Well, based on your last comment, I admit that I didn't think I would be receiving a compliment from you. It would appear logical that since you believe that I am "off" then you consider yourself "on". I also appreciate that you apparently turned your vitriol down a notch.

Do you realize that at least some of us agree with you on core religious principles? If not for your harsh tone and general disrespect I believe others would take you more seriously. Not that it matters to you, as too often it appears you are more interested in emasculating if not verbally assassinating to others.
Try including points you agree with first then include comments about others that you disagree

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You're STILL getting the concept of sola scriptura WRONG. And you're still arguing a fallacy. You're just not smart enough to know it. That's the frustrating part.

Augustine could have believed in the real presence, apostolic succession, and any other "major Catholic beliefs" because he believed them to be taught in Scripture. Even if he was wrong in his interpretation (which he himself admits he is liable to be), he's still following what he believes Scripture says. Sola scriptura doesn't mean you get every interpretation right, it just means that Scripture is the only infallible authority and thus, is the "highest authority that we must follow." (Confessions, 12.19)

And EVEN IF Augustine held those beliefs because of Roman Catholic tradition that's outside of Scripture - STILL, this does NOT go against sola scriptura. Sola Scriptura does NOT mean you can NOT believe in what Church tradition tells you to believe. It does NOT mean that you can't submit yourself to any other authority besides Scripture. Sola scriptura simply means that these other beliefs from tradition and other authorities are NOT infallible like Scripture, and therefore Scripture is the "highest authority" and thus all other traditions and authorities must always be measured and corrected against infallible Scripture. Whether one is always correctly or successfully doing this is beside the point. As Augustine directly states, NOTHING he says should be taken as truth, only Scripture should be (On the Trinity, Book 3).

Augustine CLEARLY makes statements to support the view of sola scriptura. You have to be either in deep denial to not see this, or you're just not intelligent. And you don't have any statements of his to the contrary, statements that say Church authority and teaching have the same infallibility as Scripture. That's the bottom line. To make up for this huge hole, you're denying what he clearly said and trying to put words in his mouth, and you're repeatedly arguing fallacies. And you're STILL not understanding what sola scriptura really means.

---

Well, I am smart enough to know that you have taken a few passages of Augustine's works (out of complete context) and twisted if a (false) belief that he subscribed to the protestant version of Sola Scriptura.

The fact is that the "reformers" Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli didn't believe that Augustine taught today's Sola Scriptura.

I Googled "famous protestant theologians" asked if each one of the following believed that Augustine believed and taught Sola Scriptura and each one of the follow protestant theologians ALL said, "NO", he did NOT teach what today's protestants believe as Sola Scriptura.

Alister McGrath
DA Carson
Gordon Fee
Balthasar Hubmaier
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Jonathan Edwards
Karl Barth
Herman Bavinck
Lesslie Newbigin
Harvey Cox Jr
Stanley Hauerwas
John Milbank
Thomas R. Schreiner
Jonathan Leeman
Abraham Kuyper
Reinhold Niebuhr
J. Gresham Machen
Cornelius Van Til
Elisabeth Elliot

As a matter of fact, when I asked Google if Augustine believed in Sola Scriptura, the response was the following:

No, Augustine did not believe in sola scriptura in the Protestant sense. While he held Scripture as the sole source of infallible truth and placed it above other human writings, he also affirmed the authoritative role of the Catholic Church's tradition and teachings. For Augustine, Scripture and the Church's tradition worked together, with the Church's authority being necessary to interpret Scripture and guide believers.

If you want to continue to believe that Augustine taught Sola Scriptura in light of the fact that CREDIBLE protestant theologians didn't even believe this, then that's your prerogative.

Quite frankly, I feel that is a fringe view from a few "internet theologians" with very little credibility.

But for the sake of the argument, let's say that he DID whole-hog believe in Sola Scriptura as today's protestants do. OK, so what? The Church does not subscribe to a "doctrine" that ONE Church Father believed.

But in actuality, he DIDN'T believe in what protestant today call Sola Scriptura. It is a futile attempt by some to try to connect to a Church Father by cherry-picking a handful of passages out of context without regard to his full body of works.

---

You aren't giving ANYTHING from Augustine's own words that he believed the Church was also infallible, like Scripture.

---

Except for where Augustine said so.

BUDOS said:

---

Well, based on your last comment, I admit that I didn't think I would be receiving a compliment from you. It would appear logical that since you believe that I am "off" then you consider yourself "on". I also appreciate that you apparently turned your vitriol down a notch.

