Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $18,158
20%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 20% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by daniel1212

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Part I: Undercover investigation exposes groups plotting criminal activity at Trump inauguration

    01/17/2017 8:53:45 PM PST · 109 of 109
    daniel1212 to GilGil
    Don’t forget that 1930’s Nazis hated capitalism and exterminated millions of people with universal health care.

    Never though of it that way.

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/17/2017 8:52:28 PM PST · 1,013 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to MHGinTN
    Thank you so much for your extensive posts. God bless your efforts

    May they bless God and others.

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/17/2017 8:51:38 PM PST · 1,012 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to ebb tide; Springfield Reformer; BlueDragon; metmom; redleghunter
    Luther was possessed. You can his progression below: Here are some quotes that you demanded:

    That is another example of your ignorance, and reliance upon the propaganda of other ignoramuses. If you cared to examine the context of such statements provided by specious quote miners, then see here for a great list of them, and or search like this for your quote.

    If you had, rather than looking foolish, you could have seen that rather than Luther progressing from believing that the church of Rome is the one true church in faith and in deed, instead, this quote is part of an argument against that very premise, though that conviction did grow in depth (and unlike cults, Luther did not hold that the church went into total apostasy after the death of the apostles) .

    The context of Luther's affirmation is as regards externals, as seen by what he said going into your quote:

    Reason and human wisdom cannot furnish the necessary qualifications for the true Church. The actual test is in ascertaining who have the real knowledge of Christ and who have it not. Judgment cannot be passed in this case according to mere external appearance and name, according to the office and authority and power of the Church; in all these externals the Jews excelled the apostles and the papacy excels us by far. 28. Accordingly... , we concede to the papacy.... with the rest of your quote following.

    "Accordingly" means that the external claims for Rome no more validate Rome as truly having "the real knowledge of Christ" any more than it did the Jews (if being the historical corporate instruments and visible magisterial stewards of Divine Truth meant ensured infallibility, as Rome presumes, then 1st century souls should not have followed itinerant preachers whom were rejected by said magisterium). Thus Luther proceeds to says,

    3o. It is necessary to a thorough understanding of the matter that we understand what Christ here says concerning the two Churches: One is the Church which is not recognized by the world, but is robbed of its name and exiled; the other, the Church that has the name and honor but persecutes the small flock of believers. Thus we have the opposing situations: The Church which is denied the name is the true Church, whilst the other is not the reality, though it may occupy the seat of authority and power, and possess and perform all the offices conceded to be offices and marks of the holy Church and yet we are obliged to suffer its ban and judgment...

    39. From these two convictions--that they do not know him and that they persecute and slay his advocates--Christ now passes the judgment that the so-called Church is not the Church. He then concludes that with their false doctrines and persecutions they are both liars and murderers of God and of Christ and of all his saints.

    40. From the analysis given, you may decide for yourself in which group you are to be found; for you must be on one side or the other, and it is useless to wait for human council in this matter. It has already been unalterably determined that the two divisions can never agree. The larger body, which has the recognized authority, will always persecute the minority, even to the extent of excommunication and murder, as practiced from the beginning. Those who know Christ--the true Christians--will accept Christ's classification and be numbered with the minority, who have the Word and the knowledge of Christ, and they will suffer persecution for the faith rather than, for the sake of the friendship and honor of this world, to belong to those who, condemned by Christ, are the bitterest foes of God and of the Church, and who cannot see the kingdom of God, nor be saved.

    So much for your deluded idea of progression from 1522 to calling Rome out as anti-Christ.

    Moreover, in 1520Dr. Luther penned:

    ...the majority of those who hold so strongly to the authority of the pope, and lean upon it, are themselves possessed by the powers of hell and are full of sins and rascality...Now the greater part of the Roman communion, and even some of the popes themselves, have forsaken the faith wantonly and without struggle, and live under the power of Satan, as is plainly to be seen, and thus the papacy often has been under the dominion of the gates of hell...Unless they will abolish their laws and ordinances, and restore to Christ’s churches their liberty and have it taught among them, they are guilty of all the souls that perish under this miserable captivity, and the papacy is truly the kingdom of Babylon and of the very Antichrist. For who is “the man of sin” and “the son of perdition” [II Thess. 2:3] but he who with his doctrines and his laws increases the sins and perdition of souls in the church, while sitting in the church as if he were God? [II Thess. 2:4 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] ]. All this the papal tyranny has fulfilled, and more than fulfilled, these many centuries.

    In addition, by about 1520 Luther had already concluded (after reading Valla's Discourse, refutation of the authenticity of the forgery the "Donation of Constantine;" )

    I am greatly tormented, I do not even doubt that the pope is properly the Antichrist, that even the whole world's popular opinion expects; everything which he does, lives, speaks, and declares fits perfectly." - http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/shape-of-things-to-come.html

    In addition, progression towards seeing the papacy as anti-Christ is not a mark of demon possession (some RCs even think Francis is the AC) but it was warranted conclusion by Reformers. As is that your desperation has further marginalized you.

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/17/2017 8:47:23 PM PST · 1,011 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to Repent and Believe; metmom
    Mr. Luther told you to reject Rome and Catholicism. You and you rest of his huge cult believed on him and followed him.

    That is absurd and idiotic, if not inexcusable ignorance. .Most evangelicals never knew anything Luther said when they became born again, and even today are more ignorant of him then you are.

    Instead, they came to Christ like as 1st c. souls did, following One who was rejected by proto Catholics, whom presumed their heritage meant they could not be wrong when faced with Truth claims being established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/17/2017 8:44:25 PM PST · 1,010 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to ebb tide; Springfield Reformer; BlueDragon; metmom; redleghunter; MHGinTN; mitch5501
    Luther was possessed. You can his progression below: Here are some quotes that you demanded:

    That is another example of your ignorance, and reliance upon the propaganda of other ignoramuses. If you cared to examine the context of such statements provided by specious quote miners, then see here for a great list of them, and or search like this for your quote.

    If you had, rather than looking foolish, you could have seen that rather than Luther progressing from believing that the church of Rome is the one true church in faith and in deed, instead, this quote is part of an argument against that very premise, though that conviction did grow in depth (and unlike cults, Luther did not hold that the church went into total apostasy after the death of the apostles) .

    The context of Luther's affirmation is as regards externals, as seen by what he said going into your quote:

    Reason and human wisdom cannot furnish the necessary qualifications for the true Church. The actual test is in ascertaining who have the real knowledge of Christ and who have it not. Judgment cannot be passed in this case according to mere external appearance and name, according to the office and authority and power of the Church; in all these externals the Jews excelled the apostles and the papacy excels us by far. 28. Accordingly... , we concede to the papacy.... with the rest of your quote following.

    "Accordingly" means that the external claims for Rome no more validate Rome as truly having "the real knowledge of Christ" any more than it did the Jews (if being the historical corporate instruments and visible magisterial stewards of Divine Truth meant ensured infallibility, as Rome presumes, then 1st century souls should not have followed itinerant preachers whom were rejected by said magisterium). Thus Luther proceeds to says,

    3o. It is necessary to a thorough understanding of the matter that we understand what Christ here says concerning the two Churches: One is the Church which is not recognized by the world, but is robbed of its name and exiled; the other, the Church that has the name and honor but persecutes the small flock of believers. Thus we have the opposing situations: The Church which is denied the name is the true Church, whilst the other is not the reality, though it may occupy the seat of authority and power, and possess and perform all the offices conceded to be offices and marks of the holy Church and yet we are obliged to suffer its ban and judgment...

    39. From these two convictions--that they do not know him and that they persecute and slay his advocates--Christ now passes the judgment that the so-called Church is not the Church. He then concludes that with their false doctrines and persecutions they are both liars and murderers of God and of Christ and of all his saints.

    40. From the analysis given, you may decide for yourself in which group you are to be found; for you must be on one side or the other, and it is useless to wait for human council in this matter. It has already been unalterably determined that the two divisions can never agree. The larger body, which has the recognized authority, will always persecute the minority, even to the extent of excommunication and murder, as practiced from the beginning. Those who know Christ--the true Christians--will accept Christ's classification and be numbered with the minority, who have the Word and the knowledge of Christ, and they will suffer persecution for the faith rather than, for the sake of the friendship and honor of this world, to belong to those who, condemned by Christ, are the bitterest foes of God and of the Church, and who cannot see the kingdom of God, nor be saved. More .

    So much for your deluded idea of progression from 1522 to calling Rome out as anti-Christ.

    Moreover, in 1520Dr. Luther penned:

    ...the majority of those who hold so strongly to the authority of the pope, and lean upon it, are themselves possessed by the powers of hell and are full of sins and rascality...Now the greater part of the Roman communion, and even some of the popes themselves, have forsaken the faith wantonly and without struggle, and live under the power of Satan, as is plainly to be seen, and thus the papacy often has been under the dominion of the gates of hell...Unless they will abolish their laws and ordinances, and restore to Christ’s churches their liberty and have it taught among them, they are guilty of all the souls that perish under this miserable captivity, and the papacy is truly the kingdom of Babylon and of the very Antichrist. For who is “the man of sin” and “the son of perdition” [II Thess. 2:3] but he who with his doctrines and his laws increases the sins and perdition of souls in the church, while sitting in the church as if he were God? [II Thess. 2:4 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] ]. All this the papal tyranny has fulfilled, and more than fulfilled, these many centuries.

