BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Caiaphas of SE365: "you can't use the argument of "Pharisee" or "interrogation" or "bullying" because you've NEVER answered the question, even when I first asked"

I can use whatever argument suits the task. You have no authority to compel or deny, boyo.

And I already explained I don't kowtow to thugs, and you have been nothing more than that in this thread, to the point that I have more respect for the Roman Catholics here with whom I disagree than I do with you, even though I am closer to your position in doctrine, precisely because there is nothing of Christ's love and patience in your behavior.

And no, you have not "asked". You have demanded, insulted, mocked, nothing better.

I shall not reward your contemptible behavior.

---

Never have I "demanded", "insulted", or "mocked" when asking that question. You are lying.

---

I am not lying in the least. Nor am I surprised, though disappointed, that you revert to rage and attacks as soon as you do not get what you want.

---

What "rage"? What "attacks"? You have such a distorted sense of reality. YOU were the one attacking me, accusing me of having nothing of Christ's love and that my behavior is "contemptible".

If you aren't lying about me, then can you produce the evidence that I've "demanded", "insulted", or "mocked" when asking that question?

---

Hint: Self awareness isn't your strong suit.

---

Still waiting on you or OldBear to produce the evidence I've asked for, then.

---

Lack of self awareness comfirmed. Yet again.

---

So no evidence. Just as I thought.

---

Indeed, there is no evidence of Christ in you, sir.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Caiaphas of SE365: "you can't use the argument of "Pharisee" or "interrogation" or "bullying" because you've NEVER answered the question, even when I first asked"

I can use whatever argument suits the task. You have no authority to compel or deny, boyo.

And I already explained I don't kowtow to thugs, and you have been nothing more than that in this thread, to the point that I have more respect for the Roman Catholics here with whom I disagree than I do with you, even though I am closer to your position in doctrine, precisely because there is nothing of Christ's love and patience in your behavior.

And no, you have not "asked". You have demanded, insulted, mocked, nothing better.

I shall not reward your contemptible behavior.

---

Never have I "demanded", "insulted", or "mocked" when asking that question. You are lying.

---

I am not lying in the least. Nor am I surprised, though disappointed, that you revert to rage and attacks as soon as you do not get what you want.

---

What "rage"? What "attacks"? You have such a distorted sense of reality. YOU were the one attacking me, accusing me of having nothing of Christ's love and that my behavior is "contemptible".

If you aren't lying about me, then can you produce the evidence that I've "demanded", "insulted", or "mocked" when asking that question?

---

Hint: Self awareness isn't your strong suit.

---

Still waiting on you or OldBear to produce the evidence I've asked for, then.

---

Lack of self awareness comfirmed. Yet again.

---

So no evidence. Just as I thought.

---

It's been there all along. You just won't admit it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Is it possible that he was not talking about physical eating and drinking?

John 7:37 - "On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink."

---

NO. Not at all. He is very clear in John 6 that about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He says it no less then 5 times.

---

How does the number of times he says it relate to it being a literal saying or not?

So, do you really think that in John 7:37 Jesus is calling all those who are physically thirsty to come to him?

---

What do you know!?! Frodo got one correct! In passage, Jesus is talking about the Holy Spirit that would come.

This passage is not linked to John 6.

I can only assume that your mean the literal meaning here. He is obviously is usually a metaphor in this passage. But ask yourself if we are meant to take it literally. Does the text (and context) indicate that we should take it literally.

Now reflect honestly on John 6. We know the disciples believe that He means the literal meaning of eating/drinking His flesh/blood. They begin to grumble. The language that his uses in the Koine Greek indicates that He means it literally.

The apostles, Paul, and the early Church believed He meant it literally. It has been consistently taught for nearly 2000 years. Why should I accept what someone changed a few hundred years ago.

I'll go with what the bible says and the apostles believed.

---

Jesus uses figurative language regarding "eating", "drinking", "hunger", "thirst", and "food" repeatedly in John's gospel. It is a recurring theme. In John 4, he is talking to the woman at the well and says, "Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

And later he says to the disciples: "I have food to eat that you do not know about." The disciples took him literally, wondering who had brought him literal food. So he had to clarify: "My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work."

Jesus does the same in John 6 about him being the bread of life, and in John 7 when he calls for those who "thirst" to come to him.

So in order to honestly reflect on John 6, these have to be kept in mind. Now, look carefully at two verses in particular in John 6:

verse 40 - "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

verse 54 - "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day"

Notice he says the same thing about BELIEVING in him, and "feeding on his flesh" - how they both lead to being raised up to eternal life. Which is it? Could it be that they both mean the same thing, i.e. faith? Wouldn't this be consistent with what Jesus said earlier in chapter 5: "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life." He said nothing about literally eating his flesh there. He doesn't say it to Nicodemus in John 3:16 either. Neither do any of the apostles when they explain how to get eternal life (to the Ethiopian eunuch, the Phillipine jailer, the house of Cornelius, etc.) None were told about literally eating Jesus' flesh.

So I agree with you: we should go by what the bible says and what the apostles believed and taught.

---

Participating in the Eucharist is not salvific. However, partaking is literally to remain in Communion with the "communion of saints and the blessed company of all faithful people". You are conflating two different things.

