BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

==> by what revelation do you know they can receive our prayers and present them? You aren't answering the question.

---

Revelation 5:8

BusyTarpDuster2017.[b said:

---

==> isn't that saying "man"? Are there "men" in heaven, or is this verse talking about earthly people? Regardless, what does this verse have to do with praying to saints? If saints pray for us in heaven, that's one thing. But that doesn't mean we are to pray to them.

---

What do you mean by "pray to them"?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

==> if that is her depiction, then she is in anguish from birth pangs, which means she had original sin, contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches. Also, if she is depicted in heaven there, then Satan who is represented by the dragon, must also be in heaven. Can't have it both ways.

---

It metaphorical. John was bringing to light the link between Genesis and the garden with the three person there (Adam, Eve, Satan) with the future with the New Adam - Jesus, the New Eve - Mary, and Satan.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

-==> then based on what new revelation from God outside of Jesus are you basing this on? Also, if no one was in heaven before Jesus' resurrection, then where were Moses and Elijah when they appeared with Jesus in the transfiguration?

---

We are not told directly, but most scholars assume that they are still in Abraham's bosom because heaven has not been opened to man until Jesus' resurrection.

Quote:

---

I don't know enough about Baptist's services to say whether they they do this every (Sun)day as the Catholic Church does.

---

Baptist services typically are around 50% singing and 50% preaching preceded or followed by an hour of Sunday school. The preaching can follow either a "through the Bible" verse by verse format as done by Dr. J. Vernon McGee or a "topical" format where various verses from various books of the Bible are compiled to support the sermon theme.

The singing used to be songs from the past few hundred years sung out of a hymnal accompanied by piano (sometimes organ).

It's gotten to the point that the choir has become a worship team dressed up like pirates singing baby shark to Jesus.

The Gospel According to Baby Shark

I finally got sick of the apostasy and stopped going. After doing a lot of reading on my own I converted to Eastern Orthodoxy and am quite content celebrating the millenia and a half old liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom complete with Byzantine chant, married priests, and the Theotokos having two very human (albeit devout) parents...as well as not answering to a communist bartender from Argentina and his homosexual mafia in the Vatican.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

A lie is when you say something that you know to be false. None of these are lies, as I believe all of them to be true. Your welcome. - You accused me of something I never asserted and it's in black and white in your own words. You are deluded, stupid, mistaken, or lying every time you deny this. Take your pick and let us know which you choose.

No, I do not shun Christmas trees or exchanging presents, or the dyeing of Easter eggs. Did you not comprehend what I had just said? Calm down and actually try to understand what I said before you knee-jerk your typical angry response. - Perhaps explain for us why your pagan practice derived habits are different or special in some way and don't merit your very own condemnation rather than recycle your knee-jerk typical bullsh it responses? Hypocrite.

And I am not "attacking" anyone. I am strongly challenging their beliefs. You, however, are obviously attacking me. Doesn't bother me one bit. In fact, I'm actually glad you are, because it means at least you are giving me your focused attention and reading everything I'm writing. - I am obviously attacking you. Attacking you for your arrogance, hypocrisy, and lies. But mostly because you accomplish nothing positive here in your asinine and repeated attacks on the body of Christ. You aren't "strongly challenging" anyone's beliefs. You are only cementing their disdain for your brand of fundamentalist neo phariseeism while simultaneously pleasing the Father of Lies. Do you really imagine anything you post here has the power to convince and convict? Unbelievable hubris on full display. Well done thou good and faithful servant.

Those prayers to Mary don't have to be dogma for them to be very troubling. Why do you keep missing the point? As I have explained, many times, those prayers have the full support and endorsement of the Catholic Church. That in itself should make one question the legitimacy of the Catholic Church's claim of authority from God. - Seems the only very troubled one here is you. Explain for us why any here should believe you have any legitimacy in your claims and speak with authority from God.

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't know enough about Baptist's services to say whether they they do this every (Sun)day as the Catholic Church does.

