Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $52,930
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 62%!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by daniel1212

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • A Blot On The Jewish People

    08/20/2014 5:49:49 AM PDT · 146 of 148
    daniel1212 to roamer_1

    Bless God for your help, and see above for more links which may be of good use.

  • A Blot On The Jewish People

    08/20/2014 5:32:54 AM PDT · 145 of 148
    daniel1212 to Greetings_Puny_Humans

    Hope they help. Holding is not a full fundamentalist and i disagree with him on some things, but he can do a good job defending faith against the extensive and varied attacks, which is not easy.

    Here are some other sites and pages i have collected over the years: Issues That Make Christians Squirm! / (Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?) Atheism’s Body Count (responses Alleged Bible contradictions) (responses to Alleged Bible contradictions)

    Biblical Prophecies in the Light of History By Jim And Judy Stocker

  • A Blot On The Jewish People

    08/20/2014 4:56:53 AM PDT · 144 of 148
    daniel1212 to boatbums
    Modern day Israel has no better friend than Christians in the world. It has ALWAYS been the atheistic and/or pagan nations that have come up against them. I've got to say I am SHOCKED that this Freeper has been here since 2004 - how did that happen???!!!

    You cannot be a real Christian and not be a conservative in this age, but you can be a conservative in most ways and not be a Christian.

    He is a strong anti-Semite who sees the Christian faith as that, and uncritically latches onto arguments against Christ in trying to justify his antagonism, and apparently posted only a few articles during that time, many promoting his blogging or sometimes a book, but not the religious ones or as identifying himself as the author, nor on his home page here.

    He only admitted this when exposed by Godzilla, while his specious copycat polemic is just another addition to those who seek to justify the denial of Christ, who reality is testified to beyond historical evidence, but by the effects caused in heart and life when and insofar as one trusts and obeys. Thanks be to God.

  • A Blot On The Jewish People

    08/19/2014 6:48:39 PM PDT · 129 of 148
    daniel1212 to Godzilla; redleghunter; roamer_1; Greetings_Puny_Humans
    or perhaps mr. idov, you are the author of the article and as such are an atheist and anti-semite author of many books as well

    Which he at least admitted, though denying the atheist and anti-semite aspect. Good job on outing this covert operative (how did you know?), and for the many others who helped to challenge and refute his specious polemics, all to willingly swallowed by those who cry, "We will not have this man to reign over us." (Luke 19:14)

    May all of me want and see Him rule over me always.

  • A Blot On The Jewish People

    08/19/2014 6:36:12 PM PDT · 124 of 148
    daniel1212 to Jim Robinson
    well, bye

    He certainly was asking for it. But your patience enabled him to be challenged and his sophistry exposed, thank God.

  • A Blot On The Jewish People

    08/19/2014 6:31:36 PM PDT · 122 of 148
    daniel1212 to redleghunter
    So he is in a minority of one who argued the authenticity of the Dead Sea scrolls.

    Not only, but he denied they were preChristian. Yet we are told (#21) "the only time there were known Jewish Christians in Israel was in the period between 120 and 135." Thus the DSS came after the destruction of the Temple! But the clandestine contender is gone so he escapes answering this.

  • A Blot On The Jewish People

    08/19/2014 6:31:27 PM PDT · 121 of 148
    daniel1212 to idov; redleghunter; Godzilla; roamer_1; Greetings_Puny_Humans
    I am not looking for an argument.

    Indeed, you want the freedom to scornfully refer to "the numskulls translated the Torah," and to assert the writer of the book of Daniel was a con artist, and to relegate Christianity to a Greek myth and a “social disease,” and Christians as being “parasites,” “cancer,” and to proudly boast "I am what you call a heretic. They don’t burn us today, sorry." All on an officially pro-God forum, as in Judeo-Christian. But which arrogance befits your attitude.

    The Indians were coming in to Egypt for centuries. A cult developed around Yeshu, a name for Krishna. His number two was Pet.Ra, same kind of name as Potiphe.Ra, related to the sun god Ra, and he was the gatekeeper of the Egyptian heaven. He got the same position in the new cult. The mother’s name was either Maya, mother of Buddha, or Meri, a common Egyptian name. When Greeks got hold of the myth they gave her a Latin name Maria, cognate of Marius. Petra in Greek is feminine so that was flipped that to Petros. The first the Jews heard about this myth was circa 120. Meir, the sage, read the book in Greek. He called it the Aven Gilyon, “an edition of inquity.” But they knew the god in the myth with the Greek name by his original Hindi name and it was never changed.

    If you are not looking for an argument then do not post such propaganda, which has about as much credibility as Mormonic doctrine, and swallowed by you. Such copycat contrivances abound and have been refuted, but they are latched onto by many who seek some way to deny the Lord Jesus who will be their savior or judge.

    Many sources can be provided, but here i will stay on one site that deals with such copycat assertions. See here on Were Bible stories and characters stolen from pagan myths? >

    And here on Are Jesus and Krishna Parallels?

    And Did Nazareth Exist? --

    And here on Did Jesus exist ?

    And The Book of Daniel Defended

    For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (2 Peter 1:16)

  • A Blot On The Jewish People

    08/19/2014 5:43:05 PM PDT · 120 of 148
    daniel1212 to boycott
    No credible scholar denies the historicity of Jesus. May as well deny all history if you deny the life of Jesus because nothing in ancient history is more documented than the life of Jesus Christ.

    And who yet shows Himself alive in the hearts and lives of those who trust and obey Him! To God be the glory. Plenty of video testimonies here .

  • A Blot On The Jewish People

    08/19/2014 7:24:11 AM PDT · 8 of 148
    daniel1212 to idov; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; Greetings_Puny_Humans
    Only in Israel and India does Jesus go by a Hindi name, Yeshu, which in Egypt was applied to Krishna.

    Oh. That's a new one on me. But maybe, as this writer, dealing with the claim that "Iesous" or "Jesus" is a pagan corruption, states, you can "simply take "Yahshua" and extricate "Ahshu" from it and now we have a name which is derived directly from that of the Hindu goddess Shiva and Ya is the heathen god of Ebla. And that cloud passing overhead looks like a poodle, therefore it is a poodle."

    Are you saying His original name was Yeshu versus 'Yehoshua/"Yeshua'" or that these come from Yeshu from India? And that Yehoshua was not a common name in the time of the Second Temple?

    And this is something you have objectively researched and thus hold that this means Yehoshua/"Yeshua did not exist, but that the story of Christ "came from straight from Egyptian mythology" as your author (unless you are him) contends? (

    And you are not looking for an argument on religion??? -

  • Microsoft pulls Windows 8.1 updates, which can cause blue screens of death, restart loops

    08/19/2014 5:02:08 AM PDT · 27 of 55
    daniel1212 to CARDINALRULES
    My netbook has XP and the desktop has 7 so that is what I am used to using.