Do you realize that at least some of us agree with you on core religious principles? If not for your harsh tone and general disrespect I believe others would take you more seriously. Not that it matters to you, as too often it appears you are more interested in emasculating if not verbally assassinating to others.
Try including points you agree with first then include comments about others that you disagree

---

I have not turned anything down. I've been posting the same way as I always have. You post the way you want, I'll post the way I want. You aren't the posting police.

You have a very intellectually dishonest characterization of and approach to all my posts. I really think your emotions are getting the best of you, and you feel that your only recourse against my points is to attempt to marginalize them by ad hominem. You're not providing any substance against what I'm saying. It's the same old same old, and I'm surprised that you apparently don't think it's being noticed. I am looking for honesty from others in these discussions, and I'm just not getting it. Hence, the warranted criticism.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You're STILL getting the concept of sola scriptura WRONG. And you're still arguing a fallacy. You're just not smart enough to know it. That's the frustrating part.

Augustine could have believed in the real presence, apostolic succession, and any other "major Catholic beliefs" because he believed them to be taught in Scripture. Even if he was wrong in his interpretation (which he himself admits he is liable to be), he's still following what he believes Scripture says. Sola scriptura doesn't mean you get every interpretation right, it just means that Scripture is the only infallible authority and thus, is the "highest authority that we must follow." (Confessions, 12.19)

And EVEN IF Augustine held those beliefs because of Roman Catholic tradition that's outside of Scripture - STILL, this does NOT go against sola scriptura. Sola Scriptura does NOT mean you can NOT believe in what Church tradition tells you to believe. It does NOT mean that you can't submit yourself to any other authority besides Scripture. Sola scriptura simply means that these other beliefs from tradition and other authorities are NOT infallible like Scripture, and therefore Scripture is the "highest authority" and thus all other traditions and authorities must always be measured and corrected against infallible Scripture. Whether one is always correctly or successfully doing this is beside the point. As Augustine directly states, NOTHING he says should be taken as truth, only Scripture should be (On the Trinity, Book 3).

Augustine CLEARLY makes statements to support the view of sola scriptura. You have to be either in deep denial to not see this, or you're just not intelligent. And you don't have any statements of his to the contrary, statements that say Church authority and teaching have the same infallibility as Scripture. That's the bottom line. To make up for this huge hole, you're denying what he clearly said and trying to put words in his mouth, and you're repeatedly arguing fallacies. And you're STILL not understanding what sola scriptura really means.

---

Well, I am smart enough to know that you have taken a few passages of Augustine's works (out of complete context) and twisted if a (false) belief that he subscribed to the protestant version of Sola Scriptura.

The fact is that the "reformers" Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli didn't believe that Augustine taught today's Sola Scriptura.

I Googled "famous protestant theologians" asked if each one of the following believed that Augustine believed and taught Sola Scriptura and each one of the follow protestant theologians ALL said, "NO", he did NOT teach what today's protestants believe as Sola Scriptura.

Alister McGrath
DA Carson
Gordon Fee
Balthasar Hubmaier
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Jonathan Edwards
Karl Barth
Herman Bavinck
Lesslie Newbigin
Harvey Cox Jr
Stanley Hauerwas
John Milbank
Thomas R. Schreiner
Jonathan Leeman
Abraham Kuyper
Reinhold Niebuhr
J. Gresham Machen
Cornelius Van Til
Elisabeth Elliot

As a matter of fact, when I asked Google if Augustine believed in Sola Scriptura, the response was the following:

No, Augustine did not believe in sola scriptura in the Protestant sense. While he held Scripture as the sole source of infallible truth and placed it above other human writings, he also affirmed the authoritative role of the Catholic Church's tradition and teachings. For Augustine, Scripture and the Church's tradition worked together, with the Church's authority being necessary to interpret Scripture and guide believers.

If you want to continue to believe that Augustine taught Sola Scriptura in light of the fact that CREDIBLE protestant theologians didn't even believe this, then that's your prerogative.

Quite frankly, I feel that is a fringe view from a few "internet theologians" with very little credibility.

But for the sake of the argument, let's say that he DID whole-hog believe in Sola Scriptura as today's protestants do. OK, so what? The Church does not subscribe to a "doctrine" that ONE Church Father believed.

But in actuality, he DIDN'T believe in what protestant today call Sola Scriptura. It is a futile attempt by some to try to connect to a Church Father by cherry-picking a handful of passages out of context without regard to his full body of works.

