curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

In spite of our differences, let's please keep it respectful. No two believers are going to agree on everything if they are sincere in their faith.

---

There's only one who's not respectful. There's some bite between posters now and then, but this guy is really becoming unglued.

Yes, believers will disagree, but that doesn't mean wrong beliefs and practices shouldn't be called out. And don't assume everyone here is a believer. There are wolves among sheep. The unglued person here is on record in this thread for saying that a church should allow people to place their salvation in the hands of someone other than Jesus, and if you disagree with that, you are being a "Pharisee". If you don't believe me, I can find the post. A true believer would never even come close to saying that, let alone think it. He's already called me a "Pharisee" tonight, so I take that as a good sign for me.

---

Just another straw man from you. Typical of your never ceasing torrent of egocentric sanctimonious blather going back forever on this thread. The Father of Lies must be proud of you for sewing division amongst the body of Christ.

---

Citing something you actually said that is expressly heretical and antithetical to Christianity to show that we shouldn't assume you're a true believer is a straw man??

If you don't understand the arguments, please stop arguing against them. The last time, you argued with me for pages about a certain bible verse, and you didn't even realize what the verse actually said was the complete opposite of what you were arguing. You didn't even bother to READ the verse we were discussing!

Jesus came to divide, and he commands us to divide from those who bring heresy and idolatry into his Church. The Father of Lies is behind beliefs like YOURS - that it's ok to place our salvation in the hands of someone other than Jesus, and if you don't think so you're a "Pharisee". Do you still believe this? Or did you repent and change for the better?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

In spite of our differences, let's please keep it respectful. No two believers are going to agree on everything if they are sincere in their faith.

---

There's only one who's not respectful. There's some bite between posters now and then, but this guy is really becoming unglued.

Yes, believers will disagree, but that doesn't mean wrong beliefs and practices shouldn't be called out. And don't assume everyone here is a believer. There are wolves among sheep. The unglued person here is on record in this thread for saying that a church should allow people to place their salvation in the hands of someone other than Jesus, and if you disagree with that, you are being a "Pharisee". If you don't believe me, I can find the post. A true believer would never even come close to saying that, let alone think it. He's already called me a "Pharisee" tonight, so I take that as a good sign for me.

---

Just another straw man from you. Typical of your never ceasing torrent of egocentric sanctimonious blather going back forever on this thread. The Father of Lies must be proud of you for sewing division amongst the body of Christ.

---

Citing something you actually said that is expressly heretical and antithetical to Christianity to show that we shouldn't assume you're a true believer is a straw man??

If you don't understand the arguments, please stop arguing against them. The last time, you argued with me for pages about a certain bible verse, and you didn't even realize what the verse actually said was the complete opposite of what you were arguing. You didn't even bother to READ the verse we were discussing!

Jesus came to divide, and he commands us to divide from those who bring heresy and idolatry into his Church. The Father of Lies is behind beliefs like YOURS - that it's ok to place our salvation in the hands of someone other than Jesus, and if you don't think so you're a "Pharisee". Do you still believe this? Or did you repent and change for the better?

---

Liar. You "proved" nothing and misrepresent or don't understand previous points. That's YOUR problem (isn't all CAPS fun?). You are a son of perdition with your never ceasing abuse of the majority of Christians who have ever lived and who are alive today. Hubris is all you have.


John 17:21-23

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

In spite of our differences, let's please keep it respectful. No two believers are going to agree on everything if they are sincere in their faith.

---

There's only one who's not respectful. There's some bite between posters now and then, but this guy is really becoming unglued.

Yes, believers will disagree, but that doesn't mean wrong beliefs and practices shouldn't be called out. And don't assume everyone here is a believer. There are wolves among sheep. The unglued person here is on record in this thread for saying that a church should allow people to place their salvation in the hands of someone other than Jesus, and if you disagree with that, you are being a "Pharisee". If you don't believe me, I can find the post. A true believer would never even come close to saying that, let alone think it. He's already called me a "Pharisee" tonight, so I take that as a good sign for me.

---

Just another straw man from you. Typical of your never ceasing torrent of egocentric sanctimonious blather going back forever on this thread. The Father of Lies must be proud of you for sewing division amongst the body of Christ.

---

Citing something you actually said that is expressly heretical and antithetical to Christianity to show that we shouldn't assume you're a true believer is a straw man??

If you don't understand the arguments, please stop arguing against them. The last time, you argued with me for pages about a certain bible verse, and you didn't even realize what the verse actually said was the complete opposite of what you were arguing. You didn't even bother to READ the verse we were discussing!

Jesus came to divide, and he commands us to divide from those who bring heresy and idolatry into his Church. The Father of Lies is behind beliefs like YOURS - that it's ok to place our salvation in the hands of someone other than Jesus, and if you don't think so you're a "Pharisee". Do you still believe this? Or did you repent and change for the better?

---

Liar.

---

We went through this EXACT SAME THING a while back:


********************************************************
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Would you like me to point you to where these exactly occurred in this thread? I'll be glad to, for you and whoever starred your comment.

curtpenn said:

Knock yourself out, big boy. You might as well continue to leave your slimy trail of self centered self righteous twaddle that you confuse for "truth" when we all know you struggle to recognize that which is merely your opinion. Please, amaze me with your extraordinary powers of discernment.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Page 19 of this thread:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
We "evil", "Fundy Taliban" Christian types believe in obeying God and putting our eternal salvation and entrusting our soul in Jesus' hands......if that drives away people who want to put their salvation and entrust their soul in the hands of someone other than God, then so be it.

curtpenn said: Do you even hear yourself? The Pharisees would be proud.

********************************************************


This is the SECOND TIME you are denying what is so easily proven true, along with your usual invective. Absolutely astounding. YOU are the liar. Would you like me to also show where you denied Jesus said something, when the very verse we were discussing was Jesus explicitly saying it?

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

In spite of our differences, let's please keep it respectful. No two believers are going to agree on everything if they are sincere in their faith.

---

There's only one who's not respectful. There's some bite between posters now and then, but this guy is really becoming unglued.

Yes, believers will disagree, but that doesn't mean wrong beliefs and practices shouldn't be called out. And don't assume everyone here is a believer. There are wolves among sheep. The unglued person here is on record in this thread for saying that a church should allow people to place their salvation in the hands of someone other than Jesus, and if you disagree with that, you are being a "Pharisee". If you don't believe me, I can find the post. A true believer would never even come close to saying that, let alone think it. He's already called me a "Pharisee" tonight, so I take that as a good sign for me.

---

Just another straw man from you. Typical of your never ceasing torrent of egocentric sanctimonious blather going back forever on this thread. The Father of Lies must be proud of you for sewing division amongst the body of Christ.

---

Citing something you actually said that is expressly heretical and antithetical to Christianity to show that we shouldn't assume you're a true believer is a straw man??

If you don't understand the arguments, please stop arguing against them. The last time, you argued with me for pages about a certain bible verse, and you didn't even realize what the verse actually said was the complete opposite of what you were arguing. You didn't even bother to READ the verse we were discussing!

