BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Whatever Jesus founded, the Roman Catholic Church ain't it. That's been made abundantly clear. No one is trying to insult Catholics by saying this, it's just telling you guys the truth. The sooner you realize it the better.

---

You can keep telling your self that, but it don't make it true. You are arguing against history. The early church had bishops, priests, and deacons. It performed baptisms and celebrated the Eucharist.

In 107 AD, St Ignatius of Antioch said in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8:

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

Has the Church grown and developed in 2000 years? Absolutely! Just like when you and I have developed from when we were born many years ago. Christ even mentioned this in the parable of the Mustard seed. The smallest seed became the mighty tree or the largest of plants.

Edit - Addition:
Of course, the Church is going to look different in 2000 years. It has grown from 120 people in the Upper Room to 1.4 billion today.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

No one disputes Jesus founded the Church.

But your popes, well, a lot of what they claimed for themselves was due to believers who followed Christ, not a Pope.

---

What did they claim for themselves?

Second question, if Jesus founded the Catholic Church, why would one choose any other version of Christianity?

---

Jesus did NOT establish popes, basilicas, Latin liturgy or any of the other trappings of Roman Catholicism.

It is the height of dishonesty to pretend the RC denomination is the complete or perfect version Christ envisioned.

Christ would never have approved of all the money held by men who were SUPPOSED to set the example for charity (something some Protestant clergy are also guilty of).

Christ never established temporal power on this earth the way RC clergy did for centuries.

Christ never commanded an Inquisition be set up to punish, even kill, those who offended popes .

And Christ never commanded we should kill in His name, the way Popes did for centuries.

The clear fact we see in Acts and other chronicles, is that after Christ's ascension His followers spread the Gospel at great cost and suffering, and for the first two centuries the Church was as much Jerusalem and Damascus as Rome; a family of common condition and status.

After Constantine decided to show favor to the Roman church, the corruption began. The Roman church was tempted with money and power, and many of them fell to that temptation.

Now today the RC denomination has many believers with strong faith who are devoted to the Lord, just as you can find people of great faith as well as false followers in every group. It is vital to not fall prey to pride just as we must resist envy, greed and the other wiles of Satan.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Whatever Jesus founded, the Roman Catholic Church ain't it. That's been made abundantly clear. No one is trying to insult Catholics by saying this, it's just telling you guys the truth. The sooner you realize it the better.

---

You can keep telling your self that, but it don't make it true. You are arguing against history. The early church had bishops, priests, and deacons. It performed baptisms and celebrated the Eucharist.

In 107 AD, St Ignatius of Antioch said in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8:

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

Has the Church grown and developed in 2000 years? Absolutely! Just like when you and I have developed from when we were born many years ago. Christ even mentioned this in the parable of the Mustard seed. The smallest seed became the mighty tree or the largest of plants.

Edit - Addition:
Of course, the Church is going to look different in 2000 years. It has grown from 120 people in the Upper Room to 1.4 billion today.

---

I'm sorry, you're just not honest with history. You keep repeating the "history" claim, and that I'm arguing against it, despite the fact that throughout my comments I have presented historical fact after historical fact that has debunked the idea that sthe Roman Catholic Church is the original church of the apostles. Throughout this thread, I have presented the historical facts that:

- the canon of the first churches did NOT contain the apocrypha;
- the majority of church fathers, theologians, and scholars up until the 15th century did NOT believe the apocrypha was part of canon;
- the Roman Catholic Church even approved canons that rejected the apocrypha;
- the early church did NOT have bishops and popes;
- there was no singular bishop claiming authority over the Church (pope) who presided in Rome until one hundred years after Jesus;
- the church fathers did NOT agree that Peter was the "rock", and in fact the majority of them believed the "rock" was, rather, the truth of Peter's confession;
- the early church and church fathers unanimously believed that icon veneration had NO part in the church;
- the early church did not all believe that the Eucharist was the literal body and blood of Jesus;
- the early church did NOT believe Mary was sinless, nor that she was bodily assumed into heaven;
- the early church did NOT pray to Mary or the saints;
- the Roman Catholic church was infused with pagan practices as a compromise with the pagan Roman public
- and most recently, that "faith alone" was indeed taught in the early church

Post after post. Comment after comment. Over and over. Yet you still to this day repeat the lie that I'm arguing against history, and that there is no historical basis for Protestant claims. I'm sorry, but at this point, it's nothing but pure denial and willful ignorance on your part. It's bad enough that you are completely blind to your obvious worship and idolatry of Mary, but if you won't even reckon that history does not support your originalist claim, or in the least provides a valid argument against it, even when given historical facts, then you are too dug in your beliefs that absolutely nothing will convince you, not even if Jesus himself were to come down and say so. We've pretty much reached the impasse.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jesus did NOT establish popes, basilicas, Latin liturgy or any of the other trappings of Roman Catholicism.

---

He certainly did establish a leader of the Church. His name was Peter. MANY prominent protestant scholars agree that he was the leader of the apostles.

I assume that you're a Baptist. Did Jesus establish mega-churches, altar-calls, sinner's prayers, "hymm-sandwiches", etc. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the Church has grown in 2000 years. It is going to develop. Most churches have pews and pipe organs. They didn't originally exist.

Oldbear83 said:

---

It is the height of dishonesty to pretend the RC denomination is the complete or perfect version Christ envisioned.

---

The Church is what Christ intended. He never told us to write a book. He knew that he was creating a Church made of sinners.
Napoleon Bonaparte once taunted a Catholic cardinal by threatening: "Your Eminence, are you not aware that I have the power to destroy the Catholic Church?" To which the cardinal quipped: "Your Majesty, we Catholic clergy have done our best to destroy the Church for the last eighteen hundred years. We have not succeeded, and neither will you."

Oldbear83 said:

---

Christ would never have approved of all the money held by men who were SUPPOSED to set the example for charity (something some Protestant clergy are also guilty of).

Christ never established temporal power on this earth the way RC clergy did for centuries.

Christ never commanded an Inquisition be set up to punish, even kill, those who offended popes .

And Christ never commanded we should kill in His name, the way Popes did for centuries.

---

You're Gish-Galloping here. Let's focus on one to discuss. Cite specifics and sources so that we can discuss.

Oldbear83 said:

---

The clear fact we see in Acts and other chronicles, is that after Christ's ascension His followers spread the Gospel at great cost and suffering, and for the first two centuries the Church was as much Jerusalem and Damascus as Rome; a family of common condition and status.

---

Yes they were; however, please note that they differed to the Church in Rome who had the final authority.

Clement, one of the earliest popes in the 1st century, resolved a dispute in Corinth in his letter 1 Clement. He urged them to maintain ecclesiastical order and adhere to the tradition of apostolic succession.

What's amazing about this is that the Apostle John was still alive at this time. Why didn't the Corinthians write to him? It's because they recognized that the Bishop of Rome had the final authority.

Oldbear83 said:

---

After Constantine decided to show favor to the Roman church, the corruption began. The Roman church was tempted with money and power, and many of them fell to that temptation.

---

Please cite your source for this.

I would strongly recommend that you read The Apostasy That Wasn't by Rod Bennett. This is a detailed account of the events leading up to the Arian Heresy, the Nicaean Council, and the period afterwards. It's an easy read and written in a somewhat narrative form.

During Constantine's reign, it was only Christianity (not the "Roman Church".) He asked the Pope to hold a council with ALL of the bishops (East and West) to settle the Arian Heresy in 325. There was no money and power. He issued the Edict of Milan only a dozen years earlier in 313 which allowed Christians to practice without persecution. Not a lot of "money and power" could be obtained in that time when fear still existed. His grandson, Constantine III didn't share his grandfather's view of Christianity. He actually favored military and political issues.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm sorry, you're just not honest with history. You keep repeating the "history" claim, and that I'm arguing against it, despite the fact that throughout my comments I have presented historical fact after historical fact that has debunked the idea that sthe Roman Catholic Church is the original church of the apostles. Throughout this thread, I have presented the historical facts that:

- the canon of the first churches did NOT contain the apocrypha;
- the majority of church fathers, theologians, and scholars up until the 15th century did NOT believe the apocrypha was part of canon;
- the Roman Catholic Church even approved canons that rejected the apocrypha;
- the early church did NOT have bishops and popes;
- there was no singular bishop claiming authority over the Church (pope) who presided in Rome until one hundred years after Jesus;
- the church fathers did NOT agree that Peter was the "rock", and in fact the majority of them believed the "rock" was, rather, the truth of Peter's confession;
- the early church and church fathers unanimously believed that icon veneration had NO part in the church;
- the early church did not all believe that the Eucharist was the literal body and blood of Jesus;
- the early church did NOT believe Mary was sinless, nor that she was bodily assumed into heaven;
- the early church did NOT pray to Mary or the saints;
- the Roman Catholic church was infused with pagan practices as a compromise with the pagan Roman public
- and most recently, that "faith alone" was indeed taught in the early church

Post after post. Comment after comment. Over and over. Yet you still to this day repeat the lie that I'm arguing against history, and that there is no historical basis for Protestant claims. I'm sorry, but at this point, it's nothing but pure denial and willful ignorance on your part. It's bad enough that you are completely blind to your obvious worship and idolatry of Mary, but if you won't even reckon that history does not support your originalist claim, or in the least provides a valid argument against it, even when given historical facts, then you are too dug in your beliefs that absolutely nothing will convince you, not even if Jesus himself were to come down and say so. We've pretty much reached the impasse.

---

You have presented a few limited exceptions to those issues that you've stated. I've also refuted them. One has to go with the magisterium and their consensus.

You, too, are also Gish-Galloping. If you want to discuss these matters again, we can do so one at a time. It becomes too burdensome to answer all at the same time.

Finally, the best you can do is offer your fallible view of the Christianity. You have no authority. No one here has any reason to accept it.


PS: How do address Ignatius of Anitoch's claim about the bishops and the Catholic Church? That was 107 AD. How old is your church again?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryYou realize what happened, don't you? You just demonstrated that in order for your Roman Catholic beliefs to be true, you have to argue that God's attributes are NOT eternal. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

This is perhaps the clearest indicator that the God of Roman Catholicism is NOT the Christian God, the God of the Bible.

---

Of course God's attributes are eternal.

---

Then your entire argument has failed. You are arguing that God doesn't have to be holy. If God must be holy, then he must require perfect atonement. Not "lesser satisfaction". If God doesn't have to be holy, then the perfect sacrifice of his Son Jesus was completely superfluous and unnecessary.

Do you even understand the implications of your argument?

