BearFan33 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Practicing religious Jewish...or just ethnically Jewish?[In the US

---

Whatever disagreements these two groups have, they stand absolutely united on one opinion: Jesus Christ is not the Messiah.

---

I've got an eye opener. There is a group of Jews called Messianic Jews that believe like Christians, that Jesus was the Messiah.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism

I know one.

---

"Messianic Jews" are about as Jewish as Episcopalians are Christian. No other branch of Judaism recognizes them as Jewish. In reality they are what the apostles refered to as Judaizers.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Exactly, you just don't get it No one can explain it. We will not agree.

We can't even agree on the Bible. You relate everything to scripture, Sola Scriptura. Catholics don't. We say the Latin Vulgate is authoritative, you say the KJ. You constantly quoting the KJ verses as proof means nothing, it is not authoritative to Catholics. Scripture is only part of the equation. Without the oral and Church tradition it is Bible Study. I actually feel bad for you., seems very empty only part of God's message.

---

No, I don't get it because you don't make any sense. You still aren't making sense. Who quoted the KJ?

Latin Vulgate? What does it say that is different than what I quoted? Isn't the Vulgate the work of Jerome, who believed that the apocrypha are not part of canon Scripture, yet Roman Catholicism holds that they are?

Church tradition? You mean fallible, man-made tradition that does not trace back to Jesus and the apostles? By what divine revelation did these traditions come from? How do you know? You don't, yet you're putting it on the same level of authority as Scripture, which we DO know is the infallible word of God. This is why sola scriptura, and abandoning it is the primary reason for all your church's mistakes. That's why you've been led to errant beliefs, even to the point of sheer heresy and idolatry.

---

Once again, you believe in Sola Scriptura. A document that is written by men. We say divinely inspired, so that makes it not of mans making? How is believing a document written by literally hundreds over hundreds of years and voted on in numerous Catholic councils to be "following God's instructions", but following the oral and Church traditions is not!

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, have at it. Sit around your Church Council and have as many little Council of Nicea's as you like. Argue the meaning of a Hebrew, Greek, Latin word ad nauseum. More power to you. Although I think Christ would say you missed the bigger point, but that is just me.

Just don't tell me my believes are wrong. But you can't do that. You have to attack the Catholics in a thread celebrating the naming of a new leader of our Church. No one said a word about your believes, you and your ilk attacked the naming of a new Church leader. Poor form.

---

We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him.

This person Jesus, then, told his disciples they would remember perfectly everything he did and said to tell the world: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:26

Thus, Jesus, who had the full stamp of approval from God by his resurrection, in turn gave his full stamp of approval over everything his apostles said and did. Thus, the tradition of the original apostles is the divinely inspired, infallible word of God.

Where do we learn this tradition of the original apostles? Only in Scripture. The only thing the church has that we know came from the original apostles is in the New Testament, thus it is the only thing in the church's possession that is the word of God, thus it is the only infallible rule of faith for the church. Thus, sola scriptura.

Where do Roman Catholic traditions that are not in the Bible come from? Who knows, and when they do know, they can't prove it came from Jesus or the apostles. Neither do they have any kind of divine stamp of approval on it. This most certainly can NOT be relied upon as an infallible rule of faith.

Did the writings of the apostles have to be "voted on in numerous Roman Catholic councils" in order to be accepted as the divine word of God by the early church? NO. The Gospels were already circulated among the first churches as being the infallible word of God. The letters of Paul, Peter, James, etc. were all viewed as Scripture in the early church and circulated among them - hundreds of years before any Roman Catholic council decreed them as such.

---

"We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him."

I get that. I am saying that if that is true for those Councils, it is true for the non-Bible councils on decisions the Church makes. You are cherry picking what is "devine" and what is not. Catholics believe that Holy Spirit plays just as big a role in dogmatic decisions as in the choosing the Bible books. As I said, it comes down to Faith. Do you believe? There are no absolutes, there are no guidebooks that don't have as aspect of Faith attached.
By the way, I said that I put the Gospels as the most important books in the New Testament. Much more so than Paul's letters.

You say who knows where decisions come from, each decision is just as documented as the choosing the Bible verses, probably more so.

My question to you is how can you just decide NOT to listen every other Church council, but the ones that chose the Bible books in your version of the Bible? All the others mean nothing, because an Augustinian Monk and his German Noble backers were pissed at Rome? How is that different than Henry the 8th? Seems cherry picking to me. There are some things I don't agree, such as Mary body and soul in heaven or speculating on the sexual habits of Christ's mother. Does it really matter? But, you take the good with the bad, there is no perfect. Or Faith would mean nothing if there was no doubt.

---

You didn't understand what I said. Again, councils did not determine the authority of the Gospels and letters of Paul, James, Peter, etc. The Christians of the early church did, hundreds of years before any council formally declared it. How did they know? Yes, the Holy Spirit was involved, but in the manner of helping them recognize the authenticity and reliability of the authorship of those writings. Jesus gave infallible authority to his first hand apostles, thus if the writing was truly authored by them, it was to be considered the infallible word of God. People did NOT "vote" to decide on the apostle's infallibility, Jesus had already decided that.

Councils were not given infallibility by Jesus. Councils are made up of fallible men, hopefully being led by the Holy Spirit (but that's no guarantee), who must rely on the infallibility of the original apostles as declared by Jesus, not on their own declaration of infallibility because of their claim of being led by the Holy Spirit. We only know that what comes out of Councils is the work of the Holy Spirit if it is agreement with Scripture. That is the standard of measure. What Roman Cathoicism does, and what you've bought in to, is the idea that fallible men claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit is just as infallible of an authority as Scripture. But as I keep saying, Jesus didn't give infallible authority to men outside of his apostles, that we know of. If you abandon sola scriptura, and you allow another standard of measure outside of what God guaranteed (Scripture), you're opening yourself up to compromise of God's truth and huge errors. As we have seen, this is exactly what has led to heresy and idolatry in the Roman Catholic Church. And the worst of it is, her adherents don't (or won't) even recognize or acknowledge it, because they have been conditioned (upon threat of being sent to Hell, btw) to consider the tradition of fallible men to be just as infallible as Scripture. I really hope I've shown you, in logical and biblical manner, that this isn't the case.

---

The original Apostles were dead when the Gospels were written. By the way, no one on here has had ANY issues with the Gospels. Outside of some Church leadership stuff the one thing we all seem to agree on IS the Gospels. Maybe we all should focus there. It is the other Books that seem to cause the problems. One persons opinion.

You keep missing my one overarching point. We are on the same side. We are arguing details. The Catholic Church, for all the mistakes it has made, still works with other Religions on education, health and other social aspects. I loved Church/Services in the Army in the field. Set up on a Jeep, just the sacraments and a bible reading. Sometimes it was a Priest, many times we had a Lutheran Pastor. It boiled religion down to the basics. I never felt closer to God and Christ than in the field in the Army receiving Communion off a Humvee hood or jumping out of a plane. That will cut through the Religious BS really quick....

There are truly hateful people out there. Maybe all of us should worry less about the details and more about living as Christ said. I am at the front of the line.

It may piss you and Shooter off, but these conversations are good. The more you talk the more you understand each other. Once again, one persons opinion.

---

I am not pissed off... sorry if anyone got that conclusion.
I am very sad that so many who call upon the name of Jesus, do not acknowledge the inspired Word of God as the inspired Word of God.

But I am not pissed off. These conversations are very good. I do want to understand why Catholics worship Mary, but don't call it idolatry. Why they don't accept the authority of scripture, but do accept the authority of a simple mortal man instead... even though catholics will almost always admit that previous Pope's have made mistakes.

---

We answered that early on. Catholics honor Jesus's mother and ask for intervention, not worship. There are several times in the Gospels where people asked Mary to intervene and he listened, Wedding at Cana for example. The Scriptures call for honoring Mary, see Gabriel's intro. Personally, I don't get into Mary stuff. But that is the Catholic view. Is it enough to abandon my faith or religion because others get into Mary as an intermediary? No.

I have a hard time praying to Jesus rather than God or going to Mass on Sunday vs the Sabbath. The Bible says there is no God but I am and the Sabbath is on Saturday. Yet, those and all the dietary stuff were set aside. Since there are no degrees of sin, we are all F-ed IF we were supposed to follow the Old Testimant too.

Who knows, you do your best. We can be certain all we want, but we won't know until the end if we were right.

---

If you don't believe in the sinlessness Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her bodily ascension, you are anathematized to Hell by your own Church. You don't seem to have any idea what Roman Catholicism is. Since you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus, apparently you don't know what Christianity is either. So how is it that you lecture others on "missing the point" of Jesus?

---

Hit a nerve, huh ...

Sorry, I guess I am misreading your posts. Maybe I am taking from it what I want, like you are with mine.

There is nothing your Church says that gives you pause or you don't understand as well as others? Nothing that some people in your congregation seem to connect with more than you? Some ideas that really appeal to you,ore than.l others. It is one blase, all the same level believe and feeling?

Mary? Non-issue. Don't see how it really impacts my relationship with God. Seems to bother the hell out of you.

Where I seem to diverge from you is that I believe Jesus came for the not perfect, those that are lost, those that don't go to Church or believe everything at same level they are told. Christ is in the ghetto with the junkies, prostitutes and thieves. The trans and homosexuals that need help. Not the main stream. I liked Francis message. You guys don't seem to. That is where I think Christ would be today, not in a suit in Church. I love the Catholic faith because it is big enough for you and me. Other denominations, not so much.

By the way, you took quite a few shots at me over the last few days. Insulting my believes in a Pope Leo thread. I make one comment on how I hope your narrow view doesn't derail you and you get pissy???

---

If anyone's got their nerve hit, it's you. I'm bringing up a perfectly fair point. You obviously don't understand what Roman Catholicism teaches, and you admitted things like you don't like Paul who wrote half the New Testament, and you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus instead of God. And now you're saying you "like Francis' message". These things fairly put your status as a true Christian under question imo, and I'll bet even the Roman Catholics here will agree. So how does this make you an adequate judge whether someone has "missed the point" on Jesus? And I'm still interested in your answer - what is it that you think I'm missing about Jesus' message, exactly? I agree with you that Jesus came for the lost - but in what way? I have a feeling I'm not going to agree with what you say here, just call it a hunch. You have "liberal, pro-LGBT Christian who compromises the gospel to suit your sensibilities" written all over you, but hey, I could be wrong. What's your answer?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Exactly, you just don't get it No one can explain it. We will not agree.

We can't even agree on the Bible. You relate everything to scripture, Sola Scriptura. Catholics don't. We say the Latin Vulgate is authoritative, you say the KJ. You constantly quoting the KJ verses as proof means nothing, it is not authoritative to Catholics. Scripture is only part of the equation. Without the oral and Church tradition it is Bible Study. I actually feel bad for you., seems very empty only part of God's message.

---

No, I don't get it because you don't make any sense. You still aren't making sense. Who quoted the KJ?

Latin Vulgate? What does it say that is different than what I quoted? Isn't the Vulgate the work of Jerome, who believed that the apocrypha are not part of canon Scripture, yet Roman Catholicism holds that they are?

Church tradition? You mean fallible, man-made tradition that does not trace back to Jesus and the apostles? By what divine revelation did these traditions come from? How do you know? You don't, yet you're putting it on the same level of authority as Scripture, which we DO know is the infallible word of God. This is why sola scriptura, and abandoning it is the primary reason for all your church's mistakes. That's why you've been led to errant beliefs, even to the point of sheer heresy and idolatry.