---

You aren't giving ANYTHING from Augustine's own words that he believed the Church was also infallible, like Scripture.

---

Except for where Augustine said so.

---

Only in your mind, not in his actual words. You can't post his actual words, because it just isn't there. You have to resort to ad hoc eisegesis - just like what you have to do to Scripture to justify Roman Catholic teaching.

I have read and reread your last post to me. Following my initial visceral response, I actually read it again. Admittedly, I do believe you have a point in that I have allowed your harsh tone to prejudice my opinion of you and, oftentimes, the content of your responses.
That you apparently believe you are justified in emasculating and insulting others and is exasperating.
But then I can choose to ignore you and your issues and my issue with you and both of us would be happier.

BUDOS said:

---

I have read and reread your last post to me. Following my initial visceral response, I actually read it again. Admittedly, I do believe you have a point in that I have allowed your harsh tone to prejudice my opinion of you and, oftentimes, the content of your responses.
That you apparently believe you are justified in emasculating and insulting others and is exasperating.
But then I can choose to ignore you and your issues and my issue with you and both of us would be happier.

---

Playing games and being dishonest with yourself and others deserves sharp criticism. If Scripture, history, facts, logic, and reason "emasculate" someone's views, then perhaps that person needs to adjust their views.

It's just so funny how we don't hear a peep out of you and your whining about "tone" and "emasculation" when others (try to) do it to me, especially curtpenn. This, along with the fact that you refused to answer whether Mary being called "The All Holy One", "the road we must travel to get to God", "sovereign", "Mediatrix", "God of this world", and saying "we put our salvation into Mary's hands" and "through Mary we obtain ALL salvation" is idolatry and heresy, and when you knew you were wrong about the "book of life" yet you STILL doubled down on it - all this makes me think something's really, really wrong with you, if you call yourself a Christian. It's showing that you're not in the truth.

You're welcome to ignore me, i.e. "block" me, and join the others who can't argue against what I'm saying, and who are so set on themselves that they just can't stand the thought of being wrong, that they have to close their eyes and ears in denial. I'm only looking for honest discussion, so if those who are only looking to put up defense mechanisms are out of the way, then all the better.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

I have read and reread your last post to me. Following my initial visceral response, I actually read it again. Admittedly, I do believe you have a point in that I have allowed your harsh tone to prejudice my opinion of you and, oftentimes, the content of your responses.
That you apparently believe you are justified in emasculating and insulting others and is exasperating.
But then I can choose to ignore you and your issues and my issue with you and both of us would be happier.

---

Playing games and being dishonest with yourself and others deserves sharp criticism. If Scripture, history, facts, logic, and reason "emasculate" someone's views, then perhaps that person needs to adjust their views.

It's just so funny how we don't hear a peep out of you and your whining about "tone" and "emasculation" when others (try to) do it to me, especially curtpenn. This, along with the fact that you refused to answer whether Mary being called "The All Holy One", "the road we must travel to get to God", "sovereign", "Mediatrix", "God of this world", and saying "we put our salvation into Mary's hands" and "through Mary we obtain ALL salvation" is idolatry and heresy, and when you knew you were wrong about the "book of life" yet you STILL doubled down on it - all this makes me think something's really, really wrong with you, if you call yourself a Christian. It's showing that you're not in the truth.

You're welcome to ignore me, i.e. "block" me, and join the others who can't argue against what I'm saying, and who are so set on themselves that they just can't stand the thought of being wrong, that they have to close their eyes and ears in denial. I'm only looking for honest discussion, so if those who are only looking to put up defense mechanisms are out of the way, then all the better.

---

"The only thing worse than being blind is having sight but no vision."

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

I have read and reread your last post to me. Following my initial visceral response, I actually read it again. Admittedly, I do believe you have a point in that I have allowed your harsh tone to prejudice my opinion of you and, oftentimes, the content of your responses.
That you apparently believe you are justified in emasculating and insulting others and is exasperating.
But then I can choose to ignore you and your issues and my issue with you and both of us would be happier.

---

Playing games and being dishonest with yourself and others deserves sharp criticism. If Scripture, history, facts, logic, and reason "emasculate" someone's views, then perhaps that person needs to adjust their views.