---

I understand that Calvin ran into a serious problem with his predestinarian doctrine, that is, if salvation is entirely determined by God then why is atonement needed at all? He explained it by inventing the theory which you now take as both gospel truth and logical necessity. In fact it is neither. If human judges have the right to require less than perfect satisfaction, all the more so does God.

---

You're not grasping this at all. Do you understand what God's holiness means? Why God can not tolerate sin? And why reconciliation with a perfect God would require sinful man to be made perfect, i.e. atonement?

Do you understand that human judges and human systems of justice are fallen, that they are NOT holy and perfect like God?

The fact that you think all this was "invented" by Calvin shows that you really don't understand the Bible and Christianity at all, much less the Gospel.

---

It's not for us to say what God must do, or that God must be bound by the sacraments. You're forgetting who is God in this scenario.

---

God must be holy and just, not because we say so, but because he told us that's who he is. Thus the full reconciliation of sinful man with a holy God absolutely requires perfect atonement.

If God binds us to works, i.e. sacraments for our salvation, then it must be no less absolute than the Law requirement was before Jesus, otherwise it would force him to be unjust and unholy. I've laid this out clearly. I know you understand it.

---

I understand it in the context of the salvation plan that God created. In the larger reality there is nothing forcing God to do anything. He requires justice to preserve his honor, and that is more for our sake than his. Human nature doesn't respond well to cheap forgiveness.

---

God's plan of salvation is intimately tied to his eternal character. That is what you are either failing to grasp or are stubbornly refusing to admit. I think it's the latter. Also, Scripture does not support your belief that it's "more for our sake than his":

Psalm 23 - "He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake."

Psalm 106 - "Yet he saved them for his name's sake, that he might make known his mighty power."

Romans 1:5 - "Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name's sake."

1 John 2:12 - "I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name's sake."

---

He chose to tie it to his eternal character. In reality he has no need of our worship and is not diminished by our disobedience.

---

Completely irrelevant. Even if he chose to tie it to his character, it still then MUST absolutely conform to his character. He can't choose for it not to, and violate himself.

---

If it depends on his choice, then by definition it's not absolute.

---

The "choice" in your assertion is the choice to tie it to his character, thus whether or not it's tied to his character is the part that is not absolute. However, once tied, conforming to his character IS absolute.

But still, your assertion is wrong, God can not ever have full reconciliation with man without tieing it to his character. It's not a choice, that's what reconciliation means. The only choice in the matter is to either have reconciliation, or not. Otherwise, ultimately what you're saying is that it's possible for God to have union with sin, if he so chooses.

Your games aren't going to work. You're going down a losing path, so it's best to just bail.

---

What do you mean by "union with sin?" If God merely deems us righteous because of our faith, without requiring or effecting any transformation on our part, is that not union with sin?

---

THAT's the gospel! God can deem us righteous because of our faith in Jesus, whose sacrifice was the once for all payment for our sin, the perfect atoning sacrifice. Jesus' righteousness is imputed to us through faith.

Read Romans 3: "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it - the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

---

Well, there you have it. God can and did pass over sins in his divine forbearance. He put forth Christ in order to show his righteousness.

---

He was only able to pass over sins because of the perfect atoning sacrifice of Jesus. It was an absolute MUST because of God's holiness. And because Jesus is raised, and is at the right hand of God interceding for us (Romans 8:34 -the only intercessor, along with the Holy Spirit, in the Bible) we too will be raised like him and have eternal life. The apostle Paul states the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:

"Now I make known to you, brothers, the gospel which I proclaimed to you, which you have also received, in which you also stand, by which you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the message I proclaimed to you, unless you believed to no purpose. For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised up on the third day according to the scriptures"

It can only be through faith, and faith alone, for the reasons I explained. None of us can be good enough in our works to satisfy a perfect and Holy God. That's why God had to eat the cost of the debt himself (in Jesus). "What's impossible with man, is possible with God". If you're saying we still need works for our salvation, then you're saying Jesus' sacrifice was not perfect, that it was incomplete.

Romans 4: "For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness."

---

Those are your beliefs. Catholics believe somewhat differently.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).

---

Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

Placing one's salvation in any other person's hands other than God/Jesus is pure heresy. ANY Christian with the Holy Spirit in them knows this. Heck, even non-believers and atheists who know Christianity superficially know it. You can't defend it, though you may try, and the "defense" you just put forth is severely lacking. If you truly believe that there is a way to defend it and don't recognize it as heresy and idolatry of Mary, you are only revealing your fruits, and by them we will know you.

---

Again, I must already have X before I can place X anywhere. Basic logic. That you interpret this some other way falls into the realm of error and speculation. In any event, your laborious harping over this obscure point simply confirms your good standing as Inquisitor General/Pharisee-in-Chief. Congrats.

---

First of all, your logic is false. You don't have to already have X in order to place it anywhere. You can put your rescue into the hands of a fireman. You're not already rescued, you're putting the success of the rescue into the hands of the fireman and his ability to rescue you.

Secondly, and more importantly, this doesn't make any sense. This "explanation" doesn't explain how there are "alternatives" to whose hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus. You seem to be saying, rather, that we CAN'T place our salvation in anyone's hands, even Jesus, because we can't place something we don't have yet into his hands. You're making some kind of logical argument, which had nothing to do with the orginal statement you made, that I am a "Pharisee" because I believe that Christians should only place their salvation in Jesus' hands, not Mary's.

---

That you assert my logic is false is false. All you've demonstrated is that there is more than one possible interpretation which has always been my point. Thanks for the confirmation of your good standing with the Pharisees.

---

How is it false? I just demonstrated it. You, however, just made another argument by mere assertion. That's strike two on your own criticism of me!

And what's the other possible interpretation of that phrase that allows for Christians to place their salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus', which makes me a "Pharisee" for saying that we should only place it in Jesus'? You're not making any kind of a defense of your claim.

---

Possible meaning - I offer my pre existing salvation through the merits of Christ into the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary so that she may offer her intercessions on my behalf. Happy now?

---

If you're only seeking intercession, your salvation is still in the hand's of Jesus, not Mary. What you are professing when you claim that it's in Mary's hands, is that she is able to determine your salvation or lack thereof instead of Jesus.

---

No, it's really just a way of saying you're seeking intercession.

---

Your intercessor does not have the fate of your salvation in their hands. Saying that it does is CLEARLY usurping the role of Jesus.

---

The Bible is full of references to people being "saved" by someone other than Christ. See James 5:13-15, James 5:19-20, Jude 20-23, 1 Corinthians 7:16-17. Of course it is really Christ saving them. It's the same when Mary intercedes.

You will probably conclude that this is inconsistent with OSAS, but Catholics don't believe in that anyway.

---

NONE of those verses even comes close to saying that the person being "saved" had sought intercession from the other person for their being "saved" by placing the fate of their salvation "in their hands" (they determine it's success or failure). Neither do they come close to suggesting that the person's salvation was ever in the other person's hands to begin with. The very suggestion that it could be in any other person's hands other than Jesus is the idolatrous part in all this that you seem to want to skirt.

---

It's a manner of speaking, perhaps a bit archaic. Catholics don't believe that their salvation is determined by anyone other than God.

---

It is hardly just a manner of speaking, considering the context of the entire prayer which says Mary is the "ruler of my house", "our strength and our refuge", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "salvation of the universe", "sovereign" and asks that she "grant that we may go to heaven".

Catholics don't believe anyone determines their salvation other than God? "Every prayer of Mary's is like an established Law for our Lord, obliging him to be merciful for everyone for whom she intercedes"

This is so sickening. Mary, if she knew any of this, would be sickened. If you don't recognize any of this as blatantly idolatrous, then I am utterly convinced you are not a Christian.

---

I'm not familiar with that language, but I suspect you're taking it too literally. I can only tell you what Catholics believe. I know you don't agree with all of it, but hopefully you will try to understand it.

---

Wow. Anything.... just anything to avoid the patently obvious that's right in your face.

For God's sake, man, open your eyes.

---

I mean, whom should I listen to if I want to know what the Church believes? You or the Church? No one literally thinks Mary establishes laws for the Lord. It's poetic language (notice the simile) describing his love for her.

There is ZERO evidence that Rome had precedence before Constantine made it his pet.

None whatsoever.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm sorry, you're just not honest with history. You keep repeating the "history" claim, and that I'm arguing against it, despite the fact that throughout my comments I have presented historical fact after historical fact that has debunked the idea that sthe Roman Catholic Church is the original church of the apostles. Throughout this thread, I have presented the historical facts that:

- the canon of the first churches did NOT contain the apocrypha;
- the majority of church fathers, theologians, and scholars up until the 15th century did NOT believe the apocrypha was part of canon;
- the Roman Catholic Church even approved canons that rejected the apocrypha;
- the early church did NOT have bishops and popes;
- there was no singular bishop claiming authority over the Church (pope) who presided in Rome until one hundred years after Jesus;
- the church fathers did NOT agree that Peter was the "rock", and in fact the majority of them believed the "rock" was, rather, the truth of Peter's confession;
- the early church and church fathers unanimously believed that icon veneration had NO part in the church;
- the early church did not all believe that the Eucharist was the literal body and blood of Jesus;
- the early church did NOT believe Mary was sinless, nor that she was bodily assumed into heaven;
- the early church did NOT pray to Mary or the saints;
- the Roman Catholic church was infused with pagan practices as a compromise with the pagan Roman public
- and most recently, that "faith alone" was indeed taught in the early church

Post after post. Comment after comment. Over and over. Yet you still to this day repeat the lie that I'm arguing against history, and that there is no historical basis for Protestant claims. I'm sorry, but at this point, it's nothing but pure denial and willful ignorance on your part. It's bad enough that you are completely blind to your obvious worship and idolatry of Mary, but if you won't even reckon that history does not support your originalist claim, or in the least provides a valid argument against it, even when given historical facts, then you are too dug in your beliefs that absolutely nothing will convince you, not even if Jesus himself were to come down and say so. We've pretty much reached the impasse.

---

You have presented a few limited exceptions to those issues that you've stated. I've also refuted them. One has to go with the magisterium and their consensus.

You, too, are also Gish-Galloping. If you want to discuss these matters again, we can do so one at a time. It becomes too burdensome to answer all at the same time.

Finally, the best you can do is offer your fallible view of the Christianity. You have no authority. No one here has any reason to accept it.


PS: How do address Ignatius of Anitoch's claim about the bishops and the Catholic Church? That was 107 AD. How old is your church again?

---

You refuted nothing. Post what you think you refuted.

