Posts by daniel1212

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    12/06/2016 8:34:51 AM PST · 423 of 423
    daniel1212 to G Larry
    Go back and READ John 6 and see what you learn. The phrase Body and Blood are use so often by Christ as to be impossible to misunderstand, without prior intent.

    Which is simply more idiocy . You do not prove what Jn. 6 means, including "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (John 6:63) by simply quoting it in isolation and throwing a tantrum when challenged by interpretive texts. One could do the same thing with David plainly declaring water was the blood of men and thus pouring it out unto the Lord, or that John the Baptist was really "this is" Elijah.

    The manifest Fact is the rest of Scripture nowhere supports spiritual life being obtained by literally physically eating anything, but by effectually receiving the words of Christ in heart, which are what the NT church in Scripture confirms to be "milk" and "meat" which nourishes and builds up believers.

    But why should we waste time with manifestly immature and unreasonable cultic devotees?

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    12/06/2016 8:33:45 AM PST · 422 of 423
    daniel1212 to MHGinTN; G Larry
    See post # 415 ..

    Indeed. The only thing i would change (outside of some minor grammatical mistakes) is regards "even the notes to the NAB concur with" as meaning that while they say "discerning the body" "must mean understanding the sense of Jesus' death, (⇒ 1 Cor 11:26), perceiving the imperative to unity [of the body] that follows from the fact that Jesus gives himself to all and requires us to repeat his sacrifice in the same spirit (⇒ 1 Cor 11:18-25)" supports what i said that Paul's censure was that they were not showing the Lords death in that same spirit, because they were ignoring other members of the Lord's body which He identifies Himself with, thus not recognizing the body of Christ as being so.

    Which is what Paul as Saul failed to do, and thus was charged by the Lord with persecuting Christ Himself, (Acts 9:4) and refers the church as the body about 20 times in 1 Co. alone. To remember the Lord's body which was crucified for us is to remember the church which He purchased with His sinless shed blood, (Acts 20:28) treating its members as being bought with that incomparable price, which many of the Corinthians were not doing, thus they actually did not come together to eat the Lord's supper, and which Paul censures them for, and not of some failure to believe in transubstantiation.

    While in Catholicism one can be said to partake of the Lord's supper even if he wants little or no interaction with others, and may even prefer to eat alone and shows little concern for others, in Scripture such a one is actually not coming to eat the Lord's supper. And the same applies to any such Protestants.

    Moreover, if anything, the church as the body of Christ is what conforms most to the incarnated Christ versus some inanimate objects which do not look, taste, small or would scientifically test as real flesh and blood. For Scripture does not call souls to believe in a Christ that looks like an inanimate object, but invokes His manifest physicality - which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it,..." (1 John 1:1-2)

    And while Christ does not feel the pain of someone chewing up His body as the Eucharist, He does feel the pains of His persecuted church.

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    12/06/2016 4:42:14 AM PST · 419 of 423
    daniel1212 to G Larry
    “And the church as the body of Christ is what Paul elsewhere also majors on” NO! It is NOT! It is ON THE EUCHARIST!

    You can stamp your feet and shout your bare assertions all you want but such will not make them true, and simply attests again to your utter absence of any actual argument, and your rejection of objective reason-able analysis in your blind defense of what you want to believe.

    Thus you are fit to be left to your own chosen deception and its damnable consequences,.

    Bye.

  • Why Donald Trump Will Lose [Fake News Huffington Post on Election Eve!]

    12/05/2016 5:33:53 PM PST · 10 of 10
    daniel1212 to SoFloFreeper
    More trusted content:

    11/04/2016 06:35 pm ET The HuffPost presidential forecast gives Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton a 98 percent chance of winning the general election on Tuesday. That means we’re pretty darn certain that ― barring some major catastrophe, scandal or nearly every single poll being wrong ― Clinton will be elected. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/high-probability-clinton-winning_us_581d0399e4b0e80b02ca2498?utm_hp_ref=%40pollster

    HuffPost Forecasts Hillary Clinton Will Win With 323 Electoral Votes Democrats stand a strong chance of taking control of the Senate as well. 11/07/2016 06:51 pm ET | Updated Nov 08, 2016

    Nate Silver Is Unskewing Polls — All Of Them — In Trump’s Direction The vaunted 538 election forecaster is putting his thumb on the scales. 11/05/2016 03:59 pm ET | Updated Nov 07, 2016 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nate-silver-election-forecast_us_581e1c33e4b0d9ce6fbc6f7f http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/polls-hillary-clinton-win_us_5821074ce4b0e80b02cc2a94

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    12/05/2016 4:45:47 PM PST · 415 of 423
    daniel1212 to G Larry
    1 Corinthians 10:31-32 - Has NOTHING to do with the Eucharist!

    Can you read? I invoked 1 Corinthians 10:31-32 because "The overall context here is the church as the body of Christ," and which flows into the next chapter. It may be hard for you to see this, but the Lord's supper cannot be separated from the welfare of the church as the body of Christ, which is to remember and thus effectually show the Lord's death till He comes.

    Which sacrificial loving death you do not do by either causing your brother to stumble by misuse of liberty, which is the immediate context of 1Co. 10:31,32, or by eating independently and to the full while ignoring other brethren, which is to "shame of them that have not," which was what Paul censored the Corinthians for doing in the next chapter.

    You do not eat or drink to the glory of God by acting as they did, and even if you believe in transubstantiation you should agree with this.

    1Co. 11:20-22 - Is addressing the abuses of the Eucharist. Paul is making it clear that the Eucharist is indeed sacred and should not be treated as some casual meal.

    That it should not be treated as some casual meal is true, but the issue here is the the censure of 1Co. 11:17-34 was not that of a failure to recognize the bread and wine as transubstantiated flesh and blood, but it was manifestly that of that of not effectually recognizing the body of Christ for which He died, that one bread" of 1 Corinthians 10:17, because of the utterly hypocritical way they imagined that they were showing the Lord's death till He comes - which is what Paul says they were commanded to do - (1Co. 11:26) treating those for whom Christ died as if they were lepers!

    When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. (1 Corinthians 11:20-22)

    Thus Paul simply repeats - not interprets - the words at issue of the Lord's supper (vs. 23-25) concluding, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [proclaim] the Lord's death till he come." (1 Corinthians 11:26)

    Therefore, since they were actually not coming together to eat the Lord's supper, because they were not actually showing His sacrificial death for the church by spurning those for whom He died, then Paul next states,

    Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning [recognizing] the Lord's body. (1 Corinthians 11:27-29)

    And the church as the body of Christ is what Paul elsewhere also majors on, including in the next chapter, as one who persecuted the Lord (Acts 9) by persecuting His church.

    And because the problem was not that of them not recognizing the nature of the elements eaten, but that of how they did not actually come together to eat the Lord's supper due to how they selfishly ate, then the solution Paul gives is not a lesson on transubstantiation (which neither Paul nor any apostle writes to the churches about), but instead, consistent the theme here, he states,

    Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)

    And once again, even if one holds to transubstantiation then they should still agree that what was not being discerned was the church - which was my argument - which even the notes to the NAB concur with:

    [27] It follows that the only proper way to celebrate the Eucharist is one that corresponds to Jesus' intention, which fits with the meaning of his command to reproduce his action in the proper spirit. If the Corinthians eat and drink unworthily, i.e., without having grasped and internalized the meaning of his death for them, they will have to answer for the body and blood, i.e., will be guilty of a sin against the Lord himself (cf ⇒ 1 Cor 8:12).

    13 [28] Examine himself: the Greek word is similar to that for "approved" in ⇒ 1 Cor 11:19, which means "having been tested and found true." The self-testing required for proper eating involves discerning the body (⇒ 1 Cor 11:29), which, from the context, must mean understanding the sense of Jesus' death (⇒ 1 Cor 11:26), perceiving the imperative to unity that follows from the fact that Jesus gives himself to all and requires us to repeat his sacrifice in the same spirit (⇒ 1 Cor 11:18-25).

    So you can also argue with them, while once again you have no valid argument

    Your conclusion is shallow nonsense: “For while they were supposed to be showing/declaring the Lord’s unselfish sacrificial death for the body by unselfishly sharing food with other members

    Rather, you continue to foolishly charge others with what the public can see applies to you.

  • Who is funding + organizing today's students walkout protest of Trump?

    12/05/2016 1:29:30 PM PST · 28 of 30
    daniel1212 to Conservative Gato
    It’s so sad the adults behind this, fail to see this.

    Indeed. Trump is not politically correct, and that alone is a mortal sin in the eyes of these secular Democrat Pharisees. He leaves some things to be desired (as does the Rep. party), but there is no contest next to the Democrats and Clinton.

  • Who is funding + organizing today's students walkout protest of Trump?

    12/05/2016 1:25:22 PM PST · 26 of 30
    daniel1212 to uncitizen
    the teachers arent behind this? the students, on their own, came up with this “dangerous and inexcusable” policies stuff?

    And any absent marks can be expected to be pardoned in secret.

  • Who is funding + organizing today's students walkout protest of Trump?

    12/05/2016 1:24:09 PM PST · 25 of 30
    daniel1212 to RitaOK
    . It has been as if the Republicans are blind, or are in on it, for state propagandists and social engineers in Academia are never an agenda item for any Republican candidate, ever.

    Indeed, I asked one of the teens how school was the day of the election, and they said they watched TV, and the teachers were cussing Trump. He said the kids thought it was funny.

  • Who is funding + organizing today's students walkout protest of Trump?

    12/05/2016 1:21:33 PM PST · 24 of 30
    daniel1212 to Zuse
    What kind of reactions you would get from “Student-on-the-street” interviews when confronted with President-elect Donald Trump’s “inexcusable statements” and “harmful policies,” which actually turned out to be attributed to the “prophet” Moehammed?

    He would be deplorable.

  • Who is funding + organizing today's students walkout protest of Trump?

    12/05/2016 11:47:28 AM PST · 12 of 30
    daniel1212 to b4me
    Last i checked the protest should be against the educational system:

    • 3 million crimes per year are committed on or near school property. http://www.hi-ho.ne.jp/taku77/papers/vc/vc5.htm

    • 6,000 American students were kicked out of school in the 1996-97 school year for packing weapons.- John Hendren, "Internet Provides Bomb Blueprints," www.ap.org, April 26, 1999 (Kids Killing Kids) http://www.yellodyno.com/html/violent_kids_stats.html

    • 2,500 High School students drop out of school every day. U.S. News + World Report, 4-24-06

    • More than a 25% of low-income first-generation college students leave after their first year, and 89 percent fail to graduate within six years. Time Magazine, What We Can Learn from First-Generation College Students, April 11, 2012

    • One million U.S. students took guns to school in 1998. Parents Resource Institute for Drug Addiction. http://www.yellodyno.com/html/violent_kids_stats.html

    • 20% of high school students reported carrying some type of weapons to school each day. Centers for Disease Control. http://www.cdc.gov

    • 68% of prison inmates do not have a High School diploma. U.S. News + World Report, 4-24-06

    • Almost 33% of school teachers seriously considered leaving their jobs because of student misbehavior. Research firm Public Agenda. http://publicagenda.org/

    • Nearly 80 percent of school teachers said there are serious troublemakers in their schools who should have been kicked out of regular classrooms. Research firm Public Agenda as reported by www.theolympian.com

    • College professors who train teachers give a low priority to skills like keeping order and training politeness. Research firm Public Agenda

    • 36% of high school students reported having been involved in a physical fight in the last year. http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r2k0609b.htm

    • 21% of high school students said they avoided using places like school rest rooms because of the threat of harm. U.S. Department of Education

    • 2,500 educators (three for every school day) from 2001 through 2005 were punished for sexual misconduct, 80 percent of those being to students. Associated Press investigation http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303780,00.html

    • From 1955 to 1991 the U.S. pupil/teacher ratio dropped 40 percent, the average salary of teachers rose 50 percent (in real terms) and the annual expense per pupil, soared 350 percent (inflation adjusted) John Taylor Gatto, Eyeless in Gaza, Intellectual Espionage, p. 3 http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/3c.htm

    • Seventeen of the nation's 50 largest cities had high school graduation rates lower than 50 percent, with the lowest graduation rates reported in Detroit, Indianapolis and Cleveland. Approx. 70 percent of U.S. students graduate on time with a regular diploma, but about 1.2 million students drop out annually. America's Promise Alliance, based upon U.S. Department of Education data from 2003-2004. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344190,00.html

    • In 1940, teachers listed the following concerns (in order of magnitude) that interfered with a child's education: (a) talking out of turn; (b) chewing gum; (c) making noise; (d) running in the halls; (e) getting out of line; (f) wearing improper clothing and; (g) not putting paper in the wastebasket. Today, teachers rank the following concerns (in order of magnitude) which interfere with a child's education: (a) drug abuse; (b) alcohol abuse; (c) teen pregnancy; (d) suicide; (e) rape; (f) robbery and: (g) assault. William Kilpatrick; “Why Johnny Can't Tell Right from Wrong, pg. 64. (Simon & Schuster, 1992).

