Gay Episcopal Bishop to Preach at San Francisco Catholic Parish

To: metmom; rzman21

Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Jehovah’s Witnesses, you, etc.

2,841 posted on 12/05/2011 11:47:52 AM PST by Judith Anne (For rhe sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us, and on the whole world.)

To: Rashputin; metmom

>>God Himself punished Core and his crowd for asserting that the "priesthood of all believers" was sufficient and that there should be no priesthood.<<<

So you’re saying we should work to go back under the Old Testament Law with all the Leviticus laws and Priesthood? Have you not heard that there is a “new covenant” established in the New Testament?

In the Old Testament there was a heirichal order of priests set but in the New Testament not so much.

1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light

The Old Testament Priests offered carnal sacrifices to God but in the New Testament the “royal priesthood” offer spiritual sacrifices.

Heb. 13:16: "But do not forget to do good and to share, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased."

Phil. 4:18: "Indeed I have all and abound. I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, a sweet smelling aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well pleasing to God."

Rom. 12:1: "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service."

The Levitical priesthood, and carnal sacrifices, of the Mosaic covenant are a shadow and a type of the holy and royal priesthood, and spiritual sacrifices, of the New Testament.

Deny the new covenant of the New Testament if you want but it’s a dangerous path.

2,842 posted on 12/05/2011 11:48:43 AM PST by CynicalBear

To: metmom; rzman21

2,843 posted on 12/05/2011 11:50:10 AM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)

ahaahahahahahahah

How DARE you!

2,844 posted on 12/05/2011 12:05:11 PM PST by Judith Anne (For rhe sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us, and on the whole world.)

Yeah, yeah, and you can pick and chose what verses you pretend still apply and which don't, I know how it is for folks who call have a whole series of new covenants. The legitimate one in the NT, the one from Luther, another when dispensationalism was finally revealed to nineteenth century spiritualists, and on and on ad infinitaum. You have no idea what remains in effect and what doesn't because you have no life in you unless you partake of the real flesh and real blood of Christ in the real sacrament He commanded we participate in.. That's clearly stated in Scripture but somehow it's just so much hot air to those who at the same time pretend to know what portions of the OT apply to us and which don't. You know, like ignoring what Jude said and pointed back to since Jude is in the New Testament and clearly talking about what applies under the new covenant. Or is it the consensus of opinion among those who infallibly interpret Scriptures to suit themselves that, like Luther, they should to just ignore the fact that Jude even exist? Is it that as an infallible interpreter of Scripture you've made yet another revision of canon, this time of the canon of the New Testament or just that you thought you could divert attention away from the fact that Jude is the book that refers back to Core and that Jude is part and parcel of what is given to those of us who are part of the new covenant?

From an earlier priceless gem of attempted diversion and redefinition in this thread:
"Yeah, rather than reading scripture Catholics read what some guy read into it?"

Yeah, Yeah, and in keeping with the worship of their own reflection those who pretend they have exhausted the inexhaustible by limiting what Christ and the Apostles taught to those books of the Bible they haven't gotten around to throwing out yet hark bad to the Greek Fatalist poet Virgil. Luther, to support his thesis on predestination, quoted the poet Virgil rather than Scripture, Calvin then quotes Luther, then waves of people building their own personal religion quote Calvin and Luther or one of the hundreds of different interpretations of what those two wrote. Even Giessler and other current theologians are hard at work redefining and quoting Luther and Calvin rather than Scriptures to support their personal religion of Self. It's just like people here who pretend they're not quoting the author of comics, He Who Cannot Be Mentioned. They just quote one of those who have coauthored books with the guy or who re-post the content without attribution and pretend they're unaware of who came up with the total lies they're posting.

If someone who claims they base their belief on Scriptures to a greater extent than does the Catholic Church that individual is someone subject to the teaching magistareum of the Titmouse that lands on their bird bath, not someone who is guided to infallible Truth by whichever spirit they may be listening to. Trust those who begin their study of Scriptures by throwing out seven books of the Old Testament and proceed through the poet Virgil and the man made doctrines of Wycliffe and Luther if you like, but don't call it Scripture, call it the what it really and clearly is, deception by those who worship their own reflection in the mirror. Jesus Christ built His Church on the foundation of His Apostles to be our foundation and bulwark of Faith promising that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. It's funny how when those who claim to rely on Scripture alone come to anything they don't like in the Scripture they suddenly cease to be all that concerned with relying on Scripture rather than their own personal interpretation of Scripture. They immediately begin the favorite hymn of non-Catholic Self worshipers, "That's what it says, but that's not what it means". Clearly, such folks are relying on what someone says about Scripture rather than what Scripture itself says, they're relying on they themselves say about Scripture and how they redefine and reinterpret Scripture to suit what they want Scripture to say in order to satisfy themselves the their desire to worship and praise their own intellect.

