ScoutingTheNarrowRoad

The Eucharist is the entire God-man. Body blood soul and divinity. You can not divide the God-man within the Eucharist. Every smallest speck that still appears as bread or wine is Him in His entirety. And if that sounds absurd to you, remember that God was even smaller than that when He was an embryo in Mary’s womb.

Lucifer and Satan are the same being Apparently according to the Church Fathers and exorcists it seems that God might have punished Lucifer’s attempt to usurp God, who is a Trinity, by trifucating his personality. This comes partly from Jesus implying that Beelzebub and Satan are the same. And we of course know that Lucifer is Satan. Satan is called the father of lies, so contrasts God the Father. Lucifer means lightbearer which is obviously in contrast to God the Son who is the light of the world. Beelzebub means the “lord of the flies”. Considering that the Holy Spirit appears as the form of a dove, you can see how this apes Him.

The woman of Revelation 12 as Eve: 1. Look at the prophecy in Genesis 3:15 and compare with the content of Revelation 12. 2. Jesus is a descendant from Eve. 3. All Christians are a descendant from Eve. 4. Eve is thrown out of the garden into the comparative wilderness. How Eve fails to be Rev 12 woman: 1. The devil gets her. 2. Eve is in the comparative wilderness outside the garden for a lot longer than 3 and a half years. And the woman is out there to escape the devil whereas Eve is out there with the devil. 3. All non-Christians are descended from Eve as well. The woman of Revelation 12 as Israel: 1. Crown of 12 stars and wearing sun and standing on moon. 2. Jesus is a descendant and born in Israel. 3. Israel goes into the wilderness. 4. When Israel is understood to morph into the Church, the other offspring are all the Christians. How Israel fails to be Rev 11 woman: 1. Israel is never in the wilderness for a period of 3.5 years. 40 years is the large symbolic period they are there. 2. Israel is very much wounded by the devil even while they are in the wilderness. 3. If Israel is not understood to morph into the Church, then the other offspring don’t make sense because Christians are both Jew and Gentile. 4. It makes no sense that the devil goes against the other offspring after not being able to touch the Church if the people of the Church comprise it. He would have already been waging war on the people. The woman of Revelation 12 as the Church: 1. Everything in Israel’s section but 2. 2. The Church is in the “wilderness” during persecution. How the Church fails to be Rev 11 woman: 1. Everything in Israel’s section but 2 and 3 2. The Church doesn’t give birth to Christ. Christ births the Church. The woman of Revelation 12 as Mary: 1. Crown of 12 stars and wearing sun and standing on moon. Since Mary is Jesus’s only blood parent, and since Jesus is the fulfillment of having the bloodlines of Israel, Mary must too have the bloodline of all of Israel in her to the same degree. Additionally, Jesus is the Davidic heir. All of the Davidic heirs (with very few exceptions) took their mothers as queen. 2. She gives birth to Jesus. She thus becomes part of the fulfillment of the Genesis prophecy. 3. Mary is called “woman” by Jesus continually. Both attributing her to the Genesis prophecy and the future work of Revelation. 4. After the birth she and the rest of the Holy Family fly into Egypt for a period that is very likely 3.5 years. 5. After the Resurrection and Ascension, she flys from the persecution that not only targets all Christians, but especially her because she is His mother. 6. The devil not being able to touch her is in line with her being sinless. A fact that can be gleaned elsewhere in scripture but would be too long to explicate here. 7. Mary is the mother of all Christians. As shadowed by when Jesus gives her to John and John to her. When we are grafted into Christ, we become adoptive sons and daughters of the Father. So similarly we become so of His mother.

That’s not our teaching. The Apostles left a deposit of faith, both written in Scripture, and via their oral word. Which is why Paul says to “hold fast to the traditions we taught you whether by word of mouth or by letter” The oral part of that deposit of faith continued onward in time until it is written down by the Apostle’s closest successors: the Church Fathers They are not infallible on their own, but their collective consensus points to that which was left by the Apostles And you may think this use of oral tradition might be something pulled out of thin air, but the Jews also used this. A whole prophecy said to be fulfilled in the New Testament, “He shall be called a Nazarene,” is found nowhere in the Old Testament. Similarly, 1 Corinthians tells us the rock moved with the Israelites, but the Old Testament never records it moving with them.

