Posts by daniel1212

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/27/2015 5:33:06 AM PDT · 853 of 853
    daniel1212 to NoCmpromiz; Resettozero
    But then, the door-knockers in these parts are usually from that cult that follows the teachings of Arius (you know - the bunch that has a little g god, a torture stake, and a vaporous resurrection)

    As if their org does not have a credibility problem , while the unscriptural sola ecclesia premise of ensured magisterial veracity that such cults essentially operate out of is what Rome owns as well.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/27/2015 5:28:10 AM PDT · 852 of 853
    daniel1212 to Elsie
    Amazing graphic, and indeed J. Smith=prophet=Scripture is from a shifty and specious faith. Good that you expose it.
  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/27/2015 5:21:40 AM PDT · 850 of 853
    daniel1212 to DungeonMaster
    He started saying that he doesn't "judge other's beliefs" and that he tries to follow the ten commandments.

    And which trad. RCs with excuse as being "poorly catechized," rather than admit the fact that what Rome effectually conveys is the belief that one can believe all sorts of things and still be a RC, especially since impenitent proabortion, prosodomite, promuslim pols are treated as members in life and in death. As long as one died a RC then they will be saved thru the intercession of elitist Rome is what multitudes are led to believe. To their tragic eternal horror.

    Yet they criticize us who seek their salvation by faith in the Lord to save them as contrite damned + destitute sinners by His sinless shed blood, on account of His expense and righteousness, not theirs or that of their church or saints. Thanks be to God.

  • Eau Claire County issues order for Amish family to leave home

    03/27/2015 5:08:22 AM PDT · 31 of 31
    daniel1212 to so_real
    The number one cause of home fires is ... electrical wiring -- of which they have none!

    This is issue of how far the gov. can go in the name of public safety. Vaccinations are another, while under the ACA since the gov. has decided that it must protect you from burning your house down, then it can also decide that it must protect you and your children from harmful psychological effects. Meaning that they can judge a home that teaches homosexuality is wrong, and that Climate Change is questionable, to undergo the kind of supervision and programming that now may be used for parents trying to get their kids back because someone said the kids were in physical danger.

    As an aside, i notice your tag line, which is said to be fake, as it cannot be sourced to Congress, esp, since United States Congress did not exist in 1782, which is the year commonly attributed to this quote.

    It seemed to have been derived from this:

    Whereupon, Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled, highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied of the care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorise him to publish this recommendation in the manner he shall think proper.

    The Robert Aitken Bible of 1782 was reviewed, approved and authorized by the US Congress. The war with Britain had cut off the supply of Bibles, and, on September 11, 1777, the Continental Congress reviewed a committee report, informing them that a locally produced bible may not be a viable option, due to the risk and cost of procuring the materials necessary. The committee noted, “...the use of the Bible is so universal, and its importance so great, that the committee refer the above to the consideration of Congress, and if Congress shall not think it expedient to order the importation of types and paper, your committee recommend that Congress will order the Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different ports of the states in the Union." Congress favored the idea of importing 20,000 Bibles, in order to address the short supply. Library of Congress [2]

    On Thursday, September 12, 1782, Congress reviewed a report dated September 1, 1782, from their Congressional committee, and signed by the committee Chairman, James Duane. The committee had been, “…referred a memorial of Robert Aitkin, dated January 21st, 1781, respecting an edition of the holy scriptures.” This committee had, from time to time, checked on the progress of Aitken’s work, and their report stated, “Our knowledge of your piety and public spirit leads us without apology to recommend to your particular attention the edition of the holy scriptures publishing by Mr. Aitkin.” Library of Congress [3] Next Congress reviewed a report dated September 10, 1782, from the committee, and signed by the Chaplains of the United States in Congress assembled, William White and George Duffield. This report stated they had reviewed the printing and it was found to be, “…with as few grammatical and typographical errors as could be expected in an undertaking of such magnitude.” Library of Congress [4] The outcome is listed as, "Resolved. That the United States in Congress assembled highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitkin, as subservient to the interest of religion as well as an influence of the progress of arts in this country and being satisfied from the above report (by the congressional chaplains), they recommend this edition of the bible to the inhabitants of the United States and hereby authorize him to publish this recommendation."

    In 1783, after Aitken's Bible had begun to be distributed, Dr. John Rodgers of the First Presbyterian Church of New York suggested to General George Washington that every discharged soldier be given a copy of Aitken's Bible. Since the war was coming to a close and Congress had already ordered the discharge of two-thirds of the army, the suggestion came too late. However, Washington said, "It would have pleased me well, if Congress had been pleased to make such an important present to the brave fellows who have done so much for the security of their country's rights and establishment." [1] [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Aitken_%28publisher%29

    You might find another quote here from ones i have tried to source, bless the Lord.

  • Because Mary Said “Yes…” — A Reflection For The Solemnity of the Annunciation of Our Lord

    03/26/2015 9:04:04 PM PDT · 200 of 241
    daniel1212 to BigCinBigD; knarf; Iscool; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...
    God didn’t ask her permission

    Wouldn’t that be considered rape?

    Which is what atheists charge, such as i countered a while ago on Salon. However, in reality not only did God engage in the violence and anguish of rape, but Mary did indeed consent to what seemed to be a supernatural kind of In Vitro Fertilization.

    For the typical longing of a Jewish women was not only to be the mother of children, but to be the mother of the promised Messiah. And thus Mary's response to being told she would be that mother was not, "why are You doing this to me," but "how" this would be possible.

    And the magnificent Magnificat of the Mary of Scripture (not to be confused with the demigoddess of Rome ) clearly affirms that she welcomed this Divine supernatural nonviolent impregnation.

    And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name. (Luke 1:46-49)

    Yet your query is also a worthy theological question. If i may digress, even if God had given Mary no choice, is it murder when God takes the life of an infant? No, as the reason murder is evil is because it ultimately is detrimental, as man is not omniscient or almighty, so that he will assuredly always make it work out for good.

    In this case He saves a child from the possibility of doing evil himself, and of damnation (even though valid purposes mankind must be able to choice btwn good and evil).

    And God makes all things - including the sorrow of parents over a lost child - to work out for the good of those who love God and Good. (Rm. 8:28)

    And if a doctor knew that In Vitro Fertilization would result in a blessing to the mother and to the world, and did so though she objected, then it would make the charge of rape to have a radically different connotation. But man does not have that right, as he is not the almighty omniscient Creator and Author of life, and we cannot trust that man has or will always have good will or foresight.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/26/2015 8:25:49 PM PDT · 844 of 853
    daniel1212 to DungeonMaster

    I suppose a Catholic version could read “we had mothers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Mother of spirits, and live?

    Blasphemous, but so are many extremes of Marian devotion.

  • Fury to Freedom [powerful conversion video]

    03/25/2015 7:23:58 PM PDT · 4 of 6
    daniel1212 to MeshugeMikey
    Im listening to Raul on the Radio as I encountered your thread.

    Amazing. Grace!

  • Is the church a pillar & pedestal of truth?

    03/25/2015 7:22:16 PM PDT · 30 of 30
    daniel1212 to Mad Dawg
    You can really get yourself in trouble with that sentiment. But my feeling is that all come to Christ as lost contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save them on His blood-expense and holiness - not their own or the church or Mary's, or trusting in infant sprinkling or purgatory - and then live for Him, to the glory of God.

    What a privilege to be able to serve the Lord Christ and thus have some works to lay at His feet, to show gratitude to the great God and Savior who procured so great salvation at so great a cost.

  • Fury to Freedom [powerful conversion video]

    03/25/2015 7:14:32 PM PDT · 2 of 6
    daniel1212 to daniel1212; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ..

    Ping

  • Fury to Freedom [powerful conversion video]

    03/25/2015 7:13:39 PM PDT · 1 of 6
    daniel1212
    Good video of conversion of Raul Ries (as in Reese). Footage a bit retro but the old old story still makes new creations, praise God.

    Can also be seen at iTBN - Fury to Freedom

    Other vids of interest (despite aberrant stuff iTBN has):

    Faith Like Potatoes -

    The Cross and the Switchblade

    The Winning Circle

    Climb a Tall Mountain

    Facing the Giants

    Clancy

    Also on Youtube Charles Spurgeon Movie

    And good preaching: Soldiers-BH Clendennen

  • Is the church a pillar & pedestal of truth?