Talk about putting what men say about Scriptures ahead of the Scriptures:
Christ says flesh and blood, but those who worship themselves say, "no no, He meant cookies from your Ez Bake Oven and grape juice"
Christ personally renamed one Apostle "Rock" and said He would build His Church on Rock, those who worship themselves say, "no no, that's a fluke in translation of the word "Rock" and Christ didn't rename Peter making it that much more clear what He was saying, He renamed Peter because some Hollywood agent suggested that "Rock" was cool and would help draw a crowd who would pay for hankies
Scriptures say Christ said and did much, much, more that is recorded in the Scriptures, but those who worship themselves say, "no, no, we know the limits of the limitless God and God is limited to what is in the books of the Bible we haven't gotten around to throwing out yet".
The Bible says His Church would be a city on a hill, a light unto the world, but those who worship themselves say, "no, no, His Church is invisible, nothing on a hill that all can see and be drawn to"
The Bible says Salvation is not by faith alone, but those who worship themselves say, "no, no, Faith alone is what the Bible meant to say because Faith is really just self-confidence and self-confidence is completely internal and in no way any sort of work, just a change of attitude, the trusting in your own election, the limiting of all things to your personal understanding"
The Bible doesn't list essential and nonessential doctrines, but those who worship themselves say, "we can disagree with one another on nonessential doctrines but as long as we agree on essential doctrines we can be in fellowship with one another"
The Bible does not contain a list of which books should be in the Bible, but those who worship themselves say, "we like throwing out portions of the Scriptures Christ and the Apostles used because Jews threw them out several hundred years after Christ rose"
Neither Christ or the Apostles anywhere implied that the Septuagint was in any way wrong for containing the books it included, but those who worship themselves say, "no, no, we know better than Christ or the Apostles which books should be in the Old Testament"
The Bible does not say we will live by Scripture alone, but those who worship themselves say, "no, no, we have one verse we reinterpret to mean "Scripture alone" but we're always careful to ignore the portion of that verse that says, "unto every good work" because we know works aren't important"
The Bible says that The Church is the bulwark of the Faith, but those who worship themselves say, "no, no, we are the invisible Church and though we're not infallible, we cannot and never will name anyone who can correct our personal interpretation of Scriptures, which is functionally identical to being infallible, but that doesn't matter because no one will notice that we are really calling ourselves infallible"
The Bible says there is one Truth, but those who worship themselves say, "no, no, all the tens of thousands of different churches are just fine as long as they agree with me on what I consider to be 'essential doctrine'. As long as I don't see too much wrong with their handling snakes or ordaining of queers, we can both be right because all Truth is filtered through the mind of each believer." In other words, they're the real source of the rot in the most Protestant society in history, the claim that truth is in the eyes of the individual interpreter whether that interpreter is Billy Sunday, Reverend Moon, or some guy who listens to the Titmouse on his birdbath.

And on, and on, basing doctrine on what some guy reads into Scripture and then diverting attention from their own personal distortions, rewriting, and elimination of Scriptures by accusing His Church of deception. Exactly like the Serpent who approached Eve, they nudge everyone towards their own personal intellect and away from Christ.

2,845 posted on 12/05/2011 12:10:20 PM PST by Rashputin (Obama stark, raving, mad, and even his security people know it.)

What a joke.

Listing denominations is meaningless. It tells nothing.

Pick a couple verses and expound on the wildly divergent interpretations of said verse by each group.

2,846 posted on 12/05/2011 12:10:52 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)

You asked for examples. You got examples. Listing denominations with wildly differing beliefs is not meaningless, it shows how stupid “reformers” are.

>>>>>>>Pick a couple verses and expound on the wildly divergent interpretations of said verse by each group.

Nope. You can do that yourself.

2,847 posted on 12/05/2011 12:14:36 PM PST by Judith Anne (For rhe sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us, and on the whole world.)

And most of those are on the debate between election and free will. That does not qualify as *wildly divergent*. It’s a disagreement of interpretation on something that is not critical to salvation.

