Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $71,903
81%  
Woo hoo!! And now less than $16.1k to go!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by daniel1212

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • The Rapture?

    05/24/2016 11:12:07 AM PDT · 423 of 436
    daniel1212 to verga; ealgeone; metmom
    You are asking me to take your word about a non-Catholic practice, but refuse to take the Catholics word about our beliefs. That is the very definition of Hypocrisy.

    Which is simply a continuation of your fallacious analogy, for unlike you, my argument is not about what i perceive, but how the words and actions of the "hyper veneration" of Mary, as described and substantiated, compares with Scripture, and thus is worship or blasphemous, while constant abundant praise, adulation and devotion to the wholly inspired word of God is Scriptural. Which leaves you resorting to argue that in your perception saying that by reading the Bible one can know about God (or if one says God is in the Bible) then that means he believes the Bible is literally God, and that praying while clutching the word of God and in that your absurd perception this means he is praying to the Bible(!).

    You can attempt to argue that worship can only be defined is one knows the heart of the one engaging in such words and actions that Scripture describes as worship, but that does not refute what i said that said Marian devotion would be considered worship in Scripture, while restricting the definition to the heart means that one could even take the mark of the beast and then claim they were not engaging in worship.

    If i argued that saying Christ is found in Mary meant that she is God, or that praying while clutching a statue of her necessarily means one is praying to her, or that merely praying while kneeling before a a statue of her necessarily meant one was worshiping her (though that itself is not Scriptural), then your attempted analogy would have merit, but instead your argument by perception remains absurd.

  • The Rapture?

    05/24/2016 11:12:04 AM PDT · 422 of 436
    daniel1212 to verga; metmom; ealgeone
    Do you know every protestant that I know, Have you seen everything I have seen. *Note metmom has used this exact same position to defend any number of her untenable positions, it is either valid for all of us or none of us.

    Once again your argument is spurious, as it is not about what you claim to see, but what you perceive it as being. Ealgeone says that by reading the Bible one can know about God (or one says God is in the Bible) but in your absurd perception that means he believes the Bible is literally God. Another Prot. prays while clutching the word of God and in that your absurd perception this means he is praying to the Bible(!). Did you know that I can find verga in freerepublic.com. Go look; he is in there! Which must mean freerepublic.com is literally verga!

    And i am sure metmom will be interested in seeing where and how she says the Bible is literally God, and prays to it. The more you double down on your absurdity then more you become absurd.

  • The Rapture?

    05/24/2016 5:39:22 AM PDT · 387 of 436
    daniel1212 to Thales Miletus; verga; ealgeone
    I don't want to hijack the thread so ping me when he makes one of "those" comments again.

    Why not join the crowd?

    As an agnostic / Metatheist I have to ask. In the dark ages before Skype I would tell my daughters picture that I missed her when I was out of town and would give her and my wife's picture a kiss goodnight, was that worship?

    No, and the argument was not kissing a picture of someone is worship, nor that that simply kneeling before something other than God constitutes worship, but that one would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them

    Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship. Or at least what would be blasphemous in Scripture.

    In response a RC charged that preaching that one finds God in the Bible, even as finding out about God, constitutes worship as the Bible literally being God, and praying before a Bible or while clutching it in hand means that one is praying to it, and is analogous to what Caths do toward Mary, as described. And the poster insists on maintaining such absurdity despite patiently being shown his error

    And now it seems he has invoked you for support. Perhaps if you say you find someone in your school yearbook then this means that the yearbook literally is that person, while speaking with it in hand means you are praying to it in worship of it.

    Such is hardly helpful to an agnostic

  • The Rapture?

    05/24/2016 5:16:25 AM PDT · 386 of 436
    daniel1212 to verga; ealgeone
    Go find any one here who asserts that the Bible is literally God,

    ealgeone did up thread.

    He did no such thing. Where else will you find out about God if not in His Word is simply not saying the Bible is literally God. I dare you find another RC here that will agree with your utter fabrication, or delusion, and take up your argument as you have been reduced to spitballs and rendered yourself as one unworthy of meaningful debate. Doubling down on your assertions further adds absurdity to your record in the name of Rome, and is an argument against being an RC.

  • The Rapture?

    05/24/2016 5:05:42 AM PDT · 385 of 436
    daniel1212 to verga
    Seen it with my own eyes back when I was a protestant and even now that I am a Catholic. Heck up thread one of you admitted it.

    Which is simply a fallacious assertion, which cannot be shown, and doubling down on your refuted assertion rather than admitting it is further marginalizes you as a desperate defender of the indefensible.

  • The Rapture?

    05/23/2016 7:50:44 PM PDT · 375 of 436
    daniel1212 to Mrs. Don-o
    Gosh, it's refreshing to see evidence of careful thinking and fair judgments on disputed questions.

    But then we have the insistence that we think the Bible is really God and thus pray to it. Never seems to end.

  • The Rapture?

    05/23/2016 7:47:22 PM PDT · 373 of 436
    daniel1212 to ealgeone; verga
    You checkmated him again.

    Maybe the selective insistence that "this is my "body" means a piece o bread is really God leads a RC to believe that gripping a bible and praying "God Help me I am a sinner, Lord I am a weak man" is praying to it, and telling people they would find God in the Bible means thinking the Bible is actually God. But i think it is a desperate recourse.

  • The Rapture?

    05/23/2016 7:39:12 PM PDT · 370 of 436
    daniel1212 to verga; ealgeone; MHGinTN
    The Bible is the Word OF God it is not actually God himself....Remember the Bible is just a book, a very special book but it is not literally God

    You have now further exposed your lunacy, imagining, or for lack of an actual argument, resorting to asserting, that we see Scripture the way Caths see their Eucharist. Go find any one here who asserts that the Bible is literally God, versus revealing Him, which the church, as the body of Christ is also to do in conformity with His word.

    If you are still confused I will try to help you clear this up in the morning, but hey if it takes longer than a day, so be it.

    If after a nights sleep you still hold to this delusion or recourse to absurdity, then so be it. It will further example what cultic devotion to Rome can do. If you are not an aberration, go find another Cath who agrees with you if you really think we think the Bible is literally God and pray to it.

  • The Rapture?

    05/23/2016 7:28:33 PM PDT · 367 of 436
    daniel1212 to verga
    where else will you find out about God if not in His Word??

    Ahaaaa you admit it. Catholics know they find God's truth in the Bible. Thank you for admitting once and for all that you worship the Bible.

    What kind of ignorance or illogical is this? Asserting that one finds out about God in His Word is an admission that you worship the Bible? Absurd.

  • The Rapture?

    05/23/2016 7:26:15 PM PDT · 366 of 436
    daniel1212 to verga; ealgeone
    have seen it myself. Many non-Catholics have their Bibles in shrines. They have vases with flowers next to them, some have candles next to them. I know what I have seen with my own eyes. Jimmy Swaggert himself on television gripping his bible for it was worth. Praying to it "God Help me I am a sinner, Lord I am a weak man." When I lived up north I saw Oral Roberts in person hold a Bible up and tell the crowd they would find God in there. Don't deny it, maybe you aren't, but many others worship the Bible and that makes them idolaters. Any one that kneels down with a Bible in their hand and prays is an idolater.