53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

Being saved and being in ongoing communion are separate issues. "This is my body. This is my blood". We should take Him at his word that we will remain in Him and He in us as we continue to partake of the elements.

---

If we are to truly take Jesus at his literal word, then it IS ABSOLUTELY salvivic. Read what you just quoted: "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you". This would be clearly indicating that eating his flesh (literally, according to you) is an absolute requirement for salvation.

You say you take him at his literal word, but then you don't.

---

If Jesus had said "unless you eat the flesh of Son of Man... you do not have eternal life", then you would be correct. However, that is not what he said, is it? One can be saved but distant spiritually, that is without life. Hence the importance of Communion. I am taking Him at His word. You are not.

---

"You have NO LIFE in you." As in none whatsoever. Not "spiritually distant", but spiritually DEAD. Someone who has eternal life can't be characterized in this way.

So no, you are not taking him at his word, you are dancing around it.

---

Ironic coming from the Dance Master. You imply what you want when you want and mistake that for Gospel. What you've just said is strictly your opinion. My opinion is different. If we had "no life" in us then we would be literally dead. "This is my body". Embrace His truth.

---

So....you're saying that when Jesus said "no life" he wasn't speaking literally about physical life? Interesting concept.

---

No. Seems most likely he was speaking metaphorically. You and I interpret the metaphor differently.

---

You seem to be picking and choosing what is figurative and what is not.

---

Indeed. As are we all. I do so enjoy irony.

---

Except some of us actually have a biblical stance and aren't picking and choosing for ourselves.

---

Too funny. I, too, have a Biblical stance.

---

Your biblical stances are failing my challenges. Shall we go through them again to remind you?

---

Knock yourself out, big boy, while I attend to my rosary at bed time.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For those reading at home, I admit I am having trouble identifying who in this particular spat is doing a better job of reflecting God's Grace and amazing patience.

And before anyone barks back at me that I am no better, I readily agree. My sole defense being that I recognize and admit my limits and failings, and so I am trying to learn and grow, and suggest that we all share that common need.

It's one thing to quote Christ and try to share our experience of Him. It's something else to imagine we speak for Him, or stand in His place.

---

What an arrogant stance. How about instead of sitting atop your perch and "identifying who is doing a better job of reflecting God's grace" you take a stand on the correctness on doctrinal matters? It's a whole lot easier to judge others' behavior than to actually take a stand for truth, isn't it? You want proof? Here you go:

Q: Do prayers which call Mary "sovereign", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "salvation of the universe", "glory of heaven", "our strength and our refuge", "ruler of my house", and prayers that say to Mary "I give you my heart and my soul" and "in your hands I place my eternal salvation and to you I entrust my soul" elevate Mary to Jesus and is therefore heretical and idolatrous?

---

Part of your problem is the typical Protestant/evangelical legalist claptrap of conflating one example of Marian prayer or thought with the much larger body of Catholic faith and practice. Why are you so fixated on the prayer of a long dead Italian bishop whom most have never heard of? That you cling to it so viscously does you no credit. Just certifies your status as an extremist. In this you are no different from the author of the prayer you so despise. You are both outliers on the spectrum of expressions of the faith.

---

These prayers are fully sanctioned and promoted by the Catholic Church. The author was named a "doctor" of the Church. They've been cited by many bishops and popes. It has gone through 800 editions.

The facts just aren't in agreement with you. And if you don't think this level of Marian devotion has permeated through major Catholic thought, then you are clueless as to the reality. Here is Pope Pius IX in his Ubi primum, 2 February 1849: "God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary."

---

Well, if the Holy Father said that in 1849 then it must be all the rage now. Oh, wait, I see that it isn't Roman Catholic dogma…

---

Does it matter? If the Catholic authorities say nothing against it, then it puts their authority with the Holy Spirit under considerable question, doesn't it? That's the point, and it's the point that you constantly miss.

---

And so you would substitute the authority of the First Church of Tarp Dusting for that of the Magisterium? Makes sense.

Pray for America, we are being taken over by Communists via the Democrat Party. We are in deep trouble.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Is it possible that he was not talking about physical eating and drinking?

John 7:37 - "On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink."

---

NO. Not at all. He is very clear in John 6 that about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He says it no less then 5 times.

---

How does the number of times he says it relate to it being a literal saying or not?

So, do you really think that in John 7:37 Jesus is calling all those who are physically thirsty to come to him?

---

What do you know!?! Frodo got one correct! In passage, Jesus is talking about the Holy Spirit that would come.

This passage is not linked to John 6.

I can only assume that your mean the literal meaning here. He is obviously is usually a metaphor in this passage. But ask yourself if we are meant to take it literally. Does the text (and context) indicate that we should take it literally.

Now reflect honestly on John 6. We know the disciples believe that He means the literal meaning of eating/drinking His flesh/blood. They begin to grumble. The language that his uses in the Koine Greek indicates that He means it literally.

The apostles, Paul, and the early Church believed He meant it literally. It has been consistently taught for nearly 2000 years. Why should I accept what someone changed a few hundred years ago.

I'll go with what the bible says and the apostles believed.