    • A 2009 survey of almost 30,000 high school students nationwide found that 30% admitted to stealing from a store within the past year (19 percent who attend religious schools). 23% said they stole from a parent or relative. More than 83% stated they lied to a parent about something significant. 42 confessed that they sometimes lied to save money (up from 395 in 2006). 64 percent had cheated on a test in the past year (up from 60 percent two years earlier) and 38 percent had cheated more than once. More than 36% had used the Internet to plagiarize. 26% also confessed to lying on at least one survey question. However, 93% agreed, "I am satisfied with my own ethics and character," and 77% affirmed , "When it comes to doing what is right, I am better than most people I know." Josephson Institute http://charactercounts.org/programs/reportcard/

    • 50% of all home schooling parents are born again Christians. Barna Research 2001. http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=103

    • 22 percent of adult Americans are functionally illiterate (they cannot read the front page of a newspaper). The U.S. Department of Education National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS);Kirsch I, et al. Adult Literacy in America: A First Look at the Findings of the National Adult Literacy Survey. Washington, DC. National Center for Education Statistics, US Dept of Education, 1993.

    • Approximately 50 percent of Americans have reading and computational skills that are inadequate for them to fully function in our modern society. ^ http://www.rmf.harvard.edu/risklibrary/articles/i_health-literacy-incP.asp

    • 47 percent of Americans could not understand written directions to take medicine on an empty stomach, and 60 percent did not understand the standard consent form. Williams MV, et al. Inadequate functional health literacy among patients at two public hospitals. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1995; 274:167782.

    • Only 31 percent of fourth graders read at or above grade level. http://www.childrensdefense.org/pressreleases/040713.asp

    • Seven out of ten fourth graders cannot read or do math at grade level. http://www.childrensdefense.org/pressreleases/040713.asp

    • According to the 2000 NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) assessments, only 32 percent of 4th graders are proficient in reading, while just 26 percent are proficient in mathematics, 29 percent in science, and 18 percent in history. By the 12th grade proficiency rates decline in most subjects. Over half of all poor students fail to reach the basic level on NAEP assessments in most subjects. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/sitemap.asp.

    • Between 1963 and 1980 national SAT composite scores fell 90 points. College Board Annual SAT Score Reports. 19631980.

    • Since 1972 to 1994, the percentage of U.S. students scoring above 600 on SAT tests declined 37 percent, and the percentage of those who scored 750 tests fell 50 percent. John Taylor Gatto, Eyeless in Gaza, Intellectual Espionage, p. 3 http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/3c.htm

    • The high school class of 2006 recorded the sharpest drop in SAT scores in 31 years. Associated Press.

    • Nearly 60 percent of high-school seniors lack even a basic knowledge of U.S. History. 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey tests

    • The national graduation rate is 68 percent, with nearly one-third of all public high school students failing to graduate (2001). http://www.urban.org/publications/410934.htm

    • The 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey tests show that only about 56% of the blacks and 83% of the whites over sixteen are literate. [55] Scores on 1994 NAEP reading tests indicate that 42% of the 4th graders can't read; 72% of the 8th graders can't read 8th grade assignments; and 66% of the nation's high school seniors can't read 9th grade textbooks in any core subject. USDE. 1994. NAEP Reading: A First Look. p. 18.

    • In a nationwide study conducted by Dr. Brian D. Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute, Homeschoolers were found to have scored 34-39 percentile points higher than the norm on standardized achievement tests. http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090811/study-homeschoolers-scoring-well-above-public-school-peers/index.html

    • The average ACT (American College Testing) score of homeschooled students in 2009 was higher than the national average. http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090827/avg-act-score-of-homeschoolers-beats-nat-l-avg/index.html

    • In 1940, fewer than 5 percent of Americans had a college degree. Starting with the GI Bill in 1944, governments at all levels promoted college. From 1947 to 1980, enrollments jumped from 2.3 million to 12.1 million. In the 1940s, private colleges and universities accounted for about half. By the 1980s, state schools - offering heavily subsidized tuitions - represented nearly four-fifths. At last count, roughly 40 percent of Americans had some sort of college degree: about 30 percent a bachelor's degree from a four-year institution; the rest associate degrees from community colleges. http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/05/29/lets_drop_the_college-for-everyone_crusade_99690.html

    • Since 1961, the time students spend reading, writing and otherwise studying has fallen from 24 hours a week to about 15. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/is-college-too-easy-as-study-time-falls-debate-rises/2012/05/21/gIQAp7uUgU_print.html

    • After two years of college, 45 percent of college students hadn't significantly improved their critical thinking and writing skills; after four years, the proportion was still 36 percent. The study was based on a test taken by 2,400 students at 24 schools. "Academically Adrift," by sociologists Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa; http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/05/29/lets_drop_the_college-for-everyone_crusade_99690.html

    • Over 50 percent of students at four-year schools and more than 75 percent at two-year colleges lacked the skills to perform complex literacy tasks (unable to interpret a table about exercise and blood pressure, comprehend arguments of newspaper editorials, compare credit card offers with different interest rates and annual fees, or summarize results of a survey about parental involvement in school). American Institutes for Research Ben Feller, Associated Press | January 20, 2006

    • States appropriated almost $6.2 billion for four-year colleges and universities between 2003 and 2008 to help pay for the education of students who did not return for their second year, while the federal government spent $1.5 billion and states spent $1.4 billion on grants for such students. "Finishing the First Lap: The Cost of First-Year Student Attrition in America's Four-Year Colleges and Universities." reported by AP, “Report: College dropouts cost taxpayers billions,” October 11, 2010

    • More than 25% of low-income first-generation college students leave after their first year, and 89 percent fail to graduate within six years. Time Magazine, What We Can Learn from First-Generation College Students, April 11, 2012

    • Almost 80% of seniors at 55 of our best colleges and universities earned a D or F grade on a high-school level American history test a 1999 survey showed. USDE 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey tests http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/magazines/2000-11/cohen.html

    • The National Center for Education Statistics reports that only 31% of college graduates can read and understand a complex book. Walter E. Williams , professor of economics at George Mason University. http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=336612797889002

    • Nearly half (47 percent) of college freshmen enrolled in 2005 had earned an average grade of A in high school, compared to 2-in-10 (20 percent) in 1970. The majority (79 percent) of freshmen in 1970 had an important personal objective of “developing a meaningful philosophy of life.” By 2005, the majority of freshmen (75 percent) said their primary objective was “being very well off financially.” Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2007, (Table 274). http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/miscellaneous/007871.html

    • Enrollment has increased 70.6 percent since 1990, from 135,000 to 230,000, at the 102 Evangelical schools belonging to the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities. Higher Education Research Institute at the UCLA; USA Today Dec. 14, 2005 .

    • During the same period, enrollments at public colleges increased by 12.8 percent, and at private colleges the increase was 28 percent. USA Today Dec. 14. 2005 Southern Baptist Convention, Baptist Press http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=22361

    • 62% more students are going to college than did in the 1960s". Bill Fitzsimmons, dean of admissions at Harvard.

      More

  • Who is funding + organizing today's students walkout protest of Trump?

    12/05/2016 11:41:39 AM PST · 8 of 30
    daniel1212 to 17th Miss Regt
    A student that walks out and does not turn in their project or take their test is much easier to grade for that project or test.

    Someone will likely give them a pardon.

  • Who is funding + organizing today's students walkout protest of Trump?

    12/05/2016 11:40:00 AM PST · 7 of 30
    daniel1212 to lee martell
    If this school gets a huge donation of money or equipment from ‘anonymous donors’, my guess is someone like Nanny Bloomberg, George Soros or Slim of Mexico. All three are busybody billionaires that most people personally dislike. Oh, and then there’s the (C)Rapper, JayZ, ‘husband’ of professional Shake Dancer Beyonce. JayZ is a well known contributor to anarchist groups like Black Lives Matter.

    Reasonable answer, but i think there is an org. overall and the funding and directors of such is the issue.

  • Who is funding + organizing today's students walkout protest of Trump?

    12/05/2016 11:26:18 AM PST · 1 of 30
    daniel1212
    More:

    Seattle students plan citywide anti-Trump walkout Monday — UPDATE ...

    Boston students plan walkout Monday in protest of Trump I know the media provides a junior high student as an organizer, but who are the real movers behind this ideological deception, besides the devil?

  • The Refinerís Fire: The Biblical Vision of Purgatory

    12/05/2016 9:14:12 AM PST · 62 of 62
    daniel1212 to HarleyD; Salvation
    You are correct but we are made pure through Christ alone.

    To which "salvation" can say "Amen," but as meaning by becoming good enough to be with God, first via the act of baptism effecting regeneration which renders one inherently good enough (by "infused charity") to be with God, and then if such sin and do not sufficiently atone for such, and since they are not "perfect," then they must suffer the purfying torments of RC (EOs differ) Purgatory until they atone for such and become good enough to be with God.

    Thus we can see that this begins with the error of justification based upon being actually good enough to be with God, even though such, even if innocent, are not perfect in character which Purgatory is said to be needed for.

    And which theology means that when Abraham was counted righteous because he (who was as good as dead as regards his ability to effect the promise of God) believed God could do what he could not, was actually made good enough to be with God.

    And it means that even though as yet immature believers are washed, sanctified and justified, and accepted in the Beloved and positionally seated with Him in Heaven, and have direct spiritual access with boldness into the holy of holies in Heaven, (Heb. 10:19), and as yet imperfect Paul (Phil. 3:10ff) said he and they would be present with the Lord at death, or forever with the Lord if He returned in their lifetime, yet according to Rome they cannot enter glory to be with God until after possibly eons of time in fiery torments.

    Which the apostle's failed to manifestly warn believers of, while clearly teaching of suffering the loss of rewards at the Lord's return, which is the only manifestly taught suffering for the believers after this life .

    When God looks at us,

    You mean real believers.

    He looks at the works of Christ, not our works.

    More precisely, He sees our works, including those who testify to our having true faith, which faith appropriates justification and effects works (which He also enables and motivates, and yet rewards), but the effects of faith are not the actual ground for justification, as if we actually were good enough to be with God.