Jesus came to divide, and he commands us to divide from those who bring heresy and idolatry into his Church. The Father of Lies is behind beliefs like YOURS - that it's ok to place our salvation in the hands of someone other than Jesus, and if you don't think so you're a "Pharisee". Do you still believe this? Or did you repent and change for the better?

---

You are a son of perdition with your never ceasing abuse of the majority of Christians who have ever lived and who are alive today. Hubris is all you have.

John 17:21-23

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

---

Jesus is praying for all true believers to be one. He isn't asking that all who call themselves "Christian" be one. The bible explicitly warns us of false teachers and believers, to whom Jesus will say "Depart from me. I never knew you".

In his letters to the seven churches in Revelation, Jesus specifically praised those who weeded out false teachers and false doctrines from his church, and severely rebuked those who brought them into his church.

Revelation 2:1 - "To the angel of the church in Ephesus write:..... "'I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false......you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate."

Revelation 2:12-16 - "And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write:...... you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality. So also you have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth."

Revelation 2:18-23 - "And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write: .... But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, and I will strike her children dead."


...and so on.

So, does this make Jesus a "son of perdition" also?

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

In spite of our differences, let's please keep it respectful. No two believers are going to agree on everything if they are sincere in their faith.

---

There's only one who's not respectful. There's some bite between posters now and then, but this guy is really becoming unglued.

Yes, believers will disagree, but that doesn't mean wrong beliefs and practices shouldn't be called out. And don't assume everyone here is a believer. There are wolves among sheep. The unglued person here is on record in this thread for saying that a church should allow people to place their salvation in the hands of someone other than Jesus, and if you disagree with that, you are being a "Pharisee". If you don't believe me, I can find the post. A true believer would never even come close to saying that, let alone think it. He's already called me a "Pharisee" tonight, so I take that as a good sign for me.

---

Just another straw man from you. Typical of your never ceasing torrent of egocentric sanctimonious blather going back forever on this thread. The Father of Lies must be proud of you for sewing division amongst the body of Christ.

---

Citing something you actually said that is expressly heretical and antithetical to Christianity to show that we shouldn't assume you're a true believer is a straw man??

If you don't understand the arguments, please stop arguing against them. The last time, you argued with me for pages about a certain bible verse, and you didn't even realize what the verse actually said was the complete opposite of what you were arguing. You didn't even bother to READ the verse we were discussing!

Jesus came to divide, and he commands us to divide from those who bring heresy and idolatry into his Church. The Father of Lies is behind beliefs like YOURS - that it's ok to place our salvation in the hands of someone other than Jesus, and if you don't think so you're a "Pharisee". Do you still believe this? Or did you repent and change for the better?

---

Liar. You "proved" nothing and misrepresent or don't understand previous points.

---

Show me where and how I misrepresented or didn't understand previous posts. Tell me where you think I'm wrong, with anything I've said. Why not make your case by making a rational argument against mine, instead of through irrational ad hominem and defense mechanisms?

Happy Sunday All! What Church did you go to today?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

In spite of our differences, let's please keep it respectful. No two believers are going to agree on everything if they are sincere in their faith.

---

There's only one who's not respectful. There's some bite between posters now and then, but this guy is really becoming unglued.

Yes, believers will disagree, but that doesn't mean wrong beliefs and practices shouldn't be called out. And don't assume everyone here is a believer. There are wolves among sheep. The unglued person here is on record in this thread for saying that a church should allow people to place their salvation in the hands of someone other than Jesus, and if you disagree with that, you are being a "Pharisee". If you don't believe me, I can find the post. A true believer would never even come close to saying that, let alone think it. He's already called me a "Pharisee" tonight, so I take that as a good sign for me.

---

Just another straw man from you. Typical of your never ceasing torrent of egocentric sanctimonious blather going back forever on this thread. The Father of Lies must be proud of you for sewing division amongst the body of Christ.

---

Citing something you actually said that is expressly heretical and antithetical to Christianity to show that we shouldn't assume you're a true believer is a straw man??

If you don't understand the arguments, please stop arguing against them. The last time, you argued with me for pages about a certain bible verse, and you didn't even realize what the verse actually said was the complete opposite of what you were arguing. You didn't even bother to READ the verse we were discussing!

Jesus came to divide, and he commands us to divide from those who bring heresy and idolatry into his Church. The Father of Lies is behind beliefs like YOURS - that it's ok to place our salvation in the hands of someone other than Jesus, and if you don't think so you're a "Pharisee". Do you still believe this? Or did you repent and change for the better?

---

Liar. You "proved" nothing and misrepresent or don't understand previous points.

---

Show me where and how I misrepresented or didn't understand previous posts. Tell me where you think I'm wrong, with anything I've said. Why not make your case by making a rational argument against mine, instead of through irrational ad hominem and defense mechanisms?

---

As ever, you "prove" nothing but your own arrogance and hatred of billions of Christians. There is probably no help for you at this point, but just in case and in the spirit of the season, here's something for your edification (or rejection - whatever - past caring):

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/mary-mother-of-salvation

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

In spite of our differences, let's please keep it respectful. No two believers are going to agree on everything if they are sincere in their faith.

---

There's only one who's not respectful. There's some bite between posters now and then, but this guy is really becoming unglued.

Yes, believers will disagree, but that doesn't mean wrong beliefs and practices shouldn't be called out. And don't assume everyone here is a believer. There are wolves among sheep. The unglued person here is on record in this thread for saying that a church should allow people to place their salvation in the hands of someone other than Jesus, and if you disagree with that, you are being a "Pharisee". If you don't believe me, I can find the post. A true believer would never even come close to saying that, let alone think it. He's already called me a "Pharisee" tonight, so I take that as a good sign for me.

---

Just another straw man from you. Typical of your never ceasing torrent of egocentric sanctimonious blather going back forever on this thread. The Father of Lies must be proud of you for sewing division amongst the body of Christ.

---

Citing something you actually said that is expressly heretical and antithetical to Christianity to show that we shouldn't assume you're a true believer is a straw man??

If you don't understand the arguments, please stop arguing against them. The last time, you argued with me for pages about a certain bible verse, and you didn't even realize what the verse actually said was the complete opposite of what you were arguing. You didn't even bother to READ the verse we were discussing!

Jesus came to divide, and he commands us to divide from those who bring heresy and idolatry into his Church. The Father of Lies is behind beliefs like YOURS - that it's ok to place our salvation in the hands of someone other than Jesus, and if you don't think so you're a "Pharisee". Do you still believe this? Or did you repent and change for the better?

---

Liar. You "proved" nothing and misrepresent or don't understand previous points.

---

Show me where and how I misrepresented or didn't understand previous posts. Tell me where you think I'm wrong, with anything I've said. Why not make your case by making a rational argument against mine, instead of through irrational ad hominem and defense mechanisms?

---

As ever, you "prove" nothing but your own arrogance and hatred of billions of Christians. There is probably no help for you at this point, but just in case and in the spirit of the season, here's something for your edification (or rejection - whatever - past caring):

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/mary-mother-of-salvation

---

WHAT did I say I "proved", and HOW have I not proven it? HOW is it "hatred of billions of Christians"? How is it "arrogance"? Why don't you want to argue with specifics? Can you start somewhere....anywhere?

And what does the writing of a single Anglican priest-to-be, filled with very, very wrong beliefs, do to rebut anything I've said? Can you explain how and why yourself, instead of just posting a link? Didn't you I say I'm the moron, and you're smart? If so, then what are you afraid of?

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

In spite of our differences, let's please keep it respectful. No two believers are going to agree on everything if they are sincere in their faith.

---

There's only one who's not respectful. There's some bite between posters now and then, but this guy is really becoming unglued.

Yes, believers will disagree, but that doesn't mean wrong beliefs and practices shouldn't be called out. And don't assume everyone here is a believer. There are wolves among sheep. The unglued person here is on record in this thread for saying that a church should allow people to place their salvation in the hands of someone other than Jesus, and if you disagree with that, you are being a "Pharisee". If you don't believe me, I can find the post. A true believer would never even come close to saying that, let alone think it. He's already called me a "Pharisee" tonight, so I take that as a good sign for me.

---

Just another straw man from you. Typical of your never ceasing torrent of egocentric sanctimonious blather going back forever on this thread. The Father of Lies must be proud of you for sewing division amongst the body of Christ.

---

Citing something you actually said that is expressly heretical and antithetical to Christianity to show that we shouldn't assume you're a true believer is a straw man??

If you don't understand the arguments, please stop arguing against them. The last time, you argued with me for pages about a certain bible verse, and you didn't even realize what the verse actually said was the complete opposite of what you were arguing. You didn't even bother to READ the verse we were discussing!

Jesus came to divide, and he commands us to divide from those who bring heresy and idolatry into his Church. The Father of Lies is behind beliefs like YOURS - that it's ok to place our salvation in the hands of someone other than Jesus, and if you don't think so you're a "Pharisee". Do you still believe this? Or did you repent and change for the better?

---

Liar. You "proved" nothing and misrepresent or don't understand previous points.

---

Show me where and how I misrepresented or didn't understand previous posts. Tell me where you think I'm wrong, with anything I've said. Why not make your case by making a rational argument against mine, instead of through irrational ad hominem and defense mechanisms?

---

As ever, you "prove" nothing but your own arrogance and hatred of billions of Christians. There is probably no help for you at this point, but just in case and in the spirit of the season, here's something for your edification (or rejection - whatever - past caring):

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/mary-mother-of-salvation

---

The Catholic Church puts too much emphasis on Mary. She was a good Woman and the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, but the focus is on Christ, not His Mother. God chose her to be the Mother of Jesus. God chose Abraham to be the Father of many Nations, including the one that would bring forth our Savior. God chose Paul to bring the gospel to the gentiles. God chose Peter to bring the gospel to the jews. God chose Moses to deliver Israel from egypt and give them the law.

But the only one worthy of worship is Jesus christ. That's all we are saying.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

In spite of our differences, let's please keep it respectful. No two believers are going to agree on everything if they are sincere in their faith.

---

There's only one who's not respectful. There's some bite between posters now and then, but this guy is really becoming unglued.

Yes, believers will disagree, but that doesn't mean wrong beliefs and practices shouldn't be called out. And don't assume everyone here is a believer. There are wolves among sheep. The unglued person here is on record in this thread for saying that a church should allow people to place their salvation in the hands of someone other than Jesus, and if you disagree with that, you are being a "Pharisee". If you don't believe me, I can find the post. A true believer would never even come close to saying that, let alone think it. He's already called me a "Pharisee" tonight, so I take that as a good sign for me.

---

Just another straw man from you. Typical of your never ceasing torrent of egocentric sanctimonious blather going back forever on this thread. The Father of Lies must be proud of you for sewing division amongst the body of Christ.

---

Citing something you actually said that is expressly heretical and antithetical to Christianity to show that we shouldn't assume you're a true believer is a straw man??

If you don't understand the arguments, please stop arguing against them. The last time, you argued with me for pages about a certain bible verse, and you didn't even realize what the verse actually said was the complete opposite of what you were arguing. You didn't even bother to READ the verse we were discussing!

Jesus came to divide, and he commands us to divide from those who bring heresy and idolatry into his Church. The Father of Lies is behind beliefs like YOURS - that it's ok to place our salvation in the hands of someone other than Jesus, and if you don't think so you're a "Pharisee". Do you still believe this? Or did you repent and change for the better?

---

Liar. You "proved" nothing and misrepresent or don't understand previous points.

---

Show me where and how I misrepresented or didn't understand previous posts. Tell me where you think I'm wrong, with anything I've said. Why not make your case by making a rational argument against mine, instead of through irrational ad hominem and defense mechanisms?

---

As ever, you "prove" nothing but your own arrogance and hatred of billions of Christians. There is probably no help for you at this point, but just in case and in the spirit of the season, here's something for your edification (or rejection - whatever - past caring):

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/mary-mother-of-salvation

---

WHAT did I say I "proved", and HOW have I not proven it? HOW is it "hatred of billions of Christians"? How is it "arrogance"? Why don't you want to argue with specifics? Can you start somewhere....anywhere?

And what does the writing of a single Anglican priest-to-be, filled with very, very wrong beliefs, do to rebut anything I've said? Can you explain how and why yourself, instead of just posting a link? Didn't you I say I'm the moron, and you're smart? If so, then what are you afraid of?

---

The author is a Bob Jones grad who moved from evangelical to Episcopal priest and then to Roman Catholic priest. I've followed his work for some years now and find him worth listening to (though I'm highly unlikely to ever cross the Tiber). I'm sure your towering ego won't allow you to entertain anything other than your usual BS, but thought you might find something instructive. Think of it as a Christmas present to lighten your darkness.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

In spite of our differences, let's please keep it respectful. No two believers are going to agree on everything if they are sincere in their faith.

---

There's only one who's not respectful. There's some bite between posters now and then, but this guy is really becoming unglued.

Yes, believers will disagree, but that doesn't mean wrong beliefs and practices shouldn't be called out. And don't assume everyone here is a believer. There are wolves among sheep. The unglued person here is on record in this thread for saying that a church should allow people to place their salvation in the hands of someone other than Jesus, and if you disagree with that, you are being a "Pharisee". If you don't believe me, I can find the post. A true believer would never even come close to saying that, let alone think it. He's already called me a "Pharisee" tonight, so I take that as a good sign for me.

---

Just another straw man from you. Typical of your never ceasing torrent of egocentric sanctimonious blather going back forever on this thread. The Father of Lies must be proud of you for sewing division amongst the body of Christ.

---

Citing something you actually said that is expressly heretical and antithetical to Christianity to show that we shouldn't assume you're a true believer is a straw man??

