AUSTIN, Texas (RNS) The Christian mission field is a "magnet" for sexual abusers, Boz Tchividjian, a Liberty University law professor who investigates abuse said Thursday (Sept. 26) to a room of journalists. While comparing evangelicals to Catholics on abuse response, "I think we are worse," he said at the Religion Newswriters Association conference, saying too many evangelicals had "sacrificed the souls" of young victims.
"Protestants can be very arrogant when pointing to Catholics," said Tchividjian, a grandson of evangelist Billy Graham and executive director of Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment (GRACE), which has investigated sex abuse allegations.
Earlier this summer, GRACE spearheaded an online petition decrying the "silence" and "inattention" of evangelical leaders to sexual abuse in their churches.
Mission agencies, "where abuse is most prevalent," often don't report abuse because they fear being barred from working in foreign countries, he said. Abusers will get sent home and might join another agency. Of known data from abuse cases, 25 percent are repeat cases, he said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/01/protestant-sex-abuse-boz-tchividijian_n_4019347.html?view=print&comm_ref=false (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/01/protestant-sex-abuse-boz-tchividijian_n_4019347.html?view=print&comm_ref=false)
No matter WHO is more at fault, it is a terrible thing that has been done! My heart goes out to the victims!
I am not sure which is least surprising...
Another hate-filled attack against Christians from the Huffington Post
OR
Another hate-filled attack against Protestants from AnnaM
====
Don't get me wrong, abuse of any kind, in any venue, is a horrible affront. Using it as an excuse to denigrate your enemies is even worse.
These type of things seem to be happening at an alarming rate. Maybe they should consider capital punishment, such as a public hanging for the crime, this will deter any would be criminals by striking fear into their hearts of the extremity of their crime. I think most are delusional as to the extent of their crime. A public execution would bring back the reality of this crime to the human conscience, that has become so liberal and uncaring. Also there should be heavier punishments for false accusers who do lie and bring destruction upon the world with their lying tongues.
Perhaps the pope should go on a witch hunt, round them all up and execute them all, while the children watch ::eatingpopcorn:
As though Evangelicals have a global, monolithic organization with a central headquarters in a sovereign state orchestrating a shell game with pedofiles.
: HRoberson Tue Oct 08, 2013 - 09:58:01
As though Evangelicals have a global, monolithic organization with a central headquarters in a sovereign state orchestrating a shell game with pedofiles.
Got to be careful with deceivers. I read how in the rise of the Nazi party the gestapo etc would set up catholic priests for paedophile scandals, they would also send adverts mocking these priests on tv.
Propoganda is a powerful tool to incite hatred against particular groups by associating hideous crimes with such.
It's important only the true criminals get caught and not to cause undue accusations towards innocents, that destroys trust and breaks down society.
: BondServant Tue Oct 08, 2013 - 09:38:31
I am not sure which is least surprising...
Another hate-filled attack against Christians from the Huffington Post
OR
Another hate-filled attack against Protestants from AnnaM
====
Don't get me wrong, abuse of any kind, in any venue, is a horrible affront. Using it as an excuse to denigrate your enemies is even worse.
Yep. Must admit though, I have never heard a of a protestant pastor committing child abuse. I am sure it happens occasionally.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/the-protestant-clergy-sex_b_740853.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/the-protestant-clergy-sex_b_740853.html)
Valerie Tarico
Posted: 09/28/10 05:28 PM ET
One of the most striking aspects of the Protestant clergy sex abuse pattern is that most people don't realize it is a pattern. The Catholic Church has taken a well deserved beating in the courts and in the court of public opinion as former altar boys, orphans and ordinary parishioners come forward with appalling stories of sex abuse. Yet equally egregious violations by Protestant clergy fail to generate the same level of outrage. Why?
You might answer that the problems in the Catholic Church are uniquely widespread, but that would be the wrong answer. Last week's Eddie Long scandal, in which one of the nation's most politically connected and homophobic mega-ministers was accused of strong-arming g-a-y sex out of teens, was just one tip of an enormous Protestant iceberg. The news monthly Freethought Today has a regular feature called "Black Collar Crime Blotter," typically a two-page sampler of fraud, theft, and sexual abuse taken from the media across the country. They just turned their archive over to the Kinsey Institute. A website called ClergyGoneWild.com provides links to recent crime stories, including child abuse (206 articles) and internet solicitation (18).
This problem is nothing new. The first book on clergy sex abuse in this country, Betrayal of Trust, was published in 1988. The perception that Catholic priests are overrepresented among offenders is correct. They do offend at a higher rate. But because this country is predominantly Protestant, more children are abused by Protestant ministers than by Catholic priests. In 1990, the Freedom from Religion Foundation issued a study on pedophilia by clergy. At that time, two clergy per week were being arrested in North America for sex crimes against children. Fifty-eight percent of them were Protestant.
: FireSword Tue Oct 08, 2013 - 10:13:38
: HRoberson Tue Oct 08, 2013 - 09:58:01
As though Evangelicals have a global, monolithic organization with a central headquarters in a sovereign state orchestrating a shell game with pedofiles.
Got to be careful with deceivers. I read how in the rise of the Nazi party the gestapo etc would set up catholic priests for paedophile scandals, they would also send adverts mocking these priests on tv.
Propoganda is a powerful tool to incite hatred against particular groups by associating hideous crimes with such.
It's important only the true criminals get caught and not to cause undue accusations towards innocents, that destroys trust and breaks down society.
but what's the fun in that?
Being arrested is not in the same league as convicted. There is also wide spread paranoia by people etc who suspect all kinds and get people arrested.
: HRoberson Tue Oct 08, 2013 - 14:32:15
: FireSword Tue Oct 08, 2013 - 10:13:38
: HRoberson Tue Oct 08, 2013 - 09:58:01
As though Evangelicals have a global, monolithic organization with a central headquarters in a sovereign state orchestrating a shell game with pedofiles.
Got to be careful with deceivers. I read how in the rise of the Nazi party the gestapo etc would set up catholic priests for paedophile scandals, they would also send adverts mocking these priests on tv.
Propoganda is a powerful tool to incite hatred against particular groups by associating hideous crimes with such.
It's important only the true criminals get caught and not to cause undue accusations towards innocents, that destroys trust and breaks down society.
but what's the fun in that?
I don't understand?
: Victor08 Tue Oct 08, 2013 - 12:12:10
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/the-protestant-clergy-sex_b_740853.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/the-protestant-clergy-sex_b_740853.html)
Valerie Tarico
Posted: 09/28/10 05:28 PM ET
One of the most striking aspects of the Protestant clergy sex abuse pattern is that most people don't realize it is a pattern. The Catholic Church has taken a well deserved beating in the courts and in the court of public opinion as former altar boys, orphans and ordinary parishioners come forward with appalling stories of sex abuse. Yet equally egregious violations by Protestant clergy fail to generate the same level of outrage. Why?
You might answer that the problems in the Catholic Church are uniquely widespread, but that would be the wrong answer. Last week's Eddie Long scandal, in which one of the nation's most politically connected and homophobic mega-ministers was accused of strong-arming g-a-y sex out of teens, was just one tip of an enormous Protestant iceberg. The news monthly Freethought Today has a regular feature called "Black Collar Crime Blotter," typically a two-page sampler of fraud, theft, and sexual abuse taken from the media across the country. They just turned their archive over to the Kinsey Institute. A website called ClergyGoneWild.com provides links to recent crime stories, including child abuse (206 articles) and internet solicitation (18).
This problem is nothing new. The first book on clergy sex abuse in this country, Betrayal of Trust, was published in 1988. The perception that Catholic priests are overrepresented among offenders is correct. They do offend at a higher rate. But because this country is predominantly Protestant, more children are abused by Protestant ministers than by Catholic priests. In 1990, the Freedom from Religion Foundation issued a study on pedophilia by clergy. At that time, two clergy per week were being arrested in North America for sex crimes against children. Fifty-eight percent of them were Protestant.
I agree with your article. Besides, many (and I used the word carefully, because I do not consider true believers Protestant in the sense that the RCC use the word) Protestants ministers are guilty of adultery and other gross sins. Only Sodomy is a great sin within the RCC community, but that does not mean, that there are not godly men and women among them, for I know some that are, even though I strongly disagree with their doctrines.
RB
: FireSword Tue Oct 08, 2013 - 09:51:22
These type of things seem to be happening at an alarming rate.
I see the possibility that this stuff has been going on for centuries, but now it is reported more, now that we have media that can spread stuff about this, efficiently.
Also, I notice
when the Catholic predator priest problem was made so public: after President Bush came into office and he could have been a formidable ally, as president, along with Cardinal Law against abortion. Cardinal Law became quite a special media focus. But, as I say, the publicity about predators posing as pastors did not become so thorough, until after Cardinal Law and George Bush were in power. So, I consider . . . may be the media was picking and choosing when they did so much publicizing, acting with their strategy to defend abortion.
Not to mention > if the liberal media people care so much about children, why do they so easily accept the attacking and killing of unborn children? And why are they so ok with activists going around schools and promoting perversion and forcing such subjects on the minds of young children? This, too, is violating children . . . in their minds > calling attention to this stuff, even forcing such subject matter on a child.
: chosenone Tue Oct 08, 2013 - 10:36:35
Yep. Must admit though, I have never heard a of a protestant pastor committing child abuse. I am sure it happens occasionally.
I have. Along with plenty of affairs. It goes back decades.
Can any of us forget the revelations of the mid 1980s and 90s concerning Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, et al?
Or Michael English, Sandi Patty, Amy Grant, et al? (in the christian music industry)
: FireSword Tue Oct 08, 2013 - 09:51:22Maybe they should consider capital punishment, such as a public hanging for the crime, this will deter any would be criminals by striking fear into their hearts of the extremity of their crime. I think most are delusional as to the extent of their crime. A public execution would bring back the reality of this crime to the human conscience, that has become so liberal and uncaring. Also there should be heavier punishments for false accusers who do lie and bring destruction upon the world with their lying tongues.
Perhaps the pope should go on a witch hunt, round them all up and execute them all, while the children watch ::eatingpopcorn:
Ones say "all" sexual predators have been victims of sexual abuse. I can see why. The victims have been exposed to such behavior so they know there is such a thing, and then ones . . . not all . . . can somehow get ideas from what has been done to them and then think this is something they can do and even want to do. And if the predator never was seen getting arrested and punished . . . a victim can suppose that what the predator did was not really a big deal.
And the victim possibly is never carefully told how wrong it was for the predator to do that . . . not to mention how, often enough, others may not believe the child, or they are too ashamed to deal with it. And, in some number of cases, their shame is possibly because they feel it was their responsibility to keep the child safe and they deep-down-inside do not want to admit to the child that such an awful thing is so evil,
and they can have shame especially if they helped encourage the child to trust the predator. So, they can knowingly or unknowingly be trying to cover up for themselves.
And so the child sees no obvious condemnation of such behavior. Plus, they see no one taking responsibility,
being an example (1 Peter 5:3) of being accountable, admitting to how it was wrong and how they did fail the child by looking the other way, on purpose, or by making an idol of certain religious leaders so they put them above question, or they helped cause the evil because they could not tell the difference between such evil people and ones who they should have their children trusting.
And, "of course", there are cases of people not believing the child. If this happens,
this can help the child to think easy it is to get away with being a predator. And this can help to tempt the child to later copy-cat what the predator did to the child.
However . . . with Jesus our Shepherd, we can hear His voice (John 10:1-30), and His voice does not have us trusting the wrong people! Jesus makes us able to tell the difference.
And, clearly, in different religious groups, there are even high-up leaders who have actually evaluated and even ordained such deeply ruined people, and those even high-up leaders were not able to tell the difference between a predator and a person who is an example of Jesus' way of loving. So, there are high-up religious leaders and parents who have been part of the problem. Even large groups of church members were able to fool their own selves, for even years, into thinking their pulpit predators were real priests of God's own love.
But this problem has not been dealt with openly and effectively, as far as I know > so many are pointing at predators and leaders, and not dealing with how they could so dangerously fool their own selves. But I would dare consider that if a pope or cardinal or bishop or seminary evaluator can't tell the difference between a predator and a person of God's love, then such a person is not qualified to be trusted to care for Jesus' sheep.
Even the "sheep" of Jesus can tell the difference between Jesus' voice and a predator; our Shepherd's voice does not have leaders ordaining predators! Plus, sheep have the sense of smell > they can smell a predator. God's love has God's sense. So, we sheep must not try to use leaders as our excuse for going along with wrong people > "Test all things; hold fast what is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21) With our Father and Jesus our Shepherd, we can test reliably about who it is good to trust and how to trust. So, Christian faith is not blind trusting; we have God's light of love so we can see people right.
@ AnnaM:
"Boz Tchividjian, a Liberty University law professor who investigates abuse said Thursday (Sept. 26) to a room of journalists. While comparing evangelicals to Catholics on abuse response, "I think we are worse," he said..."
I think a lot of things and they aren't worth a hill of beans without proof.
"Protestants can be very arrogant when pointing to Catholics"..." said Tchividjian, a grandson of evangelist Billy Graham"
Billy Graham's what, atheist, satan worshiping, papal like, agnostic, son of one of his kids? Name dropping; goes to show how weak this provocation is.
"GRACE spearheaded an online petition decrying the "silence" and "inattention" of evangelical leaders to sexual abuse in their churches."
Yes, groups with clever names do all kinds of things as a precedent in trade for power and to further accomplish some other agenda they have, in this case they're spinning their wheels on Christians with little to no evidence, but a shamed, wealthy Roman church to back them.
"Of known data from abuse cases, 25 percent are repeat cases, he said."
Yes, "of known data" we're adding assumption all the more!!!
Funny how for all you said, you didn't say anything at all. Yet your signature prayer speaks volumes about your spiritual poverty, blindness, and destiny apart from God.
Instead of picking fights with Protestants and the like, over issues you know nothing about, why not educate yourself in the New Testament?
Question: If you put a child of 8 years old on a desert island with only a bible to read, and providing he took to it and obeyed it, when you rescued this child after 10 years, what do you suppose you'd find him preaching and practising as his religion with all it's trappings: Catholicism, Buddhism, Mormonism, Muslim, or the Person of Jesus Christ in a 1-1 relationship?
: Gregree Sat Nov 30, 2013 - 19:22:27
Question: If you put a child of 8 years old on a desert island with only a bible to read, and providing he took to it and obeyed it, when you rescued this child after 10 years, what do you suppose you'd find him preaching and practising as his religion with all it's trappings: Catholicism, Buddhism, Mormonism, Muslim, or the Person of Jesus Christ in a 1-1 relationship?
You wouldn't get any of the above.
That just shows that the Bible is incomplete and that an 8 yr old child needs a lot more than jst the ability to read.
Your premise is basically stupid and unbiblical.
: winsome Sun Dec 01, 2013 - 09:13:14
: Gregree Sat Nov 30, 2013 - 19:22:27
Question: If you put a child of 8 years old on a desert island with only a bible to read, and providing he took to it and obeyed it, when you rescued this child after 10 years, what do you suppose you'd find him preaching and practising as his religion with all it's trappings: Catholicism, Buddhism, Mormonism, Muslim, or the Person of Jesus Christ in a 1-1 relationship?
I totally disagree with Winsome here. First of all, the child would be 18 at the end. Second, I think it is an excellent point regarding the sufficiency of Scripture and the ease with which the basic message of salvation through Christ and Christ alone can be understood.
You wouldn't get any of the above.
That just shows that the Bible is incomplete and that an 8 yr old child needs a lot more than jst the ability to read.
Your premise is basically stupid and unbiblical.
: winsome Sun Dec 01, 2013 - 09:13:14
: Gregree Sat Nov 30, 2013 - 19:22:27
Question: If you put a child of 8 years old on a desert island with only a bible to read, and providing he took to it and obeyed it, when you rescued this child after 10 years, what do you suppose you'd find him preaching and practising as his religion with all it's trappings: Catholicism, Buddhism, Mormonism, Muslim, or the Person of Jesus Christ in a 1-1 relationship?
You wouldn't get any of the above.
That just shows that the Bible is incomplete and that an 8 yr old child needs a lot more than jst the ability to read.
Your premise is basically stupid and unbiblical.
How arrogant! The Bible is NOT incomplete! God's Word is alive and active and does not come back void! A child left to read it, as they grow up and mature would find the way to salvation and relationship with Christ!
The program really messed up my post! Winsome said You wouldn't get any of the above.
That just shows that the Bible is incomplete and that an 8 yr old child needs a lot more than jst the ability to read.
Your premise is basically stupid and unbiblical.
My response was: "I totally disagree with Winsome here. First of all, the child would be 18 at the end. Second, I think it is an excellent point regarding the sufficiency of Scripture and the ease with which the basic message of salvation through Christ and Christ alone can be understood."
: Helen Sun Dec 01, 2013 - 12:57:14
The program really messed up my post! Winsome said You wouldn't get any of the above.
That just shows that the Bible is incomplete and that an 8 yr old child needs a lot more than jst the ability to read.
Your premise is basically stupid and unbiblical.
My response was: "I totally disagree with Winsome here. First of all, the child would be 18 at the end. Second, I think it is an excellent point regarding the sufficiency of Scripture and the ease with which the basic message of salvation through Christ and Christ alone can be understood."
Yes, and also he would have the Holy Spirit guiding him.
: Helen Sun Dec 01, 2013 - 12:57:14
The program really messed up my post! Winsome said You wouldn't get any of the above.
That just shows that the Bible is incomplete and that an 8 yr old child needs a lot more than jst the ability to read.
Your premise is basically stupid and unbiblical.
My response was: "I totally disagree with Winsome here. First of all, the child would be 18 at the end. Second, I think it is an excellent point regarding the sufficiency of Scripture and the ease with which the basic message of salvation through Christ and Christ alone can be understood."
The Bible is not a complete record of God's revelation to us (and you do not even use a complete Bible). The Bible itself tells us that it is incomplete (Jn 20:20, Jn 21:25, 2Thess 2:15)
A child of 8 would not mature alone on a desert island with just a Bible. That is why children need to go to school and be taught whatever they need to learn and have the company of others.
Jesus never suggested to the apostles that they write a book and leave to people to work it out for themselves. He told them to go and
preach the gospel,
teaching people all he had commanded them. That was the way the apostles passed on the gospel. They
taught.
Just look at the 30,000 Protestant denominations, all because people thought they could word it out for themselves and not by listening to the Church that Jesus founded to preserve his truths and pass them on.
Paul explains how this is to be done.
Paul writes to Timothy "Hold to the standard of
sound teaching that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus." (2Tim 1:13) Paul has given Timothy sound teaching
"
Guard the good treasure entrusted to you, with the help of the Holy Spirit living in us." (2Tim 1:14)
Timothy is to be a
guardian of the truth that has been
entrusted to him. He is to do this with the help of the Holy Spirit.
Then Paul instructs Timothy to pass this precious treasure of teaching on to others.
"You then, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus; and what you have heard from me through many witnesses
entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well." (2Tim 2:1-2)
Timothy in his turn is to
entrust what he has been given to
faithful people. Not just preaching to others but to pass on in trust this teaching to others he can be sure will guard it in their turn. Then they will be able to
teach others as well.
Thus we have four generations – Paul – Timothy – those to whom Timothy entrusts the teaching – those who they pass it on to in turn.
Note this is all oral teaching. There is no suggestion that Timothy just passes on documents to others and tells them to work it out for themselves.
When anyone disagrees with what is in the Bible, I choose Bible. It's really that simple. We are saved by faith through grace; Jesus is God; He has not lost one yet. Faith in Jesus as Lord, God, Savior, Creator, Judge -- that is now and always has been enough for salvation. Once He changes you, you are His. We have a choice of masters: Either a slave of sin or a slave of righteousness. Jesus is my righteousness. I choose Him -- directly, simply, completely. And I am His.
Note this is all oral teaching. There is no suggestion that Timothy just passes on documents to others and tells them to work it out for themselves.
[/quote]
You do understand the New Testament was first taught by the Apostles by mouth because there was no such written New Testament like we have today, and that you can quote yourself, in complete trust.
Your quotes were typical denials of point #one above, but this one, "John 21:25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen", takes the cake for intellectual dishonesty on your part.
You want to assert that the Holy Spirit left out the entire three ring circus act performed at every sunday mass?
And you feel this is logical and true because why?
Has it ever occured to you while you're reading the parts of the bible you agree with, the other stuff you skip over is contradicting your whole religion, and that's why your mass is not in the bible? The Apostles did not institute seven sacraments and pass them on to anyone!
You quoted the Apostle John a couple of times so I trust you believe him at his word. Let me ask you to read the following passage from his one and only Gospel
chapter six.
Please tell me if you don't comprehend the salvation message being spoken by Jesus' own mouth, and that our 18 year old boy would have read too. Would our island child be searching for a eucharist or a Person to receive?
John 6:30-63 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
30 So they said to him, "What sign are you going to give us then, so that we may see it and believe you? What work are you performing? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'" 32 Then Jesus said to them, "Very truly, I tell you, it was not Moses who gave 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 that which[a] comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." 34 They said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always."
35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away; 38 for I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day."
41 Then the Jews began to complain about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." 42 They were saying, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" 43 Jesus answered them, "Do not complain among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 53 So 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 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever." 59 He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.
The Words of Eternal Life
60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?" 61 But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
: Gregree Sun Dec 01, 2013 - 20:07:49
: Note this is all oral teaching. There is no suggestion that Timothy just passes on documents to others and tells them to work it out for themselves.
You do understand the New Testament was first taught by the Apostles by mouth because there was no such written New Testament like we have today, and that you can quote yourself, in complete trust.
Yes we can trust scripture. But that doesn't negate what I said about Jesus telling the apostles to preach and teach. Neither he nor the apostles told anyone to just read scripture and work it out for themselves. Quite the opposite.
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. (Mt 23:1-3).
Jesus is saying that the scribes and Pharisees have the authority to teach (they sit in the chair of Moses) and the people should listen to their teaching. He does not tell them to read scripture and work it out for themselves.
When Jesus teaches he does so on his own authority not scriptures, though of course he quotes from scrioture.
: Gregree Sun Dec 01, 2013 - 20:07:49
Your quotes were typical denials of point #one above, but this one, "John 21:25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen", takes the cake for intellectual dishonesty on your part.
Rather than just insult me please explain why you think what I said is intellectual dishonesty. Did you not say above that we can trust scripture? Are you in denial of what scripture says?
: Gregree Sun Dec 01, 2013 - 20:07:49
You want to assert that the Holy Spirit left out the entire three ring circus act performed at every sunday mass?
And you feel this is logical and true because why?
What has that to do with what I said?
: Gregree Sun Dec 01, 2013 - 20:07:49
Has it ever occured to you while you're reading the parts of the bible you agree with, the other stuff you skip over is contradicting your whole religion, and that's why your mass is not in the bible? The Apostles did not institute seven sacraments and pass them on to anyone!
Nothing in the Bible contradicts Catholic doctrine.
: Gregree Sun Dec 01, 2013 - 20:07:49
You quoted the Apostle John a couple of times so I trust you believe him at his word. Let me ask you to read the following passage from his one and only Gospel
chapter six.
Please tell me if you don't comprehend the salvation message being spoken by Jesus' own mouth, and that our 18 year old boy would have read too. Would our island child be searching for a eucharist or a Person to receive?
John 6:30-63 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
30 So they said to him, "What sign are you going to give us then, so that we may see it and believe you? What work are you performing? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'" 32 Then Jesus said to them, "Very truly, I tell you, it was not Moses who gave 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 that which[a] comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." 34 They said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always."
35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away; 38 for I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day."
41 Then the Jews began to complain about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." 42 They were saying, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" 43 Jesus answered them, "Do not complain among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 53 So 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 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever." 59 He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.
The Words of Eternal Life
60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?" 61 But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
We receive Jesus in the Eucharist.
Do you expect an eight year old child on a desert island to be able to understand that? The crowds and even the apostles did not understand how that could be.
nd
: Helen Sun Dec 01, 2013 - 15:02:34
When anyone disagrees with what is in the Bible, I choose Bible. It's really that simple. We are saved by faith through grace; Jesus is God; He has not lost one yet. Faith in Jesus as Lord, God, Savior, Creator, Judge -- that is now and always has been enough for salvation. Once He changes you, you are His. We have a choice of masters: Either a slave of sin or a slave of righteousness. Jesus is my righteousness. I choose Him -- directly, simply, completely. And I am His.
: Gregree Sun Dec 01, 2013 - 20:07:49
Note this is all oral teaching. There is no suggestion that Timothy just passes on documents to others and tells them to work it out for themselves.
You do understand the New Testament was first taught by the Apostles by mouth because there was no such written New Testament like we have today, and that you can quote yourself, in complete trust.
Your quotes were typical denials of point #one above, but this one, "John 21:25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen", takes the cake for intellectual dishonesty on your part.
You want to assert that the Holy Spirit left out the entire three ring circus act performed at every sunday mass?
And you feel this is logical and true because why?
Has it ever occured to you while you're reading the parts of the bible you agree with, the other stuff you skip over is contradicting your whole religion, and that's why your mass is not in the bible? The Apostles did not institute seven sacraments and pass them on to anyone!
You quoted the Apostle John a couple of times so I trust you believe him at his word. Let me ask you to read the following passage from his one and only Gospel
chapter six.
Please tell me if you don't comprehend the salvation message being spoken by Jesus' own mouth, and that our 18 year old boy would have read too. Would our island child be searching for a eucharist or a Person to receive?
John 6:30-63 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
30 So they said to him, "What sign are you going to give us then, so that we may see it and believe you? What work are you performing? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'" 32 Then Jesus said to them, "Very truly, I tell you, it was not Moses who gave 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 that which[a] comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." 34 They said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always."
35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away; 38 for I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day."
41 Then the Jews began to complain about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." 42 They were saying, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" 43 Jesus answered them, "Do not complain among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 53 So 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 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever." 59 He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.
The Words of Eternal Life
60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?" 61 But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
[/quote]
The child on the island would be saying that there certainly has to be more about this Christianity than just a book, and would certainly go looking for it.
As for the Mass, yes it comes from the Holy Scriptures and it is how the early Christians worshipped. They did not just gather to hear some Pastor to expound on his interpretation of the various passages, but gathered together to for the Eucharistic Banquet as Jesus instructed us to. For further illumination on early Christian worship I suggest reading the words about this from St. Justin Martyr, a man who willingly went to his death for the faith.
: Gregree Sat Nov 30, 2013 - 19:22:27
Question: If you put a child of 8 years old on a desert island with only a bible to read, and providing he took to it and obeyed it, when you rescued this child after 10 years, what do you suppose you'd find him preaching and practising as his religion with all it's trappings: Catholicism, Buddhism, Mormonism, Muslim, or the Person of Jesus Christ in a 1-1 relationship?
Well, by "practicing it", that would mean that he is doing what God has commanded. So he probably would have gouged his eyes out and cut his hands off and would have died long ago.
But assuming that he didn't do that, he might be taking to heart the command of Jesus to "do this in memory of me", which would be a re-enactment of the last supper. And he would probably be seeking someone to baptize him. And he would probably be mixing Christianity with pre-Christian Judaism. He might be praying for the dead, if he had a Catholic Bible.
It is unlikely that this person would be not practicing any rituals whatsoever, as some would like to suggest that we should. If you are honest in reading the Bible, you'd have to admit that rituals are manifest from beginning to end. Altars and sacrifice and cleaning rituals and offerings and sacrificial meals.
But none of that is antithetical to also having a relationship with Jesus. But that relationship is not just 1:1, but also a relationship within a human community. So the whole question is unlike human experience, which presumes a community. So he probably could not love God as much as he would if he lived in communion with other persons. Something would be lacking.
There is nothing that is only 1:1 in our relationship with Jesus. Yes we are called to each individually love God and know God and serve God, but we are also called to serve from our neighbor, and see God in our neighbor, and receive God's grace through our neighbor. Rugged individualism may be an American trait, but it is also a heresy. Communion is absolutely essential to the spiritual life.
: Helen Sun Dec 01, 2013 - 15:02:34
When anyone disagrees with what is in the Bible, I choose Bible. It's really that simple. We are saved by faith through grace; Jesus is God; He has not lost one yet. Faith in Jesus as Lord, God, Savior, Creator, Judge -- that is now and always has been enough for salvation. Once He changes you, you are His. We have a choice of masters: Either a slave of sin or a slave of righteousness. Jesus is my righteousness. I choose Him -- directly, simply, completely. And I am His.
Me too!
: Helen Sun Dec 01, 2013 - 15:02:34
When anyone disagrees with what is in the Bible, I choose Bible. It's really that simple. We are saved by faith through grace; Jesus is God; He has not lost one yet. Faith in Jesus as Lord, God, Savior, Creator, Judge -- that is now and always has been enough for salvation. Once He changes you, you are His. We have a choice of masters: Either a slave of sin or a slave of righteousness. Jesus is my righteousness. I choose Him -- directly, simply, completely. And I am His.
The Bible should be our only authority in the end.
: chosenone Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 10:24:38
The Bible should be our only authority in the end.
That contradicts what the Bible says.
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 11:07:23
: chosenone Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 10:24:38
The Bible should be our only authority in the end.
That contradicts what the Bible says.
Nope.Not even close.
The Word is what we weigh the claims and teachings of others against. If it doesn't line up with scripture, it is a lie.
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 11:07:23
: chosenone Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 10:24:38
The Bible should be our only authority in the end.
That contradicts what the Bible says.
Gods word is our authority, and if anything is not in agreement with that, then we can discard it.
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 12:03:23
The Word is what we weigh the claims and teachings of others against. If it doesn't line up with scripture, it is a lie.
: chosenone Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 12:13:32
Gods word is our authority, and if anything is not in agreement with that, then we can discard it.
Neither of those statements are about authority
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 12:03:23
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 11:07:23
: chosenone Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 10:24:38
The Bible should be our only authority in the end.
That contradicts what the Bible says.
Nope.Not even close.
The Word is what we weigh the claims and teachings of others against. If it doesn't line up with scripture, it is a lie.
Your claims concerning the so-called "authority of scripture" don't line up with scripture.
: winsome Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 12:23:01
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 12:03:23
The Word is what we weigh the claims and teachings of others against. If it doesn't line up with scripture, it is a lie.
: chosenone Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 12:13:32
Gods word is our authority, and if anything is not in agreement with that, then we can discard it.
Neither of those statements are about authority
This explains it well
http://www.biblesupersearch.com/article.php?id=212 (http://www.biblesupersearch.com/article.php?id=212)
: chosenone Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 12:13:32
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 11:07:23
: chosenone Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 10:24:38
The Bible should be our only authority in the end.
That contradicts what the Bible says.
Gods word is our authority, and if anything is not in agreement with that, then we can discard it.
So, when St Paul says it's shameful for a man to have long hair, that means God is against men having long hair?
Can I then assume that you are also against men having long hair and that it is some sort of biblical prohibition?
"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God ay be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17
"You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God." Matthew 22:29
Further references to the fact that the Scriptures were used to validate prophecy and what was taught may be found in
Matthew 21:42, Matthew 26:54, Mark 12:24, Mark 14:49, Luke 4:21, Luke 24:27, 32, 45, John 2:22, John 5:39, John 7:38, John 7:42, John 10:35, John 13:18, John 17:12, John 19:24, 28, 36, 37, John 20:9, Acts 1:16, Acts 8:32, 35, Acts 17:2, Acts 18:24-25, Acts 18:28, Romans 1:2, Romans 4:3, Romans 9:17, Romans 10:11, Romans 11:2, Romans 15:4, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, Galatians 3:8, 16, 22, Galatians 4:30, 1 Timothy 4:13, 1 Timothy 5:18, 2 Timothy 3:15, James 2:8, 23, James 4:5-6, 1 Peter 2:6, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16.
In other words, all teaching should be checked for biblical accuracy. As God's Word, the Bible is our AUTHORITY -- whether or not anyone likes the use of that word. It is the plumb line for truth.
: chosenone Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 12:39:25
: winsome Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 12:23:01
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 12:03:23
The Word is what we weigh the claims and teachings of others against. If it doesn't line up with scripture, it is a lie.
: chosenone Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 12:13:32
Gods word is our authority, and if anything is not in agreement with that, then we can discard it.
Neither of those statements are about authority
This explains it well
http://www.biblesupersearch.com/article.php?id=212 (http://www.biblesupersearch.com/article.php?id=212)
I think this explains it well.
http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/catholic-forum/authority-whoever-listens-to-you/ (http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/catholic-forum/authority-whoever-listens-to-you/)
: Helen Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 12:58:16
"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God ay be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17
"You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God." Matthew 22:29
Further references to the fact that the Scriptures were used to validate prophecy and what was taught may be found in
Matthew 21:42, Matthew 26:54, Mark 12:24, Mark 14:49, Luke 4:21, Luke 24:27, 32, 45, John 2:22, John 5:39, John 7:38, John 7:42, John 10:35, John 13:18, John 17:12, John 19:24, 28, 36, 37, John 20:9, Acts 1:16, Acts 8:32, 35, Acts 17:2, Acts 18:24-25, Acts 18:28, Romans 1:2, Romans 4:3, Romans 9:17, Romans 10:11, Romans 11:2, Romans 15:4, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, Galatians 3:8, 16, 22, Galatians 4:30, 1 Timothy 4:13, 1 Timothy 5:18, 2 Timothy 3:15, James 2:8, 23, James 4:5-6, 1 Peter 2:6, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16.
In other words, all teaching should be checked for biblical accuracy. As God's Word, the Bible is our AUTHORITY -- whether or not anyone likes the use of that word. It is the plumb line for truth.
Checked for biblical accuracy yes. I agree with all those scriptures.
But that does not make the Bible our authority. It is
authoritative.
Play with words all you want. If something disagrees with the Bible, it is wrong.
: Helen Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 13:11:39
Play with words all you want. If something disagrees with the Bible, it is wrong.
I'm not playing with words. As an English teacher you should understand the difference between authjority and authoritative.
But I agree if something contradicts the Bible then it is wrong.
We don't all agree exactly what scripture means in some cases and therefore whether a belief contradicts scripture. But that is another issue.
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 12:28:52
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 12:03:23
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 11:07:23
: chosenone Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 10:24:38
The Bible should be our only authority in the end.
That contradicts what the Bible says.
Nope.Not even close.
The Word is what we weigh the claims and teachings of others against. If it doesn't line up with scripture, it is a lie.
Your claims concerning the so-called "authority of scripture" don't line up with scripture.
Proof?
: Helen Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 12:58:16
"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God ay be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17
"You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God." Matthew 22:29
Further references to the fact that the Scriptures were used to validate prophecy and what was taught may be found in
Matthew 21:42, Matthew 26:54, Mark 12:24, Mark 14:49, Luke 4:21, Luke 24:27, 32, 45, John 2:22, John 5:39, John 7:38, John 7:42, John 10:35, John 13:18, John 17:12, John 19:24, 28, 36, 37, John 20:9, Acts 1:16, Acts 8:32, 35, Acts 17:2, Acts 18:24-25, Acts 18:28, Romans 1:2, Romans 4:3, Romans 9:17, Romans 10:11, Romans 11:2, Romans 15:4, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, Galatians 3:8, 16, 22, Galatians 4:30, 1 Timothy 4:13, 1 Timothy 5:18, 2 Timothy 3:15, James 2:8, 23, James 4:5-6, 1 Peter 2:6, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16.
In other words, all teaching should be checked for biblical accuracy. As God's Word, the Bible is our AUTHORITY -- whether or not anyone likes the use of that word. It is the plumb line for truth.
AMEN!
: winsome Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 13:16:54
: Helen Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 13:11:39
Play with words all you want. If something disagrees with the Bible, it is wrong.
I'm not playing with words. As an English teacher you should understand the difference between authjority and authoritative.
But I agree if something contradicts the Bible then it is wrong.
We don't all agree exactly what scripture means in some cases and therefore whether a belief contradicts scripture. But that is another issue.
I think we all know what is meant by the Bible being our authority.
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 13:34:13
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 12:28:52
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 12:03:23
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 11:07:23
: chosenone Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 10:24:38
The Bible should be our only authority in the end.
That contradicts what the Bible says.
Nope.Not even close.
The Word is what we weigh the claims and teachings of others against. If it doesn't line up with scripture, it is a lie.
Your claims concerning the so-called "authority of scripture" don't line up with scripture.
Proof?
There is more than one authority that God calls us to submit to. One example (among many):
Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
In addition, if you submit to this verse in Hebrews, you acknowledge the authority of God working through a _person_, that is, the author of Hebrews.
In acknowledging Hebrews as scripture, you are submitting to the authority of God working through another _person_ or group of persons, which have proclaimed by God's authority that Hebrews is inspired.
2 Thess. 2:15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
Oral teachings from the apostles held as much weight as letters written by them. Full authority was *never* _only_ in the scriptures, nor could it be, since authority is a quality that only living beings can possess.
Matthew 18:18
"Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
That is authority.
: chosenone Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 13:35:53
: winsome Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 13:16:54
: Helen Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 13:11:39
Play with words all you want. If something disagrees with the Bible, it is wrong.
I'm not playing with words. As an English teacher you should understand the difference between authjority and authoritative.
But I agree if something contradicts the Bible then it is wrong.
We don't all agree exactly what scripture means in some cases and therefore whether a belief contradicts scripture. But that is another issue.
I think we all know what is meant by the Bible being our authority.
I think we do. But it is abusing the word "authority" to mean something that it doesn't.
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 13:45:28
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 13:34:13
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 12:28:52
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 12:03:23
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 11:07:23
: chosenone Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 10:24:38
The Bible should be our only authority in the end.
That contradicts what the Bible says.
Nope.Not even close.
The Word is what we weigh the claims and teachings of others against. If it doesn't line up with scripture, it is a lie.
Your claims concerning the so-called "authority of scripture" don't line up with scripture.
Proof?
There is more than one authority that God calls us to submit to. One example (among many):
Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
In addition, if you submit to this verse in Hebrews, you acknowledge the authority of God working through a _person_, that is, the author of Hebrews.
In acknowledging Hebrews as scripture, you are submitting to the authority of God working through another _person_ or group of persons, which have proclaimed by God's authority that Hebrews is inspired.
2 Thess. 2:15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
Oral teachings from the apostles held as much weight as letters written by them. Full authority was *never* _only_ in the scriptures, nor could it be, since authority is a quality that only living beings can possess.
Matthew 18:18
"Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
That is authority.
And what is it that holds those in positions of authority over us to account? The Scripture! It *is* the authority by which we measure what we are being lead in! If those who put themselves up as the standard and we are to submit to them, they SURELY should be submitting to the Word of God and if they are not? They are in the wrong, wolves in sheep clothing and we should NOT follow them!
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 13:54:24
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 13:45:28
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 13:34:13
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 12:28:52
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 12:03:23
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 11:07:23
: chosenone Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 10:24:38
The Bible should be our only authority in the end.
That contradicts what the Bible says.
Nope.Not even close.
The Word is what we weigh the claims and teachings of others against. If it doesn't line up with scripture, it is a lie.
Your claims concerning the so-called "authority of scripture" don't line up with scripture.
Proof?
There is more than one authority that God calls us to submit to. One example (among many):
Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
In addition, if you submit to this verse in Hebrews, you acknowledge the authority of God working through a _person_, that is, the author of Hebrews.
In acknowledging Hebrews as scripture, you are submitting to the authority of God working through another _person_ or group of persons, which have proclaimed by God's authority that Hebrews is inspired.
2 Thess. 2:15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
Oral teachings from the apostles held as much weight as letters written by them. Full authority was *never* _only_ in the scriptures, nor could it be, since authority is a quality that only living beings can possess.
Matthew 18:18
"Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
That is authority.
And what is it that holds those in positions of authority over us to account? The Scripture! It *is* the authority by which we measure what we are being lead in! If those who put themselves up as the standard and we are to submit to them, they SURELY should be submitting to the Word of God and if they are not? They are in the wrong, wolves in sheep clothing and we should NOT follow them!
By their fruits you will know them, not by whether or not they conform to our interpretation of the scriptures. By your method you make yourself the authority, and hold others up to judgment based on your interpretation of scripture.
The one who holds those in positions of authority to account is God, not us, not our interpretation of the scriptures. Hebrews 13:17 says "as those who will have to give an account". The implied "person" that they will give an account to is
God.
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:07:40
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 13:54:24
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 13:45:28
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 13:34:13
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 12:28:52
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 12:03:23
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 11:07:23
: chosenone Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 10:24:38
The Bible should be our only authority in the end.
That contradicts what the Bible says.
Nope.Not even close.
The Word is what we weigh the claims and teachings of others against. If it doesn't line up with scripture, it is a lie.
Your claims concerning the so-called "authority of scripture" don't line up with scripture.
Proof?
There is more than one authority that God calls us to submit to. One example (among many):
Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
In addition, if you submit to this verse in Hebrews, you acknowledge the authority of God working through a _person_, that is, the author of Hebrews.
In acknowledging Hebrews as scripture, you are submitting to the authority of God working through another _person_ or group of persons, which have proclaimed by God's authority that Hebrews is inspired.
2 Thess. 2:15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
Oral teachings from the apostles held as much weight as letters written by them. Full authority was *never* _only_ in the scriptures, nor could it be, since authority is a quality that only living beings can possess.
Matthew 18:18
"Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
That is authority.
And what is it that holds those in positions of authority over us to account? The Scripture! It *is* the authority by which we measure what we are being lead in! If those who put themselves up as the standard and we are to submit to them, they SURELY should be submitting to the Word of God and if they are not? They are in the wrong, wolves in sheep clothing and we should NOT follow them!
By their fruits you will know them, not by whether or not they conform to our interpretation of the scriptures. By your method you make yourself the authority, and hold others up to judgment based on your interpretation of scripture.
The one who holds those in positions of authority to account is God, not us, not our interpretation of the scriptures. Hebrews 13:17 says "as those who will have to give an account". The implied "person" that they will give an account to is God.
We should never blindly follow any man if he teaches or believes things that are merely man made doctrines, and not even Biblical.
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:07:40
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 13:54:24
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 13:45:28
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 13:34:13
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 12:28:52
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 12:03:23
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 11:07:23
: chosenone Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 10:24:38
The Bible should be our only authority in the end.
That contradicts what the Bible says.
Nope.Not even close.
The Word is what we weigh the claims and teachings of others against. If it doesn't line up with scripture, it is a lie.
Your claims concerning the so-called "authority of scripture" don't line up with scripture.
Proof?
There is more than one authority that God calls us to submit to. One example (among many):
Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
In addition, if you submit to this verse in Hebrews, you acknowledge the authority of God working through a _person_, that is, the author of Hebrews.
In acknowledging Hebrews as scripture, you are submitting to the authority of God working through another _person_ or group of persons, which have proclaimed by God's authority that Hebrews is inspired.
2 Thess. 2:15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
Oral teachings from the apostles held as much weight as letters written by them. Full authority was *never* _only_ in the scriptures, nor could it be, since authority is a quality that only living beings can possess.
Matthew 18:18
"Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
That is authority.
And what is it that holds those in positions of authority over us to account? The Scripture! It *is* the authority by which we measure what we are being lead in! If those who put themselves up as the standard and we are to submit to them, they SURELY should be submitting to the Word of God and if they are not? They are in the wrong, wolves in sheep clothing and we should NOT follow them!
By their fruits you will know them, not by whether or not they conform to our interpretation of the scriptures. By your method you make yourself the authority, and hold others up to judgment based on your interpretation of scripture.
That accusation is simply NOT true!
A leader who is truly called by God, would have fruit that lines UP with scripture anyway!
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:07:40The one who holds those in positions of authority to account is God, not us, not our interpretation of the scriptures. Hebrews 13:17 says "as those who will have to give an account". The implied "person" that they will give an account to is God.
How do you know if your leader is in error? You just blindly follow them no matter what they spew from the pulpit? Jim Jones got lots of folks to drink the kool-aid that way.
They SHOULD give an account for what they teach! They are not above the congregation and they are given a very serious warning about being a teacher. Parishioners in every body I have ever attended are encouraged to "fact check" what is being preached to see that it lines up with the Word! Why anyone would be threatened by this is a HUGE red flag IMO!
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:31:00
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:07:40
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 13:54:24
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 13:45:28
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 13:34:13
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 12:28:52
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 12:03:23
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 11:07:23
: chosenone Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 10:24:38
The Bible should be our only authority in the end.
That contradicts what the Bible says.
Nope.Not even close.
The Word is what we weigh the claims and teachings of others against. If it doesn't line up with scripture, it is a lie.
Your claims concerning the so-called "authority of scripture" don't line up with scripture.
Proof?
There is more than one authority that God calls us to submit to. One example (among many):
Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
In addition, if you submit to this verse in Hebrews, you acknowledge the authority of God working through a _person_, that is, the author of Hebrews.
In acknowledging Hebrews as scripture, you are submitting to the authority of God working through another _person_ or group of persons, which have proclaimed by God's authority that Hebrews is inspired.
2 Thess. 2:15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
Oral teachings from the apostles held as much weight as letters written by them. Full authority was *never* _only_ in the scriptures, nor could it be, since authority is a quality that only living beings can possess.
Matthew 18:18
"Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
That is authority.
And what is it that holds those in positions of authority over us to account? The Scripture! It *is* the authority by which we measure what we are being lead in! If those who put themselves up as the standard and we are to submit to them, they SURELY should be submitting to the Word of God and if they are not? They are in the wrong, wolves in sheep clothing and we should NOT follow them!
