Posts by daniel1212

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Grace, Faith, and Works

    09/19/2014 5:47:49 AM PDT · 337 of 337
    daniel1212 to FourtySeven; Greetings_Puny_Humans
    Jesus never said “my blood is water” or “I am water” or “my body is water” or anything like that in John 4, so your comparisons fail there.

    What?! He used water as representing what He would give (eternal life), as blood was used in Jn. 6, while this is only one of my comparisons. In addition to which Christ said He was a door, (Jn. 10:7) and said rivers of living water would flow from the belly of believers who drank of Him. (Jn. 7:36,37) .

    This use of figurative language, using the material for the spiritual is clear and consistent with John, while making the obtainment of spiritual life by literally eating something physical is not, or with all of Scripture. Thus who must are desperately try to disallow it in Jn. 6 by demanding the exact same language

    Even in the OT, to be consistent with your plain meaning literalism you should hold that David engaged in transubstantiation, as he plainly stated that precious water was the blood of the men who obtained it at the risk of their lives was their blood. Therefore he would not drink it. but poured it out to the Lord as an offering, as was done with blood. (2Sam. 23:15-17; cf. Lv. 9:9)

    The misunderstanding of the woman was that there was another kind of water Jesus was offering her, not that He was claiming to be water. So He did correct her in that false belief by showing her sin to her, he convinced her He is the Messiah.

    That was far certainly implied (though read in isolation Catholics could contend He would give transubstantiated water), and but which He did in Jn. 6, quite obviously if one reads it in context of Scripture, but this you refuse to see, and resort to argumentation that not even official teaching uses.

    Similarly with the Temple, Jesus never said “My body is the Temple which will be destroyed in 3 days”. Indeed the Temple itself was destroyed in AD 70 so there was nothing to correct there. (When He was on trial).

    This also is non-sense, as He clearly referred to a physical temple an an allegory to His death and resurrection, and left the Jews to figure it out, while He corrected the absurd idea in Jn. 6:62-64 that flesh itself gave spiritual life, and which is NOWHERE taught. It is believing on Christ as the Divine Son of God that one passes from death to life, (Jn. 5:24), believing the gospel by which one receives the Spirit, as seen and taught elsewhere!

    Supposing one gains spiritual life by literally eating human flesh and blood is endocannibalism, not the Scriptural gospel.

    Alpers and Lindenbaum’s research conclusively demonstrated that kuru [neurological disorder] spread easily and rapidly in the Fore people due to their endocannibalistic funeral practices, in which relatives consumed the bodies of the deceased to return the “life force” of the deceased to the hamlet, a Fore societal subunit. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%...9#Transmission

    he custom of eating bread sacramentally as the body of a god was practised by the Aztecs before the discovery and conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards."

    The May ceremony is thus described by the historian Acosta: “The Mexicans in the month of May made their principal feast to their god Vitzilipuztli, and two days before this feast, the virgins whereof I have spoken (the which were shut up and secluded in the same temple and were as it were religious women) did mingle a quantity of the seed of beets with roasted maize, and then they did mould it with honey, making an idol...all the virgins came out of their convent, bringing pieces of paste compounded of beets and roasted maize, which was of the same paste whereof their idol was made and compounded, and they were of the fashion of great bones. They delivered them to the young men, who carried them up and laid them at the idol’s feet, wherewith they filled the whole place that it could receive no more. They called these morsels of paste the flesh and bones of Vitzilipuztli.

    ...then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god....then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god...

    And this should be eaten at the point of day, and they should drink no water nor any other thing till after noon: they held it for an ill sign, yea, for sacrilege to do the contrary:...and then they gave them to the people in manner of a communion, beginning with the greater, and continuing unto the rest, both men, women, and little children, who received it with such tears, fear, and reverence as it was an admirable thing, saying that they did eat the flesh and bones of God, where-with they were grieved. Such as had any sick folks demanded thereof for them, and carried it with great reverence and veneration.”

    ...They believed that by consecrating bread their priests could turn it into the very body of their god, so that all who thereupon partook of the consecrated bread entered into a mystic communion with the deity by receiving a portion of his divine substance into themselves.

    The doctrine of transubstantiation, or the magical conversion of bread into flesh, was also familiar to the Aryans of ancient India long before the spread and even the rise of Christianity. The Brahmans taught that the rice-cakes offered in sacrifice were substitutes for human beings, and that they were actually converted into the real bodies of men by the manipulation of the priest.

    ...At the festival of the winter solstice in December the Aztecs killed their god Huitzilopochtli in effigy first and ate him afterwards. - http://www.bartleby.com/196/121.html

    There may be some differences, but these have far more in common with the Cath idea of the Eucharist than anything seen in Scripture interpretive of the words of the last supper.

    Similarly with Nicodemus, he thought Jesus meant to return to the womb. This was a mistake on Nicodemus’ part that Jesus then corrected.

    Imprecisely, saying the birth was of the Spirit, by believing, not eating, and likewise Christ did explain Himself in Jn. 6, by teaching we live by Him as He did in believing and thus obeying the Father, and that He would soon no longer be with them, but It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. (John 6:63,64)

    So for those three passages where mistake/confusion was, the audience was either corrected or there was no actual mistake made on anyone’s part.

    Indeed, as in Jn. 6, and as seen in the rest of Scripture, in which nowhere is spiritual life obtained by consuming the Lord's Supper, which is what you literal interpretation of Jn. 6:53,54 has to mean, versus being born of the Spirit by believing the gospel. The actual mistake is on your part, following Rome!

    To conclude, the rest of the passages you cited again do not show the type of confusion that reigned in John 6, specifically, no one said “How can this man claim to be a bronze statue” or “how can this man claim to be a lamb?”

    Actually, souls were yet assuming the Lord was referring to the physical temple in His trial and crucifixion, and the confusion seen in Jn. 6 is akin to that of Nicodemus supposing Christ was speaking literally, and the women at the well, while the spiritual explanation in such is also given in Jn. 6, and is the only one that is consistent with them !

    Your refusal to see it is not God's fault, and the only one your vain argumentation is convincing to is yourself and those of like obstinacy, or the ignorant.

    I’m certainly not too concerned about your personal opinion of Scripture (because whether you claim it’s “just Scripture” you’re offering, you’re still wrong. It’s really only your *opinion* of what Scripture says).

    As is some of your argumentation in support of Rome, but whose presumption determines what you must argue for and against, and thus dismiss reproof as just being an opinion, rather than going wherever the Truth leads.

    But as you resort to this "only your *opinion*" solution, then you must again defend the premise behind it, which is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.

    And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.

    If you cannot establish this as the indisputable Truth then all you are doing in giving your opinion of the opinion of one church among others. So go ahead or try to disagree with other RCs.

  • Major ISIS Leader Recruits Eleven Muslim Men, And Sodomizes [...] Them In Homosexual Islamic Ritual

    09/18/2014 9:01:45 PM PDT · 45 of 61
    daniel1212 to Sherman Logan; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...
    I think Shoebat himself lacks credibility, even for his own testimony. But Catholics must like his rant against Prots.
  • Pope Francis Supposedly Claimed Virgin Mary Is Second Trinity, At Godhead Level

    09/18/2014 8:47:43 PM PDT · 348 of 423
    daniel1212 to paladinan
    "Unscriptural?" Could you clarify your term? Do you mean "cannot be found in Scripture", or do you mean "contradicts Scripture"? (I've heard it used in both senses, and I want to be sure I understand you correctly.)

    It refers to both, lacking Scriptural substantiation or being contrary to Scripture. It is possible Mary parted the Sea of Galilee and had 6 fingers on each hand, but neither are Scriptural truths, in which the Holy Spirit is careful to provide notable details of characters, esp. exceptions the norm.

    While to have her already crowned in glory and able to hear virtually infinite amounts of prayer in Heaven from earth, which is an attribute only God is shown having, is both utterly absent from Scripture and contrary to what it does teach.

    And there are many more such.

    I'm rather familiar with Catholic teaching, FRiend... and not only do I not see anything even remotely of the sort, but I see explicit condemnation of it:..This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit,

    That is not a problem for a RC, as he can claim this in such a way that disallows "certain equality" as violating actual equality, but can refer to a unique state of relationship, in which like Christ, she is given certain powers otherwise unique to God, and likewise receives a level of devotion only seen given to God. And which is indeed claimed as was shown.

    But the more appropriate word would be affinity, and perhaps there is a translation issue involved here with source.

    As Mother of God, says Lepicier, Mary contracts a certain affinity with the Father ; The pre-eminent resemblance which she bears to the Father, which has fitted her to pour out into the world the everlasting light which issues from that loving Father.

    But the title of “Daughter” may not sufficiently bring home to us the influence which her relation to the Father exerts on us who are His children and her children. “He has communicated to her His fruitfulness as far as a mere creature was capable of it, in order that He might give her the power to produce His Son and all the member of His Mystical Body”... The Father...communicates no graces but by her. (St. Louis-Marie de Montfort)

    True Devotion to Mary requires the formal entry into a compact with Mary whereby one gives to her one’s whole self, with all its thoughts and deeds and possessions, both spiritual and temporal, past, present, and future, without the reservation of the smallest part or lightest little thing. In a word, the giver places himself in a condition equivalent to that of a slave possessing nothing of his own, and wholly dependent on, and utterly at the disposal of Mary. - http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/msynthesis.htm

    By what "secret, conspiratorial knowledge" do you claim that the Church is lying, here, and that Catholics are secretly adoring the Blessed Virgin as a Goddess? Forgive me, but it seems as if you're conjuring dramatic-sounding accusations (inherited from past anti-Catholics) out of whole cloth.

    There is no secret, conspiratorial knowledge at all, and rather than whole cloth, it is shown out in the open for all to see . No creature is seen having all the attributes ascribed to Mary, and devotion called for, and who cannot be honored to excess (with that fine ambiguous line btwn hyperdulia and worship), which are absent from Scripture, and contrary to its warning not to think of men above that which is written, (1Cor. 4:6) and the reticent praise it gives to men, and the manner of powers and position they are shown having.

    Indeed, as i have said before, one would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, and as having Divine powers and glory, and making offerings and beseeching such for Heavenly help, directly accessed by mental prayer.

    We start with a sinless and perpetual virgin, yes. Your further wording, "an almost almighty demigoddess" is raw (and borderline hysterical) opinion, based on nothing real in Catholic teaching. (Please do cite any official Catholic teaching to which refers to the Blessed Virgin as "almost almighty" or "demigoddess", and I'll readily concede my error.)