No I am not merely landing on Catholicism from one off words. I am landing on Catholicism because the arguments and theology are Catholic. Lol no the Didache and Clement are not a problem. But first, which Clement? The Pope or Celement of Alexandria? Pope Clement I: Pope Clement I’s writing very clearly shows the Bishop of Rome’s authority as his exclamations are given as authoritative. In addition other sources penned at the same time (such as the Shepard of Hermas) directly talk about his role. “Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty” (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]). He also speaks about Apostolic Succession. “Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]). Not much else can be gleaned since he only wrote one surviving letter. Clement of Alexandria: Eucharist “Eat my flesh, he says, and drink my blood (John 6:53-5). Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and he offers his flesh and pours forth his blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O, amazing mystery! We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving him if we can, to hide him within; and that, enshrining the Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.” Salvation through the Church "Just as God's will is creation and is called 'the world' so His intention is the salvation of men, and it is called 'the Church.'" (The Instructor 1:6) Purgatory “If in this life there are so many ways for purification and repentance, how much more should there be after death! The purification of souls, when separated from the body, will be easier. We can set no limits to the agency of the Redeemer; to redeem, to rescue, to discipline, is his work, and so will he continue to operate after this life.” Didache: The Didache has the general structure of the Liturgy within it be it for Western Rite or Eastern Rite. Far from a problem, it points to Catholicism (or Orthodoxy) to be true.

There is no emergency that necessitates a relatively small religious order to have their own bishops Many religious orders exist without their own bishops

Purgatory: 1 Cor 3:11-15 Mary and the other Saints offering our prayers to God: Rev 5:8 Rosary: Our Father (Matt 6:9-13) Hail Mary (Luke 1:28, Luke 1:42) Glory Be (giving glory to the Trinity) Sinless Mary: Luke 1:28, New Ark of the Covenant typology Perpetual Virginity: Luke 1:34, John 19:26-27 Sacraments: Baptism (I don’t think I need to cite verses for this one at least) Eucharist (the Last Supper accounts + John 6 + 1 Cor 11:23-29, 1 Cor 10:16) Confirmation (Pentecost, Acts 8:14-17) Anointing of the Sick (James 5:14-15, Mark 6:12-13) Confession (John 20:21-24) Marriage (Ephesians 5:31-33, Wedding at Cana, Genesis) Holy Orders (Numbers 27:18-20, Numbers 8:10-11, Acts 6:5-6, 1 Timothy 4:14, 2 Timothy 1:6) Pope: Isaiah 22:20-22(context for Matthew), Matthew 16:18-19, Luke 22:31-32, John 21:15-17 Priests absolving sins: John 20:21-24 Infant Baptism: every verse that says whole households were Baptized, Col. 2:11-12(Baptism is the new circumcision), Luke 18:15-17, Acts 2:38-39

The Duterocanon was a part of the canon since at least 382 AD at the Council of Rome There’s an argument it might have been earlier at the Council of Nicea though, because we know Judith was proclaimed to be part of the canon at Nicea In every council since that touched the topic they affirmed the Duterocanon as part of the Bible Bibles would from then on include the Duterocanon. The Council of Florence, which was even just a little before the “Reformation”, re-affirmed the canon. So then what did the Council of Trent do that made it so special? Trent made it binding on the faithful as an article of faith, as in, if you willingly believe in another canon you are no longer keeping the faith.

Rachel I don’t know why he’s doing this because we really did not need to get into the weeds in such a way that it can confuse Protestants, but for the sake of communicating his point clearly: Prior to modernity, the English word worship actually also solely meant “to honor” much like “venerate” You can kind of see it in the word itself because it evolved from a compound word of “worth-ship”. This definition is still seen in things like the British calling their judges “your worship” In Catholic literature, because it is so old, you will often see “worship” used as “to honor” This is even true from originally Latin texts because there was a similar problem in the Latin language, so distinctions were made: Latria, Dulia, and Hyperdulia There’s also a similar limitation in Hebrew but that’s not necessary to get into In Greek, the original language of the NT, there’s several words attributed as “worship(honor)” one of those which is solely for God being Lateria, which is where Latria in Latin comes from. In English the closest equivalent to Latria is “adoration”

