Can you write a coherent sentence, please? Or have a coherent thought?curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Okay, so do you see what I'm talking about? I tried to respectfully focus on one point but you didn't address it at all. Now, that's your prerogative, but that's what usually happens on this thread with many of you - I don't get an answer, then I call it out, then the person either dodges it again, or gives some ridiculous non-answer or an answer with terrible reasoning or bad facts, then I call THAT out, and then voila - I'm called a "Pharisee" or "authoritarian" because I'm insisting on actually staying on point and demanding intellectual honesty. And then I'm accused of having a "toxic tone" because I sort of lose respect for the person since they're playing games, which is not giving me any respect. This happens over and over, like clockwork. In this thread, and in others. And then when this pattern continues, the really nasty ones come out of the woodwork and start calling me the "Father of Lies" and say that I'm serving Satan.BUDOS said:You are saved by faith. Will you get to heaven without any works as evidence of your faith?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:WHERE in the world in my comment is there anything "toxic"? Isn't the comment you just wrote to me "toxic"??BUDOS said:I was not asking you, which is why I purposely addressed the person by name. It's becoming increasingly obvious how your toxic attitude and your efforts to dominate it and those who attempt to contribute. Your authoritarianism is not exactly the best method to persuade others of your interpretation of the scriptures.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Salvation is by faith alone. Those who truly believe in Jesus already have their name in the Book of Life. The view that having one's name in the Book of life is also contingent upon one's works is not the gospel. Jesus was clear when he said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life."BUDOS said:I believe that, just as you stated; however, would you please give me a bit more explanation. I think some of us are not quite connecting on what is grace and salvation and how that is separate from works and how that does or does not fit in with Revelation and the Book of Life. Not being as learned in the Word as some of you, I wondering if some of us are interpreting some posts differently than what the individual intends to mean.xfrodobagginsx said:
Anyone who adds works to grace is adding their own righteousness to God's plan of Salvation. God will not accept that.
I really doubt my tone matters. You have your views and you're pretty set on them, even if I were to show they are against what Scripture teaches.
Here is the synopsis of our interaction, as I remember it - you said something I viewed as unbiblical. I asked you about it - no bad tone whatsoever. You gave an answer, but it didn't address the issue. So I called it out and re-asked, again, with no bad tone. Then you said something like "okay, but you won't accept it, because you're a Pharisee" ---> THIS is where the discussion derailed and my "tone" changed with you. This is what everyone seems to do in this thread - especially OldBear. I ask a question, you guys avoid it, and when I hold you to task, I get called a "Pharisee" and "authoritarian" for doing so - just because I don't let people dance around the issue. I'm so sick of this game. I just want an honest discussion without all the evasion and ad hominem tactics.
So let me try again to re-focus the discussion: given what you've said previously and what you've said in your long post above, there are some issues. Let me just focus on one for right now in order to keep things simple and uncluttered, and so that points won't get forgotten or lost, and also to minimize the chance that you'll perceive my "Pharisaical tone" and risk derailing things again:
1. The Book of Life - you are saying this will be opened to judge our works, in order to determine our eternal fate. But where are you getting this? The Bible only talks about the Book of Life having names of people who are already saved to eternal life. It's not a book used to judge us. If your name is in there, you're saved. No one whose name is in there can be judged and lose their salvation or go to Hell.
Let's start there.
So with that said, let me try again: where did you get that the "Book of Life" contained all our works, and that we will be judged for our salvation based on what's in that book?
I promise to answer your question if you answer mine. Let's have a respectful discussion.
The fact that this "happens over and over again like clockwork. In this thread, and others" tells us all we need to know about how wrong you are and how resistant you are to truth.
How To Get To Heaven When You Die
747,961 Views |
6594 Replies |
Last: 2 hrs ago by BusyTarpDuster2017
The only one here who can't help himself being an asshat is the one who kneejerks every reaction to every post of mine with playground name calling.curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I've done nothing BUT support my claims from biblical and church history. You are really boring me now.Quote:Christ is coming back ONCE and that's when the Final Judgement will happen. Any other view is taking the "Thousand years" way too literally. ---> It works either way: Jesus comes back, then the millenial kingdom starts, and at the end of the millenial kingdom, the Great White Throne judgement begins. Jesus only came back once there. The sheep and goats are the people coming out of the tribulation before the millenial kingdom starts (premillenial view) where all believers were taken up (notice they went UP - Jesus didn't come down)Quote:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> Of course it applies after he died - it's referencing Jesus' judgement of the NATIONS. Did Jesus judge the nations before he was crucified? This passage is referencing the end of the age before the millenial kingdom. The people being judged are non-believers. The believers are the "brothers of mine" that Jesus refers to. They are not part of the judgement to determine entrance into the kingdom, i.e. salvation ("Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life." - John 5:24)
Everyone is getting judged. Hebrews 9:27 ---> But not all judged to determine eternal life. Believers will be judged for rewards.
"And just as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after that the judgment..." ---> if this is saying judgement to determine salvation, then how do you square this with Jesus' own words, "they (believers) will not come into judgement, but have passed from death to life"? You are continually trying to make Scripture contradict itself to make your views work.
The biggest example of your view contradicting scripture is that if the sheep and goats parable is about salvation for EVERYONE, then it's saying that salvation is purely by works. But this contradicts the entire gospel message of the Bible.What is true faith? How can one be assured? ---> are you going against Scripture and saying that believers CAN'T be assured?Quote:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> Nothing wrong with this - true faith is sufficient for salvation; merely "claiming" one has faith and saying Jesus' name doesn't save. That is completely consistent with what I've been saying.We both have provided "conflicting" verses, find someone in the 1500 years that supports your claim. You have 1500 years to search. You should find something if it's really true.Quote:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
This emphasizes that true discipleship requires actively obeying God's will and living a life that reflects that obedience. ---> Yes, true discipleship requires that. True believers will manifest obedience (in varying degrees). But they are not saved by it, they are saved by their faith. Also, the will of the Father is to believe in Jesus. "The work of God is this: to believe in him (Jesus)" - John 6:29. If following the will of God meant to obey everything he commanded, then NO ONE would be doing His will - "Be perfect". No one would enter the Kingdom of Heaven. That's why Jesus is talking about believing in him, because that's how one becomes "perfect" - by being credited Jesus' righteousness. Interesting. If you believe him in John 6:29, do you believe him in John 6:53?
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you"
Do you believe anything in John 6? ---> I believe everything in John 6... so how did the thief on the cross eat a piece of Jesus' flesh and drink his blood? When did the sinful woman of Luke 7 eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood? When did the house of Cornelius eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood? Obviously, eating his flesh and drinking his blood means believing in him. If you don't think so, then YOU don't believe John 6 -
"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."
".... Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever BELIEVES has eternal life."Where does it say that "they were righteous by their own actions and deserved to be saved" in the Bible? You are reading your theology into the text again. ---> they're literally touting their own merits.Quote:
+ 1 more quotes (click to expand)Responses in bold.Quote:
+ 1 more quotes (click to expand)
"You are really boring me now". There's our resident asshat. Can't help yourself can you?
Didn't I ask you first?BUDOS said:
Respectfully answer mine and I'll respond in like manner.
Still a book with names of people who are saved, not a book with our works.Sam Lowry said:See Revelation 3:3-5.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:1. The Book of Life - you are saying this will be opened to judge our works, in order to determine our eternal fate. But where are you getting this? The Bible only talks about the Book of Life having names of people who are already saved to eternal life. It's not a book used to judge us. If your name is in there, you're saved. No one whose name is in there can be judged and lose their salvation or go to Hell.BUDOS said:I was not asking you, which is why I purposely addressed the person by name. It's becoming increasingly obvious how your toxic attitude and your efforts to dominate it and those who attempt to contribute. Your authoritarianism is not exactly the best method to persuade others of your interpretation of the scriptures.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Salvation is by faith alone. Those who truly believe in Jesus already have their name in the Book of Life. The view that having one's name in the Book of life is also contingent upon one's works is not the gospel. Jesus was clear when he said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life."BUDOS said:I believe that, just as you stated; however, would you please give me a bit more explanation. I think some of us are not quite connecting on what is grace and salvation and how that is separate from works and how that does or does not fit in with Revelation and the Book of Life. Not being as learned in the Word as some of you, I wondering if some of us are interpreting some posts differently than what the individual intends to mean.xfrodobagginsx said:
Anyone who adds works to grace is adding their own righteousness to God's plan of Salvation. God will not accept that.
Let's start there.
But here's a question - if the book of life contains those that have eternal life, and one's name can be blotted out from it and thus lose eternal life, then wouldn't that be a case of Jesus losing someone that had been given to him, which is said would NEVER happen in John 6:37-40?:
"All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 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."
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
1. The Book of Life - you are saying this will be opened to judge our works, in order to determine our eternal fate. But where are you getting this? The Bible only talks about the Book of Life having names of people who are already saved to eternal life. It's not a book used to judge us. If your name is in there, you're saved. No one whose name is in there can be judged and lose their salvation or go to Hell.
Let's start there.
This has already been discussed extensively.
"But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life." (Revelation 21:27)
"And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." (Revelation 20:15)
If your name is in it, you are in. If your name is not in it, you are damned.
"Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments, and they will walk with me in white, for they are worthy. The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels." (Revelation 3:3-5)
It is also possible for your name to be in it, and that name to be subsequently blotted out.
So much for OSAS. Honestly, I don't understand your pathologic devotion to that idea. Why is it so important for you to try and tell people who refuse to pick up their cross, become His disciples, and work out their salvation in fear and trembling that they are saved?
As we have seen, that is not what the Bible teaches. That is not what the early church taught.
https://safeguardyoursoul.com/what-early-church-fathers-said-about-eternal-security/
Answer my question first. Brief question. Brief answer.
Revelation 3:3-5 does NOT say that Jesus blots out names from the Book of Life. He is giving complete assurance that for those who "conquer", he NEVER will. What does it mean to "conquer"? John gives us the answer in 1 John 5:4-5:Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
1. The Book of Life - you are saying this will be opened to judge our works, in order to determine our eternal fate. But where are you getting this? The Bible only talks about the Book of Life having names of people who are already saved to eternal life. It's not a book used to judge us. If your name is in there, you're saved. No one whose name is in there can be judged and lose their salvation or go to Hell.
Let's start there.
This has already been discussed extensively.
"But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life." (Revelation 21:27)
"And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." (Revelation 20:15)
If your name is in it, you are in. If your name is not in it, you are damned.
"Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments, and they will walk with me in white, for they are worthy. The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels." (Revelation 3:3-5)
It is also possible for your name to be in it, and that name to be subsequently blotted out.
So much for OSAS. Honestly, I don't understand your pathologic devotion to that idea. Why is it so important for you to try and tell people who refuse to pick up their cross, become His disciples, and work out their salvation in fear and trembling that they are saved?
As we have seen, that is not what the Bible teaches. That is not what the early church taught.
https://safeguardyoursoul.com/what-early-church-fathers-said-about-eternal-security/
"For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the worldour faith. Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?"
The Greek word for "conquer" and "overcome" there is the same root word.
We "conquer" by our faith in Jesus.
Why don't you answer my question I posed? If a person can have his name blotted out of the book of life, and thus lose their salvation, then wouldn't that mean Jesus lost something that the Father gave him, which he said would NEVER happen in John 6:39-40?: "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 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."
....and also how do you square your belief against what Paul said in Romans 8:29-30?: "For those God foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers. And those He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified."
Games. Not a respectful conversation.BUDOS said:
Answer my question first. Brief question. Brief answer.
Don't make it a competition, which implies that there must be a winner and loser. Be the one who chooses to carry someone's cloak or turn the other cheek in the true spirit of a follower of Christ.
I'm not making it a competition. When you play your games, we all lose because nothing gets off the ground.BUDOS said:
Don't make it a competition, which implies that there must be a winner and loser. Be the one who chooses to carry someone's cloak or turn the other cheek in the true spirit of a follower of Christ.
Don't tell people to do something you weren't willing to do yourself. My question is there, and I'll wait until you decide you want to stop playing games and have a real discussion.
I would encourage those who have not read this first post to read it.
I finally read through your initial post. For me, I am pretty much in agreement with about 85%, and I am willing to discuss any of your statements, should you choose to do so.
How does adultery, fornication, greed, lust, theft, murder, etc. lead to death.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> physical death
You are misunderstanding the nature of the argument. John is demonstrating the distinction between venial and mortal sin.
Jesus never said he came to bring peace. He say in Matt 7:13-14BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> I've qualified it over and over. You can know you are saved if you truly believe in Jesus and put your full trust in him for your salvation. If you are still thinking your salvation depends on how "good" you are, then you can't ever know you're saved because you'll never know in this life if you've ever been good enough. I don't understand why you'd ask me whether I believe someone who sins at the very end was ever saved or not - I've told you over and over that what determines one's salvation is their true faith in Jesus and not their sins, no matter when they commit them. That's actually a question for YOU, however. In your system, someone can have faith in Jesus and live a perfect life, but then commit a mortal sin right before they die and then they go to Hell. There's absolutely no peace in that. That is most certainly NOT "good news". It's terrible, anxiety-inducing news.
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
He never said that it would be easy. Your method is akin the prosperity gospel.
EDIT - As I stated earlier, when we commit a mortal sin, we separate ourselves from God. We are saying to God, "I know what your rules are, but I want to do it my way." We, effectively, send ourselves to hell.
The GOOD NEWS is that when one does commit a mortal sin, all they need to do is repent and seek reconciliation with God thru his Church just like Jesus commanded us to. We are back in friendship with God again. God is equal parts justice and mercy. We just have to ask for it.
That's great news!