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    12/05/2016 3:07:11 AM PST · 405 of 423
    daniel1212 to G Larry
    You have NOT “refuted” anything. You twist words and assign meaning to suit your purpose. You ignore clear responses to your challenge “What part of “Show in the life of the church” “Acts onward, “ When I present you with Paul, so who is obstinate to see the truth?

    What? One again more lying denial is your argument? And (re. Paul) is it blindness or simply an unwillingness to look at what clearly refuted you??? You simply have no valid argument, and never did. Bye.

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    12/04/2016 6:59:34 PM PST · 402 of 423
    daniel1212 to G Larry
    I have no obligation to be obedient to your demands. Christ provided the refutation to your position. 1-There is NOTHING incompatible between 6:53 and Acts, yet you pretend 6:53 has no meanin

    Why blatant bombast! Once again all you have is mere assertions but which the evidence - and utter lack on your part - is against! You have not and can not and never will be able to show in the record of life of the NT church that partaking of the Eucharist is essential for, or otherwise the means obtaining spiritual life, or spiritual nourishment, thus all you can do is make mere assertions of no incompatibility btwn the literal meaning of Jn. 6:53 and what the rest of the Scripture after that show.

    2 & 3- To pretend that 6:55 is referring to His word alone is preposterous. (55) He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood, hath everlasting life; and I will raise him up in the last day.

    Another mere assertion, while NOWHERE does Scripture teach that obtaining everlasting life is by partaking of the Cath Eucharist, not even the actual Lord supper accounts (which Jn. 6 is not). And as shown, a plainly literal reading of those would mean that the same manifestly physical bloody flesh was being eaten, not some Aristotelian metaphysical nonsense!

    except in one epistle, and perhaps as breaking of bread in Acts and simple reference to the "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12 How about these? Matt. 26:26‑28; Mark 14:22‑24; Luke 22: 19- 30 and I Corinthians 11: 23‑25 & 1 Cor 10:16 5.- Is incoherent rambling.

    What part of "Show in the life of the church" "Acts onward, which writings are interpretive of the gospels" do you not understand?! For the last time, using the words which are actually the subject of disputation as your argument is simply circular nonsense.

    In addition, your blindness or refusal to actually read what refutes you is evident in you invoking I Corinthians 10 and 11, which is that "one epistle" mentioned, and the attempted arguments for them by you were clearly refuted at length to you already !

    Such irrational robotic recitation for Rome makes you sound like a brainwashed cultist and thus is actually an argument against being a Catholic, which is the only argument you have. No wonder even your own brethren must have left you alone here.

    Just give it up lest a worse think come up thee.

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    12/04/2016 3:35:52 PM PST · 395 of 423
    daniel1212 to G Larry
    I have provided refutations, yet you choose to ignore them.

    Which is a blatant lie. Show me one "refutation" to me that has been ignored, while i will show you the spurious nature of what you imagine to be refutations, again and again quoting the very words which are in contention, or quotes by mere men parroting the same bare assertions, and which require us to see how the NT manifestly understood them, which simply does not and never will support your selective literalist carnal apprehension of them.

    Now either provide the evidence required by my 5 simple statements or stop engaging in mere argument by assertion.

    As for volume, I have dozens of books on the subject of the Eucharist alone. Would you like a list?

    And what will that prove? Mormons have volumes also, and which simply does not translate into Truth, while not matter if you have more volumes than the world can hold you still will not find what you so desperately need to show in the life and teachings of the NT church (Acts onward, which are interpretive of the gospels) as per my 5 requirements.

  • The Refinerís Fire: The Biblical Vision of Purgatory

    12/04/2016 3:15:45 PM PST · 49 of 62
    daniel1212 to Paved Paradise; Clutch Martin; NYer
    The below was supposed to follow as footnotes (bad html) to 47

    * Which was not what was preached by the NT church, but developed later. (Augustine "describes two conditions of men; "some there are who have departed this life, not so bad as to be deemed unworthy of mercy, nor so good as to be entitled to immediate happiness." - City of God XXI.24)

    Which is due to a misapprehension of Biblical justification, in which one can never be as perfect as Christ in character and thus actually fit to be with God (if one was as pure and perfect as Christ then one could be the atonement for mankind).

    But instead the heart is purified by faith (Acts 15:9) and justified by the same, (Rn. 4:1-7ff) and thus the as yet practically, actually imperfect believer is "accepted in the Beloved" and made to sit together with Him in Heaven (Eph. 1:6; 2:6) on Christ's account, who Himself bore our sins for our sake, and was numbered with the transgressors, (Is. 53:4) and paid the price for our forgiveness, though He was actually wholly righteous. (1Pt. 2:22-24)

    ** Growth in Christian character (and chastisement to that end) is only manifestly shown as taking place while the believer is in this earthly realm, and what follows is judgment upon the character of his work in building the church. Thus we have such exhortations as, Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season , if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: (1 Peter 1:6,7)

    Even Christ was perfect in character, yet it was here that He was made "perfect through sufferings," (Hebrews 2:10) as in having successfully been "in all points [lust of the eyes, and of the flesh, and ego: 1Jon. 2:16) tempted like as we are, yet without sin." (Hebrews 4:15)

  • The Refinerís Fire: The Biblical Vision of Purgatory

    12/04/2016 3:09:27 PM PST · 48 of 62
    daniel1212 to NYer
    1 Corinthians makes it clear that this ‘testing’ evaluates one’s works in life. Those of value—the good works of charity and mercy—are like the gold and silver that endure, while the bad works are like the chaff that is burned up. Likewise, just as a refining fire removes impurities from precious metals like silver and gold, so also the faithful departed will be purified of any remaining traces of sin.

    And just where does he get this from 1Co. 3> And "the when?"

    Using the valid principle of the refining value of fire does not justify a doctrine that invokes it, any more than the valid principle of the punitive use of fire justifies Islamic Hell.

  • The Refinerís Fire: The Biblical Vision of Purgatory

    12/04/2016 3:02:45 PM PST · 47 of 62
    daniel1212 to Paved Paradise; Clutch Martin; NYer; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; ...
    The suggested rendering would then read or could read as: Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise.”

    This comma baloney is used by cults. I don’t believe the comma should come after today. It makes no sense either. Since it is being said today, there is no need for Jesus to emphasize he is talking today.

    Indeed, as if "today" was uttered so as to make a distinction btwn today and tomorrow, while that distinction is entirely fitting for once facing death, wanting to be with Jesus, and thus is comforted by the assurance that this was imminent.

    And the most Scriptural revelation of Paradise is as the abode of the elect before the resurrection, being called Abraham's bosom in Lk. 16:22, to which Christ went at His death with the contrite criminal, which He called paradise, (Lk. 23:39-43) to release OT saints to glory, (Ephesians 4:9-10) and which Paul states is the 3rd Heaven. (2 Co. 12:3,4)

    "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." (Hebrews 10:4) Thus "the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing." (Hebrews 9:8)

    But, "Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent." (Matthew 27:50-51) "Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things." (Ephesians 4:9-10) By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (1 Peter 3:19-20)

    And therefore "the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.' (Matthew 27:52-53)

    In addition, the Catholic explanation for there being no delay for the contrite criminal/AKA "good thief" being with Christ after death is that the criminal accomplished on the cross the sufferings that were required due to his sins and so "there remained no further need for any purgation" (http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=309713&language=en) “through fire and torments or purifying punishments” (Indulgentiarum Doctrina; cp. 1. 1967) and or that he otherwise died in a state of perfect holiness bound straight for heaven. (http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/dismissing-the-dismas-case)

    However, in such a case the thief is said to have been justified "baptism by desire" (CCC 1259) and in Catholic theology the newly converted have no sins that may need further atonement (unless they sin venially and do not confess them and do sufficient penance), for which Purgatory is required.

    Yet “Purgatory" (from Latin, "purgare", to make clean, to purify) is more than just for atoning for sins, but for attaining to perfection of character: "

    In following the Gospel exhortation to be perfect like the heavenly Father (cf. Mt 5:48)...because the encounter with God requires absolute purity. Every trace of attachment to evil must be eliminated, every imperfection of the soul corrected. Purification must be complete..." "This is exactly what takes place in Purgatory." — John Paul II, Audiences, 1999; http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_04081999.html

    ". ..we will go to Purgatory first, and then to Heaven after we are purged of all selfishness and bad habits and character faults" — Peter Kreeft, Because God Is Real: Sixteen Questions, One Answer, p. 224

    .Purgatory is the state, after death, where souls who are not yet perfected in their love for God, are purified before admittance to the all holy God. (Fr. Frank Sofie, Purgatory)

    "..the lapsable [imperfect believers] are destined to but have not yet attained this moral perfection of their natures....Purgation is thus the means by which the Christian’s inherent moral condition “catches up” to his unpenalizable status, purchased by Christ, before the tribunal of God." (Neal Judisch, Sanctification, Satisfaction, and the Purpose of Purgatory; www.baylor.edu/content/services/...php/79699.docx)

    But besides the erroneous nature of this doctrine which was a later development,* the inherent moral condition with its attachment for sin is not purged at baptism (nor does that act itself effect regeneration), nor can mere suffering produce perfection of character and of the soul, for this requires testings and trials in which there is an alternative to obedience, which only this life is shown to provide, and which is the only realm Scripture speaks wherein believers grow in spiritual maturity..** The only manifest expectation of any real transformative change is that of the resurrection at the return of the Lord Jesus. (1Cor. 15:35ff; Phil. 1:21-23; 1Jn. 3:2)

    And at which point Scripture teaches that all true believers shall" ever be with the Lord," (1Thes. 4:17) or at death, whatever comes first. (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”])

    And at which time is the judgment seat of Christ, (1Cor. 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4)

    Therefore, the position that the contrite criminal attained that perfection in a few hours or so on the cross is simply untenable, as is that the newly converted have attained this condition of maturity as well.

    * Which was not what was preached by the NT church, but developed later. (Augustine "describes two conditions of men; "some there are who have departed this life, not so bad as to be deemed unworthy of mercy, nor so good as to be entitled to immediate happiness." - City of God XXI.24)

    ** Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season , if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: (1 Peter 1:6,7)

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    12/04/2016 5:36:07 AM PST · 383 of 423
    daniel1212 to Springfield Reformer; G Larry
    You can take it to the bank that not one of them imagined it was anything like Aquinas' transubstantiation.

    Indeed. And as said, if literal they would have believed that "my body which is broken for you," "blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.." meant they would be consuming the actual manifestly bloody flesh of Christ, not a crucified body of Christ which looked, tasted, smelled, and would scientifically test as a mere inanimate object. That would be no more real than that of some Gnostics versus the Christ whom "we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life." (1 John 1:1)

    The transubstatiationist overlays this entire passage, and particularly verses 53 through 58, with a pseudo-Aristotilian theory that would not appear until over 800 years later in the teaching of Radbertus.

    But while it can and is argued that a basic belief in transubstantiation is evidenced much earlier, yet Rome requires such precise belief in her theory than it makes professors of theories heretics. Such was the case with John of Paris

    This was a Dominican theological whom the Catholic Encyclopedia says was "endowed with great ability, was the most subtle dialectician of the age, possessed great literary and linguistic attainments, and was considered one of the best theologians of the university." However, in treatise on the Blessed Sacrament, in which he tentatively advanced the propositions that "the Body of Christ is, or might be, present by assumption (I. e. by the body of Christ assuming the bread and wine), and that the doctrine of transubstantiation was not of faith." resulted in him being "deprived him of the offices of lecturing, preaching, and hearing confessions." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08475b.htm; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08475b.htm

    That the original hearers of the words at issue on the "real presence" would not have naturally assumed that, if literal, the Lord was speaking of giving them some of His actual manifestly bloody flesh to eat, but that they instead held to orthodox transubstantiation theology is absurd.

