What Is The Brown Scapular

Eternal Life Blog ^ | August 29,2014 | Eternal life

[RnMomof7]

Millions of sincere Catholics wear the brown scapular thinking by doing so it will help them spiritually. They believed the report that Mary made and is backing a salvation promise in connection with the brown scapular hundreds of years ago based on their religious traditions. Over the years wearing the brown scapular has been perpetuated by sincere Catholic leaders, such as the one in this video, but it is in complete futility that it is worn. It is a false hope and a spiritual snare. It is not based on God’s truth and is, therefore, just as deadly for the sincere Catholic as it is for the Hindu who bathes in the Ganges River thinking his sins will be washed away in the water or for the Muslim who kisses the black stone of Kaaba to be forgiven! [The picture to the right is Mel Gibson, the director of the Passion of Christ, wearing a brown scapular as he smokes.]

I too once wore the brown scapular as an Ex Roman Catholic. I know what it is like to be taught something and accept it as truth to find out later it is not only unscriptural, but anti-scriptural. It hurts, but TRUTH is what we must stand on to be safe. It takes humility in such cases to turn.

NOTE: At about 2:23 time-wise into the video, the speaker is quoted below. How could anyone deny that Mary is deified in Catholicism? Surely, this rampant idolatry is grieving to the Lord Jesus Christ and God the Father. This is what Catholicism teaches about the brown scapular:

Brown Scapular Catholic Propaganda

And so, wearing of the brown scapular reminds us, should remind us, of three things. First, that we are children of Mary. Second of all, that we need to work for our Lady. And finally, it should be a garment of humility and penance. First, by the brown scapular we profess ourselves to be children of Mary. The scapular of our Lady is a badge or a uniform so to speak by which we profess to whom we belong and who we serve. Likewise, our Lady in turn by wearing the brown scapular, she recognizes us as her children, as her special children. And because of that, she consequently protects us and watches over us. The brown scapular should also remind us that we need to work for our Lady because the scapular, which means shoulder garment, was originally that, it was a garment worn by religious in order to protect their habit, their religious habit that they wore on a daily basis during those periods of work to keep it from getting dirty, stained, from ripping, etc. and so therefore the scapular is a working garb. And so this should remind us that there’s no room for lazy piety. If we wear the brown scapular and we consider ourselves our Lady’s children, there’s no place for lazy piety but rather we should fill our lives with good works. This brown scapular should remind us the need to faithfully fulfill our daily duties, and to make another adaptation of Scripture, to labor as good soldiers of the Immaculate. Finally, the third place, the brown scapular is also a garment of humility and of penance. So in a spirit of penance, we should accept all the difficulties of our state of life and all the sufferings that our Lady may want to send us. And the scapular will give us the strength to do this. In all of our difficulties, we can always grab onto our brown scapular, remind ourselves of our Lady’s protection, her watchfulness, her presence and especially at the moment of death, when we can call to mind our Lady’s promise of salvation. Our Lady of Mount Carmel, pray for us.

* Not a single word about Jesus was mentioned there.
* The brown scapular is 100% religious mythology and idolatry, as Mary is deified as a type of Savior.
* No Bible light shines from such brown scapular Catholic tradition.

[Elsie]

Ain't noneya gots the Inspired Version on yer electronic toy!!

--MormonDude(When would be a good time for...)

[BeauBo]

You are very considerate and thoughtful, which engenders my respect and affection.

Nonetheless, I really want to back out of this conversation. My fear is that by criticizing the basis of the behavior I found objectionable, I could end up undermining someone else’s faith. I am not a professional, and have no authority to speak for any Church.

You can’t keep a Church together, without a common basis of understanding, so there pretty much has to be some agreed upon dogmas or fundamental beliefs. Having a Church accomplishes so much in helping people, that they need to be preserved.

But ultimately, our limitations can’t encompass everything, and earthly Churches or dogmas are limited tools. When you lock in some fundamental dogmas, there will be some inevitable unintended interpretations and conflicts from that. People will understand things differently, despite the best intentions.

You say that the Eucharist is a metaphor, but that Jesus saying that he is the only path to God is literal. These are human opinions about the divine. By adopting these interpretations and attributing them to be absolute, you can build a certain set of conclusions, to structure a particular kind of Church. If that Church helps people to be better, great. If I undermine someone’s faith in one of these fundamental assumptions, I fear that it might do more harm than whatever good.

