Why Does The Shroud of Turin Still Exist?

Townhall.com ^ | July 28, 2019 | Myrah Kahn Adams

[Elsie]

Why does he use a female name?

That's easy; so some folks can try to pull my chain by making snide, off hand remarks about someone's sexuality that is a male, going by a female name.

[Elsie]

So, to answer a prior post of Elsie’s: you need not fear that I will become a Protestant, for I do not reject proper and legitimate ecclesial authority.

But how do mere pew warmers get the powers that be, to ELECT a proper and legitimate ecclesial authority?

[GingisK]

I’m Sue. How do you do?

[Elsie]

That’s where you’re incorrect. Upon becoming a sedevacantist, I ceased attending the parishes in union with the Vatican II sect and began attending a congregation administrated by a sedevacantist apostolate called CMRI.

DAMN!

More Catholic 'unity' out the window!

[Elsie]

Psst…

Ask him(?) why he(?) uses a name that alludes to a thousand year old Mongolian conqueror?

[Elsie]

To: All

This thread contains an abundance of vivid reminders...

Perhaps you should make a list of them; since none of us have a CLUE as to what triggers you so.

[GingisK]

My wife assigned this moniker, given my manners and methods.

[mrobisr]

“source, please.”
Prove it wrong...

[Elsie]

See what that Johnny Cash did to our society today!!

LBQTWZVY all over the place!

Now some 'transgender women' (AKA men) want to keep their petition to change their MALE names to FEMALE ones kept secret.

"We're AFRAID!!!", they cried to the court.

---

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/local/2019/07/22/indiana-appeals-court-sides-trans-women-public-name-changes/1558882001/

[Elsie]

Good enough reason.

My daughter was an ELSIE long before I needed a screen name moniker.

[Hebrews 11:6]

Not a mystery-lover, then.

[mrobisr]

“Did you ever bother to look up what St. Paul was dealing with when writing Galatians 1, btw?”

You ever read about the Church in Thyatira?

[Hebrews 11:6]

I’m not challenging it, I’m appreciating it. Have you no sourcing, then?

[metmom]

“Did you ever bother to look up what St. Paul was dealing with when writing Galatians 1, btw?”

Catholicism?????

Because Galatians so beautifully addresses the errors in it.

[mrobisr]

“Rev. Bud’s Down-Home”

Funny you say “down home” when Jesus Christ, His apostles, His disciples, and His first Churches were all gathered in houses for service and worship.

[mrobisr]

“the Law was our Schoolmaster to lead us to Christ. So it wasn’t the Gospel, the Good News *of* Christ.”

So it led us to Christ, but that isn’t the Gospel. I always thought that Scripture that leads us to accept Jesus Christ and be born again was the good news, but as usual you rcc’s don’t know what it means to be led to Christ.

“For another, when Paul wrote Galatians, he CANNOT have been speaking of Revelations, since John hadn’t written it yet.”

You go pharisee, but Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit of God and guess what He already knew the book of Revelation. I don’t care if Paul knew what he was writing all the matters is that he dictated it as the Holy Spirit of God led him.

[grey_whiskers]

I don't recall the Catholic church demanding circumcision before admittance into the Church; nor yet again, I don't see anything in Galatians about the Rosary.

Your sarcasm missed.

[grey_whiskers]

You go pharisee, but Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit of God and guess what He already knew the book of Revelation.

He did, but Paul's readers at the time, didn't.

I always thought that Scripture that leads us to accept Jesus Christ and be born again was the good news, but as usual you rcc’s don’t know what it means to be led to Christ.

The Holy Spirit works in many different ways. Not all of them can be shoehorned into sola scriptura. While I agree Scripture contains (implicitly at least){*} all the elements doctrinally necessary for salvation (in the "part of this nutritionally complete breakfast" sense, as it were), I disagree with the more...hmm, rigid, Phariseeical, snotass interpretation that anything not explicitly mentioned in Scripture, is AUTOMATICALLY "required" to be of the Enemy.

I gotta be somewhat careful in saying that, since people on these threads seem to anxious to jump the gun in inventing malicious backstories and motivations.

That is, there are any number of Catholics (monks, priests, saints) who (as far as I know) didn't explicitly come to an altar call after hearing the Four Spiritual Laws; and yet over time developed a very close, intimate daily-and-hourly devotion to Jesus; and who subjected themselves to the correction of other believers.

E.g. one of the Catholic, not quite relics, I can't think of a word which won't be seized upon and mocked off the top of my head, but tracts/pamphlets/revelations/devotional aids, is something I didn't think ANY Christian of ANY stripe would find exception to:

The Divine Mercy Chaplet.

But I wouldn't be at ALL surprised, if some "dratted Prottie" didnt get their panties all in a wad, because it isn't recorded that the Nun involved didn't have a "born again" experience.

And within other Evangelical / Fundamentalist circles, one finds reports from the Missionary field, of things like Jesus appearing directly to Muslims, and their converting. Or one of the Fundamentalist preachers, Smith Wigglesworth, traveling on a train, not saying a word; and people would come up to him out of the blue, saying, "Sir, who *are* you? You convict me of sin." You know, without having had to read a tract from the Baptist Bible Society. You get the idea.

("Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.") Well, yeah, it can, and does; but there are people who have heard the Scriptures all their life who don't really believe, and there are people who are followers of Jesus when the Scriptures aren't the thing that led to their conversion. So I think the doctrinal insistence that "God ONLY works this way, cuz my denomination TOLD me so" is wrong. I conclude that that statement is a general truism, not an unshakeable, core-level element of the Christian faith on the level of say, the Resurrection.

I think the important thing...well there are several; even as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14, there are a variety of gifts, but the same Lord.

But as far as these threads are concerned, I suspect it would be far better for people to pray for one another even across denominational lines.

{*} You don't find a specific encapsulation of the Trinity verbatim in Scripture; you gotta dig it out of (say) Jesus getting baptised by John the Baptist. And I don't hear even the most fire-breathing fundamentalists getting all bent out of shape over the various creeds; even though they are not recited in Scripture.

[imardmd1]

Thank you for your reply. I cannot answer it right now, but I do have a response in mind and will write it out soon. I will assume that time is not of the essence on this project.

[grey_whiskers]

Funny you say “down home” when Jesus Christ, His apostles, His disciples, and His first Churches were all gathered in houses for service and worship.

The way I meant it, it's a Southern thing.

(Various Orthodox Christians might similarly feel out of place at various "gospel missions.")

And speaking of Southern...

Go find a forum supportive of that "Your Best Life Now" dude at Lakewood Church down in Te-hey-ex-as, and complain at him for not following biblical practice, like enjoying fancy clothes and the adulation of others and meeting in a big fancy building, ok?

Otherwise, your complaints look like a mere pretext for something else.

See the question is twofold.

Is the gathering of Christians in homes, necessarily "God's preference" ? Or is it that the early Christians ran the risk of early-season games against the Lions (Lions 1 Christians 0 as the old joke goes) if they tried to meet as Christians in public?

And, did the formalization of Christianity as the official religion later, allow many more to become Christians, so it was good, or did it allow too many to be lukewarm and to pretend, so it was bad?