---

Once again, you believe in Sola Scriptura. A document that is written by men. We say divinely inspired, so that makes it not of mans making? How is believing a document written by literally hundreds over hundreds of years and voted on in numerous Catholic councils to be "following God's instructions", but following the oral and Church traditions is not!

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, have at it. Sit around your Church Council and have as many little Council of Nicea's as you like. Argue the meaning of a Hebrew, Greek, Latin word ad nauseum. More power to you. Although I think Christ would say you missed the bigger point, but that is just me.

Just don't tell me my believes are wrong. But you can't do that. You have to attack the Catholics in a thread celebrating the naming of a new leader of our Church. No one said a word about your believes, you and your ilk attacked the naming of a new Church leader. Poor form.

---

We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him.

This person Jesus, then, told his disciples they would remember perfectly everything he did and said to tell the world: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:26

Thus, Jesus, who had the full stamp of approval from God by his resurrection, in turn gave his full stamp of approval over everything his apostles said and did. Thus, the tradition of the original apostles is the divinely inspired, infallible word of God.

Where do we learn this tradition of the original apostles? Only in Scripture. The only thing the church has that we know came from the original apostles is in the New Testament, thus it is the only thing in the church's possession that is the word of God, thus it is the only infallible rule of faith for the church. Thus, sola scriptura.

Where do Roman Catholic traditions that are not in the Bible come from? Who knows, and when they do know, they can't prove it came from Jesus or the apostles. Neither do they have any kind of divine stamp of approval on it. This most certainly can NOT be relied upon as an infallible rule of faith.

Did the writings of the apostles have to be "voted on in numerous Roman Catholic councils" in order to be accepted as the divine word of God by the early church? NO. The Gospels were already circulated among the first churches as being the infallible word of God. The letters of Paul, Peter, James, etc. were all viewed as Scripture in the early church and circulated among them - hundreds of years before any Roman Catholic council decreed them as such.

---

"We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him."

I get that. I am saying that if that is true for those Councils, it is true for the non-Bible councils on decisions the Church makes. You are cherry picking what is "devine" and what is not. Catholics believe that Holy Spirit plays just as big a role in dogmatic decisions as in the choosing the Bible books. As I said, it comes down to Faith. Do you believe? There are no absolutes, there are no guidebooks that don't have as aspect of Faith attached.
By the way, I said that I put the Gospels as the most important books in the New Testament. Much more so than Paul's letters.

You say who knows where decisions come from, each decision is just as documented as the choosing the Bible verses, probably more so.

My question to you is how can you just decide NOT to listen every other Church council, but the ones that chose the Bible books in your version of the Bible? All the others mean nothing, because an Augustinian Monk and his German Noble backers were pissed at Rome? How is that different than Henry the 8th? Seems cherry picking to me. There are some things I don't agree, such as Mary body and soul in heaven or speculating on the sexual habits of Christ's mother. Does it really matter? But, you take the good with the bad, there is no perfect. Or Faith would mean nothing if there was no doubt.

---

You didn't understand what I said. Again, councils did not determine the authority of the Gospels and letters of Paul, James, Peter, etc. The Christians of the early church did, hundreds of years before any council formally declared it. How did they know? Yes, the Holy Spirit was involved, but in the manner of helping them recognize the authenticity and reliability of the authorship of those writings. Jesus gave infallible authority to his first hand apostles, thus if the writing was truly authored by them, it was to be considered the infallible word of God. People did NOT "vote" to decide on the apostle's infallibility, Jesus had already decided that.

Councils were not given infallibility by Jesus. Councils are made up of fallible men, hopefully being led by the Holy Spirit (but that's no guarantee), who must rely on the infallibility of the original apostles as declared by Jesus, not on their own declaration of infallibility because of their claim of being led by the Holy Spirit. We only know that what comes out of Councils is the work of the Holy Spirit if it is agreement with Scripture. That is the standard of measure. What Roman Cathoicism does, and what you've bought in to, is the idea that fallible men claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit is just as infallible of an authority as Scripture. But as I keep saying, Jesus didn't give infallible authority to men outside of his apostles, that we know of. If you abandon sola scriptura, and you allow another standard of measure outside of what God guaranteed (Scripture), you're opening yourself up to compromise of God's truth and huge errors. As we have seen, this is exactly what has led to heresy and idolatry in the Roman Catholic Church. And the worst of it is, her adherents don't (or won't) even recognize or acknowledge it, because they have been conditioned (upon threat of being sent to Hell, btw) to consider the tradition of fallible men to be just as infallible as Scripture. I really hope I've shown you, in logical and biblical manner, that this isn't the case.

---

The original Apostles were dead when the Gospels were written. By the way, no one on here has had ANY issues with the Gospels. Outside of some Church leadership stuff the one thing we all seem to agree on IS the Gospels. Maybe we all should focus there. It is the other Books that seem to cause the problems. One persons opinion.

You keep missing my one overarching point. We are on the same side. We are arguing details. The Catholic Church, for all the mistakes it has made, still works with other Religions on education, health and other social aspects. I loved Church/Services in the Army in the field. Set up on a Jeep, just the sacraments and a bible reading. Sometimes it was a Priest, many times we had a Lutheran Pastor. It boiled religion down to the basics. I never felt closer to God and Christ than in the field in the Army receiving Communion off a Humvee hood or jumping out of a plane. That will cut through the Religious BS really quick....

There are truly hateful people out there. Maybe all of us should worry less about the details and more about living as Christ said. I am at the front of the line.

It may piss you and Shooter off, but these conversations are good. The more you talk the more you understand each other. Once again, one persons opinion.

---

I am not pissed off... sorry if anyone got that conclusion.
I am very sad that so many who call upon the name of Jesus, do not acknowledge the inspired Word of God as the inspired Word of God.

But I am not pissed off. These conversations are very good. I do want to understand why Catholics worship Mary, but don't call it idolatry. Why they don't accept the authority of scripture, but do accept the authority of a simple mortal man instead... even though catholics will almost always admit that previous Pope's have made mistakes.

---

We answered that early on. Catholics honor Jesus's mother and ask for intervention, not worship. There are several times in the Gospels where people asked Mary to intervene and he listened, Wedding at Cana for example. The Scriptures call for honoring Mary, see Gabriel's intro. Personally, I don't get into Mary stuff. But that is the Catholic view. Is it enough to abandon my faith or religion because others get into Mary as an intermediary? No.

I have a hard time praying to Jesus rather than God or going to Mass on Sunday vs the Sabbath. The Bible says there is no God but I am and the Sabbath is on Saturday. Yet, those and all the dietary stuff were set aside. Since there are no degrees of sin, we are all F-ed IF we were supposed to follow the Old Testimant too.

Who knows, you do your best. We can be certain all we want, but we won't know until the end if we were right.

---

If you don't believe in the sinlessness Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her bodily ascension, you are anathematized to Hell by your own Church. You don't seem to have any idea what Roman Catholicism is. Since you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus, apparently you don't know what Christianity is either. So how is it that you lecture others on "missing the point" of Jesus?

---

Hit a nerve, huh ...

Sorry, I guess I am misreading your posts. Maybe I am taking from it what I want, like you are with mine.

There is nothing your Church says that gives you pause or you don't understand as well as others? Nothing that some people in your congregation seem to connect with more than you? Some ideas that really appeal to you,ore than.l others. It is one blase, all the same level believe and feeling?

Mary? Non-issue. Don't see how it really impacts my relationship with God. Seems to bother the hell out of you.

Where I seem to diverge from you is that I believe Jesus came for the not perfect, those that are lost, those that don't go to Church or believe everything at same level they are told. Christ is in the ghetto with the junkies, prostitutes and thieves. The trans and homosexuals that need help. Not the main stream. I liked Francis message. You guys don't seem to. That is where I think Christ would be today, not in a suit in Church. I love the Catholic faith because it is big enough for you and me. Other denominations, not so much.

By the way, you took quite a few shots at me over the last few days. Insulting my believes in a Pope Leo thread. I make one comment on how I hope your narrow view doesn't derail you and you get pissy???

---

If anyone's got their nerve hit, it's you. I'm bringing up a perfectly fair point. You obviously don't understand what Roman Catholicism teaches, and you admitted things like you don't like Paul who wrote half the New Testament, and you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus instead of God. And now you're saying you "like Francis' message". These things fairly put your status as a true Christian under question imo, and I'll bet even the Roman Catholics here will agree. So how does this make you an adequate judge whether someone has "missed the point" on Jesus? And I'm still interested in your answer - what is it that you think I'm missing about Jesus' message, exactly? I agree with you that Jesus came for the lost - but in what way? I have a feeling I'm not going to agree with what you say here, just call it a hunch. You have "liberal, pro-LGBT Christian who compromises the gospel to suit your sensibilities" written all over you, but hey, I could be wrong. What's your answer?

---

Pro? There is a huge difference between pro-lgbt and saying that is who needs help. The sinner is who needs religious support. The person living a holy life and going to church every Sunday is covered. If we don't make those people welcome, we are abandoning them. Sorry, my read of Christ is he would be with those people that need help. That is not pro-lgbt. You don't see that? Huh...

You know whether you or other Catholics believe I am Christian enough doesn't enter into the equation. I will put my doubts and inclusion against your Regcock following of the Bible in the end any day. I know a Pharisee when I see one.

FLBear, obviously someone who wants to leave the LGBT lifestyle, convert, and work out their own salvation needs assistance like any other sinner. Their cross will be heavier than a semi truck because their chosen sin has struck at the heart of how God created them (male and female, to be attracted to the opposite sex). Things like this and murder, things that go beyond simply disobeying God's moral law and rise to the level of vandalism of his creation and created order are bad things to be involved in.

But you and I both know that 99% of the discussion surrounding this has nothing do do with the repentance, conversion, and salvation of such people but rather the normalization of this sin and an effort to get Christianity to affirm it.

JUST IN - Pope Leo XIV urges Christian communities in the Middle East to "remain in their native lands" and demands rights needed for their secure existence.

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) May 14, 2025

"Communism has penetrated even Christian circles disguised as solidarity. It is our pastoral duty to expose it."

-Pope Leo XIV, May 14, 2010 – Conference before Latin American bishops pic.twitter.com/Yx130tlfKb

— Christian B. Wagner 🔫🐒 (@WalmartThomist) May 11, 2025

In his first homily as Pope, Leo XIV declared Christians as God’s chosen people, echoing the words of St. Peter.

“We are the people God has chosen to proclaim the mighty works of the one who called us out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9).

Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/tBxW3SiPIA

— AF Post (@AFpost) May 9, 2025

I'm a big fan of Pope Leo so far. This guy is exactly what we needed.

All I remember is my giant J Crew khakis and the guy from TCU.........

- el KKM

Thanks (and RIP) Art!

D!!

{ sipping coffee }

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear, obviously someone who wants to leave the LGBT lifestyle, convert, and work out their own salvation needs assistance like any other sinner. Their cross will be heavier than a semi truck because their chosen sin has struck at the heart of how God created them (male and female, to be attracted to the opposite sex). Things like this and murder, things that go beyond simply disobeying God's moral law and rise to the level of vandalism of his creation and created order are bad things to be involved in.

But you and I both know that 99% of the discussion surrounding this has nothing do do with the repentance, conversion, and salvation of such people but rather the normalization of this sin and an effort to get Christianity to affirm it.