By their fruits you will know them, not by whether or not they conform to our interpretation of the scriptures. By your method you make yourself the authority, and hold others up to judgment based on your interpretation of scripture.
That accusation is simply NOT true!
Yes it is. That is what Protestantism has become these days.
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:31:00
A leader who is truly called by God, would have fruit that lines UP with scripture anyway!
The fruits of those who follow the teachings of the Catholic Church are the epitome of what scripture promises.
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:31:00
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:07:40The one who holds those in positions of authority to account is God, not us, not our interpretation of the scriptures. Hebrews 13:17 says "as those who will have to give an account". The implied "person" that they will give an account to is God.
How do you know if your leader is in error? You just blindly follow them no matter what they spew from the pulpit? Jim Jones got lots of folks to drink the kool-aid that way.
We have a deposit of faith that goes back 2000 years. We have witnesses of countless teachers of that same faith. We have established dogma. Our leaders are held accountable to that Gospel which was taught before. That is, what they teach must line up with scripture AND tradition AND the Magisterium.
But that is not authority. Authority has nothing to do with whether some teaching is true. Authority is about the right to make decisions.
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:31:00
They SHOULD give an account for what they teach! They are not above the congregation and they are given a very serious warning about being a teacher. Parishioners in every body I have ever attended are encouraged to "fact check" what is being preached to see that it lines up with the Word! Why anyone would be threatened by this is a HUGE red flag IMO!
And tell me, what happens when a parishioner in the congregation believes that the leader's teaching doesn't line up with scripture? Who decides who is right? It is fairly easy for different people to have different opinions on what scripture says. What happens when that is the case?
And what if what they are talking about, scripture has nothing to say?
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:40:45
Yes it is. That is what Protestantism has become these days.
Well, I guess its a good thing you aren't one of *those*!
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:40:45
The fruits of those who follow the teachings of the Catholic Church are the epitome of what scripture promises.
Oh.my.GOSH! Are you saying the teachings of the Catholic church are infallible, but SCRIPTURE, the WORD of God isn't?
Those that follow the Word of God will display the fruit of the Spirit! It is not exclusive to those that follow the teachings of the Catholic church.
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:40:45
And tell me, what happens when a parishioner in the congregation believes that the leader's teaching doesn't line up with scripture?
They have the freedom to GO to their pastor and question them. There is dialog, there is conversation, that is what happens in relationships.
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:40:45Who decides who is right?
Ultimately people must live their convictions. If no agreement can be met, there is freedom to leave and find a body that is a better fit.
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:40:45It is fairly easy for different people to have different opinions on what scripture says. What happens when that is the case?
They wish each other well, and move on.
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:40:45And what if what they are talking about, scripture has nothing to say?
That falls under showing grace. A difference of preference.
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:40:45
But that is not authority. Authority has nothing to do with whether some teaching is true. Authority is about the right to make decisions.
That is not the only way the word authority is used. To wish to so narrowly define and use it is strange to me.
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 15:01:02
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:40:45
But that is not authority. Authority has nothing to do with whether some teaching is true. Authority is about the right to make decisions.
That is not the only way the word authority is used. To wish to so narrowly define and use it is strange to me.
See http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/catholic-forum/authority-whoever-listens-to-you/ (http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/catholic-forum/authority-whoever-listens-to-you/) for my understanding of authority
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:55:57
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:40:45
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:31:00
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:07:40
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 13:54:24
And what is it that holds those in positions of authority over us to account? The Scripture! It *is* the authority by which we measure what we are being lead in! If those who put themselves up as the standard and we are to submit to them, they SURELY should be submitting to the Word of God and if they are not? They are in the wrong, wolves in sheep clothing and we should NOT follow them!
By their fruits you will know them, not by whether or not they conform to our interpretation of the scriptures. By your method you make yourself the authority, and hold others up to judgment based on your interpretation of scripture.
That accusation is simply NOT true!
Yes it is. That is what Protestantism has become these days.
Well, I guess its a good thing you aren't one of *those*!
I am thankful that I am Catholic, not thankful that I am not Protestant. But you miss the point, completely. But you then go on to prove that what was "not true" is in fact
true.
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:55:57
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:40:45
A leader who is truly called by God, would have fruit that lines UP with scripture anyway!
The fruits of those who follow the teachings of the Catholic Church are the epitome of what scripture promises.
Oh.my.GOSH! Are you saying the teachings of the Catholic church are infallible, but SCRIPTURE, the WORD of God isn't?
Those that follow the Word of God will display the fruit of the Spirit! It is not exclusive to those that follow the teachings of the Catholic church.
I'm not saying that at all. You said that true teaching will produce good fruits. And then I said that those who follow the teachings of the Catholic Church provide the best fruits. I said nothing about scripture not being "infallible" (I think you mean "inerrant", as "infallibility" is another attribute of a living being, not of a document). I never said that it was exclusive to those who follow the teachings of the Catholic Church either.
Where do you come up with this stuff? What you wrote was pure calumny, a sin.
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:55:57
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:40:45
And tell me, what happens when a parishioner in the congregation believes that the leader's teaching doesn't line up with scripture?
They have the freedom to GO to their pastor and question them. There is dialog, there is conversation, that is what happens in relationships.
Why, so do we...
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:55:57
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:40:45Who decides who is right?
Ultimately people must live their convictions. If no agreement can be met, there is freedom to leave and find a body that is a better fit.
a.k.a. People decide for themselves based on their own interpretation of scripture.
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:55:57
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:40:45It is fairly easy for different people to have different opinions on what scripture says. What happens when that is the case?
They wish each other well, and move on.
Or start their own congregation. They are their own authority.
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:55:57
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:40:45And what if what they are talking about, scripture has nothing to say?
That falls under showing grace. A difference of preference.
That is not what God intended. Whether abortion is wrong? A matter of preference...? Whether same-sex marriage is wrong? A matter of preference...? (Before you bother responding, yes the Bible condemns relations with someone of same-sex but it doesn't explicitly condemn marriage to someone of the same sex, at least, not how most people commonly interpret the verses on marriage).
God did not leave us orphans. He left us, rather, with a living Church, to which He gave his authority. That is one of His jobs as a God who loves us, to help us know moral truth with certitude so that we can avoid sin and so to have life.
God did not leave us orphans. He left us, rather, with a living Church, to which He gave his authority. That is one of His jobs as a God who loves us, to help us know moral truth with certitude so that we can avoid sin and so to have life.
Let's look at what the Bible actually says:
"If you love me, you will obey what I command. Ad I will ask the Father and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever -- the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you."
In other words, the Lord did not leave the RCC, He gave us Himself through His Holy Spirit. Quite a difference.
Is avoiding sin having life? That, again, is not what the Bible says: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."
Yes, we need to avoid sin. But that is not what gives us eternal life. Eternal life is a gift from Jesus Christ to those who belong to Him.
Catholic doctrine simply does not agree with Bible, I guess.
: Helen Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 16:24:06
God did not leave us orphans. He left us, rather, with a living Church, to which He gave his authority. That is one of His jobs as a God who loves us, to help us know moral truth with certitude so that we can avoid sin and so to have life.
Let's look at what the Bible actually says:
"If you love me, you will obey what I command. Ad I will ask the Father and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever -- the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you."
In other words, the Lord did not leave the RCC, He gave us Himself through His Holy Spirit. Quite a difference.
He gave us His Holy Spirit through the Catholic Church which he established in the apostles, who then ordained others, who ordained others, etc.
: Helen Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 16:24:06
Is avoiding sin having life? That, again, is not what the Bible says: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."
Yes, we need to avoid sin. But that is not what gives us eternal life. Eternal life is a gift from Jesus Christ to those who belong to Him.
I didn't say that avoiding sin gives us eternal life. But sinning detracts from the life that God wants to give to us whether we realize our sin or not.
John 10:10
A thief comes only to steal and slaughter and destroy; I came so that they might have life and have it more abundantly.
John 20:21-23
21 Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."
: Helen Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 16:24:06
Catholic doctrine simply does not agree with Bible, I guess.
Rather, your misunderstanding of my post and misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine do not agree with the Bible. But that is not Catholic doctrine. Catholic doctrine agree with the Bible, 100%. After all, the Bible is a Catholic book.
Your entire post is a sidetrack from the valid points which I gave that actually followed the topic. Why change the subject?
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 16:08:45
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:55:57
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:40:45
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:31:00
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:07:40
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 13:54:24
And what is it that holds those in positions of authority over us to account? The Scripture! It *is* the authority by which we measure what we are being lead in! If those who put themselves up as the standard and we are to submit to them, they SURELY should be submitting to the Word of God and if they are not? They are in the wrong, wolves in sheep clothing and we should NOT follow them!
By their fruits you will know them, not by whether or not they conform to our interpretation of the scriptures. By your method you make yourself the authority, and hold others up to judgment based on your interpretation of scripture.
That accusation is simply NOT true!
Yes it is. That is what Protestantism has become these days.
Well, I guess its a good thing you aren't one of *those*!
I am thankful that I am Catholic, not thankful that I am not Protestant. But you miss the point, completely. But you then go on to prove that what was "not true" is in fact true.
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:55:57
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:40:45
A leader who is truly called by God, would have fruit that lines UP with scripture anyway!
The fruits of those who follow the teachings of the Catholic Church are the epitome of what scripture promises.
Oh.my.GOSH! Are you saying the teachings of the Catholic church are infallible, but SCRIPTURE, the WORD of God isn't?
Those that follow the Word of God will display the fruit of the Spirit! It is not exclusive to those that follow the teachings of the Catholic church.
I'm not saying that at all. You said that true teaching will produce good fruits. And then I said that those who follow the teachings of the Catholic Church provide the best fruits. I said nothing about scripture not being "infallible" (I think you mean "inerrant", as "infallibility" is another attribute of a living being, not of a document). I never said that it was exclusive to those who follow the teachings of the Catholic Church either.
Where do you come up with this stuff? What you wrote was pure calumny, a sin.
WHAT?! I asked you a question so that you could clarify for me and you say I sin in doing so? Whatever.
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 16:08:45: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:55:57
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:40:45
And tell me, what happens when a parishioner in the congregation believes that the leader's teaching doesn't line up with scripture?
They have the freedom to GO to their pastor and question them. There is dialog, there is conversation, that is what happens in relationships.
Why, so do we...
: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:55:57
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:40:45Who decides who is right?
Ultimately people must live their convictions. If no agreement can be met, there is freedom to leave and find a body that is a better fit.
a.k.a. People decide for themselves based on their own interpretation of scripture.
I'd rather "decide" for myself than drink the kool-aid just because someone "says" they have authority given to them by God. I have the Word to hold that persons in authority to account.
As a side note; If God's word convicts us, we better act on it! God's word does that you know...and just because it convicts ME of something does not mean I judge others for NOT being convicted in the exact same way!
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 16:08:45: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:55:57
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:40:45It is fairly easy for different people to have different opinions on what scripture says. What happens when that is the case?
They wish each other well, and move on.
Or start their own congregation. They are their own authority.
If that was to happen, GOD would be their authority and the Word would be the standard that others would hold them to account.
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 16:08:45: MeMyself Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:55:57
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 14:40:45And what if what they are talking about, scripture has nothing to say?
That falls under showing grace. A difference of preference.
That is not what God intended. Whether abortion is wrong? A matter of preference...? Whether same-sex marriage is wrong? A matter of preference...? (Before you bother responding, yes the Bible condemns relations with someone of same-sex but it doesn't explicitly condemn marriage to someone of the same sex, at least, not how most people commonly interpret the verses on marriage).
The Word speaks on same sex relationships being wrong,so of course marriage of the same sex would be out as well. Abortion is wrong because it is murder and God's Word is clear that is a sin.
: Catholica Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 16:08:45God did not leave us orphans. He left us, rather, with a living Church, to which He gave his authority. That is one of His jobs as a God who loves us, to help us know moral truth with certitude so that we can avoid sin and so to have life.
Keep your church. I'd rather His Word and my relationship with Christ Jesus who is my Savior and where my salvation is found. I am glad for the local body around me to fellowship with, pray with, encourage and admonish to walk in the Truth.
: Helen Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 16:24:06
God did not leave us orphans. He left us, rather, with a living Church, to which He gave his authority. That is one of His jobs as a God who loves us, to help us know moral truth with certitude so that we can avoid sin and so to have life.
Let's look at what the Bible actually says:
"If you love me, you will obey what I command. Ad I will ask the Father and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever -- the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you."
In other words, the Lord did not leave the RCC, He gave us Himself through His Holy Spirit. Quite a difference.
Is avoiding sin having life? That, again, is not what the Bible says: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."
Yes, we need to avoid sin. But that is not what gives us eternal life. Eternal life is a gift from Jesus Christ to those who belong to Him.
Catholic doctrine simply does not agree with Bible, I guess.
Great post, Helen!
The Bible is not a Catholic book and RC does not agree with it in many areas -- in fact one of your councils pronounced those who believe Ephesians 2:8-9 anathema. Oh well....
And, as far as the gift of the Holy Spirit is concerned, Paul indicated it was a gift to believers individually:
"You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ." Romans 8:9
pretty clear....except maybe to the RCC. Paul never mentions a corporate body there. He is speaking of the indwelling Holy Spirit in believers.
@ Winsome:
@ Catholica:
The 18 year old boy would be a born again child of the Creator God Who Gave His only Son as a ransom to save all those who would believe in the One whom He sent. Amen
In other words he would be the same as the disciples of the early church and those who claim salvation in the triumphant, resurrected Lord Jesus in this forum, right now.
He would not, like you two, be wasting his time and talents promoting a brick and mortar organization full of paganism, and traditions that are built on sand.
He would not be found in a special garment, or vesement to indicate his rank to the world.
He'd have no use for cathedrals, or thrones which would only confuse him as to who'd want to occupy them.
He would realize God is for him, and Jesus is in Him, and he lives eternally while waiting to go to heaven.
This would be the topic of his conversation, and this would be the beginning and the end of his religion.
If asked the question; neither of you can say if you're going to heaven or not because your church and your god has left you like orphans in this world, without hope.
Here's a few more things our boy may want to tell you later.
Jesus is no longer an infant on Mary's lap.
He's not third in line as mediator below Mary.
He doesn't sit and watch as Mary hears our prayers.
Mary cannot hear anyones prayers.
Mary is dead and cannot interceded for anyone to God.
Mary could have been any number of woman.
Mary is not part of the Triune Godhead.
Worship of Mary is idolatry.
Having other god's, like Mary, before Him is a violation of the first commandment.
Those statues of Jesus and Mary, etc. are a violation of the second commandment.
Transubstantiation is a tested and proven lie.
Jesus was a body prepared by God to be sacrificed once and for all.
The Mass is a mockery of the finished work of Jesus on the cross.
The mass is a denial of the resurrection, and the living Lord Jesus.
Consuming a wafer and drinking some wine then claiming to have received the Lord Jesus is blatant contempt of Jesus own explanation of the metaphor, John 6:63.
Celebration of the mass negates the entire New Testament and, at best, would only leave a man forgiven of his sins but not filled with the Holy Spirit,
as per the resurrection and Pentecost, therefore NOT born-again, therefore not able to enter the Kingdom of God.