If you don't understand the arguments, please stop arguing against them. The last time, you argued with me for pages about a certain bible verse, and you didn't even realize what the verse actually said was the complete opposite of what you were arguing. You didn't even bother to READ the verse we were discussing!

Jesus came to divide, and he commands us to divide from those who bring heresy and idolatry into his Church. The Father of Lies is behind beliefs like YOURS - that it's ok to place our salvation in the hands of someone other than Jesus, and if you don't think so you're a "Pharisee". Do you still believe this? Or did you repent and change for the better?

---

Liar. You "proved" nothing and misrepresent or don't understand previous points.

---

Show me where and how I misrepresented or didn't understand previous posts. Tell me where you think I'm wrong, with anything I've said. Why not make your case by making a rational argument against mine, instead of through irrational ad hominem and defense mechanisms?

---

As ever, you "prove" nothing but your own arrogance and hatred of billions of Christians. There is probably no help for you at this point, but just in case and in the spirit of the season, here's something for your edification (or rejection - whatever - past caring):

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/mary-mother-of-salvation

---

WHAT did I say I "proved", and HOW have I not proven it? HOW is it "hatred of billions of Christians"? How is it "arrogance"? Why don't you want to argue with specifics? Can you start somewhere....anywhere?

And what does the writing of a single Anglican priest-to-be, filled with very, very wrong beliefs, do to rebut anything I've said? Can you explain how and why yourself, instead of just posting a link? Didn't you I say I'm the moron, and you're smart? If so, then what are you afraid of?

---

The author is a Bob Jones grad who moved from evangelical to Episcopal priest and then to Roman Catholic priest. I've followed his work for some years now and find him worth listening to (though I'm highly unlikely to ever cross the Tiber). I'm sure your towering ego won't allow you to entertain anything other than your usual BS, but thought you might find something instructive. Think of it as a Christmas present to lighten your darkness.

---

Appeal to authority.

WHAT did I say I "proved", and HOW have I not proven it? HOW is it "hatred of billions of Christians"? How is it "arrogance"? Why don't you want to argue with specifics? Can you start somewhere....anywhere?

And what does the writing of this Bob Jones grad, filled with very, very wrong beliefs, do to rebut anything I've said? Can you explain how and why yourself, instead of just posting a link, and throwing in your usual ridiculous invectives? Can you do anything more than that?? Didn't you I say I'm the moron, and you're smart? If so, then what are you afraid of?

I hope you all have a Merry Christmas!

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

But the only one worthy of worship is Jesus christ. That's all we are saying.

---

100% correct. But it is also important to understand that this doesn't mean we should not honor people.

"Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour." (Romans 13:7)

"Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee." (Exodus 20:12)

"Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." (1st Timothy 5:17)

Honoring our brothers and sisters in the great cloud of witnesses that surround us and asking them to pray for us is not idolatry.

Now callling the Theotokos a co-mediatrix, a co-redeemer, or a co- anything does cross a bright red line into idolatry.

One of the things I have come to understand about many (not all) Roman Catholics is the immense power of their commitment to the office of the papacy. In fact, that was the first question a Roman Catholic friend of mine asked upon finding out I had converted to Eastern Orthodoxy..."is your church under the pope?"

That is also one of the reasons I tink the largest denomination in America is ex-Roman Catholics. When the faith in that institutional leadership is shattered, it becomes an exit ramp from Christianity entirely. I suppose the same holds true for ex-Penetecostals who realize the miracles are being faked.

Part of it too depends on how you came to be a Christian and whether your bond with the faith is emotional or intellectual. For someone who was raised Catholic/Baptist/Etc there is a lifelong emotional bond to that specific instiutiton.

As an adult (well teenage) convert, none of that held true for me. It was an intellectual journey for me beginning with exposure to the Bible, Socratic almost, with Christianity answering "why things are the way they are" and "why I am the way I am."

Which is also why I was willing to walk away from the Russell Moore version of the SBC and go looking for the original church later in life.

...and a Merry Christmas to you as well.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

In spite of our differences, let's please keep it respectful. No two believers are going to agree on everything if they are sincere in their faith.

---

There's only one who's not respectful. There's some bite between posters now and then, but this guy is really becoming unglued.

Yes, believers will disagree, but that doesn't mean wrong beliefs and practices shouldn't be called out. And don't assume everyone here is a believer. There are wolves among sheep. The unglued person here is on record in this thread for saying that a church should allow people to place their salvation in the hands of someone other than Jesus, and if you disagree with that, you are being a "Pharisee". If you don't believe me, I can find the post. A true believer would never even come close to saying that, let alone think it. He's already called me a "Pharisee" tonight, so I take that as a good sign for me.

---

Just another straw man from you. Typical of your never ceasing torrent of egocentric sanctimonious blather going back forever on this thread. The Father of Lies must be proud of you for sewing division amongst the body of Christ.

---

Citing something you actually said that is expressly heretical and antithetical to Christianity to show that we shouldn't assume you're a true believer is a straw man??

If you don't understand the arguments, please stop arguing against them. The last time, you argued with me for pages about a certain bible verse, and you didn't even realize what the verse actually said was the complete opposite of what you were arguing. You didn't even bother to READ the verse we were discussing!

Jesus came to divide, and he commands us to divide from those who bring heresy and idolatry into his Church. The Father of Lies is behind beliefs like YOURS - that it's ok to place our salvation in the hands of someone other than Jesus, and if you don't think so you're a "Pharisee". Do you still believe this? Or did you repent and change for the better?

---

Liar. You "proved" nothing and misrepresent or don't understand previous points.

---

Show me where and how I misrepresented or didn't understand previous posts. Tell me where you think I'm wrong, with anything I've said. Why not make your case by making a rational argument against mine, instead of through irrational ad hominem and defense mechanisms?

---

As ever, you "prove" nothing but your own arrogance and hatred of billions of Christians. There is probably no help for you at this point, but just in case and in the spirit of the season, here's something for your edification (or rejection - whatever - past caring):

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/mary-mother-of-salvation

---

The Catholic Church puts too much emphasis on Mary. She was a good Woman and the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, but the focus is on Christ, not His Mother. God chose her to be the Mother of Jesus. God chose Abraham to be the Father of many Nations, including the one that would bring forth our Savior. God chose Paul to bring the gospel to the gentiles. God chose Peter to bring the gospel to the jews. God chose Moses to deliver Israel from egypt and give them the law.

But the only one worthy of worship is Jesus christ. That's all we are saying.

---

NO, I'm saying much more than that, and so should every true Christian. The Roman Catholic Church believes that Mary was:

• sinless;
• perpetually pure (a virgin);
• assumed bodily into heaven;

• as a highly glorified being in heaven acts as intercessor between sinners and God (Mediatrix), by receiving petitions through spiritual communication (prayer) from any number of people all over the world, even being capable of receiving all of them simultaneously (prayer omniscience and ominipresence)

Sound familiar? Like someone you know?