    That is absurd! And RCs criticize Prots for misunderstanding or misrepresenting beliefs. The Jews were commanded to give great honor to the word of God (This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night... (Joshua 1:8) And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. - Deuteronomy 6:8) ), but gripping a bible and praying "God Help me I am a sinner, Lord I am a weak man" is not praying to it(!), nor is Oral Roberts (even) telling a crowd they would find God in the Bible talking about it like the Caths do about the Eucharist, but that one "finds" Moses, and the prophets, and Christ in Scripture as in reading the pure word of God, by which faith comes and thus "finding" God salvifically.

    And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:27)

  • The Rapture?

    05/23/2016 7:10:14 PM PDT · 357 of 436
    daniel1212 to verga; ealgeone
    Nope, nice try I know what I have seen with my own eyes both when I was a protestant and now as a Catholic. Please stop denying the plain truth. quite a few of you worship the Bible, you kneel before it, pray to it etc......

    Pure bombast in contrast to what is abundantly substantiated. In Scripture you will find the word of God being consistently exceedingly loved, praised, longed for, adored as being very pure, perfect, converting the soul, enlightening the eyes, more to be desired than pure gold, sweeter than honey, esteemed above necessary food, the saintly meditation of which is all day long, and the delight and rejoicing of the heart, and in keeping of which there is great reward, and which God has exalted above His very name.

    Yet we do not bow down to a statue of it, or pray to the Bible ("O most merciful Bible, hear out prayer.."), offer up sacrifices to it, or whatever else in your "etc." that would be unScriptural veneration. In contrast, Caths engage in what is utterly unseen in Scripture, saying such things as, “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary’s name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus...[who] does not at once, answer anyone who invokes him, but only does so after just judgment. But if the name of his mother Mary is invoked, her merits intercede so that he is answered even if the merits of him who invoked her do not deserve it.” Thus, “we have recourse, to thee alone, and we beseech thee to prevent thy beloved Son, who is irritated by our sins, from abandoning us to the power of the devil,” “we have but one advocate, and that is thyself, and thou alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation ... My Queen and my Advocate with thy Son, whom I dare not approach.” (From Judge Fairly, p. 5).. And indeed, Mary “had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,” thus “We were condemned through the fault of one woman; we are saved through the merits of another woman.”

    For adding to what the word of God says of the virtuous, surrendered, Spirit-filled graced among women, Mary of Scripture and contrary to it, RCs assert of this demonic (yes) demigoddess that “the power thus put into her (Mary’s) hands is all but unlimited,” “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,” and is actually “like unto Him.” for “when she acts, it is also He who acts; and that if her intervention be not accepted, neither is His,” and that “ “all in heaven and on earth, even God himself, is subject to the Blessed Virgin,” and that “the greatness of the power which she wields over one who is God cannot be conceived,” for “she seems to have the same power as God. Her prayers and requests are so powerful with him that he accepts them as commands in the sense that he never resists his dear mother’s prayer because it is always humble and conformed to his will...”

    Moreover, “Mary has authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven...God gave her the power and the mission of assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels who fell away through pride....all the angels in heaven unceasingly call out to her.” o that “After God, it is impossible to think of anything greater than His Mother,” to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood...Next to God, she deserves the highest praise....no creature, can ever be compared to her:”

    “The Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse.” “through Whom the Holy Trinity is sanctified.” And “through her alone does He dispense His favours and His gifts,” and “it follows that there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose.”

    Sources

    You simply have no case unless you can show that your opposition is actually praying to the Bible, and or attributing to it attributes and praise that is not in Scripture, in which case i will concur it is wrong, just as the manner of "veneration" giving to the Mary of Catholicism is.

  • The Rapture?

    05/23/2016 4:04:43 PM PDT · 326 of 436
    daniel1212 to verga; ealgeone
    Well then by logical extension, any time I have seen a protestant kneeling in prayer holding their Bible we can safely conclude that they are worshipping the Bible. Going strictly by appearances and the rules you have established, it is the only logical conclusion.

    Wrong, and plainly so as not analogous, for the charge never was that simply kneeling before something other than God constitutes worship, but that doing so together with adulation with supplication that is never given to any created being, and ascribing to such attributes and glory such as are only ascribed to God would constitute worship in Scripture. Or at least blasphemy.

    Yet the closest thing to what Catholics give to Mary is the praise and devotion that is given to the wholly inspired word of God, and abundantly so, which Caths can only wish was given to Mary in Scripture, while the praise of which by Catholics pales in comparison to the adulation and devotion given directly to Mary.

  • The Rapture?

    05/22/2016 8:57:30 PM PDT · 276 of 436
    daniel1212 to ealgeone; Mrs. Don-o
    If the RCC has not refuted these apparitions, and I don't believe they have, they're advocating an acceptance of these as doctrine.

    No: silence at best would mean they do not see it as detrimental and warranting censure, or that the magisterium has failed to protect their flock if it is, while at worst silence could infer implicit sanction, but not as doctrine.

  • The Rapture?

    05/22/2016 8:42:09 PM PDT · 275 of 436
    daniel1212 to Mrs. Don-o
    FReeper Daniel1212 called him on it, and said "Asserting something like Pope Benedict didn't believe in the Resurrection seems pretty absurd to me. " http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3431022/posts?page=132#132 Daniel1212 certainly opposes distinctive Catholic doctrines, but endeavors to do so, I think, without misrepresentation and without snide-issimus personalis.

    I do seek to only argue what i know can be substantiated, and to avoid actual misrepresentation, and i have corrected some things when i found out that i was misinformed (while a couple RCs have tried to charge me with misrepresentation when i did not). Like as "dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour," (Ecclesiastes 10:1) so can an invalid argument to a position that is otherwise correct. However, there is some much that is substantiated from Catholic sources that there is no polemical need to use misrepresentation in exposing her errors.

  • The Rapture?

    05/22/2016 8:41:57 PM PDT · 274 of 436
    daniel1212 to Mrs. Don-o; ealgeone
    Catholics have explained to you patiently and repeatedly the difference between veneration (honor) and worship (adoration) and yet you prove yourself un-teachable.

    I spent some time explaining how the Trinity isn't three 'gods' but One True God,... I guess there are people who can't learn, and people who won't.

    That is an invalid analogy, as one of the arguments for the Trinity is that to Christ are ascribed attributes, glory and "veneration" that only belong to God, but likewise are ascribed to the Mary of Catholicism. If Moses or a Muslim saw such they would just conclude Mary was deity. As said before,

    One would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them in Heaven from earth.

    Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

    Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

    >Words (I found) used for worship in the NT (KJV)

    Proskyneō/Proskuneō — a masculine noun meaning to prostrate, almost always in worship. It occurs 60 times, mainly for worship of God, but sometimes for false gods, including images and demonic incarnations, which is idolatry. (Acts 7:43; Rv 9:20; 13:4, 8, 12, 15; 14:9; 16:2)

    It is used twice for obeisance before men, once in forbidding a pious man to do so, before Peter no less, (Act 10:25) and another in compelling false brethren to show obeisance before the feet of true brethren. (Rv. 3:9)

    Furthermore it is used once in reproving John for trying to worship an angel of Christ, telling him to worship (proskyneō) God instead. (Rv. 22:8,9)

    Thus this act of prostration normatively denotes worship, only once being clearly used for less than that, and worship is always the case when proskyneō is used as a volitional activity, or in the context of supernatural beings.

    Nowhere is the act of believers bowing down to believers sanctioned, much less bowing down before a statue of them in prayer, praise and adulation, and ascribing to them attributes which are only ascribed to God. And which is blasphemous, and outside of worship of God this manner of prostration and ascription is only seen in pagan worship, which is idolatry.