    In addition, by about 1520 Luther had already concluded (after reading Valla's Discourse, refutation of the authenticity of the forgery the "Donation of Constantine;" )

    I am greatly tormented, I do not even doubt that the pope is properly the Antichrist, that even the whole world's popular opinion expects; everything which he does, lives, speaks, and declares fits perfectly." - http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/shape-of-things-to-come.html

    In addition, progression towards seeing the papacy as anti-Christ is not a mark of demon possession (some RCs even think Francis is the AC) but it was warranted conclusion by Reformers. As is that your desperation has further marginalized you.

  • Obama has commuted Chelsea Manning’s prison sentence

    01/17/2017 5:50:20 PM PST · 223 of 242
    daniel1212 to NEMDF
    OBAMA: So people can have philosophical views [about Bradley Manning] but I can’t conduct diplomacy on an open source [basis]… That’s not how the world works. And if you’re in the military… And I have to abide by certain rules of classified information. If I were to release material I weren’t allowed to, I’d be breaking the law.

    We’re a nation of laws. We don’t let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate. He broke the law.

    [Q: Didn’t he release evidence of war crimes?]

    OBAMA: What he did was he dumped…

    Q: Isn’t that just the same thing as what Daniel Ellsberg did?]

    OBAMA: No it wasn’t the same thing. Ellsberg’s material wasn’t classified in the same way.

    https://shadowproof.com/2011/04/22/obama-on-manning-he-broke-the-law-so-much-for-that-trial/

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/17/2017 10:32:11 AM PST · 989 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to ebb tide; MHGinTN; ealgeone; MamaB; Springfield Reformer
    Check out my home page. How does the Mass compare with your “services”?

    That you are actually seriously is grievous. Show me in the life of the NT church graven images, including of the Holy Spirit and mostly naked bodies, and distinctive costumed priests, including with head covered in church, praying to created beings in Heaven and offering up the body and blood of Christ for a sacrifice of sins, under the appearance of bread and wine which actually do not exist.

    Do not engage in typical Cath egregious extrapolation, which will only add to the examples of exposed sophistry.

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/17/2017 10:12:55 AM PST · 988 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to ebb tide; Springfield Reformer; BlueDragon
    So do you reject John, Chapter 20? Yes or no. [21] He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. [22] When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. [23] Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

    As with many other things in the gospels, we must examine the Scriptures of the NT church (Acts onward, which are interpretive of the gospels) in order to understand this.

    In so doing what we never see is what Catholicism teaches, that of any instructions for (or example of) believers to come to Catholic priests (which distinctive claimants to that sacerdotal title themselves do not exist but here presbuteros applies) and confess there sins. The only place such is found is the exhortation for believers to confess their sins to one another, and to prayer for one another that they may be healed, in James 5:16-20,

    And to which is provided that spiritual power of binding and loosing, if they be of the fervent Elijah-type faith as him, who bound the heavens from rain for 3,5 years and loosed them again.

    Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit. (James 5:16-18) And by converting one then they instrumentally "shall hide a multitude of sins." (Ja. 5:19,20)

    And the power of binding and loosing is provided corporately also in Matthew 18:

    Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:18-20)

    Likewise we see the power of binding and loosing in healing, such as the daughter of Abraham who Satan had bound eighteen years, being loosed from this bond by the Lord (Luke 13:16) And which deliverance can also be seen in regards to Divine chastisement, as will be shorty discussed., But such power is not restricted to clergy, as see power of deliverance available to believers in general, as seen above, and exercised by a "certain disciple," a "devout man "(and prophet) Ananias in Acts 9:17-18; cf. 22:12-16

    Individually Acts 8:5-7 we also see the deacon Phillip (the apostles were at Jerusalem) delivering souls from demons, and Peter in the declarative sense telling Simon "I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity," (Acts 8:23) and for himself to pray forgiveness. (Acts 8:18-25)

    In James 5:14,15 we have the text which Catholics misappropriate in order to support their premise that believers need to normally to regularly come to Catholic priests (and no other) in order to obtain forgiveness:

    Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. (James 5:14-15)

    However, besides the elders (presbuteros) nowhere being called "priests" (“hiereus” or “archiereus" which collectively is over 280)” distinctive from all other believers (which is the only use of priests in the NT church: 1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).) nor distinctive from episkopos - thus this text does not speak of Catholic priests - nowhere is it said that the infirm man was to confess his sins, and instead God has mercy on such man due to the intercession of holy men, which leadership supremely are to be.

    And which corresponds to the Lord healing the palsied man in Mark 2:1-12, in which his friends brought the man to Christ who forgave the man and thus healed him (the one being equated to the other as cause and effect: "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)

    And in both cases there is no confession, for the cause of the chastisement is likely sins one is ignorant of, and the forgiveness is the removal of God's hand of judgment upon him.

    But Ja. 2 does not say that the elders will forgive his sins, but that they will be forgiven, as it is God who does the forgiving in response to Godly intercession, and which James 5 proceeds to broadly apply to believers confessing sins to each other in general ("one to another," cf. "two or three are gathered together in my Name"). There is no restriction to this ministry of deliverance and healing to only being the pastorate though it principally applies to them as holy men in deed as well as in heart (in which i come short).

    Moreover, while Caths invoke James 5 in support of their sacrament of Last Rites," that is typically a precursor of death, while in Scripture it is one of healing.

    Then we have the formal judicial power of binding and loosing in Mt. 18:

    Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 18:15-18)

    This is not novel in Scripture, but is correspondent to the OT, which which cases which could not be resolved at the lower level would be brought to the "Supreme Court" so to speak, dissent from which was a capital crime. (Dt. 18:7-13)

    However, this authority neither required nor inferred that such possessed ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, which is a novel and unScriptural presumption.

    And unlike in our secular judicial system today, t the sentence of capital punishment was executed by the people in general, (The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you: (Deu 17:7) as was the case in Lv. 20:2; Dt. 13:9,10, which meant they concurred with the judgment (although in lesser sentences the punishment was executed before the judge, who must witness what he commanded: Dt. 25:1-3)

    Matthew 18:15-18 corresponds to the judgment of the incestuous man 1Co. 5, in which the apostle Paul, together with the congregation when gathered together, bound a man in sin over to the devil for chastisement,

    In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (1 Corinthians 5:4-5)

    This apparently having its desired effect of repentance, the apostle exhorts the people to forgive him, for the offense was against the church, and if they forgave anything then so also would Paul' in the person of Christ (in His name).

    To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; (2 Corinthians 2:10)

    For while Scripture clearly states to true believers that "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9) yet being forgiven of sins against others requires repentance and which can mean restitution or forgiveness by those we have wronged. Yet since there is no more offering for sins, and thus no more separate class of sacerdotal priests, so those NT believers who are forgiven are nowhere shown coming to NT priests for absolution, though forgiveness of sins that truly wrongly hurt others require repentance and trying to making things right, if possible.

    Both Peter and Paul also personally judged seriously deviant congregants, by spiritual means versus the sword of men, convicting Ananias and Sapphira (to whom much was given) of a capital offense and thus declaring their immediate death in Divine judgment, (Acts 5:1-10) and Paul in delivering Hymenaeus and Alexander unto Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. (1 Timothy 1:20) And thus pastor Paul (whose burden and care for the churches is more pope-like evident than holy Peter's) warned of coming with a rod of judgment:

    But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. (1 Corinthians 4:19-20)

    Which apostolic purity, passion and power the church today is a mere shadow of (esp. Rome), myself including.

    Therefore we see that the power of binding and loosing and forgiving sins was not that believers having to regularly come to pastors (much less Catholic priests) in order to confess sins, but that they ought to confess faults to each other in general and pray for deliverance, with the power and binding and loosing being able to be exercised by holy souls (on earth), and with God heeding the intercession of such, principally by holy leadership of faith, for chastised souls, even if they may be ignorant of why. And that this power also pertains to formal magisterial judgments, together with the congregation corporately binding and or loosing, in discipline and forgiveness, while in certain cases individual binding and or loosing can take place, with principally this being by leadership, esp. in judgment of the church, besides other souls of Elijah-type fervent holy faith procuring deliverance.

    Another case of binding and loosing is in the case of voluntary vows with a union, such as a women who made such while under her father's house or married, in which case her headship can bind or loose her from it, the former if he holds his peace at her from day to day concerning it (which presupposes she shares it with him, and thus Mary would have needed Joseph's consent to the vow of celibacy Catholics impose on her, despite the Holy Spirit not manifestly doing so). However, since the church is married to Christ, then He has already disallowed unScriptural vows as being bound in Heaven.

    And in all cases the power of binding and loosing is not autocratic, but as with "whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son," (John 14:13) so also "That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 18:19) means that such must indeed be "in the name of Jesus Christ," being according to His word (and will) in each case, which the very Catholic distinctives themselves are manifestly not.

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/16/2017 9:46:06 PM PST · 922 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to Mark17
    Jesus was promising to satisfy a different type of hunger and thirst, like a hunger and thirst of the soul. 😁 Her beef stew is incredibly good.