    I referred to "sanctioned and uncensored Catholic teaching," and my list was prefaced, "it is taught by Catholics," and which is usually properly stamped with Nihil Obstat + Imprimatur, and even if not CCC level teaching, this "almost almighty demigoddess" is indeed what is taught by Catholics in sanctioned and uncensored teaching by them. Including,

    The power thus put into her (Mary’s) hands is all but unlimited. — (St. Tharasius, Orat. in Praesentatione) ‘the Dispenser of all heavenly gifts.’ (On Off. Graec., 8 Dec.).” Pope Leo XIII, in Adiutricem (On the Rosary), Encyclical promulgated on September 5, 1895, #8. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13adiut.htm

    When therefore we read in the writings of Saint Bernard, Saint Bernardine, Saint Bonaventure, and others that all in heaven and on earth, even God himself, is subject to the Blessed Virgin, they mean that the authority which God was pleased to give her is so great that she seems to have the same power as God. Her prayers and requests are so powerful with him that he accepts them as commands in the sense that he never resists his dear mother’s prayer because it is always humble and conformed to his will.... — St. Louis de Montfort, in Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, #27, 246. http://www.ewtn.com/library/Montfort/TRUEDEVO.HTM

    The recourse we have to Mary in prayer follows upon the office she continuously fills by the side of the throne of God as Mediatrix of Divine grace; being by worthiness and by merit most acceptable to Him, and, therefore, surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven. — Iucunda Semper Expectatione, Pope Leo XIII, 1894

    According to Eadmer (A.D. 1060–1124), an English monk and student of Anselm, “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus...[who] does not at once, answer anyone who invokes him, but only does so after just judgment. But if the name of his mother Mary is invoked, her merits intercede so that he is answered even if the merits of him who invoked her do not deserve it.” Through her “the elements are renewed, the netherworld is healed, the demons are trodden underfoot, men are saved and angels are restored.” — Andrew Taylor, “Three medieval manuscripts and their readers,” University of Pennsylvania press; page 173

    But by her compassion for her Divine Son she had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin. It was not only during the Passion that Jesus and Mary suffered for our sins, for all their lives that heartrending vision was before them in every detail, and never for a moment forgotten. — The Reign of Mary, Vol. 40; Issue 48

    Re: the idea that Jesus "owes His Precious Blood" to the Blessed Virgin, that's as true as the fact that you owe your DNA to your earthly mother and father; it's a simple fact of biology...

    But which is just the kind of unScriptural elevation of men that is condemned. Where do you ever see the Holy Spirit saying that God owed anything to man? But in Catholic teaching we see an emphasis on God owing Mary! And then exercising Divine powers, even paralleling Christ unlike any other mortal, and receiving a level of devotion and dedication from believers that only God receives. This is not how the Holy Spirit treats man or Mary in Scripture.

    Re: your (*ahem*) "source" (i.e. "The Mary of Catholicism")... I'm afraid the kindest thing I can say about it is that the author is hopelessly confused. I'm trying very hard not to say that he's a bald-faced liar, or delusional. For example:

    Rather, you mean you found one example of a misattributed quote by which you seek to disallow the whole work with your bombast. Your problem is that the author is yours truly who is neither confused or delusional about Mary being basically made into a demigoddess - partly divine and partly human - as any impartial observer can see

    he claims the book "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma", by Dr. Ludwig Ott, says that, on p.83: "As Mother of the Word Incarnate, Mary was elevated to a certain equality with the Heavenly Father." (You cited this, in your own "laundry list".) I happen to have a copy of that book (electronic); I looked on p.83... and I looked through the entire chapter on Mary... and I did a text-search of the entire book. Nothing.

    Indeed you will not find that quote therein, as it is an error resulting from editing, and the p. 83 refers to last previous source, "Ten Series of Meditations on the Mystery of the Rosary,” by John Ferraro. I apologize for the error, since rectified, and an older version of the page is correct, and am glad that you caught it, as i always try to provide the source listed, most here being provided by Catholic sites i believe.

    I did, however, find this: "The measure of grace of the Mother of God falls as much short of Christ's fullness of grace as the dignity of the Mother of God falls short of the Hypostatic Union." (Ott, p.198, sec. 2b)

    Which is an example of the variety of statements seen in Catholic teaching. For in so much other teaching it is not the difference btn Mary and God that is emphasized, but he exalted status, power and glory. Besides what has been show, you have,

    Mary is the sealed fountain and the faithful spouse of the Holy Spirit where only he may enter...She is the sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity...the holy City of God, the greatness of the power which she wields over one who is God cannot be conceived...her prayers and requests are so powerful with him that he accepts them as commands...because it is always humble and conformed to his will, the dispenser of all he possesses...What immeasurable greatness...Mary has authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven...God gave her the power and the mission of assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels who fell away through pride....all the angels in heaven unceasingly call out to her...They greet her countless times each day with the angelic greeting, "Hail, Mary", while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests...The whole world is filled with her glory,... — St. Louis de Montfort, in Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, miscl. http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/docs/true.doc

    .."Limitless is the difference between God's servants and His Mother...Your honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation; your greatness places you above the angels...from her union with Christ she attains a radiant eminence transcending that of any other creature; from her union with Christ she receives the royal right to dispose of the treasures of the Divine Redeemer's Kingdom; — Ad Caeli Reginam, Encyclical of Pope Pius XII; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_11101954_ad-caeli-reginam_en.html

    The recourse we have to Mary in prayer follows upon the office she continuously fills by the side of the throne of God as Mediatrix of Divine grace; being by worthiness and by merit most acceptable to Him, and, therefore, surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven. — Iucunda Semper Expectatione, Pope Leo XIII, 1894

    Let me add one more point: your own post was using (no offense intended) what are commonly known as "weasel words"--qualifiers which allow a very dramatic-sounding statement (which could fool less-than-careful and/or ignorant readers), while leaving an escape hatch when the burden of proof becomes too great to bear (e.g. "Hey, hey... I said 'ALMOST a goddess', didn't I? I didn't say 'DEFINITELY a goddess'!"). Could you re-cast your argument so as NOT to use those?

    Wrong. I nowhere said 'almost a goddess" but "an almost almighty demigoddess," and "the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary," and which is not "aimed at creating an impression that a specific and/or meaningful statement has been made, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated," but which is meant to be accurate and means just what it says and the quote substantiate.

    The problem is that Caths will not admit that the manner of attributes ascribed to Mary and the level of exaltation and devotion do indeed make her into "an almost almighty demigoddess" in "the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary," who cannot be honored to excess, as long as they do not cross the invisible line that allows a believer to bow down and beseech an invisible person in Heaven who can order angels around and hear virtually infinite streams of prayer, etc, yet not engage in what Scripture only shows as worship!

    Meanwhile, even a pope says, “The power thus put into her (Mary’s) hands is all but [almost] unlimited. How unerringly right, then, are Christian souls when they turn to Mary for help..."?

    All but unlimited is certainly "a very dramatic-sounding statement, while you do quite well with your accusation ofb "secret, conspiratorial knowledge," and being a bald-faced liar, or delusional."

    But such is the recourse to RCs in the face of evidence that exposes their departure from Scripture.

  • Pope Francis Supposedly Claimed Virgin Mary Is Second Trinity, At Godhead Level

    09/18/2014 6:02:14 PM PDT · 295 of 423
    daniel1212 to mdmathis6
    A read of Enoch is fascinating Especially if its statement of approx 450 foot (i think some MSS say 40') is to believed.

    CHAPTER VII. 1. And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. 2. And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells. - http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe010.htm `

    The biblical ell is closely related to the cubit, but two different factors are given in the Bible; Ezekiel's measurements imply that the ell was equal to 1 cubit plus 1 palm (Tefah),[2][3] while elsewhere in the Bible, the ell is equated with 1 cubit exactly. Ezekiel's ell, by which he gave measurements in his guided vision through a future Jerusalem Temple, is thus one sixth larger than the standard ell, for which an explanation seems to be suggested by the Book of Chronicles; the Chronicler writes that Solomon's Temple was built according to "cubits following the first measure",[4] suggesting that over the course of time the original ell was supplanted by a smaller one.[1] It seems not coincidental that the Egyptians also used two different ells, one of which — the royal ell — was a sixth larger than the common ell;[1] this royal measurement was the earlier of the two in Egyptian use, and the one which the Pyramids of the 3rd and 4th Dynasties seem to be measured in integer multiples of.[5] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_and_Talmudic_units_of_measurement

  • Pope Francis Supposedly Claimed Virgin Mary Is Second Trinity, At Godhead Level

    09/18/2014 7:52:17 AM PDT · 138 of 423
    daniel1212 to roamer_1; Alamo-Girl; metmom; mdmathis6
    The Holy Spirit can and does refer to something that was True even from a non-canonical source, (Jude 1:14,15) even if not listed and even if from a pagan source. (Acts 17:28)

    And He can and does also recast words which He inspired previously, as well as expand or contract words of Christ Himself. If you examine the duplicate accounts of the trial of Christ in the synoptics it seems rather obvious that all the words attributed to the speakers were not all spoken as such, or necessarily in the order given, but the Spirit expanded them to provide fuller revelation of the Truth of them, or contracted them in consideration of the audience.



    (Matthew 26:60-66)

    (Mark 14:57-64)

    (Luke 22:66-71)

    At the last came two false witnesses, And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.

    And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?

    But Jesus held his peace.

    And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

    Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

    Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

    And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.

    But neither so did their witness agree together.

    And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?

    But he held his peace, and answered nothing.

    Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

    And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

    Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye?

    And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.













    And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying,

    Art thou the Christ? tell us.

    And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go.

    Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.

    Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.

    And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

    There are more, and sometimes it can be postulated that the sayings were duplicate, but in others it seems clear that the words were not always recorded exactly verbatim, yet as the words were by the Holy Spirit in the first place, then God has the freedom to expand upon them.

    But which is in contrast to a church presuming to be able to decree it is speaking with the same authority as the same level as wholly inspired Scripture, even channeling doctrine out of amorphous oral tradition, which is not wholly inspired of God, nor are the words of the presumed infallible magisterium.

  • Pope Francis Supposedly Claimed Virgin Mary Is Second Trinity, At Godhead Level

    09/18/2014 6:37:09 AM PDT · 132 of 423
    daniel1212 to Alex Murphy

    Satire, but God and Moses are not laughing at the actual doing of it, but are grieved.

  • Pope Francis Supposedly Claimed Virgin Mary Is Second Trinity, At Godhead Level

    09/18/2014 5:33:52 AM PDT · 122 of 423
    daniel1212 to tiki
    Notice, they don’t attack the Methodists or the Baptists or even the liberal churches who fail to try to protect God’s Word and actually teach immorality. It is Catholics and they attack us for the same reason that atheists attack Christianity because God and the Catholic Church aren’t made in their own image/opinion.

    Actually, it is the liberal churches that Rome is overall most akin to, vs. evangelicals , and the liberal Prot churches are typically closest to Rome.

    Note that it is not official professions that define what a person or entity believes, but what they overall do and effect. (Mt. 7:20; Ja, 2:18)

    And which is seen by Rome treating liberals as members in life and in death, even in the case of notorious impenitent proabortion prosodomy public figures. This is their church effectually testifying to what it overall believes in this regard, and thus they must own them due to your their boast of their true church identity.