Ignatius' quote does NOTHING to establish the Roman Catholic Church in 107 AD. Where is the pope? Where are prayers to Mary and her "veneration", i.e. worship? Where is icon veneration? Where is the apocrypha as part of canon Scripture? Where are the Marian dogmas?

I really think people have read what I have said and agree, though they might not admit it.

Sam LowryHe was only able to pass over sins because of the perfect atoning sacrifice of Jesus. It was an absolute MUST because of God's holiness. And because Jesus is raised, and is at the right hand of God interceding for us (Romans 8:34 -the only intercessor, along with the Holy Spirit, in the Bible) we too will be raised like him and have eternal life. The apostle Paul states the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15: said:

---

Quote:

---

"Now I make known to you, brothers, the gospel which I proclaimed to you, which you have also received, in which you also stand, by which you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the message I proclaimed to you, unless you believed to no purpose. For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised up on the third day according to the scriptures"

It can only be through faith, and faith alone, for the reasons I explained. None of us can be good enough in our works to satisfy a perfect and Holy God. That's why God had to eat the cost of the debt himself (in Jesus). "What's impossible with man, is possible with God". If you're saying we still need works for our salvation, then you're saying Jesus' sacrifice was not perfect, that it was incomplete.

Romans 4: "For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness."

---

Those are your beliefs. Catholics believe somewhat differently.

---

I literally presented the Biblical belief. You are saying that Catholicism believes differently from the Bible.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).

---

Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

Placing one's salvation in any other person's hands other than God/Jesus is pure heresy. ANY Christian with the Holy Spirit in them knows this. Heck, even non-believers and atheists who know Christianity superficially know it. You can't defend it, though you may try, and the "defense" you just put forth is severely lacking. If you truly believe that there is a way to defend it and don't recognize it as heresy and idolatry of Mary, you are only revealing your fruits, and by them we will know you.

---

Again, I must already have X before I can place X anywhere. Basic logic. That you interpret this some other way falls into the realm of error and speculation. In any event, your laborious harping over this obscure point simply confirms your good standing as Inquisitor General/Pharisee-in-Chief. Congrats.

---

First of all, your logic is false. You don't have to already have X in order to place it anywhere. You can put your rescue into the hands of a fireman. You're not already rescued, you're putting the success of the rescue into the hands of the fireman and his ability to rescue you.

Secondly, and more importantly, this doesn't make any sense. This "explanation" doesn't explain how there are "alternatives" to whose hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus. You seem to be saying, rather, that we CAN'T place our salvation in anyone's hands, even Jesus, because we can't place something we don't have yet into his hands. You're making some kind of logical argument, which had nothing to do with the orginal statement you made, that I am a "Pharisee" because I believe that Christians should only place their salvation in Jesus' hands, not Mary's.

---

That you assert my logic is false is false. All you've demonstrated is that there is more than one possible interpretation which has always been my point. Thanks for the confirmation of your good standing with the Pharisees.

---

How is it false? I just demonstrated it. You, however, just made another argument by mere assertion. That's strike two on your own criticism of me!

And what's the other possible interpretation of that phrase that allows for Christians to place their salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus', which makes me a "Pharisee" for saying that we should only place it in Jesus'? You're not making any kind of a defense of your claim.

---

Possible meaning - I offer my pre existing salvation through the merits of Christ into the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary so that she may offer her intercessions on my behalf. Happy now?

---

If you're only seeking intercession, your salvation is still in the hand's of Jesus, not Mary. What you are professing when you claim that it's in Mary's hands, is that she is able to determine your salvation or lack thereof instead of Jesus.

---

No, it's really just a way of saying you're seeking intercession.

---

Your intercessor does not have the fate of your salvation in their hands. Saying that it does is CLEARLY usurping the role of Jesus.

---

The Bible is full of references to people being "saved" by someone other than Christ. See James 5:13-15, James 5:19-20, Jude 20-23, 1 Corinthians 7:16-17. Of course it is really Christ saving them. It's the same when Mary intercedes.

You will probably conclude that this is inconsistent with OSAS, but Catholics don't believe in that anyway.

---

NONE of those verses even comes close to saying that the person being "saved" had sought intercession from the other person for their being "saved" by placing the fate of their salvation "in their hands" (they determine it's success or failure). Neither do they come close to suggesting that the person's salvation was ever in the other person's hands to begin with. The very suggestion that it could be in any other person's hands other than Jesus is the idolatrous part in all this that you seem to want to skirt.

---

It's a manner of speaking, perhaps a bit archaic. Catholics don't believe that their salvation is determined by anyone other than God.

---

It is hardly just a manner of speaking, considering the context of the entire prayer which says Mary is the "ruler of my house", "our strength and our refuge", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "salvation of the universe", "sovereign" and asks that she "grant that we may go to heaven".

Catholics don't believe anyone determines their salvation other than God? "Every prayer of Mary's is like an established Law for our Lord, obliging him to be merciful for everyone for whom she intercedes"

This is so sickening. Mary, if she knew any of this, would be sickened. If you don't recognize any of this as blatantly idolatrous, then I am utterly convinced you are not a Christian.

---

I'm not familiar with that language, but I suspect you're taking it too literally. I can only tell you what Catholics believe. I know you don't agree with all of it, but hopefully you will try to understand it.

---

Wow. Anything.... just anything to avoid the patently obvious that's right in your face.

For God's sake, man, open your eyes.

---

I mean, whom should I listen to if I want to know what the Church believes? You or the Church? No one literally thinks Mary establishes laws for the Lord. It's poetic language (notice the simile) describing his love for her.

---

So... you need the Church to tell you whether what the Church promotes is heretical and idolatrous? Do you see the problem with that?

Poetic language to describe his love for her? Isn't that love going overboard, then? Isn't love for another human, or anything else for that matter, too excessive if it emulates love for God like that?

Let me get you to at least admit this: regardless of whether it's "poetic" language or not, doesn't that language cross the line into being idolatrous? Should Christians ever use language like that to describe anyone but God/Jesus? "Sovereign"?? Take that one, for instance. Who can Christians ever say is sovereign other than God? We can go down the list, and you'd really have to go to ridiculous lengths to defend it.

Here, start with this one: On page 100 of this thread, I presented the following:

Ramsay MacMullen, Emeritus Professor of History from Yale University in his book, Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries, describes the situation in fourth-fifth century Rome after Constantine made Christianity the official religion.... certain rites and ceremonies of paganism involving the dead persisted, and even started to infiltrate the practice of Christians in that time. MacMullen's study revealed that even though such pagan practices were frowned upon by church fathers, they found it impractical, even impossible, to completely forbid Christians from partaking in them. So they often acquiesced by allowing a "Christian" form of it: for example, instead of petitioning the pagan gods, they could petition Christian martyrs and saints.

Here is an excerpt:

"The creed that was the true heart of the Christian community in the first centruy of two of its existence was retained untouched by the inflow of new members after Constantine. Church organization, too, showed no effects. But in the ideas and rites just described a large area of new loyalties opened up. Augustine called the sum total of imported paganism among his congregation their "mother," while what he himself would teach them was "the father." They must choose; or he hoped they would. But he could not make them do so. He conceded that they must be allowed some latitude in their manner of worship. At just about the same time, toward the beginning of the fifth century, Jerome made the same acknowledgement: better, worship of the saints in the pagan manner than none at all."

Can you Roman Catholics seriously argue that there is no historical evidence that Roman Catholic practice was tainted by paganism?

Go ahead, debunk an Emeritus Professor of Church history from Yale, who wrote the book on the topic.

"How old is your church again?"

Well then,by that logic we should give place to Judaism, Baal worship and whatever was going on in Sodom.

THOSE are far older than Christianity.

Of course, from his arguments we see Coke Bear was unaware of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the draconian punishment meted out by popes with far more cruelty in their hearts than Christ, so maybe I should not be surprised he thinks Jesus established the Roman Pope as a kind of mini-me (glowing version) who was is and shall forever be perfect, by the power of Mary, through whom he prays

(/Sarc)

Oldbear83 said:

---

There is ZERO evidence that Rome had precedence before Constantine made it his pet.

None whatsoever.

---

Other than:

The Petrine foundation in Rome,
Church fathers like Ignatius referring to the Roman Church as "presiding in love",
Councils like Nicaea that were influenced by the Roman See, and
Resolutions of disputes, like the aforementioned Letter from Clement.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I literally presented the Biblical belief. You are saying that Catholicism believes differently from the Bible.

---

You are presenting YOUR fallible interpretation of YOUR Biblical belief.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I literally presented the Biblical belief. You are saying that Catholicism believes differently from the Bible.

---

You are presenting YOUR fallible interpretation of YOUR Biblical belief.

---

I literally quoted the apostle Paul in Romans. No interpretation. He literally states that "righteousness comes from faith to all those who believe". That it is a "gift that is received by faith". That "to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness."

There just isn't a way you can finagle works into what Paul is saying here. To say that my belief is fallible, is to say that the apostle Paul's belief is too.

So ... You say the Romans were the entire Church not because Christ said so, or the rest of the churches said so, but because you found some Romans who said so and you liked that.

The Joe Isuzu theological argument, that .


I will stick with the words and instructions from Christ.

No Popes needed.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

There is ZERO evidence that Rome had precedence before Constantine made it his pet.

None whatsoever.

---

Other than:

The Petrine foundation in Rome,
Church fathers like Ignatius referring to the Roman Church as "presiding in love",
Councils like Nicaea that were influenced by the Roman See, and
Resolutions of disputes, like the aforementioned Letter from Clement.

---

- The "Petrine foundation" has no biblical evidence and in fact the biblical evidence weighs against it. It does not have the historical support from the early church fathers, either. The majority of them did not interpret the "rock" in Matthew 16 as being Peter. French Catholic historian Jean de Launoy surveyed all the patristic quotations and found that eighty percent (80%) said that the "rock" referred either to Jesus himself or Peter's confession of Jesus. Only 20% said that it was Peter. (The One Volume Bible Commentary, edited by John R. Dummelow)


- Referring to a church as "presiding in love" is not evidence whatsoever of its supremacy. Any church can be said to be presiding in love within their district or area.

- The Council of Nicaea??!! The Council of Nicaea, which happened nearly three hundred years after Jesus mind you, is evidence against the primacy of Rome. It gave jurisdictional authority to the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch over their respective regions, and gave Rome authority only over its own region - Rome was NOT given authority over the whole church. This council wasn't even convoked by a bishop, it was convoked by the emperor Constantine.