    Proskunētēs — a masculine noun, which occurs just once (John 4:23) and describes those who worship God. Therefore latreia is not the only word that uniquely means worship, contrary to what many Catholics argue.

    Sebō/Sebomai — A verb which occurs 10 times, denoting worship of God as well as false gods, and to describe devout persons.

    Sebazomai. A verb occurring once (Rm. 1:25) in describing those who worshiped and served false gods.

    Latreuō — service of worship. It occurs 21 times, mostly as "serve" in describing the activity of worship of God, and twice for service to false gods. (Acts 7:42; Rm. 1:25: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped [sebazomai (G4573)] and served [latreuō (G1391)] the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

    It is never used for service to man, and is what we see Catholics giving to the Mary of Catholicism, to whom they ascribe Divine attributes and functions, and dedicate themselves to her.

    Latreia — From latreuō; service of worship. Occurs 5 times as denoting service toward God, not any created being, yet it is corespondent to the dedicatory service of Catholics to their Mary.

    Eusebeō — to be pious, reverent as in the only place it occurs in describing worship of unknown God. .(Acts 17:23)

    Conclusion: From this brief study we can see that any assurance the Catholics are not engaging in worship in their "hyperdulia" of Mary, crossing the invisible line into latreia, is plainly specious. For just as souls were quite obviously engaging in worship described as proskyneō or latreuō or sebazomai, even if latreia was not used to describe them, so also can Catholics.

    While sometimes the words for worship can be used in regards to obeisance toward men, yet as with the words for praise, they are never used in regards to created beings being bowed or prostrated to (much less before representative statues) beings in adulation and praise and prayed to as unseen beings having supernatural abilities in the heavenly realm, including the ability to hear corporate, even mental prayer in Heaven from those on earth, and engaging in making sacrificial offerings to them.

    And in Scripture constitutes worship, with such activity and ascriptions being unseen toward anyone but God, and otherwise it belongs in the pagan world.

    And thus by engaging in such towards Mary, it is evidenced that many Catholics are materially engaging in worship, or at the least blasphemy (if a difference can be made), even if unawares.

    In response some Catholics argue that one cannot engage in worship if that is not intended in the persons heart. However, this is not the case, for one can easily be unaware of what constitutes worship, including of money, and in any case one can deny they are engaging in such, even taking the mark of the Beast but denying it represents worship of him.

    Moreover, idolaters are described as being such, not based upon their hearts, but their dedicatory actions and ascriptions.

    See link for verses and more, by God's grace. But no doubt being able to speak Greek means that engaging in the manner of "veneration" only given to God or by pagans to false gods, and ascribing attributes that are only ascribed to God or by pagans to false gods, does not constitute worship when Catholics do so toward created beings.

  • A Journey Using a Medieval “Map of Hell”

    05/22/2016 8:15:23 PM PDT · 26 of 42
    daniel1212 to GreyFriar
    No, it is NOT in your detailed quoting of multiple scripture,

    Which you seem to scorn as superfluous, as if the Holy Spirit could have described the end of the wicked as simply being eternal separation from God, period, but which He never does.

    but it is “the bottom line” i.e. eternal separation from God.

    No, it is not the final result or outcome, as apart from such descriptions as Scripture eternal separation from God could simply refer to emptiness, solitude, or even unconsciousness. Simple eternal separation from God speaks of the absence of what the redeemed enjoy in glory, but does not speak of the realization of the opposite which the Holy Spirit details.

    Why reduce the final result of unbelief to simply eternal separation from God when the Lord goes into such detail as to what that means?

    Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; (2 Thessalonians 1:9)

  • The Rapture?

    05/22/2016 1:10:06 PM PDT · 223 of 436
    daniel1212 to SkyDancer
    And what’s happening to Christians under ISIS rule - do they believe they’re going through the Tribulation?

    Not Scripturally, but expecting to do so would better prepare them for such.

  • Pope Francis: Islam's Friend, Christianity's Foe?

    05/22/2016 12:23:39 PM PDT · 24 of 35
    daniel1212 to LeonardFMason; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; ...
    Pope Francis is an absolute joke. As MUSLIMS in the name of ISLAM burn, shoot, drown, shoot, behead, blowup, melt with acid(new), kidnap, and rape Christians, this Puke of a person, this evil deceiver, tries to link Christ and Christianity to the abomination of Muhammad. When will rank and file Catholics rise up against this absurd and evil Pope?

    When you attack Francis then you are attacking those who elected him, which were rank and file Catholics, if bishops are. And which papal office and magisterium is what Catholics tell us evangelicals that we need to have and follow, as does papal teaching. And as Rome treats even proabortion public figures as Catholics in life and in death, thus "rank and file Catholics" are to follow her in so doing, and not be like "Bible-believing fundamentalists," and ascertain the veracity of Truth claims in the light of their Scriptural warrant.

    But both her pope and so much else sadly stands in critical contrast to the NT church.

  • A Journey Using a Medieval “Map of Hell”

    05/22/2016 12:01:36 PM PDT · 12 of 42
    daniel1212 to GreyFriar; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    As a Protestant, the Catholic catechism definition is plain enough and acceptable to me: What is hell? .... “eternal separation from God.”

    That hardly Scripturally suffices:

    But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 8:12)

    And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 13:42)

    Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: (Matthew 25:41)

    And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (Revelation 20:10)

    And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. (Matthew 25:46)

    And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (Revelation 20:10)

    And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. (Luke 16:23-24)

    And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. (Mark 9:47-48)

    And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. (Revelation 14:11)

    38

    In God's Presence, there is fulness of joy and pleasures forever more;

    But for those who reject Him, only Everlasting Punishment, so sore!

    Ps.16:11; Rev.21,22; 2Thes.2:8,-10; Rev14:11

    39

    On the Great Day of GOD's Judgment, when every motive and deed is exposed by CHRIST's pure eyes,

    You'll see how you choose to pacify your conscience, with the devils practiced lies!

    Mt.25; Rv.20:10-15; Ps.11:4; Prov.15:3; Heb. 4:12; Rm. 1:18; 2:1-16; 1Tim.4:1,2; Col.2:18; Jn.8:44; 2Thes.2:1-10

    40

    And as the saints in Glory rejoice, in GOD's heavenly embrace,

    you'll mourn & weep in torment, for spurning your Day of Grace!

    Rev.21, 22; Prov.1:20ff; 2Co.6:2

    41

    So to all who read this, who are yet separated from CHRIST thru sin,

    We plead, "FORSAKE THE FOOLISH AND LIVE," BY TRULY RECEIVING HIM!

    Is..59:1,2; Prov.6:5; Jn.5:24; -

    CREATION to CONSUMATION – POEM Thanks be to God.

  • The Rapture?

    05/22/2016 11:48:51 AM PDT · 215 of 436
    daniel1212 to SkyDancer
    Belief in the Rapture or disbelief in the Rapture does not affect my salvation in Yashua. I do not care one way or other if people go around starry eyed believing they’re suddenly going to be shot up in the sky ... to me the whole thing is a scam by Satan to get your mind off Yashua and ignore what you are as a Christian and your purpose on Earth which is to glorify Him and witness for Him.

    The oft preached expectation of escape from real tribulation can also lead to many souls becoming disillusioned when it comes, which is what i read happened in China when the Boxer rebellion came, as Christians had been told such would not occur before the Lord returned.

  • The Rapture?