>Unproven story >It is filmed youtu.be/ZCzdyAdpjrA?si=uzv1…

You should read more of both authors Augustine Sermons 234, 2 (ca. AD 400): The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize Him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body. Explanations of the Psalms (ca. 400) 33,1,10: “And he was carried in his own hands.” But, brethren, how is it possible for a man to do this? Who can understand it? Who is it that is carried in his own hands? A man can be carried in the hands of another; but no one can be carried in his own hands. How this should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. For Christ was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body, He said: “This is My Body.” For He carried that Body in His hands. John Chrysostom "Since Jesus Christ, the Divine Word, says: 'This is My body', let us believe His words and give our assent to them; let us behold His body with the eyes of our mind, for Christ does not show Himself to us in a sensible way, but under sensible things He gives us all that is intelligible (in other words, that we can perceive with our mind only). He has acted in like manner in baptism, for therein He bestows a gift through a sensible thing, that is, water; by means of the water there is effected something intelligible, the spiritual regeneration and renovation. For, if thou were incorporeal (that is, hadst not a body), He would have given thee purely incorporeal gifts; but, since in thee thy soul dwells in thy body, He gives thee intelligible things in a sensible (or material) envelope. How many among you now say: 'Oh, if I could only behold His form, His features, His clothing, His shoes!' Behold now thou see Him, thou touch Him, thou eat Him! And thou desire indeed to see His garments; and He grants thee not only to see Him, but also to eat Him, to touch Him, to receive Him within thee." "Therefore, let no one approach (the Holy Eucharist) with disgust or with indifference, but let all do so inflamed with love, fervor and eagerness. For, if the Jews ate the paschal lamb in haste, already shod and holding staves in their hands, how much more does it behoove thee to be diligent. They, indeed, were about to depart for Palestine, and were, therefore, attired as travelers; but thou must journey to heaven. Wherefore, thou should in all things be watchful, for not a small punishment is inflicted on those who receive unworthily. Consider how indignant thou art against the traitor Judas and those who crucified Jesus. Beware, therefore, lest thou be guilty of the body and blood of Christ. They killed His most holy body, but thou receive Him in a sinful soul after He has loaded thee with so many benefits. … He deigns to unite Himself intimately to us, and to make us His body, not only in faith, but in reality. How pure, then, should not he be who partakes of so great a sacrifice? And should not the hand which touches His flesh (as was the custom in receiving Communion in the early Church), be more pure and splendid than the sun's rays? And the mouth which is filled with the spiritual fire (of Christ's love) and the tongue which is moistened with that most precious blood? Reflect on the great honor conferred on thee, on the magnificent feast thou enjoy. What the angels behold with awe, and venture not to gaze upon on account of its dazzling brilliancy, is what we feed upon, what we are united to; thus do we become one body, one flesh with Christ. Who will narrate the powers of God and proclaim all His praises? What shepherd feeds his sheep with his own blood? And what do I say, a shepherd? Many mothers, after the pains of childbirth, entrust their children to others to be nursed. But Christ did not suffer this, for He feeds us with His own blood and most intimately unites us to Himself."

No Protestant position on the Bible canon can answer all of these questions: 1. Where did the canon list come from? Especially given the fact that people couldn’t agree on the canon list(mostly for the OT). 2. What authority was able to proclaim if a canon list was 100% accurate? 3. If there is no such authority, why do you have any trust at all in the canon list? (If your answer to this is the Holy Spirit guiding the body of believers into all truth, see #5) 4. Why did the canon list from 328AD to the time of Martin Luther include the Duterocanon? 5. If your trust is in the Holy Spirit to guide the body of believers into the truth, then why was the Duterocanon what the body of believers thought was scripture for over a thousand years? 6. Luther’s argument for ridding the Duterocanon was that the Jews didn’t have it in their canon. Yet the Jews didn’t have a unified canon at the time. Invalidating his justification. What sort of justification can you offer for not including the books now?