As you point out, faith is what brings the message into the real lives of people. I don’t want to attack someone’s Christian Faith, in a way that is a disservice to them. The standard which you seem to propose for determining when this would be appropriate, is when it varies from one of your fundamental assumptions - heresy, essentially. The standard that I propose is to assess the effects on moral behavior and spiritual fruits like patience, forgiveness, kindness, and so on.

As long as someone’s interpretation is comforting or helpful to them, and they are not being immoral as a result of it, I am going to leave them the benefit of the doubt. For example, I really admire the righteousness of the Mormons that I have worked with (I love me some Mormons, in fact), even though I find little doctrinal agreement. My own understanding may change by next year. The Lord works in mysterious ways, as the saying goes.

So even within my own Church, I don’t throw down the gauntlet any time something doesn’t seem to make perfect sense to me, as I believe that they are basically trying to do the right thing - I just carry over a set unresolved issues for future study.

So my argument is not “If it hurts, leave it alone”, but rather, “Don’t get so carried away with ideological certainty, that you become harsh to good people”. You are not harsh, but others were. In describing the the role of Marian practices to soothe pain and fear among those suffering, I was trying to highlight or inform how some of this missionary zeal could be perceived by the audience, not that they should be immune from analysis. Included in such analysis should be the tangible comfort provided to untold millions of suffering people.

I’ll throw in some added mystical commentary, at no extra charge:

The practice of Communion is a mystical practice, which is the main point of the Catholic Mass. Whole Religious Orders have existed for centuries, focused on contemplation and prayer, to draw closer to God in actual experience. In my experience, it is such mystical practices which have moved me most deeply. Perhaps that is just my bent. I personally have no direct experience with the brown scapula, but my experience with the Eucharist has been profound for me.

From a mystical interpretation, the Eucharist, or sayings like “I am the way” “None come to the Father, except through me” can be understood as guidance toward the experience of communion.

It is my observation that many Evangelicals also engage in mystical practice, interpreted as the Holy Spirit, despite ideological objection to words or forms associated with the Eucharist. For me, the experience is kind of outside of the realm of words and concepts.

Anyhow, even though it has been a pleasure chatting with you, it takes a lot of time (I am a slow writer), and I need to get back to work and get some exercise. So please forgive me if I stop posting on this thread, it is not intended to be rude to you. I do feel better about Evangelicals/Fundamentalists after your considerate attention, so I offer a prayer for your health and happiness, and that of your family.

[CynicalBear]

>>Modern Christianity has lost virtually all the knowledge that was had by the original Christians.<<

Isaiah 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Psalm 33:11 The counsel of the Lord standeth forever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.

Ps 119:89-90 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: thou hast established the earth, and it abideth.

Yet you claim God wasn't able to keep His promise to all generations? Nothing personal but I'm going to take His word over yours.

>>I mean realistically, you don't really use the Bible. You use one verse from it.<<

I mean, realistically, I use all of it. So don't tell me what I use and what I don't use. K?

>>So why don't you condense it down to an index card. All it would say is, "Just believe and you're saved." That's it.<<

Acts 16:30 and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31 They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

You might want to save that snark and speak with Paul about that nonsense you seem to think he told the jailer.

[Faith Presses On]

I couldn’t get back to you on this sooner, and no offense to you, either, but it is not right to tell someone not to post to you and at the same time make an argument you know they disagree with, as you do here. That’s trying to have your cake and eat it too. I don’t agree with your assessment of the system, as you’re aware. What I see happening is many Catholics trying to stop legitimate criticism of their church. So if you don’t want to discuss it, then you shouldn’t discuss it by asserting your own view and then saying a response isn’t welcome. You could say that we disagree about things, but you don’t want to discuss them, so please don’t ping you. That is a way to still express disagreement without getting into debate.

[Elsie]

"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"

---

 

 

 

"He (Joseph Smith) is the man through whom God has spoken... yet I would not like to call him a savior, though in a certain capacity he was a god to us, and is to the nations of the earth, and will continue to be."

- Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 8:321

 

 

 

 

"You call us fools; but the day will be, gentlemen and ladies, whether you belong to this Church or not, when you will prize brother Joseph Smith as the Prophet of the Living God, and look upon him as a god..."