---

Jesus uses figurative language regarding "eating", "drinking", "hunger", "thirst", and "food" repeatedly in John's gospel. It is a recurring theme. In John 4, he is talking to the woman at the well and says, "Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

And later he says to the disciples: "I have food to eat that you do not know about." The disciples took him literally, wondering who had brought him literal food. So he had to clarify: "My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work."

Jesus does the same in John 6 about him being the bread of life, and in John 7 when he calls for those who "thirst" to come to him.

So in order to honestly reflect on John 6, these have to be kept in mind. Now, look carefully at two verses in particular in John 6:

verse 40 - "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

verse 54 - "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day"

Notice he says the same thing about BELIEVING in him, and "feeding on his flesh" - how they both lead to being raised up to eternal life. Which is it? Could it be that they both mean the same thing, i.e. faith? Wouldn't this be consistent with what Jesus said earlier in chapter 5: "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life." He said nothing about literally eating his flesh there. He doesn't say it to Nicodemus in John 3:16 either. Neither do any of the apostles when they explain how to get eternal life (to the Ethiopian eunuch, the Phillipine jailer, the house of Cornelius, etc.) None were told about literally eating Jesus' flesh.

So I agree with you: we should go by what the bible says and what the apostles believed and taught.

---

Participating in the Eucharist is not salvific. However, partaking is literally to remain in Communion with the "communion of saints and the blessed company of all faithful people". You are conflating two different things.

53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

Being saved and being in ongoing communion are separate issues. "This is my body. This is my blood". We should take Him at his word that we will remain in Him and He in us as we continue to partake of the elements.

---

If we are to truly take Jesus at his literal word, then it IS ABSOLUTELY salvivic. Read what you just quoted: "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you". This would be clearly indicating that eating his flesh (literally, according to you) is an absolute requirement for salvation.

You say you take him at his literal word, but then you don't.

---

If Jesus had said "unless you eat the flesh of Son of Man... you do not have eternal life", then you would be correct. However, that is not what he said, is it? One can be saved but distant spiritually, that is without life. Hence the importance of Communion. I am taking Him at His word. You are not.

---

"You have NO LIFE in you." As in none whatsoever. Not "spiritually distant", but spiritually DEAD. Someone who has eternal life can't be characterized in this way.

So no, you are not taking him at his word, you are dancing around it.

---

Ironic coming from the Dance Master. You imply what you want when you want and mistake that for Gospel. What you've just said is strictly your opinion. My opinion is different. If we had "no life" in us then we would be literally dead. "This is my body". Embrace His truth.

---

So....you're saying that when Jesus said "no life" he wasn't speaking literally about physical life? Interesting concept.

---

No. Seems most likely he was speaking metaphorically. You and I interpret the metaphor differently.

---

You seem to be picking and choosing what is figurative and what is not.

---

Indeed. As are we all. I do so enjoy irony.

---

Except some of us actually have a biblical stance and aren't picking and choosing for ourselves.

---

But you are picking and choosing for yourself. Don't be ridiculous.

Oh the irony:

"This is my body" - "I take Jesus at his literal word"

"..NO LIFE within you" - "obviously we aren't to take that literally".

Oh the irony:

"You have nothing but attacks and insults, and you have nothing of Christ in you!"

{then proceeds to attack and insult in a judgemental, unchristian manner...}

Oh the irony:

"You Pharisee!"

{then proceeds to self righteously judge others' Christian-ness}

As curtpenn observed:

'Self awareness isn't your strong suit.'

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oh the irony:

"This is my body" - "I take Jesus at his literal word"

"..NO LIFE within you" - "obviously we aren't to take that literally".

---

The difference is I embrace the irony and understand we inhabit a space of infinite regression whereas you pretend to know absolutely and consequently pass judgement upon the majority of all Christians who have ever lived.

Oldbear83 said:

---

As curtpenn observed:

'Self awareness isn't your strong suit.'

---

And as I have observed and repeatedly demonstrated, when you are challenged to back up that statement, you produce absolutely NOTHING.

I'll still wait, however, for you to produce the evidence of what you claimed. One last chance for you to prove you're not just an empty suit, capable of only shadows, not substance.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For those reading at home, I admit I am having trouble identifying who in this particular spat is doing a better job of reflecting God's Grace and amazing patience.

And before anyone barks back at me that I am no better, I readily agree. My sole defense being that I recognize and admit my limits and failings, and so I am trying to learn and grow, and suggest that we all share that common need.

It's one thing to quote Christ and try to share our experience of Him. It's something else to imagine we speak for Him, or stand in His place.

---

What an arrogant stance. How about instead of sitting atop your perch and "identifying who is doing a better job of reflecting God's grace" you take a stand on the correctness on doctrinal matters? It's a whole lot easier to judge others' behavior than to actually take a stand for truth, isn't it? You want proof? Here you go:

Q: Do prayers which call Mary "sovereign", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "salvation of the universe", "glory of heaven", "our strength and our refuge", "ruler of my house", and prayers that say to Mary "I give you my heart and my soul" and "in your hands I place my eternal salvation and to you I entrust my soul" elevate Mary to Jesus and is therefore heretical and idolatrous?

---

Part of your problem is the typical Protestant/evangelical legalist claptrap of conflating one example of Marian prayer or thought with the much larger body of Catholic faith and practice. Why are you so fixated on the prayer of a long dead Italian bishop whom most have never heard of? That you cling to it so viscously does you no credit. Just certifies your status as an extremist. In this you are no different from the author of the prayer you so despise. You are both outliers on the spectrum of expressions of the faith.