    If your wife had the power claimed by Cath priests, she could says some words over that stew and it would no longer exist, but it would still tastes like it. And it would still gain you weight, and otherwise effect you as real stew, like non-existent Eucharistic bread affects gluten-intolerant Catholics, as does the non-existent wine if you drink enough of it. Instead, that stew would be whatever your wife said it was turned into, despite appearances and effects and evidences to the contrary.

    But of course what really does not exist is the Catholic church in the NT, despite her claims to the contrary.

    Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? (Acts 4:25)

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/16/2017 5:47:15 PM PST · 819 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to metmom
    NOTHING anyone can do can please God.

    Well, we can, (Col. 1:10; 1Thes. 2:4; 4:1; Heb. 11:5; 13:16) but not in the flesh, (Rm. 8:8) nor so as to earn eternal life.

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/16/2017 5:39:56 PM PST · 815 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to Springfield Reformer; redleghunter; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    But Protestants are well versed with metaphor. Jesus Himself is largely responsible for that. You know the drill. "I am the vine, the good shepherd, the light of the world, the way (path), the door (gate)." So a Protestant hearing Jesus' words would not ask a physics question like 'how.' All the normal language triggers are there to red-flag metaphor, so the Protestant would ask 'What is He teaching? Where is the anaolgy that helps us understand what He is saying?"

    This is true, while if those who went away did so because they were repelled by the literal meaning that the bread and wine are really Jesus flesh that was broken/crucified and blood that was shed, then they were not believing like Catholics demand we take Scripture, even though they claim to be taking it plainly literally.

    For to take it plainly literally that this flesh they were to eat was what would be crucified for them then it would be manifest as that crucified Christ versus a form that looks, feels, tastes and would scientifically test as bread and wine, yet which really did not exist, being the "real" body and blood of Christ instead, even in every microscopic particle (until the bread and wine that do not exist begin to decay, such as mold evidences). Certainly this palatable form is not what they would be rejecting, but one which Catholics themselves reject.

    And here i would like to ask of you or any others (note large ping spread) who are scientifically minded when matter, as in bread, begins to decay, which would exclude this Catholic christ from being in the elements at issue here, and if microscopic particles of such may be airborne, such as the wine evaporating, which would place this Catholic christ various places).

    And as a lawyer, could one be charged with stealing a consecrated host if the plaintiff considers the host to be a real spiritual entity, and that what was stolen really does not physically exist?

    And that analogy is given, in verse 35: And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. (John 6:35)

    That can easily be rationalized by Caths as meaning spiritual hunger and thirst by physically consuming non-existent bread and wine that is the "real" body and blood of Christ.

    Instead, the analogy that helps us understand what He is saying is Jn. 6:57:

    As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. (John 6:57)

    As how the Lord Jesus "lived" is analogous to how we are to live, then we must find out how the Lord Jesus lived, and thus, as with the other uses of metaphorical language in John , we must look to other statements, in which we see that

    But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)

    And therefore, using metaphor once again in John, (which is done at least 5 times before Jn. 6), the Lord stated,

    But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of. Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. (John 4:32-34)

    And which perfectly corresponds to the Lord's explanatory words at the end of the John 6 discourse,

    What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before [thus not being around to give His physical flesh]? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing [consuming physical flesh nowhere in Scripture provided spiritual life]: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:62-63)

    And which also corresponds to the theme in John of contrasting the physical with the spiritual, and of believing being how one obtains spiritual life, and which metaphorical understanding of Jn. 6 alone easily conflates with the rest of Scripture.

    To God be the glory.

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/16/2017 6:24:27 AM PST · 744 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to Elsie
    Ambrose: …constantly pray ‘Open to us, O Mary, the gates of paradise, since thou hast its KEYS. Anselm: It suffices, O Lady, that thou willest it, and our SALVATION is certain.

    (Leo XIII: Adiutricem populi, September 5, 1895) — [p. 19, no. 44] Blosius: To the, O Lady, are committed the KEYS and the treasures of the kingdom of Heaven.

    Blasphemy upon blasphemy by a spirit of blasphemy.

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/15/2017 4:36:55 PM PST · 715 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to Repent and Believe; metmom; boatbums; Mark17; MHGinTN; Elsie
    Catholics fully recognize that Jesus Christ died on the Cross for their sins and thus “opened the gates of Heaven,” and that salvation is a free gift which no amount of human good deeds could ever earn. Catholics receive Christ’s saving and sanctifying grace, and Christ Himself, into their souls when they are baptized.

    Like cults, you can use evangelical terms yet not mean what Scripture does. Salvation being a free gift does not mean that by the act of baptism (ex opere operato) one actually becomes good enough to go to Heaven (being formally justified by his own personal justice and holiness) - unless you do not believe the newly baptized would thus directly do there - thus resulting in such later on usually having to spend an indeterminate period (even centuries of earth time) experiencing postmortem "purifying torments" in RC "Purgatory" (as if suffering itself developed character) until he/she (atones for sins and ) once again becomes good enough to enter Heaven and be with the Lord.

    Instead, since believers are justified on Christ's account, and made "accepted in the Beloved," and are seated together with Him in Heaven (Eph. 1:6; 2:6) and have direct access into the holy of holies in Heaven (Heb. 10:19) - not because they are actually good enough - then wherever Scripture clearly speak of the next conscious reality for believers then it is with the Lord, (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord,” though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul. (Phil. 3:10f)

    And the next transformative experience that is manifestly taught is that of being like Christ in the resurrection. (1Jn. 3:2; Rm. 8:23; 1Co 15:53,54; 2Co. 2-4) At which time is the only suffering after this life, that of the loss of rewards due to the combustible nature of the material one built the church with, which one is saved despite of, not because of. (1Co. 3:8ff)< /p>

    Yet they also know that Christ has established certain conditions for entry into eternal happiness in Heaven – for example, receiving His true Flesh and Blood (John 6:54)

    . While the only kind of faith that justifies in the kind that effects obedience to the Lord, and practical holiness and repentance for failing that, yet Jn. 6:54 goes with v. 53: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." (John 6:53) But the Lord's supper is nowhere preached as the means of obtaining spiritual life , or nourishment. Instead it is the words that Christ speaks which are spirit and life, and is called spiritual "milk" (1Pt. 2:2) and "meat" (Heb. 5:12,14) and whereby believers obtain spiritual nourishment and are built up. (Acts 20:28.32; 1Tim. 4:6)

    And rather than the Catholic priestly Eucharist being the premier, paramount cardinal event, not only do we never see a Catholic priest (or even a presbyter) conducting the Lord's supper, it is not even manifestly described in the life of the NT church except in one epistle (besides the "feast of charity in Jude 1:12).

    And which the church is "one bread," having fellowship with Christ and each other the same way pagans have fellowship with demons by taking part in their dedicatory feasts, (1 Corinthians 10:16-21) while the focus is on the church as the body of Christ, whom carnal believers did not effectually recognize (thus "shame them that have not") in 1Co. 11:17ff.

    As St. Paul warned the Galatians with regard to certain sins: “They who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.” (Gal. 5:21).

    It is one thing to realize that saving faith is that which effects "things that accompany salvation," (Heb. 6:9) and thus the warnings about "departing from the living God" and drawing back unto perdition, (Heb. 3:12; 10:38; cf. Gal. 5:1-4) and that works evidence that one has true faith and is fit to be rewarded under grace, since God rewards faith (Heb. 10:35, even though only God deserves credit), and it is another thing to teach or foster the belief that what one practically is and does actually merits the attainment of eternal life eternal life. No wonder Catholics typically express that the reason they believe that God will let them into Heaven is because they are pretty good, and never can testify to a day of conversion. Sprinkling an infant (which cannot fufill the requirements for baptism: Acts 2:38; 3:36,37) will not effect Biblical regeneration in them any more than it did Hitler.

    firstly, because theirs is the only Christian Church that goes back in history to the time of Christ;

    Under the New Covenant it is not formal historical descent that validates one but historical Scriptural faith, (Rm. 2:28,29; cf. Mt. 3:9) and what goes back in history to the time of Christ is the record of Catholic deformation of the NT church, in which she substantially is a foreigner!

    The veracity of Catholic claims to be the NT church rest upon the premise of her ensured magisterial infallibility, under which Scripture, history and tradition only consist of and mean what she says. Yet ensured magisterial infallibility is a novel and unScriptural premise, being unseen and unnecessary in Scripture.