That's your take. God is keeping His promise. We can reject the gift of salvation. If we can't reject it, then we have no free will.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> the verse is applicable to ALL of God's gifts. Paul isn't putting limits on what he said there.
Actually, it's a great analogy. You are completely missing the point. God DID give us rules. They're called the 10 commandments. That's the whole point of rules is to help us. Why would He create those rules?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> If your "rules" were tied to having the gift, then it wasn't a gift. Otherwise, he would have had no reason to give the car back to you because of your rules. That'd be like saying Jesus giving someone salvation, but has rules he wants them to live by, but those rules have no bearing on the gift. But that person doesn't like the rules, so he gives back salvation even though it wasn't even contingent on following his rules. That doesn't make sense. If he's giving it back, he didn't want it at all and it had nothing to do with the rules. Bad analogy.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. It's fairly clear that the Galatians were believers, but some of them started to turn back to the mosaic laws for salvation. Paul states that they have FALLEN AWAY. Not that they were about to believe in a false gospel.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> It's what Paul means. How could they have "fallen" from their salvation when he says later that they haven't believed in the false gospel yet?? That pretty much defeats your view
It sounds like you believe the "Rapture" that wasn't' first taught until the 19th century. You seem to not understand Jesus is COMING here. 1 Thess 4:16-17BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
--> It works either way: Jesus comes back, then the millenial kingdom starts, and at the end of the millenial kingdom, the Great White Throne judgement begins. Jesus only came back once there. The sheep and goats are the people coming out of the tribulation before the millenial kingdom starts (premillenial view) where all believers were taken up (notice they went UP - Jesus didn't come down)
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.
This is similar to the language in Matthew 8:34 used when those who went out of Jerusalem to meet Jesus when he entered the city.
This was the culture during those times. People when out of the city to greet the dignitary and welcome him into the city. We still do this today when a dignitary visits a country or area. People go out to meet them and welcome them to the country.
The 9th chapter of Hebrews mentions NOTHING of rewards. You again are reading your theology into the texts.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> But not all judged to determine eternal life. Believers will be judged for rewards.
Again, the Greek here for "judgement" is "krisin" which may be better translated "condemnation". The passage is stating that the believers will not be condemned to hell. It is not saying that they won't be judged.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> if this is saying judgement to determine salvation, then how do you square this with Jesus' own words, "they (believers) will not come into judgement, but have passed from death to life"? You are continually trying to make Scripture contradict itself to make your views work.
You still don't (won't want to) get it. This is not saying that we are saved by works. If one commits an unrepented mortal sin, then they will get the judgment they deserve.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The biggest example of your view contradicting scripture is that if the sheep and goats parable is about salvation for EVERYONE, then it's saying that salvation is purely by works. But this contradicts the entire gospel message of the Bible.
Even St Paul wasn't assured when he said in 1 Cor 4:4BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> are you going against Scripture and saying that believers CAN'T be assured?
I personally have nothing on my conscience, but that does not mean that I am innocent. It is the Lord who judges me.
Jesus said it 6 times. I know what more he had to do other than perform Eucharistic miracles, (which he has in every age) for you to take Him literally. It's said that you won't believe him. The Eucharist is one of the greatest gifts that the LORD has given to us. We get to take the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus. You can't even imagine what you are missing. I feel sorry for you.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> I believe everything in John 6... so how did the thief on the cross eat a piece of Jesus' flesh and drink his blood? When did the sinful woman of Luke 7 eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood? When did the house of Cornelius eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood? Obviously, eating his flesh and drinking his blood means believing in him. If you don't think so, then YOU don't believe John 6
The thief had no chance to partake in the Eucharist. God doesn't ask us to do the impossible.
The bible never mentions sinful woman nor the house of Cornelius again. When don't know whether they ate the Eucharist or not.
Believing is not just a mental ascent. It is also doing what he said to do.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"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."
".... Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever BELIEVES has eternal life."
You, again, are reading your biases into the text here.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> they're literally touting their own merits.
You support your claims with YOUR biblical views. They have NO authority other than your own. Once again, I'll stand with Jesus and his Magisterium.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I've done nothing BUT support my claims from biblical and church history. You are really boring me now.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Aren't you demonstrating your double supreme ignorance, and your lies, because you just commented that it's not true that it happens like clockwork, which you can't know unless you have been reading everything in this thread?curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You're making yourself look silly by responding to every word I say, and then denying that you're reading anything I say.curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Then stop being a coward and answer my challenge: point to where I've done anything you've said.curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You're the liar because you accused me of something that you can't back up. That's false witness.curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Never have I asserted my own righteousness. I challenge you and anyone else to point out where I've ever done that. The only thing you and others have is ad hominem because you simply can not argue against my points.curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You blocked me because you couldn't argue against what I was saying, and it threatened your beliefs. It's just a convenient excuse to not have to address my points. People reading this forum aren't fooled by your fake righteous indignation.Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:
"Its never been about winning an argument. Its about hearing "well done good and faithful servant"
Given the tone of some posts, it seems more like the desire is to hear 'wow, you sure put him in his place. You are really smart!'
Seems to me a good and faithful servant to our Lord would seem more like Job and less like Caiaphas.
Maybe youre projecting?
I entered this topic as i do on other forums with an intent to learn, share, sharpen the saw.
You seem desperate to make me a BTD pharisee who i sniffed out in a day and summarily blocked as a result.
Ill leave the pious judgement to him / her and others. I have enough other stuff on my soul but if i am
Osas i have nothing to fear.
People reading this forum aren't fooled by your fake righteousness.
Of course your words do. Res ipsa loquitur. Liar.
You twist and distort constantly and in such great volume here you are incapable of seeing truth. Liar.
We know you can't, so you won't.
But thanks for reading all my posts. And keep posting, you're only lending validity to what I'm saying, because the antichrist spirit likes to attack it.
Still lying to yourself that I read "all" your posts. Only takes a random sample every few months to see that you continue to serve the Father of Lies while attacking and tearing down the Bride of Christ. It is you embody the antichrist here, lying Son of Satan.
You're demonstrating for all here your supreme ignorance. You can't even distinguish between a few posts every few months vs "anything I say". Moron. Liar.
Who's the moron and liar now?
Pretty stupid assertion to think one must read all the crap you post to know you are in league with the Father of Lies. Your slime trail follows you wherever you go, moron.
Pretty stupid assertion that it doesn't happen like clockwork when you had just denied reading all the posts.curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Aren't you demonstrating your double supreme ignorance, and your lies, because you just commented that it's not true that it happens like clockwork, which you can't know unless you have been reading everything in this thread?curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You're making yourself look silly by responding to every word I say, and then denying that you're reading anything I say.curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Then stop being a coward and answer my challenge: point to where I've done anything you've said.curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You're the liar because you accused me of something that you can't back up. That's false witness.curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Never have I asserted my own righteousness. I challenge you and anyone else to point out where I've ever done that. The only thing you and others have is ad hominem because you simply can not argue against my points.curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You blocked me because you couldn't argue against what I was saying, and it threatened your beliefs. It's just a convenient excuse to not have to address my points. People reading this forum aren't fooled by your fake righteous indignation.Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:
"Its never been about winning an argument. Its about hearing "well done good and faithful servant"
Given the tone of some posts, it seems more like the desire is to hear 'wow, you sure put him in his place. You are really smart!'
Seems to me a good and faithful servant to our Lord would seem more like Job and less like Caiaphas.
Maybe youre projecting?
I entered this topic as i do on other forums with an intent to learn, share, sharpen the saw.
You seem desperate to make me a BTD pharisee who i sniffed out in a day and summarily blocked as a result.
Ill leave the pious judgement to him / her and others. I have enough other stuff on my soul but if i am
Osas i have nothing to fear.
People reading this forum aren't fooled by your fake righteousness.
Of course your words do. Res ipsa loquitur. Liar.
You twist and distort constantly and in such great volume here you are incapable of seeing truth. Liar.
We know you can't, so you won't.
But thanks for reading all my posts. And keep posting, you're only lending validity to what I'm saying, because the antichrist spirit likes to attack it.
Still lying to yourself that I read "all" your posts. Only takes a random sample every few months to see that you continue to serve the Father of Lies while attacking and tearing down the Bride of Christ. It is you embody the antichrist here, lying Son of Satan.
You're demonstrating for all here your supreme ignorance. You can't even distinguish between a few posts every few months vs "anything I say". Moron. Liar.
Who's the moron and liar now?
Pretty stupid assertion to think one must read all the crap you post to know you are in league with the Father of Lies. Your slime trail follows you wherever you go, moron.
Sorry, fella, you just outed yourself as the lying' moron.
Coke Bear said:How does adultery, fornication, greed, lust, theft, murder, etc. lead to death.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> physical death
You are misunderstanding the nature of the argument. John is demonstrating the distinction between venial and mortal sin. ---> They can all lead to death. But the point is, all John said is "sin that leads to death". He doesn't say anything else. You are reading into it the whole concept of mortal sin. If John wanted to tell us that there is sin that causes you to lose your salvation, wouldn't he just say that? Wouldn't ANY New Testament writer, including Jesus, just say that? It would seem a very important thing to tell all Christians directly.Jesus never said he came to bring peace. He say in Matt 7:13-14BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> I've qualified it over and over. You can know you are saved if you truly believe in Jesus and put your full trust in him for your salvation. If you are still thinking your salvation depends on how "good" you are, then you can't ever know you're saved because you'll never know in this life if you've ever been good enough. I don't understand why you'd ask me whether I believe someone who sins at the very end was ever saved or not - I've told you over and over that what determines one's salvation is their true faith in Jesus and not their sins, no matter when they commit them. That's actually a question for YOU, however. In your system, someone can have faith in Jesus and live a perfect life, but then commit a mortal sin right before they die and then they go to Hell. There's absolutely no peace in that. That is most certainly NOT "good news". It's terrible, anxiety-inducing news.
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
He never said that it would be easy. Your method is akin the prosperity gospel. ---> "Now may the Lord of peace himself give you peace at all times in every way." - 2 Thessalonians 3:16
EDIT - As I stated earlier, when we commit a mortal sin, we separate ourselves from God. We are saying to God, "I know what your rules are, but I want to do it my way." We, effectively, send ourselves to hell.
The GOOD NEWS is that when one does commit a mortal sin, all they need to do is repent and seek reconciliation with God thru his Church just like Jesus commanded us to. We are back in friendship with God again. God is equal parts justice and mercy. We just have to ask for it. ---> But until you can go through the process of repenting, you are doomed, so if you die before you can get to a priest, you go to Hell. That is absolutely frightening.
God is equal parts justice and mercy - he fulfilled both of that in Jesus' death and resurrection. God's justice is satisfied completely in Jesus' sacrifice for all sin, "once for all time". What you are saying is that Jesus' sacrifice was insufficient, therefore God still has to exact justice upon us. You have diminished Jesus.
That's great news! ---> It's never great news that our salvation is ultimately dependent on our own performance and merits, which have to be perfect.That's your take. God is keeping His promise. We can reject the gift of salvation. If we can't reject it, then we have no free will. ---> Paul didn't say you can't reject it, he said that GOD can't take it back. You lose focus on the argument so easily.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> the verse is applicable to ALL of God's gifts. Paul isn't putting limits on what he said there.Actually, it's a great analogy. You are completely missing the point. God DID give us rules. They're called the 10 commandments. That's the whole point of rules is to help us. Why would He create those rules? ---> It's a very bad analogy. The Bible clearly teaches that the "rules" of the Law were to convict and make us guilty in sin, not to help or save (Galtians 3). It "imprisons" us and makes us look to Jesus for salvation. Your analogy of God taking back salvation if we don't follow the Law perfectly is an analogy for salvation by obedience to the Law. But we have salvation not by the Law, but by faith in Jesus, which is a gift. If God gives us that gift, but then still takes it away if we don't follow the Law, then it was never a gift, and it would only mean that we are still under the Law. It would mean Jesus accomplished nothing.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> If your "rules" were tied to having the gift, then it wasn't a gift. Otherwise, he would have had no reason to give the car back to you because of your rules. That'd be like saying Jesus giving someone salvation, but has rules he wants them to live by, but those rules have no bearing on the gift. But that person doesn't like the rules, so he gives back salvation even though it wasn't even contingent on following his rules. That doesn't make sense. If he's giving it back, he didn't want it at all and it had nothing to do with the rules. Bad analogy.
---> It's what Paul means. How could they have "fallen" from their salvation when he says later that they haven't believed in the false gospel yet?? That pretty much defeats your view
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. It's fairly clear that the Galatians were believers, but some of them started to turn back to the mosaic laws for salvation. Paul states that they have FALLEN AWAY. Not that they were about to believe in a false gospel. ---> Now you're denying what is clearly said in the Bible. You're flailing here to get out of it, when you should be just accepting what Scripture tells you - Paul said they haven't taken the false gospel yet. You can't "fall" from grace if that didn't happen. Basic logic. So obviously, "fallen from grace" has a different meaning than losing one's salvation.
Coke Bear said:It sounds like you believe the "Rapture" that wasn't' first taught until the 19th century. You seem to not understand Jesus is COMING here. 1 Thess 4:16-17BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
--> It works either way: Jesus comes back, then the millenial kingdom starts, and at the end of the millenial kingdom, the Great White Throne judgement begins. Jesus only came back once there. The sheep and goats are the people coming out of the tribulation before the millenial kingdom starts (premillenial view) where all believers were taken up (notice they went UP - Jesus didn't come down)
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.
This is similar to the language in Matthew 8:34 used when those who went out of Jerusalem to meet Jesus when he entered the city.