---

These prayers are fully sanctioned and promoted by the Catholic Church. The author was named a "doctor" of the Church. They've been cited by many bishops and popes. It has gone through 800 editions.

The facts just aren't in agreement with you. And if you don't think this level of Marian devotion has permeated through major Catholic thought, then you are clueless as to the reality. Here is Pope Pius IX in his Ubi primum, 2 February 1849: "God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary."

---

Well, if the Holy Father said that in 1849 then it must be all the rage now. Oh, wait, I see that it isn't Roman Catholic dogma…

---

Does it matter? If the Catholic authorities say nothing against it, then it puts their authority with the Holy Spirit under considerable question, doesn't it? That's the point, and it's the point that you constantly miss.

---

And so you would substitute the authority of the First Church of Tarp Dusting for that of the Magisterium? Makes sense.

---

It's called "Christianity". I'm not surprised you don't recognize it.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oh the irony:

"This is my body" - "I take Jesus at his literal word"

"..NO LIFE within you" - "obviously we aren't to take that literally".

---

The difference is I embrace the irony and understand we inhabit a space of infinite regression whereas you pretend to know absolutely and consequently pass judgement upon the majority of all Christians who have ever lived.

---

In your case, "embracing the irony" is just your way of preserving your tradition despite the obviously inconsistent and erroneous hermeneutic it is based on, as opposed to what we should be doing, which is to rightly divide the Word of God, and reject or at least subordinate any and all man made tradition that doesn't line up.

You constantly worry about the wrong thing: the issue isn't what the majority does or think, its what's right that matters. I demonstrated a clear inconsistency in your interpretation above. You should be addressing that for your own sake, not attacking me. I'm just the messenger.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oh the irony:

"This is my body" - "I take Jesus at his literal word"

"..NO LIFE within you" - "obviously we aren't to take that literally".

---

The difference is I embrace the irony and understand we inhabit a space of infinite regression whereas you pretend to know absolutely and consequently pass judgement upon the majority of all Christians who have ever lived.

---

In your case, "embracing the irony" is just your way of preserving your tradition despite the obviously inconsistent and erroneous hermeneutic it is based on, as opposed to what we should be doing, which is to rightly divide the Word of God, and reject or at least subordinate any and all man made tradition that doesn't line up.

You constantly worry about the wrong thing: the issue isn't what the majority does or think, its what's right that matters. I demonstrated a clear inconsistency in your interpretation above. You should be addressing that for your own sake, not attacking me. I'm just the messenger.

---

What do you presume is my "tradition"? You work backwards from a particular interpretation of text to draw your own conclusions about what the text must mean, then don your Inquisitor's robes and obsess over just one of many writings of an Italian bishop who lived in a period that produced over 450 years of Italian popes. You ignore context. You ignore that it is certainly possible to venerate Mary and still be saved by faith in Christ. You ignore that it is possible to have faith in Mary (or any saint or saintly person) while still having saving faith in Christ. You ignore that these two things are not the same.

There is no inconsistency in my interpretation; I understand that some things are literal and some are not. You are confused about what to apply when.

You constantly worry about the wrong thing: the issue isn't whether or not Marian veneration is wrong, it's what must I do to be saved. You should be addressing that for your own sake, not attacking me. I'm just the messenger. N'cest-ce pas?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For those reading at home, I admit I am having trouble identifying who in this particular spat is doing a better job of reflecting God's Grace and amazing patience.

And before anyone barks back at me that I am no better, I readily agree. My sole defense being that I recognize and admit my limits and failings, and so I am trying to learn and grow, and suggest that we all share that common need.

It's one thing to quote Christ and try to share our experience of Him. It's something else to imagine we speak for Him, or stand in His place.

---

What an arrogant stance. How about instead of sitting atop your perch and "identifying who is doing a better job of reflecting God's grace" you take a stand on the correctness on doctrinal matters? It's a whole lot easier to judge others' behavior than to actually take a stand for truth, isn't it? You want proof? Here you go:

Q: Do prayers which call Mary "sovereign", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "salvation of the universe", "glory of heaven", "our strength and our refuge", "ruler of my house", and prayers that say to Mary "I give you my heart and my soul" and "in your hands I place my eternal salvation and to you I entrust my soul" elevate Mary to Jesus and is therefore heretical and idolatrous?

---

Part of your problem is the typical Protestant/evangelical legalist claptrap of conflating one example of Marian prayer or thought with the much larger body of Catholic faith and practice. Why are you so fixated on the prayer of a long dead Italian bishop whom most have never heard of? That you cling to it so viscously does you no credit. Just certifies your status as an extremist. In this you are no different from the author of the prayer you so despise. You are both outliers on the spectrum of expressions of the faith.

---

These prayers are fully sanctioned and promoted by the Catholic Church. The author was named a "doctor" of the Church. They've been cited by many bishops and popes. It has gone through 800 editions.

The facts just aren't in agreement with you. And if you don't think this level of Marian devotion has permeated through major Catholic thought, then you are clueless as to the reality. Here is Pope Pius IX in his Ubi primum, 2 February 1849: "God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary."