    And of course, the Elephant in the Room is that the record and teachings of NT church in Scripture simply does not evidence that it held the Lord's supper as the central exalted formal liturgical priestly sacrifice for sins, which is consumed in order to obtain spiritual life and nourishment, as the Catholic Eucharist. But instead, the word of God is presented as this, and the preaching of it being the primary active function of pastors.

    Quoting vast blocks of Scripture and proclaiming Aha! doesn't constitute an argument.

    Indeed, but which question-begging arguments by assertion is typical of many Catholics.

    The combination of these two is effectively an argument from silence, according to the following syllogism: : Premise 1: If the Jews misunderstood Jesus, he had a duty to correct them. Premise 2: They understood him in the Catholic way of understanding, and He did not correct them, Conclusion: Therefore the Catholic way of understanding this passage must be correct.

    And yet what the Lord did explain that they flesh profits nothing, as indeed nowhere does Scripture teach that literally physically eating anything provides spiritual nourishment, which the word of God does. And that He would not even be around soon in the flesh, which corrected basic misunderstanding that the Lord was going to give them some of His body to eat, as in endocannibalism, which people consumed some of the deceased body of a beloved person in order to obtain spiritual properties.

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    12/04/2016 5:35:47 AM PST · 382 of 423
    daniel1212 to Elsie
    Fake news is nothing new?? Who knew!!!

    And Rome is like the liberal media and Google, etc, which exalt themselves as the supreme judges of what is true versus fake.

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    12/04/2016 4:26:07 AM PST · 380 of 423
    daniel1212 to PeterPrinciple
    Now to add to your (and my) thinking this morning. Pro_20:12 Ears to hear and eyes to see—both are gifts from the LORD. Jesus used those words often: Mar_4:9 Then He said, “Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand.” Mar_4:23 Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand.” Mar_7:16 [Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand.] Now, there is a subtle change in His use of those words when we get to the book of Revelation. I will let you do your own research and thinking.

    Or just maybe by now you should actually state your basis for authority and argument for it rather than asking us to figure out your cryptic dance.

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    12/04/2016 4:23:16 AM PST · 379 of 423
    daniel1212 to G Larry
    The Canon of Scripture was establish about 325.

    I missed this piece of propaganda, for the historical reality is that In reality, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon — after the death of Luther.

    Thus Luther was no maverick but had substantial RC support for his non-binding canon. Furthermore, the (standard) RC objection against the Protestant lack of an assuredly true and reliable complete canon via an infallible magisterium would also apply to the majority of RC histor.y

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    12/03/2016 6:41:12 PM PST · 372 of 423
    daniel1212 to G Larry
    Your ignorance of Church history may be part of your problem.

    Actually, once again the charge is one that applies to you. You actually have no historical argument, only another vain argument by assertion.

    The Church started when Christ invested Peter. St. Peter (32-67) St. Linus (67-76)..

    So this is your argument? Once again you are begging the question, presuming as a conclusion the very thing that needs to be proved. You list of "popes" does not make Rome the one true church, and in fact is reveals that are not.

    The NT church never manifestly saw apostolic successors being voted for after Matthias was chosen for Judas (even though James was martyred: Acts 12:1,2), which was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles (cf. Rv. 21:14) and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots. (cf. Prov. 16:33)

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

    And as for history, even Caths scholars, among others provide testimony against RC propaganda:

    Avery Dulles considers the development of the Papacy to be an historical accident:

    “The strong centralization in modern Catholicism is due to historical accident. It has been shaped in part by the homogeneous culture of medieval Europe and by the dominance of Rome, with its rich heritage of classical culture and legal organization” (Models of the Church by Avery Dulles, p. 200)

    Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-4, finds:

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

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

    If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (page 3, top)

    Catholic theologian and a Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study that,

    “the episcopate [development of bishops] is a the fruit of a post New Testament development,” “...the evidence both from the New Testament and from such writings as I Clement, the Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians and The Shepherd of Hennas favors the view that initially the presbyters in each church, as a college, possessed all the powers needed for effective ministry. This would mean that the apostles handed on what was transmissible of their mandate as an undifferentiated whole, in which the powers that would eventually be seen as episcopal were not yet distinguished from the rest. Hence, the development of the episcopate would have meant the differentiation of ministerial powers that had previously existed in an undifferentiated state and the consequent reservation to the bishop of certain of the powers previously held collegially by the presbyters. — Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 221,222,224

    Paul Johnson, educated at the Jesuit independent school Stonyhurst College, and at Magdalen College, Oxford, author of over 40 books and a conservative historian, finds,

    The Church was now a great and numerous force in the empire, attracting men of wealth and high education, inevitably, then, there occurred a change of emphasis from purely practical development in response to need, to the deliberate thinking out of policy. This expressed itself in two ways: the attempt to turn Christianity into a philosophical and political system, and the development of controlling devices to prevent this intellectualization of the faith from destroying it....

    Cyprian [c. 200 – September 14, 258] came from a wealthy family with a tradition of public service to the empire; within two years of his conversion he was made a bishop. He had to face the practical problems of persecution, survival and defence against attack. His solution was to gather together the developing threads of ecclesiastical order and authority and weave them into a tight system of absolute control...the confession of faith, even the Bible itself lost their meaning if used outside the Church...

    With Bishop Cyprian, the analogy with secular government came to seem very close. But of course it lacked one element: the ‘emperor figure’ or supreme priest... [Peter, according to Cyprian, was] the beneficiary of the famous ‘rock and keys’ text in Matthew. There is no evidence that Rome exploited this text to assert its primacy before about 250 - and then...Paul was eliminated from any connection with the Rome episcopate and the office was firmly attached to Peter alone... ...There was in consequence a loss of spirituality or, as Paul would have put it, of freedom... -(A History of Christianity, by Paul Johnson, pp. 51 -61,63. transcribed using OCR software)

    Eamon Duffy (Former president of Magdalene College and member of Pontifical Historical Commission, and current Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge) and provides more on the Roman church becoming more like the empire in which it was found as a result of state adoption of (an already deformed) Christianity:

    The conversion of Constantine had propelled the Bishops of Rome into the heart of the Roman establishment...They [bishops of Rome] set about [creating a Christian Rome] by building churches, converting the modest tituli (community church centres) into something grander, and creating new and more public foundations, though to begin with nothing that rivaled the great basilicas at the Lateran and St. Peter’s...

    These churches were a mark of the upbeat confidence of post-Constantinian Christianity in Rome. The popes were potentates, and began to behave like it. Damasus perfectly embodied this growing grandeur. An urbane career cleric like his predecessor Liberius, at home in the wealthy salons of the city, he was also a ruthless power-broker, and he did not he did not hesitate to mobilize both the city police and [a hired mob of gravediggers with pickaxes] to back up his rule…

    Self-consciously, the popes began to model their actions and their style as Christian leaders on the procedures of the Roman state. — Eamon Duffy “Saints and Sinners”, p. 37,38

    For the so-called successor to Peter, as Damasus 1 (366-384) began his reign by employing a gang of thugs in securing his chair, which carried out a three-day massacre of his rivals supporters. Yet true to form, Rome made him a "saint.
    Damasus is much responsible for the further unscriptural development of the Roman primacy, frequently referring to Rome as ''the apostolic see'' and enjoying a His magnificent lifestyle and the favor of court and aristocracy, and leading to Theodosius 1 (379-95) declaring (February 27, 380) Christianity the state religion.

    Falsified history of the Roman church was also instrumental in the development of her unScriptural papacy and power. RC historian Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger:

    In the middle of the ninth century—about 845—there arose the huge fabrication of the Isidorian decretals...About a hundred pretended decrees of the earliest Popes, together with certain spurious writings of other Church dignitaries and acts of Synods, were then fabricated in the west of Gaul, and eagerly seized upon Pope Nicholas I at Rome, to be used as genuine documents in support of the new claims put forward by himself and his successors.

    That the pseudo–Isidorian principles eventually revolutionized the whole constitution of the Church, and introduced a new system in place of the old—on that point there can be no controversy among candid historians. - — Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870) Then you have the unScriptural Development of the distinctive Catholic priesthood More by the grace of God.

    And thus you have the recourse of no less than Manning:

    It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine....I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves....The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — "Most Rev." Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228; ttp://www.archive.org/stream/a592004400mannuoft/a592004400mannuoft_djvu.txt.

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    12/03/2016 6:41:05 PM PST · 371 of 423
    daniel1212 to G Larry
    I have a 27 page paper that answers each and every challenge you set forth. Let me know if you’re up to it.

    Up to it?! You have yet to provide any evidence that you can actually answer any of the refutations i put forth. Moreover, I have far more than 27 pages of rebuttal, by the grace of God, but all that is not even necessary, for the refutations here have exposed your utter lack of any reasonable argument. Instead you engage in the logical fallacy of argument by assertion as well as begging the question, supposing that continually posting the words at issue is refuting the arguments against your semiliteral understanding of them.

    If you cannot even provide here what i said is needed then claiming you have 27 pages someplace that do can hardly be taken seriously.

    But you can try, if you want to see them publicly refuted one by one. Go ahead, and we will see if you are "up to it."

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    12/03/2016 5:05:02 AM PST · 356 of 423
    daniel1212 to G Larry; MHGinTN; Springfield Reformer; metmom
    Please see my citations of St. Augustine, St Cyril, St. Basil, in Post #335 and as for your “he light of the rest of Scripture”, please refer to my citation of St. Paul in post #336.

    Dude, throwing some uninspired quotes of so-called church "fathers" (the true NT church did not begin under them) is not an argument for what the NT teaches since they came after it, and can be shown to have deviated from it.

    And as for your sppsd "argument" from Scripture, you already tried this which was soundly refuted at length, but like a man driven to blindly defend a cultic church you simply repeat the same specious assertions as if they were arguments. Just face the fact that you have no real argument, and never have.

    Merely quoting words in contention - the interpretation of which is the very issue, is not an argument, nor is reiterating your superficial but refuted attempted argumentation. If you want to defend as literal (and thus the preeminence Catholicism gives to the Lord's supper) Jn. 6 and the words at issue uttered at the last supper, then you must do so in the light of the rest of Scripture, esp. the NT church in Acts onward, which writings are interpretive of the gospels. And thus you need to:

    1. Show that taking part in Lord's supper was essential in order to obtain spiritual life, as per your literal uptake of Jn. 6:53, versus believing the words of Christ as Him being the promised Messiah who takes away the sins of the world, seen in the preaching and teaching of the NT church in Acts 2, 10, 13 and so forth, by which souls obtained spiritual life in them.

    2. Show that in the life of the NT the Lord's supper being described as a daily sacrifice for sins at the hands of men called "priests" (distinctive from laity), with the offering of it being a primary function, versus simply a communal commemorative and declarative meal with no priests ever mentioned, nor pastors exhorted to be faithful in this feeding, but instead being exhorted to feed the flock by preaching the word of God which is said to be spiritual nourishment.

    3. Show that the Lord's supper was held as being spiritual nourishment, 'the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ," (CCC 1415) versus believing the word of God, which is uniquely said to be spiritual "milk" and "meat" and spiritual nourishment. (1Co. 4:6)

    4. Show in the life of the church that it held the Catholic Eucharist to be "a kind of consummation of the spiritual life, and in a sense the goal of all the sacraments," (Mysterium Fidei) and thus the Catholic Eucharist being manifestly described as the preeminent practice of the NT church, versus even the Lord's supper not being manifestly described except in one epistle, and perhaps as breaking of bread in Acts and simple reference to the "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12.