This was the culture during those times. People when out of the city to greet the dignitary and welcome him into the city. We still do this today when a dignitary visits a country or area. People go out to meet them and welcome them to the country. ---> Jesus didn't return to the earth here. "In the clouds", "in the air".The 9th chapter of Hebrews mentions NOTHING of rewards. You again are reading your theology into the texts. ---> I'm reading the whole of Scripture and harmonizing them. Scripture clearly teaches (even through the direct words of Jesus himself) that believers won't face the judgement to determine their eternal life.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> But not all judged to determine eternal life. Believers will be judged for rewards.Again, the Greek here for "judgement" is "krisin" which may be better translated "condemnation". The passage is stating that the believers will not be condemned to hell. It is not saying that they won't be judged. ---> you're losing focus again. I've said that believers will indeed face judgement, but for rewards, not for their eternal life.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> if this is saying judgement to determine salvation, then how do you square this with Jesus' own words, "they (believers) will not come into judgement, but have passed from death to life"? You are continually trying to make Scripture contradict itself to make your views work.You still don't (won't want to) get it. This is not saying that we are saved by works. If one commits an unrepented mortal sin, then they will get the judgment they deserve. ---> which means they lose their salvation, ultimately meaning that their salvation was contingent upon their performance and merit, i.e. works.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The biggest example of your view contradicting scripture is that if the sheep and goats parable is about salvation for EVERYONE, then it's saying that salvation is purely by works. But this contradicts the entire gospel message of the Bible.Even St Paul wasn't assured when he said in 1 Cor 4:4 ---> So Paul is contradicting John?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> are you going against Scripture and saying that believers CAN'T be assured?
I personally have nothing on my conscience, but that does not mean that I am innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. ---> faith in Jesus for one's salvation keeps you out of the judgement for your eternal life. Jesus is telling you this over and over in the Bible, yet you don't want to accept it, you'd rather wear the burden around your own neck. This means you're not trusting in him, which means you're not saved.Jesus said it 6 times. I know what more he had to do other than perform Eucharistic miracles, (which he has in every age) for you to take Him literally. It's said that you won't believe him. ---> I believe every word he said, and I believe that he said it six times to reinforce the importance of it - that he was going to be sacrificed, and through his sacrifice, we will have eternal life. That's the whole point of his "bread of life" analogy. He wasn't saying he was a literal piece of bread.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> I believe everything in John 6... so how did the thief on the cross eat a piece of Jesus' flesh and drink his blood? When did the sinful woman of Luke 7 eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood? When did the house of Cornelius eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood? Obviously, eating his flesh and drinking his blood means believing in him. If you don't think so, then YOU don't believe John 6
The Eucharist is one of the greatest gifts that the LORD has given to us. We get to take the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus. You can't even imagine what you are missing. ---> We don't get to take his divinity. That's paganism.
I feel sorry for you. ---> that's because you don't understand the true gospel message, and are stuck in a man-made system
The thief had no chance to partake in the Eucharist. God doesn't ask us to do the impossible.---> Jesus literally said you must "eat his flesh" and "drink his blood". It would make him a liar, then.
The bible never mentions sinful woman nor the house of Cornelius again. When don't know whether they ate the Eucharist or not. ---> but Jesus already saved them, before they ever did. This shows that "eating Jesus' flesh" and "drinking his blood" to be saved is not literal.Believing is not just a mental ascent. It is also doing what he said to do. ---> it was, for the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"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."
".... Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever BELIEVES has eternal life."You, again, are reading your biases into the text here. ---> "didn't we do this, didn't we do that" as touting their own merits isn't reading into it, it's reading IT.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> they're literally touting their own merits.You support your claims with YOUR biblical views. They have NO authority other than your own. Once again, I'll stand with Jesus and his Magisterium. ---> that's what it all comes down to with Roman Catholics - authority. I can show you logically, historically, even biblically that something is true, but instead of following Jesus when he said "why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57), you give all your thinking to a group of fallible men. I've proven over and over how fallible they are. I really wish you'd wake up.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I've done nothing BUT support my claims from biblical and church history. You are really boring me now.
Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet
There's no such thing as scriptural teaching without interpretation. Your interpretation is based on your own thinking and that of other men who are just as fallible as anyone else.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:It sounds like you believe the "Rapture" that wasn't' first taught until the 19th century. You seem to not understand Jesus is COMING here. 1 Thess 4:16-17BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
--> It works either way: Jesus comes back, then the millenial kingdom starts, and at the end of the millenial kingdom, the Great White Throne judgement begins. Jesus only came back once there. The sheep and goats are the people coming out of the tribulation before the millenial kingdom starts (premillenial view) where all believers were taken up (notice they went UP - Jesus didn't come down)
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.
This is similar to the language in Matthew 8:34 used when those who went out of Jerusalem to meet Jesus when he entered the city.
This was the culture during those times. People when out of the city to greet the dignitary and welcome him into the city. We still do this today when a dignitary visits a country or area. People go out to meet them and welcome them to the country. ---> Jesus didn't return to the earth here. "In the clouds", "in the air".The 9th chapter of Hebrews mentions NOTHING of rewards. You again are reading your theology into the texts. ---> I'm reading the whole of Scripture and harmonizing them. Scripture clearly teaches (even through the direct words of Jesus himself) that believers won't face the judgement to determine their eternal life.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> But not all judged to determine eternal life. Believers will be judged for rewards.Again, the Greek here for "judgement" is "krisin" which may be better translated "condemnation". The passage is stating that the believers will not be condemned to hell. It is not saying that they won't be judged. ---> you're losing focus again. I've said that believers will indeed face judgement, but for rewards, not for their eternal life.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> if this is saying judgement to determine salvation, then how do you square this with Jesus' own words, "they (believers) will not come into judgement, but have passed from death to life"? You are continually trying to make Scripture contradict itself to make your views work.You still don't (won't want to) get it. This is not saying that we are saved by works. If one commits an unrepented mortal sin, then they will get the judgment they deserve. ---> which means they lose their salvation, ultimately meaning that their salvation was contingent upon their performance and merit, i.e. works.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The biggest example of your view contradicting scripture is that if the sheep and goats parable is about salvation for EVERYONE, then it's saying that salvation is purely by works. But this contradicts the entire gospel message of the Bible.Even St Paul wasn't assured when he said in 1 Cor 4:4 ---> So Paul is contradicting John?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> are you going against Scripture and saying that believers CAN'T be assured?
I personally have nothing on my conscience, but that does not mean that I am innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. ---> faith in Jesus for one's salvation keeps you out of the judgement for your eternal life. Jesus is telling you this over and over in the Bible, yet you don't want to accept it, you'd rather wear the burden around your own neck. This means you're not trusting in him, which means you're not saved.Jesus said it 6 times. I know what more he had to do other than perform Eucharistic miracles, (which he has in every age) for you to take Him literally. It's said that you won't believe him. ---> I believe every word he said, and I believe that he said it six times to reinforce the importance of it - that he was going to be sacrificed, and through his sacrifice, we will have eternal life. That's the whole point of his "bread of life" analogy. He wasn't saying he was a literal piece of bread.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> I believe everything in John 6... so how did the thief on the cross eat a piece of Jesus' flesh and drink his blood? When did the sinful woman of Luke 7 eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood? When did the house of Cornelius eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood? Obviously, eating his flesh and drinking his blood means believing in him. If you don't think so, then YOU don't believe John 6
The Eucharist is one of the greatest gifts that the LORD has given to us. We get to take the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus. You can't even imagine what you are missing. ---> We don't get to take his divinity. That's paganism.
I feel sorry for you. ---> that's because you don't understand the true gospel message, and are stuck in a man-made system
The thief had no chance to partake in the Eucharist. God doesn't ask us to do the impossible.---> Jesus literally said you must "eat his flesh" and "drink his blood". It would make him a liar, then.
The bible never mentions sinful woman nor the house of Cornelius again. When don't know whether they ate the Eucharist or not. ---> but Jesus already saved them, before they ever did. This shows that "eating Jesus' flesh" and "drinking his blood" to be saved is not literal.Believing is not just a mental ascent. It is also doing what he said to do. ---> it was, for the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"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."
".... Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever BELIEVES has eternal life."You, again, are reading your biases into the text here. ---> "didn't we do this, didn't we do that" as touting their own merits isn't reading into it, it's reading IT.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> they're literally touting their own merits.You support your claims with YOUR biblical views. They have NO authority other than your own. Once again, I'll stand with Jesus and his Magisterium. ---> that's what it all comes down to with Roman Catholics - authority. I can show you logically, historically, even biblically that something is true, but instead of following Jesus when he said "why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57), you give all your thinking to a group of fallible men. I've proven over and over how fallible they are. I really wish you'd wake up.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I've done nothing BUT support my claims from biblical and church history. You are really boring me now.
Studying The Bible Is Essential To Christian Growth. Click Here To Walk Through The Bible Verse By Verse From The Beginning, In 25 Minute Lessons:
https://www.lesfeldick.org/
That's obviously true in principle, but the parts in scripture we're talking about isn't an arcane puzzle. We can reason together what is the correct meaning. I believe in the perspicuity of scripture, for those able to read and who are willing to study and research. But if certain people claim infallibility, and then are shown to be wrong historically and with direct proof, there is no "interpretation" needed there to see that. You should not give your trust to them for the interpretation of Scripture when you don't understand it yourself. In the early days of the church, people had to trust their leaders. They had no choice. Today, we are blessed with our education and full access to the Bible (remember how the Roman Catholic Church tried to violently quash that?) and virtually all commentaries and the original language translations. We can read many different interpretations and watch and read many debates, and then come to our own understanding, and then reason with and debate each other. Jesus even said to to do this: "why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?"Sam Lowry said:There's no such thing as scriptural teaching without interpretation. Your interpretation is based on your own thinking and that of other men who are just as fallible as anyone else.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:It sounds like you believe the "Rapture" that wasn't' first taught until the 19th century. You seem to not understand Jesus is COMING here. 1 Thess 4:16-17BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
--> It works either way: Jesus comes back, then the millenial kingdom starts, and at the end of the millenial kingdom, the Great White Throne judgement begins. Jesus only came back once there. The sheep and goats are the people coming out of the tribulation before the millenial kingdom starts (premillenial view) where all believers were taken up (notice they went UP - Jesus didn't come down)
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.
This is similar to the language in Matthew 8:34 used when those who went out of Jerusalem to meet Jesus when he entered the city.
This was the culture during those times. People when out of the city to greet the dignitary and welcome him into the city. We still do this today when a dignitary visits a country or area. People go out to meet them and welcome them to the country. ---> Jesus didn't return to the earth here. "In the clouds", "in the air".The 9th chapter of Hebrews mentions NOTHING of rewards. You again are reading your theology into the texts. ---> I'm reading the whole of Scripture and harmonizing them. Scripture clearly teaches (even through the direct words of Jesus himself) that believers won't face the judgement to determine their eternal life.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> But not all judged to determine eternal life. Believers will be judged for rewards.Again, the Greek here for "judgement" is "krisin" which may be better translated "condemnation". The passage is stating that the believers will not be condemned to hell. It is not saying that they won't be judged. ---> you're losing focus again. I've said that believers will indeed face judgement, but for rewards, not for their eternal life.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> if this is saying judgement to determine salvation, then how do you square this with Jesus' own words, "they (believers) will not come into judgement, but have passed from death to life"? You are continually trying to make Scripture contradict itself to make your views work.You still don't (won't want to) get it. This is not saying that we are saved by works. If one commits an unrepented mortal sin, then they will get the judgment they deserve. ---> which means they lose their salvation, ultimately meaning that their salvation was contingent upon their performance and merit, i.e. works.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The biggest example of your view contradicting scripture is that if the sheep and goats parable is about salvation for EVERYONE, then it's saying that salvation is purely by works. But this contradicts the entire gospel message of the Bible.Even St Paul wasn't assured when he said in 1 Cor 4:4 ---> So Paul is contradicting John?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> are you going against Scripture and saying that believers CAN'T be assured?
I personally have nothing on my conscience, but that does not mean that I am innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. ---> faith in Jesus for one's salvation keeps you out of the judgement for your eternal life. Jesus is telling you this over and over in the Bible, yet you don't want to accept it, you'd rather wear the burden around your own neck. This means you're not trusting in him, which means you're not saved.Jesus said it 6 times. I know what more he had to do other than perform Eucharistic miracles, (which he has in every age) for you to take Him literally. It's said that you won't believe him. ---> I believe every word he said, and I believe that he said it six times to reinforce the importance of it - that he was going to be sacrificed, and through his sacrifice, we will have eternal life. That's the whole point of his "bread of life" analogy. He wasn't saying he was a literal piece of bread.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> I believe everything in John 6... so how did the thief on the cross eat a piece of Jesus' flesh and drink his blood? When did the sinful woman of Luke 7 eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood? When did the house of Cornelius eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood? Obviously, eating his flesh and drinking his blood means believing in him. If you don't think so, then YOU don't believe John 6
The Eucharist is one of the greatest gifts that the LORD has given to us. We get to take the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus. You can't even imagine what you are missing. ---> We don't get to take his divinity. That's paganism.
I feel sorry for you. ---> that's because you don't understand the true gospel message, and are stuck in a man-made system
The thief had no chance to partake in the Eucharist. God doesn't ask us to do the impossible.---> Jesus literally said you must "eat his flesh" and "drink his blood". It would make him a liar, then.
The bible never mentions sinful woman nor the house of Cornelius again. When don't know whether they ate the Eucharist or not. ---> but Jesus already saved them, before they ever did. This shows that "eating Jesus' flesh" and "drinking his blood" to be saved is not literal.Believing is not just a mental ascent. It is also doing what he said to do. ---> it was, for the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"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."
".... Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever BELIEVES has eternal life."You, again, are reading your biases into the text here. ---> "didn't we do this, didn't we do that" as touting their own merits isn't reading into it, it's reading IT.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> they're literally touting their own merits.You support your claims with YOUR biblical views. They have NO authority other than your own. Once again, I'll stand with Jesus and his Magisterium. ---> that's what it all comes down to with Roman Catholics - authority. I can show you logically, historically, even biblically that something is true, but instead of following Jesus when he said "why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57), you give all your thinking to a group of fallible men. I've proven over and over how fallible they are. I really wish you'd wake up.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I've done nothing BUT support my claims from biblical and church history. You are really boring me now.
So if you think my understanding of Scripture isn't correct, then explain. I've shown how Scripture, using reason and logic, does not support that the eating of Jesus' flesh is literal and that we can lose our salvation, to give just two examples. To sum them up - Jesus obviously did not mean to eat his flesh literally, because many people in the Bible were saved without having to do that, or before they were even able to. That's simple logic, it's not "interpretation". And if our names can be blot out of the book of life, then it would mean that Jesus would lose something he was given by the Father, which Jesus clearly says will never happen. Again, simple logic regarding a clear statement by Jesus, not an arcane puzzle from him. What do you disagree with here?
I'm not sure much truer words have been spoken, especially recently.
Love the good discussion we are having here. A+
I can't say the discussion is very productive when people use evasion tactics to avoid answering very valid and pertinent questions.xfrodobagginsx said:
Love the good discussion we are having here. A+
My problem with the historical debate is that we Catholics aren't allowed to win it. You present your evidence, we present ours, and any time it looks like we have a valid historical argument you revert to sola scriptura and say we're relying on fallible human authority. Heads you win, tails we lose.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That's obviously true in principle, but the parts in scripture we're talking about isn't an arcane puzzle. We can reason together what is the correct meaning. I believe in the perspicuity of scripture, for those able to read and who are willing to study and research. But if certain people claim infallibility, and then are shown to be wrong historically and with direct proof, there is no "interpretation" needed there to see that. You should not give your trust to them for the interpretation of Scripture when you don't understand it yourself. In the early days of the church, people had to trust their leaders. They had no choice. Today, we are blessed with our education and full access to the Bible (remember how the Roman Catholic Church tried to violently quash that?) and virtually all commentaries and the original language translations. We can read many different interpretations and watch and read many debates, and then come to our own understanding, and then reason with and debate each other. Jesus even said to to do this: "why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?"Sam Lowry said:There's no such thing as scriptural teaching without interpretation. Your interpretation is based on your own thinking and that of other men who are just as fallible as anyone else.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:It sounds like you believe the "Rapture" that wasn't' first taught until the 19th century. You seem to not understand Jesus is COMING here. 1 Thess 4:16-17BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
--> It works either way: Jesus comes back, then the millenial kingdom starts, and at the end of the millenial kingdom, the Great White Throne judgement begins. Jesus only came back once there. The sheep and goats are the people coming out of the tribulation before the millenial kingdom starts (premillenial view) where all believers were taken up (notice they went UP - Jesus didn't come down)
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.
This is similar to the language in Matthew 8:34 used when those who went out of Jerusalem to meet Jesus when he entered the city.
This was the culture during those times. People when out of the city to greet the dignitary and welcome him into the city. We still do this today when a dignitary visits a country or area. People go out to meet them and welcome them to the country. ---> Jesus didn't return to the earth here. "In the clouds", "in the air".The 9th chapter of Hebrews mentions NOTHING of rewards. You again are reading your theology into the texts. ---> I'm reading the whole of Scripture and harmonizing them. Scripture clearly teaches (even through the direct words of Jesus himself) that believers won't face the judgement to determine their eternal life.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> But not all judged to determine eternal life. Believers will be judged for rewards.Again, the Greek here for "judgement" is "krisin" which may be better translated "condemnation". The passage is stating that the believers will not be condemned to hell. It is not saying that they won't be judged. ---> you're losing focus again. I've said that believers will indeed face judgement, but for rewards, not for their eternal life.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> if this is saying judgement to determine salvation, then how do you square this with Jesus' own words, "they (believers) will not come into judgement, but have passed from death to life"? You are continually trying to make Scripture contradict itself to make your views work.You still don't (won't want to) get it. This is not saying that we are saved by works. If one commits an unrepented mortal sin, then they will get the judgment they deserve. ---> which means they lose their salvation, ultimately meaning that their salvation was contingent upon their performance and merit, i.e. works.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The biggest example of your view contradicting scripture is that if the sheep and goats parable is about salvation for EVERYONE, then it's saying that salvation is purely by works. But this contradicts the entire gospel message of the Bible.Even St Paul wasn't assured when he said in 1 Cor 4:4 ---> So Paul is contradicting John?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> are you going against Scripture and saying that believers CAN'T be assured?
I personally have nothing on my conscience, but that does not mean that I am innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. ---> faith in Jesus for one's salvation keeps you out of the judgement for your eternal life. Jesus is telling you this over and over in the Bible, yet you don't want to accept it, you'd rather wear the burden around your own neck. This means you're not trusting in him, which means you're not saved.Jesus said it 6 times. I know what more he had to do other than perform Eucharistic miracles, (which he has in every age) for you to take Him literally. It's said that you won't believe him. ---> I believe every word he said, and I believe that he said it six times to reinforce the importance of it - that he was going to be sacrificed, and through his sacrifice, we will have eternal life. That's the whole point of his "bread of life" analogy. He wasn't saying he was a literal piece of bread.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> I believe everything in John 6... so how did the thief on the cross eat a piece of Jesus' flesh and drink his blood? When did the sinful woman of Luke 7 eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood? When did the house of Cornelius eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood? Obviously, eating his flesh and drinking his blood means believing in him. If you don't think so, then YOU don't believe John 6
The Eucharist is one of the greatest gifts that the LORD has given to us. We get to take the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus. You can't even imagine what you are missing. ---> We don't get to take his divinity. That's paganism.
I feel sorry for you. ---> that's because you don't understand the true gospel message, and are stuck in a man-made system
The thief had no chance to partake in the Eucharist. God doesn't ask us to do the impossible.---> Jesus literally said you must "eat his flesh" and "drink his blood". It would make him a liar, then.
The bible never mentions sinful woman nor the house of Cornelius again. When don't know whether they ate the Eucharist or not. ---> but Jesus already saved them, before they ever did. This shows that "eating Jesus' flesh" and "drinking his blood" to be saved is not literal.Believing is not just a mental ascent. It is also doing what he said to do. ---> it was, for the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"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."
".... Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever BELIEVES has eternal life."You, again, are reading your biases into the text here. ---> "didn't we do this, didn't we do that" as touting their own merits isn't reading into it, it's reading IT.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> they're literally touting their own merits.You support your claims with YOUR biblical views. They have NO authority other than your own. Once again, I'll stand with Jesus and his Magisterium. ---> that's what it all comes down to with Roman Catholics - authority. I can show you logically, historically, even biblically that something is true, but instead of following Jesus when he said "why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57), you give all your thinking to a group of fallible men. I've proven over and over how fallible they are. I really wish you'd wake up.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I've done nothing BUT support my claims from biblical and church history. You are really boring me now.
So if you think my understanding of Scripture isn't correct, then explain. I've shown how Scripture, using reason and logic, does not support that the eating of Jesus' flesh is literal and that we can lose our salvation, to give just two examples. To sum them up - Jesus obviously did not mean to eat his flesh literally, because many people in the Bible were saved without having to do that, or before they were even able to. That's simple logic, it's not "interpretation". And if our names can be blot out of the book of life, then it would mean that Jesus would lose something he was given by the Father, which Jesus clearly says will never happen. Again, simple logic regarding a clear statement by Jesus, not an arcane puzzle from him. What do you disagree with here?
The problem with your logical arguments is that they're based on your own theological assumptions, many of which Catholics don't share. For example, you think the story of the thief on the cross refutes Catholic teaching on the sacraments because any rule that God gives to us must bind him as well. But that's simply your opinion. It's not the product of any demonstrable reasoning. Many of the things you say Catholics "must" believe are not things that Catholics do or logically should believe.
Salvation is not by grace through faith alone.
Salvation is not by works.
Salvation is by grace through faith evidenced by works.
Or if you are allergic to the word works, substitute activity or fruit for it.
Salvation is not by works.
Salvation is by grace through faith evidenced by works.
Or if you are allergic to the word works, substitute activity or fruit for it.
Theodotus of Ancyra
Today, we remember the martyrdom of Saint Theodotus and the saintly virgins Thecusa, his aunt, Alexandra, Claudia, Faina, Euphrasia, Matrona and Julitta,
Courage Cannot Be Broken
https://orthochristian.com/170168.html
You can read their story there.
Saint Theodotus, pray for us.
Today, we remember the martyrdom of Saint Theodotus and the saintly virgins Thecusa, his aunt, Alexandra, Claudia, Faina, Euphrasia, Matrona and Julitta,
Courage Cannot Be Broken
https://orthochristian.com/170168.html
You can read their story there.
Saint Theodotus, pray for us.
You lose the historical argument both ways because of how you're using history. It has nothing to do with what I'm doing. On the one hand, you claim historical unanimity or continuity with regard to a certain belief or doctrine; therefore, any historical evidence contrary to that, and you lose. On the other, you claim infallible teaching originating from historical individuals and sources that have no claim to infallibility, and whose claims appear hundreds of years after the original apostles, being completely absent in or even contradicted by the apostle's infallible teaching (i.e. Scripture). So your historical appeal loses there as well.Sam Lowry said:My problem with the historical debate is that we Catholics aren't allowed to win it. You present your evidence, we present ours, and any time it looks like we have a valid historical argument you revert to sola scriptura and say we're relying on fallible human authority. Heads you win, tails we lose.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That's obviously true in principle, but the parts in scripture we're talking about isn't an arcane puzzle. We can reason together what is the correct meaning. I believe in the perspicuity of scripture, for those able to read and who are willing to study and research. But if certain people claim infallibility, and then are shown to be wrong historically and with direct proof, there is no "interpretation" needed there to see that. You should not give your trust to them for the interpretation of Scripture when you don't understand it yourself. In the early days of the church, people had to trust their leaders. They had no choice. Today, we are blessed with our education and full access to the Bible (remember how the Roman Catholic Church tried to violently quash that?) and virtually all commentaries and the original language translations. We can read many different interpretations and watch and read many debates, and then come to our own understanding, and then reason with and debate each other. Jesus even said to to do this: "why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?"Sam Lowry said:There's no such thing as scriptural teaching without interpretation. Your interpretation is based on your own thinking and that of other men who are just as fallible as anyone else.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:It sounds like you believe the "Rapture" that wasn't' first taught until the 19th century. You seem to not understand Jesus is COMING here. 1 Thess 4:16-17BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
--> It works either way: Jesus comes back, then the millenial kingdom starts, and at the end of the millenial kingdom, the Great White Throne judgement begins. Jesus only came back once there. The sheep and goats are the people coming out of the tribulation before the millenial kingdom starts (premillenial view) where all believers were taken up (notice they went UP - Jesus didn't come down)
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.
This is similar to the language in Matthew 8:34 used when those who went out of Jerusalem to meet Jesus when he entered the city.
This was the culture during those times. People when out of the city to greet the dignitary and welcome him into the city. We still do this today when a dignitary visits a country or area. People go out to meet them and welcome them to the country. ---> Jesus didn't return to the earth here. "In the clouds", "in the air".The 9th chapter of Hebrews mentions NOTHING of rewards. You again are reading your theology into the texts. ---> I'm reading the whole of Scripture and harmonizing them. Scripture clearly teaches (even through the direct words of Jesus himself) that believers won't face the judgement to determine their eternal life.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> But not all judged to determine eternal life. Believers will be judged for rewards.Again, the Greek here for "judgement" is "krisin" which may be better translated "condemnation". The passage is stating that the believers will not be condemned to hell. It is not saying that they won't be judged. ---> you're losing focus again. I've said that believers will indeed face judgement, but for rewards, not for their eternal life.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> if this is saying judgement to determine salvation, then how do you square this with Jesus' own words, "they (believers) will not come into judgement, but have passed from death to life"? You are continually trying to make Scripture contradict itself to make your views work.You still don't (won't want to) get it. This is not saying that we are saved by works. If one commits an unrepented mortal sin, then they will get the judgment they deserve. ---> which means they lose their salvation, ultimately meaning that their salvation was contingent upon their performance and merit, i.e. works.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The biggest example of your view contradicting scripture is that if the sheep and goats parable is about salvation for EVERYONE, then it's saying that salvation is purely by works. But this contradicts the entire gospel message of the Bible.Even St Paul wasn't assured when he said in 1 Cor 4:4 ---> So Paul is contradicting John?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> are you going against Scripture and saying that believers CAN'T be assured?
I personally have nothing on my conscience, but that does not mean that I am innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. ---> faith in Jesus for one's salvation keeps you out of the judgement for your eternal life. Jesus is telling you this over and over in the Bible, yet you don't want to accept it, you'd rather wear the burden around your own neck. This means you're not trusting in him, which means you're not saved.Jesus said it 6 times. I know what more he had to do other than perform Eucharistic miracles, (which he has in every age) for you to take Him literally. It's said that you won't believe him. ---> I believe every word he said, and I believe that he said it six times to reinforce the importance of it - that he was going to be sacrificed, and through his sacrifice, we will have eternal life. That's the whole point of his "bread of life" analogy. He wasn't saying he was a literal piece of bread.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> I believe everything in John 6... so how did the thief on the cross eat a piece of Jesus' flesh and drink his blood? When did the sinful woman of Luke 7 eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood? When did the house of Cornelius eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood? Obviously, eating his flesh and drinking his blood means believing in him. If you don't think so, then YOU don't believe John 6
The Eucharist is one of the greatest gifts that the LORD has given to us. We get to take the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus. You can't even imagine what you are missing. ---> We don't get to take his divinity. That's paganism.
I feel sorry for you. ---> that's because you don't understand the true gospel message, and are stuck in a man-made system
The thief had no chance to partake in the Eucharist. God doesn't ask us to do the impossible.---> Jesus literally said you must "eat his flesh" and "drink his blood". It would make him a liar, then.
The bible never mentions sinful woman nor the house of Cornelius again. When don't know whether they ate the Eucharist or not. ---> but Jesus already saved them, before they ever did. This shows that "eating Jesus' flesh" and "drinking his blood" to be saved is not literal.Believing is not just a mental ascent. It is also doing what he said to do. ---> it was, for the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"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."
".... Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever BELIEVES has eternal life."You, again, are reading your biases into the text here. ---> "didn't we do this, didn't we do that" as touting their own merits isn't reading into it, it's reading IT.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> they're literally touting their own merits.You support your claims with YOUR biblical views. They have NO authority other than your own. Once again, I'll stand with Jesus and his Magisterium. ---> that's what it all comes down to with Roman Catholics - authority. I can show you logically, historically, even biblically that something is true, but instead of following Jesus when he said "why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57), you give all your thinking to a group of fallible men. I've proven over and over how fallible they are. I really wish you'd wake up.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I've done nothing BUT support my claims from biblical and church history. You are really boring me now.
So if you think my understanding of Scripture isn't correct, then explain. I've shown how Scripture, using reason and logic, does not support that the eating of Jesus' flesh is literal and that we can lose our salvation, to give just two examples. To sum them up - Jesus obviously did not mean to eat his flesh literally, because many people in the Bible were saved without having to do that, or before they were even able to. That's simple logic, it's not "interpretation". And if our names can be blot out of the book of life, then it would mean that Jesus would lose something he was given by the Father, which Jesus clearly says will never happen. Again, simple logic regarding a clear statement by Jesus, not an arcane puzzle from him. What do you disagree with here?
The problem with your logical arguments is that they're based on your own theological assumptions, many of which Catholics don't share. For example, you think the story of the thief on the cross refutes Catholic teaching on the sacraments because any rule that God gives to us must bind him as well. But that's simply your opinion. It's not the product of any demonstrable reasoning. Many of the things you say Catholics "must" believe are not things that Catholics do or logically should believe.
If a rule that God gives us doesn't bind him to that rule as well, then that's true for all of God's rules: his rule for us that "Jesus is the way, truth, and the light and not one us can come to God except through him" would not be binding either, and thus it was completely superfluous for Jesus to come, suffer, and die for our sins. It would also mean that God does not have to fulfilll any covenant promises He makes to his people. But this is utterly false - God's eternal character is such that he can NOT go against anything he declares. If he does, he isn't God. Simply put, if God goes against something he declares, then he didn't declare it - man did.
You say that Catholics don't share these assumptions, but they're not assumptions, they're necessary implications. It logically must be believed, otherwise your whole belief system collapses. Necessary must mean necessary, or nothing is necessary. If you "must" eat Jesus' literal flesh, then you MUST, or there isn't anything you must do. God does not double-speak, but apparently Roman Catholicism tries to make Him do so. This diminishes the very nature and character of God.
Historical continuity does not mean historical unanimity. Those are very different things.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You lose the historical argument both ways because of how you're using history. It has nothing to do with what I'm doing. On the one hand, you claim historical unanimity or continuity with regard to a certain belief or doctrine; therefore, any historical evidence contrary to that, and you lose. On the other, you claim infallible teaching originating from historical individuals and sources that have no claim to infallibility, and whose claims appear hundreds of years after the original apostles, being completely absent in or even contradicted by the apostle's infallible teaching (i.e. Scripture). So your historical appeal loses there as well.Sam Lowry said:My problem with the historical debate is that we Catholics aren't allowed to win it. You present your evidence, we present ours, and any time it looks like we have a valid historical argument you revert to sola scriptura and say we're relying on fallible human authority. Heads you win, tails we lose.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That's obviously true in principle, but the parts in scripture we're talking about isn't an arcane puzzle. We can reason together what is the correct meaning. I believe in the perspicuity of scripture, for those able to read and who are willing to study and research. But if certain people claim infallibility, and then are shown to be wrong historically and with direct proof, there is no "interpretation" needed there to see that. You should not give your trust to them for the interpretation of Scripture when you don't understand it yourself. In the early days of the church, people had to trust their leaders. They had no choice. Today, we are blessed with our education and full access to the Bible (remember how the Roman Catholic Church tried to violently quash that?) and virtually all commentaries and the original language translations. We can read many different interpretations and watch and read many debates, and then come to our own understanding, and then reason with and debate each other. Jesus even said to to do this: "why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?"Sam Lowry said:There's no such thing as scriptural teaching without interpretation. Your interpretation is based on your own thinking and that of other men who are just as fallible as anyone else.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:It sounds like you believe the "Rapture" that wasn't' first taught until the 19th century. You seem to not understand Jesus is COMING here. 1 Thess 4:16-17BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
--> It works either way: Jesus comes back, then the millenial kingdom starts, and at the end of the millenial kingdom, the Great White Throne judgement begins. Jesus only came back once there. The sheep and goats are the people coming out of the tribulation before the millenial kingdom starts (premillenial view) where all believers were taken up (notice they went UP - Jesus didn't come down)
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.
This is similar to the language in Matthew 8:34 used when those who went out of Jerusalem to meet Jesus when he entered the city.
This was the culture during those times. People when out of the city to greet the dignitary and welcome him into the city. We still do this today when a dignitary visits a country or area. People go out to meet them and welcome them to the country. ---> Jesus didn't return to the earth here. "In the clouds", "in the air".The 9th chapter of Hebrews mentions NOTHING of rewards. You again are reading your theology into the texts. ---> I'm reading the whole of Scripture and harmonizing them. Scripture clearly teaches (even through the direct words of Jesus himself) that believers won't face the judgement to determine their eternal life.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> But not all judged to determine eternal life. Believers will be judged for rewards.Again, the Greek here for "judgement" is "krisin" which may be better translated "condemnation". The passage is stating that the believers will not be condemned to hell. It is not saying that they won't be judged. ---> you're losing focus again. I've said that believers will indeed face judgement, but for rewards, not for their eternal life.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> if this is saying judgement to determine salvation, then how do you square this with Jesus' own words, "they (believers) will not come into judgement, but have passed from death to life"? You are continually trying to make Scripture contradict itself to make your views work.You still don't (won't want to) get it. This is not saying that we are saved by works. If one commits an unrepented mortal sin, then they will get the judgment they deserve. ---> which means they lose their salvation, ultimately meaning that their salvation was contingent upon their performance and merit, i.e. works.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The biggest example of your view contradicting scripture is that if the sheep and goats parable is about salvation for EVERYONE, then it's saying that salvation is purely by works. But this contradicts the entire gospel message of the Bible.Even St Paul wasn't assured when he said in 1 Cor 4:4 ---> So Paul is contradicting John?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> are you going against Scripture and saying that believers CAN'T be assured?
I personally have nothing on my conscience, but that does not mean that I am innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. ---> faith in Jesus for one's salvation keeps you out of the judgement for your eternal life. Jesus is telling you this over and over in the Bible, yet you don't want to accept it, you'd rather wear the burden around your own neck. This means you're not trusting in him, which means you're not saved.Jesus said it 6 times. I know what more he had to do other than perform Eucharistic miracles, (which he has in every age) for you to take Him literally. It's said that you won't believe him. ---> I believe every word he said, and I believe that he said it six times to reinforce the importance of it - that he was going to be sacrificed, and through his sacrifice, we will have eternal life. That's the whole point of his "bread of life" analogy. He wasn't saying he was a literal piece of bread.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> I believe everything in John 6... so how did the thief on the cross eat a piece of Jesus' flesh and drink his blood? When did the sinful woman of Luke 7 eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood? When did the house of Cornelius eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood? Obviously, eating his flesh and drinking his blood means believing in him. If you don't think so, then YOU don't believe John 6
The Eucharist is one of the greatest gifts that the LORD has given to us. We get to take the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus. You can't even imagine what you are missing. ---> We don't get to take his divinity. That's paganism.
I feel sorry for you. ---> that's because you don't understand the true gospel message, and are stuck in a man-made system
The thief had no chance to partake in the Eucharist. God doesn't ask us to do the impossible.---> Jesus literally said you must "eat his flesh" and "drink his blood". It would make him a liar, then.
The bible never mentions sinful woman nor the house of Cornelius again. When don't know whether they ate the Eucharist or not. ---> but Jesus already saved them, before they ever did. This shows that "eating Jesus' flesh" and "drinking his blood" to be saved is not literal.Believing is not just a mental ascent. It is also doing what he said to do. ---> it was, for the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"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."
".... Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever BELIEVES has eternal life."You, again, are reading your biases into the text here. ---> "didn't we do this, didn't we do that" as touting their own merits isn't reading into it, it's reading IT.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> they're literally touting their own merits.You support your claims with YOUR biblical views. They have NO authority other than your own. Once again, I'll stand with Jesus and his Magisterium. ---> that's what it all comes down to with Roman Catholics - authority. I can show you logically, historically, even biblically that something is true, but instead of following Jesus when he said "why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57), you give all your thinking to a group of fallible men. I've proven over and over how fallible they are. I really wish you'd wake up.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I've done nothing BUT support my claims from biblical and church history. You are really boring me now.
So if you think my understanding of Scripture isn't correct, then explain. I've shown how Scripture, using reason and logic, does not support that the eating of Jesus' flesh is literal and that we can lose our salvation, to give just two examples. To sum them up - Jesus obviously did not mean to eat his flesh literally, because many people in the Bible were saved without having to do that, or before they were even able to. That's simple logic, it's not "interpretation". And if our names can be blot out of the book of life, then it would mean that Jesus would lose something he was given by the Father, which Jesus clearly says will never happen. Again, simple logic regarding a clear statement by Jesus, not an arcane puzzle from him. What do you disagree with here?
The problem with your logical arguments is that they're based on your own theological assumptions, many of which Catholics don't share. For example, you think the story of the thief on the cross refutes Catholic teaching on the sacraments because any rule that God gives to us must bind him as well. But that's simply your opinion. It's not the product of any demonstrable reasoning. Many of the things you say Catholics "must" believe are not things that Catholics do or logically should believe.
If a rule that God gives us doesn't bind him to that rule as well, then that's true for all of God's rules: his rule for us that "Jesus is the way, truth, and the light and not one us can come to God except through him" would not be binding either, and thus it was completely superfluous for Jesus to come, suffer, and die for our sins. It would also mean that God does not have to fulfilll any covenant promises He makes to his people. But this is utterly false - God's eternal character is such that he can NOT go against anything he declares. If he does, he isn't God. Simply put, if God goes against something he declares, then he didn't declare it - man did.
You say that Catholics don't share these assumptions, but they're not assumptions, they're necessary implications. It logically must be believed, otherwise your whole belief system collapses. Necessary must mean necessary, or nothing is necessary. If you "must" eat Jesus' literal flesh, then you MUST, or there isn't anything you must do. God does not double-speak, but apparently Roman Catholicism tries to make Him do so. This diminishes the very nature and character of God.
If God couldn't change anything he declared, we would still be bound by everything in the Old Testament law.
Umm, yes, that's why I said historical unanimity OR continuity.Sam Lowry said:Historical continuity does not mean historical unanimity. Those are very different things.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You lose the historical argument both ways because of how you're using history. It has nothing to do with what I'm doing. On the one hand, you claim historical unanimity or continuity with regard to a certain belief or doctrine; therefore, any historical evidence contrary to that, and you lose. On the other, you claim infallible teaching originating from historical individuals and sources that have no claim to infallibility, and whose claims appear hundreds of years after the original apostles, being completely absent in or even contradicted by the apostle's infallible teaching (i.e. Scripture). So your historical appeal loses there as well.Sam Lowry said:My problem with the historical debate is that we Catholics aren't allowed to win it. You present your evidence, we present ours, and any time it looks like we have a valid historical argument you revert to sola scriptura and say we're relying on fallible human authority. Heads you win, tails we lose.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That's obviously true in principle, but the parts in scripture we're talking about isn't an arcane puzzle. We can reason together what is the correct meaning. I believe in the perspicuity of scripture, for those able to read and who are willing to study and research. But if certain people claim infallibility, and then are shown to be wrong historically and with direct proof, there is no "interpretation" needed there to see that. You should not give your trust to them for the interpretation of Scripture when you don't understand it yourself. In the early days of the church, people had to trust their leaders. They had no choice. Today, we are blessed with our education and full access to the Bible (remember how the Roman Catholic Church tried to violently quash that?) and virtually all commentaries and the original language translations. We can read many different interpretations and watch and read many debates, and then come to our own understanding, and then reason with and debate each other. Jesus even said to to do this: "why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?"Sam Lowry said:There's no such thing as scriptural teaching without interpretation. Your interpretation is based on your own thinking and that of other men who are just as fallible as anyone else.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:It sounds like you believe the "Rapture" that wasn't' first taught until the 19th century. You seem to not understand Jesus is COMING here. 1 Thess 4:16-17BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
--> It works either way: Jesus comes back, then the millenial kingdom starts, and at the end of the millenial kingdom, the Great White Throne judgement begins. Jesus only came back once there. The sheep and goats are the people coming out of the tribulation before the millenial kingdom starts (premillenial view) where all believers were taken up (notice they went UP - Jesus didn't come down)
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.