    The OT magisterium had such authority that dissent was a capital offense, (Dt. 17;8-13) but which did not mean it was infallible. And instead, God often raised up men from without the magisterium, even in dissent from it, and thereby preserved faith. And which is how the church began, with itinerant preachers (and Preacher) who established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. But which the claims of Rome to be the One True Church" are exposed as fallacious.

    secondly, because theirs is the only Christian Church which possesses the invincible unity,

    That is pure misleading bombast! Invincible unity? You yourself are part of a church without a pope, or with a poor depending upon who you ask, with both extremes invalidation each other. And read on:

    the intrinsic holiness, the continual universality

    More or the same. Besides today and the past unScriptural murderous use of the sword of men against simple theological offenders, even your own Bellarmine attested of your historical holiness (during the Western Schism),

    "Some years before the rise of the Lutheran and Calvinistic heresy, according to the testimony of those who were then alive, there was almost an entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments; in morals, no discipline; in sacred literature, no erudition; in divine things, no reverence; religion was almost extinct. (Concio XXVIII. Opp. Vi. 296- Colon 1617, in “A History of the Articles of Religion,” by Charles Hardwick, Cp. 1, p. 10,

    Cardinal Ratzinger (regardless of your disrespect) states, "For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution. (“Principles of Catholic Theology," 1989, p.196)

    You can restrict your misleading claim to a relative remnant, and to paper doctrine, but it remains that the Catholic distinctives are simply not seen in the NT church, which it is contrary to!

    and the indisputable apostolicity which Christ said would distinguish His true Church;

    More propaganda. Rome's so-called apostolic successors simply fail of the qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12) So do i, but i do not claim to be a Biblical apostle.

    and thirdly, because the Apostles and primitive Church Fathers, who certainly were members of Christ’s true Church, all professed membership in this same Catholic Church (See Apostles’ Creed and the Primitive Christian letters).

    Nonsense. The claim that the apostles professed the Apostles’ Creed , which is expanded version, is based upon unverifiable tradition, and once again the veracity of this claim rests upon the premise of Rome's self-proclaimed veracity.

    Regardless, professing this creed no more makes on a Roman Catholic than it does for evangelicals, who can and do profess this creed with its basic truth, as we concur with it, and with "catholic" meaning universal.

    And what the apostles did NOT profess/teach practice (as seen in Acts onward, which are interpretive of the gospels) were such things as:

    • Praying to created beings in Heaven, which is utterly unseen in Scripture despite the Holy Spirit inspiring approx. 200 prayers by believers. Only pagans prayed to someone else!

    •Directing the church to look to Peter as the first of a line of supreme infallible popes whom they were especially enjoined to honor and obey.

    •That the magisterial office possessed ensured magisterial infallibility (by which she declares she is infallible), enabling them to even claim to essentially "remember" an extraScriptural event which lacks even early historical testimony. , and was opposed by RC scholars themselves the world over as being apostlic tradition.

    • Ordaining a separate class of believers distinctively titled "priests ," whose primary active function was conducting the Lord's supper and offering up "real" flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin.

    •That the Catholic Eucharist as the paramount, supreme prevalent practice, the "source and summit of the Christian life," in which "our redemption is accomplished," around which all else basically revolved.

    •That presbuteros (senior/elder) and episkopos (superintendent/overseer) denoted two separate classes .

    • That celibacy was a requirement for clergy .

    • That believers were separated into two classes, one formally called "saints."

    •That imperfect believers must endure postmortem purifying torments in order to become good enough to enter Heaven, and saying prayers to obtain early release from it,

    And more , to see by God's grace. ,

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/15/2017 12:34:23 PM PST · 712 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to Elsie
    Watch out; Rome; for your members. FR will probably convert many of them sooner or later from all this exposure to catholic literature...

    May the Lord do so indeed.

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/15/2017 12:33:16 PM PST · 711 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to Repent and Believe
    daniel1212, You have studied alot about your enemy. Just like a good general. Watch everyone, daniel1212 will probably convert sooner or later from all this exposure to catholic literature. He might become (or return to?) the Catholic faith, engaging all these debates making him do all this research! Hopefully sooner to avoid losing his soul. Or maybe he’s getting worried that one of you other reader/commenters are getting curious about all this truth being spoken by this Roman Catholic who is worried about your souls. You are each in my prayers and I or another faithful will be most delighted to assist in any way as you come to Jesus in these last days, departing from your errors.

    That's a crafty way of dealing with what actually refutes you and the very church you vainly imagine us converting to.

    But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. (2 Timothy 3:13)

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/15/2017 9:50:13 AM PST · 710 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to Repent and Believe
    Oh, yes they are. They have chosen a life like a eunich as Jesus mentioned. They have SACRIFICED the pleasures and beauty and blessings of Matrimony for the sake of fathering SPIRITUAL children in Christ. That is unique far beyond the Jewish leaders whom Jesus was referring to as well as far beyond various priesthoods and elders of false religions.

    Wrong:

    Due to her erroneous understanding of the Lord's Supper (“Eucharist”), Catholicism (by the end of the 2nd century or later) came to consider NT pastors to be a distinctive sacerdotal class of clergy, distinctively called “priests” (which the RC Douay Rheims Bible inconsistently calls them: Acts 20:17; Titus 1:5), and sometimes “episkopos,”), but which the Holy Spirit never does. For the word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for priests *, is “hiereus” or “archiereus (over 280 times total, mainly as the latter)” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) and is never used for NT pastors. Nor do the words presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) - which He does use for NT pastors (over 60 times) - mean "priest." Neither the Hebrew word, "ko^he^n," nor the Greek word "hiereus," or the Latin word "sacerdotes" for priest have any essential connection to the Greek word presbyteros. It follows that the Latin word "sacerdos" which corresponds to priest has no morphological or lingual relationship with the Latin word for “presbyter” (for which statements and certain others I rely on the knowledge of others, by God's grace). Nor are presbuteros or episkopos described as having a unique sacrificial function, and hiereus (as archiereus=chief priests) is used in distinction to elders in such places as Lk. 22:66; Acts 22:5.

    Jewish elders (Hebrew "zaqen") as a body existed before the priesthood of Levitical priests (Hebrew "kohen"), most likely as heads of household or clans, and being an elder did not necessarily make one a Levitical priest (Ex. 3:16,18, 18:12; 19:7; 24:1; Num. 11:6; Dt. 21:2; 22:5-7; 31:9,28; 32:7; Josh. 23:2; 2Chron. 5:4; Lam. 1:9; cf. Mt. 21:13; 26:47) or a high priest, offering both gifts and sacrifices for sins. (Heb. 5:1) While elders exercise could some priestly functions such as praying and laying hands on sacrifices, yet unlike presbuteros and episkopos, elders and priest were not the same in language or in distinctive function. Like very young Samuel, one could be a kohen/priest without being an zaqen/elder, and one could be a elder without formally being a priest, whose primary function was to offer expiatory sacrifices for the people.

    The Catholic use of "priest" for what Scripture calls presbyteros/elder is defended by the use of an etymological fallacy since "priest" evolved from "presbyteros, if with uncertainty," with presbyteros being considered and called priests early on, based on Latin biblical and ecclesiastical language, and who were later referred to in old English (around 700 to 1000 AD) as "preostas" or "preost," and finally resulting in the modern English "priest," thereby losing the distinction the Holy Spirit provided by never using the distinctive term of hiereus for NT presbuteros, or describing as them as a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers.

    However, etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and evolving changes in form and meaning. over time, but etymologies are not definitions (examples: "cute" used to mean bow-legged; "bully" originally meant darling or sweetheart; "Nice" originally meant stupid or foolish; "counterfeit" used to mean a legitimate copy; "egregious" originally connoted eminent or admirable). The etymological fallacy here is that of erroneously holding that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily essentially be the same as its original or historical meaning. Since presbyteros incorrectly evolved into priest (and were assigned an imposed unique sacerdotal function) therefore it is erroneously considered to be valid to distinctively use the same title for OT priests as for NT pastors, despite the Holy Spirit never doing so and the lack of unique sacerdotal distinction for NT presbyteros.

    All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). But nowhere are NT pastors distinctively titled hiereus, and the idea of the NT presbuteros being a distintive class titled "hiereus" was a later development, with an imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbyteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary function.

    Catholic writer Greg Dues in "Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide," states, "Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions."

    "When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice [after Rome's theology], the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist." (http://books.google.com/books?id=ajZ_aR-VXn8C&source=gbs_navlinks_s)

    And R. J. Grigaitis (O.F.S.) (while yet trying to defend the use of priest), reveals, "The Greek word for this office is ‘?e?e?? (hiereus), which can be literally translated into Latin as sacerdos. First century Christians [such as the inspired writers] felt that their special type of hiereus (sacerdos) was so removed from the original that they gave it a new name, presbuteros (presbyter). Unfortunately, sacerdos didn't evolve into an English word, but the word priest [from old English "preost"] took on its definition." (http://grigaitis.net/weekly/2007/2007-04-27.html)

    In response to a query on this issue, the web site of International Standard Version (not my preferred translation) states,

    No Greek lexicons or other scholarly sources suggest that "presbyteros" means "priest" instead of "elder". The Greek word is equivalent to the Hebrew ZAQEN, which means "elder", and not priest. You can see the ZAQENIM described in Exodus 18:21-22 using some of the same equivalent Hebrew terms as Paul uses in the GK of 1&2 Timothy and Titus. Note that the ZAQENIM are NOT priests (i.e., from the tribe of Levi) but are rather men of distinctive maturity that qualifies them for ministerial roles among the people.

    Therefore the NT equivalent of the ZAQENIM cannot be the Levitical priests. The Greek "presbyteros" (literally, the comparative of the Greek word for "old" and therefore translated as "one who is older") thus describes the character qualities of the "episkopos". The term "elder" would therefore appear to describe the character, while the term "overseer" (for that is the literal rendering of "episkopos") connotes the job description.