  • Pope Francis Supposedly Claimed Virgin Mary Is Second Trinity, At Godhead Level

    09/18/2014 5:25:04 AM PDT · 120 of 423
    daniel1212 to thetallguy24; defconw; Mr. K; al_c; Cicero; Boogieman; paladinan; pleasenotcalifornia; ...
    In order to expose the unScriptural nature of certain RC teaching, you do not have to engage in the manner of egregious extrapolation of words that RCs often engage in trying to support traditions of men from Scripture.

    The elevation of Mary to a "certain equality with the Godhead" is well evidenced by sanctioned and uncensored Catholic teaching.

    That is not too far once you start with a sinless perpetual virgin who is also made into

    an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,

    whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,

    who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"

    and "was elevated to a certain equality with the Heavenly Father,"

    even so that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"

    for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"

    and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"

    for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"

    "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"

    so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."

    Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"

    and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"

    including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"

    whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"

    and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"

    and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources .

    And then you are in the realm of the cults:

    Note that many Catholic Marian attributions much parallel even that of Christ:

    For in the the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary, it is taught by Catholics*,

    • as Christ was sinless, so Mary was;

    • as the Lord remained a virgin, so Mary;

    • as Christ was called the Son of God, indicating ontological oneness, so Mary is called the Mother of God (which easily infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture);

    • as the emphasis is upon Christ as the Creator through whom God (the Father) made all things, including Mary, so it is emphasized that uniquely “to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood,” shed for the salvation of mankind, (the logic behind which can lead back to Eve);

    • as Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His actual flesh and blood to be eaten, so it is emphasized that Mary gave Him this, being fashioned out of Mary's pure blood and even being “kneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,” so that she can say, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5);

    • as Scripture declares that Christ suffered for our sins, so Mary is said to have done so also;

    • as Christ saves us from the condemnation and death resulting from the fault of Adam, so it is taught that man was condemned through the fault of Eve, the root of death, but that we are saved through the merits of Mary; who was the source of life for everyone.

    • as the Lord was bodily ascended into Heaven, so Mary also was;

    • as Christ is given all power in heaven and in earth, so Mary is “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven.”

    • as Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) so Mary is made Queen of Heaven and the greatest saint, and that “Next to God, she deserves the highest praise;”

    • as the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is enthroned (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things;

    • as Christ is highly exalted above all under the Father, so Mary is declared to be the greatest saint of all, and as having a certain equality with the Heavenly Father;

    • as Christ ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, so is Mary said to do so;

    • as all things come from the Father through the Son, so Mary is made to be the dispenser of all grace;

    • as Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, Mary is said to have (showing some restraint) “almost unlimited power;”

    • as no man comes to the Father but through the Son, so it is taught that no one can come to the Son except through Mary in Heaven;

    • and as the Lord called souls to come to Him to be given life and salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord;” “that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”

    • And as Christ is given many titles of honor, so Mary also is, except that she is honored by Catholics with more titles than they give to the Lord Himself!

      It should be kept in mind that my objection is not to Mary being honored as the holy chosen vessel to bring forth Christ, but to the excess ascriptions, appelations, exaltation, and adoration (and the manner of exegesis behind it), ascribed to the Catholic Mary, whether officially or by Catholics (with implicit sanction of authority).

      And which presumes that bowing down to a statute and attributing to the person it represent attributes and glory that are uniquely ascribed to God/Christ in Scripture, including the power to hear in Heaven incessant multitudinous mental prayers addressed to them from earth and respond to them, and imploring such for heavenly aid, would be understood and vindicated as merely being "hyperdulia," and not "latria" (which Rome states is the manner of adoration reserved for God).

      As i have said before, one would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, and as having Divine powers and glory, and making offerings and beseeching such for Heavenly help, directly accessed by mental prayer.

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

  • Grace, Faith, and Works

    09/18/2014 4:57:40 AM PDT · 330 of 337
    daniel1212 to CynicalBear
    Wow! Thanks for the ping. I was stunned when I went upthread to see the post you were responding to. The extent to which Catholics will twist scripture in an attempt to justify paganism is simply stunning.

    Yes, asserting a form of endocannibalism existed before Christ and then trying to defend a "Christianized" form of it takes some doing.

  • Grace, Faith, and Works

    09/18/2014 4:53:05 AM PDT · 329 of 337
    daniel1212 to FourtySeven; CynicalBear; Greetings_Puny_Humans
    Again, the animal was killed by shedding its blood whether they consumed their blood or not, thus death was not prevented, but as the blood is the most precious substance in the body so as to represent life itself, thus its use was restricted and only used for sacrifice.

    I'm not entirely sure what point you are making here but I never said the death of anyone was prevented by the Temple sacrifice. Rather my only point all along has been that the drinking of Christ's blood does not violate any Law.

    Rather, in order to get around the clear prohibition against consuming blood, you asserted that this was against the Law because it was wrong "to take another life for oneself," and only God has the power to give and take life from one to another." But as i pointed out, the animal was killed by shedding its blood whether they consumed their blood or not. Thus reasoning that a text such as Lv. 17:10 was to prevent death is absurd.

    Moreover, the prohibition against drinking blood transcends slain animals, but it can hardly be held that it would not also apply to any eating of blood. It was reserved for sacrifice in death as the singly most precious aspect of body atones for the most destructive.

    I also never said the prohibition against drinking blood was only against killing animals.

    Rather, in order to get around the clear prohibition against consuming blood, you reasoned that to drink Christ blood is "not violating the Law. For it’s not the blood of bulls or goats we drink but His blood."

    Thus according to this logic, if God commanded us to drink the blood of an animal then it would be violating the Law, but not if He commanded us to drink the blood of a human!

    But as you and I know (as Christians) a sacrifice of a human (a perfect one at that) was indeed the only way a sacrifice could truly atone for sin. So we are left with a quandary as Christians: do we believe in a God that is a liar, or do we believe in a God who is not bound by the same Law he gives? Because if He is bound by this same Law, then the very Sacrifice of Christ is a transgression against God himself...So there is nothing that violates any Law if indeed God commands us to drink His Son's blood.

    As your premise is false so is your conclusion. There is no law against laying down your life for others, which is what Christ chose to do. (Jn. 10:!8) He did not kill Himself either, thus there is no violation of the Law.

    But He did clearly forbid eating blood, and which the kosher disciples certainly would have kept, and Peter especially would not even silently submit to eating unclean animals or having his feet washed by the Lord, let alone eat His flesh and drink His blood!

    It's sacred because as science tells us today: it brings life. It contains life. It doesn't just "represent life". Thus, it's consumption is a sin because it takes something that is not ours for our own.

    It is not the whole person or life, but because it is the single most precious substance for life, it represents the whole life. But not eating it does not prevent death, but the blood was poured out as a sacrifice to the Lord, and not be consumed.

    We are not "killing Jesus" by drinking His blood. We aren't even taking it from Him.

    But it remains that the blood you imagine yourself eating was shed in death. And again, you will have a hard time arguing prohibition against drinking blood does not also apply to eating of the blood of living things, outside of dire need, which can be your only argument.

    You will note in all these instances we do not see recorded anything like what is in John 6, specifically members of a given audience asking questions like, "How can this man say he is a lamb?" Or "How can he be a bronze statue?" This is because his audience at the time well understood he was speaking metaphorically. If He was speaking the same way in John 6, there would be no such confusion that would result in questions like "how can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

    You are wrong. People obviously did think He was speaking literally, as seen by their statements or questions. As said, Jews thought the Lord was speaking of destroying the physical temple, thus this misunderstanding was invoked in His trial and crucifixion, as shown. (Mk. 14:58; 15:29) And which meaning was not explained to them.

    Likewise as said and shown, Nicodemus thought the Lord referred to physical birth, and thus asked, "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 the meaning of the response, "born of water and of the Spirit" was not made clear unless one reads more of Scripture.

    Likewise in Jn. 4, the women thought the Lord referred to physical water, and thus said, "The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw." (John 4:15) And the Lord simply pointed out her sin that needed repentance, and revealed Himself as being the Messiah. This infers the water that gives eternal life is by believing on Him, but left with this unclear explanation, a Catholic could see it was meaning the Lord would give her some sort of transubstantiated water! For indeed, gaining spiritual life is connected to believing the words of Christ in Jn. 6, with both meanings being made clear as we read more of the Lord's words. Which only affirm faith comes by hearing, and by believing the gospel one obtains spiritual and eternal life. But RCs insist on reading an utterly foreign idea of how one obtains spiritual and eternal life.

    Later on, the disciples also did not understand what the Lord was referring to by "I have meat to eat that ye know not of," thinking maybe someone brought him something to eat. But which was explained as doing the Father's will, as man is to live by every word of God, (Jn. 4:31-34) which metaphor prepares us for "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)

    Jn. 6 is a more extended discourse using the same method of allusion to physical things to refer to the spiritual, that which earthly vs. the heavenly, which is John's recurring method. Thus you are wrong that "we do not see recorded anything like what is in John 6, but you simply cling to the physical example and reject the spiritual explanation.

    As for the woman at the well, and Nicodemus, we can see how our Lord did not let them wallow in fleshy confusion. Indeed, the woman did believe He was speaking of a literal water. But He actually did not let her remain in such ignorance.

    Wrong. As said, the women was not told anything about the nature of this water, except by taking her to the spiritual level and that Christ was the Messiah who knew her life and sins, which became her message. And which infers that believing is how one obtains everlasting life, which is contrary to having to physically eat or drink Christ to do so.

    Similarly for Nicodemus, when he mistook Our Lord to mean we must re-enter our mother's womb. He corrected him in his error. Clearly. And without ambiguity.

    Only that it was not physical birth, not the meaning of being born of water and the Spirit, but which explanation by itself is hardly less clear than that the Lord was not speaking of a form of cannibalism in Jn. 6, eating human flesh and blood to obtain spiritual and eternal life, which is a radical pagan understanding that is nowhere taught. Even the Lord's supper account, which came later and was not known to the hearers in Jn. 6, does not teach at all that eating human flesh and blood obtains spiritual and eternal life. Both Jn. 2,3, and 4 require reading in the context of more of Scripture.

    So these passages only serve to highlight the unique nature of the discourse in John 6 which is that John 6 is indeed literal. No other passage where symbology or typology is used, do we witness confusion reigning among His audience, at least not for long (and certainly not as a reason for some of His disciples to depart).

    Wrong again, as shown. Souls remained thinking the Lord would destroy the physical temple, while what this living water was and how one is born gain is no less or more clear than that gaining spiritual life is by believing Christ who has the words of eternal life. Which further revelation confirms is by believing the gospel, (Acts 15:7-9) and then living according to God's words, (Mt. 4:4) making doing His will their "meat."

    So, you read Scripture one way, I read it another, who's to say who's hermeneutic is correct? That's a rhetorical question mind you as we have been down this road before and I have no desire to repeat such a journey.

    Indeed you should not, as that is the fundamental issue , for while you attempt to substantially engage in what is private and not official interpretation, a faithful RC is bound to make Scripture serve Rome, to support RC teaching, under the premise of the assured veracity of Rome as being the historical instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation.