    As another poster pointed you to, install Classic Shel l. Freeware with no strings

    After, r. click on the start button and choose settings to customize.

    If you ever get stuck in the "Metro" screen, just hold down the Windows key and tap the d key and let go, or click on Desktop.

    Also, here are some shortcuts to save navigating. Just paste in the Run command (Windows key and r) C:\Windows\System32\appwiz.cpl (uninstall) C:\Windows\System32\rstrui.exe (system restore)

    powercfg.cpl (Power plans)

    devmgmt.msc (Device manager)

    diskmgmt.msc (Disk manager)

    eventvwr.msc (event viewer)

    services.msc (Services)

    C:\Windows\SysWOW64\wuapp.exe (Windows update)

    I use AutoHotKey which you can make simple scripts to hot key functions using such info as the above (hot key ::Run C:\Windows\System32\appwiz.cpl)

  • A Blot On The Jewish People

    08/19/2014 4:24:54 AM PDT · 4 of 148
    daniel1212 to KingLudd; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    The article lacks any documentation, but that is the writers style. He also denies the Historicity of Jesus Christ, contrary to virtually all modern scholars of antiquity, as well as Nazareth (contra ).
  • The Man Who Survived Ebola: 'We Thought It Was Going to Kill Me'

    08/18/2014 5:34:43 PM PDT · 8 of 8
    daniel1212 to nickcarraway

    Thanks. Maybe they got too many complaints from atheist readers who saw “missionary work.” After all, they see them as the plague.

    “During the procedure, Cairns nicked himself with a scalpel, drawing blood. It was that moment that he became, quite possibly, the first non-African Ebola patient — and would become, almost certainly, the first non-African Ebola survivor.... “
    “Cairns, 71, now semi-retired and working at an urgent care facility in a suburb of Minneapolis, did more than just survive. Health officials were so enamored with the level of Ebola antibodies they discovered in his blood that they took samples to store in the CDC freezers in Atlanta, to study and to use to help treat those who may come in contact with the virus in the future. (Over those initial years, Cairns gave several specimens to health workers but his antibody levels eventually lessened as he grew older, making his blood less immune to the disease than it once was.) “

    Thank God for his recovery to help others.

  • Millennial Series: Part 8: Amillennial Ecclesiology

    08/17/2014 1:11:47 PM PDT · 170 of 179
    daniel1212 to redleghunter
    Well that was very premillenial of the catechism. Proof of point one should read their mail first:) I am sure many RCs are surprised to see that affirmatiom of Rm. 11 . However, this is open to interpretation by RCs.

    While Rome has not dogmatically defined this issue, it rejects postmillennialism and holds to one form of Amillennialism:

    676 The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,577 especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.578

    And upholds tribulationism:

    677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection.579 The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven.580 God's triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.581

    This preterist defines the different positions though as a tentative postribulationist disagree with his conclusion, but in which he states,

    Dispensational Premillennialism is considered by the non-dispensationalist to be a system of interpretation that came into existence during the early 1500's as a counter-reformation that was administered by the Roman Catholic Church. A group in the Catholic church called Jesuits were the leaders of this movement. Their proper title is the "Society of Jesus." They were first called, Compania de Jesus, which is Spanish for "Military Company of Jesus." In 1585, a Jesuit priest named Francisco Ribera started a theory that the Pope could not be the Antichrist or Man of Sin, because that was yet to happen in the future. He took the Seventy Weeks of Daniel and originated the Gap Theory, which will be discussed later. Ribera was later aided by two other Jesuits, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine and Luis de Alcazar. Later this theory was expanded through the efforts of many others, and especially through the efforts of John N. Darby of the Plymouth Brethren, and C. I. Scofield of the Presbyterians. The Dispensationalist, however, conceive of their beliefs either as a needed refinement of historical premillennialism or as rediscovered truth. They differ so much from other premillennialists that writers often list them as a separate group rather than as an alternate form of premillennialism. The following is a list of the distinctive beliefs of the dispensationalists.

  • Millennial Series: Part 8: Amillennial Ecclesiology

    08/16/2014 6:17:43 PM PDT · 167 of 179
    daniel1212 to redleghunter
    So what I laid out above is a boiler plate for an actual discussion on eschatology. But alas, these threads usually devolve into someone’s pet project or pet rice bowl.

    True, while the way some RCs talk you would think Catholic teaching does not hold Jews as a special distinct people for which God will do a special work of grace.

    674 The glorious Messiah's coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by "all Israel", for "a hardening has come upon part of Israel" in their "unbelief" toward Jesus.569

    The "full inclusion" of the Jews in the Messiah's salvation, in the wake of "the full number of the Gentiles",572 will enable the People of God to achieve "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ", in which "God may be all in all".573

    675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.574 The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth575 will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.576 -

  • Movie for a Sunday afternoon: "Untamed" (1955)

    08/16/2014 5:59:44 PM PDT · 12 of 12
    daniel1212 to ReformationFan

    This is pretty good, legal viewing, that liberals would find hard to watch.

    Film Noir, Thriller by Lewis Allen
    1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars
    United States 1954 - 75min Production: Libra Productions Inc. Cast: Frank Sinatra, Sterling Hayden, James Gleason, Nancy Gates

    Synopsis: The tranquility of a small town is marred only by sheriff Tod Shaw’s unsuccessful courtship of widow Ellen Benson (Nancy Gates), a pacifist who can’t abide guns and those who use them. But violence descends on Ellen’s household willy-nilly when the U.S. President passes through town… and slightly psycho hired assassin John Baron (Frank Sinatra) finds the Benson home ideal for an ambush.

    Suddenly by Lewis Allen is a Public Domain Classic movie

  • Anyone else seeing ads on FR?

    08/14/2014 7:40:02 PM PDT · 14 of 128
    daniel1212 to Blood of Tyrants; Jim Robinson

    No, no ads here, and as i understand it that is contrary to Jim’s policy. And “Mother Jones?”! Could be a hack job.

  • 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

    08/14/2014 4:44:19 AM PDT · 237 of 268
    daniel1212 to Springfield Reformer
    I fail to see a logical connection between the Christian Science cult’s fallacy and a straightforward understanding of Genesis. Mary Baker Eddy devised a system that effectively rejects physical reality in toto. Traditional Christian supernaturalism accepts physical reality, but allows that God can, at His sole discretion, act outside that material reality.

    Christian Science is neither.

