4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Jesus appeared after the resurrection, what form was he? Let Paul speak to you: "But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?" 36 Fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies."

Spiritual. Paul is pretty clear. I Corinthians 15:35 But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?" 36 Fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 And as for what you sow, you do not sow the body that is to be but a bare seed, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen and to each kind of seed its own body. 39 Not all flesh is alike, but there is one flesh for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40 There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one thing, and that of the earthly is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun and another glory of the moon and another glory of the stars; indeed, star differs from star in glory.
44 It is sown a physical body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.

---

so Jesus in his spiritual body appeared and spoke after the resurrection.

Would it be fair to say that speaking with a spirit would be paranormal or beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation? Some might say a supernatural event? I did not say Jesus was a "spirit" after the resurrection but he had a spiritual body as Paul describes which is of God's choosing.

---

Waco has introduced us to his fave hobby:

Origami with words.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco has introduced us to his fave hobby:

Origami with words.

---

He's still trying to figure out how he is going to get to heaven when the Lord calls him out for supporting the very people that murdered 60,000,000 of his children.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your mistake is believing that the failure of the Catholic tradition is a defeat of Jesus' Church.

---

Jesus created the Catholic Church. Please go to Google, Alexa, Wiki, Encyclopedia Britannica, etc. Ask them who started the Church.

Who started your church? You won't even provide the name of your church or denomination. You have NO authority. Your church, at best, is only a few hundred years old.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And there is no need to address a "miracle" that isn't verifiable. Other religions claim miracles, with their "proof" as well, that requires faith. We should only have faith in Jesus, and in his Word.

---

I provided a link with 130 verified Eucharistic miracles that have occurred since 700AD. Jesus commanded the bread to become his body. He has given the Church proof of this more than 100 times. Funny, how you doubt this, much like Waco47 doubts the physical resurrection. The proof is there for anyone to inspect.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- you're still avoiding the question. I find it strange, yet I'm not surprised, that you are so resistant to give glory to Jesus over that to the saints. See the last sentence of this post.

- if you think that from that example, that the WIFE is the one with the problem, then it explains everything about you and your beliefs. Again, see last sentence.

- if you agree with King Solomon that only God knows the heart of man, then why do you believe Mary and the saints know your heart when you pray?

- There is NO defense of those prayers. NO true Christian with the Holy Spirit would think those prayers are ok, or defend them. That includes JPII. There are no outstanding articles defending such blatant idolatry and heresy. You are stuck in a circular logic of error. It's so sad how this is so obvious but you don't see it. I'm sorry if I offend you, but in my mind it is quite clear that you are not a Christian.

---

You don't offend me, you just won't accept what has been taught for the last 2000 years. You prefer to ascribe to your own bias because you can't break out of your paradigm.

Irrespective, I don't believe I would ever say to a person (unless they were a professed JW or LDS) that they were not a Christian. But, in your mind, you must feel that your beliefs are the arbiter of Christianity.

* Giving glory * We Catholics give glory to Jesus EVERY day. Mass is held 364 (no mass on Good Friday) days around the world at every hour of the day. Giving respect to saints does not take away from Jesus' glory. I'm sorry that you can't fathom that. I mentioned the analogy before that no artist is upset when we appreciate the art. You just can't understand that. I feel for you.

* Wife * another failed analogy on your part. We can honor Mary without taking away from the glory of Jesus. Jesus loves when we love his mother. He's not jealous. You need to take a step back and try to look at the other side without your blinders on. Why does the full moon shine so brightly? Because the sun illuminates it.

* King Solomon * you have once again either misinterpreted or attempted to twist scripture toward your view. KS is NOT referring to knowing prayers. He's referring to God judging one's soul.

Finally, I'll repost the link to a defense of the The Glories of Mary from Catholic Answers. If you really want to understand or want to question a real apologist, I'd suggest that you call Catholic Answers Live (888-31-TRUTH) tomorrow between 5PM and 7PM (CST). Tim Staples is the guest tomorrow. He literally wrote the book on Mary called Behold Thy Mother. Full disclosure, tomorrow is the last day of their quarterly pledge drive. They can't spend a great deal of time with a "back and forth", but answer any question that you pose to him. He's a former Southern Baptist turned Assemblies of God preacher who then converted to the Church.

As a matter of fact, he's looking for individuals to dialogue (not a debate) with on his podcast. 1-on-1 w/ Time Staples. He's very charitable and wants to field your objections.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It is logical. If Jesus' body is that bread, and eating that bread is eating Jesus' literal flesh, then the moment the disciples at that bread they were saved if Jesus' literal words ("whoever eats my flesh HAS eternal life") are to be believed. It would mean they were saved at the Last Supper, not after Jesus' death and resurrection.

---

We believe that God's grace is made available to us via the sacraments as a result of Jesus Christ choosing to "pay a debt he did not owe because we owed a debt we could not pay." In other words, the Sacraments are made efficacious by Christ's sacrifice.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Moreover, it would mean that anyone could eat that bread and be saved, regardless of their belief. If you disagree with this, then you're disagreeing with Jesus' literal and direct words "WHOEVER eats my flesh..." You're putting a condition on it. Jesus did not.

---

No, St. Paul taught, "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself" (1 Corinthians 11:27-29).

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The sacraments are not "magic". Grace can be imparted, but it remains up to us to remain properly disposed to receive that grace.

Also, it would mean that Jesus' body was sacrificed during the Last Supper, not on the cross.

It would also mean that Jesus could just save the whole world by making more of this bread, and having everyone eat it. It would mean that his torture and crucifixion could have been completely unnecessary.

---

Nope, once again, the sacraments are made efficacious by his Sacrifice.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So, obviously these things can't be true. Therefore you're literal interpretation can't be true.

Sir, if you can't understand this, then you're just not a logical person, or you're just in denial.