- Herber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses 5:88

 

 

 

 

"If we get our salvation, we shall have to pass by him [Joseph Smith]; if we enter our glory, it will be through the authority he has received. We cannot get around him [Joseph Smith]"

- (as quoted in 1988 Melchizedek Priesthood Study Guide, p. 142)

There is "no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith. If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth...no man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God"

- Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p.190

 

 

 

 

"I tell you, Joseph holds the keys, and none of us can get into the celestial kingdom without passing by him. We have not got rid of him, but he stands there as the sentinel, holding the keys of the kingdom of God; and there are many of them beside him. I tell you, if we get past those who have mingled with us, and know us best, and have a right to know us best, probably we can pass all other sentinels as far as it is necessary, or as far as we may desire. But I tell you, the pinch will be with those that have mingled with us, stood next to us, weighed our spirits, tried us, and proven us: there will be a pinch, in my view, to get past them. The others, perhaps, will say, If brother Joseph is satisfied with you, you may pass. If it is all right with him, it is all right with me. Then if Joseph shall say to a man, or if brother Brigham say to a man, I forgive you your sins, "Whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them;" if you who have suffered and felt the weight of transgression—if you have generosity enough to forgive the sinner, I will forgive him: you cannot have more generosity than I have. I have given you power to forgive sins, and when the Lord gives a gift, he does not take it back again."

- Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.154-155

 

 

 

 

"It is because the Lord called Joseph Smith that salvation is again available to mortal men.... If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation,"

- Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 396, 670

---

---

They succeeded in killing Joseph, but he had finished his work.

He was a servant of God, and gave us the Book of Mormon.

He said the Bible was right in the main, but, through the translators and others, many precious portions were suppressed, and several other portions were wrongly translated; and now his testimony is in force, for he has sealed it with his blood.

As I have frequently told them, no man in this dispensation will enter the courts of heaven, without the approbation of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Jun.

Who has made this so?

Have I?

Have this people?

Have the world?

No; but the Lord Jehovah has decreed it.

If I ever pass into the heavenly courts, it will be by the consent of the Prophet Joseph.

If you ever pass through the gates into the Holy City, you will do so upon his certificate that you are worthy to pass.

Can you pass without his inspection?

No; neither can any person in this dispensation, which is the dispensation of the fulness of times.

In this generation, and in all the generations that are to come, everyone will have to undergo the scrutiny of this Prophet.

They say that they killed Joseph, and they will yet come with their hats under their arms and bend to him; but what good will it do them, unless they repent?

They can come in a certain way and find favor, but will they?

Brigham Young,

--JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, vol. 8, p. 224

[CynicalBear]

I have no idea why you posted something about Mormons to me.

[Elsie]

Simple!

Read the first line!

[StormPrepper]

Yet you claim God wasn't able to keep His promise to all generations?

Is that's your conclusion of why God had to destroy everything with the flood as well?

Your conclusion doesn't allow for the most important rule God has ever given; free agency. Man is free to choose for himself good or evil.

God does not change, that is true. However, man does change.

God is there in all generations, true. But you can't conclude that man will always choose God in every generation. Hence, the flood.

Why did God have to destroy Sodom? ... He destroyed Sodom because the people had gotten themselves in to a place where they could never have repented. All they were doing was piling sins on themselves and would have caused all future generations to be lost as well. It was actually a mercy that he destroyed them.

When God was about to destroy Nineveh, He sent the prophet Jonah to give them the message and gave them the choice of repenting or not. He was there in all their generations, but it was up to them to choose Him. He doesn't force change on people. That would be against His rule of free agency.

You quote Acts 16:
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.

In the days that quote was originally written, it was understood that to believe in Jesus meant to also meant to go through the steps needed to join their Church, follow their teachings, and follow the commandments that they gave you. It didn't mean to just sit there and believe.

Were you expecting them to give the full list of expectations every time someone asked that question? That's not realistic.

I mean, realistically, I use all of it. So don't tell me what I use and what I don't use. K?

I know exactly what you use and what you don't. Because it's always the same for people that claim all you have to do is believe. They quote the same stuff. People who believe like you, for instance, never quote the book of James.

[CynicalBear]

>>Is that's your conclusion of why God had to destroy everything with the flood as well?<<

Noah and his family were of that generation and they didn't perish. And they did indeed have His word.