This is similar to the language in Matthew 8:34 used when those who went out of Jerusalem to meet Jesus when he entered the city.
This was the culture during those times. People when out of the city to greet the dignitary and welcome him into the city. We still do this today when a dignitary visits a country or area. People go out to meet them and welcome them to the country. ---> Jesus didn't return to the earth here. "In the clouds", "in the air".The 9th chapter of Hebrews mentions NOTHING of rewards. You again are reading your theology into the texts. ---> I'm reading the whole of Scripture and harmonizing them. Scripture clearly teaches (even through the direct words of Jesus himself) that believers won't face the judgement to determine their eternal life.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> But not all judged to determine eternal life. Believers will be judged for rewards.Again, the Greek here for "judgement" is "krisin" which may be better translated "condemnation". The passage is stating that the believers will not be condemned to hell. It is not saying that they won't be judged. ---> you're losing focus again. I've said that believers will indeed face judgement, but for rewards, not for their eternal life.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> if this is saying judgement to determine salvation, then how do you square this with Jesus' own words, "they (believers) will not come into judgement, but have passed from death to life"? You are continually trying to make Scripture contradict itself to make your views work.You still don't (won't want to) get it. This is not saying that we are saved by works. If one commits an unrepented mortal sin, then they will get the judgment they deserve. ---> which means they lose their salvation, ultimately meaning that their salvation was contingent upon their performance and merit, i.e. works.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The biggest example of your view contradicting scripture is that if the sheep and goats parable is about salvation for EVERYONE, then it's saying that salvation is purely by works. But this contradicts the entire gospel message of the Bible.Even St Paul wasn't assured when he said in 1 Cor 4:4 ---> So Paul is contradicting John?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> are you going against Scripture and saying that believers CAN'T be assured?
I personally have nothing on my conscience, but that does not mean that I am innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. ---> faith in Jesus for one's salvation keeps you out of the judgement for your eternal life. Jesus is telling you this over and over in the Bible, yet you don't want to accept it, you'd rather wear the burden around your own neck. This means you're not trusting in him, which means you're not saved.Jesus said it 6 times. I know what more he had to do other than perform Eucharistic miracles, (which he has in every age) for you to take Him literally. It's said that you won't believe him. ---> I believe every word he said, and I believe that he said it six times to reinforce the importance of it - that he was going to be sacrificed, and through his sacrifice, we will have eternal life. That's the whole point of his "bread of life" analogy. He wasn't saying he was a literal piece of bread.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> I believe everything in John 6... so how did the thief on the cross eat a piece of Jesus' flesh and drink his blood? When did the sinful woman of Luke 7 eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood? When did the house of Cornelius eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood? Obviously, eating his flesh and drinking his blood means believing in him. If you don't think so, then YOU don't believe John 6
The Eucharist is one of the greatest gifts that the LORD has given to us. We get to take the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus. You can't even imagine what you are missing. ---> We don't get to take his divinity. That's paganism.
I feel sorry for you. ---> that's because you don't understand the true gospel message, and are stuck in a man-made system
The thief had no chance to partake in the Eucharist. God doesn't ask us to do the impossible.---> Jesus literally said you must "eat his flesh" and "drink his blood". It would make him a liar, then.
The bible never mentions sinful woman nor the house of Cornelius again. When don't know whether they ate the Eucharist or not. ---> but Jesus already saved them, before they ever did. This shows that "eating Jesus' flesh" and "drinking his blood" to be saved is not literal.Believing is not just a mental ascent. It is also doing what he said to do. ---> it was, for the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"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."
".... Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever BELIEVES has eternal life."You, again, are reading your biases into the text here. ---> "didn't we do this, didn't we do that" as touting their own merits isn't reading into it, it's reading IT.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> they're literally touting their own merits.You support your claims with YOUR biblical views. They have NO authority other than your own. Once again, I'll stand with Jesus and his Magisterium. ---> that's what it all comes down to with Roman Catholics - authority. I can show you logically, historically, even biblically that something is true, but instead of following Jesus when he said "why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57), you give all your thinking to a group of fallible men. I've proven over and over how fallible they are. I really wish you'd wake up.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I've done nothing BUT support my claims from biblical and church history. You are really boring me now.
So if you think my understanding of Scripture isn't correct, then explain. I've shown how Scripture, using reason and logic, does not support that the eating of Jesus' flesh is literal and that we can lose our salvation, to give just two examples. To sum them up - Jesus obviously did not mean to eat his flesh literally, because many people in the Bible were saved without having to do that, or before they were even able to. That's simple logic, it's not "interpretation". And if our names can be blot out of the book of life, then it would mean that Jesus would lose something he was given by the Father, which Jesus clearly says will never happen. Again, simple logic regarding a clear statement by Jesus, not an arcane puzzle from him. What do you disagree with here?
The problem with your logical arguments is that they're based on your own theological assumptions, many of which Catholics don't share. For example, you think the story of the thief on the cross refutes Catholic teaching on the sacraments because any rule that God gives to us must bind him as well. But that's simply your opinion. It's not the product of any demonstrable reasoning. Many of the things you say Catholics "must" believe are not things that Catholics do or logically should believe.
If a rule that God gives us doesn't bind him to that rule as well, then that's true for all of God's rules: his rule for us that "Jesus is the way, truth, and the light and not one us can come to God except through him" would not be binding either, and thus it was completely superfluous for Jesus to come, suffer, and die for our sins. It would also mean that God does not have to fulfilll any covenant promises He makes to his people. But this is utterly false - God's eternal character is such that he can NOT go against anything he declares. If he does, he isn't God. Simply put, if God goes against something he declares, then he didn't declare it - man did.
You say that Catholics don't share these assumptions, but they're not assumptions, they're necessary implications. It logically must be believed, otherwise your whole belief system collapses. Necessary must mean necessary, or nothing is necessary. If you "must" eat Jesus' literal flesh, then you MUST, or there isn't anything you must do. God does not double-speak, but apparently Roman Catholicism tries to make Him do so. This diminishes the very nature and character of God.
If God couldn't change anything he declared, we would still be bound by everything in the Old Testament law.
God's Law has not been changed or revoked. Jesus eternally stands as the fulfillment of that Law, and those who believe in him are credited with the same standing. For those who don't believe, the Law is still very much in effect.
So it's a sin to eat shellfish if you don't believe in Jesus?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Umm, yes, that's why I said historical unanimity OR continuity.Sam Lowry said:Historical continuity does not mean historical unanimity. Those are very different things.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You lose the historical argument both ways because of how you're using history. It has nothing to do with what I'm doing. On the one hand, you claim historical unanimity or continuity with regard to a certain belief or doctrine; therefore, any historical evidence contrary to that, and you lose. On the other, you claim infallible teaching originating from historical individuals and sources that have no claim to infallibility, and whose claims appear hundreds of years after the original apostles, being completely absent in or even contradicted by the apostle's infallible teaching (i.e. Scripture). So your historical appeal loses there as well.Sam Lowry said:My problem with the historical debate is that we Catholics aren't allowed to win it. You present your evidence, we present ours, and any time it looks like we have a valid historical argument you revert to sola scriptura and say we're relying on fallible human authority. Heads you win, tails we lose.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That's obviously true in principle, but the parts in scripture we're talking about isn't an arcane puzzle. We can reason together what is the correct meaning. I believe in the perspicuity of scripture, for those able to read and who are willing to study and research. But if certain people claim infallibility, and then are shown to be wrong historically and with direct proof, there is no "interpretation" needed there to see that. You should not give your trust to them for the interpretation of Scripture when you don't understand it yourself. In the early days of the church, people had to trust their leaders. They had no choice. Today, we are blessed with our education and full access to the Bible (remember how the Roman Catholic Church tried to violently quash that?) and virtually all commentaries and the original language translations. We can read many different interpretations and watch and read many debates, and then come to our own understanding, and then reason with and debate each other. Jesus even said to to do this: "why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?"Sam Lowry said:There's no such thing as scriptural teaching without interpretation. Your interpretation is based on your own thinking and that of other men who are just as fallible as anyone else.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:It sounds like you believe the "Rapture" that wasn't' first taught until the 19th century. You seem to not understand Jesus is COMING here. 1 Thess 4:16-17BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
--> It works either way: Jesus comes back, then the millenial kingdom starts, and at the end of the millenial kingdom, the Great White Throne judgement begins. Jesus only came back once there. The sheep and goats are the people coming out of the tribulation before the millenial kingdom starts (premillenial view) where all believers were taken up (notice they went UP - Jesus didn't come down)
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.
This is similar to the language in Matthew 8:34 used when those who went out of Jerusalem to meet Jesus when he entered the city.
This was the culture during those times. People when out of the city to greet the dignitary and welcome him into the city. We still do this today when a dignitary visits a country or area. People go out to meet them and welcome them to the country. ---> Jesus didn't return to the earth here. "In the clouds", "in the air".The 9th chapter of Hebrews mentions NOTHING of rewards. You again are reading your theology into the texts. ---> I'm reading the whole of Scripture and harmonizing them. Scripture clearly teaches (even through the direct words of Jesus himself) that believers won't face the judgement to determine their eternal life.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> But not all judged to determine eternal life. Believers will be judged for rewards.Again, the Greek here for "judgement" is "krisin" which may be better translated "condemnation". The passage is stating that the believers will not be condemned to hell. It is not saying that they won't be judged. ---> you're losing focus again. I've said that believers will indeed face judgement, but for rewards, not for their eternal life.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> if this is saying judgement to determine salvation, then how do you square this with Jesus' own words, "they (believers) will not come into judgement, but have passed from death to life"? You are continually trying to make Scripture contradict itself to make your views work.You still don't (won't want to) get it. This is not saying that we are saved by works. If one commits an unrepented mortal sin, then they will get the judgment they deserve. ---> which means they lose their salvation, ultimately meaning that their salvation was contingent upon their performance and merit, i.e. works.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The biggest example of your view contradicting scripture is that if the sheep and goats parable is about salvation for EVERYONE, then it's saying that salvation is purely by works. But this contradicts the entire gospel message of the Bible.Even St Paul wasn't assured when he said in 1 Cor 4:4 ---> So Paul is contradicting John?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> are you going against Scripture and saying that believers CAN'T be assured?
I personally have nothing on my conscience, but that does not mean that I am innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. ---> faith in Jesus for one's salvation keeps you out of the judgement for your eternal life. Jesus is telling you this over and over in the Bible, yet you don't want to accept it, you'd rather wear the burden around your own neck. This means you're not trusting in him, which means you're not saved.Jesus said it 6 times. I know what more he had to do other than perform Eucharistic miracles, (which he has in every age) for you to take Him literally. It's said that you won't believe him. ---> I believe every word he said, and I believe that he said it six times to reinforce the importance of it - that he was going to be sacrificed, and through his sacrifice, we will have eternal life. That's the whole point of his "bread of life" analogy. He wasn't saying he was a literal piece of bread.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> I believe everything in John 6... so how did the thief on the cross eat a piece of Jesus' flesh and drink his blood? When did the sinful woman of Luke 7 eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood? When did the house of Cornelius eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood? Obviously, eating his flesh and drinking his blood means believing in him. If you don't think so, then YOU don't believe John 6
The Eucharist is one of the greatest gifts that the LORD has given to us. We get to take the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus. You can't even imagine what you are missing. ---> We don't get to take his divinity. That's paganism.
I feel sorry for you. ---> that's because you don't understand the true gospel message, and are stuck in a man-made system
The thief had no chance to partake in the Eucharist. God doesn't ask us to do the impossible.---> Jesus literally said you must "eat his flesh" and "drink his blood". It would make him a liar, then.
The bible never mentions sinful woman nor the house of Cornelius again. When don't know whether they ate the Eucharist or not. ---> but Jesus already saved them, before they ever did. This shows that "eating Jesus' flesh" and "drinking his blood" to be saved is not literal.Believing is not just a mental ascent. It is also doing what he said to do. ---> it was, for the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"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."
".... Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever BELIEVES has eternal life."You, again, are reading your biases into the text here. ---> "didn't we do this, didn't we do that" as touting their own merits isn't reading into it, it's reading IT.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> they're literally touting their own merits.You support your claims with YOUR biblical views. They have NO authority other than your own. Once again, I'll stand with Jesus and his Magisterium. ---> that's what it all comes down to with Roman Catholics - authority. I can show you logically, historically, even biblically that something is true, but instead of following Jesus when he said "why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57), you give all your thinking to a group of fallible men. I've proven over and over how fallible they are. I really wish you'd wake up.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I've done nothing BUT support my claims from biblical and church history. You are really boring me now.
So if you think my understanding of Scripture isn't correct, then explain. I've shown how Scripture, using reason and logic, does not support that the eating of Jesus' flesh is literal and that we can lose our salvation, to give just two examples. To sum them up - Jesus obviously did not mean to eat his flesh literally, because many people in the Bible were saved without having to do that, or before they were even able to. That's simple logic, it's not "interpretation". And if our names can be blot out of the book of life, then it would mean that Jesus would lose something he was given by the Father, which Jesus clearly says will never happen. Again, simple logic regarding a clear statement by Jesus, not an arcane puzzle from him. What do you disagree with here?
The problem with your logical arguments is that they're based on your own theological assumptions, many of which Catholics don't share. For example, you think the story of the thief on the cross refutes Catholic teaching on the sacraments because any rule that God gives to us must bind him as well. But that's simply your opinion. It's not the product of any demonstrable reasoning. Many of the things you say Catholics "must" believe are not things that Catholics do or logically should believe.
