (beasts 1, 2, and 3) and then the 4th empire (beast) is its own (kingdom) beast, but this kingdom (beast) existed as two different entities, first a beast lead by many horns (existed as a republic), and then it became a beast led by just one horn (became an empire).

The historical record matches perfectly with Daniel 7s biblical record of his visions. One empire (beast) flows right into the next empire (beast) leaving no gaps in the timeline.

Strictly following the historicist interpretation every detail of the beasts from daniel's vision align with the historical record. This creates a witness of one to the other and leaves no missing gaps.

Next post I will match each detail of the 4th beast to roman republic history.

You say oN post 1885 that Daniel wrote that book before 500 bc
Than in this post you say that some of what he wrote happen after 500 bc, so Daniel wrote about the future

 

[Nebuchadnezzer]

You say oN post 1885 that Daniel wrote that book before 500 bc
Than in this post you say that some of what he wrote happen after 500 bc, so Daniel wrote about the future

Jewish Captivity formally ended in Babylon in 538 BC. Daniel was in Babylonian Capvitiy when he had these visions so they occured earlier than 538 BC. So yes, most or all of what is in Daniel 7 is future prophesy. But only God foreknew the meanings of the vision. God gave Daniel the vision. Daniel only writes down the vision, but he did not understand it. For if he had understood it he would have told us plainly its meaning. But as we see he did not.

 

[Benadam]

The written law of the fathers (corrupted mankind) law or doctrines of men as to what they must as a law call Sacred Tradition of the fathers. They take that written authority and make the authority of sola scriptura without effect. There losing the DIVINE power of God by which we can beleive as he works in us to make it possible .

Placing the what they Sacred Tradition of men over and above God's tradition. Following that pattern in order to make sola scriptura without effect. , Same kind of law of the fathers found with the Pharisees with Sadaucesss .two sect that had no faith exclusively coming from scripture

Sacred Tradition #80 the fathers bock of the law.



There is a great parable in regard to mankind trying to serve two masters in Luke 14 that shows that kind of Catholic worldly mindset . Looking for alternative source of faith by what the eyes see. No faith need that comes by hearing God exclusively .

(No man can serve two teaching Masters)

Do you understand what distinguishes the traditions of God from the traditions of men? What Jesus was condemning? He wasn't condemning tradition of either men or God.

 

[Benadam]

kind of like
the Gates of hell shall not prevail against it?

Now that you mention it....yeah just like

 

[Benadam]

then it became a beast led by just one horn (became an empire).

Could that be Alexander the Great and Antiochus Epiphanies?

 

[Nebuchadnezzer]

Could that be Alexander the Great and Antiochus Epiphanies?

Alexander the great was the the third beast but then he died suddenly and his four generals (4 heads in Daniel 7 or four horns in Daniel 8) divided his empire into four kingdoms, This got questions gives great interpretation of this. they give commentary and interpretation of all Daniel 11. But the further they go through you can see at some point they get tripped up.
Definitely worth a read though. I am in the process of analyzing it. Could take me months or even years, a little here, a little there.
https://www.gotquestions.org/King-of-the-South.html


Daniel 11 starts with a mighty Greek king whose kingdom will be scattered to the four winds. All agree that this is Alexander the Great. He died in 323 BC during the prime of life, and his empire was divided among his generals who claimed parts for themselves. One of these generals, Ptolemy, took an area to the south of Israel that included Egypt. Another general, Seleucis, took control of an area to the north of Israel that included Syria. Daniel 11 covers hundreds of years, so the kings of the north and south are not single individuals, but rather the rulers of the Ptolemaic dynasty (headquartered in Egypt) and the Seleucid dynasty (headquartered in Syria). These two dynasties were hostile toward each other, and Israel was literally caught in the middle. The king of the South is the Greek king of Egypt, of the Ptolemaic dynasty.

 

[Dan_473]

Now that you mention it....yeah just like

(general question for anyone)

Matthew 5:14 You are the light of the world. A city located on a hill can't be hidden.

so... I'm not Catholic, but I don't think I'm anti-catholic, either.

assuming that Jesus is saying that Christians are the light of the world,
and
continuing in the same line of thinking as the church always being strong,
looking back over history, where was the city set on a hill in, say, 300 ad to 1300 ad?

as far as I can tell, it can't be modern protestantism, since that wasn't visible during those years.

 

[Dan_473]

say, @Jackson123 my brother,

did you want to respond to this question?

so moving on to another verse
Matthew 15:7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, 8 'These people draw near to me with their mouth, and honor me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 And in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine rules made by men.'"

notice the phrase in the last verse
"in vain do they worship me".

this verse says that the Israelites alive during Isaiah's time were worshipping God, but in vain.
would you agree with that?

 

[Jackson123]

say, @Jackson123 my brother,

did you want to respond to this question?

9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

We have to calculate the end result, not interprate letter by letter.
They think they do.

What is worship God?
Worship God is follow His command


The out come is they aren't worship God


One of the definition of worship that I think fit to God definition is

3: extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem