The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles)

Associated Press ^ | 3/24/01

[Havoc]

Look at the ten commandments, Is the Lord God not the God that authored these. Does he not say he will punish down to four generations? One inherits sin and the burden of it.
It causes no one any bother that a baby can be born addicted to drugs when the mother has partaken in such, yet the notion of spiritual affliction being born to the spirit of the child boggles the mind? Flesh profits the flesh or inflicts upon the flesh. Spirit profits the spirit or inflicts upon the spirit. Babies are born every day both oppressed and possessed of the devil. How do you think soothsayers pass on their 'special sight'?

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Paul instructs him to act with all authority.

That's right ALL authority. NO POPE. Each pastor has all authority over his flock.

Becky

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

AMEN!, to the whole post but most especially to the brain damaged part. Seems to hit simultaneously with the driver's license, and end when they pay their first house payment

Becky

[CindyDawg]

You are gonna have to back that up with scripture. Unless you can show me this, I refuse to believe some babies are born evil. Yes, babies are born into a world of sin and as someone else mentioned ,it doesn't take long for them to get the hang of it but they can't tell right from wrong so how can they be held accountable?

As far as drugged mommas, we need to be praying for them and these little ones. This is a disease. No one told them to start but it's not like they can just easily say, ok, today I'm going to stop. I was asked (to work, lol) in an alchol and drug unit for a year. I had nothing in common with these people and couldn't understand what their problem was. Why didn't they just stop? To try to understand, I went completely off sodas and sugar for a year. It wasn't easy. I learned that if I had this hard a time, just with food, how difficult it must be for people to struggle with a drug addiction.

[Havoc]

Incredible. You have no problem with the notion that the Spirit of God can smile on a child but cannot see the opposite side of it. Do players at a chess table merely look at their pieces or do they actually move them? Finally, I did not say one is born evil, that is your perception intruding. Is a pawn on a board evil because of the hand that moves it or good because of the hand that moves it? No, it is but a pawn. So is it with children. They do not knowingly choose good or evil till they know the difference, that does not stop them being pawns. And any christian parent would know this. And any Christian knows that the prince of the air is the default master of this world and has been since adam. And what spirit do you think it was that slaughtered the firstborn of Egypt in Moses' time? Scripture reference - right under your nose.. and not one child; but thousands upon thousands all cursed by the mouth of Pharoah.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Ping to 48732

Here here. Great post.

[ventana]

Peter called Rome the city, Rome the empire Babylon, not the Church there.

Imagine that you are sitting in a field listening to Jesus preach. In that context, when He told you to call no man Father, on that day, He could only have meant your own earthly father. To twist his words is to lose his message.

What proof can you share with us, showing that Mary is able to communicate your prayers to anyone?

I am so glad you asked :-) Go get a Rosary and start Praying it. You will see for yourself.

Are you saying now that she has no power to answer prayers, only take them to the Lord?

I don't recall having made any statements on NES on this subject prior to this. Can you provide a post #?

Do you believe she is omnipresent?

No

How else could she listen to the millions of daily prayers, and then organize them, and take them to God and explain what so and so needs?

Not my area.

Have you thought how ridiculous this sounds?

Well that's a bit rude.

v.

[ventana]

Ecclesiastes 9? I am almost afraid to ask. Again. Are you still confused on that one?

[Havoc]

Confused on Ecclesiastes 9, no - not by any means. It says what it means and means what it says. You have involvement in this world only so long as your body is alive in this world. If it's not alive, you're outta the game. Can't be any more clear.

[CindyDawg]

I misunderstood you, I guess. It was the post about inheriting of sin that was confusing to me. You might be surprised to hear, that we aren't as far apart in our differences as you think. Our God is a just God and I don't believe (either) that he looks at two babies and says I'll save this one but I'll send this one to hell. That's the problem I have with predetermination. I believe He will reach out to both, but HE will know who will later accept and who will reject him though.

[Havoc]

Peter called Rome the city, Rome the empire Babylon, not the Church there.

Peter never referred to Rome as Babylon. How oft must it be noted that there is no basis for this. I understand you were taught this junk; but, I was taught that Constantine was a Christian and that ain't any more true than when I was taught that Alex Graham Bell said "Watson, come here, I want you." Alex didn't say that. Constantine followed Mithraism and Peter was in Babylon in the Fertile Crescent.

Now, When I started in this conversation over 2 years ago and nearly three now if memory serves. The Catholic position was that there was no settlement in Babylon at that time. Seems the propaganda at that time from Rome was saying this. When it was noted sometime back that not only was there a settlement in that area but a thriving Israelite community, the rhetoric changed to 'there was no settlement of any worth there. One assumes that either the Church at Rome still has little use for Israelites, is intent on belittling them or is just blind to history in favor of it's rhetoric and propaganda. For it seems everyone but Rome is capable of acknowledging the truth on this matter. Rome must have overlooked the two part early Israelite Diaspora in it's rush to reinvent history in favor of its fables. Perhaps Rome will eventually fess up to the truth? One can hope; but, one is not so foolish as to hold one's breath.

Peter, you'll remember was commissioned to go preach to the lost tribes of the house of Israel. And it just so happens that the Old testament records where those tribes went - East, Northeast, and North. Care to guess which directions are not included there. West is one of them, had to give it away you know. And West is the direction of What country? Italy - wherein is contained - you guessed it - Rome. So if Peter is an Apostle and commissioned to preach to the lost Tribes, the last place on earth he'd be caught dead would be where? Anyplace that isn't North, Northeast or East of Jerusalem (That would include Rome).

Now, as if it isn't apparent enough Where Peter should be, and where he should not be, is it possible To tell anything about where he actually was based on scripture. Yes, indeed it is. I Peter And II Timothy were written at roughly the same time according to dating methodology. Mark at this time was in service to Peter - acting as a scribe and penning Peter's first book for him presumably for this is what he did for Paul. And wouldn't you know, that going to I Timothy, another Character enters the picture - namely Timothy who was given charge over the Church at Ephesus. So flash forward to II Timothy again and now Paul is sending this letter to Timothy with a charge:

2 Timothy 4:11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry. [12] And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus. [13] The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring [with thee], and the books, [but] especially the parchments.

So, We know that Mark was with Peter and aiding him. And Paul had to send to Ephesus and replace Timothy in Ephesus with Tychicus so that he could bring Mark to Rome to work for him.

See Ephesus over there on the right. Now lets zoom out..

See Ephesus over there on the right....

To say that Paul sent a messenger to Ephesus to go fetch Mark and Bring him to Rome when Mark is supposed to be with Peter in Rome tells us that though Mark is with Peter, he isn't in Rome, Much less in the same country as Rome. Thus if Peter was hailing from anywhere in I Peter, it was Babylon in the Fertile Crescent - not Rome. There is no reason to assume he was in Rome to begin with or to think he needed to use code language when Luke is with Paul in Rome and others are moving freely in and out of Rome with no trouble - at least no trouble Paul or the Romans were aware of.

Interestingly, II Peter is penned in a different hand - is absent any mention of anyone else being present and is entirely absent all the hallmarks that should be present if Peter were captive or suffering. Seems Peter didn't know he was supposed to be in Rome and under gaurd in prison at the time this Epistle was written. Though he is well enough aware of Paul's plight. Perhaps because of his visit with Timothy... One thing is clear, this journey from Rome to Ephesus alone would take quite a long time. There was no TWA, Air Italia, etc in those days. If you wanted to travel, you did so overland or jumped aboard a trade ship for passage. If you went by trade ship, you went wherever you had to go with the trade ship till it reached the point on it's route closest to your destination. However long it took, by the time Hebrews is written, Paul is still awaiting his visit from Timothy. Whether Mark ever arrived before Paul breathed his last is not recorded. But it isn't necessary to know.

I am so glad you asked :-) Go get a Rosary and start Praying it. You will see for yourself.

Hardly convincing. Or did you not know that Pagans got answers from their gods? Satanists get answers from their god. Etc. The only thing you're offering is that something is hearing and responding in some cases. Scripture tells us Mary can't hear you (Ecclesiastes 9). Since Mary can't hear you, And only Jesus can mediate before God on your behalf in heaven, something else has to be hearing and answering. It ain't God or Jesus because you're praying to neither and breaking the rules all around in the doing. Guess what you are praying to. I'll give you a couple chances and you ain't gonna like the answer.

Not my area.

Doesn't have to be. This is sort of a copout. You don't want to answer because you don't have a philosophy for this or haven't read it. Right. I mean up to now everything you've said is written in your philosophy and could be cut and pasted from prior conversations here with other Catholics. Go figure. In order for Mary to hear and respond to the number of prayers that Catholics alone pose to her, she would have to be omnipresent. That would make her deity. Bing bing bing. That's the warning that you're into big time trouble with this. Of course, if you knew scripture half as well as you seem to know church propaganda - I mean philosophy, you'd have those bells going off in your ears without my having to interject them.

Well that's a bit rude.

I'm sure that's the way Bagdad Bob felt when the Marines went to say Hi to him. How dare they spoil his propaganda. Was probably rude to him that they wouldn't commit suicide at the city limits for him either..

[Havoc]

This I wouldn't speak to because we have no way of knowing how God deals with this. Sin is inheritable or at the very least, the consequence of it is. And no sin may enter heaven. As we have a just and merciful God, I leave it to his determination rather than attempting to Dogmatize matters we have no way of ascertaining short of God popping in and laying it out. That is neither neccessary nor, as it happens, really any of our business.

And I don't look at it as predetermination. Predetermination assumes facts not in evidence. And that is not our place to play though some have seen fit to do so endlessly to their grave folly.

[OLD REGGIE]

I can think of no greater victory for Satan than when he got the NCs to believe that Jesus did not mean this clear and simple truth, even though it is probably the most often repeated, painstakingly explained and plain spoken thing He is recorded as saying.

When you say "most often repeated . . . " don't you think should qualify with the acknowledgment that you are excluding most of the world's inhabitants?

"Most often repeated by Catholic Apologists". OK.
"Most often repeated". Absoloutely not!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

How vague is this? "THIS IS MY BODY"

Not vague at all when taken without qualification. Of course you must utilize specialized mental gymnastics to ignore the context of every reference to "This is my body" in Scripture in order to justify the RCC practice of the Eucharist..

Assuming for the moment that you are correct in your literal interpretation of the "real presence", It would stand to reason you would find it necessary to faithfully follow the literal practice of communion as taught by Jesus. Wouldn't it? Does the RCC faithfully follow this practice?

Let's consider every instance in Scripture where Jesus participates in, and teaches the practice to be followed:

Matthew 26:
[26] Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body."
[27] And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you;
[28] for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 22:
[22] And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body."
[23] And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it.
[24] And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

Luke 22:
[19] And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
[20] And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

1Corinthians 11:
[24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
[25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
[26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

You will note there is never a reference to bread alone. It is always accompanied with the cup. No exception!

For whatever reason, assembly line communion, sanitation, whatever, the RCC has chosen to modify this practice and offer communion in one kind. Do you know better than Jesus? Do you think you are expected to take part of what He says and ignore the rest?

In the event the words of Jesus aren't sufficient why don't we look at the practice as taught by Augustine some 400 years later.

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

Please note there is an absoloute distinction between the bread and the wine. Do you have any idea when the RCC modified the practice and why? Also, what justification is given to modify the teaching of Jesus.

Try this on or size. Can you do it? Say: "If you say so Jesus."

Words which you should take to heart!

[CindyDawg]

Never mind:'). Now I'm confused again. I'm not sure we are discussing the same thing. Interesting post to V there, though.

[OLD REGGIE]

#48751

Excellent!

[Havoc]

Sorry, the point I was responding to whether babies automatically went to hell if they died - or heaven - either one. I meant to reference your comment on that; but apparently missed it.

[CindyDawg]

Now that was easy to understand:') So what's your (scripturally backed up, of course) opinion on this?

[OLD REGGIE]

So, in conclusion, the Pope when preaching on faith and morals is free from error.

"A Pope is infallible when teaching on matters of faith and morals". Right?

"A Pope cannot then be guilty of heresy". Right?

"Pope" Honorius was convicted of heresy and anathematized by the 6th Ecumenical Council. Right?

Honorius either wasn't a Pope or the Pope is not infallible when teaching on matters of faith or morals. Right?

[Havoc]

So what's your (scripturally backed up, of course) opinion on this?

What would you have me say? Life on this planet because of the fall of Adam and Eve are by default subject to the 'prince of the Air'. By this measure, they would by default go to hell unless they were raised to Serve God and took that direction. IF that were the case it would be man's doing, not God's. God didn't Make Satan the default master of men, Man did. I can go a dozen different directions through speculation; but, I'm satisfied with none of them. The thought occurs that if babies go to hell because of inherited sin or curses, one must also keep in mind that Children of TRUE Christians would not be subject to such unless they were concieved in sin. In order for sin to be passed on, the sin would need first be present in the parents. Comfortable conjecture; but, conjecture none the less.

See why I don't like conjecture? Look at the RCC. They dogmatize this stuff. That's how they got all that junk about Mary. I'll leave this question in God's hands and stick with what we can know for sure. God is both Just and merciful and I'm sure would not let us down on such a matter. His ways are higher than ours. If it were up to all of us, we'd all be dead and in hell cause most people are selfish and few forgiving.

[Havoc]

Paradox's are so fun aren't they.