    To sum up, far from obfuscating the meaning of "presbyteros", our rendering of "elder" most closely associates the original Greek term with its OT counterpart, the ZAQENIM. ...we would also question the fundamental assumption that you bring up in your last observation, i.e., that "the church has always had priests among its ordained clergy". We can find no documentation of that claim. ( http://isvbible.com/catacombs/elders.htm)

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/15/2017 9:50:06 AM PST · 709 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to boatbums
    Somehow, I just can’t imagine St. Peter being okay with being addressed as “Your Holiness” or wearing that garb and crown!

    But with Roman Catholic dark glasses, you can anachronistically imagine that the RCC is what you would see in the NT church, despite its distinctives being absent.

    Or you can rationalize that the NT DNA of the "acorn" church means it was sppsd to grow into the church of Rome, the whether the medieval version longed for by one group or the modern one seen today. But in either case, what is needed is

    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; (2 Corinthians 10:5)

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/15/2017 9:49:56 AM PST · 708 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to ReaganGeneration2
    Why not allow us think of it as a “helper” (if non-distracting from the goal), and not attack us for it.

    Catholics attack us for not believing in their so-called Real Presence, being what looks, tastes, feels, behaves, and would test as actual bread and wine, but which actually does not exist, but assert this is the real body and blood of Christ, until the non-existent bread or wine begins to decay.

    And since they make this a matter of salvation, invoking Jn. 6:53,54 as a literal requirement, then we can not think of this as a helper, but instead it is a false gospel, leaving those who preach it accursed.

    As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:9)

    And Paul nor any other NT church teacher preached the Lord's supper as the means of obtaining spiritual life, nor is the Lord's supper manifest as the central main event officiated by Catholic priests offering the elements up as a sacrifice for sin, as shown , by God's grace.

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/14/2017 9:31:26 PM PST · 678 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to ReaganGeneration2
    I’d say that the Catholic Church has said that the 2 primary requirements for salvation that Protestants are missing, are Eucharist and Reconciliation.

    Wrong. If one has the Holy Spirit, then one is presently saved, and which Spirit does not come by taking part in the Lord's supper,. but by believing the gospel message, which the kind of faith that is expressed in baptism and following the Lord.

    Rome, which erroneously thinks the act of baptism itself makes one born again, states.

    LUMEN GENTIUM: 16. For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ....

    in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power.

    CCC 838: "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."

    Of course, Rome also imagines,

    ...they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it

    But we know that the Catholic Church was Not founded as necessary by God through Christ, as her distinctives are not even seen in the life and teachings of the NT church (Acts onward), and contrary to it.

    The Church points to Scripture as its basis for its beliefs, whether or not you agree with that basis.

    Where? Instead, it points to Scripture only as one basis for its beliefs, but as said, it is her self-proclaimed premise of ensured veracity that is the real basis, by which she asserts that, "Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law.." (Providentissimus Deus; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)

    he Church is also clear that is IS fallible on many issues, INCLUDING the Eucharist,

    You need specifics. But tell me how you know what is infallible doctrine versus what is fallible, and which fallible teachings allow for dissent. You have a list

    * Do you know what form God takes now in our material world?

    I know of no material form, with the closest thing being His church,

  • APNewsBreak: Ringling Bros. circus to close after 146 years

    01/14/2017 8:11:43 PM PST · 29 of 122
    daniel1212 to ClearCase_guy
    Big Apple Circus is also on the verge of shutting down.

    Lack of kids, and change of culture. Many kids today are likely watching porn.

    By midcentury, the circus was routine, wholesome family entertainment. But as the 20th century went on, kids became less and less enthralled. Movies, television, video games and the internet captured young minds. The circus didn't have savvy product merchandising tie-ins or Saturday morning cartoons to shore up its image.

    The Feld family bought the Ringling circus in 1967. The show was just under 3 hours then. Today, the show is 2 hours and 7 minutes, with the longest segment — a tiger act — clocking in at 12 minutes. "Try getting a 3- or 4-year-old today to sit for 12 minutes," he said.

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/14/2017 7:59:21 PM PST · 672 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to boatbums
    Yikes! And what about those Scotsmen with their kilts??? Or the Vatican muckety-mucks in their dresses and pointy hats???

    For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. (Joh 12:43)

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/14/2017 7:50:03 PM PST · 670 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to boatbums; Repent and Believe; metmom
    Paul ALWAYS addressed his audience as "brothers and sisters" in Christ. He said he was a fellow laborer in the ministry of the gospel. See http://biblehub.net/search.php?q=brothers+in+christ. Nothing about anyone addressing him as "Father", though.

    But Paul does refer to himself as a spiritual father, as one who had spiritual sons, many times, (1Co. 4:15,17; Gal. 4:19; Titus 1:4; 1Tim. 1:2,18; Phlmn. 1:10) which he was, yet for priests that is not the case, and i think the Lord's admonition, call no man your father upon the earth, be not ye called Rabbi, masters, may be a form of hyperbole, contextually (Matthew 23:5-12) warning against love of position and titles (they...love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men...But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant...)

    If "call no man your father" is taken literally without qualification, then even physical fathers could not be called such.

    But in any case, priest are not Scripturally worthy of being called "father" even as a formal title, any more than Mormon elders are worthy to be called that.

    Even more so, Catholic priests are not even Scriptural.

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/14/2017 7:21:10 PM PST · 663 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to Repent and Believe; metmom; boatbums; mrobisr; Elsie; MHGinTN; Mark17; BlueDragon
    When does Bellarmine say the pope loses office: This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction… NOT AFTER WARNINGS OR DECLARATION BECAUSE heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction.

    But it is fundamentally against Roman Catholicism for the likes of you to be the judge as to whether the pope is guilty of formal heresy based upon your understanding of what he taught, and whether Bellarmine was right versus Suarez, and whether that settles the matter.

    I hardly think Bellarmine did not mean for for the likes of you to be the judge of who an invalid pope, which leads to every man a pope invalidator, nor it is your place to even authoritatively judge if Bellarmine was right.

    In making private persons as yourself the judge of this based upon your understanding of your supreme authority, in essence you are as a Protestant, who judges the validity of claims based upon what his understanding of his supreme authority, and along with such you hold that Catholicism is largely in apostasy, with the bishops themselves over all not agreeing with your judgment.

    That you are not fit to be judge of popes is clearly disallowed by historical RC teaching, as already showed you , with no response,

    that .'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "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," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "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... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "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," and not 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," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent."

    As regards the sixteenth-seventeenth century Jesuits Francisco Suarez and St. Robert Bellarmine, the former held (http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/can-pope-heretic) that,

    Catholics are supposed to believe that God deposes popes, then Scripture, the Tradition of the Church, and the pronouncements of the Magisterium ought to have said something about it—but they haven’t. Besides, if God deposes popes, you could never be sure if the pope was really the pope—what if he was a secret heretic and God had secretly deposed him? How would you ever know? (Suarez, De fide, 10.6.2-4)

    But, if a pope commits the sin of heresy, all the other bishops of the world have the right to try him for the crime of heresy, even against his will (De fide 10.6.7). If they were to convict him, he could be considered deposed from the papacy by Christ, and the Church could elect another pope.

    Yet which conflicts with such statenent as that in Dictatus papae [1075], attributed to of Pope Gregory VII, "That he himself may be judged by no one."

    Meanwhile, Bellarmine held

    that the pope loses his office immediately by committing the sin of formal heresy, because people who commit that sin cease to be members of the Church, and God deposes a pope who is no longer a member of the Church.

    But Catholics are not to take it upon themselves to make that judgment, but the bishops would need to declare that God has removed the pope, but your sect no only has an invalid pope, but effectively renders the modern magisterium overall to be invalid.

    Of course, the Catholic church distinctives are not only absent in the writings of the NT church ( Acts onward, which are interpretive of the gospels), but contrary to it.

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/14/2017 6:04:01 PM PST · 654 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981; BlueDragon
    If one cannot read Hebrew, perhaps it is wiser to defer to those who can. I was simply correcting the error in the post 467 which read In the Hebrew there is no “the” in “enmity between you and the woman” , and all I need is the Hebrew text which I read.

    If you can read Hebrew word for word, which so far you have not affirmed, then that source would be OK for you, and if not, you need to do as i did. But the issue was whether my statement on "the" not being in the Hebrew was my "own opinion/interjection in the middle of another reference and you made a mistake in transcribing the thought? It is unclear what you intended by posting this, since the Hebrew does have the definite article in that phrase."

    Therefore i needed to ascertain if your reading and source was correct, for as explained, the KJV text with Strong's numbers that i had originally used did not show (via a number) a Hebrew word for word for "the." Yet your source did not show me what each Hebrew word meant in Gn. 3:15, and i found out that its English translation did not distinguish btwn their English equivalents and supplied words.

    Therefore your source was not sufficient for me, who needed to ascertain if you were correct, but i found one that very easily showed me the meaning for each Hebrew word, and also distinguished btwn their English equivalents and supplied words, which confirmed your correction, and i thanked you for your query.