If a rule that God gives us doesn't bind him to that rule as well, then that's true for all of God's rules: his rule for us that "Jesus is the way, truth, and the light and not one us can come to God except through him" would not be binding either, and thus it was completely superfluous for Jesus to come, suffer, and die for our sins. It would also mean that God does not have to fulfilll any covenant promises He makes to his people. But this is utterly false - God's eternal character is such that he can NOT go against anything he declares. If he does, he isn't God. Simply put, if God goes against something he declares, then he didn't declare it - man did.
You say that Catholics don't share these assumptions, but they're not assumptions, they're necessary implications. It logically must be believed, otherwise your whole belief system collapses. Necessary must mean necessary, or nothing is necessary. If you "must" eat Jesus' literal flesh, then you MUST, or there isn't anything you must do. God does not double-speak, but apparently Roman Catholicism tries to make Him do so. This diminishes the very nature and character of God.
If God couldn't change anything he declared, we would still be bound by everything in the Old Testament law.
God's Law has not been changed or revoked. Jesus eternally stands as the fulfillment of that Law, and those who believe in him are credited with the same standing. For those who don't believe, the Law is still very much in effect.
You don't even want to know what a Cinnabon gets you if you are not a Christian!Sam Lowry said:So it's a sin to eat shellfish if you don't believe in Jesus?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Umm, yes, that's why I said historical unanimity OR continuity.Sam Lowry said:Historical continuity does not mean historical unanimity. Those are very different things.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You lose the historical argument both ways because of how you're using history. It has nothing to do with what I'm doing. On the one hand, you claim historical unanimity or continuity with regard to a certain belief or doctrine; therefore, any historical evidence contrary to that, and you lose. On the other, you claim infallible teaching originating from historical individuals and sources that have no claim to infallibility, and whose claims appear hundreds of years after the original apostles, being completely absent in or even contradicted by the apostle's infallible teaching (i.e. Scripture). So your historical appeal loses there as well.Sam Lowry said:My problem with the historical debate is that we Catholics aren't allowed to win it. You present your evidence, we present ours, and any time it looks like we have a valid historical argument you revert to sola scriptura and say we're relying on fallible human authority. Heads you win, tails we lose.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That's obviously true in principle, but the parts in scripture we're talking about isn't an arcane puzzle. We can reason together what is the correct meaning. I believe in the perspicuity of scripture, for those able to read and who are willing to study and research. But if certain people claim infallibility, and then are shown to be wrong historically and with direct proof, there is no "interpretation" needed there to see that. You should not give your trust to them for the interpretation of Scripture when you don't understand it yourself. In the early days of the church, people had to trust their leaders. They had no choice. Today, we are blessed with our education and full access to the Bible (remember how the Roman Catholic Church tried to violently quash that?) and virtually all commentaries and the original language translations. We can read many different interpretations and watch and read many debates, and then come to our own understanding, and then reason with and debate each other. Jesus even said to to do this: "why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?"Sam Lowry said:There's no such thing as scriptural teaching without interpretation. Your interpretation is based on your own thinking and that of other men who are just as fallible as anyone else.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:It sounds like you believe the "Rapture" that wasn't' first taught until the 19th century. You seem to not understand Jesus is COMING here. 1 Thess 4:16-17BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
--> It works either way: Jesus comes back, then the millenial kingdom starts, and at the end of the millenial kingdom, the Great White Throne judgement begins. Jesus only came back once there. The sheep and goats are the people coming out of the tribulation before the millenial kingdom starts (premillenial view) where all believers were taken up (notice they went UP - Jesus didn't come down)
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.
This is similar to the language in Matthew 8:34 used when those who went out of Jerusalem to meet Jesus when he entered the city.
This was the culture during those times. People when out of the city to greet the dignitary and welcome him into the city. We still do this today when a dignitary visits a country or area. People go out to meet them and welcome them to the country. ---> Jesus didn't return to the earth here. "In the clouds", "in the air".The 9th chapter of Hebrews mentions NOTHING of rewards. You again are reading your theology into the texts. ---> I'm reading the whole of Scripture and harmonizing them. Scripture clearly teaches (even through the direct words of Jesus himself) that believers won't face the judgement to determine their eternal life.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> But not all judged to determine eternal life. Believers will be judged for rewards.Again, the Greek here for "judgement" is "krisin" which may be better translated "condemnation". The passage is stating that the believers will not be condemned to hell. It is not saying that they won't be judged. ---> you're losing focus again. I've said that believers will indeed face judgement, but for rewards, not for their eternal life.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> if this is saying judgement to determine salvation, then how do you square this with Jesus' own words, "they (believers) will not come into judgement, but have passed from death to life"? You are continually trying to make Scripture contradict itself to make your views work.You still don't (won't want to) get it. This is not saying that we are saved by works. If one commits an unrepented mortal sin, then they will get the judgment they deserve. ---> which means they lose their salvation, ultimately meaning that their salvation was contingent upon their performance and merit, i.e. works.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The biggest example of your view contradicting scripture is that if the sheep and goats parable is about salvation for EVERYONE, then it's saying that salvation is purely by works. But this contradicts the entire gospel message of the Bible.Even St Paul wasn't assured when he said in 1 Cor 4:4 ---> So Paul is contradicting John?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> are you going against Scripture and saying that believers CAN'T be assured?
I personally have nothing on my conscience, but that does not mean that I am innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. ---> faith in Jesus for one's salvation keeps you out of the judgement for your eternal life. Jesus is telling you this over and over in the Bible, yet you don't want to accept it, you'd rather wear the burden around your own neck. This means you're not trusting in him, which means you're not saved.Jesus said it 6 times. I know what more he had to do other than perform Eucharistic miracles, (which he has in every age) for you to take Him literally. It's said that you won't believe him. ---> I believe every word he said, and I believe that he said it six times to reinforce the importance of it - that he was going to be sacrificed, and through his sacrifice, we will have eternal life. That's the whole point of his "bread of life" analogy. He wasn't saying he was a literal piece of bread.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> I believe everything in John 6... so how did the thief on the cross eat a piece of Jesus' flesh and drink his blood? When did the sinful woman of Luke 7 eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood? When did the house of Cornelius eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood? Obviously, eating his flesh and drinking his blood means believing in him. If you don't think so, then YOU don't believe John 6
The Eucharist is one of the greatest gifts that the LORD has given to us. We get to take the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus. You can't even imagine what you are missing. ---> We don't get to take his divinity. That's paganism.
I feel sorry for you. ---> that's because you don't understand the true gospel message, and are stuck in a man-made system
The thief had no chance to partake in the Eucharist. God doesn't ask us to do the impossible.---> Jesus literally said you must "eat his flesh" and "drink his blood". It would make him a liar, then.
The bible never mentions sinful woman nor the house of Cornelius again. When don't know whether they ate the Eucharist or not. ---> but Jesus already saved them, before they ever did. This shows that "eating Jesus' flesh" and "drinking his blood" to be saved is not literal.Believing is not just a mental ascent. It is also doing what he said to do. ---> it was, for the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"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."
".... Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever BELIEVES has eternal life."You, again, are reading your biases into the text here. ---> "didn't we do this, didn't we do that" as touting their own merits isn't reading into it, it's reading IT.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> they're literally touting their own merits.You support your claims with YOUR biblical views. They have NO authority other than your own. Once again, I'll stand with Jesus and his Magisterium. ---> that's what it all comes down to with Roman Catholics - authority. I can show you logically, historically, even biblically that something is true, but instead of following Jesus when he said "why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57), you give all your thinking to a group of fallible men. I've proven over and over how fallible they are. I really wish you'd wake up.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I've done nothing BUT support my claims from biblical and church history. You are really boring me now.
So if you think my understanding of Scripture isn't correct, then explain. I've shown how Scripture, using reason and logic, does not support that the eating of Jesus' flesh is literal and that we can lose our salvation, to give just two examples. To sum them up - Jesus obviously did not mean to eat his flesh literally, because many people in the Bible were saved without having to do that, or before they were even able to. That's simple logic, it's not "interpretation". And if our names can be blot out of the book of life, then it would mean that Jesus would lose something he was given by the Father, which Jesus clearly says will never happen. Again, simple logic regarding a clear statement by Jesus, not an arcane puzzle from him. What do you disagree with here?
The problem with your logical arguments is that they're based on your own theological assumptions, many of which Catholics don't share. For example, you think the story of the thief on the cross refutes Catholic teaching on the sacraments because any rule that God gives to us must bind him as well. But that's simply your opinion. It's not the product of any demonstrable reasoning. Many of the things you say Catholics "must" believe are not things that Catholics do or logically should believe.
If a rule that God gives us doesn't bind him to that rule as well, then that's true for all of God's rules: his rule for us that "Jesus is the way, truth, and the light and not one us can come to God except through him" would not be binding either, and thus it was completely superfluous for Jesus to come, suffer, and die for our sins. It would also mean that God does not have to fulfilll any covenant promises He makes to his people. But this is utterly false - God's eternal character is such that he can NOT go against anything he declares. If he does, he isn't God. Simply put, if God goes against something he declares, then he didn't declare it - man did.
You say that Catholics don't share these assumptions, but they're not assumptions, they're necessary implications. It logically must be believed, otherwise your whole belief system collapses. Necessary must mean necessary, or nothing is necessary. If you "must" eat Jesus' literal flesh, then you MUST, or there isn't anything you must do. God does not double-speak, but apparently Roman Catholicism tries to make Him do so. This diminishes the very nature and character of God.
If God couldn't change anything he declared, we would still be bound by everything in the Old Testament law.
God's Law has not been changed or revoked. Jesus eternally stands as the fulfillment of that Law, and those who believe in him are credited with the same standing. For those who don't believe, the Law is still very much in effect.
God did not hold Gentiles to his ceremonial and dietary laws. He does hold everyone to his moral law, though. To Jews who become Christians, eating shellfish is no longer a sin because Jesus fulfilled the entire Law in their stead and for them those foods have been declared "clean". To Jews who reject Jesus, however, since they are therefore still under the Law, yes, it is still a sin.Sam Lowry said:So it's a sin to eat shellfish if you don't believe in Jesus?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Umm, yes, that's why I said historical unanimity OR continuity.Sam Lowry said:Historical continuity does not mean historical unanimity. Those are very different things.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You lose the historical argument both ways because of how you're using history. It has nothing to do with what I'm doing. On the one hand, you claim historical unanimity or continuity with regard to a certain belief or doctrine; therefore, any historical evidence contrary to that, and you lose. On the other, you claim infallible teaching originating from historical individuals and sources that have no claim to infallibility, and whose claims appear hundreds of years after the original apostles, being completely absent in or even contradicted by the apostle's infallible teaching (i.e. Scripture). So your historical appeal loses there as well.Sam Lowry said:My problem with the historical debate is that we Catholics aren't allowed to win it. You present your evidence, we present ours, and any time it looks like we have a valid historical argument you revert to sola scriptura and say we're relying on fallible human authority. Heads you win, tails we lose.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That's obviously true in principle, but the parts in scripture we're talking about isn't an arcane puzzle. We can reason together what is the correct meaning. I believe in the perspicuity of scripture, for those able to read and who are willing to study and research. But if certain people claim infallibility, and then are shown to be wrong historically and with direct proof, there is no "interpretation" needed there to see that. You should not give your trust to them for the interpretation of Scripture when you don't understand it yourself. In the early days of the church, people had to trust their leaders. They had no choice. Today, we are blessed with our education and full access to the Bible (remember how the Roman Catholic Church tried to violently quash that?) and virtually all commentaries and the original language translations. We can read many different interpretations and watch and read many debates, and then come to our own understanding, and then reason with and debate each other. Jesus even said to to do this: "why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?"Sam Lowry said:There's no such thing as scriptural teaching without interpretation. Your interpretation is based on your own thinking and that of other men who are just as fallible as anyone else.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:It sounds like you believe the "Rapture" that wasn't' first taught until the 19th century. You seem to not understand Jesus is COMING here. 1 Thess 4:16-17BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
--> It works either way: Jesus comes back, then the millenial kingdom starts, and at the end of the millenial kingdom, the Great White Throne judgement begins. Jesus only came back once there. The sheep and goats are the people coming out of the tribulation before the millenial kingdom starts (premillenial view) where all believers were taken up (notice they went UP - Jesus didn't come down)
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.
This is similar to the language in Matthew 8:34 used when those who went out of Jerusalem to meet Jesus when he entered the city.
This was the culture during those times. People when out of the city to greet the dignitary and welcome him into the city. We still do this today when a dignitary visits a country or area. People go out to meet them and welcome them to the country. ---> Jesus didn't return to the earth here. "In the clouds", "in the air".The 9th chapter of Hebrews mentions NOTHING of rewards. You again are reading your theology into the texts. ---> I'm reading the whole of Scripture and harmonizing them. Scripture clearly teaches (even through the direct words of Jesus himself) that believers won't face the judgement to determine their eternal life.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> But not all judged to determine eternal life. Believers will be judged for rewards.Again, the Greek here for "judgement" is "krisin" which may be better translated "condemnation". The passage is stating that the believers will not be condemned to hell. It is not saying that they won't be judged. ---> you're losing focus again. I've said that believers will indeed face judgement, but for rewards, not for their eternal life.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> if this is saying judgement to determine salvation, then how do you square this with Jesus' own words, "they (believers) will not come into judgement, but have passed from death to life"? You are continually trying to make Scripture contradict itself to make your views work.You still don't (won't want to) get it. This is not saying that we are saved by works. If one commits an unrepented mortal sin, then they will get the judgment they deserve. ---> which means they lose their salvation, ultimately meaning that their salvation was contingent upon their performance and merit, i.e. works.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The biggest example of your view contradicting scripture is that if the sheep and goats parable is about salvation for EVERYONE, then it's saying that salvation is purely by works. But this contradicts the entire gospel message of the Bible.Even St Paul wasn't assured when he said in 1 Cor 4:4 ---> So Paul is contradicting John?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> are you going against Scripture and saying that believers CAN'T be assured?