    05/22/2016 10:19:43 AM PDT · 213 of 436
    daniel1212 to SkyDancer
    Pro and Con on this. I can cite just as many verses that “Rapturists” used to defend their position as there are verses that don’t support it. Problem is that the Church is so focused on this Rapture they forget the important things the Church should be doing.

    Indeed, including

    Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. (Acts 14:22)

  • WHY CATHOLICISM? ALWAYS THE TARGET

    05/22/2016 7:20:55 AM PDT · 33 of 35
    daniel1212 to goodwithagun; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ..
    I joined the Church last year, even though I can’t stand Francis. I didn’t “quit” the U.S. because of obama, so why should a pope keep me from the faith?

    Well, it seems that many RCs believe that by posting negative things about the non-pope Luther that this is a real argument against evangelical faith. Yet RC sanctioned teaching (emp. mine) is that,

    It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.

    “All that we must do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.”

    “Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..”

    “The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;”

    He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.”

    “..our act of confidence and of blind obedience is highly honoring to Almighty God,..” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )]

    "The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers."

    The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned. His Church gives him all there is to be had; all else is counterfeit... (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )

    ...no matter what be done the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

    ...when we appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the Church's infallible authority we appeal to them merely as reliable historical sources... - Catholic Encyclopedia>Infallibility; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

    —in all cases there is a margin left for the exercise of faith in the word of the Church. He who believes the dogmas of the Church only because he has reasoned them out of History, is scarcely a Catholic......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 lhttp://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section8.html

    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....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. . — Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, 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.

    20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent , since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. - PIUS XII, HUMANI GENERI, August 1950; http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

    The "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" (2005) states,

    80. In the Church’s social doctrine the Magisterium is at work in all its various components and expressions. … Insofar as it is part of the Church’s moral teaching, the Church’s social doctrine has the same dignity and authority as her moral teaching. It is authentic Magisterium, which obligates the faithful to adhere to it. - http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

    Pope Francis' Encyclical, Laudato Si:

    It is my hope that this Encyclical Letter, which is now added to the body of the Church’s social teaching...

    PIUS XI;

    it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord. - CASTI CONNUBII, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI; http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii.html

    And according to SSPV sources, arguing against simply "resist but recognize" the pontiff:

    To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation.

    if it should happen that those who have no right to do so should attribute authority to themselves, if they presume to become judges and teachers, if inferiors in the government of the universal Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path...

    Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.....

    But obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces ...

    when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed ; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority ; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope. (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at: (“Love the Pope! ” – no ifs, and no buts: For Bishops, priests, and faithful, Saint Pius X explains what loving the Pope really entails.)- http://christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at: (“Love the Pope! ” – no ifs, and no buts: For Bishops, priests, and faithful, Saint Pius X explains what loving the Pope really entails.)- http://christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x

    However, the real reason why you should leave the church of Rome, an admixture of largely liberal souls you must treat as members as Rome does in life and in death, is because she sadly stands in critical contrast to the NT church.

  • The Rapture?

    05/22/2016 6:34:38 AM PDT · 202 of 436
    daniel1212 to ealgeone; free_life
    You haven’t seen the catholics try to find the Marian dogmas in the Word have you?

    Sadly, they have, disrespecting the word of God by compelling it to support Rome, like an abused servant.

  • The Rapture?

    05/22/2016 6:34:34 AM PDT · 201 of 436
    daniel1212 to SkyDancer; Salvation
    A guy by the name of Darby conjured it up using vague references in the NT. Then the Scofield reference Bible enlarged on i

    Actually it seems the origins have at least its seeds in writings by Catholics. From a priest:

    Its origins are in the counter reformation move of Papal Rome in the 16th century after Martin Luther nailed his 95 thesis to the church door in Wittenberg on October 31, 1517. It is less well known that Pope Leo X authorized three Jesuit Priests to reinterpret Daniel’s 70 weeks of prophecy; the Book of Revelation; and Ezekiel. The goal of these jesuits was to take the heat of the reformation away from the papacy and the protestant association of the Anti-Christ with the pope. The three Jesuits were:

    1. Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) of Salamanca,
    2. Luis de Alcazar (1554-1621) of Seville, and
    3. Cardinal Roberto Bellarmine (1542-1621).

    The doctrine – called futurism – which would later become ‘the rapture’ originated and was submitted by Francisco Ribera in 1585. His Apocalyptic Commentary was on the grand points of Babylon and the Anti-Christ which are now known as the rapture doctrine. Ribera’s published work was called “In Sacram Beati Ionnis Apostoli & Evangelistate Apocoalypsin Commentari” (Lugduni 1593). You can still find these writings in the Bodleian Library in Oxford England. The work was considered flawed and faulty, and was ordered buried in the Church archives, out of sight, by the pope himself.

    Unfortunately, over 200 years later a librarian to the Archbishop of Canterbury by the name of S. R. Maitland (1792-1866) was appointed to be the Keeper of the Manuscripts at Lambeth Palace, in London, England. In his duties, Dr. Maitland came across Francisco Ribera’s rapture theology and he had it republished for the sake of interest in early 1826 with follow ups in 1829 and 1830.

    This was spurred along with the Oxford Tracts that were published in 1833 to try and deprotestantize the Church of England. John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) (A Leader of the Plymouth Brethren) became a follower of S.R. Maitland’s prophetic endeavors and was persuaded. Darby’s influence in the seminaries of Europe combined with 7 tours of the United States changed the eschatological view of the ministers which had the trickle down effect into the churches.

    Another contributor to the rapture ideology came through Emmanuel Lacunza (1731-1801), a Jesuit priest from Chile. Lacunza wrote the “Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty” around 1791. It was later published in London in 1827. The book was attributed to a fictitious author name Rabbi Juan Josafat BenEzra. - http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/46653.htm

  • The Rapture?

    05/22/2016 5:40:23 AM PDT · 198 of 436
    daniel1212 to aMorePerfectUnion
    First of all, the word "rapture" is found in the Bible, if you have the Latin Vulgate produced by Jerome in the early 400s.

    The derivation of the word “rapture” comes from the Latin [Vulgate] translation of the scriptures, which employs the Latin word “rapiemur" in 1 Thess. 4: 17 (or “raptus" in 2 Cor. 12:4) which means to carry off or to be “caught up." But in Greek (the original language of the N.T.) the word harpazo is used instead (the very word employed in 2 Cor. 12:2,4), which, like rapiemur or raptus means to be “caught up”, carried away by force: seized, snatched. Language difference notwithstanding, the meaning is the same. - THE controversial BIBLE MATTERS (Hard Cover) By Phil Leary, p. 491

    The Vulgate is not without translational errors, yet i do not think rapiemur for harpazo in 1 Thess. 4: 17 is not invalid, but the word also can simply basically mean "take," including by force, as in the violent taking the kingdom of God, or to snatch, such as from the heart, or from the Father's hand, or up to someplace else. (Mat_11:12, Joh_6:15; Act_23:10; Mat_13:19, Act_8:39; Mat_13:19; Joh_10:12; Joh_10:28-29; Jud_1:23)

    Thus the word can just as well describe the resurrection as being at the end of the Trib as well as the proposed previous one called the rapture.

  • The Rapture?