    However, rather than understanding this and being satisfied, you failed to understand the problem (thus your question about Job), and the need to see what is in the original language, and went on about how there was nothing wrong with your source, as if that was sufficient for me to ascertain if your correction was true. And you even presented me of "somwhat of a red herring against the Jews and their English translation of the Bible by pointing to some other verse's translation!"

    I am sorry if you could not understand what i said, but i hope the issue is settled by now.

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/14/2017 8:33:35 AM PST · 635 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    You have to know better than that the issue is a mere difference in fonts, and which is of no significance! The differences in fonts is the very thing that enables one to see that such are not in the original language, and the differences in language does not marginalize that, as shown. That is why scholars prefer word for word type translations, versus "dynamic equivalence" and examine the original language texts. Scholars read the original languages.

    Which is why they prefer word for word type translations.

    A simple Hebrew source for Genesis was sufficient to show that there was a definite article in the Hebrew text הָאִשָּׁה (the woman).

    For the last time no, it was NOT!!! Your simple source simply does not show (for those who cannot read Hebrew) what is in the Hebrew word for word in the English translation, since it contains supplied words in the latter without distinction, as showed! Thus my recourse to a translation which actually established that the "the" was there. Why can't you simply accept that?

    There is nothing wrong with your enhanced QBible source. I just did not need it. Thanks for the link to it.

    So you claim to be fluent in Hebrew? Regardless, the issue was not you.

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/13/2017 8:32:19 PM PST · 612 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to ReaganGeneration2; boatbums
    I’d say that the Church is adamant that only the Eucharist and Reconciliation are requirements different from most Protestants.

    Wrong. Lumen Gentium teaches that baptism is the essential thing that makes Protestants member of the body of God. And the Lord's supper was never preached as the means of salvation by the NT church, contrary to Catholicism .

    As said many times, the Church points to Scripture as the basis for this line in the sand, which must be flowed down through interpretations of Spirit-inspired men and women (tradition) (there’s no getting around the need for this - even the original languages are different).

    Wrong. The Catholic church may invoke Scripture, but since in any conflict Scripture only consists of and means what she says, then her veracity is effectively the basis for any line in the sand, which premise of ensured veracity she imaginatively says Scripture supports.

    For Rome presumed to "infallibly" declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. Which is cultic, not Christian.

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/13/2017 8:20:45 PM PST · 611 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to metmom
    But wasn't it Luther who said, "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" ?

    I don’t know. I never read any of Luther’s works.

    That was sarcasm, since i though you familiar with that quote by Pope Pius X in the 1906 Encyclical VEHEMENTER NOS.

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/13/2017 8:17:00 PM PST · 610 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    My source was Mechon Mamre, which you object to for some reason

    Why do you mean "for some reason as if it did not patently explain at length what they good reason was?! Are you here to exasperate us with your insolence?

    even though the English translation for a different passage you objected to is the same translation as the King James Version.

    What? Why do i spend so much time explaining to you that neither your source nor the KJV necessarily means that that the text fully corresponds word for word to the original language, while my source validated that it did?

    Had you simply wrote you preferred a different source but mine was also accurate for the text in question, instead of writing that Mechon Mamre "can easily mislead those who cannot read Hebrew from thinking certain word[s] are in the Hebrew which are not." I would not have defended Mechon Mamre's academic integrity in this regard.

    Because as said and SHOWED it can, as in Job. 34:10 (in which 10 Hebrews words end up as 26 in the English, at least 9 of which are unnecessary) in addition to many more examples i could provide.

    The source did nothing wrong with the text in question, in Hebrew or in English.

    Once again, i never said it did as regards Gn. 3:15, but since it does in the English example i provided, thus i wanted to find a source that would precisely show me what each word was in the Hebrews and its meaning, and so render the English with that distinction.

    I no where introduced "antisemitism" into this defense. "The Jews and their English translation of the Bible" refers to Mechon Mamre,

    Then what's with alleging me engaging in "somwhat of a red herring against the Jews and their English translation?" You wrongly have me against the Jews, whether you admit it or not.

    with a convenient online version of the Hebrew Bible: fast, convenient, and free.

    As was mine, but with convenient pop up definitions of each word, and convenient distinctions btwn supplied words and those transliterated from the original languages. As said but ignored.

    However, the English translation is going to differ in some messianic passages,

    And thus, as accuracy is important, being able to see what the Hebrew means and supplied words in the English is superior to non-Hebrew readers. Case closed!

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/13/2017 8:16:58 PM PST · 609 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    Italics ? That is the objection ? The English translation is the same but the font is different and therefore one who does not read Hebrew cannot discern a word for word translation that is not even feasible anyway because languages differ and that is the nature of translation ? What a seque for the idea of Sola Scriptura and which Scriptura and whose translation(s) ...

    You have to know better than that the issue is a mere difference in fonts, and which is of no significance! The differences in fonts is the very thing that enables one to see that such are not in the original language, and the differences in language does not marginalize that, as shown. That is why scholars prefer word for word type translations, versus "dynamic equivalence" and examine the original language texts.

    Why can't you simply admit that your source is not as helpful and accurate as what i provided, instead of desperately having me being against the Jews and blithely dismissing the importance of finding supplied words versus what is in the original language texts? Give it up!

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/13/2017 2:59:37 PM PST · 603 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    I do not understand this complaint. Perhaps it was just a matter of preference. The Hebrew text is correct and the English translation on the Jewish website (Mechon-Mamre) is the same as the KJV.

    It does not agree with the KJV overall for it does not show supplied words, which the KJV usually does (normally by italics), as shown by my example (out of vast multitudes) Job 34:10:

    Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, that he should do wickedness; and from the Almighty, that he should commit iniquity. (Job 34:10)

    Here the supplied words, though unnecessary, their absence do have any real significance, however, in a case such as John 8:24 and 18:5-6 I think they may:

    "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he , ye shall die in your sins. (John 8:24) "

    "They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he . And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he , they went backward, and fell to the ground. (John 18:5-6) "

    In both cases, from what i can see, the Lord literally said "I am," the same statement that He made in Jn. 8:58,"verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am," (cf. Ex. 3:14) without the "he" in the Greek, which i believe, can be demanded, if not always. Yet i think that Jn. 8:24 infers deity, as does that the soldiers fell down at the declaration "I am," in 18:8.

    And as i recalled finding that sometimes the KJV does not distinguish supplied words, and since as explained, i am not being able to read Hebrew, then before i found a source that enabled me to see each word that was in the text at issue, i first sought to ascertain whether your source was a precise word for word English translation, which it is not. .

    Hebrew often translates into more English words and here M-M agrees with KJV (I had thought the objection would be about known messianic texts where the Jewish translations, but not the source, differs).

    Yes, more words are often necessary in English, but when the focus is on one word which may make a difference (not that it turned out that it really must in our case), then word for word accuracy can be important, just as it might if reading a will in a foreign language.

    And i think maybe its time to put this one to bed.

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/13/2017 2:07:12 PM PST · 598 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981; BlueDragon; Elsie; boatbums
    That is somwhat of a red herring against the Jews and their English translation of the Bible by pointing to some other verse's translation. I was not discussing Job, but rather the Hebrew in a particular verse in Genesis which both I and the Jewish link correctly translated as "the woman" Do you have a valid argument against the Hebrew text at the source or the translation of the phrase about which I inquired ?

    What is it with some who see antisemitism in every closest? Are we going to see Luther dragged in this next? This was not at all a red herring, your issue pertained to accuracy, and thus in my endeavor to be so I did not at all attack or impugn Jews , whom i defend as beloved for the father's sake and look forward to their conversion, but instead i gave authority to the Hebrew text over an English translation from your source , that, as was shown you , was not accurate word for word, and was "based on the electronic text (c) by Larry Nelson (P.O. Box 1681, Cathedral City, CA 92234 USA, nelsonlarry@juno.com) as found on the Internet in differing copies."

    I was not discussing Job..

    Did you read what i wrote or have you forgotten? I do not read Hebrew and your source does not show what all the Hebrew words mean, except per verse and if the English was word for word accurate. To see if it was, and before i found my source, i chose a text that i knew had many supplied words, which is Job 34:10, which showed me (and thus you) that the English translation of your source was not a precise word for word translation. I then found a more and helpful accurate source , which, as i showed, confirmed what you said, that the "the" was in the Hebrew.

    In both sources the Hebrew text was the same as far as i know, but as also said, my source provides pop up texts for the meaning of each Hebrew word, plus the English shows the supplied words, which were not distinguished in yours.

    but rather the Hebrew in a particular verse in Genesis which both I and the Jewish link correctly translated as "the woman" Do you have a valid argument against the Hebrew text at the source or the translation of the phrase about which I inquired ?

    The ethnicity of the web master had nothing to do with my choices, so please refrain from your "against the Jews" charge. A devout Jew would prioritize accuracy, which i did here. Talk about a red herring!

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/13/2017 1:05:47 PM PST · 591 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to metmom
    As we say here in CNY, if you don’t like the weather, just wait a minute.

    Outright theft:non:  We here in NE said it first!

    Yet according to this study, "among cities that do fall within the most populous metro areas, those with the most unpredictable weather are as follows:

    Kansas City, Missouri; Oklahoma City; Minneapolis; Cincinnati; Indianapolis; St. Louis; Birmingham, Alabama; Boston; Milwaukee; Dallas.