- There's nothing in Clement's letter to suggest he was the pope or that he held a supremacy role over the whole church. The author doesn't even identify himself as Clement, or that he has any kind of supreme leadership position, a curious omission if it were indeed a letter from a pope. The majority of scholars view his letter not as authoritative or "settling" any kind of dispute, but rather merely a fraternal letter (church to church), the purpose of which was to admonish a neighboring church.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryHe was only able to pass over sins because of the perfect atoning sacrifice of Jesus. It was an absolute MUST because of God's holiness. And because Jesus is raised, and is at the right hand of God interceding for us (Romans 8:34 -the only intercessor, along with the Holy Spirit, in the Bible) we too will be raised like him and have eternal life. The apostle Paul states the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15: said:

---

Quote:

---

"Now I make known to you, brothers, the gospel which I proclaimed to you, which you have also received, in which you also stand, by which you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the message I proclaimed to you, unless you believed to no purpose. For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised up on the third day according to the scriptures"

It can only be through faith, and faith alone, for the reasons I explained. None of us can be good enough in our works to satisfy a perfect and Holy God. That's why God had to eat the cost of the debt himself (in Jesus). "What's impossible with man, is possible with God". If you're saying we still need works for our salvation, then you're saying Jesus' sacrifice was not perfect, that it was incomplete.

Romans 4: "For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness."

---

Those are your beliefs. Catholics believe somewhat differently.

---

I literally presented the Biblical belief. You are saying that Catholicism believes differently from the Bible.

---

You presented some Scripture and some interpretation, which is fine. We've covered the topic of sola fide (or non sola fide, to use the biblical phrase), so there's no need to go over that again. My point is simply that it behooves you, and all of us, to understand Church teaching for what it is and not what we might imagine it to be.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).

---

Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

Placing one's salvation in any other person's hands other than God/Jesus is pure heresy. ANY Christian with the Holy Spirit in them knows this. Heck, even non-believers and atheists who know Christianity superficially know it. You can't defend it, though you may try, and the "defense" you just put forth is severely lacking. If you truly believe that there is a way to defend it and don't recognize it as heresy and idolatry of Mary, you are only revealing your fruits, and by them we will know you.

---

Again, I must already have X before I can place X anywhere. Basic logic. That you interpret this some other way falls into the realm of error and speculation. In any event, your laborious harping over this obscure point simply confirms your good standing as Inquisitor General/Pharisee-in-Chief. Congrats.

---

First of all, your logic is false. You don't have to already have X in order to place it anywhere. You can put your rescue into the hands of a fireman. You're not already rescued, you're putting the success of the rescue into the hands of the fireman and his ability to rescue you.

Secondly, and more importantly, this doesn't make any sense. This "explanation" doesn't explain how there are "alternatives" to whose hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus. You seem to be saying, rather, that we CAN'T place our salvation in anyone's hands, even Jesus, because we can't place something we don't have yet into his hands. You're making some kind of logical argument, which had nothing to do with the orginal statement you made, that I am a "Pharisee" because I believe that Christians should only place their salvation in Jesus' hands, not Mary's.

---

That you assert my logic is false is false. All you've demonstrated is that there is more than one possible interpretation which has always been my point. Thanks for the confirmation of your good standing with the Pharisees.

---

How is it false? I just demonstrated it. You, however, just made another argument by mere assertion. That's strike two on your own criticism of me!

And what's the other possible interpretation of that phrase that allows for Christians to place their salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus', which makes me a "Pharisee" for saying that we should only place it in Jesus'? You're not making any kind of a defense of your claim.

---

Possible meaning - I offer my pre existing salvation through the merits of Christ into the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary so that she may offer her intercessions on my behalf. Happy now?

---

If you're only seeking intercession, your salvation is still in the hand's of Jesus, not Mary. What you are professing when you claim that it's in Mary's hands, is that she is able to determine your salvation or lack thereof instead of Jesus.

---

No, it's really just a way of saying you're seeking intercession.

---

Your intercessor does not have the fate of your salvation in their hands. Saying that it does is CLEARLY usurping the role of Jesus.

---

The Bible is full of references to people being "saved" by someone other than Christ. See James 5:13-15, James 5:19-20, Jude 20-23, 1 Corinthians 7:16-17. Of course it is really Christ saving them. It's the same when Mary intercedes.

You will probably conclude that this is inconsistent with OSAS, but Catholics don't believe in that anyway.

---

NONE of those verses even comes close to saying that the person being "saved" had sought intercession from the other person for their being "saved" by placing the fate of their salvation "in their hands" (they determine it's success or failure). Neither do they come close to suggesting that the person's salvation was ever in the other person's hands to begin with. The very suggestion that it could be in any other person's hands other than Jesus is the idolatrous part in all this that you seem to want to skirt.

---

It's a manner of speaking, perhaps a bit archaic. Catholics don't believe that their salvation is determined by anyone other than God.

---

It is hardly just a manner of speaking, considering the context of the entire prayer which says Mary is the "ruler of my house", "our strength and our refuge", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "salvation of the universe", "sovereign" and asks that she "grant that we may go to heaven".

Catholics don't believe anyone determines their salvation other than God? "Every prayer of Mary's is like an established Law for our Lord, obliging him to be merciful for everyone for whom she intercedes"

This is so sickening. Mary, if she knew any of this, would be sickened. If you don't recognize any of this as blatantly idolatrous, then I am utterly convinced you are not a Christian.

---

I'm not familiar with that language, but I suspect you're taking it too literally. I can only tell you what Catholics believe. I know you don't agree with all of it, but hopefully you will try to understand it.

---

Wow. Anything.... just anything to avoid the patently obvious that's right in your face.

For God's sake, man, open your eyes.

---

I mean, whom should I listen to if I want to know what the Church believes? You or the Church? No one literally thinks Mary establishes laws for the Lord. It's poetic language (notice the simile) describing his love for her.

---

So... you need the Church to tell you whether what the Church promotes is heretical and idolatrous? Do you see the problem with that?

Poetic language to describe his love for her? Isn't that love going overboard, then? Isn't love for another human, or anything else for that matter, too excessive if it emulates love for God like that?

Let me get you to at least admit this: regardless of whether it's "poetic" language or not, doesn't that language cross the line into being idolatrous? Should Christians ever use language like that to describe anyone but God/Jesus? "Sovereign"?? Take that one, for instance. Who can Christians ever say is sovereign other than God? We can go down the list, and you'd really have to go to ridiculous lengths to defend it.

---

Didn't say that. I'm just encouraging you first to understand Catholic beliefs, then accept them or not.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Here, start with this one: On page 100 of this thread, I presented the following:

Ramsay MacMullen, Emeritus Professor of History from Yale University in his book, Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries, describes the situation in fourth-fifth century Rome after Constantine made Christianity the official religion.... certain rites and ceremonies of paganism involving the dead persisted, and even started to infiltrate the practice of Christians in that time. MacMullen's study revealed that even though such pagan practices were frowned upon by church fathers, they found it impractical, even impossible, to completely forbid Christians from partaking in them. So they often acquiesced by allowing a "Christian" form of it: for example, instead of petitioning the pagan gods, they could petition Christian martyrs and saints.

Here is an excerpt:

"The creed that was the true heart of the Christian community in the first centruy of two of its existence was retained untouched by the inflow of new members after Constantine. Church organization, too, showed no effects. But in the ideas and rites just described a large area of new loyalties opened up. Augustine called the sum total of imported paganism among his congregation their "mother," while what he himself would teach them was "the father." They must choose; or he hoped they would. But he could not make them do so. He conceded that they must be allowed some latitude in their manner of worship. At just about the same time, toward the beginning of the fifth century, Jerome made the same acknowledgement: better, worship of the saints in the pagan manner than none at all."

Can you Roman Catholics seriously argue that there is no historical evidence that Roman Catholic practice was tainted by paganism?

Go ahead, debunk an Emeritus Professor of Church history from Yale, who wrote the book on the topic.

---

This actually supports Coke Bear's position. Jerome was very much in favor of intercessory prayer. He opposed things like making sacrifices to the saints. Those are the pagan rites and ceremonies in question, which vanished long ago. The passage also notes that both the creed and the organization of the Church remained as they were in the 1st century, untouched by Constantine.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryHe was only able to pass over sins because of the perfect atoning sacrifice of Jesus. It was an absolute MUST because of God's holiness. And because Jesus is raised, and is at the right hand of God interceding for us (Romans 8:34 -the only intercessor, along with the Holy Spirit, in the Bible) we too will be raised like him and have eternal life. The apostle Paul states the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15: said:

---

Quote:

---

"Now I make known to you, brothers, the gospel which I proclaimed to you, which you have also received, in which you also stand, by which you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the message I proclaimed to you, unless you believed to no purpose. For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised up on the third day according to the scriptures"

It can only be through faith, and faith alone, for the reasons I explained. None of us can be good enough in our works to satisfy a perfect and Holy God. That's why God had to eat the cost of the debt himself (in Jesus). "What's impossible with man, is possible with God". If you're saying we still need works for our salvation, then you're saying Jesus' sacrifice was not perfect, that it was incomplete.

Romans 4: "For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness."

---

Those are your beliefs. Catholics believe somewhat differently.

---

I literally presented the Biblical belief. You are saying that Catholicism believes differently from the Bible.

---

You presented some Scripture and some interpretation, which is fine. We've covered the topic of sola fide (or non sola fide, to use the biblical phrase), so there's no need to go over that again. My point is simply that it behooves you, and all of us, to understand Church teaching for what it is and not what we might imagine it to be.

---

Again, it's hard to call it "imagining" when it's just presenting what's right there in black in white on the pages of the Bible. I would like you to explain how you could possible include works into what Paul was saying in those passages in Romans.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).

---

Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

Placing one's salvation in any other person's hands other than God/Jesus is pure heresy. ANY Christian with the Holy Spirit in them knows this. Heck, even non-believers and atheists who know Christianity superficially know it. You can't defend it, though you may try, and the "defense" you just put forth is severely lacking. If you truly believe that there is a way to defend it and don't recognize it as heresy and idolatry of Mary, you are only revealing your fruits, and by them we will know you.

---

Again, I must already have X before I can place X anywhere. Basic logic. That you interpret this some other way falls into the realm of error and speculation. In any event, your laborious harping over this obscure point simply confirms your good standing as Inquisitor General/Pharisee-in-Chief. Congrats.

---

First of all, your logic is false. You don't have to already have X in order to place it anywhere. You can put your rescue into the hands of a fireman. You're not already rescued, you're putting the success of the rescue into the hands of the fireman and his ability to rescue you.