    5. Failing this, explain how the Holy Spirit could fail to clearly manifest the Lord's supper as being the priestly Catholic Eucharist and preeminent practice of the NT church, with its "priests" being charged with conducting (by Peter and Paul etc.). And with the only censure for not recognizing the body of Christ being that of not recognizing the church as such, due to hypocritically ignoring and shaming members of it by selfishly and independently eating, while supposedly showing/declaring the Lord's unselfish death which purchased the very body, the church, (Acts 20:28) and the souls they were ignoring (1Co. 11 )

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    12/02/2016 5:38:26 PM PST · 342 of 423
    daniel1212 to Springfield Reformer; G Larry
    You are attempting to engage in reasonable argumentation with a man who seems to imagine that he has provided a refutation by merely quoting the words in contention - the interpretation of which is the very issue - while the literal understanding is untenable in the light of the rest of Scripture. As shown over and over and stands.
  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    12/02/2016 4:55:05 PM PST · 340 of 423
    daniel1212 to G Larry; MHGinTN; Springfield Reformer
    John 6:53. If Christ were talking in a figure of speech, in a metaphor, it would have been His duty not only as the Son of God, but as a teacher, to correct the Jews.

    And which the Lord did,, disallowing any presumption that eating the flesh actually benefited them spiritually, but that the Spirit gives life, that being, as Peter perceived after the carnally-minded proto-Catholics left, by His words, which are spiit and life.

    And which, as said, is the only interpretation that conflates with the rest of Scripture, in which spiritual life is NEVER obtained by literally physically eating anything, but by believing the gospel message, and the Christ of it.

    But that the Lord had to plainly correct misapprehensions of the carnally-minded is an ignorant premise, for instead the Lord purposely not only spoke "in parables: that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand" (Mark 4:11-12) as a judgment against them, but He also often spoke enigmatically so that true seekers would pursue the understanding of His puzzling sayings.

    And which is what we see so much of in John, in which the "plain speaking" Catholics presume is the meaning was instead not what was being taught, as seen in the light of further revelation, as is also the case in Jn. 6.

    In John 2, the Lord plainly stated right after cleaning out the Temple "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," (John 2:19) which the Jews understandable understood as plainly declaring that the Lord would rebuild the Temple that took 46 years to build.

    Yet here there is no manifest effort by the Lord to correct them, and that He claimed He would rebuild the temple in 3 days was a charge at His indictment (adding that He would first destroy it: Mt 26:60,61).

    Next, in John 3, the Lord speaks of being born again, which is thus understood by His learned hearer as inferring one must:"enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born." (Jn. 3:4)

    Then in response the Lord speaks of the necessity of being being born of water and the Spirit, which still does not explain what He meant. And next in this short discourse the Lord speaks of two kinds of birth, the flesh and the spirit - which a typical contrast in John, but only later is it connected, if not explained, to believing on the Lord Jesus.

    In the next chapter the Lord speaks of water He gives that forever quenches thirst, which is understood as being actual water. Which is later connected to Jesus being the promised Messiah, but how He gives this water is not explained.

    Next, the Lord tells His disciples that He has "meat" that they do not know of, and which, true to form, they speculate that maybe someone brought Him food.

    But to them He states that His "meat" or food is to do the will of His Father, for He taught that man "lives" by every word of God. And in John 6:57 He likens how He lives by the Father to how believers live by Him, and in both cases it is never by physically eating the flesh of the Father or the Son.

    And consistent with John, in the next chapter the Lord states that the dead who shall hear the voice of the Son of God shall live, and which is what we read of in Acts onward, with those who believe on the Lord Jesus receiving the Holy Spirit, and living by His word, which is called "milk, and "meat" which "nourishes" and "builds up" believers..

    And which as said, conflates with Jn. 6:63-68, in which the Lord once again explains the puzzling language which nowhere agrees with the rest of the rest of Scripture as the means of obtaining spiritual life, and living by Christ as per the literal understanding.

    And which is not what the language at the Lord's supper - which John nowhere mentions - literally teaches either (not that Catholicism takes it plainly literal, as shown).

    Rather than teaching that consuming the "real" body and blood of Christ is the means, or a means of obtaining spiritual life, Peter ("thou hast the words of eternal life" nowhere even mentions the Lord's supper in Acts or his epistles, but preached that "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10:43) And hearing the word of the gospel, and believing resulted in God giving them "the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." (Acts 15:8-9)

    Paul preaches the same, and only describes the Lord's supper in one of his 13 epistles, and as shown , censures Christians for not recognizing the church as being the body of Christ.

    James never mentions the Lord's supper either, nor John in his 3 letters, or even the words "take eat..." found in the synoptics, which is an incongruous omission if he was teaching on the Lord's supper in chapter 6.

    Nor does John mention the Lord's supper in the entire book of Revelation,

    This absence is contrary to the the status and doctrine of Catholicism, in which the Eucharist is said to be "the heart and summit of the Christian life...by this sacrifice he pours out the graces of salvation on his Body which is the Church." (CCC 1407) “the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ," (CCC 1415) "a kind of consummation of the spiritual life, and in a sense the goal of all the sacraments," (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965) through which “the work of our redemption is carried out,” (CCC 1364) with the offering of which being the primary function of her clergy, and around which all else in Catholicism essentially revolves. The Eastern Orthodox likewise state that "the very center of our spiritual lives is the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist. (http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/twopaths.aspx)

    But which is consistent with the hearing and believing the word of God being the means of obtaining and doing what Jn. 6 speaks of, with the word being milk, meat and nourishment. Thus once again Catholicism stands in stark contrast to the NT church of Scripture.

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    12/02/2016 9:34:57 AM PST · 332 of 423
    daniel1212 to ealgeone
    Another good thing to understand is how the blood offering was used in the OT. It was poured out and never consumed. The Council of Jerusalem understood this also.

    Well,,, they just forgot to tell them it was OK if it did not look like blood. Like as Paul forgot to add the qualifier "except in the Lord's supper" in statements like,

    But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. 1 Corinthians 8:8

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    12/02/2016 5:15:06 AM PST · 327 of 423
    daniel1212 to Springfield Reformer
    Glad to see you back posting here brother.

    ‘Real presence’ is a Catholic “cultural idiom.”

    Indeed, and this priest (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/what-do-we-mean-by-the-real-presence) even found that "the term ‘real presence’ has–from the start–been used as an alternative to the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation." He found that "real and actual presence" first appeared in the writings of the Dominican theological John of Paris (in tentatively advancing propositions contrary to the doctrine of transubstantiation, and subsequently Latimer and Ridley (put to death by RC "bloody Mary) and John Wycliffe also used the term "real presence," perhaps without the "actual," leaving the precise term "real presence" to be Anglican .

    Take for example the Ark of the Covenant. It contained the tablets of the law, and the budding branch of Aaron. It could not be touched, lest one die, and Uzzah did die for touching it. So what was the ark? It was real wood, real gold. But it was not God. God’s word established what it was, and how it served His purposes. But it was only a physical representation of a spiritual reality. Yet what power God gave it, by the power of His command.

    Very good. The Holy of Holies and its Ark was the "real presence;" more precisely the mercy seat covering of the Ark, between the two cherubims, was God's localized throne where He would meet with the priests:,

    And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel. (Exodus 25:21-22)

    And David arose, and went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God, whose name is called by the name of the Lord of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubims. (2 Samuel 6:2)

    Of course, in their never-ending propensity to think of mortals far above that which is written, (cf. 1Co. 4;6) Catholics make their Mary into being the Ark, which they crown with gold, and which was not to be touched upon pain of death (though actually qualified men did without dying), meaning Joe maybe died because he tried to get intimate with his wife (as Scripture says to do)

    But in Scripture while people would have to come to Israel to find the Ark, like as Mary was an instrument for Christ, yet people came to Christ to met with God, and Christ is whom the Ark best represents, taking on the common “wooden” body of man, and with its gold representing His glory, as Christ is the brightness of God's glory, and the express image of His person, (Heb. 1:3) and who contained the law and the words of life, and the rod of God as did the Ark. (Heb. 9:4)

    And having ascended, the closest thing to the incarnated Christ is not disguised bread and wine but His church, which the Lord calls His body, and thus Paul was actually persecuting Him by attacking its members, and Corinthians were not effectually recognizing it by ignoring and shaming them that have not while supposing they were taking part in the Lord's supper.

    So reaching a conclusion that John 6 is a continuation of that pattern of showing spiritual truth through physical representations is entirely consistent with how God spoke to us

    You mean (among other things ) David really did not believe that water was the blood of men, and the Canaanites were not really "bread" for Israel, and one is really not literally born by actually drinking water, so that they become a fountain, and their work is not actual "meat?."

    You Prots need to take Scripture literally!

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    12/02/2016 3:14:46 AM PST · 325 of 423
    daniel1212 to MHGinTN
    In John 6 the Jews turned away because they took His words too literally and clung to the laws rather than find the spiritual TRUTH.

    And Jesus let them go away, which is consistent with His use of metaphorical or allegorical language in other places in which the Lord used such in order to require further pursuit of Truth, and to separate true seekers from the carnal.

    This is especially manifest in John, such as Jn. 2 in which the Lord said "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," (John 2:19) without interpreting it at all, leaving the carnally-minded to believe that He was speaking of the physical temple that stood by them, and which He was charged with in His indictment.

    In Jn. 4, beside a well of physical water, the Lord spoke to a women seeking such water of a water which would never leave the drinker to thirst again, which again was understood as being physical. But the meaning of was subtly inferred to the inquirer who stayed the course, but which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.

    And in Jn. 3:3, the Lord spoke in such an apparently physical way that Nicodemus exclaimed, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John 3:4)

    And in which, as is characteristic of John, and as seen in Jn. 6:63, the Lord goes on to distinguish btwn the flesh and the Spirit, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," (John 3:6) leaving Nicodemus to figure it out, requiring seeking, rather than making it clear. Which requires reading more than that chapter, as with Jn. 6, revealing being born spiritually in regeneration. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13; 2:5)

    And thus we see the like manner of revelation in Jn. 6, in which the Lord spoke to souls seeking physical sustenance of a food which would never leave the eater to hunger again. Which again was understood as being physical, but which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirers who stayed the course. But which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.

    In so doing the Lord makes living by this "bread" of flesh and blood as analogous to how He lived by the Father, "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)

    And the manner by which the Lord lived by the Father was as per Mt. 4:4: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)

    And therefore, once again using metaphor, the Lord stated to disciples who thought He was referring to physical bread, "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:34)

    And likewise the Lord revealed that He would not even be with them physically in the future, but that His words are Spirit and life:

    What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:62-63)

    And as with those who imagined the Lord was referring to the physical Temple, the Lord left the protoCatholics to go their own way, who seemed to have yet imagined that the Lord was sanctioning a form of cannibalism, or otherwise had no heart for further seeking of the Lord who has "the words of eternal life" as saith Peter, not the flesh, eating of which profits nothing spiritually.

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    12/02/2016 2:53:15 AM PST · 324 of 423
    daniel1212 to ealgeone
    Very nice work.

    Thanks be to God for what is good.

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    12/01/2016 6:47:55 PM PST · 320 of 423
    daniel1212 to G Larry; MHGinTN; Elsie
    [QUOTE]"So, you continue in your denial of the plain meaning of the words of Christ?" [/QUOTE]

    So you continue in your sophistry, imagining that statements taken in isolation is what Scriptures teaches as the plain meaning, and that you even believe the plain literal meaning of the words of Christ?

    Nowhere is the bread and wine said to be changed into the body and blood of Christ, and the plain literal meaning of the words of Christ would mean that since the Lord's body and blood that are to as be consumed are said to be that which would be broken/crucified (1Co. 11:24) and poured out, then to be plainly literal this has to be the manifestly incarnated body and blood of Christ, not something that looks, tastes, and would scientifically test as bread and wine.