It's just so funny how we don't hear a peep out of you and your whining about "tone" and "emasculation" when others (try to) do it to me, especially curtpenn. This, along with the fact that you refused to answer whether Mary being called "The All Holy One", "the road we must travel to get to God", "sovereign", "Mediatrix", "God of this world", and saying "we put our salvation into Mary's hands" and "through Mary we obtain ALL salvation" is idolatry and heresy, and when you knew you were wrong about the "book of life" yet you STILL doubled down on it - all this makes me think something's really, really wrong with you, if you call yourself a Christian. It's showing that you're not in the truth.

You're welcome to ignore me, i.e. "block" me, and join the others who can't argue against what I'm saying, and who are so set on themselves that they just can't stand the thought of being wrong, that they have to close their eyes and ears in denial. I'm only looking for honest discussion, so if those who are only looking to put up defense mechanisms are out of the way, then all the better.

---

"The only thing worse than being blind is having sight but no vision."

---

The problem with wise sayings, is that the unwise don't know who it's actually for.

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

Yes, and that's the way it was intended; not directed to any specific person.

BUDOS said:

---

Yes, and that's the way it was intended; not directed to any specific person.

---

Not very convincing, considering it was a reply to my post. And if so, it'd be a first in a long, long time. Virtually all of your most recent posts here have been to criticize me personally. Your comment fits your consistent pattern of passive aggressiveness.

You're in defense mechanism mode - you can't make an argument against mine, so you have to resort to redirecting the attention to your perception of my personal flaws. It's a tired, old game that gets played over and over in these threads, and ironically it only demonstrates that your viewpoint is weak which only strengthens the point of the person you're attacking.

If you got a counterpoint to what I'm saying, then let's hear it. If you're gonna continue to play games, then you're gonna get the "tone". I have been fair to every single person in this thread, and to suggest otherwise is just based in emotional bias, and maybe even outright dishonesty in an antichrist spirit.

My response was based on a passage which crossed my mind as I read this phrase in your post "that they have to close their eyes and ears in denial". As I reread your post again I thought that the quote fit within the context of the post, for the general audience. It was also an effort to lower the temperature.

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

Tomorrow, September 7th, the family of God remembers Saint Evodius of the Seventy.

After the Saint Peter, he was the first bishop in Syrian Antioch. His successor, the Hieromartyr Ignatius the God-Bearer (December 20), disciple of the holy Apostle John the Theologian, mentions him in his Letter to the Antiochians: "Remember your blessed father Evodus, who was made your first pastor by the Apostles."

Saint Evodius served as bishop for 27 years and died as a martyr under the emperor Nero (54-68). Saint Evodus wrote several compositions. In one of them he notes that the Theotokos gave birth to the Savior of the world at the age of fifteen.

Other writings of the saint have not survived. A book entitled THE STAR is mentioned by the fourteenth century church historian Nicephorus Callistus. Saint Evodus received the crown of martyrdom in the year 66 A.D.

Saint Evodius, pray for us!

Let's check the scoreboard for Roman Catholic/Orthodox praises for Mary/saints vs. their praise for Jesus in this thread:

Mary/Saints: 326
Jesus: 0


Those saints will get their reward when time comes. But the saints didn't save us. Only Jesus did. He deserves the praise far, far more than any individual saint and all of them put together. Praising/venerating Mary and the saints far more than Jesus raises a lot of red flags.

No one saves except Jesus. He is the only person in history who was sinless so He is only one who could have saved us. I'm pretty sure some of the Catholics here made that point too.

historian said:

---

No one saved except Jesus. He is the only person in history who was sinless so He is only one who could have saved us. I'm pretty sure some of the Catholics here made that point too.

---

Jesus is indeed the head of His Church and the only one who saves us. This fact is not an excuse to be willfully ignorant of Christian history, the Great Cloud of Witnesses that (present tense) surround us, or examples of victorius Christian living.

historian said:

---

No one saved except Jesus. He is the only person in history who was sinless so He is only one who could have saved us. I'm pretty sure some of the Catholics here made that point too.

---

Ditto

historian said:

---

No one saved except Jesus. He is the only person in history who was sinless so He is only one who could have saved us. I'm pretty sure some of the Catholics here made that point too.

---

No, Catholics would NOT make that point. They don't believe that Jesus is the only person in history who was sinless.

And the point was that you would never know that Catholics/Orthodox believe Jesus is the only one who saves, based on the overwhelming attention they give to Mary and the saints.

Realitybites said:

---

historian said:

---

No one saved except Jesus. He is the only person in history who was sinless so He is only one who could have saved us. I'm pretty sure some of the Catholics here made that point too.