    05/21/2016 8:19:23 PM PDT · 188 of 436
    daniel1212 to MHGinTN
    You offered, "... and go on with Him to the battle of Armageddon." Um, that is not what JESUS told His disciples in the Upper Room Discourse. He told them He was going to prepare a place fro them and that He would return to take them to Himself, back to the Father's House to be with Him THERE. We Who have been with Him in HEAVEN return with Him as seen by Jude. These redeemed return with Jesus to the Earth at the end of the Tribulation. They left when the Church Age ended just before the seventieth week of Daniel.

    Apart from the rapture occurring 7 years previous, we both agree. But the Lord's words in Jn. 14:1-3 do not state an immediate entrance into the many dwelling places, but that the believers will henceforth be with the Lord: "that where I am, there ye may be also." (cf. 1Thes. 4:17) Whatever the many dwelling places actually entails, it would seem to be part of the rewards which would be after the judgment seat of Christ, the first resurrection.

    I am fine with the rapture occurring pre trib, but see it as being the resurrection at the end of the trib. as best conforming to Mt. 24. But i do not get into precise eschatology too dogmatically.

  • The Rapture?

    05/21/2016 6:44:44 PM PDT · 154 of 436
    daniel1212 to cloudmountain; Salvation; Cicero; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; ...
    Actually as you were shown before,

    “Another suggestion traces the influence to a Jesuit priest, Manuel Lacunza (1731-1801), who was born in Chile but came to Italy in 1767 where he would spend the rest of his life. Posing as a converted Jew (under the pseudonym Juan Josafat Ben Ezra), he wrote, in Spanish, a large apocalyptic work entitled The Coming of the Messiah in Glory and Majesty. The book appeared first in 1811, 10 years after his death. http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac1005.asp

    Another influence is said to be a Jesuit priest named Francisco Ribera (1537–1591) was a Spanish Jesuit theologian, identified with the Futurist Christian eschatological view.

    “In the Dictionary of Premillennial Theology (1997) it is said that Ribera was an Augustinian amillennialist, who may have revived a “mild” form of futurism.[1] His interpretation was then followed by Robert Bellarmine and Thomas Malvenda.[2]

    Thomas Brightman, in particular, writing in the early 17th century as an English Protestant, contested Ribera’s views. He argued that the Catholic use of the Vulgate had withheld commentary from the Book of Revelation, and then provided an interpretation avoiding the connection with the Papacy put forward in the historicist point of view.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Lacunza

    Ribera “in the days of the Reformation, first taught that all the events in the book of Revelation were to take place literally during the three and a half years reign of the antichrist way down at the end of the age.” http://www.theologue.org/Theory-JPEby.html (Protestant source, which gives the most lengthy explanation).

    I myself also see the “rapture”- which term is derived from the text of the Latin Vulgate of 1 Thess. 4:17—”we will be caught up,” [Latin: rapiemur]) - as being the first resurrection, (Rv. 20:5,6) which is only for the saved, “the resurrection of life, (Jn. 5:29a), the “resurrection of the just,” on the “day of the Lord, in which all the bodies of believers will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air, and go on with Him to the battle of Armageddon.

    “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. “ (1 Thessalonians 4:14)

    “Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. “ (1 Thessalonians 4:17)

    “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. “ (Jude 14-15)

    Those who effectually believe on the Lord Jesus now have eternal life life, and if they die in the Lord they shall go to be with the Lord, (2Cor. 5:6-8; Phil. 1:23; 1Thes. 4:17) but their rewards or loss thereof are not given out until that “day of the Lord.”

    Believers will be rewarded for their good works, (Lk. 14:14; cf. 1Cor. 4:5; Acts 24:15) in distinction to “the resurrection of damnation” (Jn. 5:29b) which evidently occurs 1,000 years after, (Rv. 20:5) and in which believers will be part of the jury in the judgement of men and angels.

    “Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. “ (1 Corinthians 3:13)

    “Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, “ (2 Thessalonians 2:1)

    And on that “day” every believer shall “receive his own reward according to his own labour,” (1Cor. 3::8) including suffering loss of rewards:

    “Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God. “ (1 Corinthians 4:5)

    And will sit with Him in judgment of men and of angels:

    “Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? “ (1 Corinthians 6:3)

    Those who die in their sins shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth upon them, yet their exact degree of punishment is not meted out until the Great White Throne judgment.

    The “great and notable day of the Lord” ‘ Acts 2:20) culminates in the Great White Throne judgment in which the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, and whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire, (Rv. 20:11-5) with their degree of punishment being determined in accordance with how much light and grace was given. (Lk. 10:12-13; 12:47,48)

  • BREAKING: EgyptAir Flight MS804 Captain Is A Muslim Linked To Terrorist Involved In Benghazi

    05/21/2016 6:37:15 PM PDT · 111 of 124
    daniel1212 to Gay State Conservative
    Well,I'm a Catholic and unlike some Catholics (including,it would seem,Mr Shoebat),and unlike some Protestants,I don't go in for the old "Catholics are heretics" or "Protestants are heretics" routine.If you're a genuine Christian I'm not 100% certain that acceptance,or rejection,of the Pope is pivotal in pleasing God.

    While i appreciate the intent, laxity in doctrine is not a virtue and what you express is contrary to the belief of "old" Catholicism, as well as modern Rome, if less pronounced. But the problem is that both forms stand in fundamental and overall contrast to the NT church, in which the basis for assurance of Truth was not the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults), nor was it, among other things, a church looking to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes, and praying to created beings in Heaven, or with a Lord's Supper being the central practice as a sacrifice for sins officiated by a class of clergy distinctively called "priests," with that being their primary distinctive activity.

    But this subject aside the question still remains...how accurate is the info that Mr Shoebat has released over the years about the Religion of Pieces?

    From what i know, he is accurate in much of his analysis, but his own claims for himself seem dubious, and evidences going off on a rant, while i have not checked out his many claims.

  • BREAKING: EgyptAir Flight MS804 Captain Is A Muslim Linked To Terrorist Involved In Benghazi

    05/21/2016 9:57:43 AM PDT · 97 of 124
    daniel1212 to Gay State Conservative
  • The Gospel Part 5: Reconciling Faith And Works

    05/21/2016 5:14:38 AM PDT · 40 of 49
    daniel1212 to Elsie

    By the grace of God i gave two female Mormon missionaries reproof of their religion for about 10 minutes last week, resulting in “we have to go,” but were warned of where they were going.

  • The Gospel Part 5: Reconciling Faith And Works

    05/20/2016 1:53:08 PM PDT · 35 of 49
    daniel1212 to StormPrepper
    8. Matt 25:32-46 is direct and explicit. How can anyone deny this? Ask yourself this, based on Matt 25, are the righteous separated from the wicked based on what they believed or what they did? Or... didn’t do?

    They were they believed separated from the wicked based on what thy believed, as evidenced by their works. "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." (James 2:18) Everything that we do is a result of what we truly believe - at least at the moment. While works are the criteria for determination of whether what one professes is the truth, it is not the works or our practical sanctification that make us good enough to be with God in Heaven, which is the error of Rome (thus Purgatory).

  • The Gospel Part 5: Reconciling Faith And Works

    05/20/2016 1:52:49 PM PDT · 34 of 49
    daniel1212 to Iscool; StormPrepper
    That is not at all what the apostle Paul teaches us...He teaches us that 'our works' get judged...Not us..

    A distinction without a difference, as in judging what manner of workmanship one built the church with, then the Lord is judging the worker as to whether he/she is fit to be rewarded or suffer loss of rewards, though i do not think it is an either/or situation.

    Jesus doesn't judge our works...He judges our heart...We don't have to prove anything...