---

Baptist services typically are around 50% singing and 50% preaching preceded or followed by an hour of Sunday school. The preaching can follow either a "through the Bible" verse by verse format as done by Dr. J. Vernon McGee or a "topical" format where various verses from various books of the Bible are compiled to support the sermon theme.

The singing used to be songs from the past few hundred years sung out of a hymnal accompanied by piano (sometimes organ).

It's gotten to the point that the choir has become a worship team dressed up like pirates singing baby shark to Jesus.

The Gospel According to Baby Shark

I finally got sick of the apostasy and stopped going. After doing a lot of reading on my own I converted to Eastern Orthodoxy and am quite content celebrating the millenia and a half old liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom complete with Byzantine chant, married priests, and the Theotokos having two very human (albeit devout) parents...as well as not answering to a communist bartender from Argentina and his homosexual mafia in the Vatican.

---

Thanks for the chuckle re worship teams, pirates and baby shark.

I find much to admire in the Orthodox Church. Not that you need my affirmation. Blessings for your journey.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- I did not say 2 Timothy 3:16 says "only scripture". I said that the verse is telling us that "only scripture" is sufficient, in response to commenter.

---

Reading the word "ONLY" into the text or its meaning is eisegesis. It is reading a Sola Scriptura bias into the passage that is not present.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- again - the OT, the four gospels, and the epistles from the apostles were already deemed authoritative and were being circulated and used by Jesus' followers, before any Catholic council deemed them scripture. The way you get around this is by calling the first Christians the "Catholic Church" which is disingenuous. They weren't called Catholics, they were Christians.

---

These were circulated, but other texts like the Apocalypse of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, the so-called Pauline Epistles to the Laodiceans and to the Alexandrians were read during that time.


Debates existed concerning the canonical books as well. Even Protestant New Testament scholars like Bruce Metzger admit that about 25% of the New Testament was disputed to some degree in the early centuries of the Church. Some of the disputed writings were James, 2 Peter, Jude , & Revelation.

The Church used the three criteria to ultimately affirm the canon: apostolicity, orthodoxy, and widespread use.

This was done by councils of the Catholic Church, primarily Hippo in 393 A.D. and Carthage in 397 and 419 A.D.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't know enough about Baptist's services to say whether they they do this every (Sun)day as the Catholic Church does.

---

Baptist services typically are around 50% singing and 50% preaching preceded or followed by an hour of Sunday school. The preaching can follow either a "through the Bible" verse by verse format as done by Dr. J. Vernon McGee or a "topical" format where various verses from various books of the Bible are compiled to support the sermon theme.

The singing used to be songs from the past few hundred years sung out of a hymnal accompanied by piano (sometimes organ).

It's gotten to the point that the choir has become a worship team dressed up like pirates singing baby shark to Jesus.

The Gospel According to Baby Shark

I finally got sick of the apostasy and stopped going. After doing a lot of reading on my own I converted to Eastern Orthodoxy and am quite content celebrating the millenia and a half old liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom complete with Byzantine chant, married priests, and the Theotokos having two very human (albeit devout) parents...as well as not answering to a communist bartender from Argentina and his homosexual mafia in the Vatican.

---

Thank you for your post. I meant to reply to your previous post and wondered if you were Eastern Orthodox. I disagree with your account of history in your previous post.

I'm not sure if a debate between us would have much relevance on a Baptist message board. The Catholic Church, obviously, does affirm all 7 sacraments as valid in the Orthodox Church. I too, like JPII, pray that one day the Church "will breathe with both lungs" East and West.

I don't think reconciliation is that far off. Maybe within a 100 years or so, the two will unite. The leaven vs. unleaven - resolvable. Filioque - semantics, to an extent. The papacy is the major issue.

You may have run across the works of Michael Vorris. I believe that he's formally Orthodox and researched his way back to Rome.

One article that I'll recommend is from Jimmy Akin, a former Protestant that studied his way into the Church but had to discern Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

While I do not agree with some of the things that Pope Francis says or does, he is still the Bishop of Rome. He does speak out about abortion, same-sex attraction, and the devil quite a bit. I do applaud him for that.