  • 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

    08/14/2014 4:16:59 AM PDT · 235 of 268
    daniel1212 to Springfield Reformer; aquila48
    However, as a tool to evade the essentially deterministic arguments of intelligent design, stochastic process may not be the holy grail you seek. Dembski has written a book called Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, in which he dismantles the case that stochastic process works as a wildcard to escape the effect of deterministic process in biological system. You may be interested.

    Thanks. For as low as $4.00 (used) it's not too expensive.

    My own take is that if SETI were to discover an “intelligent” signal from outer space that told us to reduce greenhouse emissions "or else," then it would be immediately hailed as being from a superior intelligent entity.

    But if that message stated judgment was coming due to fornication, sodomy etc. then the consensus would be that this was a wrong translation, or metaphor, etc. or a random transmission.

  • Why the White House Ignored All Those Warnings About ISIS [Playing Politics With Lives]

    08/12/2014 5:59:40 AM PDT · 9 of 10
    daniel1212 to Steelfish; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...

    I have a different theory, which is that the idea that man is so morally depraved that everything from spanking a child to war with another nation is a reality their mind just does not want to accept.

    Bin Laden was too much a reminder of that reality so he could reluctantly be killed, but overall the liberal mind is so resistant to the reality of such evil, and in love with the fantasy that things like that were simply an aberration from man’s liberal goodness, as personified by them, and that there are no moral absolutes - Bush being even too much referring to such - that it refuses to deal with the latest example of man’s depravity until it is forced upon them, and which is often too little and too late, or choosing the wrong side. Or not knowing enough to let two evil sides alone.

    In the 60’s thru drugs they sought a Garden of Eden, without God and His rule in which you just picked what you need from the government tree, then took over the administration building in their lust for power (”climbing up some other way”), to attempt to achieve a reality that only drugs and music could otherwise provide.

    But what these secular seminaries turned out was a breed of souls who have largely taken over the administration building of the country by seducing a largely post-Christian populace to elect them with the delusion these pols are under, which normally one would have to be on hallucinogenic drugs to subscribe to. And which will turn the country into a Haight-Ashbury district of a sodomite francisco in the “summer of love.” And of course, provide need for more in the admin building to enforce their ideological vision of liberal Utopia, in which only the liberal elite can enjoy it at the expense of others. In a word, atheistic communism.

    This is what happens when people turn from the living and true God to serve idols, silver and gold, mere pleasure and possessions, rather than putting the Lord and His kingdom first, by which blessings follow.

    The focus of the true body of Christ is to look to Christ, and be in this world as He was, being a manifestly distinct people, presenting an alternative to a wicker and perverse generation, rather than institutionalized religion or longing for a return to Mayberry RFD.

    Blessed be the Lord.

    “Israel hath cast off the thing that is good: the enemy shall pursue him. They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off.” (Hosea 8:3-4)

    “I have written to him the great things of my law, but they were counted as a strange thing.” (Hosea 8:12)

    “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.” (Hosea 8:14)

  • IDF 'Tunnel Shield' May Be Deployed by 2015

    08/11/2014 8:03:33 PM PDT · 17 of 17
    daniel1212 to DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis

    S. Korea could use some.

  • Protestant Tony Palmer Receives Catholic Requiem Mass: Francis Insists Catholic Burial

    08/11/2014 7:32:56 PM PDT · 35 of 35
    daniel1212 to Alex Murphy
    During a special ecumenical worship service in Sudbury, Cardinal Sean O'Malley asked the Rev. Anne Robertson of Plymouth to administer a baptism reaffirmation ritual to him. (George Martell/Pilot New Media)During a special ecumenical worship service in Sudbury, Cardinal Sean O'Malley asked the Rev. Anne Robertson of Plymouth to administer a baptism reaffirmation ritual to him. (George Martell/Pilot New Media)
    By Lane Lambert
    Posted Jan. 14, 2014 @ 12:01 am
    Updated Jan 14, 2014 at 2:17 PM

    By Lane Lambert
  • Protestant Tony Palmer Receives Catholic Requiem Mass: Francis Insists Catholic Burial

    08/11/2014 7:05:28 PM PDT · 34 of 35
    daniel1212 to Wyrd bið ful aræd
    President Obama and three former presidents attended Senator Kennedy’s funeral.  I had the opportunity to speak briefly with President Obama, to welcome him to the Basilica and to share with him that the bishops of the Catholic Church are anxious to support a plan for universal health care, but we will not support a plan that will include a provision for abortion or could open the way to abortions in the future.  The President was gracious in the short time we spoke, he listened intently to what I was saying.


    Democrats and Republicans sat side by side in the Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help, praying for Senator Kennedy and his family.

  • ISIS Closes In On Christians in Dramatic Overnight Development

    08/08/2014 3:33:49 AM PDT · 44 of 66
    daniel1212 to blueyon

    Amen and amen.

  • Vanity It would be nice if you could explain why you take threads down.

    08/07/2014 4:57:07 AM PDT · 71 of 71
    daniel1212 to mkleesma

    And also unlike many other forums i have been on, here you can also numerous ping others, and see replies to just each post.

    And do not need to sign in thru Facebook/Google, etc. and can use an alias.

  • Vanity It would be nice if you could explain why you take threads down.

    08/07/2014 4:41:09 AM PDT · 70 of 71
    daniel1212 to mkleesma; Jim Robinson
    Probably got lost somewhere in the morass of this 1993-ish html code. I love this site, but seriously - - no mobile app - no links to ANY social media sites - clunky old HTML tags required to do simple things such as bolding/italicizing text. C’mon Jim - It’s 2014.

    I think it is superior to any other forum i have posted on. Here there is no "your posting is awaiting moderation," or post 50 times before you can include a link, or small comboxes (you can drag corners to enlarge the ones here) and the posts are far easier to see than many others, and you can easily find what is being replied to, and all your posts (though increasing the number on one page would be helpful) .

    And FR does not have extensive forum content rules, and mods are far far less censorious then most one's i have found - unless you post contrary to being a pro-God site.

    clunky old HTML tags required to do simple things such as bolding/italicizing text.

    But here unlike many other forums you have freedom to use html coding, and also can easily post preformatted html (just selected text in Firefox, right click and choose View selection source, and copy and paste).

    And if like me, you know little html and have arthritic fingers, use the BBCodeXtra F extension, and write your own custom scripts to paste as whatever or format selected text.

    And forget about inserting a picture.

    Why is that a problem?

  • Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'

    08/06/2014 2:22:56 PM PDT · 41 of 85
    daniel1212 to I want the USA back
    Part of that wacko movement to give monkeys “rights.” Liberals hate to admit that humans are above animals.

