Christian Forums

Quote from: LightHammer on Sun Mar 06, 2011 - 11:04:11
I get that Healedme but its kindof irrelevant.

Only Satan would say that being called to be fishers of men is irrelevant. Bad judgment call, there, LH. you are listening to the wrong voice.

QuoteYes we are all Fishers but there is an ordained leadership here and you all are disrespecting God by discarding His leadership.

I love my leaders in Christ! What are you talking about?

QuoteYour pride and arrogance is distorting the path the Early Church followed and establishing your man made way.

Actually, the RCC has massively distorted the early church thinking and created its own wayward dynasty which is nothing but smoke and mirrors. There is nothing but the smell of men in your traditions and your doctrines, and there is such a huge deviation there away from the word of God and the knowledge of Him that it has become a great hindrance to the move of God in the world. Not only do we send out missionaries to the nations to teach people about Christ who have never heard, we now must be missionaries to the Catholics in the world to bring them out of their bondage into the freedom and light of Christ.

Quote from: chestertonrules on Sun Mar 06, 2011 - 12:12:27

Quote from: Hehealedme on Sun Mar 06, 2011 - 12:04:48

Quote from: LightHammer on Sun Mar 06, 2011 - 11:04:11
I get that Healedme but its kindof irrelevant.

Yes we are all Fishers but there is an ordained leadership here and you all are disrespecting God by discarding His leadership.

Your pride and arrogance is distorting the path the Early Church followed and establishing your man made way.

Can you remind me what ''Early Church'' you are talking about please?...

Jesus only started one Church.  The Early Church is this church, the Catholic Church.

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when at first we practice to deceive.

.

We have answered it so your laughing only proves that you don't know what you're talking about and don't want to address the Truth.

Mary is only a virgin in Scripture never anything else.

When you put Scripture in its proper historical context the word "until" is no longer twisted and the "brother" is freed from the imposing definitions of a young western language on an ancient eastern word.

When you properly revere the position of Mary as the Theotokos there's really no debate to be had. Any man who stands in Joseph's feet or who at least has half a brain would be humbled enough to know that if your wife was impregnated by Almighty God of ALL and is charge to carry in her uterus the most holy being to every walk the earth you more than likely would careless about sex. Especially when you already have kids.


But I guess those who reject this deep appreciation for Joseph's reverence of the Most Sacred Incarnation can see themselves entering the gate which the Prince of Peace held His Holy Indwelling like a normal married couple. 

Quote from: Hehealedme on Sun Mar 06, 2011 - 13:43:36
What was the question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity again!?!...

The thread is very close to 160 pages...and the original question still hasn't been answered yet...kind of silly isn't it!...

Yes it is. It has been hijacked.

Quote from: LightHammer on Sun Mar 06, 2011 - 14:10:29
We have answered it so your laughing only proves that you don't know what you're talking about and don't want to address the Truth.

Mary is only a virgin in Scripture never anything else.

When you put Scripture in its proper historical context the word "until" is no longer twisted and the "brother" is freed from the imposing definitions of a young western language on an ancient eastern word.

My cat was on fire until I threw a pailful of water on him.

QuoteWhen you properly revere the position of Mary as the Theotokos there's really no debate to be had. Any man who stands in Joseph's feet or who at least has half a brain would be humbled enough to know that if your wife was impregnated by Almighty God of ALL and is charge to carry in her uterus the most holy being to every walk the earth you more than likely would careless about sex. Especially when you already have kids.

Joseph surely had that revelation. So do we. He and Mary lived out an extraordinary calling. Afterward, however, as Godly married couples do, they had sexual intercourse and other children, and had a fulfilled married life as blessed human beings do.

QuoteBut I guess those who reject this deep appreciation for Joseph's reverence of the Most Sacred Incarnation can see themselves entering the gate which the Prince of Peace held His Holy Indwelling like a normal married couple.  

Whatever that means!!

Appreciation is one thing. But there are many here who tack on a lot more than honour, and have morphed their due honour into worship of a fabricated person, in the vein of goddess-worship, a pagan influence from the dark ages.

Lively Stone you don't know anything about the Dark Ages. "Pagan influences of the Dark Ages".


How about you actually study the Dark Ages, and I mean really study the Dark Ages, and then try again.

"Michal, the daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death (2 Samuel 6:23).


Study Scripture. Embed yourself in it. Know the history of the translations you use and the singular words you focus on to lean in one direction doctrinally.

Halfway doing it is not going to cut it. 

Quote from: LightHammer on Sun Mar 06, 2011 - 14:39:52
Lively Stone you don't know anything about the Dark Ages. "Pagan influences of the Dark Ages".