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/13/2017 12:53:11 PM PST · 590 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to metmom
    Again, you are misrepresenting my position and beliefs. I told you once and you are persisting in repeating the same error. I follow Jesus, NOT any man. he fact that some of my beliefs are the same as those held by Luther by no means indicates I am following him.

    But wasn't it Luther who said,

    "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" ?

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/13/2017 4:58:26 AM PST · 554 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to boatbums; Repent and Believe; metmom
    I bit awkward??? I think you have an impossible dichotomy and a weak rationalization to explain it away. Taken with your ill-advised (I'd say awkward) recent veiled castigation of women participating on Religion Forums,

    Male headship is what is Biblical , and occupying the church office of pastor and teacher, but not keeping women from sharing the gospel, while if you really want to be historical as a RC:

    We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication. — Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) in “Sextus Decretalium”, http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Religious_Discussions

    Commenting on this, the Catholic Encyclopedia states,

    “This law, like all penal laws, must be very narrowly construed. The terms Catholic Faith and dispute have a technical signification. The former term refers to questions purely theological; the latter to disputations more or less formal, and engrossing the attention of the public....

    But when there is a question of dogmatic or moral theology, every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of leaving the exposition and defense of it to the clergy.

    Can. 831 §1 Unless there is a just and reasonable cause, no member of Christ's faithful may write in newspapers, pamphlets or periodicals which clearly are accustomed to attack the catholic religion or good morals. Clerics and members of religious institutes may write in them only with the permission of the local Ordinary. - http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2P.HTM

    But the clergy are not free to engage in public disputes on religion without due authorization...

    That this legislation is still in force appears from the letter addressed to the bishops of Italy by Cardinal Rampolla in the name of the Cong. for Ecclesiastical Affairs (27 Jan., 1902)

    Quinisext Ecumenical Council, Canon 64: It does not befit a layman to dispute or teach publicly, thus claiming for himself authority to teach, but he should yield to the order appointed by the Lord,

    ... But if any one be found weakening [disobeying] the present canon, he is to be cut off for forty days. — http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm

    * “Do not converse with heretics even for the sake of defending the faith, for fear lest their words instil their poison in your mind.” Bl. Isaias Boner of Krakow (Polish, Augustinian priest, theologian, professor of Scripture, d. 1471)

    “...the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith they once received, either by corrupting the faith, as heretics, or by entirely renouncing the faith, as apostates, because the Church pronounces sentence of excommunication on both.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Article 9, “Whether it is lawful to communicate with unbelievers?”; http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/13/2017 4:46:19 AM PST · 551 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    The Hebrew Bible text, and a basic knowledge of Hebrew, are all that is necessary to translate that Hebrew into "the woman" as the definite article and the noun are written together as one in the text. It is a very simple translation and not in any way complicated, which is why I asked if there was a typo in that comment.

    To the contrary, unless one can read Hebrew then he would not know whether the definite article was in the Hebrew, unless the English rendering was word for word accurate, which your source is not, as shown , versus mine , but can easily mislead those who cannot read Hebrew from thinking certain word are in the Hebrew which are not. You may like that over mine, but the latter not only shows supplied words, but also provides a pop up for Hebrew words telling you what they mean. Thank God for good tech.

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/12/2017 5:25:57 PM PST · 527 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to daniel1212
    Note also that the definition of 9005 might not be defined by Strong, as i had assumed before in attribution, due to the tab on the page ).
  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/12/2017 5:15:22 PM PST · 526 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981; boatbums; MHGinTN; metmom; ealgeone; Mark17; Gamecock; terycarl
    The link supplied in comment #497 http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0103.htm alone, is insufficient to establish your claim to English speaking persons, fwiw.

    Yes, I linked to the Hebrew text directly and did not require any supporting study aids. It really is very simple, “the woman” is right there.

    That is not a good reference as regard transliterating the Hebrew precisely into English, for as shown , it does not make distinctions btwn supplied words and those which are actually in the Hebrew, which the source i found did.

    A picture is worth...and this should make clearer for all it may concern my correction of my statement based on my Bible program, that "in the Hebrew there is no “the” in “enmity between you and the woman,” even if it does not mean the singular must be meant:

    Gn.3-15

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/12/2017 4:55:16 PM PST · 523 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    I thought we were discussing the phrase “And I will put enmity between the and the woman” so I don’t see the plural “the women” anywhere in there. Was someone trying to extrapolate “the woman” into another meaning ?

    Are you reading what i wrote? Referring to my prior statement that In the Hebrew there is no “the” in “enmity between you and the woman,” i said that the word for "the" before "the women" was not shown in the KJV text i had with Strong's numbers [E-sword], but as a result of your query i have found it."

    But that as also said the word for "the" can contextually refer to "the women" in the plural, as in Gen. 14:16, and the enmity in Gn. 3:15 (said to denote the “blood-feud”) is between the devil and the woman Eve as representing all women and her offspring in general, whom the devil seeks to seduce [and greatly defile] and murder since they are basically made in the image of God. Yet "her seed" versus "his seed" can refer to the Godly seed.

    But that "her seed" principally refers to the most important seed (which is used singular and plural) of Eve and of the women, Christ, is what is fulfilled prophetically.

    It seems to me that if you are going to restrict the enmity of the devil to only being women, then we have a murderous devil that does not have enmity against mankind, or at least the Godly seed, or that it is women in particular that is his object of animosity.

    But if we restrict the enmity of the devil to only being one women, and make that to be Mary, then Eve is no longer in the picture as an object of enmity, nor women in general, nor her offspring, but only Mary and her offspring, giving the devil thousand of years of no enmity towards man.

    Take your pick.

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/12/2017 3:04:53 PM PST · 512 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981; MHGinTN; Elsie; boatbums; BlueDragon
    Surely that is a typo from your post, correct ?

    No: of typos i have in every sentence due to my arthritic fingers (must move hand for every letter), but this was because, as said, "The word for "the" before "the women" was not shown in the KJV text i had with Strong's numbers [E-sword], but as a result of your query i have found it."

    So thanks for questioning that because it led me to investigate the issue and be able to correct it, for i do want to be accurate, and as my investigation revealed that your source was not transliterating the Hebrew precisely into English, then you benefited from that also.

    But as explained, my correction is not contrary to "the women" meaning it can include women in general.

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/12/2017 2:47:48 PM PST · 509 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to BlueDragon; MHGinTN; Elsie
    I will say, however, that the process of investigating the disagreement was wearing me out.

    See 501 above.

  • Massachusetts weighs doing away with winter time shift

    01/12/2017 2:46:21 PM PST · 95 of 100
    daniel1212 to fidelis
    Here in Arizona we don’t do the twice-a-year clock-changing nonsense and we get along just fine.

    But i am sure the sun does not set there before 4.30pm in early winter.

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/12/2017 2:40:55 PM PST · 508 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to MHGinTN; af_vet_1981; Elsie
    Was this your own opinion/interjection in the middle of another reference and you made a mistake in transcribing the thought ? It is unclear what you intended by posting this, since the Hebrew does have the definite article in that phrase.

    Try going back and reading the post from which you pulled the sentence you're trying to use in twisted fashion. You will actually see to what source the sentence is appointed

    Actually this time i think that was a sincere question and one that i am glad was asked (see reply ), for i want to be accurate. I also should have formatted the reply, as i usually do, to distinguish btwn what a source said and my own findings. If i could correct that statement in past posts then i would do, which one thing i wish this forum enabled.

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/12/2017 10:16:39 AM PST · 502 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to Mark17
    Silly vid, while i think that next conquest will be by China. What's the real deal with the new President Duterte ?.
  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/12/2017 9:54:04 AM PST · 501 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    Was this your own opinion/interjection in the middle of another reference and you made a mistake in transcribing the thought ? It is unclear what you intended by posting this, since the Hebrew does have the definite article in that phrase.

    Thanks for the query. First, your source states that "The English text in this HTML edition of the Hebrew Bible is based on the electronic text (c) by Larry Nelson (P.O. Box 1681, Cathedral City, CA 92234 USA, nelsonlarry@juno.com) as found on the Internet in differing copies." And I do not think it is transliterating the Hebrew precisely into English. For instance, look at how many words it gets out of Job 34:10, "Far be it from God, that He should do wickedness; and from the Almighty, that He should commit iniquity," when literally as seen here , "from" "that he should do" "hat he should commit" is missing, and can easily be understood ass saying, "Far be it from God, wickedness; and from the Almighty, iniquity." May all that is within me always affirm this.

    The word for "the" before "the women" was not shown in the KJV text i had with Strong's numbers, but as a result of your query i have found it (and i do not claim to know any language other than English, but thank God we can do research) in this source as defined by Strong's here as "used for all numbers and genders," and which can contextually refer to "the women" in the plural, as in Gen. 14:16.

    The enmity in Gn. 3:15 (a rare Hebrew word occurring elsewhere only in Numbers 35:21-22, Ezekiel 25:15; 35:5 and is said to denote the “blood-feud”) is between the devil and the woman Eve as representing all women and her offspring in general, whom the devil seeks to seduce and murder since they are basically made in the image of God.