    As that is part of their rebellion against the God of the Bible, which created nature to serve man, thus it needs us not (unlike the earth worm), except to tame for better productively.

    Thus we feed ourselves by so caring for it.

    But besides the Romans 1 aspect of making animals equal to humans, the WP reasoning means if someone painted a picture using equipment he was not authorized to use, and the owner preserved it and displayed it, then the thief owns the copyright.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    08/06/2014 2:02:59 PM PDT · 1,111 of 1,112
    daniel1212 to editor-surveyor

    You have finally earned your place on the “unfit for exchange” list, a coveted position.


  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    08/06/2014 4:52:31 AM PDT · 1,109 of 1,112
    daniel1212 to editor-surveyor
    The “unnamed cult” of obedience.

    Then why not name the group you are in? It sure sounds like Armstrongism.

    The Errors Of Armstrongism

    Overview of Doctrinal Errors in Herbert Armstrong's Mystery ...

    Herbert Armstrong Exposed - Amos 3:7

    The Incredible Prophetic Errors of Herbert W. Armstrong ...

    Anglo/British Israelism Herbert W. Armstrong REFUTED!

    You could call it the First John believers’ cult. Or the John 3:13 believers’ cult.Since no man but Yeshua has ascended, no man can possibly have been “born again” into the Kingdom! See how the plain words of the scriptures blow holes in your imaginary theology.

    How you can imagine that that this blows "holes in your imaginary theology," and your rejection of texts which teach believers are born of the Spirit and place believers into the kingdom, and the rejection of first John - which esp. being by the same writer as Jn. 3 interpretive of it - is a example of the cultic nature of your doctrine which rejects the comprehensive evidence against it and compels text to conform to its cultic conclusions.

    Believers are indeed "born" from above, that being "born of the Spirit," being begotten as a child of God by the Spirit as new creations, by faith in the word of God, and placed in the kingdom, so that to die now is to be with the Lord, versus being only born according to the flesh.

    And which birth as a child of God - with God being with Him now which Christ supremely exampled - (Jn. 3:2) is what Jn. 3 is contextually about. And is what "ascended up to heaven" fits into, the Christ from Heaven dying and rising so that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Which is a present possession. (1Jn. 5:13)

    And which event is necessary to see the resurrection and literal kingdom of God, but which is not said to be spiritual birth by the Spirit by which one become a child of God, but is simply believers receiving their body from Heaven, the only sense in which one is born being physically from the dead.

    Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, (1 Peter 1:3)

    Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. (1 Peter 1:23)

    Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. (James 1:18)

    If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him. (1 John 2:29)

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. (1 John 5:1)

    But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. (Galatians 4:29)

    We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth [willfully, habitually] not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. (1 John 5:18)

    Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2 Corinthians 5:17)

    Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: (Colossians 1:13)

    For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: (Philippians 1:23)

    Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. (2 Corinthians 5:6-8)

  • Kenya Seen as Refuge From Uganda’s Anti-Gay Hostility

    08/05/2014 8:39:58 PM PDT · 7 of 8
    daniel1212 to elcid1970
    Let me stipulate that if Uganda is a place to be escaped from due to so-called “homophobia”, then that says something good about Uganda.

    Uganda Seen as Refuge From America’s Pro=Gay Anti-Christian Hostility.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    08/05/2014 4:10:28 PM PDT · 1,107 of 1,112
    daniel1212 to editor-surveyor
    I go only by the clear words of scripture, not imagined add-ons like you seem to prefer.

    As all cults claim, as is true of your unnamed one.

  • Man Posed as Microsoft Employee in Fraudulent Phone Call

    08/05/2014 8:44:03 AM PDT · 34 of 34
    daniel1212 to Calvin Locke
    The "I'm from MS, and your computer has been comprised" scam has been going on for a long time. Indeed, "My name is [Indian] from Microsoft Technical support..."

    Ask for their call back phone #, and telling them where the Bible places those who love to lie usually makes then hang up.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    08/04/2014 6:54:06 PM PDT · 1,104 of 1,112
    daniel1212 to editor-surveyor
    Sorry, but baptizō is baptism, and the renovation it signifies is clearly that of being begotten by the Spirit as a child of God in distinction from those "born after the flesh," and placed into the family of God and His kingdom as a new creation, for whom old things are passed away.

    Yes, in Greek, not in the original language,

    The Holy Spirit is the one who defines what baptism is in Greek, and what i said is what is taught.

    And injecting John 3 into your reply is deceptive, since Yeshua used a word truly representing a birth of a new creature, rather that the same creature re-experiencing a birth.

    Indeed, being born of the Spirit truly is the birth of a essentially "new creature," for whom "old things are passed away, and behold, all things are become new," (2Cor. 5:17) and which baptism signifies, death to the flesh and being raised as a new creature to walk in newness of life. (Rm. 6:4) Thanks be to God.

    Yeshua is clearly not speaking of the Mikva,

    Indeed, i never said Jn. 3:3-7 is speaking about baptism, but being born of the Spirit which baptism signifies, not "actual escape from the physical universe" which being born of the Spirit now is necessary for.

    Your denial of this despite the evidence is one reason why your have rendered yourself unfit for further efforts at dialog.

  • Institutional from the start #LukeActs2014

    08/03/2014 8:24:48 PM PDT · 11 of 19
    daniel1212 to HarleyD; Kackikat; The Grammarian
    Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, wanted to appear that they were giving everything they had. But Peter told them that there wasn’t any need for such a sacrifice.

    Well, no, Peter told them that they lied to God/the Holy Ghost, in that their sin was that they claimed to give all but did not: they wanted their cake- the fellowship and security of that covenantal society - and eat it too, being covetous lying idolaters in keeping back profits under the pretension of surrendering their goods for the common-wealth in Christ as the rest did.

    This surrendering of goods under the leadership of manifest unselfish apostles of God (who did mighty miracles) was a testimony to their faith, love and commitment to God and each other, in which they basically burned their bridges back to their former life as pilgrims in a foreign land.

    This is not a statement that mandates all Christians to literally do as the first organic church did, or condemns capitalism, but requires honesty in the church. This is necessary for true and intimate relationships with the Lord and each other, and to tolerate this manner of blatant dishonesty made a mockery of the holy innocent new community, and would have had a destructive effect if it were not exposed and judged. it would be worse than a mole among POWs.

    We do not understand it because we expect that, and dissension. How many in the church could you entrust your life, wife and family with?

    However, the context and men here is not as in Communism, nor was this model one that remained, but like a seminary type situation, it was preparatory to being sent out.