>>Your conclusion doesn't allow for the most important rule God has ever given; free agency. Man is free to choose for himself good or evil.<<

How does that stop God from making His word available to all generations?

>>God is there in all generations, true. But you can't conclude that man will always choose God in every generation. Hence, the flood.<<

Um......NOAH AND HIS FAMILY!!!

>>Why did God have to destroy Sodom? ... He destroyed Sodom because the people had gotten themselves in to a place where they could never have repented.<<

Good grief! Do you think before you post? Lot and his daughters were not destroyed. Neither was the rest of the world destroyed.

>>In the days that quote was originally written, it was understood that to believe in Jesus meant to also meant to go through the steps needed to join their Church, follow their teachings, and follow the commandments that they gave you.<<

Oh really? The jailer knew all that? He had to ask "what must I do to be saved" but automatically knew all the rest?

>>Were you expecting them to give the full list of expectations every time someone asked that question? That's not realistic.<<

So they only tell them a little bit but they aren't saved yet? At what point did you think they would be saved? So Paul was really only telling a half truth?

>>People who believe like you, for instance, never quote the book of James.<<

Are you just trying to be a presumptive boob? It's "people like me" who understand that upon believing the influence of the Holy Spirit inspires the kind of change and actions that cause a person to change. "Just sit there and believe"? No one who has experienced the indwelling of the Holy Spirit would even think to make a statement like that.

The carnal understanding you exhibit would cause me to stay as far away from your religion as possible and declare it false.

[StormPrepper]

Noah and his family were of that generation and they didn't perish. And they did indeed have His word.

Because Noah chose to follow God. God didn't force Him.

How does that stop God from making His word available to all generations?

Because doctrine has always been delivered by the mouth of the prophets. They wrote down prophesies and messages as the Lord directed them, but as John explicitly said, they delivered their direction orally.

Moses is another example. Where was the word of God until Moses went to the Lord and received it and brought it to the people?

Amos 8
11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:

12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.

Amos is prophesying after the death of Jesus that the word of the Lord would be found on the earth. People will look all over for it, but won't find it. Writing have always been with us, but the real word comes from the prophets.

Good grief! Do you think before you post? Lot and his daughters were not destroyed. Neither was the rest of the world destroyed.

Abraham was the prophet at Sodom. Lot chose to believe Abraham's words. Cities were the hubs where people were congregated back then. Their culture was central to the city. To them the world was their city.

The point is, God didn't intervene on their behalf. He left them to the consequence of their choices. He gave them every opportunity to repent and then they suffered the consequence... mainly as I said before to save future generations.

Oh really? The jailer knew all that? He had to ask "what must I do to be saved" but automatically knew all the rest?

The jailor was given an invitation to believe. It was up to him to take the next step and seek after further knowledge.

Jesus also told everyone they had to be Baptized. He sent the Apostles out into the world to Baptize everyone that would agree to believe on Him.

That by itself invalidates your belief in a "believe only" doctrine.

So they only tell them a little bit but they aren't saved yet? At what point did you think they would be saved? So Paul was really only telling a half truth?

The Bible isn't a novel that has a self contained world of imagination. The writers were conveying ideas, concepts, and some of events they witnessed.

No they weren't saved spiritually. There are two different salvations. The physical and the spiritual. Physical salvation or resurrection is a free gift that every person born on this earth. This is possible because Jesus was resurrected which allows everyone to also be resurrected.

The spiritual salvation is something completely different. It's a journey and not an instant event. Jesus called it a path. Believing He is the savior and being baptized by proper authority is the entrance to that path. He also said only a few would actually find that path.

Are you just trying to be a presumptive boob?

Part of actually being saved at the last day has to do with learning to have the heart and mind of Christ. I'm guessing by your name calling, you're not quite there yet. I forgive you.

It's "people like me" who understand that upon believing the influence of the Holy Spirit inspires the kind of change and actions that cause a person to change. "Just sit there and believe"? No one who has experienced the indwelling of the Holy Spirit would even think to make a statement like that.

The irony. You insult me then talk about your "indwelling" of the Holy Spirit. Right....

Matthew 15:8
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

The carnal understanding you exhibit would cause me to stay as far away from your religion as possible and declare it false.

Again, irony. There are no mean people in heaven, because mean people aren't allowed into heaven. But yet you think you're already saved...