    Which contradicts your previous statement, but the Lord certainly does judge our heart - by our works, as is clearly seen, such as in His critique of the 7 churches of Asia.

    I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: (Revelation 2:2)

    We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted [well-approved] of him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences. (2 Corinthians 5:8-11)

    And then the bad works are burned up..Expunged from our record so we can go to heaven with a clean slate...

    There is nothing here in 1Co. 3:8ff about works being expunged from our record so we can go to heaven with a clean slate, as the judgment is in order to reward believers, not to purify them so they can enter Heaven (which is akin to Roman Catholicism), and they are already with the Lord at His return. Combustible building material will be burned up, resulting in loss of rewards and the grievous disapproval of the Lord, but one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of them.

    If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. (1 Corinthians 3:15)

  • The Gospel Part 5: Reconciling Faith And Works

    05/20/2016 8:59:59 AM PDT · 29 of 49
    daniel1212 to Iscool; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    eam Faith can be further split into two categories: first, those who think that faith and salvation have no relationship to works and thus grace is a license to sin (these are called antinomians: anti = against and nomian = law, so "against law"). Second, those who believe we are saved by faith alone, but the type of faith that saves is a faith that consequentially results in obedience to God and thus good works. The second view differentiates between a professed faith and a penitent faith.

    How do you reconcile Rev. 20:12-13 then??? Just pretend they don't exist???

    Rev. 20:12-13 simply refers to the lost, having rejected the Lord Jesus, being sentenced in accordance with their sins, and the greater the grace they rejected, the greater their degree of punishment. Believers will have already gone to be with the Lord in the first resurrection - the "resurrection of life:” Jn. 5:29a; Rev. 20:6,7,14, and to fight with Him in the battle of Armageddon, (Jude 1:14-15) and receive rewards at the judgment seat of Christ (which takes place at His return: 1Cor. 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4), and will judge the world and angels at the final judgment. (1Co. 6:2,3; cf. Mal. 3:18; Mt 16:27; 19:28; Mt 24:30,31; 25:31; Lk. 22:20; 2Th 1:7,8; Re 1:7; 5:10; 19:6-20; 20:4)

    But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city. Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. (Luke 10:12-13)

    Mat 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

    Indeed, as such is an essential characteristic of true faith:

    Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. (Hebrews 10:35-36)

    But which does not mean that one is saved "by works of righteousness which we have done," (Titus 3:5) but that as the poster said, "the type of faith that saves is a faith that consequentially results in obedience to God and thus good works." Thus the classic Prot. doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints," though Scripture does warn against falling from grace, in departing from the living God. (Heb. 3:12; Gal. 5:1-4)

    What about that one??? You don't get saved until you endure to the end...

    That refers to final salvation, for one is saved the moment they are converted, being "washed...sanctified...justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God," (1 Corinthians 6:11) being made "accepted in the Beloved" and "made to sit together in heavenly places", (Eph. 1:6; 2;6) "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;" (Titus 3:5)

    Yet we are also being saved in the sense of progressive sanctification, from our present condition to conformity with Christ, seeking to become as much as we can be to our resurrected state.

    If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. (Philippians 3:11-15)

    Then there is the final full realization of salvation, not simply deliverance from the penalty of sin, and receiving eternal life with Christ, but seeing and being with the Lord Jesus, and having a resurrected body like His, and rewards for service, etc.

    And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. (Romans 13:11)

    Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (Titus 2:13)

    For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. (2 Corinthians 5:2-4)

    For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. (Philippians 3:20-21)

    Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2)

    Mat 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Faith is no where mentioned regarding the sheep and goats...The sheep get the kingdom due to good works...

    Rather, works are nowhere said to be the cause of their justification, which Paul makes clear is by faith, but it is because their faith was manifested by works that they were judged fit to be rewarded under grace. Faith is what appropriates justification, not any system of works-merit,

    For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Romans 4:3-5)

    "So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." "...if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." (Galatians 3:9-10,21) Yet works justify one as having saving faith, like as a fulfilled prophecy justifies one as being a prophet. Believers are judged by works as this is what evidences faith, which God rewards:

    Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. (Hebrews 10:35) .

    Like as forgiveness and healing could be used synonymously ("Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?" - Mark 2:9), as the former effected the latter, so faith and works can sometimes be used thusly, but the effect is not the cause. Therefore Scripture both teaches that one obtains justification by believing, but also promises salvation to those who obey the Lord.

    Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)

    But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:8-13)

    And how about the rich guy who 'couldn't get in' because he wouldn't sell everything he had and give it away??? Thus to be consistent with this, then everyone must divest themselves of all wealth to be saved, but Paul tells the rich to simply be willing to distribute, (1Tim. 6:17-19) as disciples must surrender all in heart to Christ. (Lk. 14:33) Which type of obedience is a mark of true faith, but which is not its actual cause.

    The common error is supposing that the effect of justification is its cause, that souls actually merit eternal life by their works, yet

    man could not and would not believe on the Lord Jesus or follow Him unless God gave him life, and breath, and all good things he has, (Acts 17:25) and convicted him, (Jn. 16:8) drew him, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32) opened his heart, (Acts 16:14) and granted repentance (Acts 11:18) and gave faith, (Eph. 2:8,9) and then worked in him both to will and to do of His good pleasure the works He commands them to do. (Phil. 2:13; Eph. 2:10)

    Thus man owes to God all things, and while he is guilty and rightly damned for resisting God contrary to the level of grace given him, (Prov. 1:20-31; Lk. 10:13; 12:48; Rv. 20:11-15) man can not claim he actually deserves anything, and God does not owe him anything but damnation, except that under grace — which denotes unmerited favor — God has chosen to reward faith, (Heb. 10:35) in recognition of its effects.

    Which means that God justifies man without the merit of any works, which is what Romans 4:1-7ff teaches, with “works of the law” including all systems of justification by merit of works, “for, if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” (Galatians 3:21)

    Thus the penitent publican and the contrite criminal, both of whom abased themselves as damned and destitute sinner and cast all their faith upon the mercy of God (which ultimately is Christ), were justified, and as such could go directly to be with the Lord at death, even before they did any manifest works of faith. But works justify one as being a believer, and fit to be rewarded under grace for such, (Mt. 25:30-40; Rv. 3:4) though only because God has decided to reward man for what God Himself is actually to be credited for.

    Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

    Which is as said, because the doers of the law shall be justified as being believers in the light of their obedience, as faith effects works, "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:4)

  • Pope Francis Betrays Christianity By Romanticizing Poverty

    05/19/2016 7:37:06 AM PDT · 136 of 142
    daniel1212 to Mrs. Don-o

    Credit to whom credit is due, by the grace of God.

  • Pope Francis Betrays Christianity By Romanticizing Poverty

    05/19/2016 4:57:22 AM PDT · 134 of 142
    daniel1212 to Thales Miletus; Elsie
    Yet when asked for a reaction to news of a split in the Methodist faith you refuse to make a comment. This sounds a bit hypocritical.

    That presumes that the Methodist faith represents the faith of the poster(?), while if your example is meant to impugn Protestantism, as defined by even its most fundamental distinctive, then you must show that this Methodist declension is a consequence of holding Scripture to be the supreme authority as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God. And likewise, that those who most strongly hold to the authority of Scripture, with its basic literal hermeneutic, would not be the most unified major religious group in basic conservative beliefs, in contrast to those Rome treats as members in life and in death.

