Posted on 07/17/2017 8:08:32 AM PDT by ebb tide
“Francis is more interested in leftwing politics than in Catholic theology”, George Neumayr, contributing editor of The American Spectator, states talking to Tom Woods on July 14th on tomwoods.com. Woods describes Francis as a result of John Paul II who - as he puts it - appointed "absolutely terrible people" as bishops: "Catholics have suffered under Bergoglios for decades now”.
Neumayr agrees that a lot of the liberal bishops were appointed by John Paul II and Benedict XVI. He sees Francis as the “culmination of a century” of liberalism and modernism in the Church.
For him it is "highly unlikely" that Francis, who in his theology is “more a Protestant than a Catholic” will convert to Catholicism. Instead, the realistic scenario is that Francis will produce division and chaos, "Catholics will have to decide whether they guard the faith over papolatry.”
And: “The Cardinals have to declare that Francis is a bad pope who must be resisted.”
Because even the demons believe and tremble.
Read John 13-17.
Yes, and the NOT eating of blood is ONE of the four things the Holy spirit reiterated for Gentile believers.
The the cultic religion you follow is shown to be a fake by the fact that its followers CANNOT keep the Torah either as there is no anointed priesthood and no consecrated Temple at which to offer the appropriate sacrifices required by the Torah.
None of the sabbaths or high holy days can be kept as they ought for the same reason, therefore by your own words and demands that you keep the Torah, you condemn yourself.
Baloney.
Galatians 2:11-14 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
1 Corinthians 9:19-23 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.
To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.
Why?
You always fail to support any of your claims using Scripture.
Why?
Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.
1 Corinthians 3:16-17 Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
The believer already has Christ living in them. They don't need to eat Jesus to have that happen.
Physical eating does not make spiritual reality happen.
My main beef with the Roman Catholic view is the insistence that ALL Christians must hold the same dogmatic belief as they do (even though a large percentage of RCs DON'T) and that they declare the "Eucharist" makes expiation for sins rather than the Biblical view that the cross of Christ made PROPITIATION for all our sins - took them away once for all. And that the Mass is necessary for salvation.
WRT the common tactic of some here to pit opponents against each other, most of us are well aware and seldom fall prey to it. What does concern me even more is the lack of a defense from RCs on threads where we ARE in agreement on some of the major tenets (i.e.; the Trinity, the Deity of Jesus). There have been numerous threads where the ONLY ones presenting the historical Christian view are the Protestants/Evangelicals/Non-Caths. That puzzles me because it comes across as they are only interested in arguing with us and criticizing our faith - something, ironically, they accuse us of doing!
So, please feel free to speak about what you believe and why you believe it. It only helps to make these threads more informative and less flammable. ;o)
My main beef with the Roman Catholic view is the insistence that ALL Christians must hold the same dogmatic belief as they do (even though a large percentage of RCs DON'T) and that they declare the "Eucharist" makes expiation for sins rather than the Biblical view that the cross of Christ made PROPITIATION for all our sins - took them away once for all. And that the Mass is necessary for salvation.
WRT the common tactic of some here to pit opponents against each other, most of us are well aware and seldom fall prey to it. What does concern me even more is the lack of a defense from RCs on threads where we ARE in agreement on some of the major tenets (i.e.; the Trinity, the Deity of Jesus). There have been numerous threads where the ONLY ones presenting the historical Christian view are the Protestants/Evangelicals/Non-Caths. That puzzles me because it comes across as they are only interested in arguing with us and criticizing our faith - something, ironically, they accuse us of doing!
So, please feel free to speak about what you believe and why you believe it. It only helps to make these threads more informative and less flammable. ;o)
Sorry for the double post. It tricked me!
So “saving faith” must show forth charity and obedience to the commandments.
Just clarifying what you meant by your “Yes.”
Yes we are not to be called teachers?
It could be worse :
.
I have never failed to fully support my references to scripture with scripture.
It is impossible to read any part of The Acts without seeing total Torah observance of the disciples and apostles.
There is absolutely nothing else contained therein.
.
.
>> “In Jesus Christ we have a New Covenant.” <<
Jeremiah declares that covenant to be the renewal of the old covenant, and it is with The House of Judah, and The House of Israel.
Biblically speaking, there is no “church.” The church is totally a creation of men, and the idea of a “new covenant” to exclude the loving commandments of Yehova is a gift from the adversary.
.
.
>> “The the cultic religion you follow...” <<
An apparent figment of your imagination! (were you still attempting “mind reading?”)
What I follow is the written word of Yehova.
.
“What I follow is the written word of Yehova”
Full Disclosure: As taught by the false teacher/rabbi Rood.
Let the reader beware. Rood is not a Christian teacher.
.
Real Bible study might help you understand the word!
“The Law” in dispute in the passages you cite is the “Law” that is specific to Judaism: The Takanot and Ma’Assim of the Pharisees. It is not The Torah of Yehova; the two are polar opposites. Phariseeism is the path of the Adversary.
It is the “Burden” that Yeshua removed from his sheep.
.
.
As you are so apt to do, you have made a completely false “disclosure.”
I read the word and I understand the word because I have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not the spirit of the adversary that causes the adversary’s sheep to falsely accuse the brethren.
Let the reader beware, the accusations against Michael Rood are completely from the adversary’s instruments.
The adversary never accuses his false teachers; this is key to understanding. When an accusation is made by name, it is always from the adversary.
.
Let the reader beware, Michael Rood is a False Teacher and #fakerabbi
It appears that your posts about other believers on this forum are then from the adversary - accuser of the brethren...
CONFIRMATION.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.