I know you are still in them.

QuoteHow about you actually study the Dark Ages, and I mean really study the Dark Ages, and then try again.

Not necessary. There is sufficient remnants from the Dark Ages in your copious statements on RC doctrine.

Quote from: LightHammer on Sun Mar 06, 2011 - 14:54:25
"Michal, the daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death (2 Samuel 6:23).


Study Scripture. Embed yourself in it. Know the history of the translations you use and the singular words you focus on to lean in one direction doctrinally.

Halfway doing it is not going to cut it. 

Know Jesus.

Bump.

Quote from: Lively Stone on Sun Mar 06, 2011 - 17:52:41

Quote from: LightHammer on Sun Mar 06, 2011 - 14:39:52
Lively Stone you don't know anything about the Dark Ages. "Pagan influences of the Dark Ages".

I know you are still in them.

QuoteHow about you actually study the Dark Ages, and I mean really study the Dark Ages, and then try again.

Not necessary. There is sufficient remnants from the Dark Ages in your copious statements on RC doctrine.

Your ignorance knows no bounds!

Did she really just say there's no need to actually study and know about Dark Ages before opening her mouth about it?lol

What do we say to people like this? Sense when is ok to open your mouth and speak boldly about something and then openly admit that there's no need to know about it before speaking?

I really don't know how to proceed.

Quote from: chestertonrules on Sun Mar 06, 2011 - 20:45:24

Quote from: Lively Stone on Sun Mar 06, 2011 - 17:52:41

Quote from: LightHammer on Sun Mar 06, 2011 - 14:39:52
Lively Stone you don't know anything about the Dark Ages. "Pagan influences of the Dark Ages".

I know you are still in them.

QuoteHow about you actually study the Dark Ages, and I mean really study the Dark Ages, and then try again.

Not necessary. There is sufficient remnants from the Dark Ages in your copious statements on RC doctrine.

Your ignorance knows no bounds!

No ignorance here, Bubba.

Did she really just say there's no need to actually study and know about Dark Ages before opening her mouth about it?lol

What do we say to people like this? Sense when is ok to open your mouth and speak boldly about something and then openly admit that there's no need to know about it before speaking?

I really don't know how to proceed.

Quote from: LightHammer on Sun Mar 06, 2011 - 21:16:30
Did she really just say there's no need to actually study and know about Dark Ages before opening her mouth about it?lol

What do we say to people like this? Sense when is ok to open your mouth and speak boldly about something and then openly admit that there's no need to know about it before speaking?

I really don't know how to proceed.

Haha! Try saying, "You are right, Lively."

The Catholic church in the Dark Ages brought a blight on Christianity:


From 590 to 1517, the Roman Church dominated the western world. The Roman Catholic Church controlled religion, philosophy, morals, politics, art and education. This was the dark ages for true Christianity. The vital doctrines of Biblical Christianity had almost disappeared, and with the neglect of true doctrine came the passing of life and light that constitutes the worship of the One True God as declared in Christ.


The Roman Catholic Church was theologically sick and its theology led to atrocious corruptions. It was spiritually exhausted, enfeebled and almost lifeless. Rome had seriously departed from the teaching of the Bible and was engrossed in real heresy.


There can be no appreciation for the Reformation until one sees the great spiritual need of the western world in the 16th century. No Christian, Roman Catholic, Protestant or Independent can gloss over the period of history from 590 to 1517. This period is a "black spot

Quote from: Lively Stone on Sun Mar 06, 2011 - 22:25:48

Quote from: LightHammer on Sun Mar 06, 2011 - 21:16:30
Did she really just say there's no need to actually study and know about Dark Ages before opening her mouth about it?lol

What do we say to people like this? Sense when is ok to open your mouth and speak boldly about something and then openly admit that there's no need to know about it before speaking?

I really don't know how to proceed.

Haha! Try saying, "You are right, Lively."

The Catholic church in the Dark Ages brought a blight on Christianity:


From 590 to 1517, the Roman Church dominated the western world. The Roman Catholic Church controlled religion, philosophy, morals, politics, art and education. This was the dark ages for true Christianity. The vital doctrines of Biblical Christianity had almost disappeared, and with the neglect of true doctrine came the passing of life and light that constitutes the worship of the One True God as declared in Christ.


The Roman Catholic Church was theologically sick and its theology led to atrocious corruptions. It was spiritually exhausted, enfeebled and almost lifeless. Rome had seriously departed from the teaching of the Bible and was engrossed in real heresy.