    But which is contrary to how the church began, with common people seeing what the historical instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation would not, and thus in dissent from them following itinerant preachers whom they rejected. But who reproved them by Scripture as being the supreme standard, and by Scriptural substantiation established their Truth claims. And thus the church began and thus it continues. Thanks be to God.

    Meanwhile, how can you be consistent with your literal interpretation of the unequivocal imperative "verily, verily" statement of Jn. 6:53, that one must believe and consume the Lord's body in order to have spiritual and eternal life, without allowing that those who reject this interpretation cannot?

    The answer to this is related to what I said before. Anyone who knows the Catholic teaching on those outside the Church, knows that such people still can be saved by God, according to His good pleasure, because while the Sacraments are indeed the normative means God has chosen to dispense his Grace, He Himself is not bound to these same Sacraments.

    Such equivocation is so much special pleading! This "verily verily" statement is not equivocal, anymore than others such as "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3) "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." (John 6:47)

    Nor do Caths treat is as such, but love to invoke it as the absolute unequivocal imperative that it is, while the fact remains that you cannot find any place in which souls consumed the Lord's body in order to have spiritual and eternal life, but instead they believed the gospel of the One whose words are spirit and life!

  • Holocaust Gas Chambers At Sobibor Death Camp Discovered

    09/17/2014 7:48:48 PM PDT · 15 of 40
    daniel1212 to MacNaughton

    A movie school kids should see. But liberals fight the idea that man can be so evil, thus will not prepare fort it.

  • Grace, Faith, and Works

    09/17/2014 8:55:17 AM PDT · 324 of 337
    daniel1212 to FourtySeven; metmom; Elsie; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; CynicalBear; mitch5501; ...
    No I don't at the moment sorry. I think it's pretty common knowledge though that this is even common Pagan belief today though so I'll rest wth that. I'm not too concerned about it in other words.

    I am as historical claims need substantiation. That pagans did eat of their deceased loved ones who gain life properties of them during at least the last millennium is substantiated.

    Alpers and Lindenbaum’s research conclusively demonstrated that kuru [neurological disorder] spread easily and rapidly in the Fore people due to their endocannibalistic funeral practices, in which relatives consumed the bodies of the deceased to return the “life force” of the deceased to the hamlet, a Fore societal subunit. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%28disease%29#Transmission Moreover, "the custom of eating bread sacramentally as the body of a god was practised by the Aztecs before the discovery and conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards." - http://www.bartleby.com/196/121.html

    The main points are these: Jesus isn't an animal. His blood therefore is not animal blood. Thus the prohibition of drinking animal blood in the Law is not violated.

    That is absurd: the prohibition of eating blood was not restricted to animals but humans as well, as cannibalism itself was, based upon Gn. 9:6. And even if that was allowed, consuming human blood would not be any more sanctioned than the blood of a lesser creature would be!

    The fact that the priests of old did not drink the blood of the sacrifice is irrelevant here because they had a prohibition at the time to not drink the blood of the sacrifice (because again it was an animal, and an animal's blood cannot give life).

    it is by no means irrelevant, and again you are reading into the text a meaning that is not there in order to somehow negate the obvious injunction. There is nothing said about not drinking an animal's blood bcz it was not able to give life, but because it was most sacred then it was only to be used for atonement.

    The point was that spiritual life was realized because the shed blood was sacred and used for the atonement, not by eating.

    It's only when something is objectively evil (in other words something that offends God) should we not do it. Taking a life even an animal life, in order to consume its blood is an offense to God because again, only He is the Author of Life, and thus it is not our place to take a life to save our own (except for self defense of course but that's tangential to this point).

    That is frankly absurd, but which is a consequence of your incorrect premise. Again, the animal was killed by shedding its blood whether they consumed their blood or not, thus death was not prevented, but as the blood is the most precious substance in the body so as to represent life itself, thus its use was restricted and only used for sacrifice.

    Thus, while a scandal to those who think with the carnal mind, as can be seen from the reactions of the Jews in John 6,

    As it should be and was designed to be, that of speaking in an apparently physical way in order to reveal the spiritual meaning to those who awaited the meaning, which, as elsewhere, the Lord revealed to true seekers.

    In. Jn. 2:19,20, the Lord spoke in a way that seems to refer to destroying the physical temple in which He had just drove out the money changers, and left the Jews to that misapprehension of His words, so that this was a charge during His trial and crucifixion by the carnally minded. (Mk. 14:58; 15:29) But the meaning was revealed to His disciples after the resurrection.

    Likewise, 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)

    Likewise 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 which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirer who stayed the course, but which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.

    And thus we see the same 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 cannibaalism, 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..

    And which is made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation For the fact is that the allegorical understanding of Jn. 6:27-69 is the only one that is consistent with the rest of Scripture, in which Nowhere in all of Scripture is spiritual and eternal life gained by literally eating anything physical, which eating is what Jn. 6:53,54 makes as an imperative. And as such it must exclude all who deny the physical interpretation of this section of Jn. 6.

    For as in John and elsewhere, souls obtain spiritual and eternal life by believing on the Lord Jesus as the Divine Son of God, being born of the Spirit in conversion in believing the gospel message, not by consuming the Lord's Supper. Which is nowhere preached in Acts or elsewhere is the means of regeneration.

    And then they live by Christ by desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God as means of grace, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them., (Col. 3:16) Which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as again, Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34)

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

    To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (Acts 10:43-44)

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

    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)

    In contrast, nowhere is the Lord's supper described as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves.

    Rather, the Lord's supper in its only manifest description in the life of the church with any detail, is that in which "discerning the body" refers to recognizing each member as part of the body of Christ by showing considerate care for each other by that communal meal which is supposed to "show," declare," "proclaim" the Lord's sacrificial death, rather than to "shame them that have not" by not even waiting for the others but going ahead and filling their faces while others were hungry. As shown and explained more here. .

    Moreover, the use of figurative language for eating and drinking is quite prevalent in Scripture, in which men are referred to as bread, and drinking water as being the blood of men, and the word of God is eaten, etc

    For David distinctly called water the blood of men, and would not drink it, but poured it out on the ground as an offering to the Lord, as it is forbidden to drink blood. (2 Samuel 23:15-17)

    And 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)

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

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

    And or when Jeremiah 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)

    And or when Ezekiel was told, “eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 3:1)

    And or when (in a phrase similar to the Lord’s supper) John is commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )

    Furthermore, the 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” (v. 14) — 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 this spake he 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.

    • In 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.

    As to your last question in the paragraph quoted above: I do not know if this is an "official" teaching of the Church (it's at least not dogmatically defined so I can tell you that). But this general apologetic is from Catholic Answers (just in my own words) if that helps.

    That is the problem of relying on CA, whose specious polemics have been refuted time and time again, while if these erroneous interpretation of Scripture are not official ones, then they could be contradicted by other Catholic teaching, as some are. And is contrary to the goal of apologetics, which is to try to convince evangelicals by Scripture to trust in the assured veracity of Rome for determination and assurance of Truth.

    Meanwhile, how can you be consistent with your literal interpretation of the unequivocal imperative "verily, verily" statement of Jn. 6:53, that one must believe and consume the Lord's body in order to have spiritual and eternal life, without allowing that those who reject this interpretation cannot?

  • Mormons Say Jesus Was Married?

    09/16/2014 7:56:13 PM PDT · 260 of 266
    daniel1212 to HarleyD
    Thus Revelation: He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy [hagios], let him be holy [hagiazō] still. (Rev 22:11) Righteousness is sanctification. Holiness is justification.

    Interestingly, hagiazō is only translated as "holy" here in the KJV: elsewhere out of 29 total KJV Occurrences, it is,

    sanctified, 16

    Joh_10:36, Joh_17:19, Act_20:32, Act_26:18, Rom_15:16, 1Co_1:2, 1Co_6:11, 1Co_7:14 (2), 1Ti_4:5, 2Ti_2:21, Heb_2:11, Heb_10:10, Heb_10:14, Heb_10:29, Jud_1:1

    sanctify, 6

    Joh_17:17, Joh_17:19, Eph_5:26, 1Th_5:23, Heb_13:12, 1Pe_3:15

    sanctifieth, 4

    Mat_23:17, Mat_23:19, Heb_2:11, Heb_9:13

    hallowed, 2

    Mat_6:9, Luk_11:2

  • Mormons Say Jesus Was Married?

    09/16/2014 4:22:04 PM PDT · 257 of 266
    daniel1212 to HarleyD
    I'm sorry but I don't see that in scripture or the commentaries.

    I hope you did not misunderstand me, for i was speaking of growth, of becoming practically holy what we are positionally. That while the believer is holy in Christ, he is yet to become more set apart, distant and distinct from sin or sinners:

    Positional: Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification [hagiasmos] of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. (1Pe 1:2)

    Practical: I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness [hagiasmos]. (Rom 6:19)

    Follow peace with all men, and holiness [hagiasmos], without which no man shall see the Lord: (Heb 12:14)

    For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness [hagiasmos]. (1Th 4:7)

    There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy [hagios] both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. (1Co 7:34)

    Have a God night.

  • Grace, Faith, and Works

    09/16/2014 3:53:40 PM PDT · 317 of 337
    daniel1212 to FourtySeven; metmom
    At the time of the Mosaic Law (and even during Christ’s and our time) Pagans consumed the blood of goats and bulls to take their life for their own.

    It is known they did this at least during the second millennium AD, but do you have documentation for this (not that i deny it)?

    To prevent the Jews from becoming like Pagans, and really to prevent them from sinning, which is what a desire to take another life for oneself is (that’s a sin against God for only He has the power to take and give life to another), the Law forbade the consuming of blood of bulls and goats. So that’s why it’s against the Law.

    Wrong. While the the injunction against eating blood was based uoon the premise that blood is sacred, thus promoting the sacredness of life, yet the blood they were forbidden to consume was the blood of animals they had already killed, thus it certainly did not prevent death. Nor was it a sin to kill animals for food or sacrifice, and in which the blood was poured out.

    Rather the the injunction against eating blood was against consuming it, as it was only to be sacrificed as an atonement:

    And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. (Leviticus 17:10-11)

    Moreover, your other reason, that the law was because the pagans did it, is one liberals use for moral laws. Do you even have official teaching that argues as you do, or is this just another example of the variety of interpretations RCs can use in seeking to defend Rome?

    So here we can see how, even assuming only “if” (for indeed He did) God (Jesus) command us to drink His blood it’s not violating the Law.

    As your premise is wrong, so is your conclusion. As not even the priest could drink the blood, as it was only to be used as a sacrifice, so Christ's blood was only shed once, and never physically consumed, esp. to gain the life properties of the one being eaten, which is indeed PAGAN, as in consensual endocannibalism .

  • The Rise of the Papacy

    09/16/2014 3:18:08 PM PDT · 243 of 284
    daniel1212 to boatbums
    What I have experienced is the more closely a denomination holds to the Biblical truth of the Gospel of the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ the more conservative they are in "social" issues and the more consistent and unified their congregation is.

    It is actually because they are born again by that evident word of Truth of the Scriptures, whether they even saw the Bible it came from or not, that they are thus more prone to follow it after (unless they place man higher), versus preaching a message that depends upon hearing it from an approved church or dependent upon it.