The Roman Catholic Church clearly is doing much, much more than just "putting too much emphasis" on Mary. They CLEARLY have elevated her to the level of Jesus, or so close to it that it's virtually indistinguishable. If one can't recognize the blatant heresy and idolatry here, then it is almost certain they are not a true Christian. True Christians should be horrified by it and calling it out. I really don't understand the kid glove treatment with this.

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

But the only one worthy of worship is Jesus christ. That's all we are saying.

---

100% correct. But it is also important to understand that this doesn't mean we should not honor people.

"Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour." (Romans 13:7)

"Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee." (Exodus 20:12)

"Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." (1st Timothy 5:17)

Honoring our brothers and sisters in the great cloud of witnesses that surround us and asking them to pray for us is not idolatry.

Now callling the Theotokos a co-mediatrix, a co-redeemer, or a co- anything does cross a bright red line into idolatry.

One of the things I have come to understand about many (not all) Roman Catholics is the immense power of their commitment to the office of the papacy. In fact, that was the first question a Roman Catholic friend of mine asked upon finding out I had converted to Eastern Orthodoxy..."is your church under the pope?"

That is also one of the reasons I tink the largest denomination in America is ex-Roman Catholics. When the faith in that institutional leadership is shattered, it becomes an exit ramp from Christianity entirely. I suppose the same holds true for ex-Penetecostals who realize the miracles are being faked.

Part of it too depends on how you came to be a Christian and whether your bond with the faith is emotional or intellectual. For someone who was raised Catholic/Baptist/Etc there is a lifelong emotional bond to that specific instiutiton.

As an adult (well teenage) convert, none of that held true for me. It was an intellectual journey for me beginning with exposure to the Bible, Socratic almost, with Christianity answering "why things are the way they are" and "why I am the way I am."

Which is also why I was willing to walk away from the Russell Moore version of the SBC and go looking for the original church later in life.

...and a Merry Christmas to you as well.

---

"Honoring" people excessively to the point where it involves the completely unbiblical belief that departed people are worthy of and capable of receiving prayer, something that in scripture is ONLY reserved for God/Jesus, is idolatry.

And if that weren't enough reason - the practice has its roots in pagan god worship in Rome. The various pagan Roman gods that held different "jurisdictions" that one could petition (health, wealth, etc), simply were carried over to becoming Mary and the saints when Christianity became the official religion of Rome, in order to coax the Roman pagans into Christianity. Read Calvin's A Treastise on Relics:

"Hero-worship is innate to human nature, and it is founded on some of our noblest feelings, gratitude, love, and admiration, but which, like all other feelings, when uncontrolled by principle and reason, may easily degenerate into the wildest exaggerations, and lead to most dangerous consequences. It was by such an exaggeration of these noble feelings that [Roman] Paganism filled the Olympus with gods and demigods, elevating to this rank men who have often deserved the gratitude of their fellow-creatures, by some signal services rendered to the community, or their admiration, by having performed some deeds which required a more than usual degree of mental and physical powers.

The same cause obtained for the Christian martyrs the gratitude and admiration of their fellow-Christians, and finally converted them into a kind of demigods. This was more particularly the case when the church began to be corrupted by her compromise with Paganism [during the fourth and fifth-centuries], which having been baptized without being converted, rapidly introduced into the Christian church, not only many of its rites and ceremonies, but even its polytheism, with this difference, that the divinities of Greece and Rome were replaced by Christian saints, many of whom received the offices of their Pagan predecessors.

The church in the beginning tolerated these abuses, as a temporary evil, but was afterwards unable to remove them; and they became so strong, particularly during the prevailing ignorance of the middle ages, that the church ended up legalizing, through her decrees, that at which she did nothing but wink at first......

....Thus St. Anthony of Padua restores, like Mercury, stolen property; St. Hubert, like Diana, is the patron of sportsmen; St. Cosmas, like Esculapius, that of physicians, etc. In fact, almost every profession and trade, as well as every place, have their especial patron saint, who, like the tutelary divinity of the Pagans, receives particular hours from his or her proteges."


Think about it - where did you get the belief that you go to this particular saint for one thing, and another saint for another? Who said these particular saints were in charge of these particular areas? Based on what divine revelation? How do you even know for sure that particular saint really is in heaven to begin with?

Can you really say this isn't idolatry, given all this?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

NO, I'm saying much more than that, and so should every true Christian. The Roman Catholic Church believes that Mary was:

• sinless;
• perpetually pure (a virgin);
• assumed bodily into heaven;

• as a highly glorified being in heaven acts as intercessor between sinners and God (Mediatrix), by receiving petitions through spiritual communication (prayer) from any number of people all over the world, even being capable of receiving all of them simultaneously (prayer omniscience and ominipresence)

Sound familiar? Like someone you know?

The Roman Catholic Church clearly is doing much, much more than just "putting too much emphasis" on Mary. They CLEARLY have elevated her to the level of Jesus, or so close to it that it's virtually indistinguishable. If one can't recognize the blatant heresy and idolatry here, then it is almost certain they are not a true Christian. True Christians should be horrified by it and calling it out. I really don't understand the kid glove treatment with this.

---

Please quote an official magisterial document that claims that Mary is "elevated to the level of Jesus."

You can't. You are stating your biased opinion here.

Mary is sinless. My post was truncated by me accidentally early so I'll post the remainder of it here ...

Jesus is the new Adam. Mary is the new EVE. (Adam and Eve were born without original sin.) As the first woman came from man, Jesus came from Mary. God, in his wonderfully designed plan, has reversed what happened at the fall! Mary would HAVE to be sinless or she would be less than Eve. That's not possible. In typology, the new is always superior to the old.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

But the only one worthy of worship is Jesus christ. That's all we are saying.

---

100% correct. But it is also important to understand that this doesn't mean we should not honor people.

"Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour." (Romans 13:7)

"Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee." (Exodus 20:12)

"Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." (1st Timothy 5:17)

Honoring our brothers and sisters in the great cloud of witnesses that surround us and asking them to pray for us is not idolatry.

Now callling the Theotokos a co-mediatrix, a co-redeemer, or a co- anything does cross a bright red line into idolatry.

One of the things I have come to understand about many (not all) Roman Catholics is the immense power of their commitment to the office of the papacy. In fact, that was the first question a Roman Catholic friend of mine asked upon finding out I had converted to Eastern Orthodoxy..."is your church under the pope?"

That is also one of the reasons I tink the largest denomination in America is ex-Roman Catholics. When the faith in that institutional leadership is shattered, it becomes an exit ramp from Christianity entirely. I suppose the same holds true for ex-Penetecostals who realize the miracles are being faked.

Part of it too depends on how you came to be a Christian and whether your bond with the faith is emotional or intellectual. For someone who was raised Catholic/Baptist/Etc there is a lifelong emotional bond to that specific instiutiton.

As an adult (well teenage) convert, none of that held true for me. It was an intellectual journey for me beginning with exposure to the Bible, Socratic almost, with Christianity answering "why things are the way they are" and "why I am the way I am."

Which is also why I was willing to walk away from the Russell Moore version of the SBC and go looking for the original church later in life.

...and a Merry Christmas to you as well.

---

"Honoring" people excessively to the point where it involves the completely unbiblical belief that departed people are worthy of and capable of receiving prayer, something that in scripture is ONLY reserved for God/Jesus, is idolatry.

And if that weren't enough reason - the practice has its roots in pagan god worship in Rome. The various pagan Roman gods that held different "jurisdictions" that one could petition (health, wealth, etc), simply were carried over to becoming Mary and the saints when Christianity became the official religion of Rome, in order to coax the Roman pagans into Christianity. Read Calvin's A Treastise on Relics:

"Hero-worship is innate to human nature, and it is founded on some of our noblest feelings, gratitude, love, and admiration, but which, like all other feelings, when uncontrolled by principle and reason, may easily degenerate into the wildest exaggerations, and lead to most dangerous consequences. It was by such an exaggeration of these noble feelings that [Roman] Paganism filled the Olympus with gods and demigods, elevating to this rank men who have often deserved the gratitude of their fellow-creatures, by some signal services rendered to the community, or their admiration, by having performed some deeds which required a more than usual degree of mental and physical powers.

The same cause obtained for the Christian martyrs the gratitude and admiration of their fellow-Christians, and finally converted them into a kind of demigods. This was more particularly the case when the church began to be corrupted by her compromise with Paganism [during the fourth and fifth-centuries], which having been baptized without being converted, rapidly introduced into the Christian church, not only many of its rites and ceremonies, but even its polytheism, with this difference, that the divinities of Greece and Rome were replaced by Christian saints, many of whom received the offices of their Pagan predecessors.

The church in the beginning tolerated these abuses, as a temporary evil, but was afterwards unable to remove them; and they became so strong, particularly during the prevailing ignorance of the middle ages, that the church ended up legalizing, through her decrees, that at which she did nothing but wink at first......

....Thus St. Anthony of Padua restores, like Mercury, stolen property; St. Hubert, like Diana, is the patron of sportsmen; St. Cosmas, like Esculapius, that of physicians, etc. In fact, almost every profession and trade, as well as every place, have their especial patron saint, who, like the tutelary divinity of the Pagans, receives particular hours from his or her proteges."


Think about it - where did you get the belief that you go to this particular saint for one thing, and another saint for another? Who said these particular saints were in charge of these particular areas? Based on what divine revelation? How do you even know for sure that particular saint really is in heaven to begin with?

Can you really say this isn't idolatry, given all this?

---

So were supposed to belief the biased opinions of Calvin which have no merit or basis?

Will you also accept the fact that John Calvin argued that Mary was a perpetual virgin and the Mother of God?

Calvin's opinions are worthless here. He is a heretic that broke away from the Church. Please use official Catholic teachings, not prayers, but teachings from the Magisterium to present what Catholics truly believe.

I'd quote from your sources; however, you refuse to state what church your ascribe to.

The Church can know that saints are in heaven when two miracles are attributed to their intercession.

Pope Saint John Paul II miracles for his sainthood.
Saint Teresa of Calcutta (Mother Teresa) miracles for sainthood.

I've mentioned this before; however, you refuse to acknowledge or incapable of understanding that a "a saint becomes a patron of an area or group based on connections, similarities, and experiences they had during their life. For instance, Saint Patrick is the patron of Ireland because he evangelized the Irish people, showing a special care for them."

St. Joseph is the patron saints of fathers and husbands as he was the best father to ever walk the earth.

St Francis is the patron saint of animals because of the respect he gave to all God's creatures.

The fact that you keep bringing these false claims up is very embarrassing for you. Try not to echo the failings of Jack Chick or other local-yokel, protestant ministers.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Roman Catholic Church believes that Mary was:

sinless;

perpetually pure (a virgin);

assumed bodily into heaven;

• as a highly glorified being in heaven acts as intercessor between sinners and God (Mediatrix),

  ---

.

If you are part of the church of the first millenium, you know the family history.

The idea of the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos dates back to multiple unrelated second century sources that relate that unlike our modern nativity scenes, Joseph was an old man when he married Mary and that Jesus' brothers were Joseph's children from a prior marriage. This also helps one understand why Joseph exits the story early in the gospel narrative while Mary is mentioned throughout Jesus' adult life. Living her life out as a widow, this does not seem out of the ordinary at all, does it.

While these sources are not scripture, they are part of a historical record that leads to a better understanding of the context of Bible stories than simply picking up one 2000 years after these things happened and trying to reverse engineer the faith.

I find your unwillingness to do that interesting in light of your willingness to use textual criticism to reengineer the Bible itself.

The dormition (falling asleep in Christ) of the Theotokos (Mary) is a great feast of the church that is celebrated in August.

Mary was the child of Joachim and Anna, and was conceived and born just as anyone else is. The virgin birth of Christ was a unique event in history.

Quote:

---

Think about it - where did you get the belief that you go to this particular saint for one thing, and another saint for another

---

You have two relatives who are Christians, a brother and a sister. Your brother is a Navy Seal, your sister suffered a miscarriage. If your wife miscarries, is she going to ask your brother or your sister to pray for her?

It's unfortunate that the old hymals with the song "Family of God" got tossed by protestant churches trying to be culturally relevant and seeker sensitive. If they were still using them, this might not be so hard to understand.

As for your stubborn, extrabiblical insistence that the saints of previous generations are dead and cannot be spoken to

"And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him." (Matthew 17:2)

"And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" (John 11:26)

Any other questions?

It's Christmas Eve! Jesus Christ cake to save sinners. He is our Hope! Did you know that Jesus fulfilled over 100 prophecies in His first coming? Many more to come in His second coming.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

NO, I'm saying much more than that, and so should every true Christian. The Roman Catholic Church believes that Mary was:

• sinless;
• perpetually pure (a virgin);
• assumed bodily into heaven;

• as a highly glorified being in heaven acts as intercessor between sinners and God (Mediatrix), by receiving petitions through spiritual communication (prayer) from any number of people all over the world, even being capable of receiving all of them simultaneously (prayer omniscience and ominipresence)

Sound familiar? Like someone you know?

The Roman Catholic Church clearly is doing much, much more than just "putting too much emphasis" on Mary. They CLEARLY have elevated her to the level of Jesus, or so close to it that it's virtually indistinguishable. If one can't recognize the blatant heresy and idolatry here, then it is almost certain they are not a true Christian. True Christians should be horrified by it and calling it out. I really don't understand the kid glove treatment with this.

---

Please quote an official magisterial document that claims that Mary is "elevated to the level of Jesus."

You can't. You are stating your biased opinion here.

---

MY GOD - are you seriously this spiritually dense, that you can't see it when it's right in front of your face? How are you this blind??

Sinless? Perpetually pure? Assumed bodily into heaven? Mediator between sinners and God? Ominscient and omnipresent in receiving prayers?? HELLO?? Sound familiar AT ALL?? Do you REALLY need an official document to know what's being screamed here?