---

Thanks for the response. THIS is a great discussion for Christians. It is an issue.

One thing the Catholic Church does well, (there are A LOT it doesn't do well) is the Orders within the Church. The Jesuits, Augustinians, Benedictines, Franciscans, etc.... There are a lot. In my opinion, if you want the "true" Catholic Church, go to one of the Orders. I attend weekly at a Franciscan run Church. The Priests, Monks and Brothers have much more training in theology, psychology, sociology, etc... Attended mass at the Franciscan convent in Amarillo when we lived there. it is worth a visit if out there.

But, these Orders are in the worst of the worst areas. I have a family friend who is a Nun, PVMI. Spent her life in NYC at the Bus Terminals literally fighting pimps over girls getting off the buses. She works with Lutherans, Baptists, etc... Discussions with her are interesting when she goes to visit her Mom. These ladies are the real warriors for Christ, they literally search out those that have fallen. "Through her person-to-person apostolate, she finds, befriends, and spiritually assists Catholics who do not practice their Faith, and she guides them back to the Church and to Catholic family life.

Parish Visitors of Mary Immaculate - Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious

My point is that there is a political side and a practical side. Those people in the pits trying to help those that need help have a different view. The political view that we are more involved does get into the normalization.

In my opinion, I can't get into whether someone really is repenting or not. That is God's work, not mine. My shortcoming is that I am interested and respect the operational side of Christianity, but could never take the leap... I suffer from "wannbeism" i that area of life. Maybe that is why I favored Francis over Benedict, he was on the front lines. Those people have a tendency to develop more liberal definitions, everything is not black and white.

I honestly don't think that Christ would turn his back on confused, people (drugs, sex, LGBT, etc). Also, we are not Christ. It may take a process to bring back to Church.

Long answer sorry. But this is a complicated subject that has real life ramifications. Much more than whether Mary was a Virgin for life or Jesus's had a brother. To me, those are BS discussions. It literally means nothing to my day to day Christian life whether Mary had sex after Jesus. Or, whether Genisis is literal or a parable to get a message across.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Exactly, you just don't get it No one can explain it. We will not agree.

We can't even agree on the Bible. You relate everything to scripture, Sola Scriptura. Catholics don't. We say the Latin Vulgate is authoritative, you say the KJ. You constantly quoting the KJ verses as proof means nothing, it is not authoritative to Catholics. Scripture is only part of the equation. Without the oral and Church tradition it is Bible Study. I actually feel bad for you., seems very empty only part of God's message.

---

No, I don't get it because you don't make any sense. You still aren't making sense. Who quoted the KJ?

Latin Vulgate? What does it say that is different than what I quoted? Isn't the Vulgate the work of Jerome, who believed that the apocrypha are not part of canon Scripture, yet Roman Catholicism holds that they are?

Church tradition? You mean fallible, man-made tradition that does not trace back to Jesus and the apostles? By what divine revelation did these traditions come from? How do you know? You don't, yet you're putting it on the same level of authority as Scripture, which we DO know is the infallible word of God. This is why sola scriptura, and abandoning it is the primary reason for all your church's mistakes. That's why you've been led to errant beliefs, even to the point of sheer heresy and idolatry.

---

Once again, you believe in Sola Scriptura. A document that is written by men. We say divinely inspired, so that makes it not of mans making? How is believing a document written by literally hundreds over hundreds of years and voted on in numerous Catholic councils to be "following God's instructions", but following the oral and Church traditions is not!

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, have at it. Sit around your Church Council and have as many little Council of Nicea's as you like. Argue the meaning of a Hebrew, Greek, Latin word ad nauseum. More power to you. Although I think Christ would say you missed the bigger point, but that is just me.

Just don't tell me my believes are wrong. But you can't do that. You have to attack the Catholics in a thread celebrating the naming of a new leader of our Church. No one said a word about your believes, you and your ilk attacked the naming of a new Church leader. Poor form.

---

We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him.

This person Jesus, then, told his disciples they would remember perfectly everything he did and said to tell the world: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:26

Thus, Jesus, who had the full stamp of approval from God by his resurrection, in turn gave his full stamp of approval over everything his apostles said and did. Thus, the tradition of the original apostles is the divinely inspired, infallible word of God.

Where do we learn this tradition of the original apostles? Only in Scripture. The only thing the church has that we know came from the original apostles is in the New Testament, thus it is the only thing in the church's possession that is the word of God, thus it is the only infallible rule of faith for the church. Thus, sola scriptura.

Where do Roman Catholic traditions that are not in the Bible come from? Who knows, and when they do know, they can't prove it came from Jesus or the apostles. Neither do they have any kind of divine stamp of approval on it. This most certainly can NOT be relied upon as an infallible rule of faith.

Did the writings of the apostles have to be "voted on in numerous Roman Catholic councils" in order to be accepted as the divine word of God by the early church? NO. The Gospels were already circulated among the first churches as being the infallible word of God. The letters of Paul, Peter, James, etc. were all viewed as Scripture in the early church and circulated among them - hundreds of years before any Roman Catholic council decreed them as such.

---

"We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him."

I get that. I am saying that if that is true for those Councils, it is true for the non-Bible councils on decisions the Church makes. You are cherry picking what is "devine" and what is not. Catholics believe that Holy Spirit plays just as big a role in dogmatic decisions as in the choosing the Bible books. As I said, it comes down to Faith. Do you believe? There are no absolutes, there are no guidebooks that don't have as aspect of Faith attached.
By the way, I said that I put the Gospels as the most important books in the New Testament. Much more so than Paul's letters.

You say who knows where decisions come from, each decision is just as documented as the choosing the Bible verses, probably more so.

My question to you is how can you just decide NOT to listen every other Church council, but the ones that chose the Bible books in your version of the Bible? All the others mean nothing, because an Augustinian Monk and his German Noble backers were pissed at Rome? How is that different than Henry the 8th? Seems cherry picking to me. There are some things I don't agree, such as Mary body and soul in heaven or speculating on the sexual habits of Christ's mother. Does it really matter? But, you take the good with the bad, there is no perfect. Or Faith would mean nothing if there was no doubt.

---

You didn't understand what I said. Again, councils did not determine the authority of the Gospels and letters of Paul, James, Peter, etc. The Christians of the early church did, hundreds of years before any council formally declared it. How did they know? Yes, the Holy Spirit was involved, but in the manner of helping them recognize the authenticity and reliability of the authorship of those writings. Jesus gave infallible authority to his first hand apostles, thus if the writing was truly authored by them, it was to be considered the infallible word of God. People did NOT "vote" to decide on the apostle's infallibility, Jesus had already decided that.

Councils were not given infallibility by Jesus. Councils are made up of fallible men, hopefully being led by the Holy Spirit (but that's no guarantee), who must rely on the infallibility of the original apostles as declared by Jesus, not on their own declaration of infallibility because of their claim of being led by the Holy Spirit. We only know that what comes out of Councils is the work of the Holy Spirit if it is agreement with Scripture. That is the standard of measure. What Roman Cathoicism does, and what you've bought in to, is the idea that fallible men claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit is just as infallible of an authority as Scripture. But as I keep saying, Jesus didn't give infallible authority to men outside of his apostles, that we know of. If you abandon sola scriptura, and you allow another standard of measure outside of what God guaranteed (Scripture), you're opening yourself up to compromise of God's truth and huge errors. As we have seen, this is exactly what has led to heresy and idolatry in the Roman Catholic Church. And the worst of it is, her adherents don't (or won't) even recognize or acknowledge it, because they have been conditioned (upon threat of being sent to Hell, btw) to consider the tradition of fallible men to be just as infallible as Scripture. I really hope I've shown you, in logical and biblical manner, that this isn't the case.

---

The original Apostles were dead when the Gospels were written. By the way, no one on here has had ANY issues with the Gospels. Outside of some Church leadership stuff the one thing we all seem to agree on IS the Gospels. Maybe we all should focus there. It is the other Books that seem to cause the problems. One persons opinion.

You keep missing my one overarching point. We are on the same side. We are arguing details. The Catholic Church, for all the mistakes it has made, still works with other Religions on education, health and other social aspects. I loved Church/Services in the Army in the field. Set up on a Jeep, just the sacraments and a bible reading. Sometimes it was a Priest, many times we had a Lutheran Pastor. It boiled religion down to the basics. I never felt closer to God and Christ than in the field in the Army receiving Communion off a Humvee hood or jumping out of a plane. That will cut through the Religious BS really quick....

There are truly hateful people out there. Maybe all of us should worry less about the details and more about living as Christ said. I am at the front of the line.

It may piss you and Shooter off, but these conversations are good. The more you talk the more you understand each other. Once again, one persons opinion.

---

I am not pissed off... sorry if anyone got that conclusion.
I am very sad that so many who call upon the name of Jesus, do not acknowledge the inspired Word of God as the inspired Word of God.

But I am not pissed off. These conversations are very good. I do want to understand why Catholics worship Mary, but don't call it idolatry. Why they don't accept the authority of scripture, but do accept the authority of a simple mortal man instead... even though catholics will almost always admit that previous Pope's have made mistakes.

---

We answered that early on. Catholics honor Jesus's mother and ask for intervention, not worship. There are several times in the Gospels where people asked Mary to intervene and he listened, Wedding at Cana for example. The Scriptures call for honoring Mary, see Gabriel's intro. Personally, I don't get into Mary stuff. But that is the Catholic view. Is it enough to abandon my faith or religion because others get into Mary as an intermediary? No.

I have a hard time praying to Jesus rather than God or going to Mass on Sunday vs the Sabbath. The Bible says there is no God but I am and the Sabbath is on Saturday. Yet, those and all the dietary stuff were set aside. Since there are no degrees of sin, we are all F-ed IF we were supposed to follow the Old Testimant too.

Who knows, you do your best. We can be certain all we want, but we won't know until the end if we were right.

---

If you don't believe in the sinlessness Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her bodily ascension, you are anathematized to Hell by your own Church. You don't seem to have any idea what Roman Catholicism is. Since you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus, apparently you don't know what Christianity is either. So how is it that you lecture others on "missing the point" of Jesus?

---

Hit a nerve, huh ...

Sorry, I guess I am misreading your posts. Maybe I am taking from it what I want, like you are with mine.

There is nothing your Church says that gives you pause or you don't understand as well as others? Nothing that some people in your congregation seem to connect with more than you? Some ideas that really appeal to you,ore than.l others. It is one blase, all the same level believe and feeling?

Mary? Non-issue. Don't see how it really impacts my relationship with God. Seems to bother the hell out of you.

Where I seem to diverge from you is that I believe Jesus came for the not perfect, those that are lost, those that don't go to Church or believe everything at same level they are told. Christ is in the ghetto with the junkies, prostitutes and thieves. The trans and homosexuals that need help. Not the main stream. I liked Francis message. You guys don't seem to. That is where I think Christ would be today, not in a suit in Church. I love the Catholic faith because it is big enough for you and me. Other denominations, not so much.

By the way, you took quite a few shots at me over the last few days. Insulting my believes in a Pope Leo thread. I make one comment on how I hope your narrow view doesn't derail you and you get pissy???