    In the latter case, converts may be moral and conservative if their church requires it, as well follow as its doctrinal errors, but the majority will also follow its trajectory as the church goes more South, as seen with Rome.

    But if they follow the more sure, stedfast, firm, word of prophecy Peter points them to, Scripture, (2 Pt. 1:19-21) then they should never be moved.

    Meanwhile, it is indeed a paradox that the section of Scripture that RCs resort to (Ja, 2:16-26) in seeking to provide a positive contrast btwn their church and that of sola fide types indicts their church as being liberal overall and her members as inferior to the evangelicals they attack.

    Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. (James 2:18)

  • The Rise of the Papacy

    09/16/2014 11:43:29 AM PDT · 238 of 284
    daniel1212 to Claud
    Do nothing without your bishop, Ignatius says.

    Which does not translate into one bishop being the supreme exalted infallible head over all, and as the first in a like of such via formal descent, much less that this is what Scripture supports.

    And in the light of your foundationally perverse basis for determining Truth, then debate on this should wait until that issue is settled, which the last post to you deals with, by God's grace.

  • The Rise of the Papacy

    09/16/2014 11:43:15 AM PDT · 237 of 284
    daniel1212 to Claud; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    the RC argument essentially is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)

    And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God. Which i assume is yours as well.

    It is. I find the manic insistence against a binding religious authority to be repugnant to the Word of God and good common sens

    Thank you for your honesty and willingness to confirm the foundational premise behind RC polemics, and note that you are not simply affirming the need for a binding religious authority, which would indeed be repugnant to the Word of God and good common sense, and which was not what i carefully articulated is the premise. But that of an assuredly infallible magisterium, which is essential for determination and assurance of Truth and that that being the instruments and stewards of Divine revelation means they are said magisterium.

    However, in so doing you have effectively invalidated the NT church.

    For the fact is that under the aforementioned premise for Rome's authority then 1st century souls should have submitted themselves to the Scribes and Pharisees who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel as the stewards of Holy Writ and the official teachers of it, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4; Mt. 23:2) having historical descent and being the inheritor of the promises of God. (Rm. 3:2; 9:4; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6)

    And instead the church began in dissent from the historical magisterium, following preachers they rejected (like they did before them whom God raised up from without the magisterium to reprove it), one being a man in the desert who ate insects, and another being a itinerant preacher from Galilee.

    But who reproved it by Scripture, including for teaching as doctrines mere tradition of the elders, (Mk. 7:3-16) and established His claims upon Scriptural substantiation, in text and in power, as did the apostles and early church. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

    In addition, both men and writings of God were recognized as being so long before there was a church of Rome that would presume it was necessary for this. Which is why RCs constantly invoke "the Catholic church gave you the Bible, so it knows what it means" polemic.

    Which specious premise is destroyed in the light of Scripture, while by your affirmation of the RC basis for determination of Truth then you have effectively nuked the NT church, but which in reality is that of your own church, as its basis for determination and assurance of Truth is foundationally contrary to how the NT church began.

  • Grace, Faith, and Works

    09/16/2014 10:57:14 AM PDT · 315 of 337
    daniel1212 to Salvation; All
    Pt. 2

    "We are saved by 'Faith alone'": No! It takes more than simply knowing Jesus is the Messiah to be saved; even the Evil One knows Who Christ is.

    And so begins the usual recourse to SS straw men. Who are they trying to refute, "Unitarians?" Rather than refuting SS, the fact is that those who hold most strongly to Scripture being the sole and sufficient supreme authority as being the wholly inspired assured word of God, with its immutable literal moral laws and history, are overall far more committed and conservative than Catholics overall, showing their faith by their works.

    The Catholic Church and Her Bible condemn the idea that one can work his way to Heaven on his own merit or that God "owes" a person for doing the right things.

    Rather, this is just what the RCC effectually conveys by its emphasis upon justification by one's own holiness via baptism, and becoming good enough to enter glory via purgatory. So that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God truly merits eternal life, as reactionary Trent teaches.

    Surely this can be said to be by grace, as meaning by God's grace i became good enough to enter Heaven, but which is not what Scripture means when it teaches that,

    But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Romans 4:5)

    For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (Ephesians 2:8)

    In conversion faith is counted for righteousness, not because the one is baptized and made good holy inside, though he is washed and given a new heart, otherwise Abraham would have to be given a new regenerated heart in order to have been counted righteous. But by exalting God as infinitely holy and abasing oneself as being utterly unworthy to be with God, but counting God's worthy of faith, that He both is able and willing to make you His child, then God counts such a one as just, on Christ's expense and credit.

    Before the cross this was effected in recognition of what Christ would do, while after Calvary it is because of the perfect atonement of Christ being made.

    Thus,

    And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. (Luke 18:13-14)

    And as with souls after Pentecost, it was not because they were regenerated that they were righteous, as the sinful flesh remained, but because God counted them as being so on Christ's expense and credit.

    Something I came across on the Internet demonstrates the obvious importance of works. Below is a (albeit rather smart-alecky) joke letter to a pastor who preaches "faith alone": I now realize that Salvation is through the finished work of Christ ALONE, and not from good works. I am now living as an active homosexual in the freedom of Jesus Christ!

    The pastor, almost completely misunderstanding Catholicism but who has an entire ministry devoted to "saving Catholics", responded in part by saying...what Catholics have been saying all along!

    Incredibly, in further reliance upon straw men this quote was actually from a site which responds, "Tragically you have completely misunderstood the Gospel of Grace. It is true that a person is not saved by his works and that salvation is completely of grace. However that does not mean that works have nothing to do with salvation," and uses it as representative of a "faith alone" pastor who finally gets what Catholicism teaches.

    Yet this response is not contrary to what faith alone has historically taught, but is entirely consistent with it.

    In his Introduction to Romans, Luther stated that saving faith is, a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever...Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt]

    When many Protestants use the phrase "born again," they seem to be referring to an "emotional experience." They often expect instant transformation (which can certainly happen), speaking in tongues, miracles, etc. as some sort of "proof" of having been "born again"... anyone who's ever been "love-bombed" in a cult, experienced cocaine or Ecstasy, been to a Woodstock-like music festival,

    The author somehow confuses tongues, miracles, etc. as an "emotional experience," by which straw man he attacks SS believers as if the Bible did not clearly teach that true conversion results in outward evidences, but that can include such things.

    And which again is what characterizes those who hold to the historical view of Scripture most strongly, in contrast to RCs.

    The fruits of the Spirit are not out of control shaking, screaming, running around, falling down, "holy laughter," vocalizations that don't edify the Church,

    Indeed, and 90% of evangelical pastors reject the "prosperity gospel (Pew) which this is part of, and thus this is much another straw man.

    But what the author is really trying to do is attack the evidences of a worshipful heart, that of the typical 45 corporate worship that characterizes much of Evangelical services, before the typical 45 sermon, versus the 45 minute RC liturgy theater with its perfunctory praise and professions. As my former RC priest used to vainly exhort us, "sing like Protestants!" (Some of the charismatics did.)

    What the author also needs to do is defend how RC baptismal regeneration can be real when there is no manifest positive difference btwn baptized RC kids and the non-baptized, other things being equal. If anything kids from Catholic schools are the most indifferent to personal exchange about things of the Bible.

    Catholics, though, don't see eternal salvation as a one-time event that one can pinpoint and relate to others by saying, for example, "I was saved at 5:30 pm on 23 October 1988 when I got on my knees and accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.

    Indeed they do not, which is a critical problem. For in Scripture we clearly see that souls did indeed have a "day of salvation," (1Cor. 6:2) < p> Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) (Ephesians 2:5) Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; (Titus 3:5)

    " We think of salvation, ultimately, as a process that is begun with faith and Baptism

    Indeed, in which as described, they became good enough to enter Heaven (despite yet having a sinful nature), thus often souls like Constantine would not be baptized till on their deathbed, for as they sin afterwards then they must go to purgatory to once again become good enough to be with the Lord.

    Thus the baptized are treated as believers after being sprinkled as infants, never hearing preaching in their church that would convict them of their desperate need for salvation, and end in Hell as religious, but sadly, tragically lost - to their eternal horror!!!

    This does not mean we do not hold that salvation is also present in the sense of being saved from being like the world by walking in the Spirit, and look forward to being saved in the future full realization. And some perceive the many warnings to believers, warning of departing from the faith and forfeiting what it procured, but one cannot lost what he never had in the first place, which is the state of most Catholics.

  • Grace, Faith, and Works

    09/16/2014 10:56:27 AM PDT · 314 of 337
    daniel1212 to Salvation; All
    Once again one posting of RC polemics is refuted, only to be followed by another, as RCs seem to have a desperate need to comfort themselves with more specious propaganda. But as here, it once again provides an opportunity to expose it fallacious nature and refute it.

    Pt. 1.

    The Catholic position on salvation can be summed up thus: We are saved by Christ's grace alone, through faith and works done in charity inspired by the Holy Spirit.

    The Catholic position on salvation can be summed up thus: We are saved by Christ's grace thru the merit of works, beginning with justification being based upon one's own holiness via baptism, and thus usually ending with becoming good enough (and atoning for sins) to enter glory via suffering in "purgatory," commencing at death. .

    "Although the sinner is justified by the justice of Christ, inasmuch as the Redeemer has merited for him the grace of justification (causa meritoria), nevertheless he is formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis), just as a philosopher by his own inherent learning becomes a scholar, not, however, by any exterior imputation of the wisdom of God. (Trent, Sess. VI, can. x)." Catholic Encyclopedia >Sanctifying Grace; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm

    "Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification and for the attainment of eternal life (Catechism of the Catholic church, Part 3, Life in Christ, Merit, 2010)

    The term “merit” refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members..., (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2006)

    Trent, Canon 32 states,

    "If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema." (Trent, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 32.

    Shortened, this teaches, "If anyone says that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God does not truly merit eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself, let him be anathema."

    While Roman Catholic theologians labor to try to articulate the distinction between two ideas of merit, (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10202b.htm) interpreting Trent as to mean “merit” as meaning due to God's faithfulness to reward souls under grace, this distinction is unknown or effectively lost upon almost all of her members (as well as those without), whose natural disposition is to believe they are children of God and who will accepted into glory because they are pretty good people (compared to their neighbors who think likewise).

    Which which her doctrine of purgatory only promotes, as it makes one's goodness the basis upon which one may enter Heaven to be with God. CCC 1023:

    1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

    While purification in the life beyond is

    through fire and torments or 'purifying' punishments.” (INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA; cp. 1. 1967)

    Yet in Scripture in every place which clearly describes the postmortem place or condition of believers it shows it is with the Lord. This includes even all the Thessalonian and Corinthian believers at the Lord's return, and all believers ("we") at death. (Luke 23:43; Acts 7:59; 1Cor. 15:52; 2 Cor 5:8; 1 Th 4:17; 1Jn. 3:2) And in whose presence there is fulness of joy (Ps. 16:11). To God be the glory.