    What kind of Christ is that? For as John teaches (in contrast to the Christ of certain Gnostics), that "Christ is come in the flesh" is true in the light of His manifest physicality, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life," (1 John 1:1) "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)

    A false Christ is one that did not manifestly come in the flesh. While within Gnosticism you had the belief that what Christ looked like, as manifestly being incarnated with a body of flesh and blood, was not real (Christ being a sort of phantom but looking human), in Catholicism you have the belief that (in transubstantiation) what looks, feels, tastes and would test as (bread and wine), is not reality (Christ corporeal body and blood only looking like bread and wine). In fact, the bread and wine that you see after consecration no longer actually exists according to transubstantiation.

    Thus to be plainly literally, is can only be assumed the apostles consumed the actual bloody flesh and liquid blood of Christ, for this is what the Lord referred to at the last supper and Jn. 6, and said nothing at all about some unique miracle of transubstantiation so that Christ appeared to be bread and wine, which is contrary to His incarnation and the evidence of the real Christ.

    But faced with reality, Catholicism had to come up with fancy some Aristotelian metaphysics, which is certainly not the plain literal meaning of the words at the last supper or Jn. 6, if they are to be taken literally.

    Moreover, if the words at issue of of the last supper are to be taken literally, then so must others, such as David plainly called water the sacrificial blood of men, and therefore pouring it out unto the Lord.

    And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. (2 Samuel 23:16-17)

    Why not be consistent and take this literally, and explain it as transubstantiation?

    And there are multitude more , but just as the "living water" that gives eternal life and many other metaphors are explained as we read more of Scripture, so also are the words as issue here.

    Both the plainly literal and the novel pseudoliteral meaning of the words at issue contrived by Catholicism are not supported by the rest of Scripture, and insisting on such manifests ignorance or worse, while these words easily conflate with the metaphorical meaning. As much explained by the grace of God.

    Even Luther was appalled by those who denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

    A Catholic source actually found that the term "Real Presence" was originally an Anglican term, used in distinction from Catholicism.

    Meanwhile, Luther carried a lot of baggage with him when he left Rome, some of which he progressively shed, and his views on the Eucharist saw some change, but the idea that we hold Luther as an infallible pope or even one of our most faithful teachers is a typical Cath. fallacy.

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    12/01/2016 11:39:20 AM PST · 232 of 423
    daniel1212 to Salvation
    Not even to follow the 40 Days of Fasting that Jesus did in the desert? It’s in your Bible. Why isn’t it recognized and followed by all since it is an example set forth by Jesus Christ himself?

    Why should be obvious. 1. this 40 day fast was not even one the Lord examples was an annual practice, for instead of being done each year of His ministry, it was a special even at the beginning of His ministry, He being "driven" by the Spirit into the desrrt. .

    2. Unlike the Lord's supper or baptism, the Lord never said that was a practice He enjoined, but only said in regards to this "when ye fast" and that such as sometimes necessary in cases of demonic possession.

    3. If Catholics really want to follow Jesus like they present themselves as doing with their 40 days of Lent, then they need to go into solitude and eat and drink absolutely nothing.

    Instead, the idea that giving up meat and peanut butter or something for 40 days is a much of a fast, let alone as following the 40 day absolute fast of Christ, is absurd.

    Christians are to fast, and just water is a full fast, but this is to be led by God.

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    12/01/2016 11:19:35 AM PST · 227 of 423
    daniel1212 to G Larry
    Actually Christ is quite clear on His meaning:

    Actually you mean you have no argument except to post the words whose meaning are the very thing that are in dispute, which the rest of the NT, Acts onward, are interpretive of. And which do not support the neoliteralistic Catholic interpretation of Jn. 6 and the gospel accounts of the LS. Nor does the rest of John or elsewhere in Scripture, in which spiritual life is never obtained by literally physical eating anything.

    Among the problems the Catholic has conflating the rest of Scripture with Jn. 6, if "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) is be understood literally as Caths invoked it, then since it is as much an absolute imperative as other "verily verily" statements, then it plainly means that no one who has not received as well as those who deny the "real presence" do have spiritual life in them.

    Yet the NT church nowhere teaches that it is by receiving the Lord's supper that one obtains spiritual life in them, but which is believing the word of the gospel message of salvation, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and which conflates with the metaphorical interpretation expressed in the concluding statement, that "the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life." (v. 63)

    Eating itself in Scripture does indeed profit nothing, for "meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse," (1 Corinthians 8:8) but as the gospel of John in particular teaches with its many metaphors, it is by believing that Jesus is the Christ, the "lamb" of God which takes away the sins of the world (Jn. 1:29) that one obtains spiritual life, receiving "living water" (Jn. 4) and becoming "born" from above, (Jn. 3) and a "temple" of the Holy Spirit, (cf. Jn. 2) and becomes a water "fountain." (Jn. 7)

    And even modern Rome affirms Scripture-centric Prots as being born again.

    In addition, the Lord said that font color="#5e11a6">"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)

    And how did Christ "live by the Father but how He said we should, "

    " 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 thus Jesus saith, "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:34)

    All of which alone conflates with believing the word of God which results in obtaining spiritual life, and then living by the God/Christ. To Him be glory now and forever. Amen.

    As John said without mentioning the Lord's supper but by believing Jesus Christ was manifest in the flesh (which is contrary to the Catholic "looks/tastes/tests as a bread but it "really" is Jesus Christ):

    These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. (1 John 5:13)

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    12/01/2016 9:08:44 AM PST · 199 of 423
    daniel1212 to HiTech RedNeck
    The Catholic “world” inasmuch as I have viewed it on FR, is full of debate which, frankly, can get very catty at times.

    According to typical trad. Catholics when they malign and or reject their pope, it is because they are committed to Truth, based upon their judgment of what sound teaching is according to past Catholic teaching.

    But according to the same Catholics when conservative evangelicals malign and or reject the pope, it is because they presume to judge what sound teaching is according to Scripture, rather than submitting to the pope.

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    12/01/2016 9:01:49 AM PST · 196 of 423
    daniel1212 to editor-surveyor
    Excellent expository! Do you think he’ll actually read it?

    Catholics are typically compelled to subject whatever Scripture teaches to their church, so that in any conflict it can only mean what she teaches, which for them is the supreme law, and to compel Scripture to support said church as needed.

    A similar stubbornness exists among certain Protestants who have a cultic church or elitist doctrine to defend and or an axe to grind who cannot examine the evidence objectively to go where the Truth leads.

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    12/01/2016 8:54:40 AM PST · 194 of 423
    daniel1212 to PeterPrinciple
    Now for you thinkers, WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF TRUTH?

    Obviously, God, and His material source is Scripture, which is the only substantive transcendent wholly inspired of God body of Truth.

    God's means of preservation is writing:.

    And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book.. (Exodus 17:14)

    And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. (Exodus 34:27)

    And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing.. (Deuteronomy 10:4) And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: (Deuteronomy 17:18) And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law,..(Deuteronomy 27:3)

    And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, (Deuteronomy 31:24) Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: (Isaiah 30:8; cf. Job 19:23)

    But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:31)

    And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (Revelation 20:12)

    And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:15)

    As is abundantly evidenced, the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

    It was not oral tradition that preserved the word of God and resulted in national repentance, but,

    And when they brought out the money that was brought into the house of the Lord, Hilkiah the priest found a book of the law of the Lord given by Moses. And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan. (2 Chronicles 34:14-15)

    Then Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath given me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes. (2 Chronicles 34:18-19)

    Then the king sent and gathered together all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem. And the king went up into the house of the Lord, and all the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the priests, and the Levites, and all the people, great and small: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant that was found in the house of the Lord. And the king stood in his place, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments, and his testimonies, and his statutes, with all his heart, and with all his soul, to perform the words of the covenant which are written in this book. (2 Chronicles 34:29-31)

    Nor was it oral tradition that the Lord rebuked the devil (Mt. 4) and religious leaders by (Mt. 22) and substantiated His mission by and opened the understanding of the disciples to. (Lk. 12:44,45)

    In contrast, oral tradition by nature us supremely susceptible to undetectable corruption, with Scripture (what parts of the Word of God were not directly written) being the wheat of such among the chaff, and thus both Jewish and Catholic oral tradition contains teachings that are not the word of God, but which are claimed to be under the unwarranted premise of the veracity of leadership.

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    12/01/2016 8:38:51 AM PST · 188 of 423
    daniel1212 to G Larry
    Oh really? How can you receive a "cultural idiom" unworthily?

    The same way one could can hypocritically wear phylacteries, signifying faithfulness to God while deceitfulness is in his heart.

    " And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the LORD'S law may be in thy mouth: for with a strong hand hath the LORD brought thee out of Egypt. (Exo 13:9) "

    "Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord... not discerning the body of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 11, 27‑29). If Christ is only metaphorically present in the Eucharist, communicating unworthily offends indeed His person but not His body and blood.

    And which is ignorantly cited by Caths as referring to the Corinthians not recognizing the element as being the body and blood of Christ, but which contextually is not the issue.

    The overall context here is the church as the body of Christ, and that what one has liberty to eat or do is restricted by how it will affect others. Thus “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God.” (1 Corinthians 10:31-32)

    And which is the context in the next chapter, in which Paul reproves Corinthian church for coming together to eat the Lord's supper, as he charges them with not actually doing so because they were eating what is supposed to be a communal meal, the “feast of charity,” (Jude 1:12) independently of each other, so that “in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken,” and thus what they were doing was to “shame them that have not.” (1Co. 11:20-22)

    Therefore Paul proceeds to reiterates the words of Christ at the institution of the Lord's supper, ending with “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [kataggellō=preach/declare] the Lord's death till he come.” (1 Corinthians 11:23-26)

    For while they were supposed to be showing/declaring the Lord's unselfish sacrificial death for the body by unselfishly sharing food with other members of the body of Christ, whom Christ purchased it with His own sinless shed blood, (Acts 20:28) instead they were both eating independently and selfishly. And thus were effectively treating other members as lepers, and as if the body was not a body, and as if others were not part of the body for whom Christ died. This lack of effectual recognition is what is being referred to as “not discerning the Lord's body,” that of the body in which the members are to treat each as blood-bought beloved brethren, as Christ did. Because they were presuming to show the Lord's death for the body while acting contrary to it, therefore they were eating this bread and drinking the cup of the Lord unworthily, hypocritically, and were chastised for it, some unto death. (1Co. 11:27-32)

    Because this was the case and cause of condemnation — that of not recognizing the nature of the corporate body of Christ in independently selfishly eating — versus not recognizing the elements eaten as being the body of Christ — then the apostle's solution was, “Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.” (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)

    And which leads into the next chapter in which Christ-like love is described. Paul himself was asked of the Lord, “why persecutest thou me” (Acts 9:4) as Paul was attacking the church, thus showing His identification with the church.

    While silently consuming a piece of bread and a sip of wine as is done today may not be that of ignoring others and their needs, yet it hardly corresponds in form to the communal feast of charity referred to here, and misses how we are to show the Lord's death by this supper, and instead it often results in seeing the Lord's death as simply being for individuals and abstract from the corporate body.

    And to “take communion” by yourself (unseen in Scripture) is a contradiction in terms to its manifest description of communion. And the Catholic focus upon the elements which are consumed, and in which service many Catholics see interaction with others as an intrusion, and or with many with hastening to leave the service afterward, misses the meaning even more.

    This is confirmed by what the Apostle said earlier: "The chalice of benediction... is it not the communication of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?" (1 Cor 10:16). We cannot communicate in the body and in the blood of Christ in the Eucharist unless they are really there.