Thank you, Gregree and Amen.
: Gregree Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 20:38:44
@ Winsome:
@ Catholica:
The 18 year old boy would be a born again child of the Creator God Who Gave His only Son as a ransom to save all those who would believe in the One whom He sent. Amen
In other words he would be the same as the disciples of the early church and those who claim salvation in the triumphant, resurrected Lord Jesus in this forum, right now.
He would not, like you two, be wasting his time and talents promoting a brick and mortar organization full of paganism, and traditions that are built on sand.
He would not be found in a special garment, or vesement to indicate his rank to the world.
He'd have no use for cathedrals, or thrones which would only confuse him as to who'd want to occupy them.
He would realize God is for him, and Jesus is in Him, and he lives eternally while waiting to go to heaven.
This would be the topic of his conversation, and this would be the beginning and the end of his religion.
If asked the question; neither of you can say if you're going to heaven or not because your church and your god has left you like orphans in this world, without hope.
Here's a few more things our boy may want to tell you later.
Jesus is no longer an infant on Mary's lap.
He's not third in line as mediator below Mary.
He doesn't sit and watch as Mary hears our prayers.
Mary cannot hear anyones prayers.
Mary is dead and cannot interceded for anyone to God.
Mary could have been any number of woman.
Mary is not part of the Triune Godhead.
Worship of Mary is idolatry.
Having other god's, like Mary, before Him is a violation of the first commandment.
Those statues of Jesus and Mary, etc. are a violation of the second commandment.
Transubstantiation is a tested and proven lie.
Jesus was a body prepared by God to be sacrificed once and for all.
The Mass is a mockery of the finished work of Jesus on the cross.
The mass is a denial of the resurrection, and the living Lord Jesus.
Consuming a wafer and drinking some wine then claiming to have received the Lord Jesus is blatant contempt of Jesus own explanation of the metaphor, John 6:63.
Celebration of the mass negates the entire New Testament and, at best, would only leave a man forgiven of his sins but not filled with the Holy Spirit,
as per the resurrection and Pentecost, therefore NOT born-again, therefore not able to enter the Kingdom of God.
If the Latin Rite is so terrible and wrong, why do you come to this section? Golly, if I were you I would want to stay as far away from Catholics as possible, even to the point of communicating with them in any way, shape, manner or form. The only thing you have done here is to prove your ignorance of the original faith tradition. I will pray for you.
If the Latin Rite is so terrible and wrong, why do you come to this section? Golly, if I were you I would want to stay as far away from Catholics as possible, even to the point of communicating with them in any way, shape, manner or form.
You are on a non-Catholic forum that has a Catholic section. Of course we will do our best to counteract the falsehoods we see in Catholicism.
And 'the original faith tradition' -- strange phrasing. The original faith and the only true faith in in Jesus Christ, and in Him alone, as Lord, God, Savior. Mary was blessed, but not elevated or assumed. The 'saints' are believers, not those the Vatican chooses to elevate to that title. The original faith was Bible-based, not Catholic church based.
HELEN:
Hey my sister. Nice to see you countering these orphans with the hope they'll see the Light of the world!
I don't expect any intelligent responses so I'm not going to spend much more time throwing pearls, if you know what I mean?
I do feel badly for the orphaned Roman Catholics who are left to subjective theology and pauper princes who pose themselves as Christ's Vicar on Earth!
A true child of the Living God knows their position before Him and can speak out, 'I have eternal life, and I'm going to heaven when I die'.
A lost person finds our testimony foolish and worthy of spite.
Catholic people are sincere in their desire to be right but the kidnapped and restrained words of the Holy Bible has left them dependent on teachers, who in turn have exploited them at every turn.
Please enjoy the following response of John Calvin to the Bishop of Carpentras France 1539, Cardinal Jacopo Sadoleto, when he asked him and the citizens of Geneva to return to the Catholic faith. Calvin replied, with only the dawn of the reformation gleaming in his eye, defending the Protestant forms:
Quote John Calvin:
"A prophet, holding the place of teacher, should be judged by the congregation (1Cor.14:29).
Whoever exempts himself from this must first expunge his name from the list of prophets.
And here, a very wide field for exposing your ignorance opens upon me, since, in matters of religious controversy all that you leave to the faithful is to shut their own eyes and submit implicitly to their teachers.
But since it is certain that every soul that does not depend on God alone is enslaved to Satan, how miserable must they be who are imbued with such rudiments of faith?
Hence I observe that you have too indolent a theology, as is almost always the case with those who have never had experience with serious struggles of conscience.
For otherwise, you would never place a Christian man on ground so slippery, nay, precipitous, that he can scarcely stand a moment if even the slightest push is given him.
Give me, I say, not some unlearned man from among the people, but the rudest clown, and if he is to belong to the flock of God, he must be prepared for that warfare which He has ordained for all the Godly.
An armed enemy is at hand, on the alert to engage; an enemy most skillful and unassailable by mortal strength; to resist him, with what guards must not that poor man be defended, with what weapons armed, if he is not to be instantly annihilated?
Paul informs us (Eph. 6:17), that the only sword with which he can fight is the Word of the Lord. A soul, therefore, when deprived of the Word of God, is given up unarmed to the devil for destruction.
Now, then, will not the first machination of the enemy be to rest the sword from the soldier of Christ?
And what better method of resting it, but to set him to doubting whether it may be the Word of the Lord he is leaning upon, or the word of men?
What will you do for this unhappy being? Will you bid him look round for learned men on whom reclining he may take his rest?
But the enemy will not leave him so much as a breathing time in this deception. For when once he has driven him to lean upon men, he will keep urging and repeating his blows until he throws him over the precipice.
Thus, he must either be easily overthrown, or he must forsake man and look directly to God.
So true is it that Christian faith must not be founded on human testimony, not propped up on doubtful opinion , not reclined on human authority, but engraven on our hearts by the finger of the living God, so as not to be obliterated by any coloring of error.
There is nothing of Christ then, in Him who does not hold the elementary principle, that it is God alone who enlightens our minds to perceive His truth, who by His Spirit seals it in our hearts, and by His sure attestation to it, confirms our conscience."
From: A Reformation Debate, edited by John C. Olin, Baker books
Now days, I'm sure you don't waste your time defining yourself as a Protest-ant to this monolith of evil, because we know Who we belong to and no longer have to escape the clutches of her vice. I admire Calvin for being a pioneer in the restoration of God's Gospel of salvation from the Latin tongue to the savage tongue, and I pity the future of the Vatican.
: Helen Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 22:23:42
If the Latin Rite is so terrible and wrong, why do you come to this section? Golly, if I were you I would want to stay as far away from Catholics as possible, even to the point of communicating with them in any way, shape, manner or form.
You are on a non-Catholic forum that has a Catholic section. Of course we will do our best to counteract the falsehoods we see in Catholicism.
And 'the original faith tradition' -- strange phrasing. The original faith and the only true faith in in Jesus Christ, and in Him alone, as Lord, God, Savior. Mary was blessed, but not elevated or assumed. The 'saints' are believers, not those the Vatican chooses to elevate to that title. The original faith was Bible-based, not Catholic church based.
The original faith was not "bible" based as you claim, because the New Testament scriptures as we know them did not exist for some 300 years. The original faith was based on Jesus Christ and was taught mostly in the oral fashion. I see your historical knowledge of Christianity is quite limited.
: Ladonia Tue Dec 03, 2013 - 20:11:02
: Helen Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 22:23:42
If the Latin Rite is so terrible and wrong, why do you come to this section? Golly, if I were you I would want to stay as far away from Catholics as possible, even to the point of communicating with them in any way, shape, manner or form.
You are on a non-Catholic forum that has a Catholic section. Of course we will do our best to counteract the falsehoods we see in Catholicism.
And 'the original faith tradition' -- strange phrasing. The original faith and the only true faith in in Jesus Christ, and in Him alone, as Lord, God, Savior. Mary was blessed, but not elevated or assumed. The 'saints' are believers, not those the Vatican chooses to elevate to that title. The original faith was Bible-based, not Catholic church based.
The original faith was not "bible" based as you claim, because the New Testament scriptures as we know them did not exist for some 300 years. The original faith was based on Jesus Christ and was taught mostly in the oral fashion. I see your historical knowledge of Christianity is quite limited.
Amazing, since we have letters quoting the Gospels and Paul's letters in particular dating from long before the 3rd century. You really think Paul's letters were oral? He himself says he is writing them! Peter referred to Paul's writings as Scripture. But then, what did Peter know?
: Gregree Tue Dec 03, 2013 - 18:17:57
HELEN:
Hey my sister. Nice to see you countering these orphans with the hope they'll see the Light of the world!
I don't expect any intelligent responses so I'm not going to spend much more time throwing pearls, if you know what I mean?
I do feel badly for the orphaned Roman Catholics who are left to subjective theology and pauper princes who pose themselves as Christ's Vicar on Earth!
A true child of the Living God knows their position before Him and can speak out, 'I have eternal life, and I'm going to heaven when I die'.
A lost person finds our testimony foolish and worthy of spite.
Catholic people are sincere in their desire to be right but the kidnapped and restrained words of the Holy Bible has left them dependent on teachers, who in turn have exploited them at every turn.
Please enjoy the following response of John Calvin to the Bishop of Carpentras France 1539, Cardinal Jacopo Sadoleto, when he asked him and the citizens of Geneva to return to the Catholic faith. Calvin replied, with only the dawn of the reformation gleaming in his eye, defending the Protestant forms:
Quote John Calvin:
"A prophet, holding the place of teacher, should be judged by the congregation (1Cor.14:29).
Whoever exempts himself from this must first expunge his name from the list of prophets.
And here, a very wide field for exposing your ignorance opens upon me, since, in matters of religious controversy all that you leave to the faithful is to shut their own eyes and submit implicitly to their teachers.
But since it is certain that every soul that does not depend on God alone is enslaved to Satan, how miserable must they be who are imbued with such rudiments of faith?
Hence I observe that you have too indolent a theology, as is almost always the case with those who have never had experience with serious struggles of conscience.
For otherwise, you would never place a Christian man on ground so slippery, nay, precipitous, that he can scarcely stand a moment if even the slightest push is given him.
Give me, I say, not some unlearned man from among the people, but the rudest clown, and if he is to belong to the flock of God, he must be prepared for that warfare which He has ordained for all the Godly.
An armed enemy is at hand, on the alert to engage; an enemy most skillful and unassailable by mortal strength; to resist him, with what guards must not that poor man be defended, with what weapons armed, if he is not to be instantly annihilated?
Paul informs us (Eph. 6:17), that the only sword with which he can fight is the Word of the Lord. A soul, therefore, when deprived of the Word of God, is given up unarmed to the devil for destruction.
Now, then, will not the first machination of the enemy be to rest the sword from the soldier of Christ?
And what better method of resting it, but to set him to doubting whether it may be the Word of the Lord he is leaning upon, or the word of men?
What will you do for this unhappy being? Will you bid him look round for learned men on whom reclining he may take his rest?
But the enemy will not leave him so much as a breathing time in this deception. For when once he has driven him to lean upon men, he will keep urging and repeating his blows until he throws him over the precipice.
Thus, he must either be easily overthrown, or he must forsake man and look directly to God.
So true is it that Christian faith must not be founded on human testimony, not propped up on doubtful opinion , not reclined on human authority, but engraven on our hearts by the finger of the living God, so as not to be obliterated by any coloring of error.
There is nothing of Christ then, in Him who does not hold the elementary principle, that it is God alone who enlightens our minds to perceive His truth, who by His Spirit seals it in our hearts, and by His sure attestation to it, confirms our conscience."
From: A Reformation Debate, edited by John C. Olin, Baker books
Now days, I'm sure you don't waste your time defining yourself as a Protest-ant to this monolith of evil, because we know Who we belong to and no longer have to escape the clutches of her vice. I admire Calvin for being a pioneer in the restoration of God's Gospel of salvation from the Latin tongue to the savage tongue, and I pity the future of the Vatican.
I see that you like your fellow traveler Helen, you are quite limited in your knowledge of early Christian history and the way Christians used to worship. Believe me, it was quite different from the way you rejectionists now do things, with your service consisting of your pastor haranging the congregation with his poor interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, and your Sunday snack of crackers and grape juice. And it sure must be hard to concentrate in that storefront where you worship with all the car horn honking and shoppers passing by. Man, how can you stand all that noise?
: Helen Tue Dec 03, 2013 - 20:23:18
: Ladonia Tue Dec 03, 2013 - 20:11:02
: Helen Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 22:23:42
If the Latin Rite is so terrible and wrong, why do you come to this section? Golly, if I were you I would want to stay as far away from Catholics as possible, even to the point of communicating with them in any way, shape, manner or form.
You are on a non-Catholic forum that has a Catholic section. Of course we will do our best to counteract the falsehoods we see in Catholicism.
And 'the original faith tradition' -- strange phrasing. The original faith and the only true faith in in Jesus Christ, and in Him alone, as Lord, God, Savior. Mary was blessed, but not elevated or assumed. The 'saints' are believers, not those the Vatican chooses to elevate to that title. The original faith was Bible-based, not Catholic church based.
The original faith was not "bible" based as you claim, because the New Testament scriptures as we know them did not exist for some 300 years. The original faith was based on Jesus Christ and was taught mostly in the oral fashion. I see your historical knowledge of Christianity is quite limited.
Amazing, since we have letters quoting the Gospels and Paul's letters in particular dating from long before the 3rd century. You really think Paul's letters were oral? He himself says he is writing them! Peter referred to Paul's writings as Scripture. But then, what did Peter know?
So in the midst of preaching about the Savior, St. Paul whips out his own letters and starts reading from them? Surely you jest! And St Peter, a man who was with the Lord and experienced everything first hand reads from them also? I sincerely doubt that also.
: Helen Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 22:23:42
If the Latin Rite is so terrible and wrong, why do you come to this section? Golly, if I were you I would want to stay as far away from Catholics as possible, even to the point of communicating with them in any way, shape, manner or form.
You are on a non-Catholic forum that has a Catholic section. Of course we will do our best to counteract the falsehoods we see in Catholicism.
And 'the original faith tradition' -- strange phrasing. The original faith and the only true faith in in Jesus Christ, and in Him alone, as Lord, God, Savior. Mary was blessed, but not elevated or assumed. The 'saints' are believers, not those the Vatican chooses to elevate to that title. The original faith was Bible-based, not Catholic church based.
No falsehoods to counteract my friend, you are wasting your time. And pleas
: Helen Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 22:23:42
If the Latin Rite is so terrible and wrong, why do you come to this section? Golly, if I were you I would want to stay as far away from Catholics as possible, even to the point of communicating with them in any way, shape, manner or form.
You are on a non-Catholic forum that has a Catholic section. Of course we will do our best to counteract the falsehoods we see in Catholicism.
And 'the original faith tradition' -- strange phrasing. The original faith and the only true faith in in Jesus Christ, and in Him alone, as Lord, God, Savior. Mary was blessed, but not elevated or assumed. The 'saints' are believers, not those the Vatican chooses to elevate to that title. The original faith was Bible-based, not Catholic church based.
No falsehoods to counteract as far as I am concerned - you are wasting your time. Now tell me, where in the Scriptures does it say the Jesus said to write it all down and to let the people come to their own conclusions?