Finally, I wish the Lavender mafia would pass away peacefully and get what's coming to them. My hope/prayer is for the next pontiff to be more like Benedict XVI and not Frances 2.0. I wish they would elect Cardinal Sarah from Africa.

PS. "bartender" from Argentina cannot be a communist (or socialist). One cannot adhere to Catholic doctrine and be either.

PPS. Have you inquired into the Byzantine rite? You may find similar worship there, but it does pledge allegiance to the Pope.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

==> by what revelation do you know they can receive our prayers and present them? You aren't answering the question.

---

Revelation 5:8 ==> this doesn't say anything about them receiving prayers directed to them.

BusyTarpDuster2017.[b said:

---

==> isn't that saying "man"? Are there "men" in heaven, or is this verse talking about earthly people? Regardless, what does this verse have to do with praying to saints? If saints pray for us in heaven, that's one thing. But that doesn't mean we are to pray to them.

---

What do you mean by "pray to them"? ==> I mean communicate to them the same way that you do God. Like you do in the rosary, where you're communicating to both God and Mary in the same way.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

==> if that is her depiction, then she is in anguish from birth pangs, which means she had original sin, contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches. Also, if she is depicted in heaven there, then Satan who is represented by the dragon, must also be in heaven. Can't have it both ways.

---

It metaphorical. John was bringing to light the link between Genesis and the garden with the three person there (Adam, Eve, Satan) with the future with the New Adam - Jesus, the New Eve - Mary, and Satan. ==> if it's metaphorical, why does it metaphorically mean Mary is in heaven? I don't doubt she is in heaven, but why does this metaphor indicate that, especially since Satan is there too? Btw, the majority of early church fathers did NOT think the woman was Mary. They thought she represented the Hebrew people/religion. Also, this part in revelation is talking about the astrological signs in the heaven that was a prophesy for the day of Jesus' birth. It's not about the garden of Eden. Watch this video, it explains it:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

-==> then based on what new revelation from God outside of Jesus are you basing this on? Also, if no one was in heaven before Jesus' resurrection, then where were Moses and Elijah when they appeared with Jesus in the transfiguration?

---

We are not told directly, but most scholars assume that they are still in Abraham's bosom because heaven has not been opened to man until Jesus' resurrection.

---

==> did the Jews ever believe that they could ask those in Abraham's bosom for their intercession?

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

A lie is when you say something that you know to be false. None of these are lies, as I believe all of them to be true. Your welcome. - You accused me of something I never asserted and it's in black and white in your own words. You are deluded, stupid, mistaken, or lying every time you deny this. Take your pick and let us know which you choose. ==> I believe you did assert them, like I explained. And if I was mistaken, that's not a lie, right? So aren't YOU lying about it being a lie?

No, I do not shun Christmas trees or exchanging presents, or the dyeing of Easter eggs. Did you not comprehend what I had just said? Calm down and actually try to understand what I said before you knee-jerk your typical angry response. - Perhaps explain for us why your pagan practice derived habits are different or special in some way and don't merit your very own condemnation rather than recycle your knee-jerk typical bullsh it responses? Hypocrite. ==> because, as I had explained, but you chose not to read or comprehend, or perhaps you are so full of bitterness that your spirit doesn't allow you to comprehend, I do not incorporate Christmas trees, dyeing easter eggs into my religious belief and practice, like YOU are when you are including a pagan-derived practice in yours. I don't believe that at church we should have Christmas trees, or dye easter eggs as part of church service. I believe that is wrong.

And I am not "attacking" anyone. I am strongly challenging their beliefs. You, however, are obviously attacking me. Doesn't bother me one bit. In fact, I'm actually glad you are, because it means at least you are giving me your focused attention and reading everything I'm writing. - I am obviously attacking you. Attacking you for your arrogance, hypocrisy, and lies. But mostly because you accomplish nothing positive here in your asinine and repeated attacks on the body of Christ. You aren't "strongly challenging" anyone's beliefs. You are only cementing their disdain for your brand of fundamentalist neo phariseeism while simultaneously pleasing the Father of Lies. Do you really imagine anything you post here has the power to convince and convict? Unbelievable hubris on full display. Well done thou good and faithful servant. ==> all I'm doing is telling the truth and with reason. Those who can hear, will hear. Those who can't, will respond the way you are. I am aware that is going to happen, I fully expected this. You are doing nothing to rebut any of it, you have just chosen to attack.