    As your premise is false so is your conclusion.

    In 1 Corinthians 10 the Lord's supper is described as being the communion/fellowship of the blood and the body of Christ through their communal sharing in that meal done in remembrance of Christ's death, not by eating His flesh. For in context the apostle teaches that this fellowship is analogous to the fellowship pagans have with their gods in their commemorative feasts, participation by believers in which the apostle is condemning.

    Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. (1 Corinthians 10:20,21)

    Which partaking was not by consuming the transubstantiated flesh of devils, but by taking part in a feast done in dedication to demons. For they which eat of the sacrifices are partakers of the altar, showing union with the object of this feast and each other, and not because the food has been transubstantiated into that of the entity it is offered to.

    In both chapters it is the church that as the body of Christ that is the focus, as it was bought by the sacrificial body and blood of Christ, and thus fellowship as per that love they were to show by recognizing each other via that communal "feast of charity," which signified oneness, like as the pagans had fellowship with devils via their dedicatory feasts, not by physically eating the flesh of demons.

    Meanwhile,nowhere in the life of the NT church is any priest mentioned as even officiating at the Lord 's supper, much less engaging in a ritual of transubstantiation, and offering the elements as an offering for sin.

    Nor are NT pastors ever called priests distinctive from the general priesthood of believers, or charged with officiating at the Lord 's supper, or otherwise even distinctly being involved in distributing food , much less described as Catholic priests ritually effecting a change in the elements as sacerdotal priests, all of which Catholics must read into Scripture.

    Instead, the apostles expressed that their ordained function was not serving food but to give themselves "continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word." (Acts 6:4)

    In addition, nowhere in the life of the church is the means of obtaining spiritual life and growing in grace said to be by literally physically consuming the Lord Jesus, but spiritual life is obtained by hearing the gospel and truly believing it. (Acts 2:38; 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13)

    And it is by preaching the word of grace that pastors foster growing in grace, by drinking "the sincere milk of the word," (1 Pt. 2:2) and ingesting its "meat," (1Co. 3:2; Heb. 5:12,13) being "nourished" (1Tim. 4:6) and built up by the word, (Acts 20:32) and with feeding the flock thereby being the primary active function of pastors. (Acts 20:32)

    As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: (1 Peter 2:2)

    I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. (1 Corinthians 3:2)

    Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)

    And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. (Acts 20:32)

    If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. (1 Timothy 4:6)

    That the Lord was charging the apostles with being a distinct class of sacerdotal priests in the gospel accounts is what Catholicism presumes, but which is the very thing that needs to be established in the life of the NT church, but which simply is not manifest, which was a

    later development . .

    In addition, apart from 1 Corinthians is the absence of any manifest description of the Lord's supper other than breaking of bread in Acts and a "feast of charity" (Jude 1:12) which stands in sharp in contrast to the central supreme preeminence of the Lord's supper as a "the heart and summit of the Christian life...by this sacrifice he pours out the graces of salvation on his Body which is the Church." (CCC 1407) “the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ," (CCC 1415) "a kind of consummation of the spiritual life, and in a sense the goal of all the sacraments," (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965) through which “the work of our redemption is carried out,” (CCC 1364) with the offering of which being the primary function of her clergy, and around which all else in Catholicism essentially revolves.

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    12/01/2016 6:31:42 AM PST · 176 of 423
    daniel1212 to cloudmountain; HiTech RedNeck
    If that were really true they would all be the same. ...They would be Catholic if they had only ONE interpretation of the Bible.

    If that is your criteria then you can dismiss Catholicism, which, as evidenced daily here, is certainly not one in word or spirit.

    And even Catholics have a great deal of liberty to interpret the Bible within the broad of Catholic teaching, while evangelicals typically also have limits in their churches as regards interpreting the Bible.

    It is actually those who esteem Scripture the most as literally being the word of God thathat testify to the most unity in basic beliefs and values .

    See Church history from 1 A.D. until now. There WAS no other Church until the defrocked, disgraced Father Martin Luther led the way for MORE "protesters."

    Which is so ignorant a statement that you should not be in debate.

    Besides the basic absence of the Catholic church in the record of the NT church,Rome split from the Orthodox long before Luther was compelled to do so, and remains with substantially difference s.

    Oh well, it's time for me to fold up my tent. G'night.

    Yes, you should fold up your tent and find solid evangelical fellowship.

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    12/01/2016 6:17:44 AM PST · 174 of 423
    daniel1212 to HiTech RedNeck
    Anyhow, we don’t even need a Passover Haggadah in order to notice implausible things in the “wine is the literal blood and bread is the literal body” reading. But it certainly clears up the context very well. The extant Haggadah dates back to gospel times.

    You mean like eating Maror, a bitter herb, symbolic of the bitterness of slavery, and green vegetables in salt water, symbolizing the replacing of our tears with gratitude, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haggadah

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    12/01/2016 6:14:40 AM PST · 172 of 423
    daniel1212 to cloudmountain
    Protestants are allowed to interpret the Bible as they like. It's that rigid Catholic Church that teaches the one interpretation of the Bible...and they ALSO have that Apostolic Tradition. But, what do THEY know? They've only been around 2000 years or so.

    Wrong: Catholicism was a progressive later development, and is substantially absent in the inspired record of the NT church and . contrary to it

    Which NT church manifestly did not teach perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in the life of the church, nor did it have a separate class of believers distinctively called "saints" or distinctively titled "priests, " offering up "real" flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin , which is to be literally consumed in order to obtain spiritual life.

    Nor is it otherwise Scripturally manifest in the life of the church as being the sacrament around which all else revolves, and the "source and summit of the Christian faith," "in which our redemption is accomplished."

    Nor is the NT church manifest as looking to Peter as the first of a line of exalted infallible popes reigning over the church from Rome (which even Catholic scholarship provides testimony against), and praying to created beings in Heaven, and being formally justified by ones own sanctification/holiness, and thus enduring postmortem purifying torments in order to become good enough to enter Heaven, and saying rote prayers to obtain early release from it, and requiring clerical celibacy as the norm, among other things.

    No wonder Catholics rely on amorphous "oral tradition," for under the premise of magisterial infallibility all sorts of fables can be chanelled into binding doctrine, even claiming to "remember" an extraScriptural event which lacks even early historical testimony. , and was opposed by RC scholars themselves the world over as being apostolic tradition.

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    12/01/2016 6:01:02 AM PST · 171 of 423
    daniel1212 to G Larry; SeekAndFind; HiTech RedNeck
    “...and teach a literal interpretation of the Bible...” Well, except for when they don’t: “Jesus took bread, and blessed and broke, gave to his disciples and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body which is given for you,” according to St. Luke: “which shall be delivered for you,” according to St. Paul: “And taking the chalice he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: “Drink ye all of this: For this is my blood...”

    Well, except for when they don’t:

    While within Gnosticism you had the belief that Christ only looked corporeal but was not (matter being held as evil), in Catholicism you have the belief that (in transubstantiation) the body and blood of the crucified Christ only looks, feels, tastes and would test as non-corporeal, as bread and wine, but is not. And even that these elements no longer actually exist despite their appearance and provable, testable properties (and even though these elements can decay, at which point the body and blood of Christ no longer exist as them). Thus the lack of such Biblical proofs of the real body and blood of Christ, nor the evidence to the contrary, do not matter here, and are treated as deception.

    The issue here is not that God could not perform the novel miracle of transubstantiation, but besides the possibility of particles being airborne and thus God ending up in the carpet, etc., and of organic decay being continuous (thus Christ ceasing to exist in the hosts before being eaten), the problem is that the Catholic interpretation of the words of the Lord's Supper and the discourse on the bread of life in John 6 is contrary to both a plain literal interpretation of them, which Catholics often assert they hold to, and to how the body and blood which Christ refers to was really "present" in His incarnation. And thus to the evidential warrant God provides for faith in the Christ of Scripture.

    For as John teaches (in contrast to the Christ of certain Gnostics), that "Christ is come in the flesh" is true in the light of His manifest physicality, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life," (1 John 1:1) "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)

    And the words said at the Last supper which Catholics claim to take literally say that this body was the body that would be "broken for you," (1Co. 11:24) "my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world," Jn. 6:51) and the blood that would be "shed for you." (Lk. 22:20) And which certainly looked, felt, smelled, and would taste like and scientifically test as literally being real flesh and blood. And which I think also would the body that Thomas was invited to touch as proof that Christ arose, (Jn. 20:27) though He can materialize appear at will.

    While we are to believe on Christ by faith now, the Christ we believe on is one whose incarnated body was manifest as being so — its appearance corresponded to its reality — and appeared bodily even in His resurrected state. In contrast, worshiping a Christ that looked like, felt like, smelled like, and would taste and scientifically test as an inanimate object — and in multiple locations, at the same time — would be worshiping a false Christ. Anyone could say that an inanimate object was God, and imagine the apostles trying to preach that a loaf of bread was really Christ!

    Trent says, "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread [actually after breaking bread He said "this is my" body"]... by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood, (Trent, 1376) if not in any evidential, or provable way.

    However, at the Last supper the Lord did not say anything like "this bread is changed into my body," or that the bread "becomes" it, while if the apostles could believe in transubstantiation, then the same souls could certainly have believed that what they consumed at the Last supper was the same manifest flesh and blood that would be on the cross. That would be 100% literal and easier than requiring belief in a novel miracle that relies on specious Neoplatonic thought and Aristotelian metaphysics to explain.

    The only problem is that Catholic priests cannot come up with the same manifestly incarnated body and blood that was crucified, (purported "Eucharistic miracles" are contrary to the doctrine of transubstantiation), thus instead we have the Catholic "real" body and blood of Christ" that does not correspond (in the ways Christ was manifestly incarnated) to the real incarnated Jesus which a literal reading of the texts at issue speak of.

    While within Gnosticism you had the belief that Christ only looked corporeal but was not (matter being held as evil), in Catholicism you have the belief that (in transubstantiation) the body and blood of the crucified Christ only looks, feels, tastes and would test as non-corporeal, as bread and wine, but is not. And even that these elements no longer actually exist despite their appearance and provable, testable properties (and even though these elements can decay, at which point the body and blood of Christ no longer exist as them). Thus the lack of such Biblical proofs of the real body and blood of Christ, nor the evidence to the contrary, do not matter here, and are treated as deception.

    In other words, they are claiming that the bread and wine are really the body and blood of Christ — being present whole and entire in His physical "reality," corporeally present...", (Mysterium Fidei) even down to subatomic particles (until they begin to decay) — which is what He said would be crucified. And they present a Eucharistic Christ as being same sacrifice as at Calvary, yet they deny that it is physical in the ways that proved Christ was incarnated and the ways define physical. but which does not physically belong to this universe as He did when He was crucified.

    Anyone could say Christ was an inanimate object but this Catholic Christ this is not what the apostles and NT church preached, nor as being the gospel, nor of the Lord's supper. Instead, in preaching His life, death resurrection and reality they they invoked His manifest physicality. by whom "God was manifest in the flesh." (1Tim. 3:16) When invoking proofs for the resurrection, it was that Christ was actually seen by multitudes, not that He appeared as a piece of bread. The Lord's supper was said to proclaim His death, (1Co. 11:26) not manifest Christ, and the church is called "one bread" and the body that believers needed to discern.