---

If anyone's got their nerve hit, it's you. I'm bringing up a perfectly fair point. You obviously don't understand what Roman Catholicism teaches, and you admitted things like you don't like Paul who wrote half the New Testament, and you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus instead of God. And now you're saying you "like Francis' message". These things fairly put your status as a true Christian under question imo, and I'll bet even the Roman Catholics here will agree. So how does this make you an adequate judge whether someone has "missed the point" on Jesus? And I'm still interested in your answer - what is it that you think I'm missing about Jesus' message, exactly? I agree with you that Jesus came for the lost - but in what way? I have a feeling I'm not going to agree with what you say here, just call it a hunch. You have "liberal, pro-LGBT Christian who compromises the gospel to suit your sensibilities" written all over you, but hey, I could be wrong. What's your answer?

---

Pro? There is a huge difference between pro-lgbt and saying that is who needs help. The sinner is who needs religious support. The person living a holy life and going to church every Sunday is covered. If we don't make those people welcome, we are abandoning them. Sorry, my read of Christ is he would be with those people that need help. That is not pro-lgbt. You don't see that? Huh...

You know whether you or other Catholics believe I am Christian enough doesn't enter into the equation. I will put my doubts and inclusion against your Regcock following of the Bible in the end any day. I know a Pharisee when I see one.

---

Pharisee! There it is! If I had a dollar for every time I've been called that merely for standing up for biblical principles and the true gospel..... Evidently, telling people that you can't make the gospel into what fits your agenda is being a Pharisee. If so, I guess I am one. And every Christian should be one, too. I'm starting to see why you hate Paul and half the New Testament.

You're being cryptic here - HOW do LGBT people need religious help and support? What does that entail? What does "welcoming" them to your church look like? If living a "holy life" covers you, how can that apply to them - is the LGBT lifestyle "holy" in your view? Going to church every weekend covers you? Do you really think all this is the gospel of Jesus Christ?

Realitybites said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Practicing religious Jewish...or just ethnically Jewish?[In the US

---

Whatever disagreements these two groups have, they stand absolutely united on one opinion: Jesus Christ is not the Messiah.

---

I've got an eye opener. There is a group of Jews called Messianic Jews that believe like Christians, that Jesus was the Messiah.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism

I know one.

---

"Messianic Jews" are about as Jewish as Episcopalians are Christian. No other branch of Judaism recognizes them as Jewish. In reality they are what the apostles refered to as Judaizers.

---

That's a great example of where "cultural" Judaism and religious Judaism collide. Most are reasonably pious, so I suspect the average Messianic Jew is more culturally Jewish than the average American Jew.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Exactly, you just don't get it No one can explain it. We will not agree.

We can't even agree on the Bible. You relate everything to scripture, Sola Scriptura. Catholics don't. We say the Latin Vulgate is authoritative, you say the KJ. You constantly quoting the KJ verses as proof means nothing, it is not authoritative to Catholics. Scripture is only part of the equation. Without the oral and Church tradition it is Bible Study. I actually feel bad for you., seems very empty only part of God's message.

---

No, I don't get it because you don't make any sense. You still aren't making sense. Who quoted the KJ?

Latin Vulgate? What does it say that is different than what I quoted? Isn't the Vulgate the work of Jerome, who believed that the apocrypha are not part of canon Scripture, yet Roman Catholicism holds that they are?

Church tradition? You mean fallible, man-made tradition that does not trace back to Jesus and the apostles? By what divine revelation did these traditions come from? How do you know? You don't, yet you're putting it on the same level of authority as Scripture, which we DO know is the infallible word of God. This is why sola scriptura, and abandoning it is the primary reason for all your church's mistakes. That's why you've been led to errant beliefs, even to the point of sheer heresy and idolatry.

---

Once again, you believe in Sola Scriptura. A document that is written by men. We say divinely inspired, so that makes it not of mans making? How is believing a document written by literally hundreds over hundreds of years and voted on in numerous Catholic councils to be "following God's instructions", but following the oral and Church traditions is not!

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, have at it. Sit around your Church Council and have as many little Council of Nicea's as you like. Argue the meaning of a Hebrew, Greek, Latin word ad nauseum. More power to you. Although I think Christ would say you missed the bigger point, but that is just me.

Just don't tell me my believes are wrong. But you can't do that. You have to attack the Catholics in a thread celebrating the naming of a new leader of our Church. No one said a word about your believes, you and your ilk attacked the naming of a new Church leader. Poor form.

---

We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him.

This person Jesus, then, told his disciples they would remember perfectly everything he did and said to tell the world: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:26

Thus, Jesus, who had the full stamp of approval from God by his resurrection, in turn gave his full stamp of approval over everything his apostles said and did. Thus, the tradition of the original apostles is the divinely inspired, infallible word of God.

Where do we learn this tradition of the original apostles? Only in Scripture. The only thing the church has that we know came from the original apostles is in the New Testament, thus it is the only thing in the church's possession that is the word of God, thus it is the only infallible rule of faith for the church. Thus, sola scriptura.

Where do Roman Catholic traditions that are not in the Bible come from? Who knows, and when they do know, they can't prove it came from Jesus or the apostles. Neither do they have any kind of divine stamp of approval on it. This most certainly can NOT be relied upon as an infallible rule of faith.

Did the writings of the apostles have to be "voted on in numerous Roman Catholic councils" in order to be accepted as the divine word of God by the early church? NO. The Gospels were already circulated among the first churches as being the infallible word of God. The letters of Paul, Peter, James, etc. were all viewed as Scripture in the early church and circulated among them - hundreds of years before any Roman Catholic council decreed them as such.

---

"We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him."

I get that. I am saying that if that is true for those Councils, it is true for the non-Bible councils on decisions the Church makes. You are cherry picking what is "devine" and what is not. Catholics believe that Holy Spirit plays just as big a role in dogmatic decisions as in the choosing the Bible books. As I said, it comes down to Faith. Do you believe? There are no absolutes, there are no guidebooks that don't have as aspect of Faith attached.
By the way, I said that I put the Gospels as the most important books in the New Testament. Much more so than Paul's letters.

You say who knows where decisions come from, each decision is just as documented as the choosing the Bible verses, probably more so.

My question to you is how can you just decide NOT to listen every other Church council, but the ones that chose the Bible books in your version of the Bible? All the others mean nothing, because an Augustinian Monk and his German Noble backers were pissed at Rome? How is that different than Henry the 8th? Seems cherry picking to me. There are some things I don't agree, such as Mary body and soul in heaven or speculating on the sexual habits of Christ's mother. Does it really matter? But, you take the good with the bad, there is no perfect. Or Faith would mean nothing if there was no doubt.

---

You didn't understand what I said. Again, councils did not determine the authority of the Gospels and letters of Paul, James, Peter, etc. The Christians of the early church did, hundreds of years before any council formally declared it. How did they know? Yes, the Holy Spirit was involved, but in the manner of helping them recognize the authenticity and reliability of the authorship of those writings. Jesus gave infallible authority to his first hand apostles, thus if the writing was truly authored by them, it was to be considered the infallible word of God. People did NOT "vote" to decide on the apostle's infallibility, Jesus had already decided that.

Councils were not given infallibility by Jesus. Councils are made up of fallible men, hopefully being led by the Holy Spirit (but that's no guarantee), who must rely on the infallibility of the original apostles as declared by Jesus, not on their own declaration of infallibility because of their claim of being led by the Holy Spirit. We only know that what comes out of Councils is the work of the Holy Spirit if it is agreement with Scripture. That is the standard of measure. What Roman Cathoicism does, and what you've bought in to, is the idea that fallible men claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit is just as infallible of an authority as Scripture. But as I keep saying, Jesus didn't give infallible authority to men outside of his apostles, that we know of. If you abandon sola scriptura, and you allow another standard of measure outside of what God guaranteed (Scripture), you're opening yourself up to compromise of God's truth and huge errors. As we have seen, this is exactly what has led to heresy and idolatry in the Roman Catholic Church. And the worst of it is, her adherents don't (or won't) even recognize or acknowledge it, because they have been conditioned (upon threat of being sent to Hell, btw) to consider the tradition of fallible men to be just as infallible as Scripture. I really hope I've shown you, in logical and biblical manner, that this isn't the case.

---

The original Apostles were dead when the Gospels were written. By the way, no one on here has had ANY issues with the Gospels. Outside of some Church leadership stuff the one thing we all seem to agree on IS the Gospels. Maybe we all should focus there. It is the other Books that seem to cause the problems. One persons opinion.

You keep missing my one overarching point. We are on the same side. We are arguing details. The Catholic Church, for all the mistakes it has made, still works with other Religions on education, health and other social aspects. I loved Church/Services in the Army in the field. Set up on a Jeep, just the sacraments and a bible reading. Sometimes it was a Priest, many times we had a Lutheran Pastor. It boiled religion down to the basics. I never felt closer to God and Christ than in the field in the Army receiving Communion off a Humvee hood or jumping out of a plane. That will cut through the Religious BS really quick....

There are truly hateful people out there. Maybe all of us should worry less about the details and more about living as Christ said. I am at the front of the line.

It may piss you and Shooter off, but these conversations are good. The more you talk the more you understand each other. Once again, one persons opinion.

---

I am not pissed off... sorry if anyone got that conclusion.
I am very sad that so many who call upon the name of Jesus, do not acknowledge the inspired Word of God as the inspired Word of God.

But I am not pissed off. These conversations are very good. I do want to understand why Catholics worship Mary, but don't call it idolatry. Why they don't accept the authority of scripture, but do accept the authority of a simple mortal man instead... even though catholics will almost always admit that previous Pope's have made mistakes.

---

We answered that early on. Catholics honor Jesus's mother and ask for intervention, not worship. There are several times in the Gospels where people asked Mary to intervene and he listened, Wedding at Cana for example. The Scriptures call for honoring Mary, see Gabriel's intro. Personally, I don't get into Mary stuff. But that is the Catholic view. Is it enough to abandon my faith or religion because others get into Mary as an intermediary? No.

I have a hard time praying to Jesus rather than God or going to Mass on Sunday vs the Sabbath. The Bible says there is no God but I am and the Sabbath is on Saturday. Yet, those and all the dietary stuff were set aside. Since there are no degrees of sin, we are all F-ed IF we were supposed to follow the Old Testimant too.

Who knows, you do your best. We can be certain all we want, but we won't know until the end if we were right.

---

If you don't believe in the sinlessness Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her bodily ascension, you are anathematized to Hell by your own Church. You don't seem to have any idea what Roman Catholicism is. Since you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus, apparently you don't know what Christianity is either. So how is it that you lecture others on "missing the point" of Jesus?

---

Hit a nerve, huh ...

Sorry, I guess I am misreading your posts. Maybe I am taking from it what I want, like you are with mine.

There is nothing your Church says that gives you pause or you don't understand as well as others? Nothing that some people in your congregation seem to connect with more than you? Some ideas that really appeal to you,ore than.l others. It is one blase, all the same level believe and feeling?

Mary? Non-issue. Don't see how it really impacts my relationship with God. Seems to bother the hell out of you.

Where I seem to diverge from you is that I believe Jesus came for the not perfect, those that are lost, those that don't go to Church or believe everything at same level they are told. Christ is in the ghetto with the junkies, prostitutes and thieves. The trans and homosexuals that need help. Not the main stream. I liked Francis message. You guys don't seem to. That is where I think Christ would be today, not in a suit in Church. I love the Catholic faith because it is big enough for you and me. Other denominations, not so much.

By the way, you took quite a few shots at me over the last few days. Insulting my believes in a Pope Leo thread. I make one comment on how I hope your narrow view doesn't derail you and you get pissy???