---

Jesus is indeed the head of His Church and the only one who saves us. This fact is not an excuse to be willfully ignorant of Christian history, the Great Cloud of Witnesses that (present tense) surround us, or examples of victorius Christian living.

---

There is no reason to believe that the "great cloud of witnesses" is the literal gathering of people in heaven who are spectators of our lives. Nothing in Scripture suggests it. And I highly doubt people in heaven would be observing all the pain, suffering, sin, and evil that is happening here.

And one can be ignorant their whole life of all the saints who ever lived, and not be hurt. But one can be eternally hurt by not ever knowing Jesus. We know absolutely nothing about Saint Evodius' life to be able to know him as an example of "victorius Christian living". We don't know if he was martyred. There is no reason to celebrate him over all the other Christians who are not known in history, but who were killed for their faith or for their work for Jesus - thousands and thousands of unknown executed by the Roman Catholic Church, even.

IIRC, some have above.

historian said:

---

IIRC, some have above.

---

They would not have, and they have not, as Catholics believe Mary was also sinless. As well as being perpetually pure, and having ascended into heaven. All to make her like Jesus, and to elevate her to a "Co-Mediator" role where she plays just as important a role in salvation as Jesus. That's how you get to where you call Mary "salvation of the universe", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "the road we must travel to get to God", and to where you say "we obtain all salvation through Mary", as Roman Catholicism does. You've read those quotes I gave in another thread. Don't be ignorant/dismissive of this fact. There's a reason why virtually all the praise goes to Mary and the saints in Catholicism. They've been, or are in the process of being bewitched. You may be the only influence among your friends and family who are Catholic, for them to be able to get out of that system and into a true saving relationship with Jesus Christ.

You are stereotyping: not all Catholics think 100% alike on these things, just like not all Baptist's, Presbyterians, Muslims, or Hindus agree 100%.

I do remember some statements above that don't fit the stereotype. And no, I'm not getting to search through several pages of discussion to find the posts.

historian said:

---

You are stereotyping: not all Catholics think 100% alike on these things, just like not all Baptist's, Presbyterians, Muslims, or Hindus agree 100%.

I do remember some statements above that don't fit the stereotype. And no, I'm not getting to search through several pages of discussion to find the posts.

---

It isn't stereotyping. If you don't believe in Mary's sinlessness, perpetual purity, and ascension into heaven, you are anathematized from the Roman Catholic Church. All Catholics are required to believe it. Virtually all Catholics bow to images of Mary and pray to her, sing hymns to her, and say prayers where they praise Mary far more than they praise God/Jesus. All Catholics must believe their teaching office (Magisterium) is inerrant, and since their teaching office is fully complicit with all the quotes and prayers which say Mary is the way to salvation, so must be all Catholics. Look at how not a single Roman Catholic will disavow those statements. Not one. Don't be ignorant/dismissive of this.

You don't need to search for those quotes. i already know you saw them, and that you know about them. You acknowledged them in the "purgatory" thread.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

historian said:

---

No one saved except Jesus. He is the only person in history who was sinless so He is only one who could have saved us. I'm pretty sure some of the Catholics here made that point too.

---

Jesus is indeed the head of His Church and the only one who saves us. This fact is not an excuse to be willfully ignorant of Christian history, the Great Cloud of Witnesses that (present tense) surround us, or examples of victorius Christian living.

---

There is no reason to believe that the "great cloud of witnesses" is the literal gathering of people in heaven who are spectators of our lives. Nothing in Scripture suggests it. And I highly doubt people in heaven would be observing all the pain, suffering, sin, and evil that is happening here.

And one can be ignorant their whole life of all the saints who ever lived, and not be hurt. But one can be eternally hurt by not ever knowing Jesus. We know absolutely nothing about Saint Evodius' life to be able to know him as an example of "victorius Christian living". We don't know if he was martyred. There is no reason to celebrate him over all the other Christians who are not known in history, but who were killed for their faith or for their work for Jesus - thousands and thousands of unknown executed by the Roman Catholic Church, even.

---

The Catholic Church never executed anyone. Catholic civil authorities did, and so did Protestant ones.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

historian said:

---

No one saved except Jesus. He is the only person in history who was sinless so He is only one who could have saved us. I'm pretty sure some of the Catholics here made that point too.

---

Jesus is indeed the head of His Church and the only one who saves us. This fact is not an excuse to be willfully ignorant of Christian history, the Great Cloud of Witnesses that (present tense) surround us, or examples of victorius Christian living.