---

No, it is you that are in denial.

• Jesus told you 6 times in John that it he meant it literally.
• He said it at the Last Supper in all three synoptic gospels.
• Paul affirms it twice in Corinthians.
• The Church fathers proclaim it since 107 AD.
• Any Jesus has provided the miracle of bread becoming actual flesh over 100 times that you can see today.

Serious question what more would Jesus have to do or say to convince you of the real presence? It's like arguing with an atheist over the existence of God and him refuting the preponderance of evidence.

Feel free to contact Catholic Answers Live radio show about this. The truly encourage and welcome your objections. They are live M-F from 5PM to 7PM.

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Still love seeing you Catholics and Baptists (non dem) going at over doctrine that has nothing to do with how one live a life of faith in Jesus Christ.
One has to suspend reason and science to a Catholic or Baptist.
For Coke and Busy D. Doctrine trumps a scientific reality that we all live in. Existentialism is the remembrance we live now in a scientific world and we dropped a belief in the supernatural whether Catholic or Evangelical. To claim to believe in the supernatural when physics says otherwise and you personally rely on it every time you walk out the door or start your car. You live in a physics world and believe in a fantasy faith that gives you parking spaces. God is real in love and in our relationships with God, our neighbor and ourselves. But "Mary" who has a history made up by the Catholic Church and "Harmonizing the Scriptures" which is a made up understanding of scriptures. Mary's history of perpetual virginity although it maybe helpful spiritually to Catholics is not. scriptural witness. Harmonizing the scripture is simply a fantasy doctrine that ignores history, cultural context, and the messy transmission of scripture from oral to written. history to re-copying of texts.
My apologies for my bluntness but a evangelical/Catholic faith is doomed. As Jesus says, "You are blind guys." He was talking to really, really doctrinaire Pharisees who were out of touch with the reality of God's love.
Certainly, I do not belittle the faith of my Catholic and evangelical brothers here on this board. I see your faith in Jesus Christ lived out in a real world. You motivated by your love for Christ; hence, neighbor. I wish you extend that same grace to me as a faithful follower of Jesus.
If you lay aside doctrine and affirm each other real world faith you would do well by me and those who differ with you. There is too much holier than thou.
i repeat I don't doubt your real faith in Jesus Christ just your dogmatic thinking.
With our real world faith I think we can live in harmony.
I am belittling your doctrines but not your faith. There is a difference.
Now, as our founder said, "But it is sure, there is a special love that we owe to those who love God. So David: "All my delight is upon the saints that are in the earth, and upon such as excel in virtue." And so a greater than he: "A new commandment I give unto you, That you love one another: as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are My disciples, if you have love one to another" (John 13:34, 35)."
This is you Coke and Dusty "All my delight is upon the saints that are in the earth, and upon such as excel in virtue." I delight in your genuine real world faith.

---

you want us to use science of nature to explain our supernatural God?

LoL

Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science.

Your real world faith is not in God but in mans understanding of the world around him.

---

4th and Inches said:
so Jesus in his spiritual body appeared and spoke after the resurrection.

Would it be fair to say that speaking with a spirit would be paranormal or beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation? Some might say a supernatural event? I did not say Jesus was a "spirit" after the resurrection but he had a spiritual body as Paul describes which is of God's choosing.

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:
so Jesus in his spiritual body appeared and spoke after the resurrection.

Would it be fair to say that speaking with a spirit would be paranormal or beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation? Some might say a supernatural event? I did not say Jesus was a "spirit" after the resurrection but he had a spiritual body as Paul describes which is of God's choosing.

---

Explain in detail or take the L for attempting semantics over substance

What is the difference between jesus being a spirit who interacted with his disciples post resurrection and Jesus appearing in a spiritual body and interacting with his disciples, post resurrection

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your mistake is believing that the failure of the Catholic tradition is a defeat of Jesus' Church.

---

Jesus created the Catholic Church. Please go to Google, Alexa, Wiki, Encyclopedia Britannica, etc. Ask them who started the Church.

Who started your church? You won't even provide the name of your church or denomination. You have NO authority. Your church, at best, is only a few hundred years old.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And there is no need to address a "miracle" that isn't verifiable. Other religions claim miracles, with their "proof" as well, that requires faith. We should only have faith in Jesus, and in his Word.

---

I provided a link with 130 verified Eucharistic miracles that have occurred since 700AD. Jesus commanded the bread to become his body. He has given the Church proof of this more than 100 times. Funny, how you doubt this, much like Waco47 doubts the physical resurrection. The proof is there for anyone to inspect.

---

Jesus" church is his entire body of believers, no matter which church they go to, even if they don't go to church. A person who is trapped alone on an island who finds a bible floating in the water and reads it, and believes, is part of that church, and he is saved. A Chinese person who secretly reads the bible because it is illegal where he lives, and who never goes to church because there isn't any where he lives, and believes, is part of that body, and is saved. And they can be where they are and do what they do until they die, never getting baptized, never taking communion, never going to church, never taking part in any "sacrament" - and still they are part of that body, they are saved, and they are our Christian brothers and sisters.

Anyone can claim miracles. Hindus claim their gods performed miracles too. Do you believe them?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- you're still avoiding the question. I find it strange, yet I'm not surprised, that you are so resistant to give glory to Jesus over that to the saints. See the last sentence of this post.

- if you think that from that example, that the WIFE is the one with the problem, then it explains everything about you and your beliefs. Again, see last sentence.

- if you agree with King Solomon that only God knows the heart of man, then why do you believe Mary and the saints know your heart when you pray?

- There is NO defense of those prayers. NO true Christian with the Holy Spirit would think those prayers are ok, or defend them. That includes JPII. There are no outstanding articles defending such blatant idolatry and heresy. You are stuck in a circular logic of error. It's so sad how this is so obvious but you don't see it. I'm sorry if I offend you, but in my mind it is quite clear that you are not a Christian.

---

You don't offend me, you just won't accept what has been taught for the last 2000 years. You prefer to ascribe to your own bias because you can't break out of your paradigm.

Irrespective, I don't believe I would ever say to a person (unless they were a professed JW or LDS) that they were not a Christian. But, in your mind, you must feel that your beliefs are the arbiter of Christianity.

* Giving glory * We Catholics give glory to Jesus EVERY day. Mass is held 364 (no mass on Good Friday) days around the world at every hour of the day. Giving respect to saints does not take away from Jesus' glory. I'm sorry that you can't fathom that. I mentioned the analogy before that no artist is upset when we appreciate the art. You just can't understand that. I feel for you.

* Wife * another failed analogy on your part. We can honor Mary without taking away from the glory of Jesus. Jesus loves when we love his mother. He's not jealous. You need to take a step back and try to look at the other side without your blinders on. Why does the full moon shine so brightly? Because the sun illuminates it.

* King Solomon * you have once again either misinterpreted or attempted to twist scripture toward your view. KS is NOT referring to knowing prayers. He's referring to God judging one's soul.

Finally, I'll repost the link to a defense of the The Glories of Mary from Catholic Answers. If you really want to understand or want to question a real apologist, I'd suggest that you call Catholic Answers Live (888-31-TRUTH) tomorrow between 5PM and 7PM (CST). Tim Staples is the guest tomorrow. He literally wrote the book on Mary called Behold Thy Mother. Full disclosure, tomorrow is the last day of their quarterly pledge drive. They can't spend a great deal of time with a "back and forth", but answer any question that you pose to him. He's a former Southern Baptist turned Assemblies of God preacher who then converted to the Church.

As a matter of fact, he's looking for individuals to dialogue (not a debate) with on his podcast. 1-on-1 w/ Time Staples. He's very charitable and wants to field your objections.

---

What's really sad is that you think I'M the one stuck in a paradigm, when all I've been demonstrating through history, facts, logic, and scripture is that it's you who is stuck.

Your above response illustrates that. For example, just to pick one, you're arguing that I'm twisting scripture to show King Solomon is referring to prayers. The verse explicitly states "knowing the hearts of all men". That would most certainly include prayers from the heart, wouldn't it? And you completely avoided the point - if you pray to Mary or the saints silently in your heart, then how can they know what's in your heart if God is the only one who does, according to this verse??

It doesn't matter how many masses you hold. The bottom line remains that in addition to all the things (ESPECIALLY The Glories of Mary) which is obvious "worship" of Mary and the saints to any rational, honest person outside Roman Catholicism, it's being made EVIDENT RIGHT HERE by your unwillingness to confess that it is better and more fitting to call JESUS the "seed of the church" rather than the saints. I've asked you probably three times already, and you have refused every time. Like Peter who also denied Jesus three times, you need to repent. We know them by their fruits - so what does denying glory to Jesus and giving it to the saints reveal??

You, as a Roman Catholic, believe that I, a bible believing Christian who places his faith and trust on Jesus Christ for his salvation, is anathematized to HELL just for believing the deuterocanon should not be in Scripture, and for refusing to bow down and kiss icons - both which are historically based in the early church, as well as scripture itself. The veneration of icons was even universally denounced by the early church!! I would like you and others here to think really hard and long about that. Is that the gospel of Jesus Christ?? You're anathemetizing to HELL those who believe what the resounding, universal view of the early church was, and rather was a belief that originated in the 6th-7th century! If The Glories of Mary and this fact doesn't wake you up, I'm afraid nothing will.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It is logical. If Jesus' body is that bread, and eating that bread is eating Jesus' literal flesh, then the moment the disciples at that bread they were saved if Jesus' literal words ("whoever eats my flesh HAS eternal life") are to be believed. It would mean they were saved at the Last Supper, not after Jesus' death and resurrection.

---

We believe that God's grace is made available to us via the sacraments as a result of Jesus Christ choosing to "pay a debt he did not owe because we owed a debt we could not pay." In other words, the Sacraments are made efficacious by Christ's sacrifice.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Moreover, it would mean that anyone could eat that bread and be saved, regardless of their belief. If you disagree with this, then you're disagreeing with Jesus' literal and direct words "WHOEVER eats my flesh..." You're putting a condition on it. Jesus did not.

---

No, St. Paul taught, "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself" (1 Corinthians 11:27-29).

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The sacraments are not "magic". Grace can be imparted, but it remains up to us to remain properly disposed to receive that grace.

Also, it would mean that Jesus' body was sacrificed during the Last Supper, not on the cross.

It would also mean that Jesus could just save the whole world by making more of this bread, and having everyone eat it. It would mean that his torture and crucifixion could have been completely unnecessary.

---

Nope, once again, the sacraments are made efficacious by his Sacrifice.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So, obviously these things can't be true. Therefore you're literal interpretation can't be true.

Sir, if you can't understand this, then you're just not a logical person, or you're just in denial.

---

No, it is you that are in denial.

• Jesus told you 6 times in John that it he meant it literally.
• He said it at the Last Supper in all three synoptic gospels.
• Paul affirms it twice in Corinthians.
• The Church fathers proclaim it since 107 AD.
• Any Jesus has provided the miracle of bread becoming actual flesh over 100 times that you can see today.

Serious question what more would Jesus have to do or say to convince you of the real presence? It's like arguing with an atheist over the existence of God and him refuting the preponderance of evidence.

Feel free to contact Catholic Answers Live radio show about this. The truly encourage and welcome your objections. They are live M-F from 5PM to 7PM.

---

You're either going around in circles, or you're not addressing the point.

If John 6 is to be taken literally, then eating Jesus' flesh saves a person - that's it. It doesn't need to be made "efficacious" by Jesus' later sacrifice on the cross - that isn't what Jesus said. He clearly, explicitly, and distinctly said "WHOEVER eats my flesh HAS eternal life". He didn't say "whoever eats my flesh will have eternal life, that is, after it's been made efficacious by my death on the cross". You are having LOTS of trouble with this one.

And again, Jesus repeating something 6 times doesn't automatically make it literal. It could just mean that you're misinterpreting him 6 times. You're logic is a non sequitur. You are stuck in the logic of only seeing it through this lens. I don't know how to make this any easier to understand. Jesus repeated "feed my sheep" three times to Peter. Was Jesus talking about animals??

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:
so Jesus in his spiritual body appeared and spoke after the resurrection.

Would it be fair to say that speaking with a spirit would be paranormal or beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation? Some might say a supernatural event? I did not say Jesus was a "spirit" after the resurrection but he had a spiritual body as Paul describes which is of God's choosing.

---

Explain in detail or take the L for attempting semantics over substance

What is the difference between Jesus being a spirit who interacted with his disciples post resurrection and Jesus appearing in a spiritual body and interacting with his disciples, post resurrection

---

The difference is Paul used the phrase "spiritual body" not spirit.

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:
so Jesus in his spiritual body appeared and spoke after the resurrection.

Would it be fair to say that speaking with a spirit would be paranormal or beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation? Some might say a supernatural event? I did not say Jesus was a "spirit" after the resurrection but he had a spiritual body as Paul describes which is of God's choosing.

---

Explain in detail or take the L for attempting semantics over substance

What is the difference between Jesus being a spirit who interacted with his disciples post resurrection and Jesus appearing in a spiritual body and interacting with his disciples, post resurrection

---

The difference is Paul used the phrase "spiritual body" not spirit.

---

lol

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:
so Jesus in his spiritual body appeared and spoke after the resurrection.

Would it be fair to say that speaking with a spirit would be paranormal or beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation? Some might say a supernatural event? I did not say Jesus was a "spirit" after the resurrection but he had a spiritual body as Paul describes which is of God's choosing.

---

Explain in detail or take the L for attempting semantics over substance

What is the difference between Jesus being a spirit who interacted with his disciples post resurrection and Jesus appearing in a spiritual body and interacting with his disciples, post resurrection

---

The difference is Paul used the phrase "spiritual body" not spirit.

---

The difference is that a Spirit is not physical in nature, nor can it, for the most part, interact with the physical. Jesus's Spiritual Body, could interact with the Physical and the Spiritual. It had power over the laws of nature, but it could eat food and touch and interact with the physical. it could also teleport, walk through walls, ascend up into heaven against the physical laws of nature.

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:
so Jesus in his spiritual body appeared and spoke after the resurrection.

Would it be fair to say that speaking with a spirit would be paranormal or beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation? Some might say a supernatural event? I did not say Jesus was a "spirit" after the resurrection but he had a spiritual body as Paul describes which is of God's choosing.

---

Explain in detail or take the L for attempting semantics over substance

What is the difference between Jesus being a spirit who interacted with his disciples post resurrection and Jesus appearing in a spiritual body and interacting with his disciples, post resurrection

---

The difference is Paul used the phrase "spiritual body" not spirit.

---

Waco, the way you misuse the word 'spirit', I half-expect to find out your arguments are assisted by the Apostles Jim Beam and Johnnie Walker ...

And how bout the millions of babies and children god let's die in this earth each day from starvation and disease. Your logic does bot hold a drop of sense. There is No personal god the evidence is overwhelming that all modern faiths came from mankind's ideas long before the ones that have survived today,by death and war rape and pillaging SO PLEAE SHut UP WITH YOUT IRON AGE IGNORANCE.

Dialogue is impossible with you. I am arguing in good faith and you are not.

Waco1947 said:

---

Dialogue is impossible with you. I am arguing in good faith and you are not.

---

i asked for details and you provided platitudes.. the post below yours by xFrodobagginsx is what you should have done if you were arguing in good faith

Care to continue?

What is the difference between Jesus being a spirit who interacted with his disciples post resurrection and Jesus appearing in a spiritual body and interacting with his disciples, post resurrection

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus" church is his entire body of believers, no matter which church they go to, even if they don't go to church. A person who is trapped alone on an island who finds a bible floating in the water and reads it, and believes, is part of that church, and he is saved. A Chinese person who secretly reads the bible because it is illegal where he lives, and who never goes to church because there isn't any where he lives, and believes, is part of that body, and is saved. And they can be where they are and do what they do until they die, never getting baptized, never taking communion, never going to church, never taking part in any "sacrament" - and still they are part of that body, they are saved, and they are our Christian brothers and sisters.

---

Dodging the question again. There's a difference between the church (what you are arguing) and the Church (which Christ established.) Jesus prayed that we'd be one (John 17:21). Sadly, Christianity is fragmented into 1000's of denominations. In Matthew 16, Jesus tells Peter that upon him he will build his Church, not churches. Again in Matthew 18, Jesus tells us, "If the person still refuses to listen, take your case to the church," not churches. That church is the Catholic Church.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Anyone can claim miracles. Hindus claim their gods performed miracles too. Do you believe them?

---

In other words, you can't answer for the Eucharistic miracles. These miracles are made available for the public to view.

I know nothing of Hindu miracles that make that claim.

What about the 70 miracles at Lourdes, France? How do you explain those healings in the grotto where the Blessed Mother appeared? Do you want to brush those off as well?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You're either going around in circles, or you're not addressing the point.