And in either case, both groups agree that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

And even if Calvin believed that Christ suffered in hell, that doesn’t damn him. As long as he’s trusting in Christ alone for his salvation, he’s OK.

2,848 posted on 12/05/2011 12:16:12 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)

Nope. You can do that yourself.

I wasn't the one who made the claim. Why should it be up to me to prove something that I don't believe exists?

Get a grip.

If someone won't support their contention that there are wildly divergent interpretations of Scripture, then it is safe to presume that there are none and the person is just engaging in smear tactics because they have nothing better to offer.

2,849 posted on 12/05/2011 12:19:15 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)

And a hit piece on Calvin by a Catholic, offering his interpretation of what Calvin taught?

Considering the Catholic’s track record on interpreting anything, I’ll pass on that for something from someone more reliable.

And a thread by the now banned and likely retreaded Christian Capitalist? Likewise.......

2,850 posted on 12/05/2011 12:25:17 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)

The contention was made and supported. No one here agreed to your inquisition. You are no authority. Presume whatever you like, people can read what was written for themselves. Presumptuousness is a synonym for arrogance, and that appears to fit your modus.

Now, quick, go ping your posse so they can come help you smooth your ruffled feathers.

2,851 posted on 12/05/2011 12:25:23 PM PST by Judith Anne (For rhe sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us, and on the whole world.)

You can lead a horse to water....

I guess you would feel equally at home in the scriptural interpretation in a Conservative Lutheran Church, a Oneness Pentecostal Church, a Dispensational Church, an Areminian Congregation and a Five Point Calvinist Church.

No differences there for you?

2,852 posted on 12/05/2011 12:33:35 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)

I immediately thought of the horiculture joke...

2,853 posted on 12/05/2011 12:36:22 PM PST by Judith Anne (For rhe sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us, and on the whole world.)

It’s a disagreement of interpretation on something that is not critical to salvation.

The primary differences between Calvinism and nonCalvinism is all about salvation.

2,854 posted on 12/05/2011 12:36:35 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)

2,855 posted on 12/05/2011 12:37:47 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)

Very good. You have kindly illustrated the difference once again between faith and knowledge. Thank you.

Faith that has no foundation is foolishness not faith...

Hmm. Let us find out what faith means:

DICTIONARY
faith
Definition
faith[ fayth ]
NOUN
1. belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof "I wouldn't put my faith in him to straighten things out."
2. religion or religious group: a system of religious belief, or the group of people who adhere to it
3. trust in God: belief in and devotion to God "Her faith is unwavering."
4. set of beliefs: a strongly held set of beliefs or principles "people of different political faiths"
5. loyalty: allegiance or loyalty to somebody or something [ 13th century. Via Old French feid < Latin fides "trust, belief" ]

keep faith with somebody or something to be loyal or true to a person or promise
keep the faith do not despair regardless of what may happen
Keep the faith; we'll get through this.
on faith without demanding proof

Thank you as well for illustrating my point for me. You have been very helpful.

John 20:29 Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.

1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

Excellent. Hope. Not certitude.

I shall end the post with:

1 Corinthians 13:13 And now abides faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Faith and hope, buoyed on love. No limousine ride, no ticket to Heaven.

2,856 posted on 12/05/2011 12:57:19 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)

Where do we find this recipe for salvation?? Here is mine

I, me mine. Salvation is formulaic to the Protestant; it is legalistic and we have just recently found out the Good News that God is legally bound to save those who declare their own salvation.

I see that Paul is once again the Messiah and the One whom Jesus foretold while He was labouring in the wilderness.

2,857 posted on 12/05/2011 1:01:23 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)

To: Judith Anne; metmom

Jehovah’s Witnesses,

Actually I would classify them and Mormons more with Catholics.. they believe you have to do works to be saved or stay saved..

2,858 posted on 12/05/2011 2:04:16 PM PST by RnMomof7

Like you know anything about Catholics,

2,859 posted on 12/05/2011 2:05:56 PM PST by Judith Anne (For rhe sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us, and on the whole world.)

And most of those are on the debate between election and free will. That does not qualify as *wildly divergent*. It’s a disagreement of interpretation on something that is not critical to salvation.

Nah, free will and salvation, tis tiny thing. not at all reflecting major differences soteriology that are both interpreting the same Scripture.

2,860 posted on 12/05/2011 2:09:42 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794