  • Institutional from the start #LukeActs2014

    08/03/2014 2:56:05 PM PDT · 6 of 19
    daniel1212 to The Grammarian; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...
    That sounds more like a voluntarily communistic religious society than a capitalistic system. It isn't "communistic" in the sense of Communism, but it is in the sense that 'private property' wasn't emphasized, and having all property 'in common' was.

    The problem is that this was under real selfless apostles, who could say they were,

    But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:4-7)

    Not Stalin or even any leaders i know of here now.

    I understand the disdain people have for corrupt or dysfunctional institutions, but it appears to me that institutions are not only biblical but integral to God’s plans.

    The problem is not institutions (an organization founded and operating for a specific purpose), but institutionalization, in which form replaces substance, ritual substitutes for the supernatural, and the institution becomes the security for the people, who thus defend it with cultic devotion. In a word, Roman Catholicism.

    And in contrast to her basis for assurance of Truth, the NT church did not begin under the premise of promised perpetual assured infallibility of office for the corporate instruments and stewards of Scripture, as per Rome.

  • Hope Dwindles for Hondurans Living in Peril (NY Slimes Propaganda Piece)

    08/03/2014 12:55:41 PM PDT · 5 of 6
    daniel1212 to SkyPilot
    This is revealing:

    After the Cold War, Honduras strongly embraced capitalism, investing heavily in the manufacturing for export industry — commonly known as maquiladoras — and San Pedro Sula’s industrial base boomed, stitching underwear, T-shirts, jeans and other low-cost products for consumption in the United States and other countries.

    It emerged as a city of stark inequality, with large malls seemingly teleported from Miami and gated communities climbing the hills for the doctors, lawyers and engineers catering to the moneyed class

    . But the 2009 coup, coupled with the worldwide recession, took a toll, and the economic shock wave was keenly felt in Chamelecón, residents said.

  • Somebody good with photoshop...

    08/03/2014 11:39:06 AM PDT · 28 of 36
    daniel1212 to huldah1776

    Or you could use the BBCodeXtra Firefox extension, and under Custom Tags make a script such as < img src=”_clipboard_” alt=”” border=”0”>

    But take out space from btwn < and img

    Copy the image location, then right click and choose the custom tag. That will paste the image location that you copied.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    08/03/2014 10:32:05 AM PDT · 1,100 of 1,112
    daniel1212 to michaelwlf3; boatbums
    In the first place, all I meant by bringing up the gay marriage thing was to show you there is plenty of blame to go around, regardless of whatever you think your grievance is,

    Then if so, you should have attacked evangelical faith (which i can), which should have been obvious to you i was part of ("Not that the evangelical church is altogether the NT church but Rome is the one who claims to be "it," but is fundamentally perverse"), rather than placing me in the company of liberal Prots like your Episcopalians, and even using "your Protestant churches" as if you were not part of such!

    However, post was not simply church against church, but your assertion of Rome as being the one true infallible church, as if it was the NT church despite it being fundamentally perverse, and the reasoning that formal historical descent (of a non-existent infallible supreme pope) establshed the claim to be that NT church.

    because I guarantee you, when you start in on someone else over what you consider to be some “important” doctrinal distinction, (like something as trivial as what they call their ministers) you can bet they will find something wrong with you, too.

    I see. So by reproving the doctrine of a church claiming to be the One True Church® by showing its critical contrast to that of the NT church is that of saying Episcopalians, (liberal) Presbyterians, and (liberal) Lutherans are better?

    Or is this the old liberal "thou shalt not judge" misappropriation of Scripture, which disallows earnestly contending for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints, (Jude 1:3) and reproving the unfruitful works of darkness? (Eph. 5:11)

    It is you who engaged in wrongful judging, placing my faith in the company of those churches i set in contrast with, while it is your Anglican church that is part of them!

    Your tactic is to simply look for one statement of an argument that you can try to use to negate the whole. And in so doing you strategically picked on mandated clerical celibacy to compare with liberal prosodomite churches, which are actually closer to Rome, and which i also would reprove, and ignored the fundamental differences btwn Rome and the NT church, such as Rome's gospel and the basis for assurance of Truth being the premise of the assured magisterial veracity of Rome, versus Scriptural substantiation by which common souls followed itinerant preachers.

    As well as what is behind making NT pastors into a class of men distinctively titled "priests," that of making the "Eucharist as the means by which one received spiritual life in themselves," "turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people," around which all revolved, but which they are never shown doing, or is physically eating anything the means to gain spiritual and eternal life, as per the skewed literal understanding of Jn. 6:53,54.

    I, for example, do not believe Mary was a perpetual virgin, either. Is that enough for me to kick 1.2 billion Christians out of my world? Harldy. If false doctrines such as dispensationalism and the way some people claim to use “tongues” is not, then the RCC is safe in my universe.

    Here you are simply continuing in your error of taking one aspect out of a totality of many things i listed, , both fundamental, salvific or significant, to compare it with non-fundamental, non-salvific but significant things.

    The reality is that not only does 1.2 billion Catholics include the majority in the West which are so liberal as to deny Christian faith, but relative few are born again (which i manifestly became with its profound changes at age 25, and remained in Rome for 6 years as a faithful weekly RC), due to the idea than a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium, this being the stewards of Scripture, is essential for providing and preserving Truth and assurance of it contrary to Scripture and how the church began,

    And due to #10, "preaching a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling or baptism in recognition of proxy faith, and which usually ends with becoming good enough to enter glory via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death."

    My only criteria for fellowship is that you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be baptized, we will sort out the rest as we go along.

    Well then give Simon the right hand of fellowship.

    Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. (Acts 8:13)

    The Bible mandates separation as well as unity, and the latter without the former is perverse. But RCs are stuck with treating even impenitent proabortion prosodomite pols as members, as Rome counts and treats them as such in life and in death (Teddy K, etc.)

    But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. (1 Corinthians 5:13)

    You accuse me of “mind reading” - if you knew how many times I have heard all of these arguments you’d know I have the scripts for all of them memorized. It’s always the same thing.

    When you charge a believer with having no forgiveness in her heart then you can indeed be cited as engaging in “mind reading,” as i am sure the mod would tell you if you ping him, but i did not but told you instead, and which would save you a censor in the future. If you want to disagree, ask the RM.

    I think it was you who claimed to “defend the Gospel”. You don’t need to defend the Gospel, you need to live it.

    Really? And disobey Jude 1:3 cited above? Or is that only for the ordained class as yourself? Now you have confirmed you subscribe to the liberal misappropriation of "thou shalt not judge" while engaging in the same toward me.

    contrite damned+destitute sinner

    But out of love for God and the Truth and holiness a believer is to contend for the faith.