There can be no appreciation for the Reformation until one sees the great spiritual need of the western world in the 16th century. No Christian, Roman Catholic, Protestant or Independent can gloss over the period of history from 590 to 1517. This period is a "black spot

Quote from: LightHammer on Sun Mar 06, 2011 - 22:33:21

Quote from: Lively Stone on Sun Mar 06, 2011 - 22:25:48

Quote from: LightHammer on Sun Mar 06, 2011 - 21:16:30
Did she really just say there's no need to actually study and know about Dark Ages before opening her mouth about it?lol

What do we say to people like this? Sense when is ok to open your mouth and speak boldly about something and then openly admit that there's no need to know about it before speaking?

I really don't know how to proceed.

Haha! Try saying, "You are right, Lively."

The Catholic church in the Dark Ages brought a blight on Christianity:


From 590 to 1517, the Roman Church dominated the western world. The Roman Catholic Church controlled religion, philosophy, morals, politics, art and education. This was the dark ages for true Christianity. The vital doctrines of Biblical Christianity had almost disappeared, and with the neglect of true doctrine came the passing of life and light that constitutes the worship of the One True God as declared in Christ.


The Roman Catholic Church was theologically sick and its theology led to atrocious corruptions. It was spiritually exhausted, enfeebled and almost lifeless. Rome had seriously departed from the teaching of the Bible and was engrossed in real heresy.


There can be no appreciation for the Reformation until one sees the great spiritual need of the western world in the 16th century. No Christian, Roman Catholic, Protestant or Independent can gloss over the period of history from 590 to 1517. This period is a "black spot

Why do you persist on calling things a "rewrite of history" when you don't know what history is?

Quote from: LightHammer on Sun Mar 06, 2011 - 23:07:17
Why do you persist on calling things a "rewrite of history" when you don't know what history is?

I am aware of history. Are you?

Quote from: Lively Stone on Sun Mar 06, 2011 - 23:41:04

Quote from: LightHammer on Sun Mar 06, 2011 - 23:07:17
Why do you persist on calling things a "rewrite of history" when you don't know what history is?

I am aware of history. Are you?

Yes.

Quote from: Lively Stone on Sun Mar 06, 2011 - 23:41:04

Quote from: LightHammer on Sun Mar 06, 2011 - 23:07:17
Why do you persist on calling things a "rewrite of history" when you don't know what history is?

I am aware of history. Are you?

You should be honest and admit that you are not well versed in Christian history.

It's nothing to be ashamed of.

Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Dominic, St. Bonaventure, and countless other brilliant Holy Men produced some of the world's greatest works during this time.

Have you ever read anything by Thomas Aquinas?

Quote from: LightHammer on Sun Mar 06, 2011 - 12:10:23
The one in the NT. The one that followed the Apostolic leadership, including their successors and appointed leaders. The Church that did not practice or belief in Sola Scriptura but instead upheld 2Thessalonians 2:15.

Then....


1   Please provide form ANY of the 13-14 Apostles where such states that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that MARY HAD NO SEX EVER.   Thank you in advance.


2.  IF the rule is what 2 Thessalonians 2:15 mentions, then please provide a quote from Paul, Timothy or Silas in what they orally taught to the Thessalonians that substantiates the it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certianty of Truth that MARY HAD NO SEX EVER?"  Thank you in advance....



I'm looking forward to the possibility that the Catholics here will stop the evasions, circumventions, diversions, flaming and the "shall game" and address the issue:  It is stated by two denominations as de fide binding dogma that MARY HAD NO SEX EVER!  You well stated the mandate for views (even just personal, non-binding, non-dogmatic opinions):  'PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND I DON'T MEAN JUST YOUR INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE OR SOME IMPLICATION YOU SEE, I MEAN PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'   Okay.   We're waiting.....










.

Quote from: Josiah on Mon Mar 07, 2011 - 09:44:16

Quote from: LightHammer on Sun Mar 06, 2011 - 12:10:23
The one in the NT. The one that followed the Apostolic leadership, including their successors and appointed leaders. The Church that did not practice or belief in Sola Scriptura but instead upheld 2Thessalonians 2:15.

Then....


1   Please provide form ANY of the 13-14 Apostles where such states that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that MARY HAD NO SEX EVER.   Thank you in advance.


2.  IF the rule is what 2 Thessalonians 2:15 mentions, then please provide a quote from Paul, Timothy or Silas in what they orally taught to the Thessalonians that substantiates the it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certianty of Truth that MARY HAD NO SEX EVER?"  Thank you in advance....