    03/25/2015 5:47:30 PM PDT · 27 of 30
    daniel1212 to Mad Dawg; RnMomof7; Tao Yin
    Catholic teaching IN NO WAY says you should accept anything you hear in church. We argue with our priests and with our bishops. We write letters to Rome complaining about false teaching in our local pulpits or in our dioceses.

    True, but they key word is "anything," for i think what it meant is "Should we just accept anything we hear in church as the truth without examining it for Scriptural conformity and warrant?"

    And the difference is that while our basis for veracity must rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, a faithful RC is not to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences (for that reason). For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the ensured magisterial veracity of Rome by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth.

    Also, understand that are re 1Tim. 3:15, we are dealing with the interpretation of RC apologists, to which the author the blog is responding to.

    In which, faced with Scriptural argumentation to the contrary of Rome, then besides telling us Rome gave us the Bible, and thus we are to follow her (which logic has an contrary conclusion), the typical recourse is to quote 1Tim. 3:15 as if settling the matter, the premise being that this text means that Rome settles the question of what the Truth is, and thus disallows the private interpretation of Scripture by us to the contrary of Rome. I emphasize that much weight is laid upon this text by RCs.

    Yet that text does not provide what RCs extrapolate from it in their private interpretation (unless Rome has officially settled that text), while RCs themselves freely engage in interpretation of Scripture, and of Rome.

  • Is the church a pillar & pedestal of truth?

    03/25/2015 5:11:08 PM PDT · 26 of 30
    daniel1212 to RnMomof7
    4. So Paul is talking about a local church, and the referent is the church of Ephesus.

    This is not one his better apologetics. Paul most certainly is not referring to the local church, any more than when he said the church was married to Christ in Eph. 5:25, or how he wasted the church of God in Gal. 1:13, but as is usually the case when not specifying a particular church, 1Tim. 1:15 (in the Greek) simply refers to the corporate house of God, the church of the living God being the support of the Truth. Which both "stulos" and "hedraiōma" basically denote, the latter perhaps as foundation, but it is unseen in the LXX or Hellenistic Jewish or secular Greek. And i read that a Gk. edition of Irenaeus' Adversus Haereses also paraphrased it as "pillar and support."

    , The church is the body of Christ, the household of faith (cf. Gal. 6:10; 1Pt. 4:17) in which every part works together to edify, evangelize, contend for the Truth, as evangelicals have historically been characterized for doing. (Romans 9:4-5) Yet the visible church is an admixture of tares and wheat.

    While there is some ambiguity in this text, and thus RCs compel it to mean what they long to see - that the church must be the infallible standard for Truth above Scripture - it is easy to see that that it what it does not say,

    For the church itself established its Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (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.) not the premise of perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, as per Rome.

    And Scripturally an infallible magisterium has never been essential to provide and preserve Truth and faith, and what is said of Israel is what Rome claims for herself: "...because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." "Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers..."

    Moreover, God has been progressively revealing Truth before the church, and though i have not see Him providing new public doctrinal revelation now, yet He illuminates more from Scripture, revealing Him and His Truth, and His revelation to us will be added to when He returns. (1Jn. 3:2)

    In addition, all those who are born again have "one Lord, one faith, one baptism," just as there is "one body, and one Spirit," and "one God and Father of all" as it says in context, as all in the body of Christ have been born again by that one Spirit, by the one basic faith in the Lord of the one gospel, and thus have been baptized into that one body, (1Co. 12:13) and are to be water baptized in identification with their Lord.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 4:47:45 PM PDT · 661 of 853
    daniel1212 to Springfield Reformer
    In Greek, the phrase "ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea" comes out as: καὶ τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀναγνῶτε which comes out something like this: and the [one] out of (or from) Laodicea, that also y'all should read

    I appreciate your response, and i also wondered if that sentence was being understood correctly, yet in any case using this or like texts to support Joe Smiths occultic visions is specious and desperate.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 4:42:51 PM PDT · 658 of 853
    daniel1212 to Seraphicaviary; DungeonMaster
    Mary gave birth to a person who has has both natures, but she did not provide any of the Divine nature, so it is not required that she be a goddess in order to still be Mother of God.

    But again, that ontologically oneness is what "mother of God" normally conveys, and is absent in Scripture. Even when stating that Christ come out of Israel, the Spirit is care-full to make the clarification that the flesh is referred to,

    Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 9:5)

    You argue with God all you want that that clarification is not necessary, since Christ has a nature that is ontologically fully Divine and ontologically fully human, but He thought it important to add that clarification, while also making it clear that God had a body prepared for the Son to become incarnated in, and which came thru Mary as a pious instrument of God. And God does not say this blessing was because she was most holy, nor does it add the multitudinous titles and appellations Caths ascribe to her.

    For the title "Mother of God" is not some mere technical term, but is part of the extreme exaltation of Mary which goes far beyond that which is written. For the Scriptures know nothing of ,

    . praying to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven") who were able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to them (a uniquely Divine attribute in Scripture).

    A women who never sinned (which claim is contrary to how the Spirit characteristically records even lesser exceptions to the norm among even lesser subjects), and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving), and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven, despite lacking testimony even from early tradition), and who is, exalted as (officially or with implicit sanction) as

    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 bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"

    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."

    and 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,"

    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 more. But rather than promoting the role of a women as the mother of God, and using that misleading title, Scripture teaches that God had a body prepared for the Son to become incarnated in, the idea of a heavenly mother has a strong

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 3:47:45 PM PDT · 640 of 853
    daniel1212 to DungeonMaster

    How does God manage to use me much at all is the real question!

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 12:35:49 PM PDT · 569 of 853
    daniel1212 to Vermont Lt
    If we are talking Old Testament God, I would think not. But the New Testament God seems a little more forgiving.

    Wrong. If you look at what God put up with so often in the OT, even as the norm, than you can better understand the many descriptions of judgment. Study Ps. 78, 105, 106, Neh. 9; and read Hosea.

    But God did provide more grace, and a better atonement, better high priest, better covenant (study the word "better" in Hebrew, KJV). Yet to whomsoever much is given in grace, much is expected and required. Thanks be to God.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 12:29:56 PM PDT · 562 of 853
    daniel1212 to Vermont Lt; Resettozero
    Why then do you defend Roman Catholicism against your brothers and sister in Christ? What manner of doctrine have you been taught?

    I cannot understand why every day the anti Catholics post a straw man thread and then go to war.

    It is simply not Christian.

    Those are words of war??? So challenging an elitist church is war, while she is the one with the most history of engaging in physical war against Christians, and others.

    ► Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council (canon 3), 1215:

    Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath.

    But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action.

    The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp)

    As said in other posts, Frankly, i am amazed at seeing posters whom i have never seen post here on the FR in my quite active engagement over the years, come in here and display their ignorance of what has been going on for years with RCs incessantly posting articles and posts which invite and incite debate, a sample of which post 472 lists, and then whine when countered.

    When you have RCs for years using FR as a RC news and apologetics service for their elitist church, you cannot expect evangelicals who are not promoting any one particular "house" to not confront this cultic system.

    Until recently there were few Prot articles reproving RC faith, but i can give you a list of RCs doing so against Prot faith, strawmen included. But now some souls we never saw post before on the FR start posting objections. Seems odd.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 12:01:06 PM PDT · 539 of 853
    daniel1212 to rwa265; Resettozero
    If you can show me how all these verses do not show that Mary is the mother of God, please do so.

    Because the normal and natural connotation of mother denotes ontological oneness, making Mary as a goddess begetting a God after her nature.

    While Mary gave birth to and mothered the incarnate Christ, she contributed nothing to His Divine nature, and owes her own existence to Christ. Giving her the formal title Mother of God disrespects how the Holy Spirit describes and gives titles to created beings, which works against exalting them as RCs extremely do with Mary, thinking of her "above that which is written," which the Spirit warns against. (1Co. 4:6)

    The terms "God-bearer" which some of the ancients used is less misleading, but Caths largley refused to use that in deference to the term "Mother of God," as they seek to exalt her, ascribing things to her which are nowhere ascribed to any created beings, but many parallel the those of Chris t.

    What Ratzinger wrote about the title Co-redemptrix” departing to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers applies to is akin to "Mother of God " departing to too great an extent from the language of Scripture

    When asked in an interview in 2000 whether the Church would go along with the desire to solemnly define Mary as Co-redemptrix, then-Cardinal Ratzinger responded that “the response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings” (53).

    He went on to say that, “Everything comes from Him [Christ], as their Latter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way. “For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language(God and the world: believing and living in our time, by Pope Benedict XVI, Peter Seewald, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000, p. 306

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 11:42:06 AM PDT · 530 of 853
    daniel1212 to StormPrepper
    1. You're assuming God wanted a "Bible" and forced it's creation.