Those prayers to Mary don't have to be dogma for them to be very troubling. Why do you keep missing the point? As I have explained, many times, those prayers have the full support and endorsement of the Catholic Church. That in itself should make one question the legitimacy of the Catholic Church's claim of authority from God. - Seems the only very troubled one here is you. Explain for us why any here should believe you have any legitimacy in your claims and speak with authority from God. ==> so, you're ignoring my reasoning and instead of offering any kind of a rebuttal, you go with ad hominem. Par for the course.

---

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- I did not say 2 Timothy 3:16 says "only scripture". I said that the verse is telling us that "only scripture" is sufficient, in response to commenter.

---

Reading the word "ONLY" into the text or its meaning is eisegesis. It is reading a Sola Scriptura bias into the passage that is not present.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- again - the OT, the four gospels, and the epistles from the apostles were already deemed authoritative and were being circulated and used by Jesus' followers, before any Catholic council deemed them scripture. The way you get around this is by calling the first Christians the "Catholic Church" which is disingenuous. They weren't called Catholics, they were Christians.

---

These were circulated, but other texts like the Apocalypse of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, the so-called Pauline Epistles to the Laodiceans and to the Alexandrians were read during that time.


Debates existed concerning the canonical books as well. Even Protestant New Testament scholars like Bruce Metzger admit that about 25% of the New Testament was disputed to some degree in the early centuries of the Church. Some of the disputed writings were James, 2 Peter, Jude , & Revelation.

The Church used the three criteria to ultimately affirm the canon: apostolicity, orthodoxy, and widespread use.

This was done by councils of the Catholic Church, primarily Hippo in 393 A.D. and Carthage in 397 and 419 A.D.

---

- please read what I'm saying. I'm NOT reading "ONLY" into it. I'm saying that according to that verse, ONLY scripture is enough to make someone complete.

- they may have been read, but not considered authoritative. The letter to Laodicea, if written by Paul, would have been considered canon, if it had not been lost.

- if apostolicity, orthodoxy, and widespread use were the criteria to affirm canon, then THOSE characteristics within themselves are what determined scripture, not by ruling of a Catholic Church's authority. That's the whole point. It's why the early church already knew the four Gospels were authoritative and used them. It starts with apostolicity. Without that, the rest crumble. Ultimately, it was God who determined canon, not any church authority.

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

I'd suggest reading The Early Church was the Catholic Church

It will probably help clear up a lot of confusion

---

There is no question that the early Church was the Catholic Church.

However, the early Church was not the Roman Catholic Church.

---

The author of that book probably wouldn't disagree with you.

Interesting it was dismissed by some as propaganda

---

You should probably educate yourself on the views of the author, if you believe otherwise. It might be quite enlightening for you.

The idea that the current iteration of the Catholic Church in anyway resembles the church in Acts is laughable it's so ridiculous. Most of what we see in mass today came about more than 1000 years after Christs death.

---

I'm extremely well versed and that's incorrect

In the end I'm not sure how much that matters to
God (how the mass is conducted) but I'll go with the faith that began from the beginning

Quote:

---

We are not told directly, but most scholars assume that they are still in Abraham's bosom because heaven has not been opened to man until Jesus' resurrection.

---

I'm not sure that many in the protestant side of the house - or at least the evangelical/baptist side - grasp this. I know I didn't when I was counted among those ranks, but I think confessional Lutherans do at least because they have the Apostles Creed. The children of Zwingli have lost it, those of Calvin I'm not sure.

I think most who adhere to the evangelical side of things assume God sort of saved everyone in history on credit and have no conception of the harrowing of Hades as a historical event. The crucifixion and resurrection were a reversal of the banishment of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. Not fully grasping that makes you lose sight of the fall and the cross as the two lynchpins of human history.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

I'd suggest reading The Early Church was the Catholic Church

It will probably help clear up a lot of confusion

---

There is no question that the early Church was the Catholic Church.