[CynicalBear]

>>Because Noah chose to follow God. God didn't force Him.<<

Why change the subject which was whether God made His word available to all generations. Noah had God's word available to him.

>>Amos is prophesying after the death of Jesus that the word of the Lord would be found on the earth.<<

Who told you that? God was talking to the Israelites. You can't take verses out of context. You ignored the previous verses especially verse 2.

Amos 8:2 “What do you see, Amos?” he asked. “A basket of ripe fruit,” I answered. Then the Lord said to me, “The time is ripe for my people Israel; I will spare them no longer.

That doesn't include the New Testament ekklesia of Christ. God's word has been available to the ekklesia in ALL generations.

>>The point is, God didn't intervene on their behalf.<<

NO, the point is "was God's word available to them". And that answer to that is YES it was.

>>That by itself invalidates your belief in a "believe only" doctrine.<<

No, it doesn't. Do you totally not understand the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and it's affects?

>>Again, irony. There are no mean people in heaven<<

Matthew 23:33 "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?

In your estimation was Jesus being mean?

[StormPrepper]

"Why change the subject which was whether God made His word available to all generations. Noah had God's word available to him."

That's not changing the subject. You claimed that God's word is available to all people at all times. My point is that man can reject that word and make it unavailable by their actions to not only themselves but future generations.

"Who told you that? God was talking to the Israelites. You can't take verses out of context."

All prophets have one task that is universal among them all; testify of the coming Messiah. Either His first or second coming. When ever the prophet says "only son" he's referring to Jesus.

Amos is seeing a vision of the destruction of Israel. And the death of Christ. The mourning of an only son and the sun going down at noon day is reference to the crucifixion.

12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.

In verse 12, Amos makes it clear that the word of God (according to God's standard) is not to be found. And remember "Israel" also refers to the people of God not just the Jews.

But there have always been the writings of the prophets, but not living prophets. And that's the famine he's referring to.

By your standard, Amos 8 could never have been fulfilled. Because by your standard, the word of God is only the scriptures. But the world has never been with out them ever.

"No, it doesn't. Do you totally not understand the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and it's affects?"

I know you have confuse the influence of the Holy Ghost that testifies of truth to the whole world and the Gift of Holy Ghost which is given by the laying on of hands by those authorized by God to give it.

The Holy Ghost gives a good feeling. What you don't realize is that it's only the tip of the iceberg of what God has provided.

The problem is that people link that feeling they get when the Holy Ghost testifies of Jesus, with all their false doctrines and wrong conclusions. Then they feel validated not realizing they are actually on the wrong path.

In your estimation was Jesus being mean?

Don't try to draw a moral equivalence between your insults and the Lord's righteous judgement. Last I checked, it was His right to judge all mankind.

I noticed you skipped the example of Moses so I'll restate it in case you missed it.

The word of God wasn't available to the Israelites until Moses visited with God and brought the word to the people. Which totally invalidates your whole point. The word of God was not on the earth until God raised up Moses and gave the word to Moses to give to the people.

So it wasn't available in all generations like you said.

[CynicalBear]

>>You claimed that God's word is available to all people at all times.<<

I said WHAT? Do you generally read into statements meaning that isn't there? I said not such thing. I said "to all generations". That may not include all people withing each generation so it's NOT "all people at all times".

>>And remember "Israel" also refers to the people of God not just the Jews.<<

No, it doesn't. Israel is Israel and has NOT been superseded by some other group.

>>By your standard, Amos 8 could never have been fulfilled.<<

Don't be absurd. Amos 8 was fulfilled when Jesus was rejected by the Jews. They have been "hardened in part" and don't see God's word just as Amos prophesied.

Romans 11:25 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery-- so that you will not be wise in your own estimation-- that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;

>>The word of God was not on the earth until God raised up Moses and gave the word to Moses to give to the people.<<

When was it that God said His word would be to all generations? Before or after He gave His word to Moses and told him to write it down?

>>So it wasn't available in all generations like you said.<<

It wasn't me who said it.

Isaiah 59:21 "As for me this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not pass out of the thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed saith the Lord, from henceforth and forever."

Now, do you think God can keep His promise? Or are you going to try to twist even His words as you did mine?

[StormPrepper]

No, it doesn't. Israel is Israel and has NOT been superseded by some other group.