    1. Wrong: You're assuming inspiring men to express what God wanted is forcing His creation.

    2. You're asserting that God forces His will on people.

    2. Wrong. You are asserting that God must force man in order to accomplish His will, and that God's will cannot be accomplished if some men do not choose to obey him. Thus the words of God which He wanted to preserve on earth perished from the earth.

    Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: (Isaiah 46:10)

    3. The bottom line is you're statement leads to the conclusion that God doesn't allow men to commit certain sin.

    3. Wrong. The bottom line is you're statement leads to the conclusion that God cannot allow men to commit certain sins and still accomplish His will, unless He forces them to obey Him.

    My point is that God gave us all scripture.

    And just where you get that certainty from? If it is from 2Tim. 3:15, then your must assent to what the writer and His Lord manifestly held Scripture as being, with the Lord referencing the tripartite canon of the Law and the Prophets and the Writings (Wisdom books). There goes all other religions but OT Judaism, while the NT writings were established as conflative (in word, spirit and power) and complimentary to the OT ones, and thus were progressively established as being Scripture.

    Now you come 2k years later and want to open the canon to all sorts of things which they rejected. Based upon your judgment and what community?

    God never intended for men to have limited access to His words.

    God never intended for men to not discern what was of God early on, but have the vast open canon your reasoning leads to. You make a mockery of the judgment of generations of souls which manifested the heavenly qualities and attestation which corresponded to what was written. And instead seem to want us to heed an immoral man who died shooting at others.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 11:19:50 AM PDT · 515 of 853
    daniel1212 to StormPrepper; Resettozero; DJ MacWoW; Alex Murphy; Gamecock
    My point is that God gave us all scripture. Men removed what parts of that scripture they didn't like, added what they did and called their work "Holy".

    We have some strange ideas posted on a forum which is a pro-God site. Meaning the one and only true Judeo-Christian God as taught to us by KJV with no additional editing or books of fiction. Such as the Book of Mormon.

    Sorry you have a problem with that, and those who uphold it. But just what are you following? Mormon? Roy Masters? Gnostics? Swendenborg?

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 11:09:01 AM PDT · 512 of 853
    daniel1212 to StormPrepper; Springfield Reformer
    Universally established by man, in other words, they were popular. Man chose them.

    As they choose to follow Abraham, Moses, and prophets, and Christ. What is your objection? Of course God must allow competition to test the people, (Judges 2:21-23) and thus you have Muhammad, Joe Smith etc. But who are contrary to Christ.

    Who knows what you're missing out on:

    Indeed, only God knows, and since He did not consider them important to be preserved, or the body of Christ did not find that they fed their souls as did the books of Scripture, then you beef is with God and the body of Christ.

    Obviously it was important. God wanted everyone to read it. So it wasn't God that didn't put it in the Bible, that was man's choice.

    Obviously? And the word of the Lord does not remain due to man? Rather than your reasoning, what is obvious is that God preserves His word even though man seeks to destroy it. When Moses broke the tablets then God made a new set, and when Jehudi cut the written word of God with the penknife, and cast it into the fire, God commanded, "Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned." (Jeremiah 36:28)

    And if there was no word of God, as a body of Truth that was progressively established by the community then one could not ever be charged with adding or subtracting from it.

    one thing is for certain, God wanted us to read it.

    Not so, as what is certain is that, "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever," (Isaiah 40:8) but not everything that an apostle or any author of Scripture wrote was inspired, and nowhere do we even see anything referenced to the epistle from Laodicea. Thus the command was specific to the Colossians, and edifying, as can many works be, but not wholly inspired Scripture.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 8:57:04 AM PDT · 492 of 853
    daniel1212 to DJ MacWoW
    What anti-catholic posts have you made today? Why is it your business?

    Johnny does it too!!!

    Which is a reason there are anti-catholic posts, in rebuttal, but which is ignored, and instead the counter-posting is portrayed as unprovoked proactive practice. Of course, there are also some who think simply assent to the apostles creed makes one a Christian.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 8:49:43 AM PDT · 488 of 853
    daniel1212 to StormPrepper; Resettozero; Colofornian; Elsie; Tennessee Nana
    Nearly all of their specific instructions on how and what to do in Christ Church was all taught orally.

    But it was established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

    Mat. 1:22; 2:5,15,17,18; 3:3; 4:4,6,7,10,14,15; 5:17,18,33,38,43; 8:4,17; 9:13; 11:10; 12:3,5,17-21,40,41; 13:14,15,35; 14:3,4,7-9;19:4,5,17-19; 21:4,5,13,16,42; 22:24,29,31,32,37,39,43,44; 23:35;24:15; 26:24,31,54,56; 27:9,10,35; Mark 1:2,44; 7:3,10; 9:12,13; 10:4,5; 11:17; 12:10,19,24,26 13:14; 14:21,47,49; 15:28; Lk. 2:22,23.24; 3:4,5,6; 4:4,6-8,10,12,16,17,18,20,25-27; 5:14; 7:27; 8:10; 10:26,27; 16:29,31; 18:20,31; 19:46; 20:17,18, 28,37,42,43; 22:37; 23:30; 24:25.27,32,44,45,46; Jn. 1:45; 2:17,22; 3:14; 5:39,45-47; 6:31,45; 7:19,22,23,38,42,51,52; 8:5,17; 9:26; 10:34,35; 12:14,15,38-41; 15:25; 17:12; 19:24,28,36,37; 20:9,31; 21:24; Acts 1:20; 2:16-21,25-28,34,35; 3:22,23,25; 4:11,25,26; 7:3,7,27,28,32,33,37,40,42,43,49,50,53; 8:28,30,32,33; 10:43;13:15,27,29,33,39; 15:5,15-17,21; 17:2,11; 18:13.24,28; 21:20,24; 22:12; 23:3,5; 24:14; 26:22; 28:23,26,27; Rom 1:2,17; 2:10-21,31; 4:3,7,17,18,23,24; 5:13; 7:1-3,7,12,14,16; 8:4,36; 9:4,9,12,13,15,17,25-29,33; 10:11,15,19; 11:2-4,8,9,26,27; 12:19,20; 13:8-10; 14:11; 15:3,4,9-12,21; 16:16,26,27; 1Cor. 1:19,31; 2:9; 3:19,20; 4:6; 6:16; 7:39; 9:9,10; 10:7,11,26,28; 14:21,34; 15:3,4,32,45,54,55; 2Cor. 1:13; 2:3,4; 3:7,15; 4:13; 6:2;16; 7:12; 8:15; 9:9; 10:17; 13:1; Gal. 3:6,8,10-13; 4:22,27,30; 5:14; Eph. 3:3,4; (cf. 2Pt. 3:16); Eph. 4:8; 5:31; 6:2,3; (cf. Dt. 5:16); Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27; 1Tim. 5:18; 2Tim. 3:14,16,17; Heb. 1:5,7-13; 2:5-8,12,13; 3:7-11,15; 4:3,4,7; 5:5,6; 6:14; 7:17,21,28; 8:5,8-13; 9:20; 10:5-916,17,28,30,37; 11:18; 12:5,6,12,26,29; 13:5,6,22; James 2:8,23; 4:5; 1Pet. 1:16,24,25; 2:6,7,22; 3:10-12; 5:5,12; 2Pet. 1:20,21; 2:22; 3:1,15,16; 1Jn. 1:4; 2:1,7,8,12,13,21; 5:13; Rev. 1:3,11,19; 2:1,8,12,18; 3:1,7,12,14; 14:13; 19:9; 21:5; 22:6,7;10,18,19 (Note: while the Bible reveals that there is revelation which is not written down, (2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4)

    The scriptures chosen by the council in 382AD didn't contain any instruction on how, what, or why and so it was lost over time.

    What writings became most universally established were essential due to their enduring heavenly qualities and attestation, like as men of God were, while what was lost was due to the lack of such, except among a relative few such as the Gnostics.

    Thus derivative works such as the Qur'an and the Book of Mormon much depend upon such books for their degree of apparent validity. It was not The Vedas or the book of Jasher than the devil quoted from in seeking to seduce Christ.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 8:18:08 AM PDT · 477 of 853
    daniel1212 to detch
    These kind of attack postings should be removed or blocked... One religion going after another belongs somewhere else, not in Freerepublic.com

    Frankly, i am amazed at seeing posters whom i have never seen post here on the FR in my quite active engagement over the years, come in here and display their ignorance of what has been going on for years with RCs incessantly posting articles and posts which invite and incite debate, a sample of which post 472 lists, and then whine when countered.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 8:12:36 AM PDT · 474 of 853
    daniel1212 to DJ MacWoW; Resettozero
    What anti-catholic posts have you made today? Why is it your business?