    Yet in Catholicism believing that the bread and wine is the very body and blood of Christ is a required belief. Not only must Catholics believe that the incarnated Christ who so identified with us that He manifestly became man and manifestly felt our pain now identifies Himself as a wafer of bread (but does not feel the pain of being eaten), that what they see as a wafer of bread is "the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins," (CCC 1365) but (whether they realize it or not) consequently they also are to believe the bread and wine no longer exist after the priest utters his words of consecration, "since transubstantiation means the Real Presence of Christ, it also means the real absence of bread and wine. To believe this is to be a Roman Catholic." ( John A. Hardon, S.J., Part I: Eucharistic Doctrine on the Real Presence)

    In contrast, the language of "take eat, this is My body" easily conflates with the use of metaphorical language in Scripture, and endocannibalism and drinking blood is forbidden in Scripture, (Lv. 17:10) and that the bread that Christ broke at the Last supper easily represents the Lord's real body that was "bruised [dâkâ'=broken] for our iniquities" and the wine represents the shed blood of the Lord who "poured out his soul unto death." (Isaiah 53:5,10,12) Ps. 22:14 prophetically says, "I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels."

    And in John 6, this "eating" and "drinking" can only represent receiving the words of Christ as food, which is what the Lord said man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) and conforms to the means of obtaining spiritual life elsewhere in Scripture, and to living by Christ as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) with doing His will therefore being His "meat." (Jn. 4:34)

    In addition, Catholics do not take the Lord purely literally when He said to “drink this cup,” for you do not literally drink a cup (though if transubstantiation is allowed, so a means of ingesting a cup could be explained), but it is manifest that the cup represents what it contains, likewise the contents represent what would be visibly shed.

    Moreover, in every other miracle which the Lord did that changed something material then there was an obvious tangible change — water really become wine which only existed in that location — versus a change of substance while the appearances remained the same, and so the body of Christ could be sitting at a table before them while being in the stomachs of the disciples.

    Therefore, the Catholic understanding of the Lord's supper is both contrary to a purely literal reading of the words at issue, and contrary to how the incarnated and crucified and risen Christ was presented as really "present" body and blood, soul and Divinity" on earth. And preaching inanimate objects as "really" being the Lord Jesus body and blood is that of preaching "another Jesus," and preaching that the Lord's supper is how one obtains spiritual life is that of preaching "another gospel."

    But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (2 Corinthians 11:3-4) ^

    Much more by God's grace.

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    11/30/2016 9:16:23 PM PST · 93 of 423
    daniel1212 to cloudmountain; HiTech RedNeck
    Protestants are allowed to interpret the Bible as they like. It's that rigid Catholic Church that teaches the one interpretation of the Bible...and they ALSO have that Apostolic Tradition. But, what do THEY know? They've only been around 2000 years or so.

    Actually, Catholics have a great deal of liberty to interpret the Bible in order to support Rome.

    And as seen daily here, while evangelicals are to ascertain the veracity of Truth claims by Scripture, which RCs censure them for so dong,. yet they do the same with the teaching o their church, except their supreme standard is historical teachings of their church.

    Thus many engage in dissent, such as from parts of V2. Yet which is contrary to historical teachings such as state:

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

    Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor.... Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.

    On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. - Epistola Tua (1885), Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=403215&language=en

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

    20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent... if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. - PIUS XII, HUMANI GENERI, August 1950; http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

    The authority (of papal encyclicals) is undoubtedly great". It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church. Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church." - Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, esteemed Catholic theologian and professor of fundamental dogmatic theology at the Catholic University of America, who served as a peritus for Cardinal Ottaviani at the Second Vatican Council. Extract from the American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. CXXI, August, 1949; http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm

    For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty.

    Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord. - CASTI CONNUBII, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI; https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html

    ...when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed ; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority ; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.

    The Bishops form the most sacred part of the Church, that which instructs and governs men by divine right; and so he who resists them and stubbornly refuses to obey their word places himself outside the Church [cf. Matt. 18:18]. But obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces. - (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at http://www.christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x

    to scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff, for it is to him that Christ confided the care of feeding not only all the lambs, but even the sheep [cf. John 21:17]. - Est Sane Molestum (1888) Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.novusordowatch.org/est-sane-molestum-leo-xiii.htm

    In addition, as concerns social teaching, The "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" (2005) states:

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

    And it is quite well evidenced that the popes last encyclical (http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html) is intended to teach what the Church's moral teaching demands as regards ecology and economy. (172 references in this encyclical cite church teaching and prelates for support).

    Thus we either have Trad. RCs contradicting past papal teaching in asserting the modern papal and magisterial teaching contradicts the past, or Rome's interpretation of herself is to be trusted.

    If the former is the case then evangelicals cannot be condemned for seeking to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching in the lighg of the most ancient and trustworthy historical church teaching, that of the NT, and in which Catholicism is substantially absent and contrary to , and which eliminates the second option.

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    11/30/2016 9:09:31 PM PST · 92 of 423
    daniel1212 to G Larry; HiTech RedNeck
    Outside of Revelation, what parts of the NT do you consider “symbolic” rather than literal?

    Why not begin in the OT?

    And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. (2 Samuel 23:16-17)

    To be consistent with their plain-language hermeneutic Caths should also insist this was literal. As well as when God clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread:

    • “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)

    Other examples of the use of figurative language for eating and drinking include,

    The Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)

    David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)

    And complained that workers of iniquity ”eat up my people as they eat bread , and call not upon the Lord.” (Psalms 14:4)

    And the Lord also said, “I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumblingblocks with the wicked; and I will cut off man from off the land, saith the Lord.” (Zephaniah 1:3)

    While even arrows can drink: “I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh ; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy.' (Deuteronomy 32:42)

    But David says the word of God (the Law) was “sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. (Psalms 19:10)

    Another psalmist also declared the word as “sweet:” How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!” (Psalms 119:103)

    Jeremiah likewise proclaimed, “Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)

    Ezekiel was told to eat the words, “open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee...” “eat that thou findest; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 2:8; 3:1)

    John is also commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )

    And Scripture refers to Christ being spiritual food and drink which even OT believers consumed:

    And did all eat the same spiritual meat; "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." (1 Corinthians 10:3-4)

    And Christ's word in Jn. 6, "I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst," (John 6:35) are correspondent to,

    "Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David." (Isaiah 55:2-3)

    Moreover, like as bread is broken, Is. 53:10 states that "it pleased the Lord to bruise him," and the word for "bruise" (da^ka^') means to crumble, to break..., (Strong's). And like as wine is poured out, so Is. 53:12 also states of Christ, "he hath poured out his soul unto death," both of which are correspondent to the words of the Last Supper regarding bread and wine.

    And which use of figurative language for Christ and spiritual things abounds in John, using the physical to refer to the spiritual:

    In John 1:29, Jesus is called the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world”but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.

    In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.

    In John 3:14,15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of literal bronze.

    In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life,” — but which was not literally consumed by mouth.

    In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — but believers were not water fountains, but He spoke ”of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive.” (John 7:38)

    In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.

    I n John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,” and “the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11) — but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.

    In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed.

    Therefore the metaphorical use of language for eating and drinking is well established, and which the apostles would have been familiar with, and would have understood the Lord's words by, versus as a radical new requirement that contradicted Scripture, and required a metaphysical explanation to justify

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    11/30/2016 9:01:26 PM PST · 88 of 423
    daniel1212 to Puppage; aMorePerfectUnion; HiTech RedNeck; SeekAndFind
    Funny, never saw that in a Catholic Church or any services from the Vatican, etc. Perhaps you should send them a note to read scripture? They’re obviously not in the know.

    Its obvious that they do not consider themselves bound to no add nor subtract from it.

    Hear the voice of my supplications, when I cry unto thee, when I lift up my hands toward thy holy oracle. (Psalms 28:2)

    Thus will I bless thee while I live: I will lift up my hands in thy name. (Psalms 63:4)

    Lift up your hands in the sanctuary, and bless the Lord. (Psalms 134:2)

    Let my prayer be set forth before thee as incense; and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice. (Psalms 141:2)

    That said, i myself do no feel too comfortable doing so.

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    11/30/2016 9:00:32 PM PST · 86 of 423
    daniel1212 to SeekAndFind

    Good to see you back.

  • The Fastest-Growing Churches Have Modern Worship, Teach Literal Interpretation of the Bible: Study

    11/30/2016 9:00:06 PM PST · 85 of 423
    daniel1212 to Salvation; Engedi; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; ...
    You still are a Catholic and come back at any time. Just sit down with a priest and get your questions answered. Your Catholic Baptism and Confirmation marks are on your soul to stay.

    Don't be seduced by a church that is s

    ubstantially absent from Scripture and contrary to it .

  • "Mind-boggling Stuff of Nightmare": Fr. Brian Harrison on Pope's Proselytism Comments

    11/30/2016 6:25:13 AM PST · 109 of 115
    daniel1212 to xone; ebb tide; TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig; Castigar; Gene Eric; Falconspeed; Wild_VoiceSF; ...
    The part above after 'explaining it to mean' seems to be a departure from earlier Catholic explanation of this issue...the current vicar attempts to destroy Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular

    The problem is on what RC basis can a faithful Catholic presume his interpretation of Catholic teaching is correct over that of their magisterium and pope at any time?

    . As to the latter, real Catholics have a problem,

    They do indeed, for a fundamental premise of Catholicism is that personal interpretation cannot be trusted, and thus a faithful RC is not to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences (for that reason). For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth.

    And therefore, faced with arguments from evangelicals showing contradictions of certain RC teaching from Scripture, they argue that their understanding must be subject to the one true Church - the pope and his prelates.

    However, when faced with teachings and popes they disagree with then they justify their dissent on the basis of their judgment of what is valid modern church teaching in the light of certain past historical church teachings. In so doing these traditional RCs in essence are as Protestants whom they censure for ascertaining the veracity of teaching by examination of warrant for it in the light of Scripture.

    And the presupposition that they can dissent from the pope is contrary to papal teaching from the era to which they look as being true Catholicism. Which requires assent to more than just so-called "infallible" teaching" but to other "letters and other public documents" and to "all matters which the episcopal power embraces," "all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord," and "each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge." These quotes and more below are all from Catholic sites.

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

    Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor.... Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.

    On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. - Epistola Tua (1885), Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=403215&language=en

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

    20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent... if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. - PIUS XII, HUMANI GENERI, August 1950; http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

    The authority (of papal encyclicals) is undoubtedly great". It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church. Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church." - Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, esteemed Catholic theologian and professor of fundamental dogmatic theology at the Catholic University of America, who served as a peritus for Cardinal Ottaviani at the Second Vatican Council. Extract from the American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. CXXI, August, 1949; http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm

    For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty.

    Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord. - CASTI CONNUBII, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI; https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html

    ...when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed ; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority ; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.

    The Bishops form the most sacred part of the Church, that which instructs and governs men by divine right; and so he who resists them and stubbornly refuses to obey their word places himself outside the Church [cf. Matt. 18:18]. But obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces. - (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at http://www.christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x

    to scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff, for it is to him that Christ confided the care of feeding not only all the lambs, but even the sheep [cf. John 21:17]. - Est Sane Molestum (1888) Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.novusordowatch.org/est-sane-molestum-leo-xiii.htm

    In addition, as concerns social teaching, The "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" (2005) states:

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

    And it is quite well evidenced that the popes last encyclical (http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html) is intended to teach what the Church's moral teaching demands as regards ecology and economy. (172 references in this encyclical cite church teaching and prelates for support).

    Thus we either have Trad. RCs contradicting past papal teaching in asserting the modern papal and magisterial teaching contradicts the past, or Rome's interpretation of herself is to be trusted.

    If the former is the case then evangelicals cannot be condemned for seeking to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching in the lighg of the most ancient and trustworthy historical church teaching, that of the NT, and in which Catholicism is substantially absent and contrary to , and which eliminates the second option.