    He that saith unto the wicked, Thou art righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him: But to them that rebuke him shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them. (Proverbs 24:24-25)

    And a false gospel, such as teaches formal justification by one's own holiness thru sprinkling, and gaining Heaven thru postmortem purgatorial purification, and or which fosters confidence in one's own goodness as earning eternal life, doing more good than evil, rather than faith in Christ to save the contrite damned+destitute sinner on His expense and righteousness, with a faith that effects obedience, is a false gospel, and which is what the soteriology of Rome does.

    As Peter Kreeft (RC apologist, author and professor of philosophy at Boston College and The King's College), testifies,

    Over the past twenty-five years I have asked hundreds of Catholic college students the question: If you should die tonight and God asks you why he should let you into heaven, what would you answer? The vast majority of them simply do not know the right answer to this, the most important of all questions, the very essence of Christianity. They usually do not even mention Jesus!

    And here is a classic example:

    I feel when my numbers up I will appoach a large table and St.Peter will be there with an enormous scale of justice by his side. We will see our life in a movie...the things that we did for the benefit of others will be for the plus side of the scale..the other stuff,,not so good will..well, be on the negative side..and so its a very interesting job Pete has. I wonder if he pushes a button for the elevator down for the losers...and what .sideways for those heading for purgatory..the half way house....lets wait and see.... —

    You mileage may vary, but i find grievous the institutionalized gospel of both Catholicism and much of Protestantism, as well as salvation by coaxing intellectual assent to a sinners prayer, or the pablum preaching of Joel Osteen and "prosperity gospel" of many so-called "faith" teachers (though God blesses true holy faith, which does not need to plead for money), and esteem men as Matthew Henry, Spurgeon, etc, while seeking a heart that delights in all such words of holiness, and in which Christ reigns unopposed.

    Here is a good short message by an old time Anglican, J. C. RYLE - 1816-1900: ARE YOU BORN AGAIN ?

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    08/03/2014 10:31:33 AM PDT · 1,099 of 1,112
    daniel1212 to Iscool
    The difference is unmistakable, yet

    The epithet babylonica in this Chinese species' scientific name (S. babylonica), as well as the related common names "Babylon willow" or "Babylon weeping willow", derive from a misunderstanding by Linnaeus that this willow was the tree described in the Bible in the opening of Psalm 137 (here in Latin and English translations):

    Super flumina Babylonis illic sedimus et flevimus, cum recordaremur Sion.

    In salicibus in medio ejus suspendimus organa nostra....
    Here, "salicibus" is the dative plural of the Latin noun salix, the willows, used by Linnaeus as the name for the willow genus Salix.

    By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.

    We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof.
  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    08/03/2014 8:49:41 AM PDT · 1,097 of 1,112
    daniel1212 to Elsie
    ...the church began with souls mainly following unlettered itinerant preachers. The first of which wore funny clothes and ate BUGS!!!

    Indeed. And we can easily imagine the correspondence of Rome to the chief priests, etc. in Mk. 11:27-33.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    08/02/2014 9:23:27 PM PDT · 1,092 of 1,112
    daniel1212 to michaelwlf3; boatbums
    I defend them because I love justice, and I have something called forgiveness in my soul, which you clearly do not have.

    Michael, you may be new here but that is clearly "making it personal" and "mind reading," as the RM will tell it if he sees it.

    While I agree that the church is invisible to the extent that no one knows who it’s members are by looking at them, the church has to be visible so you can know where to get your questions answered, from someone with AUTHORITY, not some backwoods self ordained “preacher” who is so poorly trained in hermeneutics he can’t preach his way out of a paper bag. That’s what I grew up with.

    As one raised RC, i can honestly say that if any preachers can’t preach their way out of a paper bag its your typical priests. That’s what I grew up with and mostly heard during my years as a weekly mass goer after i came back for 6 years. But by far the best and convicting and moving preachers i have heard were evangelical.

    For couple good examples, watch/listen to Paul Washer (Reformed) here , "How Much Do You Know God?"

    And for a Pentecostal watch B. H. Clendennen, "soldiers" here

    Its not Joel Osteen.

    And while training in hermeneutics has its place, its anointing, not academia that is most critical. After all, the church began with souls mainly following unlettered itinerant preachers.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    08/02/2014 9:03:25 PM PDT · 1,091 of 1,112
    daniel1212 to michaelwlf3; xone
    I specified which churches, you need to pay attention.

    Then "all of your Protestant churches" - in distinguishing btwn the church i reproved (Rome) - either includes all of Protestantism, with Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Lutherans being examples, and to which you added Methodists, or it somehow identifies me ("your Protestant churches") with churches you can hardly imagine i would be part of (and never were, versus conservative Baptist, and a couple conservative Pentecostal churches), at least the liberal denoms of them. Where did you get the idea "all" meant 3 or 4, or that these were my Protestant churches?

    In any case, it is you who is throwing rocks as a deacon in a glass house.

    15. In Issues in Human Sexuality the House affirmed that, while the same standards of conduct applied to all, the Church of England should not exclude from its fellowship those lay peope of gay or lesbian orientation who, in conscience, were unable to accept that a life of sexual abstinence was required of them and who, instead, chose to enter into a faithful, committed sexually active relationship.

    16. Consistent with that, we said in our 2005 pastoral statement that lay people who had registered civil partnerships ought not to be asked to give assurances about the nature of their relationship before being admitted to baptism, confirmation and holy communion, or being welcomed into the life of the local worshipping community more generally.

    18[b]“Those same sex couples who choose to marry should be welcomed into the life of the worshipping community and not be subjected to questioning about their lifestyle. Neither they nor any children they care for should be denied access to the sacraments.” -

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    08/02/2014 8:24:24 PM PDT · 1,088 of 1,112
    daniel1212 to michaelwlf3
    “There is ALSO a difference between doctrine that is Biblically based, and that which is Tradition based.”

    What, specifically, are you referring to?

    That's easy. For one, can you find even one prayer in Scripture (except by pagans) among the close to 200 the Holy Spirit records addressed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or or in the Lord's teaching on how to pray ("our mother who art in Heaven")?

    Or of any created beings being able to hear virtually innumerable incessant prayers addressed to them and respond, which only God is shown able to do.

    Trying to extrapolate PTDS by compelling a correspondence btwn earthly relations and that of created beings in Heaven and on earth is unsupported.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    08/02/2014 7:57:27 PM PDT · 1,087 of 1,112
    daniel1212 to boatbums; xone
    I appreciate the time he takes to document his thoughts and findings and his thoroughness in providing the links for those who want to learn more.

    Thank God for what He provides for good!