    So when an elitists church damns us all to Hell, or at least says our churches are not worthy to be called churches, and her devottees incessantly post articles that promote Rome and impugn our faith, even if sometimes using strawmen (want multitude examples?), we are not to be allowed to counter this errors and elitism?

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 8:07:21 AM PDT · 472 of 853
    daniel1212 to elhombrelibre
    Why not just call this the anti-Catholic thread and be done with pretense that this is about anything else? That’s what it always looks like.

    No. I don’t post threads that mock the faith of others. I don’t see that as the Christian thing to do.

    You RC bias is showing. Where have you been even in the past 3 years (never even seen you here) when RCs were posting threads like,

    There Is No Salvation Outside The Catholic Church (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus)

    Divinum Officium: Whoever does not embrace the Catholic Christian religion will be damned

    Why Catholicism Is Preferable to Protestantism

    The Protestant's Dilemma: A Review

    Protecting God’s Word From “Bible Christians”

    Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    Protestants: It's time to come back

    From Fundamentalist Baptist to Catholic

    EWTN - The Journey Home - November 10, 2014 - Dale Ahlquist, convert from being a Baptist

    The Trouble With Calvin – Pt. 1

    Why would anyone become Catholic?

    In Defense of the Immaculate Conception: Part 2

    The Nature of the Mass and the need for Sacrifice

    The Hail Mary of a Protestant

    500 Years of Chaos: Protestantism’s Anniversary

    And which is just a few, plus multitudes of pro RC polemics for herself that invite and incite debate.

    But all RCs see is what reproves Rome's errors and elitism, and whine about what exposes her. Which is what their posting has resulted in, as can be shown, by God's grace.

    And when we brought up the issue of the plethora of papist postings, i was told we should post our own, so now that has happened more yet RCs still complain.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 10:04:38 PM PDT · 377 of 853
    daniel1212 to elcid1970
    Honoring the Virgin Mary, conceived without sin as the holy vessel who would give birth to Jesus our Savior, with the title of Mother of God, does not mean that she is thought a goddess. It’s an honorific.

    The honoring of the Virgin Mary goes way beyond even making her sinless, the absence of which from Scripture is contrary to how the Spirit characteristically mentions exceptions to the norm even from lesser persons.

    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 the express image of God, and highly exalted above all under the Father, having the primary position among all creation, so Mary is declared to be the greatest saint of all, and the first of all creatures, and as having a certain affinity with the Father, with a pre-eminent resemblance which she bears to the 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!

    Mary was a holy, virtuous instrument of God, but of whom Scripture says relatively little, while holy fear ought to restrain ascribing positions, honor, glory and powers to a mortal that God has not revealed as given to them, and or are only revealed as being possessed by God Himself. But like as the Israelites made an instrument of God an object of worship, (Num. 21:8,9; 2Kg. 18:4) Catholics have magnified Mary far beyond what is written and warranted and even allowed, based on what is in Scripture.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 9:58:40 PM PDT · 376 of 853
    daniel1212 to Lonely Bull; Seraphicaviary
    See post 367 .
  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 9:56:18 PM PDT · 375 of 853
    daniel1212 to Zathras; DJ MacWoW; RnMomof7
    I respectfully suggest it is the Catholics who need to address Catholic issues. All denominations need to stop pointing fingers at others and fix their own house first. FR shouldn’t be a religious battleground. This will only cause further divisions within the Conservative Base.

    Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him. (Acts 17:16-17)

    When you have RCs for years using FR as a RC news and apologetics service for their elitist church, you cannot expect evangelicals who are not promoting any one particular "house" to not confront this cultic system.

    Until recently there were hardly any Prot articles reproving RC faith, but i can give you a list of RCs doing so against Prot faith, strawmen included. But now some souls we never saw post before start posting objections. Seems odd.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 9:03:58 PM PDT · 369 of 853
    daniel1212 to MNDude; detch
    . May I ask, what your experience with this “prayer circle” is?

    Hope its not this:

    From the Sinsinawa Dominican nuns:

    Finding New Connectors to God

    We will explore the four types of claires ... clairvoyance (pictures), clairaudience (hearing), clairsentience (feelings) and claircogniznace (knowing) ... trying to discover one that resonates with you to help you better connect with the Divine power and bring awareness to where you are spiritually. The retreat will combine the Hatha physical experience and meditation practice of Yoga. This retreat will be semi-silent (silence will be observed at all times except during our group sessions). - https://www.sinsinawa.org/MoundCenter/RetreatDetail.cfm?num=580

    Zentangle Workshop

    Zentangle is a pen and ink meditative art form. The class consists of two sessions in which the participant will learn to draw eight to ten patterns. Interspersed with the drawing will be mindfulness and meditative exercises. "Almost anyone can use Zentangle to create beautiful images. It increases focus and creativity, provides artistic satisfaction along with an increased sense of personal well being. - https://www.sinsinawa.org/MoundCenter/RetreatDetail.cfm?num=591

    We invite you to walk the labyrinth and discover a new, yet ancient way to pray . . . to meditate.

    The labyrinth is an ancient spiritual tool, founded as early as 200 B.C.E. Its history includes use in Crete, Tibet, Greece, Celtic spirituality, early European art, and in the Christian tradition.

    And no longer offered:

    A Circle of Drums This workshop is a high-energy, hands-on presentation emphasizing collaborative, creative individual expression while also exhibiting the benefits of synergetic group dynamics. Bill uses an ensemble of beautiful drums and percussion instruments from around the world to facilitate a meaningful team-building experience that celebrates the expansive nature of human potential and the ecstatic response to group rhythm-making. It is our hope that everyone who participates in the experience will enjoy a powerful body/mind/spirit encounter that will last a lifetime! - https://www.sinsinawa.org/MoundCenter/RetreatDetail.cfm?num=536

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 9:02:37 PM PDT · 368 of 853
    daniel1212 to elhombrelibre
    And Jesus never carried a Bible.

    That is pure sophistry. What did the Lord establish His Truth claims upon, Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, or the premise of perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, as per Rome?

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 9:02:32 PM PDT · 367 of 853
    daniel1212 to Salvation; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    Amazing then that almost all the words of the Hail Mary are from the Bible:

    And Mormonism can claim to same for some of its material, but the issue is whether praying the Hail Mary to her is in Scripture.



    What saith the Scriptures?” (Rm. 4:3; 11:2; Gal. 4:30) “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:6)”

    1

    Prayers in Scripture addressed to God in Heaven

    Over 200 prayers, besides instruction on prayer to Heaven. (“Our Father who art in Heaven,” not “Out Mother.”)


    Prayers in Scripture addressed to any created beings in Heaven

    ZERO prayers or examples, or in instruction on prayer to Heaven

    2

    Examples or teaching showing God being able to hear and respond to prayer from earth addressed to Him in Heaven.

    Multiple. “I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee..” (2 Kings 20:5; cf. Ps. 65:2; 66:19,20; Lk 1:13)


    Examples or teaching showing created beings being able to hear and respond to prayer from earth addressed to them in Heaven.

    ZERO. Angels and elders offering up prayers before the judgments of the last days in memorial (Rev. 5:8 and 8:3,4; f. Lv. 2:2,15,16; 24:7; Num. 5:15) does not constitute this ability, which is unique to God.

    3

    Examples or teaching showing God able to personally communicate with man from Heaven.

    Many. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. (2 Corinthians 12:8-9)


    Examples or teaching showing created beings being able to converse with man from Heaven.

    ZERO. From what I see, all two-way communication required both created beings to somehow be consciously operating in the same realm.

    4

    Examples or teaching Christ as being the heavenly intercessor between man and God.

    Many. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (1 Timothy 2:5) For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. (Hebrews 2:18) For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:15-16) Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. (Hebrews 7:25)


    Examples or teaching any as created beings as heavenly intercessor between man and God.

    ZERO. See under 2 above.


  • Christian Answers to Two Roman Catholic Questions on “Catholic Answers”

  • Christian Answers to Two Roman Catholic Questions on “Catholic Answers”

    03/24/2015 6:31:18 PM PDT · 71 of 99
    daniel1212 to xone
  • Christian Answers to Two Roman Catholic Questions on “Catholic Answers”

    03/24/2015 6:13:41 PM PDT · 70 of 99
    daniel1212 to agere_contra
    Adolf Hitler, as quoted in Phyllis Petty, "Christian Hatred and Persecution of the Jews"

    That is only one source. Here are some better sourced statements.