---

If anyone's got their nerve hit, it's you. I'm bringing up a perfectly fair point. You obviously don't understand what Roman Catholicism teaches, and you admitted things like you don't like Paul who wrote half the New Testament, and you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus instead of God. And now you're saying you "like Francis' message". These things fairly put your status as a true Christian under question imo, and I'll bet even the Roman Catholics here will agree. So how does this make you an adequate judge whether someone has "missed the point" on Jesus? And I'm still interested in your answer - what is it that you think I'm missing about Jesus' message, exactly? I agree with you that Jesus came for the lost - but in what way? I have a feeling I'm not going to agree with what you say here, just call it a hunch. You have "liberal, pro-LGBT Christian who compromises the gospel to suit your sensibilities" written all over you, but hey, I could be wrong. What's your answer?

---

Pro? There is a huge difference between pro-lgbt and saying that is who needs help. The sinner is who needs religious support. The person living a holy life and going to church every Sunday is covered. If we don't make those people welcome, we are abandoning them. Sorry, my read of Christ is he would be with those people that need help. That is not pro-lgbt. You don't see that? Huh...

You know whether you or other Catholics believe I am Christian enough doesn't enter into the equation. I will put my doubts and inclusion against your Regcock following of the Bible in the end any day. I know a Pharisee when I see one.

---

Pharisee! There it is! If I had a dollar for every time I've been called that merely for standing up for biblical principles and the true gospel..... Evidently, telling people that you can't make the gospel into what fits your agenda is being a Pharisee. If so, I guess I am one. And every Christian should be one, too. I'm starting to see why you hate Paul and half the New Testament.

You're being cryptic here - HOW do LGBT people need religious help and support? What does that entail? What does "welcoming" them to your church look like? If living a "holy life" covers you, how can that apply to them - is the LGBT lifestyle "holy" in your view? Going to church every weekend covers you? Do you really think all this is the gospel of Jesus Christ?

---

You think that someone living in sin just turns off the valve? One day wakes up bright eyed and I am converting NOW? Maybe if you are Christ and they look in your eye, yeah then I agree. Christ didn't need human help. Or maybe if your source of reference is only reading. But us mortals have to go through a process with people.

It has to be a process. It has to be about establishing trust. Just telling them to repent and come back when you got it licked is not a realistic few. If someone is gay, there are other issues that have to be addressed. I believe most people that gravitate to those lifestyles are looking for acceptance. Standing up for biblical principles and the true gospels without working with the people to feel acceptance is exactly what the Pharisees did. And exactly why many of these people go these lifestyles. They were not accepted into the normal social and religious circles.

I am furious with the Catholic Church with its treatment of Divorcees and the LGGBT. The Sacraments are about healing and bring God into your life. Keeping them away from those that need it the most? Seems counterproductive to me. You can include people without condoning the act. Christ was about the Shepard going after the one stray. God has always been about bringing the wayward back and celebrating. Paul turned it into an accounting exercise...

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

First of all, I think we can both agree that the context of this statement by Jesus means that it does not apply to lineage or familial applications. Jesus wouldn't contradict the law which says to honor your father and mother.
Likewise he specifically said to not call the religious leaders "father" and explains the reason to not do this is because "you have one Father, and he is in heaven. "
So clearly this isn't about the man who married your mother, got her pregnant, and raised you from childhood. This is specifically about religious leaders who require their followers to use their self appointed title of "Father".

---

Like I said, I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand it.

The title of the passage is literally called "A Warning Against Hypocrisy."

It's not about the titles; the passage is concerning the Pharisees seeking honor and glory with titles. He also said call no man Rabbi, which means "teacher" or "doctor." Surely you don't use those terms.

ShooterTX said:

---

And your explanation of "Holy Father" is just not correct. We both know that there would be tons of angry rebukes if someone in Vatican City referred to the pope as Mr Prevost or just Father.

---

I would just call him Pope Leo.

ShooterTX said:

---

Do you also think that the Holy Spirit is just another normal spirit but it has been "set apart for God"?
This is a very incorrect explanation of the term Holy.

Websters says that Holy means " exalted or worthy of complete devotion, particularly as one perfect in goodness and righteousness".

I will never agree that calling a human being "Holy Father" is anything other than blasphemy. That title is specifically reserved for God the Father.

---

Where does the Bible state that the title is "reserved for God the Father"?

Do Catholics mean "holy" in that (bolded) way? No, we don't when used in conjunction with his title.

Interesting, that you didn't include the two sentences in Webster that they used as an example:
a holy relic worn by one of the saints
the holy monk spent many hours on his knees in prayer

They actually fit more the way Catholics use the term "holy."

Dictionary.com also defines "holy" as "dedicated or devoted to the service of God, the church, or religion". This is also more closely how the Church uses the term.

ShooterTX said:

---

As for Paul, he described himself as a spiritual father... this is a fact. However, I have never seen a writing of Paul where he required anyone to refer to him as Father or Holy Father. Can you show those verses where he did that?

---

I never claimed that he did this. He referred to himself as father. He was a spiritual leader. Just like priests and bishops are spiritual leaders.

ShooterTX said:

---

Can you show a verse where Peter instructed others to call him Holy Father? Catholics do claim that Peter was the first pope... even though he never claimed such authority and no one ever expressed such authority to Peter.

---

Actually, Jesus gave him that authority in Matthew 16:18. Peter is consistently mentioned first in lists of the apostles, underscoring his importance. He is mentioned by name approximately 154 times. Which more than the others combined.

ShooterTX said:

---

Peter called himself a "fellow elder" and was recognized as a fellow apostle. He was a great man, but clearly wasn't infallible. He had to be confronted & corrected on his doctrine by Paul and others.

---

This is incorrect. He was NOT confronted because of doctrine. Please read Galatians 2 more carefully. Paul rebuked Peter because of his hypocrisy and behavior. Peter removed himself from the Gentiles out of fear of criticism from the Jews.

---

If the passage was just about hypocrisy, then why would he specifically say "you have one Father, and he is in heaven". Why did Jesus use this statement to directly correct hypocrisy? It makes no sense.
In fact, Jesus was correcting those who would usurp the title of "Father" in a religious authority context. Yes, he did rebuke the hypocrisy as well. He did that directly and then he addressed the idea that men should usurp the religious authority of our heavenly father. He did not say, don't call these hypocrites "father"because they are hypocrites. He said don't call ANYONE Father because you have one Father and he is in heaven. Jesus did not say that is cool to give the heavenly father's title & authority to a non-hypocrite. To infer that from the passage is to take out your pen and rewrite the passage to suit your own desires.
It is clear that Jesus is rebuking religious leaders who are requiring the use of these titles & the assumed authority that they confer.
And this teaching is backed up by the fact that none of the Apostles used it or required the use of these titles in the manner of these religious leaders.
Yes, Paul refers to Timothy as "my true son in the faith" but it is clear that this is a term of endearment, not a religious title of authority. And I've never seen any writings in the NT where any apostle requires or requests to be called by a title. They declare that they are apostles & elders, but none of them attempt to usurp the authority of God by declaring themselves to be the "Holy Father".
If you truly believe that the use of Holy is as you described in the catholic church... then please explain why your local priest will rebuke you if you refer to him as "Holy Father".
If it as innocent as you say, then I encourage you to go on Sunday and greet you local guy as "Holy Father" and see what happens. I bet you he will correct you and explain that he is just "Father _____", not the "Holy Father". If you are lucky, your local guy will know the Bible enough to tell you that there is only one Holy Father and he is in heaven. If he's a true catholic, he will tell you that the title of "Holy Father" is reserved for the Bishop of Rome and not some lowly local priest.
I kinda doubt you will do this, as most Catholics are too afraid to test the authority of the catholic priesthood in this manner.

---

Paul also declares that he was appointed as a teacher. If we took Jesus literally in Matthew 23:8-10, this would be forbidden. So would modern titles like "doctor" and even "mister." Paul refers to himself as a spiritual father to Timothy and others.

Jesus was exaggerating in order to call out the Pharisees and make a point. He doesn't want us to put our faith in men or to be led astray by those who are unworthy.

---

Paul never assumed the authority of God as the ultimate teacher, nor did Paul ever assume the religious title of father in the way the Pharisees did. The pope is totally using the religious title in the same way as the Pharisees.
Paul said he was a spiritual father to Timothy. He never said he was THE spiritual father over all the Christians in earth.
In not sure how you cannot see the vast difference.

Paul claimed to be a teacher of the gospel, but he never attempted to teach things that were not already found in the OT or already spoken by Jesus.

In Matthew Jesus was rebuking the Pharisees because they assumed the title & authority of God. They had silent years creating new doctrines that were not found in the scriptures. They created new requirements for the Jews and the created their own rules. They used there authority for their own gain, and their own glory. They made sure that everyone gave them deference and they wielded their titles & offices over them. This is a theme the Jesus brings up over & over again when rebuking the Pharisees.

Luke 20:45-47 NIV

[45] While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, [46] "Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. [47] They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely."

Earlier in the chapter we see that the Pharisees were questioning Jesus on his authority. They were consumed with this topic of religious authority.
Then Jesus says this:

Luke 20:9-19 NIV
[9] He went on to tell the people this parable: "A man planted a vineyard, rented it to some farmers and went away for a long time. [10] At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants so they would give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed. [11] He sent another servant, but that one also they beat and treated shamefully and sent away empty-handed. [12] He sent still a third, and they wounded him and threw him out. [13] "Then the owner of the vineyard said, 'What shall I do? I will send my son, whom I love; perhaps they will respect him.' [14] "But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. 'This is the heir,' they said. 'Let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.' [15] So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. "What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? [16] He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others." When the people heard this, they said, "God forbid!" [17] Jesus looked directly at them and asked, "Then what is the meaning of that which is written: " 'The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone' ? [18] Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed." [19] The teachers of the law and the chief priests looked for a way to arrest him immediately, because they knew he had spoken this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people.

The farmers assumed the authority over the vineyard to the point that they murdered the owner of the vineyards own son.
The Pharisees were so consumed with keeping their religious authority, that they murdered the one who was supposed to be their own Messiah.
Jesus wasn't just rebuking them for hypocrisy, he was rebuking them for assuming the authority of the one and only Holy Father. How did they assume this authority? By adding to the law.

Mark 7:6-9 NIV
[6] He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. [7] They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.' [8] You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions." [9] And he continued, "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!

There were just over 600 commands in the scriptures, but the Pharisees taught over 1,500 commands for the people to follow, by the time Jesus was rebuking them. This assumption of authority and the creation of new rules... this is the same problem we see in the catholic church today with the pope and the catholic decrees.

---

Assuming religious authority wasn't the Pharisees' sin. Jesus himself recognizes their teaching authority, but he condemns their hypocrisy. See Matthew 23:1-3.

---

He recognized their teaching authority??
Jesus literally tells the people to NOT call them teachers... are you serious in your statement?

Tell me how this has anything to do with hypocrisy:

Matthew 23:7-10 NIV
[7] they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called 'Rabbi' by others. [8] "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. [9] And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. [10] Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah.

How can you possibly read this as only being about hypocrisy? You seriously read this and only see a rebuke of hypocrites?

Did Jesus rebuke them for hypocrisy... of course he did. Did he also rebuke them for assuming titles and authority that was not legitimately theirs... of course he did.

---

Jesus said they were established in the seat of Moses and therefore the people should do as they said--but not as they did. They had legitimate authority in the realm of Jewish teaching. Jesus was preparing his disciples for a new teaching. He wasn't rejecting the concept of authority outright.