    Apart from stressing the depravity of man and his moral destitution by which he may escape Hell and gain Heaven, and his desperate need for a “day of salvation” (2Cor. 6:2) by personal and direct repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus to save Him on His expense and merit, then few man ever come to that point, but will suppose he will enter glory based on his relative goodness, with some mercy thrown in, usually do to his connection with the Catholic church and faith in its presumed power with God.

  • Grace, Faith, and Works

    09/16/2014 7:35:31 AM PDT · 301 of 337
    daniel1212 to Salvation
    James 2:14-26 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works?...Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works... But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

    When will RCs realize that quoting this text in attempting to refute SS actually does not, but is more applicable to Catholics?

    While it is precisely the faith behind accompanying works that appropriates justification, Reformers clearly taught that the only faith that is salvific is the kind that effects works of obedience, thus works justify one as having faith.

    In his Introduction to Romans, Luther stated that saving faith is, “a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly...Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt] “

    This is what I have often said, if faith be true, it will break forth and bear fruit. If the tree is green and good, it will not cease to blossom forth in leaves and fruit. It does this by nature. I need not first command it and say: Look here, tree, bear apples. For if the tree is there and is good, the fruit will follow unbidden. If faith is present works must follow.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:340-341]

    More .

    To believe is to do, and works is faith in action, thus if one performs an act of faith, such as being baptized, then it can be said that if he does so then he will be saved.

    Thus Acts 2:38 promises the latter, while the same Peter tells the lost Gentiles that forgiveness is by believing, and they do and are regenerated before they were baptized, with Peter affirming that God purified their hearts by faith, and using this as supporting being saved by grace. (Acts 15:7-10)

    Likewise to be forgiven of sin that one is being punished for is to show the effects thereof.

    And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. (Matthew 9:4-6)

    Thus which is easier to say,

    "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10:43)

    Or.

    Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)

    The latter is saying the same as the former, to believe, but as to believe is to confess, thus the "confession with the mouth " in the latter case was in body language. And thus the invalid and mute can be born again, as can those whose justifying heart faith sees immediate confession, which normatively go together.

    Baptism can be the occasion of conversion, when one truly comes to saving faith, God drawing, opening the heart and granting repentance, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32; Acts 16:14; 1:18) as well as express it, but not its cause (except as a catalyst due to the faith it signifies and requires).

  • Grace, Faith, and Works

    09/16/2014 7:05:31 AM PDT · 297 of 337
    daniel1212 to ADSUM; metmom
    53Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

    Thus to be consistent with your literal interpretation of this unequivocal imperative "verily, verily" statement, one must believe and consume the Lord;s body in order to have spiritual and eternal life, and thus those who reject this interpretation cannot.

    Affirm or deny and be inconsistent.

  • Grace, Faith, and Works

    09/16/2014 6:56:02 AM PDT · 295 of 337
    daniel1212 to ADSUM; metmom
    But you do not mention the rest of the story..

    Indeed, physician heal thyself, for the reality is that nowhere in the rest of Scripture is Peter said to be the rock upon which the church is built. In stark contrast, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)

    The CCC itself allows the interpretation that, “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424), which is what many so-called) "Church Fathers" believed.

    Moreover, Scripture simply does not reveal Peter as being the supreme infallible leader in Rome whom all the church looked to, nor for him being the first of a succession of such infallible popes .

    And which even Catholic scholarship, among others, provides testimony against .

  • Grace, Faith, and Works

    09/16/2014 6:55:52 AM PDT · 294 of 337
    daniel1212 to ADSUM; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    Also consider St Paul’s advice: 1 Cor 11:23-29

    More error.

    1 Cor 11:20-22 is the only place that manifestly describes how the Lord's supper took place in the life of the church, and in which "discerning the body" refers to recognizing each member as part of the body of Christ, in showing the Lord's sacrificial death by that communal meal, rather than to "shame them that have not" by not even waiting for the others but going ahead and filling their faces while others were hungry.

    Which was utterly contrary to the Lord's sacrificial death by which He purchased the church with His own sinless shed blood, (Acts 20:28) and which again, they were supposed to be showing, declaring, by taking part in the communal meal of the Lord's supper.

    As shown more here .

    Even the notes in your NAB Bible recognize this:.

    [11:27] 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).

    [11:28] 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).

    Moreover, the NT church never was a church that manifested the Lord's supper as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54).

    In contrast believing the gospel is shown as being how one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and thus is to desire the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34)

  • Grace, Faith, and Works

    09/16/2014 5:43:59 AM PDT · 292 of 337
    daniel1212 to metmom

    You should know by now that RC parroting papist propaganda in lieu of a valid argument is supposed to comfort the Catholic who may begin to doubt, and by repetition of the lie to persuade others.

    If only those Scripture-searching evangelicals could be banned, as at Catholic answers before they get too close to the target.

  • The Rise of the Papacy

    09/16/2014 5:38:22 AM PDT · 226 of 284
    daniel1212 to Springfield Reformer

    A rational response meets irrational RC rhetoric.

  • The Rise of the Papacy

    09/16/2014 5:36:54 AM PDT · 225 of 284
    daniel1212 to NKP_Vet; Springfield Reformer
    I could care less about

    About consistent substantiated research by multiple agencies that testify to the fruit of Rome being that of liberalism, which disturbs your fantasy of elitist Rome. What,

    The Catholic Church believes

    is Scripturally seen in what it does and effects, and no amount of pushing propagation of pronouncements will ever change that. Again.

    There are many protestant churches that are allowing homosexual “marriages” and take no stance on abortion

    Which again is an irrelevant red herring, as this does not represent me, contrary to your fallacious charge , and these are not my "pals," contrary to your charge, nor do such share in evangelical contention for certain key Truths of the Reformation, typically beginning with their stance toward the position and nature of Scripture, but are critically aberrant, thus are not even truly Protestant, any more than you would allow those not in active submission to the pope as being Catholic.

    If all the Catholic in name left the faith tomorrow, the ones that live the faith would still dwarf any protestant denomination in the United States.

    Irrelevant, and a tactic you have tried before. Numbers do not constitute validity, as in fact the broad is the road that leads to damnation, and many there be that travel it, while a relative remnant shall be saved. And the number of liberal "in name only" Catholics outnumber the Catholics you consider faithful, while the majority of both are lost due the critically aberrant nature of the church they are faithful to.

    In addition, it remains that those whom you dismiss as Catholics in name only (when not letting them escape from being Catholics due to being baptized), are treated as members in life and in death, even in the case of notorious impenitent proabortion prosodomy public figures. This is your church effectually testifying to what it overall believes in this regard, and thus they are yours and thus unlike me, you must own them due to your one true church identity.

    However, whether one tribe or many in the kingdom, as regards the total number of conservatives, as we have the fairly standard figure of approx. 80 million Evangelicals (26% of a 313 million U.S. population) in America (though others range from have an est 60-100 million), versus we have the figure of approx. 75 million Catholics (not counting blacks would eliminate 6% of evangelicals (15% of blacks), and 5% of Catholics), and as the evangelical element is overall more conservative than weekly mass-going Catholics, then even eliminating the liberal element from both would not give Rome a higher number of conservative members.

  • Mormons Say Jesus Was Married?

    09/15/2014 6:26:47 PM PDT · 248 of 266
    daniel1212 to HarleyD
    God sets us apart (holiness). God makes us walk with Him (righteousness). And God makes us trust in Him (godliness).

    Indeed, but holiness is also practical, not only righteousness. It may be that holiness is more that of being pure, distant from sin, due to being righteousness in abstaining from and overcoming it.

    The question is asked due to,

    He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy [hagios], let him be holy [hagiazō] still. (Rev 22:11)

  • The Rise of the Papacy

    09/15/2014 4:08:08 PM PDT · 216 of 284
    daniel1212 to Claud; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; Greetings_Puny_Humans; Alex Murphy; mitch5501; ...
    But to Schatz's comment: 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.

    I am astounded he would make this claim. Irenaeus in the second century said it flat out: It was a matter of necessity that all Churches agree with Rome.

    You are confusing deference to Rome with a supreme bishop in Rome manifestly being over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions.

    And need I remind all concerned that Victor, bishop of Rome, attempted to excommunicate the Churches of the East during the Quartodeciman controversy? Where in Sam Hill did he think he had the right to do that? Is there any evidence of anyone telling him he had no right to do that? (hint: no).

    To which Jason Engwer states , If you read Eusebius' account of Irenaeus' letter to Victor and the responses of others (Church History, 5:23-25), you see that there's no implication that Irenaeus presupposed papal authority on Victor's part, and you see that the bishops who initially disagreed with Victor on the matter in dispute continued to disagree with him. Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus at the time, sent Victor a letter of rebuke, applying the principle of Acts 5:29 to Victor's threat of disfellowship....And it's worth noting that Eusebius tells us that Victor attempted to cut off the Asian churches. His effort failed. Even bishops who agreed with Victor's position on the issue under dispute "sharply rebuked" him (5:24). - http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/03/apostolic-succession-part-8-irenaeus.html

    So yeah, I'm not impressed from quotes from modern scholars about how what I'm reading in these ancient authors isn't actually there.

    And i am not impressed with your lack of impression, as it has been abundantly evidenced RCs will dismiss any testimony that conflicts with cherished propaganda.

    But the essentials certainly are all there: namely that Rome had a primary position among all the sees and was responsible for being the last word on disputed questions.

    Yet insofar as this progressively took place, it simply testifies to the progressive deformation of the church.

    Ultimately, the issue is what you basis is for determination and assurance of Truth. For rather than it being the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, the RC argument essentially is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)

    And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.

    Which i assume is yours as well.

  • Mormons Say Jesus Was Married?

    09/15/2014 3:47:14 PM PDT · 241 of 266
    daniel1212 to freedomlover
    At least it would be honest.

    If Mormonism, were honest, it would not be Mormonism. But such are a test for us as to what we will choose.

    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)

    Mormons are in the Bible:

    For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. (2 Corinthians 11:13-15)

    But may we have single eyes for Jesus and overcome evil, with Good.

  • Mormons Say Jesus Was Married?

    09/15/2014 11:26:26 AM PDT · 237 of 266
    daniel1212 to HarleyD
    I feel the same way. However, I've been doing an interesting study on the holiness of God.

    And what would you say is the difference btwn holiness and righteousness, and Godliness? We must go for all three.

    One of the things that has been of great interest in this study is the fact that God delights in us far more than we delight in Him.

    In Christ, thank God, but then you have the displeasure and warnings of Rv. 2+3. His good pleasure is that we be conformed to Christ practically in this life, not merely positionally, to which end He works unceasingly, thank God.

  • Mormons Say Jesus Was Married?

    09/15/2014 11:22:03 AM PDT · 236 of 266
    daniel1212 to freedomlover; greyfoxx39; boatbums; Elsie; Colofornian; reaganaut; svcw
    "For "feedback", I'd suggest putting stuff like this on an Answering Cults website since NOBODY considers Mormonism a "Protestant" denomination - not even Mormons! "

    I beg to differ. They use the JESUS CHRIST brand quite prominently. Look at the building signs next time. If you are new to Christianity, would you think this is a Christian church?