If John 6 is to be taken literally, then eating Jesus' flesh saves a person - that's it. It doesn't need to be made "efficacious" by Jesus' later sacrifice on the cross - that isn't what Jesus said. He clearly, explicitly, and distinctly said "WHOEVER eats my flesh HAS eternal life". He didn't say "whoever eats my flesh will have eternal life, that is, after it's been made efficacious by my death on the cross". You are having LOTS of trouble with this one.

---

He never says "it saves a person." He says he has eternal life. One has to meet all the conditions for salvation. Also, he only did this miracle at the Last Supper. He didn't perform Transubstantiation during the Bread of Life discourse in John 6. The first mass after the Resurrection would have happened the evening of Easter Sunday when in Luke 24:30-31: "When he was at table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And again, Jesus repeating something 6 times doesn't automatically make it literal. It could just mean that you're misinterpreting him 6 times. You're logic is a non sequitur. You are stuck in the logic of only seeing it through this lens. I don't know how to make this any easier to understand. Jesus repeated "feed my sheep" three times to Peter. Was Jesus talking about animals??

---

It doesn't make it literal? Would a 7th or 8th time help? The fact the synoptic gospel writers all include Jesus stating THIS IS MY BODY, doesn't make it literal?

Why do you argue with 2000 years of Church history? How did YOU get it right, yet the Church got it "wrong" for two millenia?

Do you really believe that "Feed my sheep" Jesus was taking about animals? You are trying to use the Peter's three-time reconciliation as a poor analogy with the 6-time assertion of the real presence. This fails because NO one believe that of the Feed my Sheep passage.

You are failing to answer my honest question. What would Jesus have to say for you to believe him and the real presence?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What's really sad is that you think I'M the one stuck in a paradigm, when all I've been demonstrating through history, facts, logic, and scripture is that it's you who is stuck.

Your above response illustrates that. For example, just to pick one, you're arguing that I'm twisting scripture to show King Solomon is referring to prayers. The verse explicitly states "knowing the hearts of all men". That would most certainly include prayers from the heart, wouldn't it? And you completely avoided the point - if you pray to Mary or the saints silently in your heart, then how can they know what's in your heart if God is the only one who does, according to this verse??

---

KS was talking about God judging one's soul, not reading the prayers. But let's say that he was talking about prayers. When he wrote that, was there anyone else in heaven? No (save one prophet.) SO you'd agree that KS had no clue about the future saints in heaven? So you'll also agree that KS didn't have a heaven at the time, only the Abode of the Dead or Abraham's bosom. So you'd finally agree that this argument is a logical fallacy.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It doesn't matter how many masses you hold. The bottom line remains that in addition to all the things (ESPECIALLY The Glories of Mary) which is obvious "worship" of Mary and the saints to any rational, honest person outside Roman Catholicism, it's being made EVIDENT RIGHT HERE by your unwillingness to confess that it is better and more fitting to call JESUS the "seed of the church" rather than the saints. I've asked you probably three times already, and you have refused every time. Like Peter who also denied Jesus three times, you need to repent. We know them by their fruits - so what does denying glory to Jesus and giving it to the saints reveal??

---

Glories of Mary * - so you didn't read or watch the short article that I sent. That signals to me that you have NO desire to see the other side. You only refer to your anti-Catholic sources which are inaccurate understandings of what the Church teaches.

If you are really seeking answers, call Catholic Answers Live tonight between 5PM and 7PM (CST) at 888-31-TRUTH. Jimmy Akin is the guest on today's show. He can answer just about anything related to the faith.

Seeds One again, you fail to understand that it's not an either/or. It can be a both/and. Giving saints glory doesn't rob from Jesus. They are saints because of him. Not despite him. I feel for you that you can't understand this.

Please call Catholic Answers Live. Just ask them anyone of your most difficult challenges.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You, as a Roman Catholic, believe that I, a bible believing Christian who places his faith and trust on Jesus Christ for his salvation, is anathematized to HELL just for believing the deuterocanon should not be in Scripture, and for refusing to bow down and kiss icons - both which are historically based in the early church, as well as scripture itself. The veneration of icons was even universally denounced by the early church!! I would like you and others here to think really hard and long about that. Is that the gospel of Jesus Christ?? You're anathemetizing to HELL those who believe what the resounding, universal view of the early church was, and rather was a belief that originated in the 6th-7th century! If The Glories of Mary and this fact doesn't wake you up, I'm afraid nothing will.

---

Please cite one of my posts where I claimed that your are anathematized.
Being anathematized doesn't send one to hell. It separates them from the Church and her sacraments.

Why do you make up stuff like this? Why not go to true Catholic sources like Catholic Answers?

* Icon veneration * - this is NOT a doctrine of the Church. It is a devotion. It was not "universally" denounced. As Christianity's understanding developed, the Church realized that it was OK to have icon because God himself, took flesh, an image.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus" church is his entire body of believers, no matter which church they go to, even if they don't go to church. A person who is trapped alone on an island who finds a bible floating in the water and reads it, and believes, is part of that church, and he is saved. A Chinese person who secretly reads the bible because it is illegal where he lives, and who never goes to church because there isn't any where he lives, and believes, is part of that body, and is saved. And they can be where they are and do what they do until they die, never getting baptized, never taking communion, never going to church, never taking part in any "sacrament" - and still they are part of that body, they are saved, and they are our Christian brothers and sisters.

---

Dodging the question again. There's a difference between the church (what you are arguing) and the Church (which Christ established.) Jesus prayed that we'd be one (John 17:21). Sadly, Christianity is fragmented into 1000's of denominations. In Matthew 16, Jesus tells Peter that upon him he will build his Church, not churches. Again in Matthew 18, Jesus tells us, "If the person still refuses to listen, take your case to the church," not churches. That church is the Catholic Church.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Anyone can claim miracles. Hindus claim their gods performed miracles too. Do you believe them?