Secondly, and more importantly, this doesn't make any sense. This "explanation" doesn't explain how there are "alternatives" to whose hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus. You seem to be saying, rather, that we CAN'T place our salvation in anyone's hands, even Jesus, because we can't place something we don't have yet into his hands. You're making some kind of logical argument, which had nothing to do with the orginal statement you made, that I am a "Pharisee" because I believe that Christians should only place their salvation in Jesus' hands, not Mary's.

---

That you assert my logic is false is false. All you've demonstrated is that there is more than one possible interpretation which has always been my point. Thanks for the confirmation of your good standing with the Pharisees.

---

How is it false? I just demonstrated it. You, however, just made another argument by mere assertion. That's strike two on your own criticism of me!

And what's the other possible interpretation of that phrase that allows for Christians to place their salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus', which makes me a "Pharisee" for saying that we should only place it in Jesus'? You're not making any kind of a defense of your claim.

---

Possible meaning - I offer my pre existing salvation through the merits of Christ into the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary so that she may offer her intercessions on my behalf. Happy now?

---

If you're only seeking intercession, your salvation is still in the hand's of Jesus, not Mary. What you are professing when you claim that it's in Mary's hands, is that she is able to determine your salvation or lack thereof instead of Jesus.

---

No, it's really just a way of saying you're seeking intercession.

---

Your intercessor does not have the fate of your salvation in their hands. Saying that it does is CLEARLY usurping the role of Jesus.

---

The Bible is full of references to people being "saved" by someone other than Christ. See James 5:13-15, James 5:19-20, Jude 20-23, 1 Corinthians 7:16-17. Of course it is really Christ saving them. It's the same when Mary intercedes.

You will probably conclude that this is inconsistent with OSAS, but Catholics don't believe in that anyway.

---

NONE of those verses even comes close to saying that the person being "saved" had sought intercession from the other person for their being "saved" by placing the fate of their salvation "in their hands" (they determine it's success or failure). Neither do they come close to suggesting that the person's salvation was ever in the other person's hands to begin with. The very suggestion that it could be in any other person's hands other than Jesus is the idolatrous part in all this that you seem to want to skirt.

---

It's a manner of speaking, perhaps a bit archaic. Catholics don't believe that their salvation is determined by anyone other than God.

---

It is hardly just a manner of speaking, considering the context of the entire prayer which says Mary is the "ruler of my house", "our strength and our refuge", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "salvation of the universe", "sovereign" and asks that she "grant that we may go to heaven".

Catholics don't believe anyone determines their salvation other than God? "Every prayer of Mary's is like an established Law for our Lord, obliging him to be merciful for everyone for whom she intercedes"

This is so sickening. Mary, if she knew any of this, would be sickened. If you don't recognize any of this as blatantly idolatrous, then I am utterly convinced you are not a Christian.

---

I'm not familiar with that language, but I suspect you're taking it too literally. I can only tell you what Catholics believe. I know you don't agree with all of it, but hopefully you will try to understand it.

---

Wow. Anything.... just anything to avoid the patently obvious that's right in your face.

For God's sake, man, open your eyes.

---

I mean, whom should I listen to if I want to know what the Church believes? You or the Church? No one literally thinks Mary establishes laws for the Lord. It's poetic language (notice the simile) describing his love for her.

---

So... you need the Church to tell you whether what the Church promotes is heretical and idolatrous? Do you see the problem with that?

Poetic language to describe his love for her? Isn't that love going overboard, then? Isn't love for another human, or anything else for that matter, too excessive if it emulates love for God like that?

Let me get you to at least admit this: regardless of whether it's "poetic" language or not, doesn't that language cross the line into being idolatrous? Should Christians ever use language like that to describe anyone but God/Jesus? "Sovereign"?? Take that one, for instance. Who can Christians ever say is sovereign other than God? We can go down the list, and you'd really have to go to ridiculous lengths to defend it.

---

Didn't say that. I'm just encouraging you first to understand Catholic beliefs, then accept them or not.

---

And I'm encouraging you to answer the question - is it ever right to call Mary, or anyone else for that matter "sovereign"?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryHe was only able to pass over sins because of the perfect atoning sacrifice of Jesus. It was an absolute MUST because of God's holiness. And because Jesus is raised, and is at the right hand of God interceding for us (Romans 8:34 -the only intercessor, along with the Holy Spirit, in the Bible) we too will be raised like him and have eternal life. The apostle Paul states the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15: said:

---

Quote:

---

"Now I make known to you, brothers, the gospel which I proclaimed to you, which you have also received, in which you also stand, by which you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the message I proclaimed to you, unless you believed to no purpose. For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised up on the third day according to the scriptures"

It can only be through faith, and faith alone, for the reasons I explained. None of us can be good enough in our works to satisfy a perfect and Holy God. That's why God had to eat the cost of the debt himself (in Jesus). "What's impossible with man, is possible with God". If you're saying we still need works for our salvation, then you're saying Jesus' sacrifice was not perfect, that it was incomplete.

Romans 4: "For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness."

---

Those are your beliefs. Catholics believe somewhat differently.

---

I literally presented the Biblical belief. You are saying that Catholicism believes differently from the Bible.

---

You presented some Scripture and some interpretation, which is fine. We've covered the topic of sola fide (or non sola fide, to use the biblical phrase), so there's no need to go over that again. My point is simply that it behooves you, and all of us, to understand Church teaching for what it is and not what we might imagine it to be.

---

Again, it's hard to call it "imagining" when it's just presenting what's right there in black in white on the pages of the Bible. I would like you to explain how you could possible include works into what Paul was saying in those passages in Romans.

---

I'm talking about all the things you imagine the Church "must" believe.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).

---

Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

Placing one's salvation in any other person's hands other than God/Jesus is pure heresy. ANY Christian with the Holy Spirit in them knows this. Heck, even non-believers and atheists who know Christianity superficially know it. You can't defend it, though you may try, and the "defense" you just put forth is severely lacking. If you truly believe that there is a way to defend it and don't recognize it as heresy and idolatry of Mary, you are only revealing your fruits, and by them we will know you.

---

Again, I must already have X before I can place X anywhere. Basic logic. That you interpret this some other way falls into the realm of error and speculation. In any event, your laborious harping over this obscure point simply confirms your good standing as Inquisitor General/Pharisee-in-Chief. Congrats.

---

First of all, your logic is false. You don't have to already have X in order to place it anywhere. You can put your rescue into the hands of a fireman. You're not already rescued, you're putting the success of the rescue into the hands of the fireman and his ability to rescue you.

Secondly, and more importantly, this doesn't make any sense. This "explanation" doesn't explain how there are "alternatives" to whose hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus. You seem to be saying, rather, that we CAN'T place our salvation in anyone's hands, even Jesus, because we can't place something we don't have yet into his hands. You're making some kind of logical argument, which had nothing to do with the orginal statement you made, that I am a "Pharisee" because I believe that Christians should only place their salvation in Jesus' hands, not Mary's.

---

That you assert my logic is false is false. All you've demonstrated is that there is more than one possible interpretation which has always been my point. Thanks for the confirmation of your good standing with the Pharisees.

---

How is it false? I just demonstrated it. You, however, just made another argument by mere assertion. That's strike two on your own criticism of me!

And what's the other possible interpretation of that phrase that allows for Christians to place their salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus', which makes me a "Pharisee" for saying that we should only place it in Jesus'? You're not making any kind of a defense of your claim.

---

Possible meaning - I offer my pre existing salvation through the merits of Christ into the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary so that she may offer her intercessions on my behalf. Happy now?

---

If you're only seeking intercession, your salvation is still in the hand's of Jesus, not Mary. What you are professing when you claim that it's in Mary's hands, is that she is able to determine your salvation or lack thereof instead of Jesus.

---

No, it's really just a way of saying you're seeking intercession.

---

Your intercessor does not have the fate of your salvation in their hands. Saying that it does is CLEARLY usurping the role of Jesus.

---

The Bible is full of references to people being "saved" by someone other than Christ. See James 5:13-15, James 5:19-20, Jude 20-23, 1 Corinthians 7:16-17. Of course it is really Christ saving them. It's the same when Mary intercedes.

You will probably conclude that this is inconsistent with OSAS, but Catholics don't believe in that anyway.

---

NONE of those verses even comes close to saying that the person being "saved" had sought intercession from the other person for their being "saved" by placing the fate of their salvation "in their hands" (they determine it's success or failure). Neither do they come close to suggesting that the person's salvation was ever in the other person's hands to begin with. The very suggestion that it could be in any other person's hands other than Jesus is the idolatrous part in all this that you seem to want to skirt.

---

It's a manner of speaking, perhaps a bit archaic. Catholics don't believe that their salvation is determined by anyone other than God.

---

It is hardly just a manner of speaking, considering the context of the entire prayer which says Mary is the "ruler of my house", "our strength and our refuge", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "salvation of the universe", "sovereign" and asks that she "grant that we may go to heaven".

Catholics don't believe anyone determines their salvation other than God? "Every prayer of Mary's is like an established Law for our Lord, obliging him to be merciful for everyone for whom she intercedes"

This is so sickening. Mary, if she knew any of this, would be sickened. If you don't recognize any of this as blatantly idolatrous, then I am utterly convinced you are not a Christian.

---

I'm not familiar with that language, but I suspect you're taking it too literally. I can only tell you what Catholics believe. I know you don't agree with all of it, but hopefully you will try to understand it.

---

Wow. Anything.... just anything to avoid the patently obvious that's right in your face.

For God's sake, man, open your eyes.

---

I mean, whom should I listen to if I want to know what the Church believes? You or the Church? No one literally thinks Mary establishes laws for the Lord. It's poetic language (notice the simile) describing his love for her.

---

So... you need the Church to tell you whether what the Church promotes is heretical and idolatrous? Do you see the problem with that?

Poetic language to describe his love for her? Isn't that love going overboard, then? Isn't love for another human, or anything else for that matter, too excessive if it emulates love for God like that?

Let me get you to at least admit this: regardless of whether it's "poetic" language or not, doesn't that language cross the line into being idolatrous? Should Christians ever use language like that to describe anyone but God/Jesus? "Sovereign"?? Take that one, for instance. Who can Christians ever say is sovereign other than God? We can go down the list, and you'd really have to go to ridiculous lengths to defend it.

---

Didn't say that. I'm just encouraging you first to understand Catholic beliefs, then accept them or not.

---

And I'm encouraging you to answer the question - is it ever right to call Mary, or anyone else for that matter "sovereign"?