---

There is no reason to believe that the "great cloud of witnesses" is the literal gathering of people in heaven who are spectators of our lives. Nothing in Scripture suggests it. And I highly doubt people in heaven would be observing all the pain, suffering, sin, and evil that is happening here.

And one can be ignorant their whole life of all the saints who ever lived, and not be hurt. But one can be eternally hurt by not ever knowing Jesus. We know absolutely nothing about Saint Evodius' life to be able to know him as an example of "victorius Christian living". We don't know if he was martyred. There is no reason to celebrate him over all the other Christians who are not known in history, but who were killed for their faith or for their work for Jesus - thousands and thousands of unknown executed by the Roman Catholic Church, even.

---

The Catholic Church never executed anyone. Catholic civil authorities did, and so did Protestant ones.

---

"No True Catholic" again

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

historian said:

---

No one saved except Jesus. He is the only person in history who was sinless so He is only one who could have saved us. I'm pretty sure some of the Catholics here made that point too.

---

Jesus is indeed the head of His Church and the only one who saves us. This fact is not an excuse to be willfully ignorant of Christian history, the Great Cloud of Witnesses that (present tense) surround us, or examples of victorius Christian living.

---

There is no reason to believe that the "great cloud of witnesses" is the literal gathering of people in heaven who are spectators of our lives. Nothing in Scripture suggests it. And I highly doubt people in heaven would be observing all the pain, suffering, sin, and evil that is happening here.

And one can be ignorant their whole life of all the saints who ever lived, and not be hurt. But one can be eternally hurt by not ever knowing Jesus. We know absolutely nothing about Saint Evodius' life to be able to know him as an example of "victorius Christian living". We don't know if he was martyred. There is no reason to celebrate him over all the other Christians who are not known in history, but who were killed for their faith or for their work for Jesus - thousands and thousands of unknown executed by the Roman Catholic Church, even.

---

The Catholic Church never executed anyone. Catholic civil authorities did, and so did Protestant ones.

---

Right, and Hitler never killed any Jews.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

historian said:

---

No one saved except Jesus. He is the only person in history who was sinless so He is only one who could have saved us. I'm pretty sure some of the Catholics here made that point too.

---

Jesus is indeed the head of His Church and the only one who saves us. This fact is not an excuse to be willfully ignorant of Christian history, the Great Cloud of Witnesses that (present tense) surround us, or examples of victorius Christian living.

---

There is no reason to believe that the "great cloud of witnesses" is the literal gathering of people in heaven who are spectators of our lives. Nothing in Scripture suggests it. And I highly doubt people in heaven would be observing all the pain, suffering, sin, and evil that is happening here.

And one can be ignorant their whole life of all the saints who ever lived, and not be hurt. But one can be eternally hurt by not ever knowing Jesus. We know absolutely nothing about Saint Evodius' life to be able to know him as an example of "victorius Christian living". We don't know if he was martyred. There is no reason to celebrate him over all the other Christians who are not known in history, but who were killed for their faith or for their work for Jesus - thousands and thousands of unknown executed by the Roman Catholic Church, even.

---

The Catholic Church never executed anyone. Catholic civil authorities did, and so did Protestant ones.

---

Right, and Hitler never killed any Jews.

---

On the contrary, he took Luther's exhortations very seriously.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

historian said:

---

No one saved except Jesus. He is the only person in history who was sinless so He is only one who could have saved us. I'm pretty sure some of the Catholics here made that point too.

---

Jesus is indeed the head of His Church and the only one who saves us. This fact is not an excuse to be willfully ignorant of Christian history, the Great Cloud of Witnesses that (present tense) surround us, or examples of victorius Christian living.

---

There is no reason to believe that the "great cloud of witnesses" is the literal gathering of people in heaven who are spectators of our lives. Nothing in Scripture suggests it. And I highly doubt people in heaven would be observing all the pain, suffering, sin, and evil that is happening here.

And one can be ignorant their whole life of all the saints who ever lived, and not be hurt. But one can be eternally hurt by not ever knowing Jesus. We know absolutely nothing about Saint Evodius' life to be able to know him as an example of "victorius Christian living". We don't know if he was martyred. There is no reason to celebrate him over all the other Christians who are not known in history, but who were killed for their faith or for their work for Jesus - thousands and thousands of unknown executed by the Roman Catholic Church, even.