---

In other words, you can't answer for the Eucharistic miracles. These miracles are made available for the public to view.

I know nothing of Hindu miracles that make that claim.

What about the 70 miracles at Lourdes, France? How do you explain those healings in the grotto where the Blessed Mother appeared? Do you want to brush those off as well?

---

I'm not dodging anything. The church I attend or don't attend has nothing to do with the truth I'm speaking. The "church" is the entire body of believers in Jesus. It isn't an official organization. There is no line of popes. History actually shows that the early church in Rome had a fragmented authority structure. Even in Revelation, Jesus sends his message to the separate "angels" of each church, not the pope, because there wasn't one. There was no singular human leader of Jesus' church. JESUS is the leader of his church, not the guy you call "Holy Father" (blasphemy) even after Jesus told you not to.

You continually cite authority of your church, but I've been demonstrating right in front of you how your church has been telling you to think and believe things that are logically and biblically untenable.

Regarding "miracles", think about these questions:

1) Can the devil or his agents do miraculous signs in order to deceive?

2) Did Jesus ever tell us that miraculous signs and wonders can happen, but NOT BE FROM HIM, OR OF HIM?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You're either going around in circles, or you're not addressing the point.

If John 6 is to be taken literally, then eating Jesus' flesh saves a person - that's it. It doesn't need to be made "efficacious" by Jesus' later sacrifice on the cross - that isn't what Jesus said. He clearly, explicitly, and distinctly said "WHOEVER eats my flesh HAS eternal life". He didn't say "whoever eats my flesh will have eternal life, that is, after it's been made efficacious by my death on the cross". You are having LOTS of trouble with this one.

---

He never says "it saves a person." He says he has eternal life. One has to meet all the conditions for salvation. Also, he only did this miracle at the Last Supper. He didn't perform Transubstantiation during the Bread of Life discourse in John 6. The first mass after the Resurrection would have happened the evening of Easter Sunday when in Luke 24:30-31: "When he was at table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And again, Jesus repeating something 6 times doesn't automatically make it literal. It could just mean that you're misinterpreting him 6 times. You're logic is a non sequitur. You are stuck in the logic of only seeing it through this lens. I don't know how to make this any easier to understand. Jesus repeated "feed my sheep" three times to Peter. Was Jesus talking about animals??

---

It doesn't make it literal? Would a 7th or 8th time help? The fact the synoptic gospel writers all include Jesus stating THIS IS MY BODY, doesn't make it literal?

Why do you argue with 2000 years of Church history? How did YOU get it right, yet the Church got it "wrong" for two millenia?

Do you really believe that "Feed my sheep" Jesus was taking about animals? You are trying to use the Peter's three-time reconciliation as a poor analogy with the 6-time assertion of the real presence. This fails because NO one believe that of the Feed my Sheep passage.

You are failing to answer my honest question. What would Jesus have to say for you to believe him and the real presence?

---

Your "repetition" argument for deciding when things should be taken literally was destroyed by Jesus' repetition of "feed my sheep" three times, which you obviously don't take literally. It's that simple. You're trying to "save" your argument through ad hoc explanations. This is a moving goal post argument.

If you're arguing that Jesus saying "this is my body" is to be taken literally, then Jesus is also a literal door, a literal shepherd, an actual gate, and the actual temple of Jerusalem. You're picking and choosing which is literal.

To answer your question, he would have to say in Scripture that the bread in every communion/Eucharist ceremony that would ever happen thereafter will become his actual flesh and blood. Which of course, he doesn't. Technically, he only said "this is my body" about that one particular loaf of bread he was holding in the Last Supper. And understanding what Jesus really meant, based on all the other times he spoke of himself symbolically in that matter, it's clear that believing his actual flesh was in that loaf is to not understanding what he meant. It would also be making Jesus asking his disciples to break the Law, which forbade the eating of blood. That would mean Jesus sinned, which of course he never did, and he could not do because then he wouldn't be the perfect sacrifice for sin; therefore it wasn't actual blood. It's all so simple. It's amazing how much your church authority has a grip on you, not allowing you to think logically for yourself.

Regarding your first point - "salvation" and eternal life are the same. Only those who are saved have eternal life. There is only one condition for salvation, and Jesus is telling you right there - "eat his flesh". If that is literal, then it contradicts everything the bible tells us about salvation, as I listed for you in an earlier post. Therefore, it is logically obvious that the literal interpretation can't be true. This isn't difficult, but you're making it difficult because you are so indoctrinated by your church authority.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What's really sad is that you think I'M the one stuck in a paradigm, when all I've been demonstrating through history, facts, logic, and scripture is that it's you who is stuck.

Your above response illustrates that. For example, just to pick one, you're arguing that I'm twisting scripture to show King Solomon is referring to prayers. The verse explicitly states "knowing the hearts of all men". That would most certainly include prayers from the heart, wouldn't it? And you completely avoided the point - if you pray to Mary or the saints silently in your heart, then how can they know what's in your heart if God is the only one who does, according to this verse??

---

KS was talking about God judging one's soul, not reading the prayers. But let's say that he was talking about prayers. When he wrote that, was there anyone else in heaven? No (save one prophet.) SO you'd agree that KS had no clue about the future saints in heaven? So you'll also agree that KS didn't have a heaven at the time, only the Abode of the Dead or Abraham's bosom. So you'd finally agree that this argument is a logical fallacy.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It doesn't matter how many masses you hold. The bottom line remains that in addition to all the things (ESPECIALLY The Glories of Mary) which is obvious "worship" of Mary and the saints to any rational, honest person outside Roman Catholicism, it's being made EVIDENT RIGHT HERE by your unwillingness to confess that it is better and more fitting to call JESUS the "seed of the church" rather than the saints. I've asked you probably three times already, and you have refused every time. Like Peter who also denied Jesus three times, you need to repent. We know them by their fruits - so what does denying glory to Jesus and giving it to the saints reveal??