    But the issue was that Mormonism is not Protestant. Using the name of the Lord, and in vain here, does not mean you are claiming to be Protestant (as FR also recognizes in this case).

    Even Rome (often mis) uses the Lord's name and does not consider herself or Mormons to be Protestant Christians (while Rome and Mormonism have many distinctive similarities , along with critical differences ).

    And rather than the LDS claiming to be Protestant, the fact is that it rejected all churches in its genesis, thus it cannot be Protestant, unless one want to define terms so far removed from their original meaning that Scientology and Hitler can be called Christian.

    And greyfoxx39 reports, This article I’m a Mormon, Not a Christian rather spitefully addresses the topic.

    I want to be on record about this. I’m about as genuine a Mormon as you’ll find — a templegoer with a Utah pedigree and an administrative position in a congregation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am also emphatically not a Christian. "I hope Mormonism eventually realizes that it doesn’t need Christianity’s approval and will get big and beat up all the imperious Christians who tormented it when it was small, weird and painfully self-conscious. Mormons are certainly Christian enough to know how to spitefully abuse their power."

  • The Rise of the Papacy

    09/15/2014 10:55:03 AM PDT · 209 of 284
    daniel1212 to NKP_Vet; Elsie; Springfield Reformer; metmom; boatbums
    Let me add homosexual “weddings” to the list of abominations allowed by some protestant faiths.

    Irrelevant to your fallacious and immature assertion, except to further indict you, but in contrast to me, as you must own your church and those it treats as members, let me add sanction of sodomy to the list of abominations implicitly allowed by Rome of members. See treatment of Teddy K in life and in death for an example. Not exactly 1Cor. 5. And what one does and overall effects constitutes what one believes, not mere words. (Ja. 2:18; Mt. 7:20)

    Stats (^ arrow refers to lst ref. source). Resorting to dismissing them crying liberal conspiratorial bias only lessens you credibly even more, if possible:

    • 40% Roman Catholics vs. 41% Non-R.C. see abortion as "morally acceptable"; Sex between unmarried couples: 67% vs. 57%; Baby out of wedlock: 61% vs. 52%; Homosexual relations: 54% vs. 45%; Gambling: 72% vs. 59% http://www.gallup.com/poll/117154/Catholics-Similar-Mainstream-Abortion-Stem-Cells.aspx

    • Committed Roman Catholics (church attendance weekly or almost) versus Non-R.C. faithful church goers (see the below as as morally acceptable): Abortion: 24% R.C. vs. 19% Non-R.C.; Sex between unmarried couples: 53% vs. 30%; Baby out of wedlock: 48% vs. 29%; Homosexual relations: 44% vs. 21%; Gambling: 67% vs. 40%; Divorce: 63 vs. 46% ^

    • Comparing 16 moral behaviors, Catholics were less likely to say mean things about people behind their back, and tending to engage in recycling more. However, they were also twice as likely to view pornographic content on the Internet, and were more prone to use profanity, to gamble, and to buy lottery tickets. ^

    • In a survey asking whether one approves or rejects or overall sees little consequence (skeptical) to society regarding seven trends on the family (More: unmarried couples raising children; gay and lesbian couples raising children; single women having children without a male partner to help raise them; people living together without getting married; mothers of young children working outside the home; people of different races marrying each other; and more women not ever having children), 42% of all Protestants wereRejectersof the modern trend, 35% were Skeptics, and 23% wereApprovers.” Among Catholics, 27% were Rejecters, 34% were Approvers, and 39% were Skeptics. (Among non religious, 10% were Rejecters, 48% were Approvers, and 42% were Skeptics.) Pew forum, The Public Renders a Split Verdict On Changes in Family Structure, February 16, 2011 http://pewsocialtrends.org/2011/02/16/the-public-renders-a-split-verdict-on-changes-in-family-structure/#prc_jump

    • 50 percent of Protestants affirmed gambling was a sin, versus 15 percent of Catholics; that getting drunk was a sin: 63 percent of Protestants, 28 percent of Catholics; gossip: 70 percent to 45 percent: homosexual activity or sex: 72 percent to 42 percent. Ellison Research, March 11, 2008 http://ellisonresearch.com/releases/20080311.htm http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080312/study-behaviors-americans-consider-sinful.htm

    • In a 2010 LifeWay Research survey 77 percent of American Protestant pastors (57% of mainline versus 87% evangelical) strongly disagree with same-sex marriage, with 6% percent somewhat disagreeing, and 5% being somewhat in agreement and 10 percent strongly agreeing. (5% of evangelical).

    • Only 3% of evangelical pastors (versus 11% mainline) somewhat agree that there is nothing wrong with homosexual marriage.

    • 11% of evangelical pastors (versus 30% mainline) somewhat agree that homosexual civil unions are acceptable, with 67% of the former and 38% of the latter strongly disagreeing with homosexual civil unions. October 2010 LifeWay Research survey of 1,000 randomly selected Protestant pastors. http://www.lifeway.com/ArticleView?storeId=10054&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&article=LifeWay-Research-protestant-pastors-oppose-homosexual-marriage

    • A 2002 nationwide poll of 1,854 priests in the United States and Puerto Rico reported that 30% of Roman Catholic priests described themselves as Liberal, 28% as Conservative, and 37% as Moderate in their Religious ideology. 53 percent responded that they thought it always was a sin for unmarried people to have sexual relations; 32 percent that is often was, and 9 percent seldom/never. However, nearly four in 10 younger priests in 2002 described themselves as conservative, and were more likely to regard as "always a sin" such acts as premarital sex, abortion, artificial birth control, homosexual relations, etc., and three-fourths said they were more religiously orthodox than their older counterparts. Los Angeles Times (extensive) nationwide survey (2002). http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/LAT-Priest-Survey.pdf http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_2_39/ai_94129129/pg_2

    • The survey also found that 80% of Roman Catholic priests referred to themselves as “mostlyheterosexual in orientation, with 67% being exclusively heterosexual, 8% leaning toward heterosexual, 5% completely in the middle, and 6% leaning toward homosexual and 9% saying they are homosexual, for a combined figure of 15% on the homosexual class. Among younger priests (those ordained for 20 years or less) the figure was 23%. ^

    • A combined 15 percent of the clergy polled identified themselves as "gay (9%) > or more (6%) on the homosexual side." Among younger priests 23 percent did so. Los Angeles Times (extensive) nationwide survey (2002). http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/LAT-Priest-Survey.pdf

    • 17 percent of the priests said "definitely" , and 27% said "probably," a homosexual subculture'--defined as a `definite group of persons that has its own friendships, social gatherings and vocabulary'--exists in their diocese or religious order. ^

    • After examining the official web sites of 244 Catholic universities and colleges in America, the TFP Student Action found that 107 – or 43% have pro-homosexual clubs. TFP Student Action Dec. 6. 2011; studentaction.org/get-involved/online-petitions/pro-homosexual-clubs-at-107-catholic-colleges/print.html

    • 39 percent of Roman Catholics and 79 percent of born-again, evangelical or fundamentalist American Christians affirm that homosexual behavior is sinful. LifeWay (SBC) Research study, released Wednesday. 2008 LifeWay Research study. http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080606/survey-americans-divided-on-homosexuality-as-sin.htm

    • 79 percent of American Jews, 58 percent of Catholics and 56 percent of mainline Protestants favor acceptance of homosexuality, versus 39 percent of members of historically black churches, 27 percent of Muslims and 26 percent of the evangelical Protestants. U.S. U.S. Religious landscape survey; Copyright © 2008 The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#

    • 56% of Catholics overall (and 46% of the general public) believe that sexual relations between two adults of the same gender is not a sin, while 39%. of Catholics say homosexual behavior is morally wrong, (versus 76% of white evangelicals and 66% of black Protestants, and 40% of Mainline Protestants). 41% of Catholics do not consider homosexual behavior to be a moral issue. (Pew Research Center, Religion & Politics Survey, 2009; PRRI/RNS Religion News Survey, October 2010; http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Catholics-and-LGBT-Issues-Survey-Report.pdf)

    • Catholics testify [2010] to showing more support (in numbers) for legal recognitions of same-sex relationships than members of any other Christian tradition, and Americans overall. Almost three-quarters of Catholics favor either allowing gay and lesbian people to marry or allowing them to form civil unions (43% and 31% respectively). Only 22% of Catholics said there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship. (PRRI, Pre-­-election American Values Survey, 9/2010; http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Catholics-and-LGBT-Issues-Survey-Report.pdf.)

    • This 2010 survey of more than 3,000 adults found that 41% of White American Catholics, 45% of Latino Catholics (versus 16 percent of White evangelical Christians, and 23% of Black Protestants) supported the rights of same-sex couples to marry, and 36% (22% of Latino Catholics) supported civil unions (versus 24% of White evangelicals, and 25% of Black Protestants). Among the general public the rates were 37 and 27 percent.

    • 69% of Catholics disagree that homosexual orientation can be changed, versus 23% who believe that they can change. ^

    • 19% of White Catholics, 30% of Latino Catholics, 58% of White evangelicals, 52% of Black Protestants and 29% of White Mainline Protestants oppose any legal recognition of homosexual marriage. ^

    • 60% of Catholics overall, and 53% of the general public favor allowing homosexual couples to adopt children. ^

    • 73% of Catholics favor laws that would protect gay and lesbian people against discrimination in the workplace, and 63% favor allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military. For the general public the figures are 68% and 58% respectively. ^

    • 49% of Catholics and 45% of the general public agree that homosexuals should be eligible for ordination with no special requirements. ^

    • Among Catholics who attend services regularly (weekly or more), 31% say there should be no legal recognition for homosexual relationships (marriage or civil unions), with 26% favoring allowing gay and lesbian people to marry, versus 43% of Catholics who attend once or twice a month, and 59% of Catholics who attend a few times a year or less favoring allowance of homosexual marriage. ^

    • 27% of Catholics who attend church services regularly say their clergy speak about the issue of homosexuality, with 63% of this group saying the messages they hear are negative. ^

    • 48% of white evangelical Protestants oppose letting homosexuals serve openly in the military, with 34% supporting this proposal, versus 63% of Catholics (66% of white) supporting and 23% opposing. Pew forum, November 29, 2010, http://pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Issues/Gay_Marriage_and_Homosexuality/gays%20in%20military%20full%20report.pdf More

  • Mormons Say Jesus Was Married?

    09/15/2014 10:38:36 AM PDT · 234 of 266
    daniel1212 to Elsie
    Can't get permission to post it, but this dilbury comic strip applies to this RC "advertising."
  • Mormons Say Jesus Was Married?

    09/15/2014 8:23:22 AM PDT · 224 of 266
    daniel1212 to Elsie
    1 Corinthians 7:1-5

    1 Corinthians 7:32-33 provides warrant against the idea that the Lord had to be some sort of extreme ascetic to remain celibate, while it is contrary to the manner of Scriptural revelation, which is careful and comprehensive enough to mention the Lord having brother and sisters, and women who provided for the mission, and of His care for His mother, and of the apostles having wives, and the 2 exception to that, but never mentions a wife of the Lord, even when the context would warrant it.