@ Ladonia
I see that you like your fellow traveler Helen, you are quite limited in your knowledge of early Christian history and the way Christians used to worship. Believe me, it was quite different from the way you rejectionists now do things, with your service consisting of your pastor haranging the congregation with his poor interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, and your Sunday snack of crackers and grape juice. And it sure must be hard to concentrate in that storefront where you worship with all the car horn honking and shoppers passing by. Man, how can you stand all that noise?
[/quote]
Well said, professor, you've succeeded in proving your inability to pick up where the conversation left off, and then you portray a fantasy from your imagination of what we're talking about, again proving you're not reading with any comprehension skills.
But, in the end, we're talking two different languages here.
I was born and raised in the Catholic church. I went to Parochial schools and have many relatives in the priesthood. My late mother had a birthmark she was told connected her to Mary and she lived and died with this idea and no ability to tell me she was going to heaven when she died, and she rejected the parts of the bible, (Catholic or otherwise), that proved she could, because she was told she couldn't trust it!!! If this is true, you and your cohorts in here need to stop quoting scripture at all. You have no right to pick and choose what you "think" supports your false church while you deny the rest. This is intellectual dishonesty at its highest form.
I can tell you today professor, my mother is not with God, the same as my grandmother, who was Jewish till her death, went to the grave without being reborn as we are instructed by Jesus that we have to be, or we will not see the Kingdom of God.
According to the writings of Richard Wurmbrand, Transubstantiation has been proven false, in communist prisons no less, where the captors would torment priests by putting poisons and fecal matter in the place of wafers and wine, then tell them to consume it afterwards, if they truly believed they were changed into the body and blood of Christ. It's crude but the results remain false.
You are not reborn by eating at the mass. Read the explanation of the allegory by Jesus from the passage where you get this fallacy:
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
The flesh profits nothing!
It's all about LIFE professor. We are saved by His LIFE.
Romans 5:10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
Did you know, while you still have him on the crucifix He's been resurrected from the dead and restoring LIFE to men who come to HIM for it?
John 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
There's your dilemma above. With your pithy dates and historical delusions, you don't have the Word, you don't have Life, and you don't have the Light of men.
You're the one professor, who doesn't 'comprehend' what's going on. Get out of the church and into the Kingdom. Drop the religion and start a relationship.
Ladonia, your responses tend to be nonsense, I'm sorry. Of course Peter read Paul's material, or he would not have referred to them as Scripture. The letters from both of them were quoted in other letters passed around to the churches in the first and second centuries and beyond, long before the Catholics decided to formally approve the material that had already been accepted as Scripture by believers.
: Gregree Tue Dec 03, 2013 - 21:39:03
@ Ladonia
I see that you like your fellow traveler Helen, you are quite limited in your knowledge of early Christian history and the way Christians used to worship. Believe me, it was quite different from the way you rejectionists now do things, with your service consisting of your pastor haranging the congregation with his poor interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, and your Sunday snack of crackers and grape juice. And it sure must be hard to concentrate in that storefront where you worship with all the car horn honking and shoppers passing by. Man, how can you stand all that noise?
Well said, professor, you've succeeded in proving your inability to pick up where the conversation left off, and then you portray a fantasy from your imagination of what we're talking about, again proving you're not reading with any comprehension skills.
But, in the end, we're talking two different languages here.
I was born and raised in the Catholic church. I went to Parochial schools and have many relatives in the priesthood. My late mother had a birthmark she was told connected her to Mary and she lived and died with this idea and no ability to tell me she was going to heaven when she died, and she rejected the parts of the bible, (Catholic or otherwise), that proved she could, because she was told she couldn't trust it!!! If this is true, you and your cohorts in here need to stop quoting scripture at all. You have no right to pick and choose what you "think" supports your false church while you deny the rest. This is intellectual dishonesty at its highest form.
I can tell you today professor, my mother is not with God, the same as my grandmother, who was Jewish till her death, went to the grave without being reborn as we are instructed by Jesus that we have to be, or we will not see the Kingdom of God.
According to the writings of Richard Wurmbrand, Transubstantiation has been proven false, in communist prisons no less, where the captors would torment priests by putting poisons and fecal matter in the place of wafers and wine, then tell them to consume it afterwards, if they truly believed they were changed into the body and blood of Christ. It's crude but the results remain false.
You are not reborn by eating at the mass. Read the explanation of the allegory by Jesus from the passage where you get this fallacy:
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
The flesh profits nothing!
It's all about LIFE professor. We are saved by His LIFE.
Romans 5:10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
Did you know, while you still have him on the crucifix He's been resurrected from the dead and restoring LIFE to men who come to HIM for it?
John 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
There's your dilemma above. With your pithy dates and historical delusions, you don't have the Word, you don't have Life, and you don't have the Light of men.
You're the one professor, who doesn't 'comprehend' what's going on. Get out of the church and into the Kingdom. Drop the religion and start a relationship.
[/quote
: Gregree Tue Dec 03, 2013 - 21:39:03
@ Ladonia
I see that you like your fellow traveler Helen, you are quite limited in your knowledge of early Christian history and the way Christians used to worship. Believe me, it was quite different from the way you rejectionists now do things, with your service consisting of your pastor haranging the congregation with his poor interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, and your Sunday snack of crackers and grape juice. And it sure must be hard to concentrate in that storefront where you worship with all the car horn honking and shoppers passing by. Man, how can you stand all that noise?
Well said, professor, you've succeeded in proving your inability to pick up where the conversation left off, and then you portray a fantasy from your imagination of what we're talking about, again proving you're not reading with any comprehension skills.
But, in the end, we're talking two different languages here.
I was born and raised in the Catholic church. I went to Parochial schools and have many relatives in the priesthood. My late mother had a birthmark she was told connected her to Mary and she lived and died with this idea and no ability to tell me she was going to heaven when she died, and she rejected the parts of the bible, (Catholic or otherwise), that proved she could, because she was told she couldn't trust it!!! If this is true, you and your cohorts in here need to stop quoting scripture at all. You have no right to pick and choose what you "think" supports your false church while you deny the rest. This is intellectual dishonesty at its highest form.
I can tell you today professor, my mother is not with God, the same as my grandmother, who was Jewish till her death, went to the grave without being reborn as we are instructed by Jesus that we have to be, or we will not see the Kingdom of God.
According to the writings of Richard Wurmbrand, Transubstantiation has been proven false, in communist prisons no less, where the captors would torment priests by putting poisons and fecal matter in the place of wafers and wine, then tell them to consume it afterwards, if they truly believed they were changed into the body and blood of Christ. It's crude but the results remain false.
You are not reborn by eating at the mass. Read the explanation of the allegory by Jesus from the passage where you get this fallacy:
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
The flesh profits nothing!
It's all about LIFE professor. We are saved by His LIFE.
Romans 5:10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
Did you know, while you still have him on the crucifix He's been resurrected from the dead and restoring LIFE to men who come to HIM for it?
John 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
There's your dilemma above. With your pithy dates and historical delusions, you don't have the Word, you don't have Life, and you don't have the Light of men.
You're the one professor, who doesn't 'comprehend' what's going on. Get out of the church and into the Kingdom. Drop the religion and start a relationship.
[/quote]
: Gregree Tue Dec 03, 2013 - 21:39:03
@ Ladonia
I see that you like your fellow traveler Helen, you are quite limited in your knowledge of early Christian history and the way Christians used to worship. Believe me, it was quite different from the way you rejectionists now do things, with your service consisting of your pastor haranging the congregation with his poor interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, and your Sunday snack of crackers and grape juice. And it sure must be hard to concentrate in that storefront where you worship with all the car horn honking and shoppers passing by. Man, how can you stand all that noise?
Well said, professor, you've succeeded in proving your inability to pick up where the conversation left off, and then you portray a fantasy from your imagination of what we're talking about, again proving you're not reading with any comprehension skills.
But, in the end, we're talking two different languages here.
I was born and raised in the Catholic church. I went to Parochial schools and have many relatives in the priesthood. My late mother had a birthmark she was told connected her to Mary and she lived and died with this idea and no ability to tell me she was going to heaven when she died, and she rejected the parts of the bible, (Catholic or otherwise), that proved she could, because she was told she couldn't trust it!!! If this is true, you and your cohorts in here need to stop quoting scripture at all. You have no right to pick and choose what you "think" supports your false church while you deny the rest. This is intellectual dishonesty at its highest form.
I can tell you today professor, my mother is not with God, the same as my grandmother, who was Jewish till her death, went to the grave without being reborn as we are instructed by Jesus that we have to be, or we will not see the Kingdom of God.
According to the writings of Richard Wurmbrand, Transubstantiation has been proven false, in communist prisons no less, where the captors would torment priests by putting poisons and fecal matter in the place of wafers and wine, then tell them to consume it afterwards, if they truly believed they were changed into the body and blood of Christ. It's crude but the results remain false.
You are not reborn by eating at the mass. Read the explanation of the allegory by Jesus from the passage where you get this fallacy:
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
The flesh profits nothing!
It's all about LIFE professor. We are saved by His LIFE.
Romans 5:10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
Did you know, while you still have him on the crucifix He's been resurrected from the dead and restoring LIFE to men who come to HIM for it?
John 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
There's your dilemma above. With your pithy dates and historical delusions, you don't have the Word, you don't have Life, and you don't have the Light of men.
You're the one professor, who doesn't 'comprehend' what's going on. Get out of the church and into the Kingdom. Drop the religion and start a relationship.
[/quote]
No wonder you are such a fanatic against the Catholic Church, this explains it all and I should have guessed that this was the case. And as far as transubstantiation goes, you want me to believe the musings of another rejectionist like yourself, a member of some minor Christian sect about this basic doctrine? Not hardly! I'll stay with the writings of the good solid Catholic theologians who have taught the faithful throughout the many centuries.
: Helen Tue Dec 03, 2013 - 21:41:07
Ladonia, your responses tend to be nonsense, I'm sorry. Of course Peter read Paul's material, or he would not have referred to them as Scripture. The letters from both of them were quoted in other letters passed around to the churches in the first and second centuries and beyond, long before the Catholics decided to formally approve the material that had already been accepted as Scripture by believers.
So now you do admit that it was the Catholics that put the New Testament together as we now know it. Good, this shows you know a bit more history about the subject then I thought you did.
You intentionally misrepresented what I wrote. give it up.
Ladonia:
"No wonder you are such a fanatic against the Catholic Church, this explains it all and I should have guessed that this was the case."
Are you kidding me? That's your reaction? I'm not looking for sympathy, so don't misunderstand...I'm just saying, you think that situation with my mom is OK?
And, you feel I have no educated perspective to critique from, you make me into an enemy by necessity.
When have you ever walked in my shoes, Ladonia? Oh that's right, you have no clue, but you can fight it to the death?
"And as far as transubstantiation goes, you want me to believe the musings of another rejectionist like yourself, a member of some minor Christian sect about this basic doctrine? Not hardly!"
Again, this man was imprisoned for being a minister along with priests and rabbis alike. He was bought out of prison after 14 years or he would have died anonymous.
He testified to the United States congress about communist human rights violations and wrote many books to warn ALL the world about such things. And you speak of him like he's less than you? By the way, his observations about the Mass were side notes to his calling by God.
"I'll stay with the writings of the good solid Catholic theologians who have taught the faithful throughout the many centuries."
Yes you will. You read the scripture I quoted and it bounced right off your heart because your heart is hard. The written word which correlates to the Living Word, which translates to knowledge and truth, have no place in you.
Till tomorrow, Cheers!
: Gregree Tue Dec 03, 2013 - 22:34:04
Ladonia:
"No wonder you are such a fanatic against the Catholic Church, this explains it all and I should have guessed that this was the case."
Are you kidding me? That's your reaction? I'm not looking for sympathy, so don't misunderstand...I'm just saying, you think that situation with my mom is OK?
And, you feel I have no educated perspective to critique from, you make me into an enemy by necessity.
When have you ever walked in my shoes, Ladonia? Oh that's right, you have no clue, but you can fight it to the death?
"And as far as transubstantiation goes, you want me to believe the musings of another rejectionist like yourself, a member of some minor Christian sect about this basic doctrine? Not hardly!"
Again, this man was imprisoned for being a minister along with priests and rabbis alike. He was bought out of prison after 14 years or he would have died anonymous.
He testified to the United States congress about communist human rights violations and wrote many books to warn ALL the world about such things. And you speak of him like he's less than you? By the way, his observations about the Mass were side notes to his calling by God.
"I'll stay with the writings of the good solid Catholic theologians who have taught the faithful throughout the many centuries."
Yes you will. You read the scripture I quoted and it bounced right off your heart because your heart is hard. The written word which correlates to the Living Word, which translates to knowledge and truth, have no place in you.
Till tomorrow, Cheers!
You can believe all you want about the final destiny of your mother and Jewish grandmother, but I believe God's mercy is infinite and we cannot comprehend it with our finite minds. This is where the current Christian teaching you now receive is in error. But anyway, as regards the Jewish people, so according to what you believe and despite the fact that the Jews are God's chosen people and the covenant with them remains in force, they are all consigned to the fires of hell because they don't believe in Christ as the Messiah? No, I don't believe that for a moment.
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 10:23:12
You can believe all you want about the final destiny of your mother and Jewish grandmother, but I believe God's mercy is infinite and we cannot comprehend it with our finite minds. This is where the current Christian teaching you now receive is in error. But anyway, as regards the Jewish people, so according to what you believe and despite the fact that the Jews are God's chosen people and the covenant with them remains in force, they are all consigned to the fires of hell because they don't believe in Christ as the Messiah? No, I don't believe that for a moment.
Then you are making the same mistake that John Hagee makes. It is blatantly antisemetic and unbiblical. The gospel is to the JEW FIRST. (Rom 1) That is as much order of priority as it is chronological.
As a Messianic, I am familiar with the various soteriological positions being argued back and forth between various honest and learned men, specifically regarding the fate of non-Messianic Jews.
I take pretty much a narrow hope view. Most of my peers are a bit wider (including Dan Juster).
Here is an article that examines the topic and the recent discussion.
http://www.kesherjournal.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=89&Itemid=429 (http://www.kesherjournal.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=89&Itemid=429)
: DaveW Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 10:40:10
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 10:23:12
You can believe all you want about the final destiny of your mother and Jewish grandmother, but I believe God's mercy is infinite and we cannot comprehend it with our finite minds. This is where the current Christian teaching you now receive is in error. But anyway, as regards the Jewish people, so according to what you believe and despite the fact that the Jews are God's chosen people and the covenant with them remains in force, they are all consigned to the fires of hell because they don't believe in Christ as the Messiah? No, I don't believe that for a moment.
Then you are making the same mistake that John Hagee makes. It is blatantly antisemetic and unbiblical. The gospel is to the JEW FIRST. (Rom 1) That is as much order of priority as it is chronological.
As a Messianic, I am familiar with the various soteriological positions being argued back and forth between various honest and learned men, specifically regarding the fate of non-Messianic Jews.
I take pretty much a narrow hope view. Most of my peers are a bit wider (including Dan Juster).
Here is an article that examines the topic and the recent discussion.
http://www.kesherjournal.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=89&Itemid=429 (http://www.kesherjournal.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=89&Itemid=429)
You mean Gregree is making the same mistake, don't you?