I'm looking forward to the possibility that the Catholics here will stop the evasions, circumventions, diversions, flaming and the "shall game" and address the issue:  It is stated by two denominations as de fide binding dogma that MARY HAD NO SEX EVER!  You well stated the mandate for views (even just personal, non-binding, non-dogmatic opinions):  'PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND I DON'T MEAN JUST YOUR INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE OR SOME IMPLICATION YOU SEE, I MEAN PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'   Okay.   We're waiting.....










.

How could we prove this to you?

How can we prove that the Catholic Church selected the correct books of the New Testament?

How can we prove that Jesus rose from the dead?

How can we prove the doctrine of the Trinity is true?


These are matters of faith.  You either trust that Jesus is guiding his Church or you don't.

.

Quote from: LightHammer on Sat Mar 05, 2011 - 20:09:34

Christ said "Feed MY flock".

Try again.

I agree.  (Of course, He said NOTHING about, to or concerning the RCC.  No authorizations, no promises, no exemptions, no nothing.  He never mentioned it AT ALL for anything, about anything, concerning anything.  The remarkable, accountability-evading claims of the RCC alone for the RCC alone are just that - claims of self for self to evade accountability of self).

What I don't understand is how does that provide YOUR mandate, namely, "PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And I don't mean just your interpretation of something or some implication you see, I mean PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that it is a DOGMATIC FACT of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that MARY HAD NO SEX EVER?"


Try again.   We're waiting.









.

Quote from: Josiah on Mon Mar 07, 2011 - 09:50:09
.

Quote from: LightHammer on Sat Mar 05, 2011 - 20:09:34

Christ said "Feed MY flock".

Try again.

I agree.  (Of course, He said NOTHING about, to or concerning the RCC.  No authorizations, no promises, no exemptions, no nothing.  He never mentioned it AT ALL for anything, about anything, concerning anything.  The remarkable, accountability-evading claims of the RCC alone for the RCC alone are just that - claims of self for self to evade accountability of self).

What I don't understand is how does that provide YOUR mandate, namely, "PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And I don't mean just your interpretation of something or some implication you see, I mean PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that it is a DOGMATIC FACT of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that MARY HAD NO SEX EVER?"


Try again.   We're waiting.









.

He said that to Peter and Peter by his own freewill and love for Christ's Flock, chose a successor to carry own his Christ-given commission because the need for physical PHYSICAL leadership extended beyond his lifetime.

Quote from: Josiah on Mon Mar 07, 2011 - 09:50:09
.

Quote from: LightHammer on Sat Mar 05, 2011 - 20:09:34

Christ said "Feed MY flock".

Try again.

I agree.  (Of course, He said NOTHING about, to or concerning the RCC.  No authorizations, no promises, no exemptions, no nothing.  He never mentioned it AT ALL for anything, about anything, concerning anything.  The remarkable, accountability-evading claims of the RCC alone for the RCC alone are just that - claims of self for self to evade accountability of self).

What I don't understand is how does that provide YOUR mandate, namely, "PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And I don't mean just your interpretation of something or some implication you see, I mean PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that it is a DOGMATIC FACT of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that MARY HAD NO SEX EVER?"


Try again.   We're waiting.









.

How could we prove this to you?

How can we prove that the Catholic Church selected the correct books of the New Testament?

How can we prove that Jesus rose from the dead?

How can we prove the doctrine of the Trinity is true?


These are matters of faith.  You either trust that Jesus is guiding his Church or you don't.

Quote from: chestertonrules on Mon Mar 07, 2011 - 07:07:00

Quote from: Lively Stone on Sun Mar 06, 2011 - 23:41:04

Quote from: LightHammer on Sun Mar 06, 2011 - 23:07:17
Why do you persist on calling things a "rewrite of history" when you don't know what history is?

I am aware of history. Are you?

You should be honest and admit that you are not well versed in Christian history.

It's nothing to be ashamed of.

Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Dominic, St. Bonaventure, and countless other brilliant Holy Men produced some of the world's greatest works during this time.

Have you ever read anything by Thomas Aquinas?

I have no need to. I would much rather read what God wrote to me, and if I would ever read anything outside of Scripture, I would read something by a Christian author of my own day.

Quote from: chestertonrules on Mon Mar 07, 2011 - 09:47:47


How could we prove this to you?

How can we prove that the Catholic Church selected the correct books of the New Testament?

How can we prove that Jesus rose from the dead?

How can we prove the doctrine of the Trinity is true?


These are matters of faith.  You either trust that Jesus is guiding his Church or you don't.