Romans 11:11-24 says otherwise.

I said "to all generations". That may not include all people withing each generation so it's NOT "all people at all times".

Well that's about a convenient and meaningless a statement as I've seen. The Israelites were in bondage for 400 years and did not have the word of God. Just how long are your generations?

Don't be absurd. Amos 8 was fulfilled when Jesus was rejected by the Jews. They have been "hardened in part" and don't see God's word just as Amos prophesied.

Honestly that made me laugh. I've seen some gymnastics with the wording before, but that's a new low.

The Jews were not seeking the Gospel after Jesus' death. Again your theorycraft does not match up to real world history or situations.

Amos was specific. People would be seeking all over the world for the word of God and can not find it. He says it's a famine. Meaning it's not there. Just like food or water. A famine doesn't mean the food is there but it's hidden...it never grew.

Famines end. The Jews aren't in a famine, they will reject Jesus until the very last. And again, they aren't seeking anything and never have.

Your analogy doesn't fit the real world and can't possibly be true.

The only people after Jesus that were seeking the word of God, who were grafted into to Israel and therefore apart of Israel are the Christians.

Now, do you think God can keep His promise? Or are you going to try to twist even His words as you did mine?

God always keeps His promises, I've never said otherwise. But men don't. I have in the passed referred to what you're doing as "The Evangelical Wash Cycle".

It's an amazing phenomenon. I've watched people do it for years. They get to these black holes that should raise a red flag....but NOPE! They just spin it in the wash cycle and they get something like "When was it that God said His word would be to all generations?" an appeal to the time line.

The hallmark of the wash cycle is how the user twists and mangles the scripture so that it doesn't point at them. Notice how you stated that Amos 8 is NOT talking about you...because?

The very best use of the appeal to time line was a couple years ago on this very forum. I pointed out that Abraham, whom God said was perfect, had at least two wives. In comes the EWC and the poster said to me "God hadn't told Abraham not to commit adultery yet!" VIOLA!! Instant fix.

God just hadn't told Abraham not to do it yet... wow....just wow.

I point out the many verses about being judged for your works. EWC!! spin spin spin.... out comes "Believers aren't judged only the sinners." VIOLA!!! It can't be pointed at you because....you're not getting judged, other people are, but not you.

Funny thing is, all of your responses and theirs, make no sense in real world application. None. They don't fit together with any other scriptures or just common sense.

But it helps you talk yourself into believing it and repeat it with a straight face.

[CynicalBear]

>>Romans 11:11-24 says otherwise.<<

Romans 11 says no such thing. Israel is not the root and Gentiles did NOT replace branches or become part of the original branches. We have become part of Christ NOT part of Israel. God is not finished with political Israel. He is currently bringing them back to the land of promise and will deal with them during the last seven years of the 490 years promised them in Daniel's prophecies.

>>Well that's about a convenient and meaningless a statement as I've seen.<<

That doesn't surprise me. Thinking that all generations means every person in every generation would cause some confusion for sure.

>>The Israelites were in bondage for 400 years and did not have the word of God.<<

Didn't have God's word? Prove it.

>>The Jews were not seeking the Gospel after Jesus' death.<<

Were/are the Jews still looking for their Messiah or not?

>>The Jews aren't in a famine, they will reject Jesus until the very last.<<

Romans 11:26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."

>>And again, they aren't seeking anything and never have.<<

Romans 11:7 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;

Did you even read the entire chapter cherry picked verses from?

>>who were grafted into to Israel and therefore apart of Israel are the Christians.<<

Gentiles aren't grafted into Israel. Israel is a branch NOT the tree. Christ is the root, the tree is faithful believers whether Jew or Gentile. The Gentile branches have been grafted in and the Israelites will once again be grafted back in during the time of Jacobs trouble aka the tribulation.

>>I have in the passed referred to<<

You can make up whatever story you want and refer to it but it ain't scripture so means nothing to me.

[StormPrepper]

>The Israelites were in bondage for 400 years and did not have the word of God.<<

Didn't have God's word? Prove it.

I'm not doing your homework for you. Prove they did.

Lev 17
7 And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils, after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations.

What portion of God's word taught them to sacrifice to devils?

Romans 11:7 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;

Did you even read the entire chapter cherry picked verses from?