I personally have nothing on my conscience, but that does not mean that I am innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. ---> faith in Jesus for one's salvation keeps you out of the judgement for your eternal life. Jesus is telling you this over and over in the Bible, yet you don't want to accept it, you'd rather wear the burden around your own neck. This means you're not trusting in him, which means you're not saved.Jesus said it 6 times. I know what more he had to do other than perform Eucharistic miracles, (which he has in every age) for you to take Him literally. It's said that you won't believe him. ---> I believe every word he said, and I believe that he said it six times to reinforce the importance of it - that he was going to be sacrificed, and through his sacrifice, we will have eternal life. That's the whole point of his "bread of life" analogy. He wasn't saying he was a literal piece of bread.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> I believe everything in John 6... so how did the thief on the cross eat a piece of Jesus' flesh and drink his blood? When did the sinful woman of Luke 7 eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood? When did the house of Cornelius eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood? Obviously, eating his flesh and drinking his blood means believing in him. If you don't think so, then YOU don't believe John 6
The Eucharist is one of the greatest gifts that the LORD has given to us. We get to take the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus. You can't even imagine what you are missing. ---> We don't get to take his divinity. That's paganism.
I feel sorry for you. ---> that's because you don't understand the true gospel message, and are stuck in a man-made system
The thief had no chance to partake in the Eucharist. God doesn't ask us to do the impossible.---> Jesus literally said you must "eat his flesh" and "drink his blood". It would make him a liar, then.
The bible never mentions sinful woman nor the house of Cornelius again. When don't know whether they ate the Eucharist or not. ---> but Jesus already saved them, before they ever did. This shows that "eating Jesus' flesh" and "drinking his blood" to be saved is not literal.Believing is not just a mental ascent. It is also doing what he said to do. ---> it was, for the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"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."
".... Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever BELIEVES has eternal life."You, again, are reading your biases into the text here. ---> "didn't we do this, didn't we do that" as touting their own merits isn't reading into it, it's reading IT.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> they're literally touting their own merits.You support your claims with YOUR biblical views. They have NO authority other than your own. Once again, I'll stand with Jesus and his Magisterium. ---> that's what it all comes down to with Roman Catholics - authority. I can show you logically, historically, even biblically that something is true, but instead of following Jesus when he said "why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57), you give all your thinking to a group of fallible men. I've proven over and over how fallible they are. I really wish you'd wake up.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I've done nothing BUT support my claims from biblical and church history. You are really boring me now.
So if you think my understanding of Scripture isn't correct, then explain. I've shown how Scripture, using reason and logic, does not support that the eating of Jesus' flesh is literal and that we can lose our salvation, to give just two examples. To sum them up - Jesus obviously did not mean to eat his flesh literally, because many people in the Bible were saved without having to do that, or before they were even able to. That's simple logic, it's not "interpretation". And if our names can be blot out of the book of life, then it would mean that Jesus would lose something he was given by the Father, which Jesus clearly says will never happen. Again, simple logic regarding a clear statement by Jesus, not an arcane puzzle from him. What do you disagree with here?
The problem with your logical arguments is that they're based on your own theological assumptions, many of which Catholics don't share. For example, you think the story of the thief on the cross refutes Catholic teaching on the sacraments because any rule that God gives to us must bind him as well. But that's simply your opinion. It's not the product of any demonstrable reasoning. Many of the things you say Catholics "must" believe are not things that Catholics do or logically should believe.
If a rule that God gives us doesn't bind him to that rule as well, then that's true for all of God's rules: his rule for us that "Jesus is the way, truth, and the light and not one us can come to God except through him" would not be binding either, and thus it was completely superfluous for Jesus to come, suffer, and die for our sins. It would also mean that God does not have to fulfilll any covenant promises He makes to his people. But this is utterly false - God's eternal character is such that he can NOT go against anything he declares. If he does, he isn't God. Simply put, if God goes against something he declares, then he didn't declare it - man did.
You say that Catholics don't share these assumptions, but they're not assumptions, they're necessary implications. It logically must be believed, otherwise your whole belief system collapses. Necessary must mean necessary, or nothing is necessary. If you "must" eat Jesus' literal flesh, then you MUST, or there isn't anything you must do. God does not double-speak, but apparently Roman Catholicism tries to make Him do so. This diminishes the very nature and character of God.
If God couldn't change anything he declared, we would still be bound by everything in the Old Testament law.
God's Law has not been changed or revoked. Jesus eternally stands as the fulfillment of that Law, and those who believe in him are credited with the same standing. For those who don't believe, the Law is still very much in effect.
Are homosexual acts still a sin if you are a believer?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:God did not hold Gentiles to his ceremonial and dietary laws. He does hold everyone to his moral law, though. To Jews who become Christians, eating shellfish is no longer a sin because Jesus fulfilled the entire Law in their stead and for them those foods have been declared "clean". To Jews who reject Jesus, however, since they are therefore still under the Law, yes, it is still a sin.Sam Lowry said:So it's a sin to eat shellfish if you don't believe in Jesus?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Umm, yes, that's why I said historical unanimity OR continuity.Sam Lowry said:Historical continuity does not mean historical unanimity. Those are very different things.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You lose the historical argument both ways because of how you're using history. It has nothing to do with what I'm doing. On the one hand, you claim historical unanimity or continuity with regard to a certain belief or doctrine; therefore, any historical evidence contrary to that, and you lose. On the other, you claim infallible teaching originating from historical individuals and sources that have no claim to infallibility, and whose claims appear hundreds of years after the original apostles, being completely absent in or even contradicted by the apostle's infallible teaching (i.e. Scripture). So your historical appeal loses there as well.Sam Lowry said:My problem with the historical debate is that we Catholics aren't allowed to win it. You present your evidence, we present ours, and any time it looks like we have a valid historical argument you revert to sola scriptura and say we're relying on fallible human authority. Heads you win, tails we lose.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That's obviously true in principle, but the parts in scripture we're talking about isn't an arcane puzzle. We can reason together what is the correct meaning. I believe in the perspicuity of scripture, for those able to read and who are willing to study and research. But if certain people claim infallibility, and then are shown to be wrong historically and with direct proof, there is no "interpretation" needed there to see that. You should not give your trust to them for the interpretation of Scripture when you don't understand it yourself. In the early days of the church, people had to trust their leaders. They had no choice. Today, we are blessed with our education and full access to the Bible (remember how the Roman Catholic Church tried to violently quash that?) and virtually all commentaries and the original language translations. We can read many different interpretations and watch and read many debates, and then come to our own understanding, and then reason with and debate each other. Jesus even said to to do this: "why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?"Sam Lowry said:There's no such thing as scriptural teaching without interpretation. Your interpretation is based on your own thinking and that of other men who are just as fallible as anyone else.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:It sounds like you believe the "Rapture" that wasn't' first taught until the 19th century. You seem to not understand Jesus is COMING here. 1 Thess 4:16-17BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
--> It works either way: Jesus comes back, then the millenial kingdom starts, and at the end of the millenial kingdom, the Great White Throne judgement begins. Jesus only came back once there. The sheep and goats are the people coming out of the tribulation before the millenial kingdom starts (premillenial view) where all believers were taken up (notice they went UP - Jesus didn't come down)
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.
This is similar to the language in Matthew 8:34 used when those who went out of Jerusalem to meet Jesus when he entered the city.
This was the culture during those times. People when out of the city to greet the dignitary and welcome him into the city. We still do this today when a dignitary visits a country or area. People go out to meet them and welcome them to the country. ---> Jesus didn't return to the earth here. "In the clouds", "in the air".The 9th chapter of Hebrews mentions NOTHING of rewards. You again are reading your theology into the texts. ---> I'm reading the whole of Scripture and harmonizing them. Scripture clearly teaches (even through the direct words of Jesus himself) that believers won't face the judgement to determine their eternal life.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> But not all judged to determine eternal life. Believers will be judged for rewards.Again, the Greek here for "judgement" is "krisin" which may be better translated "condemnation". The passage is stating that the believers will not be condemned to hell. It is not saying that they won't be judged. ---> you're losing focus again. I've said that believers will indeed face judgement, but for rewards, not for their eternal life.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> if this is saying judgement to determine salvation, then how do you square this with Jesus' own words, "they (believers) will not come into judgement, but have passed from death to life"? You are continually trying to make Scripture contradict itself to make your views work.You still don't (won't want to) get it. This is not saying that we are saved by works. If one commits an unrepented mortal sin, then they will get the judgment they deserve. ---> which means they lose their salvation, ultimately meaning that their salvation was contingent upon their performance and merit, i.e. works.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The biggest example of your view contradicting scripture is that if the sheep and goats parable is about salvation for EVERYONE, then it's saying that salvation is purely by works. But this contradicts the entire gospel message of the Bible.Even St Paul wasn't assured when he said in 1 Cor 4:4 ---> So Paul is contradicting John?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> are you going against Scripture and saying that believers CAN'T be assured?
I personally have nothing on my conscience, but that does not mean that I am innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. ---> faith in Jesus for one's salvation keeps you out of the judgement for your eternal life. Jesus is telling you this over and over in the Bible, yet you don't want to accept it, you'd rather wear the burden around your own neck. This means you're not trusting in him, which means you're not saved.Jesus said it 6 times. I know what more he had to do other than perform Eucharistic miracles, (which he has in every age) for you to take Him literally. It's said that you won't believe him. ---> I believe every word he said, and I believe that he said it six times to reinforce the importance of it - that he was going to be sacrificed, and through his sacrifice, we will have eternal life. That's the whole point of his "bread of life" analogy. He wasn't saying he was a literal piece of bread.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> I believe everything in John 6... so how did the thief on the cross eat a piece of Jesus' flesh and drink his blood? When did the sinful woman of Luke 7 eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood? When did the house of Cornelius eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood? Obviously, eating his flesh and drinking his blood means believing in him. If you don't think so, then YOU don't believe John 6
The Eucharist is one of the greatest gifts that the LORD has given to us. We get to take the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus. You can't even imagine what you are missing. ---> We don't get to take his divinity. That's paganism.
I feel sorry for you. ---> that's because you don't understand the true gospel message, and are stuck in a man-made system
The thief had no chance to partake in the Eucharist. God doesn't ask us to do the impossible.---> Jesus literally said you must "eat his flesh" and "drink his blood". It would make him a liar, then.
The bible never mentions sinful woman nor the house of Cornelius again. When don't know whether they ate the Eucharist or not. ---> but Jesus already saved them, before they ever did. This shows that "eating Jesus' flesh" and "drinking his blood" to be saved is not literal.Believing is not just a mental ascent. It is also doing what he said to do. ---> it was, for the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"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."
".... Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever BELIEVES has eternal life."You, again, are reading your biases into the text here. ---> "didn't we do this, didn't we do that" as touting their own merits isn't reading into it, it's reading IT.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> they're literally touting their own merits.You support your claims with YOUR biblical views. They have NO authority other than your own. Once again, I'll stand with Jesus and his Magisterium. ---> that's what it all comes down to with Roman Catholics - authority. I can show you logically, historically, even biblically that something is true, but instead of following Jesus when he said "why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57), you give all your thinking to a group of fallible men. I've proven over and over how fallible they are. I really wish you'd wake up.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I've done nothing BUT support my claims from biblical and church history. You are really boring me now.
So if you think my understanding of Scripture isn't correct, then explain. I've shown how Scripture, using reason and logic, does not support that the eating of Jesus' flesh is literal and that we can lose our salvation, to give just two examples. To sum them up - Jesus obviously did not mean to eat his flesh literally, because many people in the Bible were saved without having to do that, or before they were even able to. That's simple logic, it's not "interpretation". And if our names can be blot out of the book of life, then it would mean that Jesus would lose something he was given by the Father, which Jesus clearly says will never happen. Again, simple logic regarding a clear statement by Jesus, not an arcane puzzle from him. What do you disagree with here?
The problem with your logical arguments is that they're based on your own theological assumptions, many of which Catholics don't share. For example, you think the story of the thief on the cross refutes Catholic teaching on the sacraments because any rule that God gives to us must bind him as well. But that's simply your opinion. It's not the product of any demonstrable reasoning. Many of the things you say Catholics "must" believe are not things that Catholics do or logically should believe.
If a rule that God gives us doesn't bind him to that rule as well, then that's true for all of God's rules: his rule for us that "Jesus is the way, truth, and the light and not one us can come to God except through him" would not be binding either, and thus it was completely superfluous for Jesus to come, suffer, and die for our sins. It would also mean that God does not have to fulfilll any covenant promises He makes to his people. But this is utterly false - God's eternal character is such that he can NOT go against anything he declares. If he does, he isn't God. Simply put, if God goes against something he declares, then he didn't declare it - man did.
You say that Catholics don't share these assumptions, but they're not assumptions, they're necessary implications. It logically must be believed, otherwise your whole belief system collapses. Necessary must mean necessary, or nothing is necessary. If you "must" eat Jesus' literal flesh, then you MUST, or there isn't anything you must do. God does not double-speak, but apparently Roman Catholicism tries to make Him do so. This diminishes the very nature and character of God.
If God couldn't change anything he declared, we would still be bound by everything in the Old Testament law.
God's Law has not been changed or revoked. Jesus eternally stands as the fulfillment of that Law, and those who believe in him are credited with the same standing. For those who don't believe, the Law is still very much in effect.
Are homosexual acts still a sin if you are a believer?
Agreed