---

Glories of Mary * - so you didn't read or watch the short article that I sent. That signals to me that you have NO desire to see the other side. You only refer to your anti-Catholic sources which are inaccurate understandings of what the Church teaches.

If you are really seeking answers, call Catholic Answers Live tonight between 5PM and 7PM (CST) at 888-31-TRUTH. Jimmy Akin is the guest on today's show. He can answer just about anything related to the faith.

Seeds One again, you fail to understand that it's not an either/or. It can be a both/and. Giving saints glory doesn't rob from Jesus. They are saints because of him. Not despite him. I feel for you that you can't understand this.

Please call Catholic Answers Live. Just ask them anyone of your most difficult challenges.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You, as a Roman Catholic, believe that I, a bible believing Christian who places his faith and trust on Jesus Christ for his salvation, is anathematized to HELL just for believing the deuterocanon should not be in Scripture, and for refusing to bow down and kiss icons - both which are historically based in the early church, as well as scripture itself. The veneration of icons was even universally denounced by the early church!! I would like you and others here to think really hard and long about that. Is that the gospel of Jesus Christ?? You're anathemetizing to HELL those who believe what the resounding, universal view of the early church was, and rather was a belief that originated in the 6th-7th century! If The Glories of Mary and this fact doesn't wake you up, I'm afraid nothing will.

---

Please cite one of my posts where I claimed that your are anathematized.
Being anathematized doesn't send one to hell. It separates them from the Church and her sacraments.

Why do you make up stuff like this? Why not go to true Catholic sources like Catholic Answers?

* Icon veneration * - this is NOT a doctrine of the Church. It is a devotion. It was not "universally" denounced. As Christianity's understanding developed, the Church realized that it was OK to have icon because God himself, took flesh, an image.

---

King Solomon is simply saying that only God knows people's hearts. I don't know why you're so hung up on it not being about prayers - it doesn't matter at all. The point was that ANYTHING in the heart, only God knows. That means prayers from the heart, only God can know. That means that if you are praying to Mary or the saints from your heart, then you're praying to people who don't know what you're saying to them. If you're arguing that somehow being in heaven allows a person to know what it's in everyone's heart, then where are you getting that from Scripture?? There is absolutlely nothing in scripture that even hints at this being true. I know that you will go to your usual verses in Revelation as "proof" but as I have already shown, those verses do not directly state it - you are only reading into it what you want to be true.

There is NO "other side" to the blashphemy of The Glories of Mary. Only excuses. I will post the excerpts from those prayers to remind those reading this forum just how blasphemous and idolatrous they are, and that there just isn't any "other side" of the argument that could possibly justify them.

I'll ask a fourth time - isn't it better and more fitting to call JESUS the seed of his church, not the saints?

So you don't believe your own church authority? You don't know your own church history? Second Council of Niceae II (700's AD) anathematizes those:

• "who apply to the sacred images the sayings in divine scripture against idols"
• "who do not kiss the holy and venerable images"
• "who call the sacred images 'idols'"
• "who say that Christians had recourse to the images as gods"
• "who knowingly communicate with those who insult and dishonour the sacred images".

Take a look at that last one - you're communicating with me, so you're anathemetized!!


An anathema is equivalent to damning someone to Hell. Terasios - "An anathema is a terrible thing: it drives [its victims] far from God and expels them from the kingdom of heaven;" After the Council of Niceae II, the bishops wrote in their summary - "An anathema is nothing other than separation from God."

We can go through the early church history where icon veneration was universally rejected if you want. Even if you don't agree it was universal, there is no way you can argue that it wasn't the overwhelming view. And the stunning thing is that despite this, your Catholic church anathemetizes their view, and holds to a view that originated in the 6th or 7th century!!

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus" church is his entire body of believers, no matter which church they go to, even if they don't go to church. A person who is trapped alone on an island who finds a bible floating in the water and reads it, and believes, is part of that church, and he is saved. A Chinese person who secretly reads the bible because it is illegal where he lives, and who never goes to church because there isn't any where he lives, and believes, is part of that body, and is saved. And they can be where they are and do what they do until they die, never getting baptized, never taking communion, never going to church, never taking part in any "sacrament" - and still they are part of that body, they are saved, and they are our Christian brothers and sisters.

---

Dodging the question again. There's a difference between the church (what you are arguing) and the Church (which Christ established.) Jesus prayed that we'd be one (John 17:21). Sadly, Christianity is fragmented into 1000's of denominations. In Matthew 16, Jesus tells Peter that upon him he will build his Church, not churches. Again in Matthew 18, Jesus tells us, "If the person still refuses to listen, take your case to the church," not churches. That church is the Catholic Church.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Anyone can claim miracles. Hindus claim their gods performed miracles too. Do you believe them?

---

In other words, you can't answer for the Eucharistic miracles. These miracles are made available for the public to view.

I know nothing of Hindu miracles that make that claim.

What about the 70 miracles at Lourdes, France? How do you explain those healings in the grotto where the Blessed Mother appeared? Do you want to brush those off as well?

---

I'm not dodging anything. The church I attend or don't attend has nothing to do with the truth I'm speaking. The "church" is the entire body of believers in Jesus. It isn't an official organization. There is no line of popes. History actually shows that the early church in Rome had a fragmented authority structure. Even in Revelation, Jesus sends his message to the separate "angels" of each church, not the pope, because there wasn't one. There was no singular human leader of Jesus' church. JESUS is the leader of his church, not the guy you call "Holy Father" (blasphemy) even after Jesus told you not to.

You continually cite authority of your church, but I've been demonstrating right in front of you how your church has been telling you to think and believe things that are logically and biblically untenable.

