Posted on 05/13/2022 6:01:41 PM PDT by marshmallow
‘Mrs. Greene's statement about leaving the Church is as enlightening as it is saddening,’ commented Michael Hichborn, president of the Lepanto Institute.
(LifeSiteNews) – Following criticism of comments she made about the U.S. Catholic bishops, conservative firebrand U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene revealed that she was raised Catholic but left the Church “with great sorrow” when she had kids because she had concerns about the left-wing hierarchy protecting abusive priests.
“With great sorrow, and unwavering faith in Jesus Christ, I stopped attending Catholic Mass when I became a mother, because I realized that I could not trust the Church’s leadership to protect my children from pedophiles, and that they harbored monsters even in their own ranks,” the now-evangelical said in a lengthy statement.
The Georgia Republican was responding to the Catholic League’s Bill Donahue, who slammed her for suggesting in an interview with Church Militant’s Michael Voris that “Satan is controlling the Church.”
“The Church is not doing its job. And it’s not adhering to the teachings of Christ,” she added.
“It’s the Church leadership I was referring to when I invoked the Devil,” Greene clarified on Twitter. “Just so we’re clear, bishops, when I said ‘controlled by Satan,’ I wasn’t talking about the Catholic Church. I was talking about you.”
“The Catholic Church must throw out these monsters instead of lecturing the people its own bishops have driven away,” she continued, blasting the U.S. Catholic bishops as “some of the worst in the world” and “scheming bureaucrats in miters.” It was the “bishops’ wickedness” that drove her out of the Church, Greene said, and her own refusal to “submit the spiritual and physical livelihood of my children to these monsters.”
Greene, who is sometimes referred to as “MTG” (à la “AOC”), went on to say what many faithful Catholics who.......
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
The dead soul mind of the cultist cannot understand the things of God because the cultist does not have life in the spirit, so it is only the soul -dead in trespasses and sins- which informs the cultist and that dead soul is ruled by the satanic winds,like the SDA cult service to the spirit of antichrist, as we see with its incessant twisting of scriptures and assertions of the cult dogma. Sinless people on Saturn anyone? Beuhler?.
Don’t know about you and yours, but we use beef around here. What do y’all normally use for a hamburger?
Beuhler? LOL. The Sinless Planet of Bolok.
“The dead soul mind of the cultist cannot understand the things of God because the cultist does not have life in the spirit, so it is only the soul -dead in trespasses and sins- which informs the cultist and that dead soul is ruled by the satanic winds,”
Some horrifying truth you just put to words, MHG.
The following will be over your head, cultist, but I will write it anyway. Yes, 'out of the midst' does mean rapture. It was used to describe Enoch's disappearance and Elijah's disappearance, etc. It is what is called an 'idiomatic expression'. It was used by the writers to describe something they did not understand fully, as in being translated from this 4D realm to a higher dimensional variables realm. In the New Testament Philip was taken out of the midst and transported to Gaza after baprizing the Ethiopian. Jesus went 'out of their midst' after bleassing the bread. Your ignorance will not change until you begin to comprehend your dire deadness condition and accept GOD's plan of salvation.
What’s that?
“Saved by the Blood of Jesus ... and kept by the forbidding of catfish.”
When the SDA cultist post5s a scripture passage like Peter’s vision and yet tries to turn the mean upside down to mean something opposite of what the Holy Spirit is conveying, you KNOW the spirit of antichrist is herding that ded soul along. We are witnessing an amazing phenomenon played out through this cultist’s posts, serving the spirit of antichrist.
Just say, don’t accept the mark of the beast.
“An amazing phenomenon ...”
I dare not call it what I would. :-) You are far too kind.