However, the early Church was not the Roman Catholic Church.

---

The author of that book probably wouldn't disagree with you.

Interesting it was dismissed by some as propaganda

---

You should probably educate yourself on the views of the author, if you believe otherwise. It might be quite enlightening for you.

The idea that the current iteration of the Catholic Church in anyway resembles the church in Acts is laughable it's so ridiculous. Most of what we see in mass today came about more than 1000 years after Christs death.

---

I'm extremely well versed and that's incorrect

In the end I'm not sure how much that matters to
God (how the mass is conducted) but I'll go with the faith that began from the beginning

---

Apparently not, if you suffer under the delusion that the current iteration of mass in any way resembles the early church in Acts. That's laughable, it's so absurd. Even most diehard Catholics know better.

The current iteration and practices began well after 1000 AD.

The idea that Catholicism began shortly after Jesus's death is a fairy tale the Catholics tell, unsupported by any evidence.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

We are not told directly, but most scholars assume that they are still in Abraham's bosom because heaven has not been opened to man until Jesus' resurrection.

---

I'm not sure that many in the protestant side of the house - or at least the evangelical/baptist side - grasp this. I know I didn't when I was counted among those ranks, but I think confessional Lutherans do at least because they have the Apostles Creed. The children of Zwingli have lost it, those of Calvin I'm not sure.

I think most who adhere to the evangelical side of things assume God sort of saved everyone in history on credit and have no conception of the harrowing of Hades as a historical event. The crucifixion and resurrection were a reversal of the banishment of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. Not fully grasping that makes you lose sight of the fall and the cross as the two lynchpins of human history.

---

If only that were a scriptural view, instead of pure speculation...

Realitybites said:

---

You don't "pray to saints". You ask them to pray to God for you in the same way you would ask a family member to do so.

---

If only there was an example in scripture of long dead humans being able to hear our prayers...

I see a pattern here with your beliefs.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

==> by what revelation do you know they can receive our prayers and present them? You aren't answering the question.

---

Revelation 5:8

BusyTarpDuster2017.[b said:

---

==> isn't that saying "man"? Are there "men" in heaven, or is this verse talking about earthly people? Regardless, what does this verse have to do with praying to saints? If saints pray for us in heaven, that's one thing. But that doesn't mean we are to pray to them.

---

What do you mean by "pray to them"?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

==> if that is her depiction, then she is in anguish from birth pangs, which means she had original sin, contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches. Also, if she is depicted in heaven there, then Satan who is represented by the dragon, must also be in heaven. Can't have it both ways.

---

It metaphorical. John was bringing to light the link between Genesis and the garden with the three person there (Adam, Eve, Satan) with the future with the New Adam - Jesus, the New Eve - Mary, and Satan.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

-==> then based on what new revelation from God outside of Jesus are you basing this on? Also, if no one was in heaven before Jesus' resurrection, then where were Moses and Elijah when they appeared with Jesus in the transfiguration?

---

We are not told directly, but most scholars assume that they are still in Abraham's bosom because heaven has not been opened to man until Jesus' resurrection.

---

Revelation 5:8 doesn't say anything of the sort. You've made a logical leap based on that verse.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't know enough about Baptist's services to say whether they they do this every (Sun)day as the Catholic Church does.

---

Baptist services typically are around 50% singing and 50% preaching preceded or followed by an hour of Sunday school. The preaching can follow either a "through the Bible" verse by verse format as done by Dr. J. Vernon McGee or a "topical" format where various verses from various books of the Bible are compiled to support the sermon theme.

The singing used to be songs from the past few hundred years sung out of a hymnal accompanied by piano (sometimes organ).

It's gotten to the point that the choir has become a worship team dressed up like pirates singing baby shark to Jesus.