---

Well, if the Holy Father said that in 1849 then it must be all the rage now. Oh, wait, I see that it isn't Roman Catholic dogma…

---

Does it matter? If the Catholic authorities say nothing against it, then it puts their authority with the Holy Spirit under considerable question, doesn't it? That's the point, and it's the point that you constantly miss.

---

And so you would substitute the authority of the First Church of Tarp Dusting for that of the Magisterium? Makes sense.

---

It's called "Christianity". I'm not surprised you don't recognize it.

---

Nice. Good to know where I can turn for all the right answers now.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oh the irony:

"You Pharisee!"

{then proceeds to self righteously judge others' Christian-ness}

---

"It's called "Christianity". I'm not surprised you don't recognize it."

Sound familiar. ROTFLMAO!

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

These prayers are fully sanctioned and promoted by the Catholic Church. The author was named a "doctor" of the Church. They've been cited by many bishops and popes. It has gone through 800 editions.

The facts just aren't in agreement with you. And if you don't think this level of Marian devotion has permeated through major Catholic thought, then you are clueless as to the reality. Here is Pope Pius IX in his Ubi primum, 2 February 1849: "God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary."

---

Did Jesus come through Mary?

The answer is YES. We obtain "every hope, every grace, and all salvation" thru Jesus who came through Mary.

There is nothing wrong with Marian devotion. We only love Jesus more by honoring His Mother. He LOVES us when we honor His mother.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oh the irony:

"This is my body" - "I take Jesus at his literal word"

"..NO LIFE within you" - "obviously we aren't to take that literally".

---

The difference is I embrace the irony and understand we inhabit a space of infinite regression whereas you pretend to know absolutely and consequently pass judgement upon the majority of all Christians who have ever lived.

---

In your case, "embracing the irony" is just your way of preserving your tradition despite the obviously inconsistent and erroneous hermeneutic it is based on, as opposed to what we should be doing, which is to rightly divide the Word of God, and reject or at least subordinate any and all man made tradition that doesn't line up.

You constantly worry about the wrong thing: the issue isn't what the majority does or think, its what's right that matters. I demonstrated a clear inconsistency in your interpretation above. You should be addressing that for your own sake, not attacking me. I'm just the messenger.

---

Don't believe I've ever seen you state your views re salvation. Is saving faith irresistible, prevenient, something else? What do you think makes one a Christian?

People show you what they are all the time. Sad to see how often they do not realize how different their heart is from their claims.

You remind me of Herod and Pilate, who demanded Jesus answer according to their terms and conditions, always with threats and never with respect.

No, I am certainly not comparing myself to my Lord Jesus, but you have a lot more in common with Herod and Pilate than you will ever acknowledge.

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

The focus should be on The Lord Jesus Christ and His Word.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Caiaphas of SE365: "you can't use the argument of "Pharisee" or "interrogation" or "bullying" because you've NEVER answered the question, even when I first asked"

I can use whatever argument suits the task. You have no authority to compel or deny, boyo.

And I already explained I don't kowtow to thugs, and you have been nothing more than that in this thread, to the point that I have more respect for the Roman Catholics here with whom I disagree than I do with you, even though I am closer to your position in doctrine, precisely because there is nothing of Christ's love and patience in your behavior.

And no, you have not "asked". You have demanded, insulted, mocked, nothing better.

I shall not reward your contemptible behavior.

---

Never have I "demanded", "insulted", or "mocked" when asking that question. You are lying.

---

I am not lying in the least. Nor am I surprised, though disappointed, that you revert to rage and attacks as soon as you do not get what you want.

---

What "rage"? What "attacks"? You have such a distorted sense of reality. YOU were the one attacking me, accusing me of having nothing of Christ's love and that my behavior is "contemptible".

If you aren't lying about me, then can you produce the evidence that I've "demanded", "insulted", or "mocked" when asking that question?

---

Hint: Self awareness isn't your strong suit.

---

Still waiting on you or OldBear to produce the evidence I've asked for, then.

---

Lack of self awareness comfirmed. Yet again.

---

So no evidence. Just as I thought.

---

Indeed, there is no evidence of Christ in you, sir.

---

Why do you do that? Instead of answering questions? Deflect and accuse the other of not having Christ because he asks you a question that you don't want to answer or cannot answer? Do you think that you are being Christlike?

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Caiaphas of SE365: "you can't use the argument of "Pharisee" or "interrogation" or "bullying" because you've NEVER answered the question, even when I first asked"

I can use whatever argument suits the task. You have no authority to compel or deny, boyo.

And I already explained I don't kowtow to thugs, and you have been nothing more than that in this thread, to the point that I have more respect for the Roman Catholics here with whom I disagree than I do with you, even though I am closer to your position in doctrine, precisely because there is nothing of Christ's love and patience in your behavior.

And no, you have not "asked". You have demanded, insulted, mocked, nothing better.

I shall not reward your contemptible behavior.

---

Never have I "demanded", "insulted", or "mocked" when asking that question. You are lying.

---

I am not lying in the least. Nor am I surprised, though disappointed, that you revert to rage and attacks as soon as you do not get what you want.