"This was more particularly the case when the church began to be corrupted by her compromise with Paganism [during the fourth and fifth-centuries], which having been baptized without being converted, rapidly introduced into the Christian church, not only many of its rites and ceremonies, but even its polytheism, with this difference, that the divinities of Greece and Rome were replaced by Christian saints, many of whom received the offices of their Pagan predecessors."

- John Calvin

"I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

- Jesus Christ

I'm going with Jesus' promise, not Calvin's fiction.

Quote:

---

Jesus is the new Adam. Mary is the new EVE. (Adam and Eve were born without original sin.) As the first woman came from man, Jesus came from Mary. God, in his wonderfully designed plan, has reversed what happened at the fall! Mary would HAVE to be sinless or she would be less than Eve. That's not possible. In typology, the new is always superior to the old.

---

Mary absolutely HAD to have been conceived in sin. If she was sinless, then she would NOT have been in the line of sinful seed coming from Adam and Eve, and she would NOT have carried that sinful line of seed to be able to produce Jesus who God promised would ultimately come from Eve's sinful line of seed to "crush the head of the serpent". If Mary was sinless, then there couldn't have been a reversal of the Fall through her at all. Your typology fails.

Realitybites said:

---

"This was more particularly the case when the church began to be corrupted by her compromise with Paganism [during the fourth and fifth-centuries], which having been baptized without being converted, rapidly introduced into the Christian church, not only many of its rites and ceremonies, but even its polytheism, with this difference, that the divinities of Greece and Rome were replaced by Christian saints, many of whom received the offices of their Pagan predecessors."

- John Calvin

"I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

- Jesus Christ

I'm going with Jesus' promise, not Calvin's fiction.

---

For heaven's sake, we've been through this - church errors, even egregious ones, happened and will happen to Jesus' church, and it results in the need for reform. Just like in the churches of Revelation. Errors does not equal "hell prevailing against it".

You remain stuck on the completely unnecessary non sequitur that error = defeat. At this point, it's just wilfful ignorance.

Let me ask you: you agree that Roman Catholicism's dogmatized beliefs about Mary are idolatrous. Does this mean that Hell prevailed?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Let me ask you: you agree that Roman Catholicism's dogmatized beliefs about Mary are idolatrous. Does this mean that Hell prevailed?

---

I've stated as much. many of what we consider Roman Catholic distinctives in the west were dogmatized post 1054 A.D. when that church was formed, many within the last few hundred years. The Latin Church, which was in communion with the other Patriarchates of Christ's church fell away and went into schism. These things happen, as seen in the letters to the churches in Revelation.

The irony is that confessional Lutheranism has the best preserved link to Christ's church in the west (outside of Orthodox parishes) as it took a polaroid of the pre-tridentine Roman Catholic service as the basis of it's own Divine Service. Since then the Roman Catholic church has instituted two revised services: the Tridentine Mass, and the Vatican II mass. If there is no Orthodox parish near you, I'd really recommend attending a confessional Lutheran service. The echos of the first millenium can still be found there.

Of course hell did not prevail, as the Canonical Orthodox church soldiers on.

Interesting also is the raw mathematical impossibility that just 8 of the 300+ prophecies could have occurred by accident. Combine that with the fact that some of these prophecies were hundreds of years apart and others Thousands of years apart.

Too many refuse to admit that our reasoning is limited, and we keep trying ways to repeat the Tower of Babble incident. Even Lucifer had to learn the hard way, and, like many of us, still refuse to admit what is obvious (especially mathematically).

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Let me ask you: you agree that Roman Catholicism's dogmatized beliefs about Mary are idolatrous. Does this mean that Hell prevailed?

---

I've stated as much. many of what we consider Roman Catholic distinctives in the west were dogmatized post 1054 A.D. when that church was formed, many within the last few hundred years. The Latin Church, which was in communion with the other Patriarchates of Christ's church fell away and went into schism. These things happen, as seen in the letters to the churches in Revelation.

The irony is that confessional Lutheranism has the best preserved link to Christ's church in the west (outside of Orthodox parishes) as it took a polaroid of the pre-tridentine Roman Catholic service as the basis of it's own Divine Service. Since then the Roman Catholic church has instituted two revised services: the Tridentine Mass, and the Vatican II mass. If there is no Orthodox parish near you, I'd really recommend attending a confessional Lutheran service. The echos of the first millenium can still be found there.

Of course hell did not prevail, as the Canonical Orthodox church soldiers on.

---

Then in the same way that Hell did not prevail over Jesus' church through Rome's errors, neither did it prevail through those of Orthodox Christianity. Prayer to/veneration of saints and icon veneration are absent in Scripture as well as in the early church. In fact, icon veneration was unanimously rejected by the early church fathers. And then RC/Orthodoxy actually made these early beliefs by the early church anathema. Quite a massive wrench thrown in your argument for being the original church.

BUDOS said:

---

Interesting also is the raw mathematical impossibility that just 8 of the 300+ prophecies could have occurred by accident. Combine that with the fact that some of these prophecies were hundreds of years apart and others Thousands of years apart.

Too many refuse to admit that our reasoning is limited, and we keep trying ways to repeat the Tower of Babble incident. Even Lucifer had to learn the hard way, and, like many of us, still refuse to admit what is obvious (especially mathematically).

---

"....like many of us, still refuse to admit what is obvious..."

There is indeed a lot of that going on in this forum.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Then in the same way that Hell did not prevail over Jesus' church through Rome's errors, neither did it prevail through those of Orthodox Christianity. Prayer to/veneration of saints and icon veneration are absent in Scripture as well as in the early church. In fact, icon veneration was unanimously rejected by the early church fathers. And then RC/Orthodoxy actually made these early beliefs by the early church anathema. Quite a massive wrench thrown in your argument for being the original church.

---

The church predates the completed canon of scripture by hundreds of years. This is simple historical fact. Your equivalency of what passes as modern "biblical christitanity" as the faith once delivered to the saints in the first century is therefore false.

It has been explained many times that people do not pray *to* saints. They ask saints to *pray* to God for us. That is we ask family members and friends to petition God on our behalf, just as we do. Your - what at this point must be a deliberate misunderstanding of what is being done - constitutes your personal scientific analysis of what prayer is or is not.

A major hole in your errant history is that you believe the church disappeared from earth for a minimum of 500 years to a maximum of 1300 years (depending on how you do the math) until the protestant reformation...and perhaps later than that, because I'm pretty sure that you reject Lutheranism (infant baptism). If this was the case, how did the church grow and spread if all church bodies were heretical for that length of time in a world without TV, radio, phones, or the printing press? Jimbob didn't decide to home church with a bunch of his buddies and eventually rent a place in a strip mall. Jimbob and his buddies probably couldn't even read.



If I had to make a guess, I'd guess that you're some form of TULIP reformed, perhaps Presbyterian, Christian Reformed, perhaps Reformed Church of America, perhaps Reformed Baptist though your affinity for textual criticism probably puts you in the more liberal side of the Reformed camp. It's a simple enough task to look at that timeline and do a "you are here".