Regarding "miracles", think about these questions:

1) Can the devil or his agents do miraculous signs in order to deceive?

2) Did Jesus ever tell us that miraculous signs and wonders can happen, but NOT BE FROM HIM, OR OF HIM?

---

You make some good points. Yes the Church is the Body of Christ and it's only made of the true, born again believers in Christ. It is not a building or denomination. You also make a good point about Revelation and Christ addressing the "Angels" (Pastors) of the 7 Churches. If Peter were really the 1st Pope, why wouldn't the message be given to Peter to give to the Churches? There is even argument that these Churches were Synagogues who accepted their Messiah, Jesus.

No Church has authority over Scripture. All Revelations from God will NEVER contradict Scripture, if it does, then it's not from the Lord, because the Lord will never contradict His Word.

1) Yes the devil can perform miracles and signs to deceive. He did so in Egypt in front of Moses and Pharaoh for one example.

2) Not sure if Jesus Himself addressed this issue, but it certainly is addressed in Scripture and yes satan can perform lying wonders to deceive.

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus" church is his entire body of believers, no matter which church they go to, even if they don't go to church. A person who is trapped alone on an island who finds a bible floating in the water and reads it, and believes, is part of that church, and he is saved. A Chinese person who secretly reads the bible because it is illegal where he lives, and who never goes to church because there isn't any where he lives, and believes, is part of that body, and is saved. And they can be where they are and do what they do until they die, never getting baptized, never taking communion, never going to church, never taking part in any "sacrament" - and still they are part of that body, they are saved, and they are our Christian brothers and sisters.

---

Dodging the question again. There's a difference between the church (what you are arguing) and the Church (which Christ established.) Jesus prayed that we'd be one (John 17:21). Sadly, Christianity is fragmented into 1000's of denominations. In Matthew 16, Jesus tells Peter that upon him he will build his Church, not churches. Again in Matthew 18, Jesus tells us, "If the person still refuses to listen, take your case to the church," not churches. That church is the Catholic Church.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Anyone can claim miracles. Hindus claim their gods performed miracles too. Do you believe them?

---

In other words, you can't answer for the Eucharistic miracles. These miracles are made available for the public to view.

I know nothing of Hindu miracles that make that claim.

What about the 70 miracles at Lourdes, France? How do you explain those healings in the grotto where the Blessed Mother appeared? Do you want to brush those off as well?

---

I'm not dodging anything. The church I attend or don't attend has nothing to do with the truth I'm speaking. The "church" is the entire body of believers in Jesus. It isn't an official organization. There is no line of popes. History actually shows that the early church in Rome had a fragmented authority structure. Even in Revelation, Jesus sends his message to the separate "angels" of each church, not the pope, because there wasn't one. There was no singular human leader of Jesus' church. JESUS is the leader of his church, not the guy you call "Holy Father" (blasphemy) even after Jesus told you not to.

You continually cite authority of your church, but I've been demonstrating right in front of you how your church has been telling you to think and believe things that are logically and biblically untenable.

Regarding "miracles", think about these questions:

1) Can the devil or his agents do miraculous signs in order to deceive?

2) Did Jesus ever tell us that miraculous signs and wonders can happen, but NOT BE FROM HIM, OR OF HIM?

---

You make some good points. Yes the Church is the Body of Christ and it's only made of the true, born again believers in Christ. It is not a building or denomination. You also make a good point about Revelation and Christ addressing the "Angels" (Pastors) of the 7 Churches. If Peter were really the 1st Pope, why wouldn't the message be given to Peter to give to the Churches? There is even argument that these Churches were Synagogues who accepted their Messiah, Jesus.

No Church has authority over Scripture. All Revelations from God will NEVER contradict Scripture, if it does, then it's not from the Lord, because the Lord will never contradict His Word.

1) Yes the devil can perform miracles and signs to deceive. He did so in Egypt in front of Moses and Pharaoh for one example.

2) Not sure if Jesus Himself addressed this issue, but it certainly is addressed in Scripture and yes satan can perform lying wonders to deceive.

---

Thank you, and yes, Jesus absolutely addressed this issue. In Matthew 24:24 he warns his followers - "For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand."

Jesus also warns us that the Antichrist will perform miracles. Clearly, it is VERY UNWISE to believe and follow something based on the occurrence of miracles. Jesus specifically made the effort to warn us about this beforehand. I'd say that is a very important warning to take heed of.

Very true, but I must re emphasize the biggest test is whether it lines up with Scripture or not.

No Revelation from God will EVER contradict Scripture, if it does, then it's not from the Lord, because the Lord will never contradict His Word.

2 Timothy 3:16

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Peter 1:19

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

2 Peter 1:21

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Tomorrow is Sunday, find a good Bible Believing Church and attend!

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Very true, but I must re emphasize the biggest test is whether it lines up with Scripture or not.

No Revelation from God will EVER contradict Scripture, if it does, then it's not from the Lord, because the Lord will never contradict His Word.

2 Timothy 3:16

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: Paul speaking of the OT, the NT was written yet. So the slaughter of people in
Canaan is reproof and righteousness?
2 Peter 1:19

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

2 Peter 1:21

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

---

1 Corinthians 2:9 (KJV)

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, Neither have entered into the heart of man, The things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

1 Corinthians 2:9 (KJV)

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, Neither have entered into the heart of man, The things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

---

I Corinthians The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who knows a person's thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words

This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words" This what I speak. This is what I speak as you do.

Waco1947 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

1 Corinthians 2:9 (KJV)

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, Neither have entered into the heart of man, The things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

---

I Corinthians The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who knows a person's thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words

This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words" This what I speak. This is what I speak as you do.

---

Amen to that.

Please continue to pray for our great Nation. There is a lot of issues to deal with.

Romans 10:9,10,13

that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.