The Gospel According to Baby Shark

I finally got sick of the apostasy and stopped going. After doing a lot of reading on my own I converted to Eastern Orthodoxy and am quite content celebrating the millenia and a half old liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom complete with Byzantine chant, married priests, and the Theotokos having two very human (albeit devout) parents...as well as not answering to a communist bartender from Argentina and his homosexual mafia in the Vatican.

---

So you've exchanged one apostasy for another? Interesting.

In truth, I don't think you have a clue about what apostasy actually means. You might want to look up early examples in scripture of people labeled apostates and ideas called apostasy, as it is replete with them. The apostates of the Bible share something in common: they have renounced their faith and turned their back on God.

The idea that worship teams for Baptists or even all of the Catholic sacraments are apostasy is simply absurd. While you and I may not agree with them, that doesn't make them apostacy, especially when they don't contradict the central tenets of the faith.

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

I'd suggest reading The Early Church was the Catholic Church

It will probably help clear up a lot of confusion

---

There is no question that the early Church was the Catholic Church.

However, the early Church was not the Roman Catholic Church.

---

The author of that book probably wouldn't disagree with you.

Interesting it was dismissed by some as propaganda

---

You should probably educate yourself on the views of the author, if you believe otherwise. It might be quite enlightening for you.

The idea that the current iteration of the Catholic Church in anyway resembles the church in Acts is laughable it's so ridiculous. Most of what we see in mass today came about more than 1000 years after Christs death.

---

I'm extremely well versed and that's incorrect

In the end I'm not sure how much that matters to
God (how the mass is conducted) but I'll go with the faith that began from the beginning

---

Apparently not, if you suffer under the delusion that the current iteration of mass in any way resembles the early church in Acts. That's laughable, it's so absurd. Even most diehard Catholics know better.

The current iteration and practices began well after 1000 AD.

The idea that Catholicism began shortly after Jesus's death is a fairy tale the Catholics tell, unsupported by any evidence.

---

I don't about that. Catholic Mass has hymns sung, literal verbiage and actions of 1 Corinthians ch 11 vs 23 through 27. Incense going up to heaven is pretty ancient practice too.

Feel The Floyd said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

I'd suggest reading The Early Church was the Catholic Church

It will probably help clear up a lot of confusion

---

There is no question that the early Church was the Catholic Church.

However, the early Church was not the Roman Catholic Church.

---

The author of that book probably wouldn't disagree with you.

Interesting it was dismissed by some as propaganda

---

You should probably educate yourself on the views of the author, if you believe otherwise. It might be quite enlightening for you.

The idea that the current iteration of the Catholic Church in anyway resembles the church in Acts is laughable it's so ridiculous. Most of what we see in mass today came about more than 1000 years after Christs death.

---

I'm extremely well versed and that's incorrect

In the end I'm not sure how much that matters to
God (how the mass is conducted) but I'll go with the faith that began from the beginning

---

Apparently not, if you suffer under the delusion that the current iteration of mass in any way resembles the early church in Acts. That's laughable, it's so absurd. Even most diehard Catholics know better.

The current iteration and practices began well after 1000 AD.

The idea that Catholicism began shortly after Jesus's death is a fairy tale the Catholics tell, unsupported by any evidence.

---

I don't about that. Catholic Mass has hymns sung, literal verbiage and actions of 1 Corinthians ch 11 vs 23 through 27. Incense going up to heaven is pretty ancient practice too.

---

Those verses talk only about communion. If we were only talking about communion, you may have a point, but...

Mothra said:

---

If only that were a scriptural view, instead of pure speculation...

---

We know from scripture that prior to the crucifixion and resurrection that Moses was somewhere that he could have a conversation with a man burning in hell. Jesus himself told us this.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If only that were a scriptural view, instead of pure speculation...

---

We know from scripture that prior to the crucifixion and resurrection that Moses was somewhere that he could have a conversation with a man burning in hell. Jesus himself told us this.

---

If you're referring to the parable, we actually do not.

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If only that were a scriptural view, instead of pure speculation...

---

We know from scripture that prior to the crucifixion and resurrection that Moses was somewhere that he could have a conversation with a man burning in hell. Jesus himself told us this.

---

If you're referring to the parable, we actually do not.