  • Pope Francis Betrays Christianity By Romanticizing Poverty

    05/19/2016 4:44:39 AM PDT · 133 of 142
    daniel1212 to piusv; Elsie; ealgeone
    All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope. For conciliary decisions are the ripe fruit of the total life-energy of the teaching Church actuated and directed by the Holy Ghost.

    Which premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility (when speaking according to the infallible scope and subject-based criteria) is novel, unnecessary and unScriptural. You are welcome to try to defend it, and your basis for assurance of the veracity of this doctrine.

  • Microsoft is adding more ads to the Windows 10 Start menu

    05/19/2016 4:37:14 AM PDT · 26 of 26
    daniel1212 to dennisw
    Do you use classic shell? How much of a memory hog is it? A few times a month I miss that up button (using win7) on windows explorer. XP was last to have it? Windows ten does bring it back? Thanks!

    Sorry i missed your reply. Classic shell is only using 2.71mb of Private Bytes (refers to the amount of memory that the process executable has asked for - not necessarily the amount it is actually using - but a reasonable approximation of the amount of memory your executable is using). And yes, it enables you to have the Up arrow in folders.

  • Pope Francis Betrays Christianity By Romanticizing Poverty

    05/19/2016 4:24:12 AM PDT · 132 of 142
    daniel1212 to piusv; Mrs. Don-o; Elsie
    I find it fascinating that these two posters (who don't post all that much) have been told not to ping her and yet she doesn't ask you (and some other Protestants) to do the same. Why is it that you, a Protestant, can say some pretty anti-Catholic posts on a regular basis and it's still okay for you to ping her? And yet those horrible, evil sedevacantists may not? In my travels I have observed the anti-sedevacantism in Catholic circles. The hatred by certain Catholics for other Catholics who take the sedevacantist position in this unprecedented crisis is disgusting.

    Who are you referring to? If one posts something that they should not think they should be protected from replies, though if a poster evidences that he/she is not fit to engage in meaningful exchange (resorting to spitwads in lieu of an argument; constant arguments by unsubstantiated opinion; etc.), then they can expect to be placed on an ignore list. Yet while one may request not to be pinged to posts they were not involved in, by participating in a forum then one is choosing to engage in exchange.

    As for why a Protestant can say some pretty anti-Catholic posts on a regular basis and it's still okay to ping a certain poster but who requests sedevacantists do not, i would say that has to do with the nature of the exchange. Asserting something like Pope Benedict didn't believe in the Resurrection seems pretty absurd to me.

    But why is it wrong from a RC to ask a certain poster, who is disobeying forum rules by repeatedly asking a question (not that your question did not warrant an answer) of a person who has expressed she finds you unfit for exchange (and in the past whose posts were reviewed and either posted or denied for several weeks), to not ping or post to her, while you state that you do not wish to debate any Protestant?

    As for personalities, while i have strongly and substantively (by the grace of God) opposed RC teachings and the promotion of Rome, regardless of the poster, i consider Mrs. Don-o to be one of the most cordial RC regulars here.

  • Pope Francis Betrays Christianity By Romanticizing Poverty

    05/17/2016 8:46:48 AM PDT · 92 of 142
    daniel1212 to Mrs. Don-o
    it was not meant to be an insult, but I think it’s true that they’re as Catholic as you are, neither more nor less.

    Regardless of how you meant it, it is an insult to say that one who rejects the very office of an infallible pope, and ensured magisterial infallibility overall, infant baptism, Purgatory, and eternal life by personal merit, Cath Eucharistic theology, the Cath priesthood and generally mandated celibacy the hyper veneration of Mary (worship), praying to created beings in Heaven, etc, is as Catholic as those who contend for all such but reject certain modern versions of Catholic teachings as being contrary to historical teaching, and thus the modern popes.

    While you reject the latter as RCs, they may post in Cath caucus threads, and with the exception of rejecting modern popes (resulting in an absence that is not without precedent), they are joined with many of your brethren here who deplore Francis and certain V2 teaching.

  • Pope Francis Betrays Christianity By Romanticizing Poverty

    05/17/2016 7:21:11 AM PDT · 88 of 142
    daniel1212 to Mrs. Don-o
    Although you'll find authentic Catholic opinion disagreeing on all sorts of truly debatable things, please note that post of the participants in this corner of the thread are sedevacantists, which is to say, ex-Catholics.

    Their feeling is mutual.

    I am not naming them because I do not wish to ping them into the further discussion with me. However, I think it's accurate to say that they are as Catholic as you are: no more, no less.

    An insult either way, as it is to assert that the NT church was Catholic.

  • Pope Francis Betrays Christianity By Romanticizing Poverty

    05/17/2016 7:18:54 AM PDT · 87 of 142
    daniel1212 to SGNA; gbcdoj; SpirituTuo; Mrs. Don-o
    No, you misunderstand.

    How does that contradict what I simply said, that RCs debate whether papal elections are infallible (or at least some believe the election of a pope are guided by the Spirit). Even here a poster has said that "the acceptance of a Pope by the universal Church is infallible and therefore demonstrates that the election was valid." And "If one believes the Holy Spirit moves the hearts of the Cardinal Electors in the election of a new Pontiff, then the both the election of Paul VI, and his subsequent actions, were guided by the same Spirit." RC apologist Mark Shea wrote that "The burden of proof is on those who wish to argue that councils or papal elections they don't like are not the work of the Holy Spirit."

    Infallibility is a charism of protection for the Church bestowed by the Holy Ghost upon a valid pope to never in issuing a solemn public universally binding teaching on faith or morals, proclaimed as such, to ever be in error.

    In addition,

    - Catholic Encyclopedia>Infallibility: In the Vatican definition infallibility (whether of the Church at large or of the pope) is affirmed only in regard to doctrines of faith or morals; but within the province of faith and morals its scope is not limited to doctrines that have been formally revealed. This, however, is clearly understood to be what theologians call the direct and primary object of infallible authority: it was for the maintenance and interpretation and legitimate development of Christ's teaching that the Church was endowed with this charisma. But if this primary function is to be adequately and effectively discharged, it is clear that there must also be indirect and secondary objects to which infallibility extends, namely, doctrines and facts which, although they cannot strictly speaking be said to be revealed, are nevertheless so intimately connected with revealed truths that, were one free to deny the former, he would logically deny the latter and thus defeat the primary purpose for which infallibility was promised by Christ to His Church.

    Ratzinger: 9. The Magisterium of the Church, however, teaches a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed … or to be held definitively … with an act which is either defining or nondefining. In the case of a defining act, a truth is solemnly defined by an ex cathedra pronouncement by the Roman pontiff or by the action of an ecumenical council. In the case of a nondefining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the successor of Peter.

    , when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium,which necessarily includes the pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly.

    In any case, papal elections require assent;

    10. The third proposition of the professio fidei states: “Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the college of bishops enunciates when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act”...

    With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations ...37 (Ratzinger: Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei; https://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/media/articles/doctrinal-commentary-on-ad-tuendam-fidem-joseph-cardinal-ratzinger/

    Those of us who see that the wolves are not sheep nor shepherds recognize that this applies to all the heretics 'elected' since 1958 and the start of the non-Catholic Vatican-2 'church'.

    Although i believe modern V2 Rome has contradicted past RC official teaching and yet binds RCs to assent to its modern teaching, it was not my intent to engage in the debate over which side it right (and extends to your position) but that this examples divisive nature of Catholicism For despite asserting unifying assent to the pope, and criticizing for divisions due to variant interpretations of Scripture, RC likewise variantly their supreme authority, which itself teaches unScriptural beliefs.