---

What "rage"? What "attacks"? You have such a distorted sense of reality. YOU were the one attacking me, accusing me of having nothing of Christ's love and that my behavior is "contemptible".

If you aren't lying about me, then can you produce the evidence that I've "demanded", "insulted", or "mocked" when asking that question?

---

Hint: Self awareness isn't your strong suit.

---

Still waiting on you or OldBear to produce the evidence I've asked for, then.

---

Lack of self awareness comfirmed. Yet again.

---

So no evidence. Just as I thought.

---

Indeed, there is no evidence of Christ in you, sir.

---

Why do you do that? Instead of answering questions? Deflect and accuse the other of not having Christ because he asks you a question that you don't want to answer or cannot answer? Do you think that you are being Christlike?

---

Your problem is that I DO answer questions, then you and BTD get angry because I will not harass and attack other Christians for a different opinion than yours.

As for being Christian, look at your posts Frodo. All you and BTD have done here is show anger, make demands and insult Christian tradition, all out of your pride.

Read your own posts and see how far from Christ you are in your tone and attacks. Christ said "come let us reason" while you and BTD say 'agree with me or else' .

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Caiaphas of SE365: "you can't use the argument of "Pharisee" or "interrogation" or "bullying" because you've NEVER answered the question, even when I first asked"

I can use whatever argument suits the task. You have no authority to compel or deny, boyo.

And I already explained I don't kowtow to thugs, and you have been nothing more than that in this thread, to the point that I have more respect for the Roman Catholics here with whom I disagree than I do with you, even though I am closer to your position in doctrine, precisely because there is nothing of Christ's love and patience in your behavior.

And no, you have not "asked". You have demanded, insulted, mocked, nothing better.

I shall not reward your contemptible behavior.

---

Never have I "demanded", "insulted", or "mocked" when asking that question. You are lying.

---

I am not lying in the least. Nor am I surprised, though disappointed, that you revert to rage and attacks as soon as you do not get what you want.

---

What "rage"? What "attacks"? You have such a distorted sense of reality. YOU were the one attacking me, accusing me of having nothing of Christ's love and that my behavior is "contemptible".

If you aren't lying about me, then can you produce the evidence that I've "demanded", "insulted", or "mocked" when asking that question?

---

Hint: Self awareness isn't your strong suit.

---

Still waiting on you or OldBear to produce the evidence I've asked for, then.

---

Lack of self awareness comfirmed. Yet again.

---

So no evidence. Just as I thought.

---

Indeed, there is no evidence of Christ in you, sir.

---

Why do you do that? Instead of answering questions? Deflect and accuse the other of not having Christ because he asks you a question that you don't want to answer or cannot answer? Do you think that you are being Christlike?

---

Your problem is that I DO answer questions, then you and BTD get angry because I will not harass and attack other Christians for a different opinion than yours.

As for being Christian, look at your posts Frodo. All you and BTD have done here is show anger, make demands and insult Christian tradition, all out of your pride.

Read your own posts and see how far from Christ you are in your tone and attacks. Christ said "come let us reason" while you and BTD say 'agree with me or else' .

---

Not once have I shown anger. You have faulty perception. I would need you to show me where I have shown anger. I haven't made demands nor have I insulted the Christian tradition. You have made constant Judgments about the thoughts and intents of others. Show where these things have happened. Stop getting defensive and prove your assertions with FACTS. I don't follow "Christian Traditions" either. I follow Christ and the Bible. I attend Church as a place of Edification and learning the Scriptures. Waiting on your examples that prove your point.

LIST OF CHRISTIAN CHARITIES IN THE UNITED STATES:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Christian_charities_based_in_the_United_States

Read this thread. ALL of it.

If you don't see it, ask Curtpenn or Lib Mr Bears or Coke Bear about your tone and choice of words.

Or continue denying it.

You have already ignored me whenever you did not agree with me, so I am not going to waste more time on trying to persuade you.

As for Scripture, I have posted more in this thread than you, yet you ignore it because it does not help your ego.

Read the entire thread, if you want to truly understand, including and especially the posts from people with different experiences.

This is not about winning arguments. That is folly, yet oh so popular.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus uses figurative language regarding "eating", "drinking", "hunger", "thirst", and "food" repeatedly in John's gospel. It is a recurring theme. In John 4, he is talking to the woman at the well and says, "Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

And later he says to the disciples: "I have food to eat that you do not know about." The disciples took him literally, wondering who had brought him literal food. So he had to clarify: "My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work."

---

Quoted below is a Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture referring to John 4:34 which comes well before John 6:

Quote:

---

The disciples expected Jesus to eat. He had been hungry as well as thirsty but had undergone the well-known psychological experience of hunger vanishing before a deeper desire, that of converting a soul. This is the satisfying food that his disciples did not know. They thought that he had received something to eat. He explained that the doing of his Father's will and the accomplishment of his Father's work was the supreme satisfaction of all his desiresit was 'his food'. (CCHS, 988)

---

This quote is from Catholic apologist, speaker, and author, Jim Blackburn is direct response to your post:

Quote:

---

Note that Jesus is talking about "food" for himself here, not the food "the Son of man will give to you" (John 6:27). Of course, we could say that doing the will of the Father and accomplishing his work is (or should be) "food" for all Christians, but saying so does not in any way diminish the reality or importance of the Eucharist that Jesus reveals in John 6.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus does the same in John 6 about him being the bread of life, and in John 7 when he calls for those who "thirst" to come to him.