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 11:04:26
You mean Gregree is making the same mistake, don't you?
No not really. It was YOU who said they do not need to come to faith in Messiah to escape hell. That is the error Hagee believes. I find it atrocious.
Let's look at what Jesus said:
Once more Jesus said to them, "I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come."
This made the Jews ask, "Will he kill himself? Is that why he says, 'Where I go, you cannot come'?"
But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins." (John 8:21-24)
and who did Jesus claim to be?
Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"
"We are not stoning you for any good work," they replied, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." (John10:31-33)
So, it seems, Jews or not, belief in Christ as God is paramount to salvation.
: DaveW Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 11:48:29
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 11:04:26
You mean Gregree is making the same mistake, don't you?
No not really. It was YOU who said they do not need to come to faith in Messiah to escape hell. That is the error Hagee believes. I find it atrocious.
Okay, refresh my memory - it's been awhile since I have posted here, so please give me the specific posts so I can re-read them. As for Mr. Hagee, you are saying that he believes that people don't need to believe in Jesus Christ to escape hell, is that what you are saying?
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 12:18:22
: DaveW Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 11:48:29
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 11:04:26
You mean Gregree is making the same mistake, don't you?
No not really. It was YOU who said they do not need to come to faith in Messiah to escape hell. That is the error Hagee believes. I find it atrocious.
Okay, refresh my memory - it's been awhile since I have posted here, so please give me the specific posts so I can re-read them. As for Mr. Hagee, you are saying that he believes that people don't need to believe in Jesus Christ to escape hell, is that what you are saying?
From what I understand of Mr. Hagee, he doesn't believe JEWISH people need to believe in Christ Jesus for salvation. He believes they are saved because He calls them His people. That is false. No man comes to the Father except through belief in Jesus Christ.
: MeMyself Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 12:33:23
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 12:18:22
: DaveW Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 11:48:29
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 11:04:26
You mean Gregree is making the same mistake, don't you?
No not really. It was YOU who said they do not need to come to faith in Messiah to escape hell. That is the error Hagee believes. I find it atrocious.
Okay, refresh my memory - it's been awhile since I have posted here, so please give me the specific posts so I can re-read them. As for Mr. Hagee, you are saying that he believes that people don't need to believe in Jesus Christ to escape hell, is that what you are saying?
From what I understand of Mr. Hagee, he doesn't believe JEWISH people need to believe in Christ Jesus for salvation. He believes they are saved because He calls them His people. That is false. No man comes to the Father except through belief in Jesus Christ.
: MeMyself Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 12:33:23
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 12:18:22
: DaveW Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 11:48:29
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 11:04:26
You mean Gregree is making the same mistake, don't you?
No not really. It was YOU who said they do not need to come to faith in Messiah to escape hell. That is the error Hagee believes. I find it atrocious.
Okay, refresh my memory - it's been awhile since I have posted here, so please give me the specific posts so I can re-read them. As for Mr. Hagee, you are saying that he believes that people don't need to believe in Jesus Christ to escape hell, is that what you are saying?
From what I understand of Mr. Hagee, he doesn't believe JEWISH people need to believe in Christ Jesus for salvation. He believes they are saved because He calls them His people. That is false. No man comes to the Father except through belief in Jesus Christ.
And what is this belief? Is it saying yes I believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah and then continuing to live a sinful life? Or is it simply living a Christlike life, yet not considering oneself a Christian? Which one matters most?
So the Jew who lives a Christlike life, yet remains a faithful Jew is doomed?
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 12:41:31
And what is this belief? Is it saying yes I believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah and then continuing to live a sinful life? Or is it simply living a Christlike life, yet not considering oneself a Christian? Which one matters most?
So the Jew who lives a Christlike life, yet remains a faithful Jew is doomed?
If the Jew refuses to acknowledge Christ as God, the Son of God, or Savior, yes, they are doomed! Our works do not save us! Salvation is a free gift of God not of works so that no man may boast!
When we surrender to Christ, God begins a good work of refinement in us...we will all be on different levels of maturity and conviction. What looks like a sinful life to you might simply be a new babe in Christ who hasn't yet learned the ways of God and whose skills are less refined, but have patience, pray for them and refuse to judge them..because who KNOWS what others view your walk to look like.
: MeMyself Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 12:46:45
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 12:41:31
And what is this belief? Is it saying yes I believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah and then continuing to live a sinful life? Or is it simply living a Christlike life, yet not considering oneself a Christian? Which one matters most?
So the Jew who lives a Christlike life, yet remains a faithful Jew is doomed?
If the Jew refuses to acknowledge Christ as God, the Son of God, or Savior, yes, they are doomed! Our works do not save us! Salvation is a free gift of God not of works so that no man may boast!
When we surrender to Christ, God begins a good work of refinement in us...we will all be on different levels of maturity and conviction. What looks like a sinful life to you might simply be a new babe in Christ who hasn't yet learned the ways of God and whose skills are less refined, but have patience, pray for them and refuse to judge them..because who KNOWS what others view your walk to look like.
Salvation, as you say is "a free gift of God" and maybe God will give it to the person who has lived a Christlike life.
Jesus said: "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'
In the end only God will make the call.
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 12:18:22
: DaveW Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 11:48:29
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 11:04:26
You mean Gregree is making the same mistake, don't you?
No not really. It was YOU who said they do not need to come to faith in Messiah to escape hell. That is the error Hagee believes. I find it atrocious.
Okay, refresh my memory - it's been awhile since I have posted here, so please give me the specific posts so I can re-read them. As for Mr. Hagee, you are saying that he believes that people don't need to believe in Jesus Christ to escape hell, is that what you are saying?
It was what you said in post 76. IT sounds like you are saying that you do NOT believe that a Jew who does
not confess Yeshua/Jesus as Lord is consigned to hell.
Hagee believes that the Mosaic covenant still covers the Jews and they have no need for the NT Gospel as they are already saved under Moses. So he actively tries to discourage Jewish evangelism.
Big mistake that could send millions to eternal destruction.
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 12:41:31
And what is this belief? Is it saying yes I believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah and then continuing to live a sinful life? Or is it simply living a Christlike life, yet not considering oneself a Christian? Which one matters most?
Neither. Hagee's view is that Jews should not hear the gospel. They are already "in" because they are born Jewish and are covered by the Mosaic covenant.
BTW, one CANNOT live a "Christlike life" without faith and the power of the Holy Spirit indwelling them. So that is not possible to someone who does not confess Yeshua as Lord and live accordingly.
: DaveW Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 13:13:06
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 12:18:22
: DaveW Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 11:48:29
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 11:04:26
You mean Gregree is making the same mistake, don't you?
No not really. It was YOU who said they do not need to come to faith in Messiah to escape hell. That is the error Hagee believes. I find it atrocious.
Okay, refresh my memory - it's been awhile since I have posted here, so please give me the specific posts so I can re-read them. As for Mr. Hagee, you are saying that he believes that people don't need to believe in Jesus Christ to escape hell, is that what you are saying?
It was what you said in post 76. IT sounds like you are saying that you do NOT believe that a Jew who does not confess Yeshua/Jesus as Lord is consigned to hell.
Hagee believes that the Mosaic covenant still covers the Jews and they have no need for the NT Gospel as they are already saved under Moses. So he actively tries to discourage Jewish evangelism.
Big mistake that could send millions to eternal destruction.
Yes, that is what I believe. Now, I wouldn't go so far as Mr. Hagee and actively discourage Jews from believing in Jesus as the Messiah though. But for me, life is much easier believing that he is the Messiah, that we have an advocate in Him, and that we Gentiles have been reconciled with God the Father. Living life within the confines of the over 600 Old Testament requirements would be pretty tough.
Buy the way, I disagree that one cannot life a Christlike life on their own. I think that this is entirely possible.
I disagree that one cannot life a Christlike life on their own. I think that this is entirely possible.
That is not what the Catholic Church teaches.
: Slave of God Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 13:46:00
I disagree that one cannot life a Christlike life on their own. I think that this is entirely possible.
That is not what the Catholic Church teaches.
: Slave of God Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 13:46:00
I disagree that one cannot life a Christlike life on their own. I think that this is entirely possible.
That is not what the Catholic Church teaches.
It's my own personal opinion - rightly or wrongly.
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 13:12:05
Salvation, as you say is "a free gift of God" and maybe God will give it to the person who has lived a Christlike life.
I don't say it, the Word of God does. And, no it is not earned by being good, kind, patient, obedient, etc.
Dave is right. There is no way someone can be Christlike and reject Him at the same time! Its an oxymoron.
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 14:08:20
: Slave of God Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 13:46:00
I disagree that one cannot life a Christlike life on their own. I think that this is entirely possible.
That is not what the Catholic Church teaches.
: Slave of God Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 13:46:00
I disagree that one cannot life a Christlike life on their own. I think that this is entirely possible.
That is not what the Catholic Church teaches.
It's my own personal opinion - rightly or wrongly.
Well, wrongly it is.
The Word of God says all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, that the wages of that sin is death, and that there are none righteous not one.
Christ is the only way to the Father.
: Gregree Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 20:38:44
@ Winsome:
@ Catholica:
The 18 year old boy would be a born again child of the Creator God Who Gave His only Son as a ransom to save all those who would believe in the One whom He sent. Amen
In other words he would be the same as the disciples of the early church and those who claim salvation in the triumphant, resurrected Lord Jesus in this forum, right now.
He would not, like you two, be wasting his time and talents promoting a brick and mortar organization full of paganism, and traditions that are built on sand.
He would not be found in a special garment, or vesement to indicate his rank to the world.
He'd have no use for cathedrals, or thrones which would only confuse him as to who'd want to occupy them.
He would realize God is for him, and Jesus is in Him, and he lives eternally while waiting to go to heaven.
This would be the topic of his conversation, and this would be the beginning and the end of his religion.
Perhaps, but those are all just bells and whistles. You have no response to the practices of religion that he would be doing, which are the heart of religion. Not vestments, not buildings or any of that stuff.
: Gregree Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 20:38:44
If asked the question; neither of you can say if you're going to heaven or not because your church and your god has left you like orphans in this world, without hope.
To have hope means not to presume, but to trust based on promised. To say one is going to heaven is not to hope. It is to presume. As Catholics, we have hope. Authentic hope.
: Gregree Mon Dec 02, 2013 - 20:38:44
Here's a few more things our boy may want to tell you later.
Jesus is no longer an infant on Mary's lap. We already knew that.
He's not third in line as mediator below Mary. We already knew that.
He doesn't sit and watch as Mary hears our prayers. False, the Bible doesn't say that.
Mary cannot hear anyones prayers. False, the Bible doesn't say that.
Mary is dead and cannot interceded for anyone to God. False, the Bible doesn't say that.
Mary could have been any number of woman. False, the Bible doesn't say that.
Mary is not part of the Triune Godhead. We already knew that.
Worship of Mary is idolatry. We already knew that. We don't worship Mary.
Having other god's, like Mary, before Him is a violation of the first commandment. We don't hold Mary to be a god.
Those statues of Jesus and Mary, etc. are a violation of the second commandment. False.
Transubstantiation is a tested and proven lie. False, the Bible doesn't say that.
Jesus was a body prepared by God to be sacrificed once and for all. We already knew that.
The Mass is a mockery of the finished work of Jesus on the cross. False, the Bible doesn't say that.
The mass is a denial of the resurrection, and the living Lord Jesus. False, the Bible doesn't say that.
Consuming a wafer and drinking some wine then claiming to have received the Lord Jesus is blatant contempt of Jesus own explanation of the metaphor, John 6:63. False, the Bible doesn't say that.
Celebration of the mass negates the entire New Testament and, at best, would only leave a man forgiven of his sins but not filled with the Holy Spirit,
as per the resurrection and Pentecost, therefore NOT born-again, therefore not able to enter the Kingdom of God. False, the Bible doesn't say that.
This "boy" seems to be you(?)
: MeMyself Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 14:49:11
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 13:12:05
Salvation, as you say is "a free gift of God" and maybe God will give it to the person who has lived a Christlike life.
I don't say it, the Word of God does. And, no it is not earned by being good, kind, patient, obedient, etc.
Dave is right. There is no way someone can be Christlike and reject Him at the same time! Its an oxymoron.
Ghandi was not Christlike? I think he was very Christlike.
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 15:11:28
: MeMyself Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 14:49:11
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 13:12:05
Salvation, as you say is "a free gift of God" and maybe God will give it to the person who has lived a Christlike life.
I don't say it, the Word of God does. And, no it is not earned by being good, kind, patient, obedient, etc.
Dave is right. There is no way someone can be Christlike and reject Him at the same time! Its an oxymoron.
Ghandi was not Christlike? I think he was very Christlike.
How so?
He could have looked good to human eyes, but God looks at the heart and if his heart rejected Christ, there is NO WAY he could be Christ like! Christ's likeness comes from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit! Satan is the master counterfeiter...goodness, humility, kindness all counterfeit if not lead by Christ. They get a person nowhere! They cannot bring glory to God and that is what the aim of the Christ like believer is!
: MeMyself Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 15:24:35
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 15:11:28
: MeMyself Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 14:49:11
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 13:12:05
Salvation, as you say is "a free gift of God" and maybe God will give it to the person who has lived a Christlike life.
I don't say it, the Word of God does. And, no it is not earned by being good, kind, patient, obedient, etc.
Dave is right. There is no way someone can be Christlike and reject Him at the same time! Its an oxymoron.
Ghandi was not Christlike? I think he was very Christlike.
How so?
He could have looked good to human eyes, but God looks at the heart and if his heart rejected Christ, there is NO WAY he could be Christ like! Christ's likeness comes from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit! Satan is the master counterfeiter...goodness, humility, kindness all counterfeit if not lead by Christ. They get a person nowhere! They cannot bring glory to God and that is what the aim of the Christ like believer is!
Glad to know you know what was inside Ghandi's heart, but actions speak louder than words. The man didn't pick up a rifle to drive the British from India, he carried a walking stick. He didn't side with the Muslims or Hindus when they rioted and were killing each other, he fasted and prayed. He never sought to judge people, but accepted everyone as his brother, whether they were Hindu, Muslim, or Christian. He loved his enemies as per Jesus's command. Satan did not inhabit this man, only God's loving spirit did. Like Jesus says: "By their fruits ye shall know them". Tell me, where is the rotten fruit this man produced?
Just because it was brought up:
Although Gandhi may have looked like a saint, in an outfit designed to represent the poor of rural India, he was above all a wily operator and tactician. Having lived in Britain and South Africa, he was familiar with the system that he was attempting to subvert. He knew how to undermine the British, when to press an advantage and when to withdraw. Little wonder that one British provincial governor described Mr Gandhi as being as "cunning as a cartload of monkeys".
from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/9840076/The-truth-about-Mahatma-Gandhi-he-was-a-wily-operator-not-Indias-smiling-saint.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/9840076/The-truth-about-Mahatma-Gandhi-he-was-a-wily-operator-not-Indias-smiling-saint.html)
: Helen Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 15:43:01
Just because it was brought up:
Although Gandhi may have looked like a saint, in an outfit designed to represent the poor of rural India, he was above all a wily operator and tactician. Having lived in Britain and South Africa, he was familiar with the system that he was attempting to subvert. He knew how to undermine the British, when to press an advantage and when to withdraw. Little wonder that one British provincial governor described Mr Gandhi as being as "cunning as a cartload of monkeys".
from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/9840076/The-truth-about-Mahatma-Gandhi-he-was-a-wily-operator-not-Indias-smiling-saint.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/9840076/The-truth-about-Mahatma-Gandhi-he-was-a-wily-operator-not-Indias-smiling-saint.html)
So what was Ghandi supposed to do, remain silent, do nothing and allow the British to continue controlling India forever? He did a masterful job of getting the British to leave without a major war that could have killed millions of people.