---

The Catholic Church never executed anyone. Catholic civil authorities did, and so did Protestant ones.

---

Right, and Hitler never killed any Jews.

---

On the contrary, he took Luther's exhortations very seriously.

---

Never personally killed those Jews. So how could he have? That's the reasoning, correct?

And he could only dream of achieving the kill count of the papacy and their "exhortations".

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

historian said:

---

No one saved except Jesus. He is the only person in history who was sinless so He is only one who could have saved us. I'm pretty sure some of the Catholics here made that point too.

---

Jesus is indeed the head of His Church and the only one who saves us. This fact is not an excuse to be willfully ignorant of Christian history, the Great Cloud of Witnesses that (present tense) surround us, or examples of victorius Christian living.

---

There is no reason to believe that the "great cloud of witnesses" is the literal gathering of people in heaven who are spectators of our lives. Nothing in Scripture suggests it. And I highly doubt people in heaven would be observing all the pain, suffering, sin, and evil that is happening here.

And one can be ignorant their whole life of all the saints who ever lived, and not be hurt. But one can be eternally hurt by not ever knowing Jesus. We know absolutely nothing about Saint Evodius' life to be able to know him as an example of "victorius Christian living". We don't know if he was martyred. There is no reason to celebrate him over all the other Christians who are not known in history, but who were killed for their faith or for their work for Jesus - thousands and thousands of unknown executed by the Roman Catholic Church, even.

---

The Catholic Church never executed anyone. Catholic civil authorities did, and so did Protestant ones.

---

Right, and Hitler never killed any Jews.

---

On the contrary, he took Luther's exhortations very seriously.

---

Never personally killed those Jews. So how could he have? That's the reasoning, correct?

And he could only dream of achieving the kill count of the papacy and their "exhortations".

---

That is really taking anti-Catholic propaganda to a new level.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

historian said:

---

No one saved except Jesus. He is the only person in history who was sinless so He is only one who could have saved us. I'm pretty sure some of the Catholics here made that point too.

---

Jesus is indeed the head of His Church and the only one who saves us. This fact is not an excuse to be willfully ignorant of Christian history, the Great Cloud of Witnesses that (present tense) surround us, or examples of victorius Christian living.

---

There is no reason to believe that the "great cloud of witnesses" is the literal gathering of people in heaven who are spectators of our lives. Nothing in Scripture suggests it. And I highly doubt people in heaven would be observing all the pain, suffering, sin, and evil that is happening here.

And one can be ignorant their whole life of all the saints who ever lived, and not be hurt. But one can be eternally hurt by not ever knowing Jesus. We know absolutely nothing about Saint Evodius' life to be able to know him as an example of "victorius Christian living". We don't know if he was martyred. There is no reason to celebrate him over all the other Christians who are not known in history, but who were killed for their faith or for their work for Jesus - thousands and thousands of unknown executed by the Roman Catholic Church, even.

---

The Catholic Church never executed anyone. Catholic civil authorities did, and so did Protestant ones.

---

Right, and Hitler never killed any Jews.

---

On the contrary, he took Luther's exhortations very seriously.

---

Never personally killed those Jews. So how could he have? That's the reasoning, correct?

And he could only dream of achieving the kill count of the papacy and their "exhortations".

---

That is really taking anti-Catholic propaganda to a new level.

---

Disagree, but considering your blatant hypocrisy on this dispute, Sam, you aren't helping your case either.

The civic authorities burned Christians, Jews, and others at the stake after the Catholic Inquisition tortured them. It was all for show.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

historian said:

---

No one saved except Jesus. He is the only person in history who was sinless so He is only one who could have saved us. I'm pretty sure some of the Catholics here made that point too.

---

Jesus is indeed the head of His Church and the only one who saves us. This fact is not an excuse to be willfully ignorant of Christian history, the Great Cloud of Witnesses that (present tense) surround us, or examples of victorius Christian living.

---

There is no reason to believe that the "great cloud of witnesses" is the literal gathering of people in heaven who are spectators of our lives. Nothing in Scripture suggests it. And I highly doubt people in heaven would be observing all the pain, suffering, sin, and evil that is happening here.

And one can be ignorant their whole life of all the saints who ever lived, and not be hurt. But one can be eternally hurt by not ever knowing Jesus. We know absolutely nothing about Saint Evodius' life to be able to know him as an example of "victorius Christian living". We don't know if he was martyred. There is no reason to celebrate him over all the other Christians who are not known in history, but who were killed for their faith or for their work for Jesus - thousands and thousands of unknown executed by the Roman Catholic Church, even.