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    08/02/2014 6:01:08 PM PDT · 1,086 of 1,112
    daniel1212 to michaelwlf3
    “I am not your son, and at 62 i am more likely old enough to be your father”

    Don’t bet on it.

    Then despite being rather close to 80, you are still not my father in any sense of the word. And that you can bet on.

    Ah, the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. John Calvin, you may have heard of him. A Protestant. John and Charles Wesley, you may have heard of them. They are generally thought of as Protestants, as is Henry and his reformed Catholic church.

    No, as you should know by your age, that is not the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, as it was not an argument based on mere rhetoric or arbitrary definition, without reference to any objective standard, but appeals to original historical meaning, which would not sanction ordaining homosexuals (or even women). Or do you really believe your American ecclesiastical cousins are consistent with Calvin etc. in so doing???

    Which disallows your logical fallacy that since some modern churches sanction sodomy, then "all of your Protestant churches are ordaining and marrying homosexuals." Thus in your judgment no true Prot church would deny this, while "my Protestant churches " as in "your" certainly do, while it is your ecclesiastical kin that affirm homosexuality!

    I’ll let you figure out what those guys have to do with the churches I mentioned.

    Which is more fallacious reasoning, as it charges the founders with what there historical descendants did contrary to their moral standards, or else it defines the former by the latter. Do you really believe Calvin and John and Charles Wesley sanctioned sodomite clergy" Meanwhile Henry is of your ecclesiastical heritage , though not much of a theological founder.

    And I don’t defend the Anglican church, that’s the difference between you and me.

    What nonsense! When did i ever defend a particular church, versus the most conservative Christian faith, in contrast to Rome which you defended? It is YOU who attempted to deal with my refutation of Rome by charging all my Protestant churches are ordaining and marrying homosexuals! And then telling me to clean up "my house," as i was defending or promoting your cousins and the like!

    I am a Christian in the Anglican tradition. This is not my club against yours, we are all supposed to be Christians. But you can’t hate your brother and say you love God.

    Forgive me for not feeling the love when without warrant you place me and all Prots with liberal apostates, and then construe reproof of elitists Rome and false accusers as hating her members.You want to simply be a Christian in the Anglican tradition, but do not others be one in their distinctive evangelical faith, but place them with liberal apostates based upon specious reasoning. Sounds too much like RCs and liberals themselves.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    08/02/2014 10:53:40 AM PDT · 1,066 of 1,112
    daniel1212 to michaelwlf3
    It should be patently obvious that the Roman Catholic church - and ANY Christian church/assembly - is not the one, true church Jesus established since the Bride of Christ is the redeemed from all peoples, tongues and nations. THE church is all the saved, born again believers in Christ and affiliation with their chosen place of worship does not automatically confer salvation.

    Ah yes, the old “invisible church” argument. By all means, go to the invisible church, enjoy the invisible fellowship, have some invisible doughnuts and coffee at the invisible coffee shop, and get some invisible answers to your invisible questions.

    I do not see Boatbums advocating what you impute, for your conclusion does not follow the premise. That the one true church is the body of Christ (for it alone is made up of only the regenerate) does not mean an invisible church which has no visible manifestation.

    What you need to look for is a church that, among other things ,

    preaches to convict souls of sin, righteousness and judgment, (Jn. 16:9) and thus salvation by grace thru faith which is counted for righteousness, (Rm. 4:1-7ff) "purifying their hearts thru faith," (Acts 15:9) but which is confessed in baptism by immersion (if possible) and following the Lamb, (Rm. 10:9,10; Acts 10:47) versus preaching a gospel in which a soul is formally justified by his own righteousness thru the act of sprinkling (usually) a morally incognizant soul.

    As the Catholic Encyclopedia>Sanctifying Grace states,

    Although the sinner is justified by the justice of Christ, inasmuch as the Redeemer has merited for him the grace of justification (causa meritoria), nevertheless he is formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis) ,

    Thus making him fit for Heaven at that point, but as such later sin, this basis for justification (usually) results in spending time suffering in mythical purgatory to become good enough (and atone for sins) to actually enter Heaven.

    And look for a church which ordains elders [presbuteros], not men titled "priest" (hiereus), which the Holy Spirit never does, by which is defended by the use of an etymological fallacy , since "priest" etymologically is derived from presbyteros due to imposed functional equivalence.

    And one in which preaching the word is the main pastoral function, not dispensing flesh and blood to gain spiritual and eternal life, which they are never shown doing.

    I could go on, but i already provided you with many more contrasts btwn Rome and the NT church for you top dwell on.

    But when and how where you born again? That is most critical.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    08/02/2014 10:43:59 AM PDT · 1,065 of 1,112
    daniel1212 to michaelwlf3
    And in the meantime all of your Protestant churches are ordaining and marrying homosexuals - Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Lutherans, while you complain about the celibacy of Catholic Priests.

    Which is a desperate specious and illogical fallacy, as it no only employs a broad use of the term "Protestant" which is akin to calling Hitler a "Christian" as many atheists do, to include those who are fundamentally contrary to what basically defined Protestantism, but you assert "all of your Protestant churches are ordaining and marrying homosexuals," which is false, as well as placing your church in that camp, not the ones i ID with.

    And rather than being joined with them or Rome, those who hold most strongly to the primary Protestant distinctive, that of Scripture being the supreme standard as literally being the wholly inspired and assured word of God, have been and yet are the most conservative class of Christians (as if there could be another), far more than the fruit of Rome or Anglicans (at least in the West), as has been abundantly substantiated from numerous researchers.

    You need to clean up your own house before you point fingers, son.

    I am not your son, and at 62 i am more likely old enough to be your father, while it is thee who is playing church against church, yet the glass of your Anglican church is not one you want to throw stones from behind.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    08/02/2014 9:26:32 AM PDT · 1,059 of 1,112
    daniel1212 to xone
    Very interesting link. Reads like something D1212 wrote.

    No, that is not mine, but thank God for such helps.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    08/02/2014 9:10:00 AM PDT · 1,057 of 1,112
    daniel1212 to michaelwlf3; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...
    “At least consider that a lot of that comes from the Roman Catholic church’s own elitist claims to be THE, ONE, TRUE church Jesus established

    I don’t know how to break this to you, but historically, they are!

    I am not sure how to best break this to you, but historically, they are not! Authenticity under the New Covenant does not rest upon historical descent, but conformity of faith, most principally that of the gospel.

    And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. (Matthew 3:9)

    For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: (Romans 2:28)

    Meanwhile, even under the OT being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) did not mean that this entity possessed assuredly infallibility of office.