So in order to honestly reflect on John 6, these have to be kept in mind. Now, look carefully at two verses in particular in John 6:

verse 40 - "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

verse 54 - "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day"

Notice he says the same thing about BELIEVING in him, and "feeding on his flesh" - how they both lead to being raised up to eternal life. Which is it? Could it be that they both mean the same thing, i.e. faith? Wouldn't this be consistent with what Jesus said earlier in chapter 5: "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life." He said nothing about literally eating his flesh there. He doesn't say it to Nicodemus in John 3:16 either. Neither do any of the apostles when they explain how to get eternal life (to the Ethiopian eunuch, the Phillipine jailer, the house of Cornelius, etc.) None were told about literally eating Jesus' flesh.

---

We Catholics believe in a Both/And philosophy. As mentioned earlier, the Eucharist is required for those who understand this. We are never told that Nicodemus, the Ethiopian eunuch, the Philippian jailer, nor the house of Cornelius did not eat the Eucharist. That wasn't the point of those passages. Jesus makes it abundantly clear in John 6 and the Last Supper that He means it literally.

Here are two tracks from Catholic Answers that "flesh out" (pardon the pun) the believe and the Eucharist and those in the early Church fathers that wrote about it. Their writings are never rebuked or challenged. Many of them wrote BEFORE the NT was canonized. Their believes were never condemned in the Councils. The believe in the Real Presence is AFFIRMED in the Councils.
Christ in the Eucharist
What the Early Church Believed: The Real Presence

Please explain how the Church has existed since Pentecost with this belief and was never struck down. It only took one day for the Hebrews to worship the Golden Calf before God allow the Levites to kill 3000 (an event which is typologically mirrored in Pentecost.)

Please find the source for me the first time that John 6 was supposed to be a symbol and then please explain why it took nearly 1500 years before that belief arose.

Quite frankly, I'll stand with Jesus, the apostles, His Church, the Church fathers, and magisterium before I trust the beliefs a man 1500 years removed from the actual source.

I understand that this is VERY difficult for you to accept. Jesus knows this. He lost hundreds , if not thousands of disciples after his Bread of Life Discourse. He let them go because they were not ready to hear these hard sayings.

Finally, the Church has seen several Eucharistic miracles of the accidents of the bread and / or wine changing into actual flesh and blood. When tested, the flesh is from the heart and the blood type is AB negative (which matches the blood type on the Shroud of Turin.

The Amazing Science of Recent Eucharistic Miracles: A Message from Heaven?
The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

I do pray for you daily to come to accept the beautiful truth of the Eucharist.

&sp=1698202068T7d37cbedc60406c2abc9aac32656222e517e940b8ad354f25023e0778f0fb9c1

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oh the irony:

"This is my body" - "I take Jesus at his literal word"

"..NO LIFE within you" - "obviously we aren't to take that literally".

---

The difference is I embrace the irony and understand we inhabit a space of infinite regression whereas you pretend to know absolutely and consequently pass judgement upon the majority of all Christians who have ever lived.

---

In your case, "embracing the irony" is just your way of preserving your tradition despite the obviously inconsistent and erroneous hermeneutic it is based on, as opposed to what we should be doing, which is to rightly divide the Word of God, and reject or at least subordinate any and all man made tradition that doesn't line up.

You constantly worry about the wrong thing: the issue isn't what the majority does or think, its what's right that matters. I demonstrated a clear inconsistency in your interpretation above. You should be addressing that for your own sake, not attacking me. I'm just the messenger.

---

What do you presume is my "tradition"? You work backwards from a particular interpretation of text to draw your own conclusions about what the text must mean, then don your Inquisitor's robes and obsess over just one of many writings of an Italian bishop who lived in a period that produced over 450 years of Italian popes. You ignore context. You ignore that it is certainly possible to venerate Mary and still be saved by faith in Christ. You ignore that it is possible to have faith in Mary (or any saint or saintly person) while still having saving faith in Christ. You ignore that these two things are not the same.

There is no inconsistency in my interpretation; I understand that some things are literal and some are not. You are confused about what to apply when.

You constantly worry about the wrong thing: the issue isn't whether or not Marian veneration is wrong, it's what must I do to be saved. You should be addressing that for your own sake, not attacking me. I'm just the messenger. N'cest-ce pas?

---

Do you realize that your whole argument for the bread being the literal flesh of Jesus is that Jesus' words should be taken literally? You destroyed your own argument. I think I clearly demonstrated this.

If the issue is what one must do to be saved, then those prayers to Mary ARE significant. Can you honestly say that someone who believes what those prayers are saying, are truly putting their faith in Jesus, and not in Mary?? This is tremendously pertinent to salvation.

Why do you always repeat what I say, using the same words? Are you not able to put your own thoughts into your own words? Well, I'll take it as flattery, because you like the way I say things.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For those reading at home, I admit I am having trouble identifying who in this particular spat is doing a better job of reflecting God's Grace and amazing patience.

And before anyone barks back at me that I am no better, I readily agree. My sole defense being that I recognize and admit my limits and failings, and so I am trying to learn and grow, and suggest that we all share that common need.