---

The Catholic Church never executed anyone. Catholic civil authorities did, and so did Protestant ones.

---

Right, and Hitler never killed any Jews.

---

On the contrary, he took Luther's exhortations very seriously.

---

Never personally killed those Jews. So how could he have? That's the reasoning, correct?

And he could only dream of achieving the kill count of the papacy and their "exhortations".

---

That is really taking anti-Catholic propaganda to a new level.

---

As does the suggestion of a link to the Holocaust for Protestantism.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

historian said:

---

No one saved except Jesus. He is the only person in history who was sinless so He is only one who could have saved us. I'm pretty sure some of the Catholics here made that point too.

---

Jesus is indeed the head of His Church and the only one who saves us. This fact is not an excuse to be willfully ignorant of Christian history, the Great Cloud of Witnesses that (present tense) surround us, or examples of victorius Christian living.

---

There is no reason to believe that the "great cloud of witnesses" is the literal gathering of people in heaven who are spectators of our lives. Nothing in Scripture suggests it. And I highly doubt people in heaven would be observing all the pain, suffering, sin, and evil that is happening here.

And one can be ignorant their whole life of all the saints who ever lived, and not be hurt. But one can be eternally hurt by not ever knowing Jesus. We know absolutely nothing about Saint Evodius' life to be able to know him as an example of "victorius Christian living". We don't know if he was martyred. There is no reason to celebrate him over all the other Christians who are not known in history, but who were killed for their faith or for their work for Jesus - thousands and thousands of unknown executed by the Roman Catholic Church, even.

---

The Catholic Church never executed anyone. Catholic civil authorities did, and so did Protestant ones.

---

Right, and Hitler never killed any Jews.

---

On the contrary, he took Luther's exhortations very seriously.

---

Never personally killed those Jews. So how could he have? That's the reasoning, correct?

And he could only dream of achieving the kill count of the papacy and their "exhortations".

---

That is really taking anti-Catholic propaganda to a new level.

---

As does the suggestion of a link to the Holocaust for Protestantism.

---

Hitler himself made the link, so it's anything but new. I'm not really interested in comparing, but if you want to dredge up the (often exaggerated) historical misdeeds of the Roman Church, there's plenty of blame to go around.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

historian said:

---

No one saved except Jesus. He is the only person in history who was sinless so He is only one who could have saved us. I'm pretty sure some of the Catholics here made that point too.

---

Jesus is indeed the head of His Church and the only one who saves us. This fact is not an excuse to be willfully ignorant of Christian history, the Great Cloud of Witnesses that (present tense) surround us, or examples of victorius Christian living.

---

There is no reason to believe that the "great cloud of witnesses" is the literal gathering of people in heaven who are spectators of our lives. Nothing in Scripture suggests it. And I highly doubt people in heaven would be observing all the pain, suffering, sin, and evil that is happening here.

And one can be ignorant their whole life of all the saints who ever lived, and not be hurt. But one can be eternally hurt by not ever knowing Jesus. We know absolutely nothing about Saint Evodius' life to be able to know him as an example of "victorius Christian living". We don't know if he was martyred. There is no reason to celebrate him over all the other Christians who are not known in history, but who were killed for their faith or for their work for Jesus - thousands and thousands of unknown executed by the Roman Catholic Church, even.

---

The Catholic Church never executed anyone. Catholic civil authorities did, and so did Protestant ones.

---

Right, and Hitler never killed any Jews.

---

On the contrary, he took Luther's exhortations very seriously.

---

Never personally killed those Jews. So how could he have? That's the reasoning, correct?

And he could only dream of achieving the kill count of the papacy and their "exhortations".

---

That is really taking anti-Catholic propaganda to a new level.

---

As does the suggestion of a link to the Holocaust for Protestantism.

---

Hitler himself made the link, so it's anything but new. I'm not really interested in comparing, but if you want to dredge up the (often exaggerated) historical misdeeds of the Roman Church, there's plenty of blame to go around.

---

Hitler may have made the link to Luther, but not to Protestantism. Protestants, unlike Catholics, acknowledge the fallibility (in Luther's case, very much so) of man, that no man or men are beyond approach or reprove, in any circumstance.

Sure, there's blame to go around, but there's no denying that the Roman Catholic Church used it's authority to have many people they deemed to be heretics killed. You should be honest about that, but you weren't.