---

Jesus also said that they were voiding the written Law of God in favor of their man-made traditions, and that they were preventing people from entering the kingdom, for which he pronounced upon them the most serious "woes" in the Bible.

Jesus also said to "beware the leaven (teaching) of the Pharisees" because they corrupted the heart of the Law and his Gospel. I don't believe that when Jesus said to do obey them, that he was talking about obeying the leaven of their fallible, man-made tradition if it contradicted or voided the written Law and Jesus' teachings.

Some really important lessions here.

---

No tradition is valid if it contradicts Scripture. Yet not all traditions are "man-made" in that sense.

"Moses' seat" refers to a succession of teaching authority found in the Mishna, not the Old Testament. Jesus clearly endorses it here. There are several other references to non-canonical traditions in the NT, for example Jude 9 and 2 Timothy 3:8. 1 Peter 3:19 refers to Purgatory, a teaching handed down through oral tradition. The idea of resurrection was received in the same way.

---

Jesus was directly tellng the Pharisees that their Corban rule (man made tradition) contradicted the written Law. Even if Jesus was endorsing the oral tradition that gave the Pharisees the authority of Moses' seat, he obviously was NOT endorsing any idea that they were infallible in their interpretations and applications of the written Law. Their teachings had to always be in line with the written Law, or what they teach is invalid - seat or no seat. The only infallible tradition was contained in the written Law.

1 Peter 3:19 does NOT in any way refer to Purgatory. That's a very irresponsible reading into of the text.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Exactly, you just don't get it No one can explain it. We will not agree.

We can't even agree on the Bible. You relate everything to scripture, Sola Scriptura. Catholics don't. We say the Latin Vulgate is authoritative, you say the KJ. You constantly quoting the KJ verses as proof means nothing, it is not authoritative to Catholics. Scripture is only part of the equation. Without the oral and Church tradition it is Bible Study. I actually feel bad for you., seems very empty only part of God's message.

---

No, I don't get it because you don't make any sense. You still aren't making sense. Who quoted the KJ?

Latin Vulgate? What does it say that is different than what I quoted? Isn't the Vulgate the work of Jerome, who believed that the apocrypha are not part of canon Scripture, yet Roman Catholicism holds that they are?

Church tradition? You mean fallible, man-made tradition that does not trace back to Jesus and the apostles? By what divine revelation did these traditions come from? How do you know? You don't, yet you're putting it on the same level of authority as Scripture, which we DO know is the infallible word of God. This is why sola scriptura, and abandoning it is the primary reason for all your church's mistakes. That's why you've been led to errant beliefs, even to the point of sheer heresy and idolatry.

---

Once again, you believe in Sola Scriptura. A document that is written by men. We say divinely inspired, so that makes it not of mans making? How is believing a document written by literally hundreds over hundreds of years and voted on in numerous Catholic councils to be "following God's instructions", but following the oral and Church traditions is not!

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, have at it. Sit around your Church Council and have as many little Council of Nicea's as you like. Argue the meaning of a Hebrew, Greek, Latin word ad nauseum. More power to you. Although I think Christ would say you missed the bigger point, but that is just me.

Just don't tell me my believes are wrong. But you can't do that. You have to attack the Catholics in a thread celebrating the naming of a new leader of our Church. No one said a word about your believes, you and your ilk attacked the naming of a new Church leader. Poor form.

---

We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him.

This person Jesus, then, told his disciples they would remember perfectly everything he did and said to tell the world: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:26

Thus, Jesus, who had the full stamp of approval from God by his resurrection, in turn gave his full stamp of approval over everything his apostles said and did. Thus, the tradition of the original apostles is the divinely inspired, infallible word of God.

Where do we learn this tradition of the original apostles? Only in Scripture. The only thing the church has that we know came from the original apostles is in the New Testament, thus it is the only thing in the church's possession that is the word of God, thus it is the only infallible rule of faith for the church. Thus, sola scriptura.

Where do Roman Catholic traditions that are not in the Bible come from? Who knows, and when they do know, they can't prove it came from Jesus or the apostles. Neither do they have any kind of divine stamp of approval on it. This most certainly can NOT be relied upon as an infallible rule of faith.

Did the writings of the apostles have to be "voted on in numerous Roman Catholic councils" in order to be accepted as the divine word of God by the early church? NO. The Gospels were already circulated among the first churches as being the infallible word of God. The letters of Paul, Peter, James, etc. were all viewed as Scripture in the early church and circulated among them - hundreds of years before any Roman Catholic council decreed them as such.

---

"We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him."

I get that. I am saying that if that is true for those Councils, it is true for the non-Bible councils on decisions the Church makes. You are cherry picking what is "devine" and what is not. Catholics believe that Holy Spirit plays just as big a role in dogmatic decisions as in the choosing the Bible books. As I said, it comes down to Faith. Do you believe? There are no absolutes, there are no guidebooks that don't have as aspect of Faith attached.
By the way, I said that I put the Gospels as the most important books in the New Testament. Much more so than Paul's letters.

You say who knows where decisions come from, each decision is just as documented as the choosing the Bible verses, probably more so.

My question to you is how can you just decide NOT to listen every other Church council, but the ones that chose the Bible books in your version of the Bible? All the others mean nothing, because an Augustinian Monk and his German Noble backers were pissed at Rome? How is that different than Henry the 8th? Seems cherry picking to me. There are some things I don't agree, such as Mary body and soul in heaven or speculating on the sexual habits of Christ's mother. Does it really matter? But, you take the good with the bad, there is no perfect. Or Faith would mean nothing if there was no doubt.

---

You didn't understand what I said. Again, councils did not determine the authority of the Gospels and letters of Paul, James, Peter, etc. The Christians of the early church did, hundreds of years before any council formally declared it. How did they know? Yes, the Holy Spirit was involved, but in the manner of helping them recognize the authenticity and reliability of the authorship of those writings. Jesus gave infallible authority to his first hand apostles, thus if the writing was truly authored by them, it was to be considered the infallible word of God. People did NOT "vote" to decide on the apostle's infallibility, Jesus had already decided that.

Councils were not given infallibility by Jesus. Councils are made up of fallible men, hopefully being led by the Holy Spirit (but that's no guarantee), who must rely on the infallibility of the original apostles as declared by Jesus, not on their own declaration of infallibility because of their claim of being led by the Holy Spirit. We only know that what comes out of Councils is the work of the Holy Spirit if it is agreement with Scripture. That is the standard of measure. What Roman Cathoicism does, and what you've bought in to, is the idea that fallible men claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit is just as infallible of an authority as Scripture. But as I keep saying, Jesus didn't give infallible authority to men outside of his apostles, that we know of. If you abandon sola scriptura, and you allow another standard of measure outside of what God guaranteed (Scripture), you're opening yourself up to compromise of God's truth and huge errors. As we have seen, this is exactly what has led to heresy and idolatry in the Roman Catholic Church. And the worst of it is, her adherents don't (or won't) even recognize or acknowledge it, because they have been conditioned (upon threat of being sent to Hell, btw) to consider the tradition of fallible men to be just as infallible as Scripture. I really hope I've shown you, in logical and biblical manner, that this isn't the case.

---

The original Apostles were dead when the Gospels were written. By the way, no one on here has had ANY issues with the Gospels. Outside of some Church leadership stuff the one thing we all seem to agree on IS the Gospels. Maybe we all should focus there. It is the other Books that seem to cause the problems. One persons opinion.

You keep missing my one overarching point. We are on the same side. We are arguing details. The Catholic Church, for all the mistakes it has made, still works with other Religions on education, health and other social aspects. I loved Church/Services in the Army in the field. Set up on a Jeep, just the sacraments and a bible reading. Sometimes it was a Priest, many times we had a Lutheran Pastor. It boiled religion down to the basics. I never felt closer to God and Christ than in the field in the Army receiving Communion off a Humvee hood or jumping out of a plane. That will cut through the Religious BS really quick....

There are truly hateful people out there. Maybe all of us should worry less about the details and more about living as Christ said. I am at the front of the line.

It may piss you and Shooter off, but these conversations are good. The more you talk the more you understand each other. Once again, one persons opinion.

---

I am not pissed off... sorry if anyone got that conclusion.
I am very sad that so many who call upon the name of Jesus, do not acknowledge the inspired Word of God as the inspired Word of God.

But I am not pissed off. These conversations are very good. I do want to understand why Catholics worship Mary, but don't call it idolatry. Why they don't accept the authority of scripture, but do accept the authority of a simple mortal man instead... even though catholics will almost always admit that previous Pope's have made mistakes.

---

We answered that early on. Catholics honor Jesus's mother and ask for intervention, not worship. There are several times in the Gospels where people asked Mary to intervene and he listened, Wedding at Cana for example. The Scriptures call for honoring Mary, see Gabriel's intro. Personally, I don't get into Mary stuff. But that is the Catholic view. Is it enough to abandon my faith or religion because others get into Mary as an intermediary? No.

I have a hard time praying to Jesus rather than God or going to Mass on Sunday vs the Sabbath. The Bible says there is no God but I am and the Sabbath is on Saturday. Yet, those and all the dietary stuff were set aside. Since there are no degrees of sin, we are all F-ed IF we were supposed to follow the Old Testimant too.

Who knows, you do your best. We can be certain all we want, but we won't know until the end if we were right.

---

If you don't believe in the sinlessness Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her bodily ascension, you are anathematized to Hell by your own Church. You don't seem to have any idea what Roman Catholicism is. Since you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus, apparently you don't know what Christianity is either. So how is it that you lecture others on "missing the point" of Jesus?

---

Hit a nerve, huh ...

Sorry, I guess I am misreading your posts. Maybe I am taking from it what I want, like you are with mine.

There is nothing your Church says that gives you pause or you don't understand as well as others? Nothing that some people in your congregation seem to connect with more than you? Some ideas that really appeal to you,ore than.l others. It is one blase, all the same level believe and feeling?

Mary? Non-issue. Don't see how it really impacts my relationship with God. Seems to bother the hell out of you.

Where I seem to diverge from you is that I believe Jesus came for the not perfect, those that are lost, those that don't go to Church or believe everything at same level they are told. Christ is in the ghetto with the junkies, prostitutes and thieves. The trans and homosexuals that need help. Not the main stream. I liked Francis message. You guys don't seem to. That is where I think Christ would be today, not in a suit in Church. I love the Catholic faith because it is big enough for you and me. Other denominations, not so much.

By the way, you took quite a few shots at me over the last few days. Insulting my believes in a Pope Leo thread. I make one comment on how I hope your narrow view doesn't derail you and you get pissy???

---

If anyone's got their nerve hit, it's you. I'm bringing up a perfectly fair point. You obviously don't understand what Roman Catholicism teaches, and you admitted things like you don't like Paul who wrote half the New Testament, and you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus instead of God. And now you're saying you "like Francis' message". These things fairly put your status as a true Christian under question imo, and I'll bet even the Roman Catholics here will agree. So how does this make you an adequate judge whether someone has "missed the point" on Jesus? And I'm still interested in your answer - what is it that you think I'm missing about Jesus' message, exactly? I agree with you that Jesus came for the lost - but in what way? I have a feeling I'm not going to agree with what you say here, just call it a hunch. You have "liberal, pro-LGBT Christian who compromises the gospel to suit your sensibilities" written all over you, but hey, I could be wrong. What's your answer?