As my church uses a pre-Chalcedonian liturgy, it's safe to say that it's preserved a great deal...much more than anyone on the right side of that chart can claim.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Then in the same way that Hell did not prevail over Jesus' church through Rome's errors, neither did it prevail through those of Orthodox Christianity. Prayer to/veneration of saints and icon veneration are absent in Scripture as well as in the early church. In fact, icon veneration was unanimously rejected by the early church fathers. And then RC/Orthodoxy actually made these early beliefs by the early church anathema. Quite a massive wrench thrown in your argument for being the original church.

---

The church predates the completed canon of scripture by hundreds of years. This is simple historical fact. Your equivalency of what passes as modern "biblical christitanity" as the faith once delivered to the saints in the first century is therefore false.

It has been explained many times that people do not pray *to* saints. They ask saints to *pray* to God for us. That is we ask family members and friends to petition God on our behalf, just as we do. Your - what at this point must be a deliberate misunderstanding of what is being done - constitutes your personal scientific analysis of what prayer is or is not.

A major hole in your errant history is that you believe the church disappeared from earth for a minimum of 500 years to a maximum of 1300 years (depending on how you do the math) until the protestant reformation...and perhaps later than that, because I'm pretty sure that you reject Lutheranism (infant baptism). If this was the case, how did the church grow and spread if all church bodies were heretical for that length of time in a world without TV, radio, phones, or the printing press? Jimbob didn't decide to home church with a bunch of his buddies and eventually rent a place in a strip mall. Jimbob and his buddies probably couldn't even read.



If I had to make a guess, I'd guess that you're some form of TULIP reformed, perhaps Presbyterian, Christian Reformed, perhaps Reformed Church of America, perhaps Reformed Baptist though your affinity for textual criticism probably puts you in the more liberal side of the Reformed camp. It's a simple enough task to look at that timeline and do a "you are here".

As my church uses a pre-Chalcedonian liturgy, it's safe to say that it's preserved a great deal...much more than anyone on the right side of that chart can claim.

---

Your first paragraph SAYS IT ALL. You just denied the Gospels being original apostolic tradition. INCREDIBLE. You are now outside of Christianity.

That pretty much explains everything else from you.

"They ask saints to *pray* to God for us" - yes, they ask.....through PRAYER. Why, why, do you guys insist on playing these ridiculous semantic games??

Repeatedly, I've argued the church did NOT "disappear" from earth. You just keep on truckin' with your blatant straw mans. I have no choice but to conclude you just aren't an intellectually honest person. Given what you said in your first paragraph, it's no surprise.

Heresy didn't develop in its full form overnight, it happened by accretion through time. And sadly, yes, the heresy was spread widely, right along with the essence of the gospel. What you are having big trouble believing is that amidst all the hersy, the true seed of the Gospel can still spread and those true believers in every generation that hear the gospel, and believe, will be saved - "My sheep hear my voice". Jesus doesn't save churches. He saves individual believers.

You guys and your "what church do you belong" irrelevance. Contend with what I'm saying in light of Scripture, facts, logic, and reason.

I'm still not hearing any argument against praying to saints and icon veneration being virtually absent in the first 300 or so years of the church.

Merry Christmas, everyone!

"6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever."

Isaiah 9:6-7

With each passing year, we grow closer to his return...this time, not as an infant but in power and glory as the King of the Universe.

"Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen." Revelation (1:7).

Let us not be found lacking.

I don't disagree; however, the prophecies are a bit more evidential in nature. Too many times too many people get all caught up in non salvation issues, which are open to discussion and interpretation, but result too often in a fertile environment for Lucifer and his earthly minions.

Folks, I can not emphasize the significance of what I just said any more strongly -

Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity anathematizes to HELL those who reject icon veneration - and its rejection was the UNIVERSAL, RESOUNDING WITNESS of the early church and scripture !!

RC and Orthodoxy simply can NOT claim to be the original church. To understand deep into church history is to cease being Roman Catholic/Orthodox.

BUDOS said:

---

I don't disagree; however, the prophecies are a bit more evidential in nature. Too many times too many people get all caught up in non salvation issues, which are open to discussion and interpretation, but result too often in a fertile environment for Lucifer and his earthly minions.

---

Non-salvation issues?? Earlier, you were presented with a commenter's view that its ok for Christians to place their salvation in the hands of someone other than Jesus. Elevating Mary and the saints to the excessive level that they have been in Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy runs the risk of people ultimately placing their trust in Mary and the saints, not Jesus. This clearly is disqualifying with regard to salvation. You couldn't be more wrong. If you're looking for "fertile grounds" for the Devil and his minions, look no further than this.

BUDOS said:

---

I don't disagree; however, the prophecies are a bit more evidential in nature. Too many times too many people get all caught up in non salvation issues, which are open to discussion and interpretation, but result too often in a fertile environment for Lucifer and his earthly minions.

---

Sadly BUDOS, when someone wants a fight that person will ignore anything but that fight.

You'd think believers would put aside these bickerings on Christmas Eve in respect of our Lord.

I had hoped so, anyway.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Roman Catholic Church believes that Mary was:

sinless;

perpetually pure (a virgin);

assumed bodily into heaven;

• as a highly glorified being in heaven acts as intercessor between sinners and God (Mediatrix),

---

.

If you are part of the church of the first millenium, you know the family history.

The idea of the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos dates back to multiple unrelated second century sources that relate that unlike our modern nativity scenes, Joseph was an old man when he married Mary and that Jesus' brothers were Joseph's children from a prior marriage. This also helps one understand why Joseph exits the story early in the gospel narrative while Mary is mentioned throughout Jesus' adult life. Living her life out as a widow, this does not seem out of the ordinary at all, does it.

While these sources are not scripture, they are part of a historical record that leads to a better understanding of the context of Bible stories than simply picking up one 2000 years after these things happened and trying to reverse engineer the faith.

I find your unwillingness to do that interesting in light of your willingness to use textual criticism to reengineer the Bible itself.

---

There is absolutely ZERO documented historical evidence that Joseph was an old man who had children from another marriage. ZERO. The "second century sources" that you're referring to are GNOSTIC writings, clearly rejected by the early church as a reliable source of history regarding Joseph and Mary.

Joseph exiting the story early in the gospel narrative could be for any number of reasons. Early death, stayed home to work, etc...who knows? Using his absence in the later part of the gospels as proof that he had children from another marriage is as about as laughable of an argument that I've heard. Equally laughable is citing those GNOSTIC texts as the "historical record" that give us a "better understanding". Look, I hate to be rude, but you just aren't good at this. Like, frustratingly so. Relying on scripture and real historical evidence about the life of Joseph and Mary is "reverse engineering the faith 2000 years later"?? You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Matthew 1:25 states that Joseph "did not have sexual relations with her [Mary] UNTIL her son was born." This clearly indicates that they had sexual relations afterwards. It makes no sense whatsoever to say "until" if they never did.