You go and find a verse with the word "seeking" in it and then claim I'm cherry picking. lol

Gentiles aren't grafted into Israel. Israel is a branch NOT the tree.

Wrong. Go argue with the rest of Christianity. Google these words: "gentiles grafted into Israel". You should go spread your special kind of cheer to the rest of the evangelical community...because they disagree with you.

In case you find that unappealing, here's some links:

Gentiles grafted
Grafted
Grafted in
Gentiles grafted in

There are literally hundreds of resources among the trinitarians that disagree with you. Oh, but I doubt you're alone in your belief. I'm sure there's a healthy number that would help you battle those other Christians that read the Bible and came up with something completely different.

This is a perfect example of what Paul discussed in Ephesians 4.

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Christ gave apostles and prophets so the true Church would have unity of the faith and not be deceived by all the different doctrines that are false.

Some will argue there won't be anymore prophets, some will baptize babies, others will say priests shouldn't marry, some will say we shouldn't eat meat, some will say there isn't a church, some will say the gentiles aren't grafted into Israel, on and on....

2 Timothy 3:13
But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

You can make up whatever story you want and refer to it but it ain't scripture so means nothing to me.

And that's just what the Pharisees said to Jesus.

Rev 11 poses a real dilemma for you huh? Before the second coming of Christ two real prophets that have stood before God. They are going to prophesy and do what prophets do, which is correct false doctrine and relay instructions from God to the people.

The moment they contradict you, you will call them false prophets, won't you?

I mean you have all the "Word of God" you're willing to accept and you reject all others, right?

If you reject a true prophet you reject the God who sent him. So says Jesus Christ. And you can't get around this eternal law.

Wow, Rev 11 is like a ticking time bomb for you huh?

[CynicalBear]

>>I'm not doing your homework for you. Prove they did.<<

You made a statement and when asked can't back it up with evidence? LOL!

>>Wrong. Go argue with the rest of Christianity.<<

So Israel is the cut off branches and the tree? Seriously? And that makes sense to you? Oh, and if you want long term beliefs why are you not Catholic? They've got it all over you Mormons and they even include beliefs and practices that go all the way back to Babylon.

>>Rev 11 poses a real dilemma for you huh?<<

Absolutely not! The Jews are currently planning the building of the new Temple and have most of the furnishings finished. The two witnesses will indeed prophesy the first half of the seven years God will again be dealing with the nation of Israel after which the patriarchs of Israel and the apostles will indeed rule with Christ. Oh foolish Mormons who think they will replace the truth of scripture with a lie.

Your presumptions are staggering.

[StormPrepper]

>>Wrong. Go argue with the rest of Christianity.<<

So Israel is the cut off branches and the tree? Seriously? And that makes sense to you? Oh, and if you want long term beliefs why are you not Catholic? They've got it all over you Mormons and they even include beliefs and practices that go all the way back to Babylon.

So the rest of Christianity has got it all wrong and you alone know the truth? That about right?

Absolutely not! The Jews are currently planning the building of the new Temple and have most of the furnishings finished. The two witnesses will indeed prophesy the first half of the seven years God will again be dealing with the nation of Israel after which the patriarchs of Israel and the apostles will indeed rule with Christ.

You and your theorycraft.

These aren't prophets to just Israel, they are prophets to the world.

Like I said before, spin it so the scripture can never point at you. The EWC in action. Every conclusion you come to points away from you. How convenient. And you call others foolish...

Let me tell you what "foolish" is... Foolish is saying the Bible is the only "Word of God" and claiming the Bible to be the final authority. To claim the Bible is complete and God breathed....Then...in the same breath acknowledge two prophets are coming from God and will prophecy.

The Bible can't be the final authority if there are two prophets coming from the presence of God to prophesy. They by your own admission are the final authority.

There words are come directly from the presence of God and by their very nature are scripture. There goes the "Bible is complete theory".

Your two positions are self contradictory.

Do you get it yet? These two prophets are bringing additional words...from God....and you have already rejected that entire scenario as even being possible.

Go ahead, put it in the EWC and show me how that doesn't apply to you.

[CynicalBear]

>>These two prophets are bringing additional words...from God<<

Please show your proof that they are bringing "additional words from God".

[StormPrepper]

The burden of proof is on you. You made a positive claim that all prophets have this visionary experience, and it is your job to back up the claim from the evidence.

Just FYI...

Num 12
6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?