Hey, read the article. I didn't write it!
Ghandi wasnt saved, so what does it matter what he did or didn't do? There are many people who do nice things, but unless they know Jesus, what good will it do them? Works don't save anyone..
Catholica said: This "boy" seems to be you(?)
[/quote]
LOL, it might as well be.
You keep on keeping on, and we'll see who meets who in the afterlife.
Take care.
ladonia said: You can believe all you want about the final destiny of your mother and Jewish grandmother, but I believe God's mercy is infinite and we cannot comprehend it with our finite minds. This is where the current Christian teaching you now receive is in error. But anyway, as regards the Jewish people, so according to what you believe and despite the fact that the Jews are God's chosen people and the covenant with them remains in force, they are all consigned to the fires of hell because they don't believe in Christ as the Messiah? No, I don't believe that for a moment.
[/quote]
I thought the comparison of my mothers unbelief to that of my grandmothers Jewish belief, (in other words waiting for the Messiah), would be a mutual point of clarity, but your subjective theology won't even allow that. And that's the problem freind.
So, thanks for the passionate responses but you're fighting fire with gasoline. The arguments you use today are going to testify against you later, at the judgement seat, so be ready.
Take care.
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 15:49:30
: Helen Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 15:43:01
Just because it was brought up:
Although Gandhi may have looked like a saint, in an outfit designed to represent the poor of rural India, he was above all a wily operator and tactician. Having lived in Britain and South Africa, he was familiar with the system that he was attempting to subvert. He knew how to undermine the British, when to press an advantage and when to withdraw. Little wonder that one British provincial governor described Mr Gandhi as being as "cunning as a cartload of monkeys".
from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/9840076/The-truth-about-Mahatma-Gandhi-he-was-a-wily-operator-not-Indias-smiling-saint.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/9840076/The-truth-about-Mahatma-Gandhi-he-was-a-wily-operator-not-Indias-smiling-saint.html)
So what was Ghandi supposed to do, remain silent, do nothing and allow the British to continue controlling India forever? He did a masterful job of getting the British to leave without a major war that could have killed millions of people.
Not to argue for or against Ghandi, but isn't that what Christ called us to do, be "wise as serpents and innocent as doves"?
: Gregree Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 16:28:33
You can believe all you want about the final destiny of your mother and Jewish grandmother, but I believe God's mercy is infinite and we cannot comprehend it with our finite minds. This is where the current Christian teaching you now receive is in error. But anyway, as regards the Jewish people, so according to what you believe and despite the fact that the Jews are God's chosen people and the covenant with them remains in force, they are all consigned to the fires of hell because they don't believe in Christ as the Messiah? No, I don't believe that for a moment.
I thought the comparison of my mothers unbelief to that of my grandmother Jewish belief, (in other words waiting for the Messiah), would be a mutual point of clarity, but your subjective theology won't even allow that. And that's the problem freind.
So, thanks for the passionate responses but you're fighting fire with gasoline. The arguments you use today are going to testify against you later, at the judgement seat, so be ready.
Take care.
[/quote]
My many sins are much more than these few words here, with some of them being quite more serious. But I have asked for and received forgiveness through Jesus Christ, who remains my advocate with the Father. As for Judgement Day, my testimony will be taken, (even though God already knows everything) and I am fully prepared to meet my fate in this regard as I am powerless to undo the things that I have done.
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 15:35:42
: MeMyself Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 15:24:35
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 15:11:28
: MeMyself Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 14:49:11
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 13:12:05
Salvation, as you say is "a free gift of God" and maybe God will give it to the person who has lived a Christlike life.
I don't say it, the Word of God does. And, no it is not earned by being good, kind, patient, obedient, etc.
Dave is right. There is no way someone can be Christlike and reject Him at the same time! Its an oxymoron.
Ghandi was not Christlike? I think he was very Christlike.
How so?
He could have looked good to human eyes, but God looks at the heart and if his heart rejected Christ, there is NO WAY he could be Christ like! Christ's likeness comes from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit! Satan is the master counterfeiter...goodness, humility, kindness all counterfeit if not lead by Christ. They get a person nowhere! They cannot bring glory to God and that is what the aim of the Christ like believer is!
Glad to know you know what was inside Ghandi's heart,
I never, not ONCE said that I could, what I said was that GOD knew his heart and IF he rejected Christ, He is LOST! Just like any other seemingly lovely person that rejects Christ Jesus as Savior.
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 15:35:42but actions speak louder than words. The man didn't pick up a rifle to drive the British from India, he carried a walking stick. He didn't side with the Muslims or Hindus when they rioted and were killing each other, he fasted and prayed. He never sought to judge people, but accepted everyone as his brother, whether they were Hindu, Muslim, or Christian. He loved his enemies as per Jesus's command. Satan did not inhabit this man, only God's loving spirit did. Like Jesus says: "By their fruits ye shall know them". Tell me, where is the rotten fruit this man produced?
If he didn't know Christ, the fruit he produced was rotten fruit, for he believed the lies of the great counterfeiter, Satan..that he was good enough on his own, kind enough on his own and that God would accept him for that.
That is so not close to biblical truth! The Word says ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, the wages of that falling short is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
There are LOTS of wonderful, "good" "kind" people out there, but they/we all fall short and are dead in our sin.
deleted
so glad to know I'm not alone. This kook pm'd me the same message. Messanger1, please go back into your cave until spring when you feel better.
: Helen Thu Dec 05, 2013 - 12:02:24
so glad to know I'm not alone. This kook pm'd me the same message. Messanger1, please go back into your cave until spring when you feel better.
nope. Not alone....he's annoying, but the mods will take care of him soon enough. I feel so badly for him. He must be so miserable, I hope he finds peace soon!
That is only the latest name for this guy who has had at least a dozen different personas here. He gets banned and keeps coming back under another name.
jumping jack nuisance?
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 15:11:28Ghandi was not Christlike? I think he was very Christlike.
The main thing that makes a person "Christlike" is being like Our Lord who ONLY DID WHAT HE SAW THE FATHER DOING.
Did Ghandi EVER claim to see what the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob was doing?
My bible says "Without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please Him..." and we know faith ONLY comes from hearing the [spoken] word of God.
Did Ghandi EVER claim to hear God speak to him?
Everything Our Lord did was by the power of the indwelling and on-dwelling Holy Spirit including the ability to raise the dead and to NEVER EVER SIN.
Can Ghandi claim that?
Being "Christlike" is a lot more than just being a "good person" in the human sense.
: DaveW Fri Dec 06, 2013 - 05:39:05
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 15:11:28Ghandi was not Christlike? I think he was very Christlike.
The main thing that makes a person "Christlike" is being like Our Lord who ONLY DID WHAT HE SAW THE FATHER DOING.
Did Ghandi EVER claim to see what the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob was doing?
My bible says "Without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please Him..." and we know faith ONLY comes from hearing the [spoken] word of God.
Did Ghandi EVER claim to hear God speak to him?
Everything Our Lord did was by the power of the indwelling and on-dwelling Holy Spirit including the ability to raise the dead and to NEVER EVER SIN.
Can Ghandi claim that?
Being "Christlike" is a lot more than just being a "good person" in the human sense.
Dave, you are 1000% correct. PREACH IT BROTHER!!! ::announcment::
Gandhi, like Mother Teresa, received his reward in full on earth, but was never able to say to anyone, 'when you see me you see the Father'. I don't even think Gandhi thought about such things and yet some people want to bring up his name like that.
The FACT that we CANNOT be like Jesus should be a confirmation to us that we HAVE TO rely on his grace 24/7 from start to finish; we never 'improve' our own righteousness over the level of 'filthy rags' before Him. So, trade it all for His righteousness and rest in FAITH.
: DaveW Fri Dec 06, 2013 - 05:39:05
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 15:11:28Ghandi was not Christlike? I think he was very Christlike.
The main thing that makes a person "Christlike" is being like Our Lord who ONLY DID WHAT HE SAW THE FATHER DOING.
Did Ghandi EVER claim to see what the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob was doing?
My bible says "Without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please Him..." and we know faith ONLY comes from hearing the [spoken] word of God.
Did Ghandi EVER claim to hear God speak to him?
Everything Our Lord did was by the power of the indwelling and on-dwelling Holy Spirit including the ability to raise the dead and to NEVER EVER SIN.
Can Ghandi claim that?
Being "Christlike" is a lot more than just being a "good person" in the human sense.
Sorry, but I still disagree - and I say this as one who has faith that Jesus Christ is indeed the Messiah, the Savior of us all.. But anyway, with all our pontificating about all this, it will be God's final word at the end.
: Gregree Fri Dec 06, 2013 - 09:21:27
: DaveW Fri Dec 06, 2013 - 05:39:05
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 15:11:28Ghandi was not Christlike? I think he was very Christlike.
The main thing that makes a person "Christlike" is being like Our Lord who ONLY DID WHAT HE SAW THE FATHER DOING.
Did Ghandi EVER claim to see what the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob was doing?
My bible says "Without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please Him..." and we know faith ONLY comes from hearing the [spoken] word of God.
Did Ghandi EVER claim to hear God speak to him?
Everything Our Lord did was by the power of the indwelling and on-dwelling Holy Spirit including the ability to raise the dead and to NEVER EVER SIN.
Can Ghandi claim that?
Being "Christlike" is a lot more than just being a "good person" in the human sense.
Dave, you are 1000% correct. PREACH IT BROTHER!!! ::announcment::
Gandhi, like Mother Teresa, received his reward in full on earth, but was never able to say to anyone, 'when you see me you see the Father'. I don't even think Gandhi thought about such things and yet some people want to bring up his name like that.
The FACT that we CANNOT be like Jesus should be a confirmation to us that we HAVE TO rely on his grace 24/7 from start to finish; we never 'improve' our own righteousness over the level of 'filthy rags' before Him. So, trade it all for His righteousness and rest in FAITH.
Once again, you presume to know Ghandi's heart and God's response to him and then you say that Mother Theresa was like Ghandi and only received her reward here on earth, is that what you really believe? If this saintly woman, who consecrated her entire life to Jesus Christ, and did what HE would have wanted her to do on this earth is not in heaven then there is no hope for any of us.
Once again, you presume to know Ghandi's heart and God's response to him and then you say that Mother Theresa was like Ghandi and only received her reward here on earth, is that what you really believe? If this saintly woman, who consecrated her entire life to Jesus Christ, and did what HE would have wanted her to do on this earth is not in heaven then there is no hope for any of us.
Do you really think God wanted Mother Theresa to help Muslims become better Muslims and Hindus become better Hindus? That is what SHE said she was trying to do to make them feel comfortable dying.
There is only one God and He is God to all; therefore it is important that everyone is seen as equal before God. I've always said that we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic.from http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/resources/quotes/mother-teresa-on-equality-before-god (http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/resources/quotes/mother-teresa-on-equality-before-god)
Wonder what happened to "I am the Way, the Truth, and Life; no man comes to the Father but through me."
That quote is from Jesus. He was also the one who stated that if one did not believe He was who He said He was (God) then that person would die in their sins.
Seems to me Mother Theresa helped people die in their sins.
: Helen Fri Dec 06, 2013 - 12:03:47
Once again, you presume to know Ghandi's heart and God's response to him and then you say that Mother Theresa was like Ghandi and only received her reward here on earth, is that what you really believe? If this saintly woman, who consecrated her entire life to Jesus Christ, and did what HE would have wanted her to do on this earth is not in heaven then there is no hope for any of us.
Do you really think God wanted Mother Theresa to help Muslims become better Muslims and Hindus become better Hindus? That is what SHE said she was trying to do to make them feel comfortable dying.
There is only one God and He is God to all; therefore it is important that everyone is seen as equal before God. I've always said that we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic.
from http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/resources/quotes/mother-teresa-on-equality-before-god (http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/resources/quotes/mother-teresa-on-equality-before-god)
Wonder what happened to "I am the Way, the Truth, and Life; no man comes to the Father but through me."
That quote is from Jesus. He was also the one who stated that if one did not believe He was who He said He was (God) then that person would die in their sins.
Seems to me Mother Theresa helped people die in their sins.
All I can say about Mother Theresa is that her actions towards people who were dying and her life as a nun was her testimony about Jesus Christ. What did you want her to do, proselytize these people on their deathbeds and tell them they were going to hell if they didn't become a Christian before passing on?
She had respect for others and her only motivation was to give these poor wretched folks a little comfort, tenderness, and love before they passed from this world. I mean really, if you came upon an accident, would you talk to the injured folks about accepting Jesus Christ as the Savior or would you just help them? In my mind, a Christian helps others with unreservedly - let your actions be your witness.
What did you want her to do, proselytize these people on their deathbeds and tell them they were going to hell if they didn't become a Christian before passing on?
That would have shown much more love and concern for them than just seeing to their bodily comforts.
: Ladonia Fri Dec 06, 2013 - 11:50:48
: Gregree Fri Dec 06, 2013 - 09:21:27
: DaveW Fri Dec 06, 2013 - 05:39:05
: Ladonia Wed Dec 04, 2013 - 15:11:28Ghandi was not Christlike? I think he was very Christlike.
The main thing that makes a person "Christlike" is being like Our Lord who ONLY DID WHAT HE SAW THE FATHER DOING.
Did Ghandi EVER claim to see what the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob was doing?
My bible says "Without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please Him..." and we know faith ONLY comes from hearing the [spoken] word of God.
Did Ghandi EVER claim to hear God speak to him?
Everything Our Lord did was by the power of the indwelling and on-dwelling Holy Spirit including the ability to raise the dead and to NEVER EVER SIN.
Can Ghandi claim that?
Being "Christlike" is a lot more than just being a "good person" in the human sense.
Dave, you are 1000% correct. PREACH IT BROTHER!!! ::announcment::
Gandhi, like Mother Teresa, received his reward in full on earth, but was never able to say to anyone, 'when you see me you see the Father'. I don't even think Gandhi thought about such things and yet some people want to bring up his name like that.
The FACT that we CANNOT be like Jesus should be a confirmation to us that we HAVE TO rely on his grace 24/7 from start to finish; we never 'improve' our own righteousness over the level of 'filthy rags' before Him. So, trade it all for His righteousness and rest in FAITH.
Once again, you presume to know Ghandi's heart and God's response to him and then you say that Mother Theresa was like Ghandi and only received her reward here on earth, is that what you really believe? If this saintly woman, who consecrated her entire life to Jesus Christ, and did what HE would have wanted her to do on this earth is not in heaven then there is no hope for any of us.
Didn't Mr. G. say something like "Jesus is cool, but you Christians are crazy?" If that's not urban legend, maybe he and Jesus understood each other.
Good point Anna !!!