---

Sure. Kings, queens, and governments are all referred to as sovereign. In the United States we even have different levels of sovereignty.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Here, start with this one: On page 100 of this thread, I presented the following:

Ramsay MacMullen, Emeritus Professor of History from Yale University in his book, Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries, describes the situation in fourth-fifth century Rome after Constantine made Christianity the official religion.... certain rites and ceremonies of paganism involving the dead persisted, and even started to infiltrate the practice of Christians in that time. MacMullen's study revealed that even though such pagan practices were frowned upon by church fathers, they found it impractical, even impossible, to completely forbid Christians from partaking in them. So they often acquiesced by allowing a "Christian" form of it: for example, instead of petitioning the pagan gods, they could petition Christian martyrs and saints.

Here is an excerpt:

"The creed that was the true heart of the Christian community in the first centruy of two of its existence was retained untouched by the inflow of new members after Constantine. Church organization, too, showed no effects. But in the ideas and rites just described a large area of new loyalties opened up. Augustine called the sum total of imported paganism among his congregation their "mother," while what he himself would teach them was "the father." They must choose; or he hoped they would. But he could not make them do so. He conceded that they must be allowed some latitude in their manner of worship. At just about the same time, toward the beginning of the fifth century, Jerome made the same acknowledgement: better, worship of the saints in the pagan manner than none at all."

Can you Roman Catholics seriously argue that there is no historical evidence that Roman Catholic practice was tainted by paganism?

Go ahead, debunk an Emeritus Professor of Church history from Yale, who wrote the book on the topic.

---

This actually supports Coke Bear's position. Jerome was very much in favor of intercessory prayer. He opposed things like making sacrifices to the saints. Those are the pagan rites and ceremonies in question, which vanished long ago. The passage also notes that both the creed and the organization of the Church remained as they were in the 1st century, untouched by Constantine.

---

Supports his postion? Hard to make that case when MacMullen says that Jerome supported worship of the saints, when that's what he's been vehemently denying they're doing.

And the pagan rites have NOT disappeared. The assignment of saints to certain "jurisdictions" (patron saint of mariners, etc) still in existence today comes directly from the fusion of pagan practices and Christianity in Rome during this time. Statues (i.e. idols) of the saints and Mary, prayer beads also still exist - other remnants from the pagan world. It's really curious how you can make this claim.

Oh goody, the creeds and church organization remained the same - never mind the taint of its practices and beliefs from its compromise with pagan idolatry. That never invoked the ire of God....

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryHe was only able to pass over sins because of the perfect atoning sacrifice of Jesus. It was an absolute MUST because of God's holiness. And because Jesus is raised, and is at the right hand of God interceding for us (Romans 8:34 -the only intercessor, along with the Holy Spirit, in the Bible) we too will be raised like him and have eternal life. The apostle Paul states the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15: said:

---

Quote:

---

"Now I make known to you, brothers, the gospel which I proclaimed to you, which you have also received, in which you also stand, by which you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the message I proclaimed to you, unless you believed to no purpose. For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised up on the third day according to the scriptures"

It can only be through faith, and faith alone, for the reasons I explained. None of us can be good enough in our works to satisfy a perfect and Holy God. That's why God had to eat the cost of the debt himself (in Jesus). "What's impossible with man, is possible with God". If you're saying we still need works for our salvation, then you're saying Jesus' sacrifice was not perfect, that it was incomplete.

Romans 4: "For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness."

---

Those are your beliefs. Catholics believe somewhat differently.

---

I literally presented the Biblical belief. You are saying that Catholicism believes differently from the Bible.

---

You presented some Scripture and some interpretation, which is fine. We've covered the topic of sola fide (or non sola fide, to use the biblical phrase), so there's no need to go over that again. My point is simply that it behooves you, and all of us, to understand Church teaching for what it is and not what we might imagine it to be.

---

Again, it's hard to call it "imagining" when it's just presenting what's right there in black in white on the pages of the Bible. I would like you to explain how you could possible include works into what Paul was saying in those passages in Romans.

---

I'm talking about all the things you imagine the Church "must" believe.

---

You can deny it all you want - but logically I proved that if you say sacraments are "necessary" for salvation, you MUST believe that sacraments are absolutely required for salvation. Your defense led you to actually deny God's eternal attributes and suggest that God can have union with sin. I would have thought that this would have proved it to you, but I am learning that you Roman Catholics here aren't really interested in what's true, you're only interested in preserving your tradition. I was very surprised that you don't seem to understand the atonement at all.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).

---

Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

Placing one's salvation in any other person's hands other than God/Jesus is pure heresy. ANY Christian with the Holy Spirit in them knows this. Heck, even non-believers and atheists who know Christianity superficially know it. You can't defend it, though you may try, and the "defense" you just put forth is severely lacking. If you truly believe that there is a way to defend it and don't recognize it as heresy and idolatry of Mary, you are only revealing your fruits, and by them we will know you.

---

Again, I must already have X before I can place X anywhere. Basic logic. That you interpret this some other way falls into the realm of error and speculation. In any event, your laborious harping over this obscure point simply confirms your good standing as Inquisitor General/Pharisee-in-Chief. Congrats.

---

First of all, your logic is false. You don't have to already have X in order to place it anywhere. You can put your rescue into the hands of a fireman. You're not already rescued, you're putting the success of the rescue into the hands of the fireman and his ability to rescue you.

Secondly, and more importantly, this doesn't make any sense. This "explanation" doesn't explain how there are "alternatives" to whose hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus. You seem to be saying, rather, that we CAN'T place our salvation in anyone's hands, even Jesus, because we can't place something we don't have yet into his hands. You're making some kind of logical argument, which had nothing to do with the orginal statement you made, that I am a "Pharisee" because I believe that Christians should only place their salvation in Jesus' hands, not Mary's.

---

That you assert my logic is false is false. All you've demonstrated is that there is more than one possible interpretation which has always been my point. Thanks for the confirmation of your good standing with the Pharisees.

---

How is it false? I just demonstrated it. You, however, just made another argument by mere assertion. That's strike two on your own criticism of me!

And what's the other possible interpretation of that phrase that allows for Christians to place their salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus', which makes me a "Pharisee" for saying that we should only place it in Jesus'? You're not making any kind of a defense of your claim.

---

Possible meaning - I offer my pre existing salvation through the merits of Christ into the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary so that she may offer her intercessions on my behalf. Happy now?

---

If you're only seeking intercession, your salvation is still in the hand's of Jesus, not Mary. What you are professing when you claim that it's in Mary's hands, is that she is able to determine your salvation or lack thereof instead of Jesus.

---

No, it's really just a way of saying you're seeking intercession.

---

Your intercessor does not have the fate of your salvation in their hands. Saying that it does is CLEARLY usurping the role of Jesus.

---

The Bible is full of references to people being "saved" by someone other than Christ. See James 5:13-15, James 5:19-20, Jude 20-23, 1 Corinthians 7:16-17. Of course it is really Christ saving them. It's the same when Mary intercedes.

You will probably conclude that this is inconsistent with OSAS, but Catholics don't believe in that anyway.

---

NONE of those verses even comes close to saying that the person being "saved" had sought intercession from the other person for their being "saved" by placing the fate of their salvation "in their hands" (they determine it's success or failure). Neither do they come close to suggesting that the person's salvation was ever in the other person's hands to begin with. The very suggestion that it could be in any other person's hands other than Jesus is the idolatrous part in all this that you seem to want to skirt.

---

It's a manner of speaking, perhaps a bit archaic. Catholics don't believe that their salvation is determined by anyone other than God.

---

It is hardly just a manner of speaking, considering the context of the entire prayer which says Mary is the "ruler of my house", "our strength and our refuge", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "salvation of the universe", "sovereign" and asks that she "grant that we may go to heaven".

Catholics don't believe anyone determines their salvation other than God? "Every prayer of Mary's is like an established Law for our Lord, obliging him to be merciful for everyone for whom she intercedes"

This is so sickening. Mary, if she knew any of this, would be sickened. If you don't recognize any of this as blatantly idolatrous, then I am utterly convinced you are not a Christian.

---

I'm not familiar with that language, but I suspect you're taking it too literally. I can only tell you what Catholics believe. I know you don't agree with all of it, but hopefully you will try to understand it.

---

Wow. Anything.... just anything to avoid the patently obvious that's right in your face.

For God's sake, man, open your eyes.

---

I mean, whom should I listen to if I want to know what the Church believes? You or the Church? No one literally thinks Mary establishes laws for the Lord. It's poetic language (notice the simile) describing his love for her.

---

So... you need the Church to tell you whether what the Church promotes is heretical and idolatrous? Do you see the problem with that?

Poetic language to describe his love for her? Isn't that love going overboard, then? Isn't love for another human, or anything else for that matter, too excessive if it emulates love for God like that?

Let me get you to at least admit this: regardless of whether it's "poetic" language or not, doesn't that language cross the line into being idolatrous? Should Christians ever use language like that to describe anyone but God/Jesus? "Sovereign"?? Take that one, for instance. Who can Christians ever say is sovereign other than God? We can go down the list, and you'd really have to go to ridiculous lengths to defend it.

---

Didn't say that. I'm just encouraging you first to understand Catholic beliefs, then accept them or not.

---

And I'm encouraging you to answer the question - is it ever right to call Mary, or anyone else for that matter "sovereign"?

---

Sure. Kings, queens, and governments are all referred to as sovereign. In the United States we even have different levels of sovereignty.

---

So what is Mary sovereign over?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).

---

Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

Placing one's salvation in any other person's hands other than God/Jesus is pure heresy. ANY Christian with the Holy Spirit in them knows this. Heck, even non-believers and atheists who know Christianity superficially know it. You can't defend it, though you may try, and the "defense" you just put forth is severely lacking. If you truly believe that there is a way to defend it and don't recognize it as heresy and idolatry of Mary, you are only revealing your fruits, and by them we will know you.

---

Again, I must already have X before I can place X anywhere. Basic logic. That you interpret this some other way falls into the realm of error and speculation. In any event, your laborious harping over this obscure point simply confirms your good standing as Inquisitor General/Pharisee-in-Chief. Congrats.

---

First of all, your logic is false. You don't have to already have X in order to place it anywhere. You can put your rescue into the hands of a fireman. You're not already rescued, you're putting the success of the rescue into the hands of the fireman and his ability to rescue you.

Secondly, and more importantly, this doesn't make any sense. This "explanation" doesn't explain how there are "alternatives" to whose hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus. You seem to be saying, rather, that we CAN'T place our salvation in anyone's hands, even Jesus, because we can't place something we don't have yet into his hands. You're making some kind of logical argument, which had nothing to do with the orginal statement you made, that I am a "Pharisee" because I believe that Christians should only place their salvation in Jesus' hands, not Mary's.

---

That you assert my logic is false is false. All you've demonstrated is that there is more than one possible interpretation which has always been my point. Thanks for the confirmation of your good standing with the Pharisees.