    “the legislation enacted in the 1930s by the Nazis in their Nuremberg Laws and by the Italian Fascists with their racial laws—which stripped the Jews of their rights as citizens—was modeled on measures that the [Roman Catholic] Church itself had enforced for as long as it was in a position to do so” (9).

    In 1466,

    in festivities sponsored by Pope Paul II, Jews were made to race naked through the streets of the city. A particularly evocative later account describes them: “Races were run on each of the eight days of the Carnival by horses, asses and buffaloes, old men, lads, children, and Jews. Before they were to run, the Jews were richly fed, so as to make the race more difficult for them, and at the same time, more amusing for the spectators. They ran from the Arch of Domitian to the Church of St. Mark at the end of the Corso at full tilt, amid Rome’s taunting shrieks of encouragement and peals of laughter, while the Holy Father stood upon a richly ornamented balcony and laughed heartily. Two centuries later, these practices, now deemed indecorous and unbefitting the dignity of the Holy City, were stopped by Clement IX. In their place the Pope assessed a heavy tax on the Jews to help pay the costs of the city’s Carnival celebrations.

    But various other Carnival rites continued. For many years the rabbis of the ghetto were forced to wear clownish outfits and march through the streets to the jeers of the crow, pelted by a variety of missiles. Such rites were not peculiar to Rome. In Pisa in the eighteenth century, for example, it was customary each year, as part of Carnival, for students to chase after the fattest Jew in the city, capture him, weigh him, and then make him give them his weight in sugar-coated almonds.

    In 1779, Pius VI resurrected some of the Carnival rites that had been neglected in recent years. Most prominent among them was the feudal rite of homage, in which ghetto officials, made to wear special clothes, stood before an unruly mob in a crowded piazza, making an offering to Rome’s governors.

    It was this practice that occasioned the formal plea from the ghetto to Pope Gregory XVI in 1836. The Jews argued that such rites should be abandoned, and cited previous popes who had ordered them halted. They asked that, in his mercy, the Pope now do the same. On November 5, the Pope met with his secretary of state to discuss the plea. A note on the secretary of state’s copy of the petition, along with his signature, records the Pope’s decision: “It is not opportune to make any innovation.” The annual rites continued.

    “When all is said and done, the [Roman Catholic] Church’s claim of lack of responsibility for the kind of anti-Semitism that made the Holocaust possible comes down to this: The Roman Catholic Church never called for, or sanctioned, the mass murder of the Jews. Yes, the Jews should be stripped of their rights as equal citizens. Yes, they should be kept from contact with the rest of society. But Christian Charity and Christian theology forbade good Christians to round them up and murder them.”

    See more in part 5 of a series (1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5, 6 .

    Cum nimis absurdum was a papal bull issued by Pope Paul IV dated 14 July 1555. It takes its name from its first words:[1] "Since it is absurd and utterly inconvenient that the Jews, who through their own fault were condemned by God to eternal slavery..."

    The bull revoked all the rights of the Jewish community and placed religious and economic restrictions on Jews in the Papal States, renewed anti-Jewish legislation and subjected Jews to various degradations and restrictions on their personal freedom.

    The bull established the Roman Ghetto and required the Jews of Rome, which had existed as a community since before Christian times and numbered about 2,000 at the time, to live in it. The Ghetto was a walled quarter with three gates that were locked at night. Jews were also restricted to one synagogue per city. Under the bull, Jewish males were required to wear a pointed yellow hat, and Jewish females a yellow kerchief (see yellow badge). Jews were required to attend compulsory Catholic sermons on the Jewish shabbat.

    The bull also subjected Jews to various other restrictions such as a prohibition on property ownership and practising medicine among Christians. Jews were allowed to practice only unskilled jobs, as rag men, secondhand dealers [2] or fish mongers. They could also be pawnbrokers.

    Paul IV's successor, Pope Pius IV, enforced the creation of other ghettos in most Italian towns, and his successor, Pope Pius V, recommended them to other bordering states. The Papal States ceased to exist on 20 September 1870 when they were incorporated in the Kingdom of Italy, but the requirement that Jews live in the ghetto was only formally abolished by the Italian state in 1882. Though the Roman and other ghettos have now been abolished, the bull has never been revoked.

    - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_nimis_absurdum

    If RC want to invoke Luther and the Jews regarding his latter exasperated negativity, then they need to see to your own house. And Rome has been too partial toward the Muslims as regards the Promised land.

    Meanwhile, though RCs imagine we look to Luther as a pope, evangelicals are the strongest supporters of the Jews, not simply or because of how they fit into a rapture expectation.

    Portuguese Inquisition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Inquisition)...was formally established in Portugal in 1536 at the request of the King of Portugal, João III. Manuel I had asked for the installation of the Inquisition in 1515 to fulfill the commitment of marriage with Maria of Aragon, but it was only after his death that Pope Paul III acquiesced. In the period after the Medieval Inquisition, it was one of three different manifestations of the wider Christian Inquisition along with the Spanish Inquisition and Roman Inquisition.

    The major target of the Portuguese Inquisition were those who had converted from Judaism to Catholicism, the Conversos, also known as New Christians or Marranos, who were suspected of secretly practising Judaism. Many of these were originally Spanish Jews, who had left Spain for Portugal. The number of victims is estimated around 40000.[1]

    Spanish Inquisition

    On November 1, 1478, Pope Sixtus IV published the Papal bull, Exigit Sinceras Devotionis Affectus, through which he gave the monarchs exclusive authority to name the inquisitors in their kingdoms...In 1482 the pope was still trying to maintain control over the Inquisition and to gain acceptance for his own attitude towards the New Christians, which was generally more moderate than that of the Inquisition and the local rulers.

    In 1483, Jews were expelled from all of Andalusia. Though the pope wanted to crack down on abuses, Ferdinand pressured him to promulgate a new bull, threatening that he would otherwise separate the Inquisition from Church authority.[21][22] Sixtus did so on October 17, 1483, naming Tomás de Torquemada Inquisidor General of Aragón, Valencia and Catalonia. ...

    Henry Kamen estimates that, of a population of approximately 80,000 Jews, about one half or 40,000 chose emigration.[27]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_de_Torquemada: The Pope went on to appoint a number of inquisitors for the Spanish Kingdoms in early 1482, including Torquemada. A year later he was named Grand Inquisitor of Spain, which he remained until his death in 1498. In the fifteen years under his direction, the Spanish Inquisition grew from the single tribunal at Seville to a network of two dozen 'Holy Offices'.[12] As Grand Inquisitor, Torquemada reorganized the Spanish Inquisition (originally based in Castile in 1478), establishing tribunals in Sevilla, Jaén, Córdoba, Ciudad Real and (later) Saragossa. His quest was to rid Spain of all heresy. The Spanish chronicler Sebastián de Olmedo called him "the hammer of heretics, the light of Spain, the savior of his country, the honor of his order".

    Under the edict of March 31, 1492, known as the Alhambra Decree, approximately 200,000 Jews left Spain. Following the Alhambra decree of 1492, approximately 50,000 Jews took baptism so as to remain in Spain; however, many of these—known as "Marranos" from Corinthians II, a contraction of anathema—were "crypto-jews" and secretly kept some of their Jewish traditions.

    (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition) In some parts of Spain towards the end of the 14th century, there was a wave of violent anti-Judaism, encouraged by the preaching of Ferrand Martinez, Archdeacon of Ecija. In the pogroms of June 1391 in Seville, hundreds of Jews were killed, and the synagogue was completely destroyed. The number of people killed was also high in other cities, such as Córdoba, Valencia and Barcelona.[32]

    One of the consequences of these pogroms was the mass conversion of thousands of surviving Jews. Forced baptism was contrary to the law of the Catholic Church, and theoretically anybody who had been forcibly baptized could legally return to Judaism. However, this was very narrowly interpreted. Legal definitions of the time theoretically acknowledged that a forced baptism was not a valid sacrament, but confined this to cases where it was literally administered by physical force. A person who had consented to baptism under threat of death or serious injury was still regarded as a voluntary convert, and accordingly forbidden to revert to Judaism.[33] After the public violence, many of the converted "felt it safer to remain in their new religion."[34] Thus, after 1391, a new social group appeared and were referred to as conversos or New Christians.