1 cor 4:15 I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel
priests are not called “Father” for themselves, but in the sense of Paul in 1 Cor 4:15: as spiritual fathers,
if we grant it that Jesus REALLY meant that we should call nobody “father” in a spiritual sense, this leads to another problem. The New Testament calls St. Paul a spiritual father of Timothy. He calls Timothy his “true son in the faith” (1 Timothy 1:2) and said that 1 Corinthians 4:15 that he “begot” Timothy through the Gospel. People may object that he didn’t say he was Timothy’s father in 1:2, only that Timothy was his son. This comes across as pedantic. Are we really to believe that Jesus was against using the term “father” but didn’t care if someone implied fatherhood through the use of the term “son?” Some may also claim that Paul didn’t outright call Timothy his son in 4:15 either. But if you read that the verse, you’ll see that he says Timothy did not have many fathers in Christ. Why? Read the end of the verse. “For in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.” Given that fathers in Scripture are those who beget, Paul was saying that Timothy did not have many fathers, for Paul alone was the begetter (a synonym for “father”) of Timothy in Christ. Taking this into account, the interpretation that Christ was instituting a universal banning of using the term “father” is fallacious because that would mean that He and the Holy Spirit (who inspired Paul) would have contradicted each Other. Which is impossible.
So what is the actual interpretation of the verse in Matthew? There is this concept of derivative titles in Scripture. Jesus is God’s only Son, yet we are called sons of God if we believe. How is this possible? Because Christ is God’s Son BY NATURE because He was begotten of the Father in eternity. We are sons BY GRACE through adoption into Christ. There is no contradiction because Christ is God’s Begotten Son while we are sons only derivative sense because we are unified with Christ, who is the Son of the Father. St. Jerome and John Calvin applied this concept to Matthew 23:9. They saw the verse as condemning calling anybody father BY NATURE because all fatherhood came from God the Father. Rather we should only call people father in a derivative sense, because they reflect the Fatherhood of the Father in their actions.
Not really - you lot removed books from the Bible as they didn’t agree with the 16th century philosophy.
Note that Luther had these books in his first version of his bible. As did the first edition of the KJV
My post #412 “Do you believe that Jesus was God in Mary’s womb?”
You reply in #415 "It should be easy for you to tell me why you’re asking that question first."
Post #450 - more deflection
Jesus was God in Mary's womb -- do you believe that or not? and don't deflect as you have not answered that simple question
No matter how many times we post for you the proof that you are spewing a lie, you prefer the lie to the truth. The Rapture, and specifically the pretrib rapture is found taught from the Essene Dead Sea Scrolls hundreds of years before Jesus came and in some of the writings of the early church fathers. But you prefer lies so you keep spewing the spirit of antichrist lies.
Now there is the prophecies of Gad! But you will reject that too since you prefer your comfy lies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YmDZxe5uFU
I already answered you in post 412.
You’re guilty of an intentional falsehood and you’re going to Hell for that mortal sin unless you repent and apologize.
Kind of funny how the Catholics will intentionally and unrepentantly sin just to try to annoy people they don’t like on the Internet.
I wonder: when they’re suffering in Hell, will they think that it was worth it?
if you read in the Bible, starting from John 6:30, we read
They asked Him for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.
30 So they asked him, What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
32 Jesus said to them, Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.
34 Sir, they said, always give us this bread.
35 Then Jesus declared, I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.
And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:512
53 Jesus said to them, Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.
5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
6 Be careful, Jesus said to them. Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, It is because we didnt bring any bread.
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Dont you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you dont understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.So, if you believe that this was just a metphor, you mean to say that Christ is rewarding people for crucifying Him?!! That's nonsensical, sorry.
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?...
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
Even in the literal sense -- Christ says he is the gateway to heaven and the vine such that we get nourishment with him as the connecting path. But John 6 is much much more than mere symbolism as He categorically states that "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).
Even at the end of John 6, Jesus rebukes those who think of what He has said as a metaphor by emphasising that
Jesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic (Calvin's main problem) by saying
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to youthey are full of the Spirit[e] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.
Just using human logic as Calvinist thought does, without God's blessings behind it fails in grace.John 6:63 does not refer to Jesus's statement of his own flesh, if you read in context but refers to using human logic instead of dwelling on God's words.
John 8:15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.
and also 1 Cor 11:27-29
6 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ.
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
hmmm.. I posted #412. you are claiming that you answered in 412 when it was my post? you're guilty of an intentional falsehood and you're going to Hell for that mortal sin unless you repent and apologize
Which lie? I didn’t repeat the lie that is the pre-tribulation rapture.
My error. Post 450, in *response* to your 412.
You’re still guilty of an intentional falsehood against me, though, so I’m waiting for an apology.
And while we’re at it, your harassment of me with that repeated question (that I already answered) is also explicitly against Religion Forum rules.
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.