---

Pro? There is a huge difference between pro-lgbt and saying that is who needs help. The sinner is who needs religious support. The person living a holy life and going to church every Sunday is covered. If we don't make those people welcome, we are abandoning them. Sorry, my read of Christ is he would be with those people that need help. That is not pro-lgbt. You don't see that? Huh...

You know whether you or other Catholics believe I am Christian enough doesn't enter into the equation. I will put my doubts and inclusion against your Regcock following of the Bible in the end any day. I know a Pharisee when I see one.

---

Pharisee! There it is! If I had a dollar for every time I've been called that merely for standing up for biblical principles and the true gospel..... Evidently, telling people that you can't make the gospel into what fits your agenda is being a Pharisee. If so, I guess I am one. And every Christian should be one, too. I'm starting to see why you hate Paul and half the New Testament.

You're being cryptic here - HOW do LGBT people need religious help and support? What does that entail? What does "welcoming" them to your church look like? If living a "holy life" covers you, how can that apply to them - is the LGBT lifestyle "holy" in your view? Going to church every weekend covers you? Do you really think all this is the gospel of Jesus Christ?

---

You think that someone living in sin just turns off the valve? One day wakes up bright eyed and I am converting NOW? Maybe if you are Christ and they look in your eye, yeah then I agree. Christ didn't need human help. Or maybe if your source of reference is only reading. But us mortals have to go through a process with people.

It has to be a process. It has to be about establishing trust. Just telling them to repent and come back when you got it licked is not a realistic few. If someone is gay, there are other issues that have to be addressed. I believe most people that gravitate to those lifestyles are looking for acceptance. Standing up for biblical principles and the true gospels without working with the people to feel acceptance is exactly what the Pharisees did. And exactly why many of these people go these lifestyles. They were not accepted into the normal social and religious circles.

I am furious with the Catholic Church with its treatment of Divorcees and the LGGBT. The Sacraments are about healing and bring God into your life. Keeping them away from those that need it the most? Seems counterproductive to me. You can include people without condoning the act. Christ was about the Shepard going after the one stray. God has always been about bringing the wayward back and celebrating. Paul turned it into an accounting exercise...

---

But what does this process entail, say, for LGBT people? Do you validate their lifestyle in any way?

There is a need to reach out to the lost, like unrepentant LGBT people, I fully agree. But the church is for the body of believers. It is not to include those who don't believe, or those who continue in an unrepentant sinful lifestyle (which indicates unbelief). We definitely should reach out and minister to these people, but only outside of church, and then invite them to your chuch if they come to repentance and belief. I have a feeling this is not the process you're talking about, though.

By the way, if you tell your church that you don't believe all the Mary stuff as you say, if they're adherent to the doctrine of Roman Catholicism, they are obligated to remove you from church as well. Because those beliefs are required. So all your "Mary stuff is BS" isn't really, at least in Roman Catholicism. It's a dogma - they tie your salvation to it. That's why I find it curious that you don't know, or don't seem to even care to know, the vital doctrines of the church you belong to. If you don't believe that you go to Hell because you don't believe in the Mary stuff, how can you believe that your church is true? And if you don't believe your church is true, why do you feel it is important to minister to LGBT people into your church, that you don't think is even true?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Exactly, you just don't get it No one can explain it. We will not agree.

We can't even agree on the Bible. You relate everything to scripture, Sola Scriptura. Catholics don't. We say the Latin Vulgate is authoritative, you say the KJ. You constantly quoting the KJ verses as proof means nothing, it is not authoritative to Catholics. Scripture is only part of the equation. Without the oral and Church tradition it is Bible Study. I actually feel bad for you., seems very empty only part of God's message.

---

No, I don't get it because you don't make any sense. You still aren't making sense. Who quoted the KJ?

Latin Vulgate? What does it say that is different than what I quoted? Isn't the Vulgate the work of Jerome, who believed that the apocrypha are not part of canon Scripture, yet Roman Catholicism holds that they are?

Church tradition? You mean fallible, man-made tradition that does not trace back to Jesus and the apostles? By what divine revelation did these traditions come from? How do you know? You don't, yet you're putting it on the same level of authority as Scripture, which we DO know is the infallible word of God. This is why sola scriptura, and abandoning it is the primary reason for all your church's mistakes. That's why you've been led to errant beliefs, even to the point of sheer heresy and idolatry.

---

Once again, you believe in Sola Scriptura. A document that is written by men. We say divinely inspired, so that makes it not of mans making? How is believing a document written by literally hundreds over hundreds of years and voted on in numerous Catholic councils to be "following God's instructions", but following the oral and Church traditions is not!

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, have at it. Sit around your Church Council and have as many little Council of Nicea's as you like. Argue the meaning of a Hebrew, Greek, Latin word ad nauseum. More power to you. Although I think Christ would say you missed the bigger point, but that is just me.

Just don't tell me my believes are wrong. But you can't do that. You have to attack the Catholics in a thread celebrating the naming of a new leader of our Church. No one said a word about your believes, you and your ilk attacked the naming of a new Church leader. Poor form.

---

We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him.

This person Jesus, then, told his disciples they would remember perfectly everything he did and said to tell the world: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:26

Thus, Jesus, who had the full stamp of approval from God by his resurrection, in turn gave his full stamp of approval over everything his apostles said and did. Thus, the tradition of the original apostles is the divinely inspired, infallible word of God.

Where do we learn this tradition of the original apostles? Only in Scripture. The only thing the church has that we know came from the original apostles is in the New Testament, thus it is the only thing in the church's possession that is the word of God, thus it is the only infallible rule of faith for the church. Thus, sola scriptura.

Where do Roman Catholic traditions that are not in the Bible come from? Who knows, and when they do know, they can't prove it came from Jesus or the apostles. Neither do they have any kind of divine stamp of approval on it. This most certainly can NOT be relied upon as an infallible rule of faith.

Did the writings of the apostles have to be "voted on in numerous Roman Catholic councils" in order to be accepted as the divine word of God by the early church? NO. The Gospels were already circulated among the first churches as being the infallible word of God. The letters of Paul, Peter, James, etc. were all viewed as Scripture in the early church and circulated among them - hundreds of years before any Roman Catholic council decreed them as such.

---

"We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him."

I get that. I am saying that if that is true for those Councils, it is true for the non-Bible councils on decisions the Church makes. You are cherry picking what is "devine" and what is not. Catholics believe that Holy Spirit plays just as big a role in dogmatic decisions as in the choosing the Bible books. As I said, it comes down to Faith. Do you believe? There are no absolutes, there are no guidebooks that don't have as aspect of Faith attached.
By the way, I said that I put the Gospels as the most important books in the New Testament. Much more so than Paul's letters.

You say who knows where decisions come from, each decision is just as documented as the choosing the Bible verses, probably more so.

My question to you is how can you just decide NOT to listen every other Church council, but the ones that chose the Bible books in your version of the Bible? All the others mean nothing, because an Augustinian Monk and his German Noble backers were pissed at Rome? How is that different than Henry the 8th? Seems cherry picking to me. There are some things I don't agree, such as Mary body and soul in heaven or speculating on the sexual habits of Christ's mother. Does it really matter? But, you take the good with the bad, there is no perfect. Or Faith would mean nothing if there was no doubt.

---

You didn't understand what I said. Again, councils did not determine the authority of the Gospels and letters of Paul, James, Peter, etc. The Christians of the early church did, hundreds of years before any council formally declared it. How did they know? Yes, the Holy Spirit was involved, but in the manner of helping them recognize the authenticity and reliability of the authorship of those writings. Jesus gave infallible authority to his first hand apostles, thus if the writing was truly authored by them, it was to be considered the infallible word of God. People did NOT "vote" to decide on the apostle's infallibility, Jesus had already decided that.

Councils were not given infallibility by Jesus. Councils are made up of fallible men, hopefully being led by the Holy Spirit (but that's no guarantee), who must rely on the infallibility of the original apostles as declared by Jesus, not on their own declaration of infallibility because of their claim of being led by the Holy Spirit. We only know that what comes out of Councils is the work of the Holy Spirit if it is agreement with Scripture. That is the standard of measure. What Roman Cathoicism does, and what you've bought in to, is the idea that fallible men claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit is just as infallible of an authority as Scripture. But as I keep saying, Jesus didn't give infallible authority to men outside of his apostles, that we know of. If you abandon sola scriptura, and you allow another standard of measure outside of what God guaranteed (Scripture), you're opening yourself up to compromise of God's truth and huge errors. As we have seen, this is exactly what has led to heresy and idolatry in the Roman Catholic Church. And the worst of it is, her adherents don't (or won't) even recognize or acknowledge it, because they have been conditioned (upon threat of being sent to Hell, btw) to consider the tradition of fallible men to be just as infallible as Scripture. I really hope I've shown you, in logical and biblical manner, that this isn't the case.

---

The original Apostles were dead when the Gospels were written. By the way, no one on here has had ANY issues with the Gospels. Outside of some Church leadership stuff the one thing we all seem to agree on IS the Gospels. Maybe we all should focus there. It is the other Books that seem to cause the problems. One persons opinion.

You keep missing my one overarching point. We are on the same side. We are arguing details. The Catholic Church, for all the mistakes it has made, still works with other Religions on education, health and other social aspects. I loved Church/Services in the Army in the field. Set up on a Jeep, just the sacraments and a bible reading. Sometimes it was a Priest, many times we had a Lutheran Pastor. It boiled religion down to the basics. I never felt closer to God and Christ than in the field in the Army receiving Communion off a Humvee hood or jumping out of a plane. That will cut through the Religious BS really quick....

There are truly hateful people out there. Maybe all of us should worry less about the details and more about living as Christ said. I am at the front of the line.

It may piss you and Shooter off, but these conversations are good. The more you talk the more you understand each other. Once again, one persons opinion.

---

I am not pissed off... sorry if anyone got that conclusion.
I am very sad that so many who call upon the name of Jesus, do not acknowledge the inspired Word of God as the inspired Word of God.

But I am not pissed off. These conversations are very good. I do want to understand why Catholics worship Mary, but don't call it idolatry. Why they don't accept the authority of scripture, but do accept the authority of a simple mortal man instead... even though catholics will almost always admit that previous Pope's have made mistakes.

---

We answered that early on. Catholics honor Jesus's mother and ask for intervention, not worship. There are several times in the Gospels where people asked Mary to intervene and he listened, Wedding at Cana for example. The Scriptures call for honoring Mary, see Gabriel's intro. Personally, I don't get into Mary stuff. But that is the Catholic view. Is it enough to abandon my faith or religion because others get into Mary as an intermediary? No.

I have a hard time praying to Jesus rather than God or going to Mass on Sunday vs the Sabbath. The Bible says there is no God but I am and the Sabbath is on Saturday. Yet, those and all the dietary stuff were set aside. Since there are no degrees of sin, we are all F-ed IF we were supposed to follow the Old Testimant too.

Who knows, you do your best. We can be certain all we want, but we won't know until the end if we were right.

---

If you don't believe in the sinlessness Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her bodily ascension, you are anathematized to Hell by your own Church. You don't seem to have any idea what Roman Catholicism is. Since you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus, apparently you don't know what Christianity is either. So how is it that you lecture others on "missing the point" of Jesus?

---

Hit a nerve, huh ...

Sorry, I guess I am misreading your posts. Maybe I am taking from it what I want, like you are with mine.

There is nothing your Church says that gives you pause or you don't understand as well as others? Nothing that some people in your congregation seem to connect with more than you? Some ideas that really appeal to you,ore than.l others. It is one blase, all the same level believe and feeling?