  • Pope Francis Betrays Christianity By Romanticizing Poverty

    05/16/2016 8:37:55 PM PDT · 52 of 142
    daniel1212 to Mrs. Don-o; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    According to Ed Peters (canon lawyer, runs the "In the Light of the Law" blog) Pope Francis does not meet the fairly stringent canonical criteria for heresy because he does not state outright dissent in a clear and unambiguous way.

    Which is just one more example of the multitudes of things that RCS disagree on, which the magisterium does not settle, while RCs promote it. Another example is that RCs debate whether papal elections are infallible .

  • Microsoft is adding more ads to the Windows 10 Start menu

    05/16/2016 8:22:36 PM PDT · 19 of 26
    daniel1212 to Boogieman
    Well, I’ll never see them since the first thing I install on newer windows computers is Classic Shell and Classic Start Menu.

    Indeed. Classic Shell - Start menu and other Windows enhancements

    W.10Start-ClassicShell

  • Muslims Demand “Bigoted” Church Sign Removal, Pastor Has Perfect Reply

    05/16/2016 7:03:04 AM PDT · 65 of 108
    daniel1212 to lowbridge; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    "If these talking heads would simply read the Quran and hadith for themselves, they would not only see that 109 Quranic verses command violent jihad against unbelievers like themselves, but that the Islamic Prophet Muhammad himself modeled this murderous behavior.

    Aside from taking a 9-year-old child bride into his marriage bed, raping two sex slaves after beheading their families, and celebrating the ambush of a peaceful Jewish tribe that refused to pledge allegiance to his troops with a mass beheading, Muhammad executed anyone who insulted him or his beliefs, including women, children, and the blind." - http://madworldnews.com/muslims-bigoted-church-sign/

  • Maduro Orders Seizure of Closed Venezuela Factories, Jailing of Owners

    05/16/2016 5:01:55 AM PDT · 197 of 199
    daniel1212 to steve86; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    Same with sexual misidentification: they make up all these gender shades of grey in opposition to the Bible’s unequivocal male and female either-or. Obama is acting out Lucifer’s anti-bible in all its fetid possibilities.

    For the devil seeks to reign in the glory and worship that is due to God, and thus creates an alternative society in which he reigns thru his proxy servants, in which he defiles what the Creator made and ordained, producing aberrations of marriages, etc. And in which the people become increasingly defendant on his proxy servants, giving them homage.

  • Mass. Senate passes transgender bill

    05/14/2016 8:28:38 AM PDT · 22 of 33
    daniel1212 to Ray76; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    There’s something very seriously wrong with the people of Massachusetts, and most of the rest of New England too.

    Indeed, and most of the rest of America too for letting it get this far. Note that MA law prohibits making any distinction, discrimination, or restriction ...or treatment in a place of public accommodation based on religion, creed...denomination, sex, sexual orientation...or mental disability.

    Places of public accommodation include:..Auditoriums, convention centers, lecture halls, houses of worship, and other places of public gathering...zoos, ...Child care centers.

    Therefore a church cannot make any distinction in how it treats persons, meaning anyone from a Muslim to a homosexual cannot be excluded from membership or the pastorate, or make a distinction btwn gender in bathrooms.

    And to be consistent, if one feels like a monkey should be allowed to live with them in a zoo. Or marry them.

    The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God. (Psalms 9:17)

    And churches that did not make a stand before will be forced to either salute the flag of Sodom or face persecution, as the devil seeks to seduce or compel all to worship him via his proxy servants.

  • Washington Post assigns army of 20 to dig into 'every phase' of Trump's life

    05/11/2016 9:14:42 PM PDT · 108 of 116
    daniel1212 to GoldenPup
    Facebook employees manipulate social media to prevent a Donald Trump presidency 4/17/2016, 8:49:47 AM · by MarvinStinson · 2 replies .THEREBEL. ^ | April 16, 2016 | MIKE GWILLIAM Facebook employees admit they are willing to manipulate social media to prevent a Donald Trump presidency Last month, Facebook employees used a company poll to ask Zuckerberg whether the company should try “to help prevent President Trump in 2017.” Their believing that Facebook has a responsibility to influence the 2016 election is very concerning. It shows that Facebook employees are willing to censor opinions they don't agree with in the name of "social justice." If you've ever been suspended from Facebook for something extremely mild, this probably explains why. Facebook already proudly censors negative views on refugees

    Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

    5/9/2016, 9:40:48 AM · by Rockitz · 55 replies Gizmodo.com ^ | 9 May 2016 | Michael Nunez Facebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential “trending” news section, according to a former journalist who worked on the project. This individual says that workers prevented stories about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other conservative topics from appearing in the highly-influential section, even though they were organically trending among the site’s users. Several former Facebook “news curators,” as they were known internally, also told Gizmodo that they were instructed to artificially “inject” selected stories into the trending news module, even if they weren’t popular enough to warrant...

  • ROUTER INSTALL PROBLEM

    05/11/2016 6:01:57 PM PDT · 35 of 36
    daniel1212 to minnesota_bound

    Try this in Internet Explorer: http://192.168.1.1

  • A Look at the Early Catholic Church from the Acts of the Apostles

    05/11/2016 5:41:01 PM PDT · 466 of 466
    daniel1212 to imardmd1
    That's three times you've ducked the direct, simple question. There's no "flow" involved.

    Then i am not to blame for your blindness. Or lack of even an argument.

  • A Look at the Early Catholic Church from the Acts of the Apostles

    05/10/2016 4:29:01 AM PDT · 464 of 466
    daniel1212 to imardmd1
    It doesn't seem yet that you do not realize that the "refutations" you've offered so far are not refutations, but rather cant that enmeshes your theology in the episcopacy mode invented by the statist churches long ago. I am merely suggesting that you to sense that your position though alluring, is untenable...It is that attitude that does not befit a follower and learner of the Lord Jesus Christ,

    What? Your response is insolence. Your questions were answered and your attempted arguments were were clearly refuted again and again, and then you stayed silent for a week and later popped up asking more questions, which were also answered but you failed to make an argument. It is that attitude that does not befit a follower and learner of the Lord Jesus Christ.

    It remains that presbuteros (senior) episkopos (overseer) denote the same persons as regards chosen men in NT church, and are to be ordained in every place where there are churches. (Acts 20:17,28; Titus 1:5-7; Acts 14:23) And like as ordination flowed from Aaron to OT priests, so it flows from the apostles to presbuteros, who ordained Timothy. (1Tim. 4:14) Thus Timothy Titus operated in authority "over" the flock, preceding, as said, from Christ to the apostles to presbuteros. For these, besides apostles, are charged with its shepherding, its pastoral oversight and care, (Acts 20:17,28) "taking the oversight thereof," (1 Peter 5:2) to "take care of the church of God" (one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God? - 1 Timothy 3:4-5). Thus 1 Thes. 5:12 speaks of those who are over (preside) over the people, and Heb. 13:17 enjoins general submission to those shepherds who are governors/chiefs (hēgeomai) over the flock. And whose mandate includes, "feed the church," (Acts 20:28) and thus "preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine," and "speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority" in sound doctrine, even "sharply" in some cases. (2 Timothy 4:2; Titus 1:13, 2:15)

    You had your chance to make an argument and i am done playing games with you and your blindness.