    In rabbinical Judaism, WP documents "the contrasting groups of "seed of the woman" and "seed of the serpent" are generally taken as plural, and the promise "he will bruise your head" applied to Adam / mankind bruising the serpent's head.[1]"

    However, while the devil has a basic animosity toward man, even though, like liberals, he presents himself as their savior in order to gain power, yet as regards bruising mankind in general can hardly be said to have bruised the head of devil, except by the Godly. But that "her seed" principally refers to the most important seed of Eve and of the women, Christ, is what is fulfilled prophetically. And thus Paul's specification of "women, in "when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. (Galatians 4:4,5)

    "Seed" (zera, singular noun used singular or collective) being masculine in Hebrew, Eve perhaps was expressing hope that he offspring would reverse the curse in exclaiming, , "I have gotten a man from the LORD." (Gen 4:1).

    The Mary was the specific women chosen to be the vessel to bring forth the promised Messiah made her blessed among women, this being a holy desire of such Godly spirit filled holy women, to the glory of God, in contrast to the blasphemous attributions and adulation Catholics give to their manufactured Mary , which the Holy Spirit nowhere gives to any created beings. Those who would defend the unique glory and honor of God according to His wholly inspired word must oppose imaginations and exhalations of men not seen therein, and contrary to it, and thus the obedience which is of Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:5)

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/11/2017 8:37:56 PM PST · 472 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to Repent and Believe
    Is God incapable of imparting to a man, His authority to forgive the sins of others and to withhold God’s forgiveness?

    Certainly, just as God is able to give man the power to take life, but attempting to establish a doctrine based upon what God could do is another logical fallacy, which you specialize in.

    And your doctrine is not that God gives man the power to bind or loose one in their sins, which is what the OT magisterium could judicially do in declaring one guilty or not guilty, with dissent being a capital crime, (Dt. 17:8-13) though they could be wrong.

    Nor is that of corporately biding one in sin to be chastised and then dropping the charges, as in the case of the incestuous man of 1Co. 5. And which relates to Mt. 18. And in which case Paul said that if the church forgave that man so also would He as acting for Christ. (2Co. 2:10)

    Nor is it that believers can obtain mercy for souls being judged due to sins, as in the case of the palsied man being forgiven and thus healed, (Mk. 2:1-7), and in confessing sins and praying to each other in general to be healed, and elders in the case of the infirm, (Ja. 5) as well as discerning and declaring one to be bound in sins, as Peter did with Simon (and who was told to pray to God to be forgiven: Acts 8:22-23)

    But in contrast your doctrine is that believers must normally confess sins to your unscriptural priests in order to obtain forgiveness, which is nowhere seen in the life of the NT church, in which the only exhortation to confess sins toward others it toward other believers in general.

    Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit. Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. (James 5:16-20) In addition, simply the power to

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/11/2017 6:37:05 PM PST · 467 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to ealgeone; Repent and Believe; MHGinTN; BlueDragon; Elsie
    Regarding. Gen 3:15...The catholic encyclopedia online notes the vulgate translation of Gen 3:15 cannot be defended critically. Yet Catholics continue to use this translation resulting in bad theology.

    Repent and Believe: Please post link.

    More than just a link , by God's grace: .“Her” as in “her seed” may be seen as referring to Mary by some, but which does not translate into the supreme exaltation Rome gives to her, officially stated or implicitly approved, almost to being a 4th member of the Trinity. There is enmity between the serpent and believers but that does that make them sinless.

    . Some Catholics also assert that it is Mary who crushes the head of the serpent, based on a translation which reads “her seed,”but this crushing is what Christ did.

    The Anglican/Roman Catholic International Commission explains the controversy:

    The Hebrew text of Genesis 3:15 speaks about enmity between the serpent and the woman, and between the offspring of both. The personal pronoun (hu’) in the words addressed to the serpent, “He will strike at your head”, is masculine. In the Greek translation used by the early Church (LXX), however, the personal pronoun autos (he) cannot refer to the offspring … but must refer to a masculine individual who could then be the Messiah, born of a woman. The Vulgate (mis)translates the clause as ipsa … This feminine pronoun supports a reading of this passage as referring to Mary which has become traditional in the Latin Church.

    Note that the Neo-Vulgate (Nova Vulgata), the revised Latin version authorized by the Vatican, corrected the error and changed it from ipsa to ipsum in the Latin. (http://reformedapologeticsministries.blogspot.com/2012/02/catholic-misuse-of-genesis-315.html)

    The Catholic Encyclopedia remarks:

    "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" (Genesis 3:15). The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent's head, is Christ…” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Immaculate Conception)

    In the Hebrew there is no “the” in “enmity between you and the womanand it can refer to or include women in general and all women, (Gn. 14:16; Ex. 25:22; Est. 1:17) with the Lord speaking to Eve but including all women.

    The approved notes in the official New American Catholic Bible (1970 ver.), while also allowing the Marian view, explains this verse,They will strike…at their heel: the antecedent for “they” and “their” is the collective noun “offspring,” i.e., all the descendants of the woman. Christian tradition has seen in this passage, however, more than unending hostility between snakes and human beings. The snake was identified with the devil (Wis 2:24; Jn 8:44; Rev 12:9; 20:2), whose eventual defeat seemed implied in the verse. Because “the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8), the passage was understood as the first promise of a redeemer for fallen humankind, the protoevangelium. Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. A.D. 130–200), in his Against Heresies 5.21.1, followed by several other Fathers of the Church, interpreted the verse as referring to Christ, and cited Gal 3:19 and 4:4 to support the reference. http://usccb.org/bible/genesis/3

    As regards spermatos not being seen elsewhere in Scripture, what the Catholic does not say is that we will not find it anywhere in the Hebrew, as it is Greek, and in which there is no “her” in the phrase “her seed.” Instead, spermatos for “her seed” comes from the Vulgate by way of a translators choice in the LXX, in which “sperm” is a Greek translation of the Hebrew word for “seed.”

    The Septuagint also has the same word, “sperma,” for the serpent and speaks of the "spermatos" of the woman and the "spermatos" of the serpent, while there are only 7 words with two repetitions out of the 17 word sentence which is translated "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed;" shi^yth (put/place) 'e^yba^h (enmity/hatred) be^yn (between) 'ishsha^h / na^shi^ym (wife/woman) be^yn (between) zera? (seed) zera? (seed), which illustrates the degree of interpretation this verse is open to.

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/11/2017 6:36:15 PM PST · 466 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to Fantasywriter
    Yes, that was very interesting. I note, as you’re no doubt aware, that children with gluten-intolerance become extremely ill after receiving the wafer. It wouldn’t be lack of faith, or other theological issues, in their case. It’s just their body’s inability to process gluten. (I’m noting this in agreement with what you posted, btw. I realize that those who actually need to answer my question ignored it—and understandably so.)

    If not for the delusion, it would be rather embarrassing to insist that something does not exist even though it can be demonstrated to be real based on the same evidences that did and could show that Christ came in the flesh, while asserting that that which utterly fails to be manifest and test as Christ really is His crucified body and blood .

    Yet Catholics insist they are sticking to a plain literal reading of the text.

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/11/2017 6:36:11 PM PST · 465 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to pax_et_bonum; MHGinTN
    As a Catholic, I will defend Protestant Christians, but I believe that there are Protestants who will not defend me.

    That is simply too much an ambiguous and broad statement. Certainly i could defend you in arguing about one of the many Truths we both concur on, but not in defending Catholicism in general. And many of the latter here do indeed seem to wish for the ways and means of the blood inquisitions. And the SSPX type certainly do not believe we can be saved as evangelicals, while salvation is possible for certain Caths, but sadly i think it is a relatively rare case among Catholics in this country.

  • Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

    01/11/2017 12:49:09 PM PST · 449 of 1,016
    daniel1212 to BlueDragon
    Church's alleged authority to turn stones into bread bread into being no longer bread AT ALL but instead, be very God!" after hocus pocus words said by 'our priest',

    If we were to take the words at issue plainly literally as Caths insist we must, then we would have to conclude that what the apostles consumed was the same manifest incarnated body that proved that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, versus simple appearance.

    This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. (1 John 5:6)

    For at the Last Supper, the Lord said And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you (1 Corinthians 11:24) and "this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matthew 26:28)

    And the only human body that Christ ever had was one that was manifestly human, one that looked, felt, smelled, and would taste and scientifically test as truly human, including i believe, in its resurrected state, even though Christ could bodily appear at will, versus being like a phantom.

    And the apostles could far more easily believe that the piece of meat they were to consume was His human body, rather than a piece of bread that looks , feels, smells, and would taste and scientifically test as such does not really exist, but instead it is the same body of Christ that was crucified for us (until the non-existent bread begin to decay),

    The problem is that, apart from a few sketchy purported miracle which are contrary to Eucharistic theology, Cath priests have not been to effect this change, nor did the Lord ever manifest Himself as an inanimate object.

    This thus necessitated explaining the deceiving nature of this "real disguised presence" by employing specious pagan philosophy to "explain" what is not seen in Scripture but best corresponds to what is attested to by some accounts of pagan practices.

    Yet all of which contrivances is unnecessary as well as wrong, since the metaphorical understanding alone easily conflates with John and the rest of Scripture .