    Nor was this essential for providing preserving Truth, and instead the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34)

    And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, but whom He reproved from Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

    For the fact is that it is abundantly evidenced that Scripture was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

    And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)

    Yet the RC argument is that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. And that this is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth,

    As this is a fallacious foundation, than it cannot be the one true (or a true) NT church, which:

    1. Never had any pastors titled "priests" as they did not engage in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people.

    2. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) or made such distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7)

    3. Never had apostles preaching receiving the Eucharist as the means by which one received spiritual life in themselves, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54), versus believing the gospel, and the Lord's supper as focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal.

    4. Never required clerical celibacy as the norm, (1Tim. 3:17) which presumes all such have that gift.

    5. Never promised a perpetual assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium, or taught this is necessary for preservation of truth, including writings to be established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent and being the steward of Scripture assured they had assured infallibility.

    6. Never manifested where Peter is confirmed to be the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself.

    7. Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.

    8. Never recorded or taught any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) besides for Judas (who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) and who was elected by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)

    9. Never recorded or manifested (not by conjecture) sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)

    10. Never preached a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling or baptism in recognition of proxy faith, and which usually ends with becoming good enough to enter glory via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.

    11. Never had a separate class of believers called “saints.”

    12. Never prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven) who were able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to them.

    13. Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as leave and cleave. ) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted as a demigoddess. All of which conspicuous absence is not characteristic of Holy Spirit who reveals notable aspects of its significant subjects, from long life, to escaping death or being bodily assumed to God, to extra toes, to unique diets, to being sinless, etc.

    14. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.

    15. Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.

    16. Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an unknown god) is the same as theirs.

    Knowing this caused John Henry Newman to convert to Catholicism, and it nearly caused me to convert. To think that there will be no sin at all in a Church of 1.2 billion is incredibly naive. Men are sinful, people need to come to grips with that, and not look to men, but to Christ.

    Rather, what Newman "knew" or should have was that history could not be reconciled with Rome's reality expect thru the specious Development of Doctrine ,” which makes a Weeping willow (Salix babylonica) tree out of an acorn.

    Even EOs state,

    Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development.

    Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the Christian Faith as the Church moved into new circumstances and acquired other needs...

    On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. .

    And which rests upon the premise that history, Tradition and Scripture are only what Rome says they are.

    Thus Newman states,

    "in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8. The Vatican Council l

    Consistent with this, no less a neo-ultramontanist as Manning stated:

    It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine....I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves....The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228; ttp://

    In contrast, even Catholic and other modern scholarship provides testimony contrary to Roman revisionism,

    The real history includes Damasus 1 who employed a violent mob to secure his papal seat from his rival, On Sunday, October 1 his partisans seized the Lateran Basilica, and he was there consecrated. He then sought the help of the city prefect (the first occasion of a Pope in enlisting the civil power against his adversaries), and he promptly expelled Ursinus and his followers from Rome. Mob violence continued until October 26, when Damasus's men attacked the Liberian Basilica, where the Ursinians had sought refuge; the pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus reports that they left 137 dead on the field. Damasus was now secure on his throne; but the bishops of Italy were shocked by the reports they received, and his moral authority was weakened for several years....

    Damasus was indefatigable in promoting the Roman primacy, frequently referring to Rome as 'the apostolic see' and ruling that the test of a creed's orthodoxy was its endorsement by the Pope.... This [false claim to] succession gave him a unique [presumptuous claim to] judicial power to bind and loose, and the assurance of this infused all his rulings on church discipline. -Kelly, J. N. D. (1989). The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. USA: Oxford University Press. pp. 32,34;

    And who did not scruple to call in the secular power against theological dissidents, "His measures against the intransigently Nicene disciples of Lucifer of Cagliari (d. 370/ 1) [bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia known for his passionate opposition to Arianism] were particularly brutal." (ibid)

    And as James Swan notes,

    What genuinely gave bishops of Rome the impetus to expand further was the conversion of Constantine. Eamon Duffy noted that this event

    “propelled the bishops of Rome into the heart of the Roman establishment. Already powerful and influential men, they now became grandees on a par with the wealthiest senators in the city. Bishops all over the Roman world would now be expected to take on the role of judges, governors, great servants of state..- “Saints and Sinners,” New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997, 2001, pp. 37-38;

    Moreover, Klaus Schat [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] , in his Papal Primacy: From its Origins to the Present, not only acknowledges that in the case of the process of the development of “the historically developed papacy” the initial phases of this long process “extended well into the fifth century” (Schatz pg 36)

    New Testament scholars agree..., The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative.   

    That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.”

       “....that does not mean that the figure and the commission of the Peter of the New Testament did not encompass the possibility, if it is projected into a Church enduring for centuries and concerned in some way to to secure its ties to its apostolic origins and to Jesus himself. 

    If we ask in addition whether the primitive church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer.” (page 1-2) 

    And John F. O'Grady, priest of the Diocese of Albany New York and professor of biblical theology at Barry University in Miami, and author of seventeen books, states:

    ”The study of the New Testament demonstrates that the apostles, in fact, had no successors, nor did the twelve.”

    Many Roman Catholics assume that after the death of Peter every bishop of Rome was aware of the special authority he inherited as the successor of the chief of the apostles. To explain the lack of any evidence of the exercise of such a universal power, (emphasis added) apologists replied that the circumstances did not merit any intervention..

    .Contemporary theologians are more aware of the lack of conclusive evidence documenting any understanding in the early Church of a universal role for the bishop of Rome. The earliest fathers of the Church cited to support these views, Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Irenaeus, do not offer undisputed evidence and therefore their arguments cannot be used without some reservation.” pp. 119 ,125

    More .

    Sorry for the length, but this "to know history is to become Catholic" propaganda has gone on long enough. Not that the evangelical church is altogether the NT church but Rome is the one who claims to be "it," but is fundamentally perverse.

  • Pope Francis Reveals Top 10 Secrets to Happiness...

    08/02/2014 5:57:14 AM PDT · 78 of 114
    daniel1212 to PieterCasparzen
    Once a Church makes that its bed, it then has to lie in it. When a Church effectively tosses the Bible aside and tells its congregants to obey to the Church leadership’s teachings over and above obeying Scripture, it gets taken over from within by the darkness of corrupt souls of fallen man. It then becomes a cult like all false religions. Religious cults always tell their members to obey the cult leaders over and above anything or anyone else. True Churches tell their members to obey the Word of God, the Bible, over and above anything or anyone else

    True words. Sola ecclesia takes the problem of personal error to a corporate level, while yet requiring interpretation of the leadership, if allowed. And if not, then you have the most unity, but like that of the Watchtower society, not Scripture in which the church est. its Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. Thank God, and which we fall too short in.