As every believer on the planet is being led by Christ (if they submit to Him), we have no reason not to believe He is leading us, the Church. The problem you have is in understanding that the Church of Jesus Christ is all believers together. It isn't the RCC in any way, shape or form---and the belief in apostolic succession is a bogus construct of terribly fallible men.

Quote from: Lively Stone on Mon Mar 07, 2011 - 14:42:48

Quote from: chestertonrules on Mon Mar 07, 2011 - 09:47:47


How could we prove this to you?

How can we prove that the Catholic Church selected the correct books of the New Testament?

How can we prove that Jesus rose from the dead?

How can we prove the doctrine of the Trinity is true?


These are matters of faith.  You either trust that Jesus is guiding his Church or you don't.

As every believer on the planet is being led by Christ (if they submit to Him), we have no reason not to believe He is leading us, the Church. The problem you have is in understanding that the Church of Jesus Christ is all believers together. It isn't the RCC in any way, shape or form---and the belief in apostolic succession is a bogus construct of terribly fallible men.

Its not a belief its history. Saying apostolic succession is a "bogus construct of terribly fallible men" is like saying the blood line of the queen of England is a false doctrine.

Its not a man made theological point of view. It is documented history above reproach and not subject to debate kind of like how the line of presidents of the United States is not something that is debatable.

Quote from: LightHammer on Mon Mar 07, 2011 - 14:49:56

Quote from: Lively Stone on Mon Mar 07, 2011 - 14:42:48

Quote from: chestertonrules on Mon Mar 07, 2011 - 09:47:47


How could we prove this to you?

How can we prove that the Catholic Church selected the correct books of the New Testament?

How can we prove that Jesus rose from the dead?

How can we prove the doctrine of the Trinity is true?


These are matters of faith.  You either trust that Jesus is guiding his Church or you don't.

As every believer on the planet is being led by Christ (if they submit to Him), we have no reason not to believe He is leading us, the Church. The problem you have is in understanding that the Church of Jesus Christ is all believers together. It isn't the RCC in any way, shape or form---and the belief in apostolic succession is a bogus construct of terribly fallible men.

Its not a belief its history. Saying apostolic succession is a "bogus construct of terribly fallible men" is like saying the blood line of the queen of England is a false doctrine.

Its not a man made theological point of view. It is documented history above reproach and not subject to debate kind of like how the line of presidents of the United States is not something that is debatable.

You are barking up the wrong tree, spiritually. History means bupkiss to the message of salvation and the freedom we can have in Jesus Christ.

What you are wrapped up in are the shackles of history and religion.

What you need is Jesus. Only He can set you free and give you a life you cannot even imagine.

Why do even debate when all you care about is salvation? Any attempt to take a step closer to God beyond the necessity of what is required for salvation is obviously going to regarded as falsehood to you so why even bother talking to us?

.

Quote from: LightHammer on Sat Mar 05, 2011 - 20:09:34

Christ said "Feed MY flock".

Try again.

I agree.  (Of course, He said NOTHING about, to or concerning the RCC.  No authorizations, no promises, no exemptions, no nothing.  He never mentioned it AT ALL for anything, about anything, concerning anything.  The remarkable, accountability-evading claims of the RCC alone for the RCC alone are just that - claims of self for self to evade accountability of self).

What I don't understand is how does that provide YOUR mandate, namely, "PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And I don't mean just your interpretation of something or some implication you see, I mean PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that it is a DOGMATIC FACT of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that MARY HAD NO SEX EVER?"


Try again.









.
[/quote]

Quote from: LightHammer on Mon Mar 07, 2011 - 19:16:44
Why do even debate when all you care about is salvation? Any attempt to take a step closer to God beyond the necessity of what is required for salvation is obviously going to regarded as falsehood to you so why even bother talking to us?

Are you saved, LH? How is one saved? Why is it not important to this discussion, when millions of Catholics believe that they are saved by virtue of their infant sprinkling?

You're right that what is most important to me is salvation, because if you don't know Jesus personally, then the playing field here is not level, is it?

No one can take any steps to be closer to God without first taking the step of salvation.

No I didn't say "salvation was most important" to you. I said "salvation is all that matters" to you.

I find it hard to believe that people like that God actually strive to love God. Their concern is not intimacy with God. Their concern is avoiding hell. God is just some doorway to escape a feared eternity. As such they only care about the basics. "How do I get my foot in the doors of Heaven". Its very egotistic and in the self centered mindset the believer not only forsakes but passionately rejects all other disciplines or practices aimed at a deeper relationship and experience of not just God but everything associated with His Holiness.

That is why you oppose our way of life.