    King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile established the Spanish Inquisition in 1478. In contrast to the previous inquisitions, it operated completely under royal Christian authority, though staffed by clergy and orders, and independently of the Holy See. It operated in Spain and in all Spanish colonies and territories, which included the Canary Islands, the Spanish Netherlands, the Kingdom of Naples, and all Spanish possessions in North, Central, and South America. It primarily targeted forced converts from Islam (Moriscos, Conversos and secret Moors) and from Judaism (Conversos, Crypto-Jews and Marranos) — both groups still resided in Spain after the end of the Islamic control of Spain — who came under suspicion of either continuing to adhere to their old religion or of having fallen back into it.

    In 1492 all Jews who had not converted were expelled from Spain, and those who remained became subject to the Inquisition

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Inquisition.html: While many people associate the Inquisition with Spain and Portugal, it was actually instituted by Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) in Rome. A later pope, Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisition, in 1233, to combat the heresy of the Abilgenses, a religious sect in France.

    In the beginning, the Inquisition dealt only with Christian heretics and did not interfere with the affairs of Jews. However, disputes about Maimonides’ books (which addressed the synthesis of Judaism and other cultures) provided a pretext for harassing Jews and, in 1242, the Inquisition condemned the Talmud and burned thousands of volumes. In 1288, the first mass burning of Jews on the stake took place in France.

    In 1481 the Inquisition started in Spain and ultimately surpassed the medieval Inquisition, in both scope and intensity. Conversos (Secret Jews) and New Christians were targeted because of their close relations to the Jewish community, many of whom were Jews in all but their name. Fear of Jewish influence led Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand to write a petition to the Pope asking permission to start an Inquisition in Spain. In 1483 Tomas de Torquemada became the inquisitor-general for most of Spain, he set tribunals in many cities. Also heading the Inquisition in Spain were two Dominican monks, Miguel de Morillo and Juan de San Martin.

    First, they arrested Conversos and notable figures in Seville; in Seville more than 700 Conversos were burned at the stake and 5,000 repented. Tribunals were also opened in Aragon, Catalonia and Valencia. An Inquisition Tribunal was set up in Ciudad Real, where 100 Conversos were condemned, and it was moved to Toledo in 1485. Between 1486-1492, 25 auto de fes were held in Toledo, 467 people were burned at the stake and others were imprisoned. The Inquisition finally made its way to Barcelona, where it was resisted at first because of the important place of Spanish Conversos in the economy and society.

    More than 13,000 Conversos were put on trial during the first 12 years of the Spanish Inquisition. Hoping to eliminate ties between the Jewish community and Conversos, the Jews of Spain were expelled in 1492..

    The next phase of the Inquisition began in Portugal in 1536: King Manuel I had initially asked Pope Leo X to begin an inquisition in 1515, but only after Leo's death in 1521 did Pope Paul III agree to Manuel's request. Thousands of Jews came to Portugal after the 1492 expulsion. A Spanish style Inquisition was constituted and tribunals were set up in Lisbon and other cities. Among the Jews who died at the hands of the Inquisition were well-known figures of the period such as Isaac de Castro Tartas, Antonio Serrao de Castro and Antonio Jose da Silva. The Inquisition never stopped in Spain and continued until the late 18th century.

    By the second half of the 18th century, the Inquisition abated, due to the spread of enlightened ideas and lack of resources. The last auto de fe in Portugal took place on October 27, 1765. Not until 1808, during the brief reign of Joseph Bonaparte, was the Inquisition abolished in Spain. An estimated 31,912 heretics were burned at the stake, 17,659 were burned in effigy and 291,450 made reconciliations in the Spanish Inquisition. In Portugal, about 40,000 cases were tried, although only 1,800 were burned, the rest made penance.

    The Inquisition was not limited to Europe; it also spread to Spanish and Portugese colonies in the New World and Asia. Many Jews and Conversos fled from Portugal and Spain to the New World seeking greater security and economic opportunities. Branches of the Portugese Inquisition were set up in Goa and Brazil. Spanish tribunals and auto de fes were set up in Mexico, the Philippine Islands, Guatemala, Peru, New Granada and the Canary Islands. By the late 18th century, most of these were dissolved.

    Goa Inquisition From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_Inquisition)

    The Goa Inquisition was the office of the Portuguese Inquisition acting in Portuguese India, and in the rest of the Portuguese Empire in Asia. It was established in 1560, briefly suppressed from 1774–1778, and finally abolished in 1812.[1] Based on the records that survive, H. P. Salomon and I. S. D. Sassoon state that between the Inquisition's beginning in 1561 and its temporary abolition in 1774, some 16,202 persons were brought to trial by the Inquisition. Of this number, it is known that 57 were sentenced to death and executed; another 64 were burned in effigy. Others were subjected to lesser punishments or penance, but the fate of many of those tried by the Inquisition is unknown.[2]

    The Inquisition was established to punish apostate New Christians—Jews and Muslims who converted to Catholicism, as well as their descendants—who were now suspected of practising their ancestral religion in secret.[2]

  • Christian Answers to Two Roman Catholic Questions on “Catholic Answers”

    03/24/2015 6:01:22 PM PDT · 67 of 99
    daniel1212 to MNDude
    Yes, those books are included in the Luther Bible, but only because his followers insisted they remain in it. Nonetheless, he made sure they were placed at the end, where they still remain in the German Bible.

    You need to do more research. Here .

  • Christian Answers to Two Roman Catholic Questions on “Catholic Answers”

    03/24/2015 5:56:23 PM PDT · 66 of 99
    daniel1212 to agere_contra
    Ooh what a pretty picture of Luther! The man himself, not so much.

    Before copy/pasting invectives from other ranting RCs, who seem to imagine we look to Luther as some sort of pope, examine each one quote to see if it can be sourced, and for context, here . Which is what i try to practice to RC quotes. Otherwise it impugns your own credibility.

  • Christian Answers to Two Roman Catholic Questions on “Catholic Answers”

    03/24/2015 5:34:01 PM PDT · 65 of 99
    daniel1212 to LurkingSince'98; Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
    You are not a RC if you do not believe that the Pope speaking ex cathedra has the proper interpretation of Scripture. If you put Scripture above the Church then you are just think your RC when actually you are just a plain old protestant wearing Catholic lipstick.

    You hold Trapped Behind Enemy Lines does not understand RC doctrine, but at least your heresy affirms what Rome does teach and RCs believe, despite protests to the contrary, that the Church does not place itself above Scripture.

    Yet while how many times, if ever, has a pope infallibly interpreted a text of Scripture? (Some RCs even object to the word "interpret," saying he "explains.") Are the arguments for an infallible pronouncement to be infallible? And what infallible document tells you which interpretations/decrees are infallible?

  • Christian Answers to Two Roman Catholic Questions on “Catholic Answers”

    03/24/2015 5:33:56 PM PDT · 64 of 99
    daniel1212 to Campion
    The reformers said that sola scriptura meant that only scripture was the regula fide of the church. That's what you have to prove, and it's not in the Bible.

    Wrong. That as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. As is abundantly evidenced

    And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)

  • Christian Answers to Two Roman Catholic Questions on “Catholic Answers”

    03/24/2015 5:31:28 PM PDT · 63 of 99
    daniel1212 to Jack Black; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ..
    It clearly implies that Catholics are a different religion than “Christianity”. What incredible arrogance!

    Catholicism is a substantially different religion than “Christianity,” as the church is Rome stands in critical and substantial contrast to the NT church , and is largely invisible in Scripture, but not that no Caths are born again.

    But why the double standard in the light of historical RC elitism and exclusivity?

    ...all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and Roman Pontiff." Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (On The Care Of The Churches), Encyclical promulgated on April 8, 1862, # 3. http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P9AMANT2.HTM

    Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos: "No one is found in the one Church of Christ, and no one perseveres in it, unless he acknowledges and accepts obediently the supreme authority of St. Peter and his legitimate successors." Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, PTC:873, http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM

    "If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself." “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html More

    But you never see that, Catholic Christians are not intentionally rude and condescending to Protestant Christians on a regular basis.

    That comes from one whom i (a regular poster by God's grace for a decade) never recall or have a record of seeing on the RF. Meanwhile the regulars can testify that if anything what is regularly shown is disrespect to Protestant Christians. And of course, the feeling is mutual, as Rome disrespects Scripture by exalting herself above, and making the premise of her ensured veracity the basis for assurance of Truth.