We Catholics have pre-Ocarina of Time Zelda:

Evidence for the Shroud: 1. The image is a photnegative 2. The image encodes 3D information like a depth map on a modern computer 3. The image is only 200 nanometers deep into the fibers (a human hair is 100,000 nanometers) 4. No pigment was used 5. No burning was used 6. The latest dating was that the Shroud was dated to 2000 years ago

If Jesus is God, anything in relation to Jesus is also in relation to God. So the foster father of Jesus is the foster father of God. The executioners of Jesus are the executioners of God. The Church Jesus founded is the Church God founded. Jesus died on the Cross so God died on the Cross. And the Mother of Jesus, who is also called “Mother of my Lord” by Elizabeth, is the Mother of God.

My brother in Christ, you haven’t read the Didache, or haven’t understood it, and it shows. It literally outlines general parts of the Liturgy that both Western and Eastern Rites follow to this day. Catholics cite it all the time. Here’s some highlights of very Catholic things: Baptism by pouring on the head is acceptable, and holy water(uses the term living water) is a thing. “Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.” —— Only Baptized may eat the Eucharist: “But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs. Matthew 7:6” —— I won’t paste the full thing but Chapter 10. Prayer After Communion contains an outline and many many phrases that make it into the modern liturgies’ Prayers After Communion. —— Confession, importance of confession before the Eucharist, and the celebration of the Eucharist as a sacrifice: “But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.” —— Bishops and Deacons “Therefore, appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, 1 Timothy 3:4 and truthful and proven; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Despise them not therefore, for they are your honoured ones, together with the prophets and teachers. And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in the Gospel; Matthew 18:15-17”

Now do this:

Okay let’s go with that, that’s a fair analysis for that part. I don’t think I mentioned this here yet, but we Catholics also say that the woman is symbolizing Israel here as well. But it’s symbolizing multiple archetypes here at once. You have Israel, the Church, Eve, and ultimately Mary. The first three fit some but not all the symbolism, Mary is the only one who fits all of it as a singular being(more on that later). The Church because of the other children being those who follow Christ’s commands and because of the persecution against the Church. This is probably a good time to discuss the crown. 12 is a number in the Bible symbolizing completeness and/or God’s people, the tribes of Israel are 12, the Apostles are 12. The Church being God’s people and also even more fully spanning the whole of the Earth as the universal Church fits this symbolism. Also because of inheriting from Israel as you touched on. However it falters in two key areas: The Church doesn’t give birth to Christ, it’s the other way around. The flight into the wilderness, which I’ll cover below Israel to address that. Israel obviously because of all the reasons you know. And I’ll give you what we just discussed. But another thing to then ask is, how does Israel fit into the escape of the woman into the wilderness after Christ dies? You could say that it’s the Church as the continuation of Israel except then this falls apart: The woman is protected from the dragon and “Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring” But if the woman is the Church as the continuation of Israel then wouldn’t the first attack have already been upon “those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus”? Wouldn’t have those of us in the Church, the body of Christ, been included in that safety in the wilderness? Though it’s not a linearly flowing passage of the Bible by any stretch it doesn’t mesh well to have two waves of attacks against what is effectively the same body when the attacks are distinguished and the children aren’t mentioned to have any sort of similar refuge. Now it could and also does emphasize the fact the Church is also an institution on top of being those in the body of Christ but it doesn’t make sense to be able to attack the Church as the institution without also attacking the members of the body at the same time. Eve because of the prophecy given in the Garden: “I will put emnity between you and the woman, between your offspring and hers” and because all of humanity, including Christ and those who follow Him, and also Israel, comes from Eve. Eve also fits the crown of 12 stars because all the nations come from her. However Eve doesn’t fit the flight into the wilderness, except in the kind of similarity of leaving the garden. But in that case she wasn’t kept from the devil and sin, the devil literally was able to get at her in the garden before that which is a far cry from the all-encompassing protection the woman seems to have. And then there’s Mary: 1. Obviously the big thing is the woman gives birth to Christ. That’s clearly pointing to Mary. 2. Mary fled into the wilderness(Egypt) to escape Herod after giving birth to Christ. There’s also the time of persecution of all Christians after Jesus’ Ascension which of course would have included Mary. 3. Mary is the mother of all those who follow Christ. How are we sons and daughters of the Father? Through adoption by being grafted onto Christ. Well that same adoption process would then make Mary our mother. Also the “beloved disciple”(John) is given Mary as his mother when Jesus is on the Cross. Foreshadowing us, who are beloved disciples, being given her as a mother too. (1/2) (If you can believe it, I went over the long tweet limit so finishing up below)