---

How is it false? I just demonstrated it. You, however, just made another argument by mere assertion. That's strike two on your own criticism of me!

And what's the other possible interpretation of that phrase that allows for Christians to place their salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus', which makes me a "Pharisee" for saying that we should only place it in Jesus'? You're not making any kind of a defense of your claim.

---

Possible meaning - I offer my pre existing salvation through the merits of Christ into the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary so that she may offer her intercessions on my behalf. Happy now?

---

If you're only seeking intercession, your salvation is still in the hand's of Jesus, not Mary. What you are professing when you claim that it's in Mary's hands, is that she is able to determine your salvation or lack thereof instead of Jesus.

---

No, it's really just a way of saying you're seeking intercession.

---

Your intercessor does not have the fate of your salvation in their hands. Saying that it does is CLEARLY usurping the role of Jesus.

---

The Bible is full of references to people being "saved" by someone other than Christ. See James 5:13-15, James 5:19-20, Jude 20-23, 1 Corinthians 7:16-17. Of course it is really Christ saving them. It's the same when Mary intercedes.

You will probably conclude that this is inconsistent with OSAS, but Catholics don't believe in that anyway.

---

NONE of those verses even comes close to saying that the person being "saved" had sought intercession from the other person for their being "saved" by placing the fate of their salvation "in their hands" (they determine it's success or failure). Neither do they come close to suggesting that the person's salvation was ever in the other person's hands to begin with. The very suggestion that it could be in any other person's hands other than Jesus is the idolatrous part in all this that you seem to want to skirt.

---

It's a manner of speaking, perhaps a bit archaic. Catholics don't believe that their salvation is determined by anyone other than God.

---

It is hardly just a manner of speaking, considering the context of the entire prayer which says Mary is the "ruler of my house", "our strength and our refuge", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "salvation of the universe", "sovereign" and asks that she "grant that we may go to heaven".

Catholics don't believe anyone determines their salvation other than God? "Every prayer of Mary's is like an established Law for our Lord, obliging him to be merciful for everyone for whom she intercedes"

This is so sickening. Mary, if she knew any of this, would be sickened. If you don't recognize any of this as blatantly idolatrous, then I am utterly convinced you are not a Christian.

---

I'm not familiar with that language, but I suspect you're taking it too literally. I can only tell you what Catholics believe. I know you don't agree with all of it, but hopefully you will try to understand it.

---

Wow. Anything.... just anything to avoid the patently obvious that's right in your face.

For God's sake, man, open your eyes.

---

I mean, whom should I listen to if I want to know what the Church believes? You or the Church? No one literally thinks Mary establishes laws for the Lord. It's poetic language (notice the simile) describing his love for her.

---

So... you need the Church to tell you whether what the Church promotes is heretical and idolatrous? Do you see the problem with that?

Poetic language to describe his love for her? Isn't that love going overboard, then? Isn't love for another human, or anything else for that matter, too excessive if it emulates love for God like that?

Let me get you to at least admit this: regardless of whether it's "poetic" language or not, doesn't that language cross the line into being idolatrous? Should Christians ever use language like that to describe anyone but God/Jesus? "Sovereign"?? Take that one, for instance. Who can Christians ever say is sovereign other than God? We can go down the list, and you'd really have to go to ridiculous lengths to defend it.

---

Didn't say that. I'm just encouraging you first to understand Catholic beliefs, then accept them or not.

---

And I'm encouraging you to answer the question - is it ever right to call Mary, or anyone else for that matter "sovereign"?

---

Sure. Kings, queens, and governments are all referred to as sovereign. In the United States we even have different levels of sovereignty.

---

Thought we were a Republic, and didn't Jesus insist His Kingdom was not of this world?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).

---

Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

Placing one's salvation in any other person's hands other than God/Jesus is pure heresy. ANY Christian with the Holy Spirit in them knows this. Heck, even non-believers and atheists who know Christianity superficially know it. You can't defend it, though you may try, and the "defense" you just put forth is severely lacking. If you truly believe that there is a way to defend it and don't recognize it as heresy and idolatry of Mary, you are only revealing your fruits, and by them we will know you.

---

Again, I must already have X before I can place X anywhere. Basic logic. That you interpret this some other way falls into the realm of error and speculation. In any event, your laborious harping over this obscure point simply confirms your good standing as Inquisitor General/Pharisee-in-Chief. Congrats.

---

First of all, your logic is false. You don't have to already have X in order to place it anywhere. You can put your rescue into the hands of a fireman. You're not already rescued, you're putting the success of the rescue into the hands of the fireman and his ability to rescue you.

Secondly, and more importantly, this doesn't make any sense. This "explanation" doesn't explain how there are "alternatives" to whose hands we place our salvation in other than Jesus. You seem to be saying, rather, that we CAN'T place our salvation in anyone's hands, even Jesus, because we can't place something we don't have yet into his hands. You're making some kind of logical argument, which had nothing to do with the orginal statement you made, that I am a "Pharisee" because I believe that Christians should only place their salvation in Jesus' hands, not Mary's.

---

That you assert my logic is false is false. All you've demonstrated is that there is more than one possible interpretation which has always been my point. Thanks for the confirmation of your good standing with the Pharisees.

---

How is it false? I just demonstrated it. You, however, just made another argument by mere assertion. That's strike two on your own criticism of me!

And what's the other possible interpretation of that phrase that allows for Christians to place their salvation in another person's hands other than Jesus', which makes me a "Pharisee" for saying that we should only place it in Jesus'? You're not making any kind of a defense of your claim.

---

Possible meaning - I offer my pre existing salvation through the merits of Christ into the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary so that she may offer her intercessions on my behalf. Happy now?

---

If you're only seeking intercession, your salvation is still in the hand's of Jesus, not Mary. What you are professing when you claim that it's in Mary's hands, is that she is able to determine your salvation or lack thereof instead of Jesus.

---

No, it's really just a way of saying you're seeking intercession.

---

Your intercessor does not have the fate of your salvation in their hands. Saying that it does is CLEARLY usurping the role of Jesus.

---

The Bible is full of references to people being "saved" by someone other than Christ. See James 5:13-15, James 5:19-20, Jude 20-23, 1 Corinthians 7:16-17. Of course it is really Christ saving them. It's the same when Mary intercedes.

You will probably conclude that this is inconsistent with OSAS, but Catholics don't believe in that anyway.

---

NONE of those verses even comes close to saying that the person being "saved" had sought intercession from the other person for their being "saved" by placing the fate of their salvation "in their hands" (they determine it's success or failure). Neither do they come close to suggesting that the person's salvation was ever in the other person's hands to begin with. The very suggestion that it could be in any other person's hands other than Jesus is the idolatrous part in all this that you seem to want to skirt.

---

It's a manner of speaking, perhaps a bit archaic. Catholics don't believe that their salvation is determined by anyone other than God.

---

It is hardly just a manner of speaking, considering the context of the entire prayer which says Mary is the "ruler of my house", "our strength and our refuge", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "salvation of the universe", "sovereign" and asks that she "grant that we may go to heaven".

Catholics don't believe anyone determines their salvation other than God? "Every prayer of Mary's is like an established Law for our Lord, obliging him to be merciful for everyone for whom she intercedes"

This is so sickening. Mary, if she knew any of this, would be sickened. If you don't recognize any of this as blatantly idolatrous, then I am utterly convinced you are not a Christian.

---

I'm not familiar with that language, but I suspect you're taking it too literally. I can only tell you what Catholics believe. I know you don't agree with all of it, but hopefully you will try to understand it.

---

Wow. Anything.... just anything to avoid the patently obvious that's right in your face.

For God's sake, man, open your eyes.

---

I mean, whom should I listen to if I want to know what the Church believes? You or the Church? No one literally thinks Mary establishes laws for the Lord. It's poetic language (notice the simile) describing his love for her.

---

So... you need the Church to tell you whether what the Church promotes is heretical and idolatrous? Do you see the problem with that?

Poetic language to describe his love for her? Isn't that love going overboard, then? Isn't love for another human, or anything else for that matter, too excessive if it emulates love for God like that?

Let me get you to at least admit this: regardless of whether it's "poetic" language or not, doesn't that language cross the line into being idolatrous? Should Christians ever use language like that to describe anyone but God/Jesus? "Sovereign"?? Take that one, for instance. Who can Christians ever say is sovereign other than God? We can go down the list, and you'd really have to go to ridiculous lengths to defend it.

---

Didn't say that. I'm just encouraging you first to understand Catholic beliefs, then accept them or not.

---

And I'm encouraging you to answer the question - is it ever right to call Mary, or anyone else for that matter "sovereign"?

---

Sure. Kings, queens, and governments are all referred to as sovereign. In the United States we even have different levels of sovereignty.

---

So what is Mary sovereign over?

---

Maryland?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Here, start with this one: On page 100 of this thread, I presented the following:

Ramsay MacMullen, Emeritus Professor of History from Yale University in his book, Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries, describes the situation in fourth-fifth century Rome after Constantine made Christianity the official religion.... certain rites and ceremonies of paganism involving the dead persisted, and even started to infiltrate the practice of Christians in that time. MacMullen's study revealed that even though such pagan practices were frowned upon by church fathers, they found it impractical, even impossible, to completely forbid Christians from partaking in them. So they often acquiesced by allowing a "Christian" form of it: for example, instead of petitioning the pagan gods, they could petition Christian martyrs and saints.

Here is an excerpt:

"The creed that was the true heart of the Christian community in the first centruy of two of its existence was retained untouched by the inflow of new members after Constantine. Church organization, too, showed no effects. But in the ideas and rites just described a large area of new loyalties opened up. Augustine called the sum total of imported paganism among his congregation their "mother," while what he himself would teach them was "the father." They must choose; or he hoped they would. But he could not make them do so. He conceded that they must be allowed some latitude in their manner of worship. At just about the same time, toward the beginning of the fifth century, Jerome made the same acknowledgement: better, worship of the saints in the pagan manner than none at all."

Can you Roman Catholics seriously argue that there is no historical evidence that Roman Catholic practice was tainted by paganism?

Go ahead, debunk an Emeritus Professor of Church history from Yale, who wrote the book on the topic.

---

This actually supports Coke Bear's position. Jerome was very much in favor of intercessory prayer. He opposed things like making sacrifices to the saints. Those are the pagan rites and ceremonies in question, which vanished long ago. The passage also notes that both the creed and the organization of the Church remained as they were in the 1st century, untouched by Constantine.