  • Rejecting Mariology

    03/24/2015 2:13:49 PM PDT · 248 of 336
    daniel1212 to Elsie
    Well... Leviticus 15:16 'Now if a man has a seminal emission, he shall bathe all his body in water and be unclean until evening.

    Which means everyone knew what happened last night.

    However,

    Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. (Hebrews 13:4)

    And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common [profane]. (Acts 10:15)

  • Rejecting Mariology

    03/24/2015 2:11:38 PM PDT · 246 of 336
    daniel1212 to Mrs. Don-o
    If you wish to use words accurately, then, please refrain from using the words "worship," "adore," and words related to "latria" (such as "idolatry").

    It is you who are not using the word idolatry accurately, as you render it to exclude what i said, "kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world with adulation, attributes, glory and titles never given in Scripture to created beings, including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers addressed to them, and beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them" as constituting idolatry in Scripture. Which does not use a special word for worship of God, but describes what idolatry is.

    Let me address the question of bowing and kneeling, because if I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that those are gestures of latria,, not, properly speaking, dulia.

    Wrong. I used a collective description, which only describes that which is engaged when worshiping, as of God, never mere veneration. I know simply bowing and kneeling can be done towards humans, and can even provide more examples than you did. Thus those are irrelevant here.

    But when you find believers kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world with adulation, attributes, glory and titles never given in Scripture to created beings, including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers addressed to them, and beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them," which is done by Caths, then get back to us.

    Now here’s an interesting episode: 1 Kings 2:19 When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down at his right hand.

    Which is a negative example, for the request resulted in the death of the supplicant, (v. 23-25) thus reliance upon such is something to be avoided, based upon that outcome!

  • In Milky Way, 100 Billion Planets May Exist in Habitable Zone

    03/24/2015 1:58:13 PM PDT · 58 of 58
    daniel1212 to WhiskeyX
    Any human communities who choose to accept the risks and the separation from the rest of the human societies due to conflicts or simply for a desire for discovery...The principal risks to the human populations living among the asteroids would be disease and pandemics resulting from the development of diseases without the development of corresponding immunities.

    The risk is also "tribal" warfare, as unless committed to and unified under a purpose, and proven moral code and government, including a judiciary, they will realize the same conflicts they may have wanted to escape, and worse, and with more destructive consequences.

  • Rejecting Mariology

    03/24/2015 1:57:39 PM PDT · 242 of 336
    daniel1212 to paladinan; redleghunter
    See my previous comment. Or are you suggesting that "the child who is to rule with an iron rod" is someone other than Jesus?

    That Christ is the is the child who is to rule with an iron rod" is clear, but which does not make Mary to be the women, and the typology fits Israel. And he [Joseph] dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me. And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth? (Genesis 37:9,10) As said, the sun represented Jacob (Israel) and the moon Rachel, and the 12 stars on the woman’s head represents the 12 patriarchs, “and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” (Rm. 9:5) And which was and will be persecuted, but God keeps her through it. And Israel is likened to being a women and mother:

    For I have heard a voice as of a woman in travail, and the anguish as of her that bringeth forth her first child, the voice of the daughter of Zion, that bewaileth herself, that spreadeth her hands, saying, Woe is me now! for my soul is wearied because of murderers. (Jeremiah 4:31)

    Now why dost thou cry out aloud? is there no king in thee? is thy counsellor perished? for pangs have taken thee as a woman in travail. Be in pain, and labour to bring forth, O daughter of Zion, like a woman in travail: for now shalt thou go forth out of the city, and thou shalt dwell in the field, and thou shalt go even to Babylon; there shalt thou be delivered; there the Lord shall redeem thee from the hand of thine enemies. (Micah 4:9-10)

    I have likened the daughter of Zion to a comely and delicate woman. (Jeremiah 6:2)

    The women of Rv. 12 travailed (ōdinō: (cf. Gal. 4:19, 4:27) in birth and tormented (basanizō: cf. Mat. 8:6;Rev. 9:5; Rev. 20:10; Mat. 8:29; Mar. 5:7; Luk. 8:28; Mar. 6:48; Mat. 14:24; 2Pe. 2:8) to be delivered of her child, which was Christ, but which women cannot be the Mary of Rome, as it teaches that since she was sinless,

    just as the rays of the sun penetrate without breaking or injuring in the least the solid substance of glass, so after a like but more exalted manner did Jesus Christ come forth from His mother's womb without injury to her maternal virginity...To Eve it was said: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children. Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate she brought forth Jesus the Son of God without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain. - CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT PART 1: THE CREED; Article III. http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcreed03.htm

    In the preface of the votive Mass in honor of Mary at the foot of the cross, we read the words: “She who had given Him birth without the pains of childbirth was to endure the greatest of pains in bringing forth to new life the family of the Church.” http://www.cst-phl.com/marian.html

    “In conceiving you were all pure, in giving birth y ou were without pain.” (St. Augustine, Sermone de Nativitate )

    Thus to take this as the women literally giving birth then you must contradict RC teaching that Mary had no anguish and pain of birth. In addition, no where is Mary said to uniquely be the mother of all Christians, but as said, Christ makes all such disciples

    In addition, while the women can be seen to be Israel and thus consequently, the church, Rev. 7:4-8; cf. 14:1-4 also shows John's focus is on Israel, that of the remaining descendants of Abraham during the tribulation which turn to the Lord, whose coming the CCC teaches awaits his recognition by all Israel, whose acceptance means life from the dead, and that this full inclusion of the Jews will be in the wake of the full number of the Gentiles being saved.

    Scripture clearly teaches that,

    For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. (Romans 11:25-27)

    Thus Rev. 7:14 speaks of a remnant of these in the tribulation period, and to which other prophecies relate:

    And I will bring you out from the people, and will gather you out of the countries wherein ye are scattered, with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out. And I will bring you into the wilderness of the people, and there will I plead with you face to face. Like as I pleaded with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so will I plead with you, saith the Lord God. And I will cause you to pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant: (Ezekiel 20:34-37)

    And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I shall bring you into the land of Israel, into the country for the which I lifted up mine hand to give it to your fathers. And there shall ye remember your ways, and all your doings, wherein ye have been defiled; and ye shall lothe yourselves in your own sight for all your evils that ye have committed. And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have wrought with you for my name's sake, not according to your wicked ways, nor according to your corrupt doings, O ye house of Israel, saith the Lord God. (Ezekiel 20:42-44)

    The nations that persecute the remnant of Jews who turn to Christ are led by the devil, and which God protects by providing a place in the wilderness for 3.5 years, while in the end the Lord wuill destroy these persecuting peoples.

    And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. (Zechariah 12:9-10)

    the interpretation I gave (which makes perfect sense, given the context--i.e. the child is Jesus, and the mother is His mother) is true, along with other (more symbolic) meanings.

    Which is contrary to that of your NAB Bible and The New Catholic Answer Bible commentary and other RC sources, so why believe you over them?

    The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Genesis 37:9-10) symbolizes God's people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (Rev 12:6, 13-17); cf Isaiah 50:1; 66:7; Jeremiah 50:12. This corresponds to a widespread myth throughout the ancient world that a goddess pregnant with a savior was pursued by a horrible monster; by miraculous intervention, she bore a son who then killed the monster. ; http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/. . P12V.HTM#$54O

    Raymond Brown interprets Revelation 12 as, “The woman clothed with the sun, having the moon under her feet and on her head the crown of twelve stars, represents Israel, echoing the dream of Joseph in Gen. 37:9 where these symbols represent his father (Jacob/Israel), his mother, and his brothers (the sons of Jacob who were looked on as ancestors of the twelve tribes)” [Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), p.790].

    Roman Catholic theologian Father Hubert J. Richards agrees that the Revelation 12 woman refers to Israel. In his book, “What The Spirit Says to the Churches: A Key to the Apocalypse of John,” (Nihil obstat and Imprimatur), Richards writes:

    The vision proper, then, begins with the figure of a Woman clothed with the sun and the stars. We think naturally enough of our Lady, to whom this description has traditionally been applied. After all, we say, of whom else could John be thinking when he speaks of the mother of the Messiah? However it is clear from the rest of the chapter that this interpretation will stand only if the verse is isolated: what follows has very little relevance to our Lady. Nor is it any honor to Mary to apply any and every text to her without thought.

    Who then is she? The source to which John has turned for his imagery throughout this book is the Old Testament. There, the Woman, the bride of God which brings forth the Messiah is Israel, the true Israel, the chosen people of God. It is quite certain that this is what is in John's mind when he begins his description with a quotation from Gen. 37:9-10 where the sun and the moon and the twelve stars represent the twelve-fold of Israel.