---

Of course we do. If that did not refer to an actual event, Jesus would be guilty of bearing false witness to his audience...let alone the utter irresponsibility of putting forth such a scenario. But if dismissing those verses is where you need to go to prop up your saved on credit worldview, for everything else there's Mastercard.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If only that were a scriptural view, instead of pure speculation...

---

We know from scripture that prior to the crucifixion and resurrection that Moses was somewhere that he could have a conversation with a man burning in hell. Jesus himself told us this.

---

If you're referring to the parable, we actually do not.

---

Of course we do. If that did not refer to an actual event, Jesus would be guilty of bearing false witness to his audience...let alone the utter irresponsibility of putting forth such a scenario. But if dismissing those verses is where you need to go to prop up your saved on credit worldview, for everything else there's Mastercard.

---

Sorry, I misread your original post. I actually don't disagree with much of what you said, and think it's pretty much in line with the Calvinist viewpoint.

That said, to describe the parables as actual events...not so sure about that.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

A lie is when you say something that you know to be false. None of these are lies, as I believe all of them to be true. Your welcome. - You accused me of something I never asserted and it's in black and white in your own words. You are deluded, stupid, mistaken, or lying every time you deny this. Take your pick and let us know which you choose. ==> I believe you did assert them, like I explained. And if I was mistaken, that's not a lie, right? So aren't YOU lying about it being a lie?

No, I do not shun Christmas trees or exchanging presents, or the dyeing of Easter eggs. Did you not comprehend what I had just said? Calm down and actually try to understand what I said before you knee-jerk your typical angry response. - Perhaps explain for us why your pagan practice derived habits are different or special in some way and don't merit your very own condemnation rather than recycle your knee-jerk typical bullsh it responses? Hypocrite. ==> because, as I had explained, but you chose not to read or comprehend, or perhaps you are so full of bitterness that your spirit doesn't allow you to comprehend, I do not incorporate Christmas trees, dyeing easter eggs into my religious belief and practice, like YOU are when you are including a pagan-derived practice in yours. I don't believe that at church we should have Christmas trees, or dye easter eggs as part of church service. I believe that is wrong.

And I am not "attacking" anyone. I am strongly challenging their beliefs. You, however, are obviously attacking me. Doesn't bother me one bit. In fact, I'm actually glad you are, because it means at least you are giving me your focused attention and reading everything I'm writing. - I am obviously attacking you. Attacking you for your arrogance, hypocrisy, and lies. But mostly because you accomplish nothing positive here in your asinine and repeated attacks on the body of Christ. You aren't "strongly challenging" anyone's beliefs. You are only cementing their disdain for your brand of fundamentalist neo phariseeism while simultaneously pleasing the Father of Lies. Do you really imagine anything you post here has the power to convince and convict? Unbelievable hubris on full display. Well done thou good and faithful servant. ==> all I'm doing is telling the truth and with reason. Those who can hear, will hear. Those who can't, will respond the way you are. I am aware that is going to happen, I fully expected this. You are doing nothing to rebut any of it, you have just chosen to attack.

Those prayers to Mary don't have to be dogma for them to be very troubling. Why do you keep missing the point? As I have explained, many times, those prayers have the full support and endorsement of the Catholic Church. That in itself should make one question the legitimacy of the Catholic Church's claim of authority from God. - Seems the only very troubled one here is you. Explain for us why any here should believe you have any legitimacy in your claims and speak with authority from God. ==> so, you're ignoring my reasoning and instead of offering any kind of a rebuttal, you go with ad hominem. Par for the course.

---

---

---

Nothing I said could be reasonably understood in the way you claimed. You are either stupid, in league with Satan in tearing down the body of Christ, lying and caught in your own web of deceit to such an extent you cannot bring yourself to just admit it, or some combination of these.

I find it hard to believe there is nothing you do in your home life that does not have any sort of pagan association. If you truly don't, then I apologize. Though given your track record here, even if you claimed you never have Christmas trees or participated in Easter egg hunts I would tend to doubt you. I notice you shade your meaning by using phrases such as "as part of church service". Why even bother to include that unless…?