---

Supports his postion? Hard to make that case when MacMullen says that Jerome supported worship of the saints, when that's what he's been vehemently denying they're doing.

And the pagan rites have NOT disappeared. The assignment of saints to certain "jurisdictions" (patron saint of mariners, etc) still in existence today comes directly from the fusion of pagan practices and Christianity in Rome during this time. Statues (i.e. idols) of the saints and Mary, prayer beads also still exist - other remnants from the pagan world. It's really curious how you can make this claim.

Oh goody, the creeds and church organization remained the same - never mind the taint of its practices and beliefs from its compromise with pagan idolatry. That never invoked the ire of God....

---

That is MacMullen's characterization, not an actual quote from Jerome.

Church organization presumably includes Church hierarchy, priests, bishops, popes, etc.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Here, start with this one: On page 100 of this thread, I presented the following:

Ramsay MacMullen, Emeritus Professor of History from Yale University in his book, Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries, describes the situation in fourth-fifth century Rome after Constantine made Christianity the official religion.... certain rites and ceremonies of paganism involving the dead persisted, and even started to infiltrate the practice of Christians in that time. MacMullen's study revealed that even though such pagan practices were frowned upon by church fathers, they found it impractical, even impossible, to completely forbid Christians from partaking in them. So they often acquiesced by allowing a "Christian" form of it: for example, instead of petitioning the pagan gods, they could petition Christian martyrs and saints.

Here is an excerpt:

"The creed that was the true heart of the Christian community in the first centruy of two of its existence was retained untouched by the inflow of new members after Constantine. Church organization, too, showed no effects. But in the ideas and rites just described a large area of new loyalties opened up. Augustine called the sum total of imported paganism among his congregation their "mother," while what he himself would teach them was "the father." They must choose; or he hoped they would. But he could not make them do so. He conceded that they must be allowed some latitude in their manner of worship. At just about the same time, toward the beginning of the fifth century, Jerome made the same acknowledgement: better, worship of the saints in the pagan manner than none at all."

Can you Roman Catholics seriously argue that there is no historical evidence that Roman Catholic practice was tainted by paganism?

Go ahead, debunk an Emeritus Professor of Church history from Yale, who wrote the book on the topic.

---

This actually supports Coke Bear's position. Jerome was very much in favor of intercessory prayer. He opposed things like making sacrifices to the saints. Those are the pagan rites and ceremonies in question, which vanished long ago. The passage also notes that both the creed and the organization of the Church remained as they were in the 1st century, untouched by Constantine.

---

Supports his postion? Hard to make that case when MacMullen says that Jerome supported worship of the saints, when that's what he's been vehemently denying they're doing.

And the pagan rites have NOT disappeared. The assignment of saints to certain "jurisdictions" (patron saint of mariners, etc) still in existence today comes directly from the fusion of pagan practices and Christianity in Rome during this time. Statues (i.e. idols) of the saints and Mary, prayer beads also still exist - other remnants from the pagan world. It's really curious how you can make this claim.

Oh goody, the creeds and church organization remained the same - never mind the taint of its practices and beliefs from its compromise with pagan idolatry. That never invoked the ire of God....

---

That is MacMullen's characterization, not an actual quote from Jerome.

Church organization presumably includes Church hierarchy, priests, bishops, popes, etc.

---

Just checked my Bible again. Pretty flat org chart there, no mention at all of Archbishops, Cardinals, or Popes.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryHe was only able to pass over sins because of the perfect atoning sacrifice of Jesus. It was an absolute MUST because of God's holiness. And because Jesus is raised, and is at the right hand of God interceding for us (Romans 8:34 -the only intercessor, along with the Holy Spirit, in the Bible) we too will be raised like him and have eternal life. The apostle Paul states the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15: said:

---

Quote:

---

"Now I make known to you, brothers, the gospel which I proclaimed to you, which you have also received, in which you also stand, by which you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the message I proclaimed to you, unless you believed to no purpose. For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised up on the third day according to the scriptures"

It can only be through faith, and faith alone, for the reasons I explained. None of us can be good enough in our works to satisfy a perfect and Holy God. That's why God had to eat the cost of the debt himself (in Jesus). "What's impossible with man, is possible with God". If you're saying we still need works for our salvation, then you're saying Jesus' sacrifice was not perfect, that it was incomplete.

Romans 4: "For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness."

---

Those are your beliefs. Catholics believe somewhat differently.

---

I literally presented the Biblical belief. You are saying that Catholicism believes differently from the Bible.

---

You presented some Scripture and some interpretation, which is fine. We've covered the topic of sola fide (or non sola fide, to use the biblical phrase), so there's no need to go over that again. My point is simply that it behooves you, and all of us, to understand Church teaching for what it is and not what we might imagine it to be.

---

Again, it's hard to call it "imagining" when it's just presenting what's right there in black in white on the pages of the Bible. I would like you to explain how you could possible include works into what Paul was saying in those passages in Romans.

---

I'm talking about all the things you imagine the Church "must" believe.

---

You can deny it all you want - but logically I proved that if you say sacraments are "necessary" for salvation, you MUST believe that sacraments are absolutely required for salvation. Your defense led you to actually deny God's eternal attributes and suggest that God can have union with sin. I would have thought that this would have proved it to you, but I am learning that you Roman Catholics here aren't really interested in what's true, you're only interested in preserving your tradition. I was very surprised that you don't seem to understand the atonement at all.

---

I understand the Atonement differently from you, but the difference is a matter of interpretation -- not logic. Catholics (and indeed, logicians) understand the distinction between what is absolutely necessary and what is necessary only in a limited sense.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Here, start with this one: On page 100 of this thread, I presented the following:

Ramsay MacMullen, Emeritus Professor of History from Yale University in his book, Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries, describes the situation in fourth-fifth century Rome after Constantine made Christianity the official religion.... certain rites and ceremonies of paganism involving the dead persisted, and even started to infiltrate the practice of Christians in that time. MacMullen's study revealed that even though such pagan practices were frowned upon by church fathers, they found it impractical, even impossible, to completely forbid Christians from partaking in them. So they often acquiesced by allowing a "Christian" form of it: for example, instead of petitioning the pagan gods, they could petition Christian martyrs and saints.

Here is an excerpt:

"The creed that was the true heart of the Christian community in the first centruy of two of its existence was retained untouched by the inflow of new members after Constantine. Church organization, too, showed no effects. But in the ideas and rites just described a large area of new loyalties opened up. Augustine called the sum total of imported paganism among his congregation their "mother," while what he himself would teach them was "the father." They must choose; or he hoped they would. But he could not make them do so. He conceded that they must be allowed some latitude in their manner of worship. At just about the same time, toward the beginning of the fifth century, Jerome made the same acknowledgement: better, worship of the saints in the pagan manner than none at all."

Can you Roman Catholics seriously argue that there is no historical evidence that Roman Catholic practice was tainted by paganism?

Go ahead, debunk an Emeritus Professor of Church history from Yale, who wrote the book on the topic.

---

This actually supports Coke Bear's position. Jerome was very much in favor of intercessory prayer. He opposed things like making sacrifices to the saints. Those are the pagan rites and ceremonies in question, which vanished long ago. The passage also notes that both the creed and the organization of the Church remained as they were in the 1st century, untouched by Constantine.

---

Supports his postion? Hard to make that case when MacMullen says that Jerome supported worship of the saints, when that's what he's been vehemently denying they're doing.

And the pagan rites have NOT disappeared. The assignment of saints to certain "jurisdictions" (patron saint of mariners, etc) still in existence today comes directly from the fusion of pagan practices and Christianity in Rome during this time. Statues (i.e. idols) of the saints and Mary, prayer beads also still exist - other remnants from the pagan world. It's really curious how you can make this claim.

Oh goody, the creeds and church organization remained the same - never mind the taint of its practices and beliefs from its compromise with pagan idolatry. That never invoked the ire of God....

---

That is MacMullen's characterization, not an actual quote from Jerome.

Church organization presumably includes Church hierarchy, priests, bishops, popes, etc.

---

Even so, we have a church historian who characterizes it as such, when the argument is that I'm arguing against history.

And you're missing the entire point - this is historical evidence that the Roman Catholic Church was tainted by pagan idolatry, despite claims to the contrary.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryHe was only able to pass over sins because of the perfect atoning sacrifice of Jesus. It was an absolute MUST because of God's holiness. And because Jesus is raised, and is at the right hand of God interceding for us (Romans 8:34 -the only intercessor, along with the Holy Spirit, in the Bible) we too will be raised like him and have eternal life. The apostle Paul states the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15: said:

---

Quote:

---

"Now I make known to you, brothers, the gospel which I proclaimed to you, which you have also received, in which you also stand, by which you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the message I proclaimed to you, unless you believed to no purpose. For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised up on the third day according to the scriptures"

It can only be through faith, and faith alone, for the reasons I explained. None of us can be good enough in our works to satisfy a perfect and Holy God. That's why God had to eat the cost of the debt himself (in Jesus). "What's impossible with man, is possible with God". If you're saying we still need works for our salvation, then you're saying Jesus' sacrifice was not perfect, that it was incomplete.

Romans 4: "For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness."

---

Those are your beliefs. Catholics believe somewhat differently.

---

I literally presented the Biblical belief. You are saying that Catholicism believes differently from the Bible.

---

You presented some Scripture and some interpretation, which is fine. We've covered the topic of sola fide (or non sola fide, to use the biblical phrase), so there's no need to go over that again. My point is simply that it behooves you, and all of us, to understand Church teaching for what it is and not what we might imagine it to be.

---

Again, it's hard to call it "imagining" when it's just presenting what's right there in black in white on the pages of the Bible. I would like you to explain how you could possible include works into what Paul was saying in those passages in Romans.

---

I'm talking about all the things you imagine the Church "must" believe.

---

You can deny it all you want - but logically I proved that if you say sacraments are "necessary" for salvation, you MUST believe that sacraments are absolutely required for salvation. Your defense led you to actually deny God's eternal attributes and suggest that God can have union with sin. I would have thought that this would have proved it to you, but I am learning that you Roman Catholics here aren't really interested in what's true, you're only interested in preserving your tradition. I was very surprised that you don't seem to understand the atonement at all.

---

I understand the Atonement differently from you, but the difference is a matter of interpretation -- not logic. Catholics (and indeed, logicians) understand the distinction between what is absolutely necessary and what is necessary only in a limited sense.

---

You understand it "differently", as in incorrectly. You didn't understand how God could forgive our sin, and be reconciled to us even if we were not yet sanctified. You saw that as God having union with sin. You didn't understand the perfect atoning sacrfice of Jesus that was absolutely necessary to make that possible.