    This Woman will later be contrasted with the Harlot (the collective personality of Rome, opposed to the true Israel) and will be specified at the end of the book, again appearing in the light and splendour for her marriage with the Lamb as the twelve-gated Jerusalem which forms the new Israel. In fact the number twelve occurs so frequently in the Apocalypse in reference to Israel that it cannot have a different meaning here. All the early fathers of the church interpreted these verses as about the Israel of God. - http://www.eternal-productions.org/PDFS/Revelation12Woman.pdf

    ..It is not until the fifth century (in Quodvultdeus) and the sixth century (in Oecumenius) that we find positive evidence for seeing, respectively, Mary as a secondary referent unintended by the author of the Revelation and Mary as the primary referent in the interpretation of this text. In any case, the Marian interpretation was never the majority opinion in the early church. The majority viewed the 'woman' as the people of God, both the ancient church and the New Covenant church." (Eric Svendsen, Who Is My Mother? [Amityville, New York: Calvary Press, 2001], pp. 231-232)

    And where does Rome officially teach that is the only interpretation of that verse?

    Why, exactly, would you care?

    Why? Because whether you realize it or not, the veracity of doctrine for a RC does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, lest they be as evangelicals, but its rests upon the premise of the ensured magisterial veracity of Rome. Thus the RC conclusion of what Scripture assuredly means is determined by what Rome says.

    Thus when RCs attempt to substantiate their tradition with Scripture and are refuted, then their recourse is to assert that their church gave us the Bible, meaning it therefore knows what it means. RCs even teach that one cannot know for sure what Scripture consists of and means without an infallible interpreter.

    Therefore the faithful RC is not to seek to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences (for that reason). For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth. And while they condescend to us in appealing to Scripture as if were their supreme authority, yet their ultimate goal is to be bring us to cease to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of Scripture, but to render implicit assent to Rome.

    ..having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once. There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all. You have sought for the Teacher sent by God, and you have secured him; what need of further speculation?"

    “All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 ); http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/faith2-10.htm]

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

    “The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned. His Church gives him all there is to be had; all else is counterfeit... Holding to Catholic principles how can he do otherwise? How can he consistently seek after truth when he is convinced that he holds it? Who else can teach him religious truth when he believes that an infallible Church gives him God's word and interprets it in the true and only sense? (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York ; http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18438/18438-h/18438-h.htm)

    Thus i can spend weeks exposing the errors of Rome via Scripture, but since that is not the basis for the veracity of their doctrine, any more than it is for cultists, then they can just dismiss it.

    Therefore unless your interpretation is official doctrine, then it is only an interpretation that you cannot be sure is the right one as a RC. And as your interpretation of Scripture fails to warrant your conclusions, then i also must submit to Rome in order to believe it.

    However, if you want to allow establishing the veracity of RC teaching based upon the weight of Scriptural evidence, then you must do so with all her traditions, beginning with the claim of perpetual ensured magisterial veracity, since my assent to that much be your ultimate goal.

    But as to your question: "Rome" does not subscribe to the "either/or" mentality which permeates much of Evangelical Fundamentalism;

    Actually Rome holds to "sola ecclesia," or more precisely, "sola Roma," as ultimately Scripture etc. only consists of and means what she says it does.

    And where does this interpretation enjoy the unanimous consent of the fathers?

    That would be wonderful, granted (there is no unanimity, on this point)... but since when is that any sort of absolute requirement? And why would you (a Protestant) care, even if they did?

    Because you are a RC, whose basis for Truth is Rome, and (as Scripture fails to actually provide what they want) which invokes church “fathers” for support, as do RCs, as if they were actually unanimous, and the bishop's creed of V1 states,

    Likewise I accept sacred scripture according to that sense which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers. (http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/firstvc.htm)

    But the term itself of “unanimous consent of the fathers is misleading.

    The Fathers are unanimous in many things which Protestants reject (e.g. the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the perpetual virginity and sinlessness of Mary, etc.)

    That also is misleading, as has been shown here, while even the term “Real Presence” apparently came from the Anglicans to describe its different concept.

    so I'm not sure why you're offering this; it seems to smell of "red herring".

    Because again, while these pious ancients are not determinative of doctrine for me, as a RC instead your conclusion of what Scripture means must be determined by what Rome says, and thus your basis for Truth must be consistent with her, who invokes the church “fathers” etc.. However, ultimately the evidence only assuredly means what she says it does.

    As Manning's classic quote states:

    It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation”

    As Keating asserts,

    And thus as Keating asserts, The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true. ” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.[http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption]

  • Rejecting Mariology

    03/24/2015 7:58:25 AM PDT · 147 of 336
    daniel1212 to paladinan; metmom
    ...and Revelation 12 says that she is the mother of "those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus". No Christian would refuse to count himself among that number... or do you reject what the Bible says, here?

    Again, you are not simply interpreting a text in Rev. 12 which even Rome has not infallibly defined, and Scripturally is not Mary, but also making another text to teach that Mary is the unique mother of all Christians, not simply John, and not Peter (which is what would be consistent with the RC papa theology). And which Scripture does not teach, but instead what the Lord actually did and said was,

    But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. (Matthew 12:48-50)

    Thus, provided with a perfect opportunity to elevate holy Mary as the most holy of all saint, etc., instead the Lord equated her to be one of many mothers, and thus contrasted her to the fabricated Catholic Mary . For the Mary of Catholicism in its totality simply does not exists in Scripture, but essentially neither does the church of Rome.

    The heavenly Jerusalem is the only entity said to be "the mother of us [believers) all," (Gal. 4:26) and Mary is only one mother and sister of disciples, as whoever shall do the will of the Father which is in heaven

  • Rejecting Mariology

    03/24/2015 7:58:15 AM PDT · 146 of 336
    daniel1212 to metmom
    But some so-called church "fathers" saw marriage and its relations as unclean.

    And that mentality is still alive and well in the RCC. Not much has changed over the years, has it?

    And then they try to justify requiring basically all her unscriptural "priests" to have the gift of celibacy, despite marriage being normative for Scriptural clergy (presbuteros), and with good fatherhood being a positive preparation for being shepherds. (1Tim. 3:1-7) And with all the apostles save for two being married, and the two that were not still had freedom to marry, not being under some vow of celibacy. (1Co. 9:4) One RC even excluded that text from being Scripture.

  • In Milky Way, 100 Billion Planets May Exist in Habitable Zone

    03/23/2015 7:30:35 PM PDT · 54 of 58
    daniel1212 to WhiskeyX
    So your concern represents a strawman argument insofar as it may pretend there had ever been a serious proposal for humans to attempt to accelerate a space craft to those high speeds.

    I was addressing an issue which i believe most of those whom i have heard repeating newscast about habitual planets are not aware of, but that they assume this generation can get there. And it is not only radiation that is a problem, but hitting even a minute object can be deadly at extreme speeds (shields are down Captain!).

    using relatively slow speed spacecraft over periods of generations or discover a means of transiting those interstellar distances within fractions of a year or number of years by utilizing the effects of quantum mechanics to bypass normal spacetime and its relativistic restrictions.

    Unless you can get the Amish to be space family Robinsons, i think the second might have more chance of success!

  • Rejecting Mariology

    03/23/2015 7:14:47 PM PDT · 105 of 336
    daniel1212 to Salvation; metmom
    That is elevating obedience to Mary above obedience to Jesus. Obey Jesus becuause Mary said so? Really?

    Mind reading again?

    Man alive, that makes you look desperate! That constitutes mind reading? Trying to figure that out, or why you said it, invites mind reading!

  • Rejecting Mariology

    03/23/2015 7:09:33 PM PDT · 103 of 336
    daniel1212 to Mark17
    Normal human reproduction, otherwise known as sex.

    But some so-called church "fathers" saw marriage and its relations as unclean.

  • Rejecting Mariology

    03/23/2015 7:02:13 PM PDT · 100 of 336
    daniel1212 to Mrs. Don-o
    he Catholic Church does not offer Mary "Latria" (LINK) We give her "Hypedulia", which means, the highest honor given to a human person, which is entirely due to what God her Savior has done for Mary, a lowly handmaid. Luke 1 should pretty much clear that up.

    Rather then being clear, this fine defining line is contrary to what Scripture does to define worship, in which no one but idolators, as said, would be found kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world with adulation, attributes, glory and titles never given in Scripture to created beings, including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers addressed to them, and beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them.