    Such as,

    Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? (Matthew 13:55)

    Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? (1 Corinthians 9:5)

    Moreover, the description of His life is that of a single person, whose material needs and for company are met by others such as the apostles, Mary, Martha and Lazarus, who are specifically mentioned as being loved by Him, but nowhere do we see even any intimation of this invisible wife.

    The premise is that being a single prophet and informal rabbi was such a novel or radical thing that explicit mention of it must be expected, and i would agree if it were, except that it need not explicitly stated, but can be implicitly conveyed, and which it is, even though i do not see the celibate status of either John the Baptist or the Lord, both of whom the magisterium considered itinerant preachers, and thus more like the Essenes, as being either a novel or radical thing.

    Kinda upsets the applecart that Catholicism has created by it's non-biblical picture it paint's of Mary: the mother of Jesus.

    By subscribing to a Mormonic or Catholic idea that a universe of spiritual knowledge outside Scripture exists today about Christ and the people of God, such a thing as the Lord being married can be considered tenable. And the basic deification of Mary be made doctrine or sanctioned. As well as such cardinal events as the Lord bodily appearing in America or the bodily assumption of Mary and her enthronement,

  • The Rise of the Papacy

    09/15/2014 4:41:58 AM PDT · 201 of 284
    daniel1212 to Springfield Reformer; NKP_Vet
    I honestly don't know who you're talking about. Certainly not the people I go to church with.

    Because the person he is directing this desperate mind-reading response to does not exist, nor do those whom he describes exist as "pals," while Rome treats such characters as members in life and in death, and thus he must own them as such unless he wants to be in schism.

    And what Rome does constitutes what she really believes.

    Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. (James 2:18)

    Your statement just doesn't map to reality. I wish I could figure out why. But it doesn't.

    You are presuming rationality in attempting to reason with a Roman who more severely exhibits the problem of mindless devotion to a false object of security. May God grant him and all grace to see and submit to the Truth in salvation and worship.

  • Oakland Firefighter Plays Victim Card Until Police Release Video

    09/15/2014 3:48:14 AM PDT · 59 of 66
    daniel1212 to jazusamo

    The Crime Mapping website must be selective or incomplete. I put my low income high population city zip in and it reported zero crimes for the past week. Impossible.

  • The Rise of the Papacy

    09/15/2014 3:22:34 AM PDT · 199 of 284
    daniel1212 to caww
    It takes the Lord to remove their stubborn and willful blindness ...

    Indeed it does. But if the Lord could ride this donkey (who sadly still bucks too much) that no man ever rode (well), then He can do so to others if they fear Him.

  • Why did Mideast Christians heckle pro-Israel Ted Cruz?

    09/15/2014 3:20:17 AM PDT · 42 of 44
    daniel1212 to mitch5501
    Thankyou again for the pings dear FRiend!

    Glory to God for what is good!

  • Mormons Say Jesus Was Married?

    09/15/2014 3:18:50 AM PDT · 216 of 266
    daniel1212 to 1010RD; Elsie; Tennessee Nana; Colofornian
    My only point is that there is nothing wrong, evil or even distracting about Jesus being married or even having children.

    No it is not. Your point is that the primary subject of the Bible could have an invisible wife therein, a most conspicuous absence despite th Holy Spirit of Christ providing 4 gospels revealing different sides of Christ, and a myriad of circumstances and details, including who His most closest disciples were, and that the one who felt most beloved was not a women, and how He provided for the care for His mother, but not for a wife, all of which overall makes this cloaking hypothesis simply untenable.

    This impugns the Holy Spirit, and you might as well argue God the Father has a wife as well, or many. But that is just what this absurdity goes hand and and with.

  • Mormons Say Jesus Was Married?

    09/15/2014 2:59:56 AM PDT · 215 of 266
    daniel1212 to Elsie
    MUCH better list than mine!

    They are both on the List of Forbidden Books. Thank God for Truth.

  • Why did Mideast Christians heckle pro-Israel Ted Cruz?

    09/14/2014 8:31:13 PM PDT · 40 of 44
    daniel1212 to aimhigh
    Years ago, while searching for a church, I visited a Presbyterian USA church. in the middle of the sermon, the pastor started ranting against Israel. It had no relevance to the rest of the sermon. Almost demonic.

    Rare, but i think it can happen, mostly among devotees to Calvinistic preterism.

  • Why did Mideast Christians heckle pro-Israel Ted Cruz?

    09/14/2014 8:28:37 PM PDT · 39 of 44
    daniel1212 to 353FMG
    Christianity is no guarantee of rationality. That’s why a nation, founded on Judeo-Christian principles, elects a muslim as its president.

    Wrong. That is clearly a result and manifestation to departing from NT faith, and in contrast to it. Thus white evangelicals (race and welfare trump faith overall in the small black minority) voted more (80%) than any other group even for a non-Christian Mormon than Obama in the last election.

  • Why did Mideast Christians heckle pro-Israel Ted Cruz?

    09/14/2014 8:23:07 PM PDT · 38 of 44
    daniel1212 to ROCKLOBSTER
    Hitler was an atheist.

    More like a pagan, but by no means Christian. Unless you define terms as loosely as some RCs term Protestant.

  • Why did Mideast Christians heckle pro-Israel Ted Cruz?

    09/14/2014 8:20:44 PM PDT · 37 of 44
    daniel1212 to Biggirl; CynicalBear; mitch5501; BlueDragon; bonfire; WVKayaker; aMorePerfectUnion; wmfights; ...
    It is the Evangelical churches in this country that is keeping support for Israel going.

    More than any other group in the West, but even some of the younger crowd here and those elsewhere are more to the left in this and some other things.

    when it comes to public backing for that country in the U.S., evangelical Christians are even more supportive of Israel than American Jews by some measures.

    U.S. support for Israel by religion http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/27/strong-support-for-israel-in-u-s-cuts-across-religious-lines/

    .pewresearch.org Fact Tank - October 3, 2013..twice as many white evangelical Protestants as Jews say that Israel was given to the Jewish people by God (82% vs. 40%). Some of the discrepancy is attributable to Jews’ lower levels of belief in God overall; virtually all evangelicals say they believe in God, compared with 72% of Jews (23% say they do not believe in God and 5% say they don’t know or decline to answer the question). But even Jews who do believe in God are less likely than evangelicals to believe that God gave the land that is now Israel to the Jewish people (55% vs. 82%).

    White evangelical Protestants also are more likely than Jews to favor stronger U.S. support of Israel. Among Jews, 54% say American support of the Jewish state is “about right,” while 31% say the U.S. is not supportive enough. By contrast, more white evangelical Protestants say the U.S. is not supportive enough of Israel (46%) than say support is about right (31%).

    White evangelical Protestants are less optimistic than Jews about the prospects for a peaceful two-state solution to conflict in the region. When asked if there is a way for Israel and an independent Palestinian state to coexist peacefully, six-in-ten American Jews (61%) say yes, while one-third say no. Among white evangelical Protestants, 42% say Israel and an independent Palestinian state can coexist peacefully, while 50% say this is not possible. - http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/03/more-white-evangelicals-than-american-jews-say-god-gave-israel-to-the-jewish-people/

    ...findings of a survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life of 2,196 evangelical leaders from 166 countries and territories who were invited to attend the Third Lausanne Congress of World Evangelization, a 10-day gathering of ministers and lay leaders held in October 2010 in Cape Town, South Africa:

    • Nine-in-ten of the leaders (90%) reject the so-called prosperity gospel, the notion that God will grant wealth and good health to those who have enough faith.
    • The evangelical leaders overwhelmingly express positive views of Pentecostal Christians (92% favorable, 8% unfavorable), Catholics (76% favorable, 24% unfavorable) and Jews (75% favorable, 25% unfavorable).
    • More of the leaders say they sympathize with Israel (34%) than with the Palestinians (11%), but a small majority says they sympathize either with both sides equally (39%) or with neither side (13%).
    • Nearly three-quarters of the evangelical leaders (73%) say it is a “top priority” to evangelize among non-religious people. Fewer say it is a top priority to evangelize among Muslims (59%), Buddhists (39%), Hindus (39%), Jews (27%), non-evangelical Christians (26%) and Catholics (20%). -http://www.pewforum.org/2011/06/22/global-survey-of-evangelical-protestant-leaders/
  • Why did Mideast Christians heckle pro-Israel Ted Cruz?

    09/14/2014 8:07:55 PM PDT · 36 of 44
    daniel1212 to BurningOak; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ..
    ts a sad fact of reality that Christianity does not equal pro-Western civilization worldwide. 99% Catholic nations in South America are extremely anti-Israeli as are most of the super liberal European churches and obviously the Christians in the Arab world. Even in this country liberal domination are slowly becoming explicitly anti-Israeli.

    i have not seen stats on S. America, but i do think most Middle Eastern Christians are actually Catholic, and few have been born again, and are less likely to support Israel.

  • The Rise of the Papacy

    09/14/2014 7:33:27 PM PDT · 190 of 284
    daniel1212 to NKP_Vet; metmom; boatbums; caww; roamer_1; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...
    You’re just aggravated because the Catholic Church has no abortion for any reason, while your protestant pals 99% of the time think it’s fine to murder the child in cases of rape, incest, and “life” of the mother. In otherwords murder the child because of the way the child was conceived. Murder is murder, is murder.

    Absolutely amazingly in-credible!!! Your desperate mind-reading response is so absurd that it won the contest for such desperation this week. You are at the top of the list. No more even needs to be said! You continue to display why one should not be a RC. Yikes!

  • The Rise of the Papacy

    09/14/2014 5:06:30 PM PDT · 186 of 284
    daniel1212 to caww; NKP_Vet

    You are facing another example of Roman cultism, when the adherent evidently will not or cannot objectively examine evidence or arguments in order to ascertain their validity, but will only post propaganda or parrot polemics for them, then resort to ad hominems in lieu of an argument when the specious nature of them is exposed.

    These serve and have served to provide evidence of why one should not be a RC (though this can occur outside it), or at least that type, and thus they provide a Divine service of what to avoid.

  • Mormons Say Jesus Was Married?

    09/14/2014 4:54:54 PM PDT · 173 of 266
    daniel1212 to boatbums

    Like using reasoning that places Peter and Jim Jones on the same level (both sinners) and no different or worse, contradicting your own church in not making critical distinctions btwn groups, and even when faced with them and the correction of brethren, and then resorting to ad hominems with such a broad brush that additionally indicts the poster into being what he charges.

  • Mormons Say Jesus Was Married?

    09/14/2014 2:51:47 PM PDT · 169 of 266
    daniel1212 to boatbums

    Well done response. It’s only going to get through to those who are diligently seeking to know the truth. Others, who are spiritually blind, will not because they don’t and won’t. | To 100 | View Replies

    Thanks be to God for His grace and light. Now to walk in it ever more so diligently.