You claim you are telling the truth and that you are therefore justified in attacking the body of Christ. I tell you you are merely misguided and being divisive in ways that do no honor to the Savior you claim to be protecting. I fully expect that you are so in thrall to Satan that you will not hear this nor accept anyone else's reasoning. You think you are in some sort of debate here and must reason your way to a "correct" answer when you have no place to stand other than on your own hubris. You will do nothing but continue your sad assault on the Church which is an assault on Christ himself. I beg you to abandon your pointless sinfulness and turn to something constructive.

If you don't want to be Roman Catholic, then don't be one. I'm not, but I don't spend my time here attacking them. You should do likewise.

This is right, with the emphasis on 'appears to'. Francis revels in confusion. It's confusion that seems to benefit liberals, but he won't quite say what they're desperate to hear. It's a mixture of nudge-nudge, wink-wink and plausible deniability. This would make him a terrible… https://t.co/mwXCq1EqhI

— Damian Thompson (@holysmoke) October 2, 2023

Making no comment…I thought this was funny

Pastor Bob buries his last copy of the King James Bible in the year 306, right before Emperor Constantine's henchmen take him away for preaching the "true faith."

Only when the King James version of Bible was re-discovered 1200 years later, did Christianity re-emerge. 😏 pic.twitter.com/QECLao1sTd

— Tridentine Brewing (@TridentineBrew) October 7, 2023

NEW - Pope has dismissed U.S. Bishop Strickland, Texas, a prominent conservative who has criticized his papacy, the Vatican says. pic.twitter.com/84iE2EYRyN

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) November 11, 2023

The removal of His Excellency Archbishop Joseph Strickland, especially after the failure to ambush him with the Apostolic Visitation, appears as a cowardly form of authoritarianism, which in no way fits with Bergoglio's rants about “welcoming” and “inclusiveness.”

Seeing the… pic.twitter.com/7bp2AxpK2D

— Arcivescovo Carlo Maria Viganò (@CarloMVigano) November 11, 2023

"Is the pope Catholic?"

Maybe?

Coke Bear said:

---

He wasn't afraid of Covid or the lockdowns. He has displayed the monstrance at a busy intersection. He publicly denounces Fr. James Martin and the LGBTQ+ and gender ideologies.

I hope that Pope Frances and him can come to an accord.

---

I'm afraid the accord that they will come to is that the good bishop will be demoted at best, and laicized at worst. What action the Vatican takes should give you some insight as to how far down the road they are in terms of recognizing gay marriage.

With every passing year, a Christian who finds themselves in the Roman Catholic fold finds themselves increasingly alienated from the one holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

Another conservative cleric removed. Bishops who bless gay marriages still on the job. https://t.co/OVzXPUGzxH

— Fr. John Whiteford ☦️ 🇸🇴 公 公 (@frjohnwhiteford) November 11, 2023

Earlier this year the Pope fired another Bishop. Bishop Fernandez’ “crime” was that he was issuing certificates to individuals that they had a valid religion exemption from getting the vaccine. https://t.co/L4wN4l3oyj

— Michael Sebastian (@HonorAndDaring) November 12, 2023

Quote:

---

The bishop William Forbes termed the Anglican practice advocation of the saints, meaning "asking for the saints to pray with them and on their behalf, not praying to them"

---

This is an accurate description of Orthodox practice, and probably one of the better summaries I've read.

Sometimes, discussing Christianity in English creates its own problems. For example, the term "mother of God" has a lot of baggage because we in our colloquialisms we discuss the Trinity as "God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit" which automatically causes an extension of the term to "mother of God [the Father]" though no such implication was intended. Which is why I like the Orthodox term "Theotokos".

Please let this lead to Texas crowning their own pope https://t.co/swk1aHn3Qb

— Justin Whang 🐙 (@JustinWhang) November 11, 2023

I'm not Catholic bashing but this guy's behavior is disgraceful for a Pope. https://t.co/OlSuD1Qe33

— LadyPatriot (@Marechtare_) November 28, 2023

Worst pope in the last 100 years at least.