It's one thing to quote Christ and try to share our experience of Him. It's something else to imagine we speak for Him, or stand in His place.

---

What an arrogant stance. How about instead of sitting atop your perch and "identifying who is doing a better job of reflecting God's grace" you take a stand on the correctness on doctrinal matters? It's a whole lot easier to judge others' behavior than to actually take a stand for truth, isn't it? You want proof? Here you go:

Q: Do prayers which call Mary "sovereign", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "salvation of the universe", "glory of heaven", "our strength and our refuge", "ruler of my house", and prayers that say to Mary "I give you my heart and my soul" and "in your hands I place my eternal salvation and to you I entrust my soul" elevate Mary to Jesus and is therefore heretical and idolatrous?

---

Part of your problem is the typical Protestant/evangelical legalist claptrap of conflating one example of Marian prayer or thought with the much larger body of Catholic faith and practice. Why are you so fixated on the prayer of a long dead Italian bishop whom most have never heard of? That you cling to it so viscously does you no credit. Just certifies your status as an extremist. In this you are no different from the author of the prayer you so despise. You are both outliers on the spectrum of expressions of the faith.

---

These prayers are fully sanctioned and promoted by the Catholic Church. The author was named a "doctor" of the Church. They've been cited by many bishops and popes. It has gone through 800 editions.

The facts just aren't in agreement with you. And if you don't think this level of Marian devotion has permeated through major Catholic thought, then you are clueless as to the reality. Here is Pope Pius IX in his Ubi primum, 2 February 1849: "God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary."

---

Well, if the Holy Father said that in 1849 then it must be all the rage now. Oh, wait, I see that it isn't Roman Catholic dogma…

---

Does it matter? If the Catholic authorities say nothing against it, then it puts their authority with the Holy Spirit under considerable question, doesn't it? That's the point, and it's the point that you constantly miss.

---

And so you would substitute the authority of the First Church of Tarp Dusting for that of the Magisterium? Makes sense.

---

It's called "Christianity". I'm not surprised you don't recognize it.

---

Nice. Good to know where I can turn for all the right answers now.

---

Yes, Jesus Christ. As in the Bible. Not your traditions that have no biblical basis.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

These prayers are fully sanctioned and promoted by the Catholic Church. The author was named a "doctor" of the Church. They've been cited by many bishops and popes. It has gone through 800 editions.

The facts just aren't in agreement with you. And if you don't think this level of Marian devotion has permeated through major Catholic thought, then you are clueless as to the reality. Here is Pope Pius IX in his Ubi primum, 2 February 1849: "God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary."

---

Did Jesus come through Mary?

The answer is YES. We obtain "every hope, every grace, and all salvation" thru Jesus who came through Mary.

There is nothing wrong with Marian devotion. We only love Jesus more by honoring His Mother. He LOVES us when we honor His mother.

---

No, Jesus did not come through Mary. Jesus preexisted Mary. Mary merely bore Jesus' as a baby to start his earthly existence.

John 1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."

ALL things were made through Jesus. That includes Mary. Jesus did not come through Mary, it is the other way around - Mary came through Jesus, according to scripture.

No, we don't obtain everything through Mary. We obtain everything through God, through JESUS, not Mary.

The redirect of focus away from Jesus and onto Mary here, trying to give Mary the credit and the glory, honor, and praise for what Jesus should be credited, glorified, honored, and praised for, is such blatant heresy and idolatry. And it's troubling that you defend it. This isn't Marian devotion. This isn't loving Jesus' mother. This is idolatrous Mary worship. It is so sad that you are in such darkness that you can't see it for what it is.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oh the irony:

"This is my body" - "I take Jesus at his literal word"

"..NO LIFE within you" - "obviously we aren't to take that literally".

---

The difference is I embrace the irony and understand we inhabit a space of infinite regression whereas you pretend to know absolutely and consequently pass judgement upon the majority of all Christians who have ever lived.

---

In your case, "embracing the irony" is just your way of preserving your tradition despite the obviously inconsistent and erroneous hermeneutic it is based on, as opposed to what we should be doing, which is to rightly divide the Word of God, and reject or at least subordinate any and all man made tradition that doesn't line up.

You constantly worry about the wrong thing: the issue isn't what the majority does or think, its what's right that matters. I demonstrated a clear inconsistency in your interpretation above. You should be addressing that for your own sake, not attacking me. I'm just the messenger.

---

Don't believe I've ever seen you state your views re salvation. Is saving faith irresistible, prevenient, something else? What do you think makes one a Christian?

---

I've stated it many times. You're just gonna have to pay attention better. Judging by the number of times I had to explain that The Glories of Mary is NOT an obscure text written by an obscure author like you asserted (it was at least three times) it's clear that either you have reading or memory problems; or, you are just so blinded by your nastiness that you just don't want to absorb anything I say.

Oldbear83 said:

---

You remind me of Herod and Pilate, who demanded Jesus answer according to their terms and conditions, always with threats and never with respect.

No, I am certainly not comparing myself to my Lord Jesus, but you have a lot more in common with Herod and Pilate than you will ever acknowledge.

---

Again - show me where I asked you this question without respect, or with "threats" and according to my "terms and conditions".

You are bearing false witness.