Mary? Non-issue. Don't see how it really impacts my relationship with God. Seems to bother the hell out of you.

Where I seem to diverge from you is that I believe Jesus came for the not perfect, those that are lost, those that don't go to Church or believe everything at same level they are told. Christ is in the ghetto with the junkies, prostitutes and thieves. The trans and homosexuals that need help. Not the main stream. I liked Francis message. You guys don't seem to. That is where I think Christ would be today, not in a suit in Church. I love the Catholic faith because it is big enough for you and me. Other denominations, not so much.

By the way, you took quite a few shots at me over the last few days. Insulting my believes in a Pope Leo thread. I make one comment on how I hope your narrow view doesn't derail you and you get pissy???

---

If anyone's got their nerve hit, it's you. I'm bringing up a perfectly fair point. You obviously don't understand what Roman Catholicism teaches, and you admitted things like you don't like Paul who wrote half the New Testament, and you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus instead of God. And now you're saying you "like Francis' message". These things fairly put your status as a true Christian under question imo, and I'll bet even the Roman Catholics here will agree. So how does this make you an adequate judge whether someone has "missed the point" on Jesus? And I'm still interested in your answer - what is it that you think I'm missing about Jesus' message, exactly? I agree with you that Jesus came for the lost - but in what way? I have a feeling I'm not going to agree with what you say here, just call it a hunch. You have "liberal, pro-LGBT Christian who compromises the gospel to suit your sensibilities" written all over you, but hey, I could be wrong. What's your answer?

---

Pro? There is a huge difference between pro-lgbt and saying that is who needs help. The sinner is who needs religious support. The person living a holy life and going to church every Sunday is covered. If we don't make those people welcome, we are abandoning them. Sorry, my read of Christ is he would be with those people that need help. That is not pro-lgbt. You don't see that? Huh...

You know whether you or other Catholics believe I am Christian enough doesn't enter into the equation. I will put my doubts and inclusion against your Regcock following of the Bible in the end any day. I know a Pharisee when I see one.

---

Pharisee! There it is! If I had a dollar for every time I've been called that merely for standing up for biblical principles and the true gospel..... Evidently, telling people that you can't make the gospel into what fits your agenda is being a Pharisee. If so, I guess I am one. And every Christian should be one, too. I'm starting to see why you hate Paul and half the New Testament.

You're being cryptic here - HOW do LGBT people need religious help and support? What does that entail? What does "welcoming" them to your church look like? If living a "holy life" covers you, how can that apply to them - is the LGBT lifestyle "holy" in your view? Going to church every weekend covers you? Do you really think all this is the gospel of Jesus Christ?

---

You think that someone living in sin just turns off the valve? One day wakes up bright eyed and I am converting NOW? Maybe if you are Christ and they look in your eye, yeah then I agree. Christ didn't need human help. Or maybe if your source of reference is only reading. But us mortals have to go through a process with people.

It has to be a process. It has to be about establishing trust. Just telling them to repent and come back when you got it licked is not a realistic few. If someone is gay, there are other issues that have to be addressed. I believe most people that gravitate to those lifestyles are looking for acceptance. Standing up for biblical principles and the true gospels without working with the people to feel acceptance is exactly what the Pharisees did. And exactly why many of these people go these lifestyles. They were not accepted into the normal social and religious circles.

I am furious with the Catholic Church with its treatment of Divorcees and the LGGBT. The Sacraments are about healing and bring God into your life. Keeping them away from those that need it the most? Seems counterproductive to me. You can include people without condoning the act. Christ was about the Shepard going after the one stray. God has always been about bringing the wayward back and celebrating. Paul turned it into an accounting exercise...

---

But what does this process entail, say, for LGBT people? Do you validate their lifestyle in any way?

There is a need to reach out to the lost, like unrepentant LGBT people, I fully agree. But the church is for the body of believers. It is not to include those who don't believe, or those who continue in an unrepentant sinful lifestyle (which indicates unbelief). We definitely should reach out and minister to these people, but only outside of church, and then invite them to your chuch if they come to repentance and belief. I have a feeling this is not the process you're talking about, though.

By the way, if you tell your church that you don't believe all the Mary stuff as you say, if they're adherent to the doctrine of Roman Catholicism, they are obligated to remove you from church as well. Because those beliefs are required. So all your "Mary stuff is BS" isn't really, at least in Roman Catholicism. It's a dogma - they tie your salvation to it. That's why I find it curious that you don't know, or don't seem to even care to know, the vital doctrines of the church you belong to. If you don't believe that you go to Hell because you don't believe in the Mary stuff, how can you believe that your church is true? And if you don't believe your church is true, why do you feel it is important to minister to LGBT people into your church, that you don't think is even true?

---

At some point don't you have to believe that someone that is showing up to Church and not making a public display of themselves is on the level? Are we supposed to be the religious police? If they are trying to get over on the Church, why? If they make displays, I would expect the Priest to speak with them, the same if my wife and I were inappropriate. But at the end of the day, it is between them and God. I believe it is our job to give everyone the chance, what they do is up to them.

And no, the act IS a sin and even Francis didn't condone that!

Dogma is not my salvation. There are some things that I don't get. I logically can't make sense of. But, if logic was the driving force you wouldn't be religious. The whole thing is built around faith and obedience. Push comes to shove, I would pray for understanding that I do not have. Would I leave the Church over it? No. Not that big of an impact on my life whether Mary was a virgin forever or Jesus had a brother. Chalk it up to not getting it and move on. It seems to give you more of an issue. I also believe it is our duty to question and push from within, not cut and run if there is something I disagree with.

FLBear5630If anyone's got their nerve hit, it's you. I'm bringing up a perfectly fair point. You obviously don't understand what Roman Catholicism teaches, and you admitted things like you don't like Paul who wrote half the New Testament, and you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus instead of God. And now you're saying you "like Francis' message". These things fairly put your status as a true Christian under question imo, and I'll bet even the Roman Catholics here will agree. So how does this make you an adequate judge whether someone has "missed the point" on Jesus? And I'm still interested in your answer - what is it that you think I'm missing about Jesus' message, exactly? I agree with you that Jesus came for the lost - but in what way? I have a feeling I'm not going to agree with what you say here, just call it a hunch. You have "liberal, pro-LGBT Christian who compromises the gospel to suit your sensibilities" written all over you, but hey, I could be wrong. What's your answer? said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Pro? There is a huge difference between pro-lgbt and saying that is who needs help. The sinner is who needs religious support. The person living a holy life and going to church every Sunday is covered. If we don't make those people welcome, we are abandoning them. Sorry, my read of Christ is he would be with those people that need help. That is not pro-lgbt. You don't see that? Huh...

You know whether you or other Catholics believe I am Christian enough doesn't enter into the equation. I will put my doubts and inclusion against your Regcock following of the Bible in the end any day. I know a Pharisee when I see one.

---

Pharisee! There it is! If I had a dollar for every time I've been called that merely for standing up for biblical principles and the true gospel..... Evidently, telling people that you can't make the gospel into what fits your agenda is being a Pharisee. If so, I guess I am one. And every Christian should be one, too. I'm starting to see why you hate Paul and half the New Testament.

You're being cryptic here - HOW do LGBT people need religious help and support? What does that entail? What does "welcoming" them to your church look like? If living a "holy life" covers you, how can that apply to them - is the LGBT lifestyle "holy" in your view? Going to church every weekend covers you? Do you really think all this is the gospel of Jesus Christ?

---

You think that someone living in sin just turns off the valve? One day wakes up bright eyed and I am converting NOW? Maybe if you are Christ and they look in your eye, yeah then I agree. Christ didn't need human help. Or maybe if your source of reference is only reading. But us mortals have to go through a process with people.

It has to be a process. It has to be about establishing trust. Just telling them to repent and come back when you got it licked is not a realistic few. If someone is gay, there are other issues that have to be addressed. I believe most people that gravitate to those lifestyles are looking for acceptance. Standing up for biblical principles and the true gospels without working with the people to feel acceptance is exactly what the Pharisees did. And exactly why many of these people go these lifestyles. They were not accepted into the normal social and religious circles.

I am furious with the Catholic Church with its treatment of Divorcees and the LGGBT. The Sacraments are about healing and bring God into your life. Keeping them away from those that need it the most? Seems counterproductive to me. You can include people without condoning the act. Christ was about the Shepard going after the one stray. God has always been about bringing the wayward back and celebrating. Paul turned it into an accounting exercise...

---

But what does this process entail, say, for LGBT people? Do you validate their lifestyle in any way?

There is a need to reach out to the lost, like unrepentant LGBT people, I fully agree. But the church is for the body of believers. It is not to include those who don't believe, or those who continue in an unrepentant sinful lifestyle (which indicates unbelief). We definitely should reach out and minister to these people, but only outside of church, and then invite them to your chuch if they come to repentance and belief. I have a feeling this is not the process you're talking about, though.

By the way, if you tell your church that you don't believe all the Mary stuff as you say, if they're adherent to the doctrine of Roman Catholicism, they are obligated to remove you from church as well. Because those beliefs are required. So all your "Mary stuff is BS" isn't really, at least in Roman Catholicism. It's a dogma - they tie your salvation to it. That's why I find it curious that you don't know, or don't seem to even care to know, the vital doctrines of the church you belong to. If you don't believe that you go to Hell because you don't believe in the Mary stuff, how can you believe that your church is true? And if you don't believe your church is true, why do you feel it is important to minister to LGBT people into your church, that you don't think is even true?

---

At some point don't you have to believe that someone that is showing up to Church and not making a public display of themselves is on the level? Are we supposed to be the religious police? If they are trying to get over on the Church, why? If they make displays, I would expect the Priest to speak with them, the same if my wife and I were inappropriate. But at the end of the day, it is between them and God. I believe it is our job to give everyone the chance, what they do is up to them.

---

Going to church and not making a display makes them "on the level"?

Your beliefs are really weird, unfocused, and unprincipled. They're not Christian. You don't seem to adhere to any kind of standard other than that of your own making. The church is supposed to be believers only. And yes, we ARE actually to "police" church discipline and the beliefs of its members because Jesus said so (Matthew 18:15-17). And a significant part of Paul's letters are about church discipline and doctrine (no wonder you don't like him). Have you read Jesus' letters to the seven churches in Revelation? Church doctrine and discipline are primarily important. Jesus demands doctrinal and lifestyle purity. Do the admonishments in those letters sound like Jesus thinks simply the fact that they are going to church and not making displays makes them "on the level" with him?

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear, obviously someone who wants to leave the LGBT lifestyle, convert, and work out their own salvation needs assistance like any other sinner. Their cross will be heavier than a semi truck because their chosen sin has struck at the heart of how God created them (male and female, to be attracted to the opposite sex). Things like this and murder, things that go beyond simply disobeying God's moral law and rise to the level of vandalism of his creation and created order are bad things to be involved in.

But you and I both know that 99% of the discussion surrounding this has nothing do do with the repentance, conversion, and salvation of such people but rather the normalization of this sin and an effort to get Christianity to affirm it.

---

Obviously this is a very complicated topic. The way Francis handled it was using code language / dog whistle of "dialogue"

I think the issue most Christians and especially Catholics had with Francis and several of the overwhelmingly gay clergy was no discussion of "sin no more"

That said though, if they discussed adultery, divorce, fornication as much as this lgbtmnnop topic, the world ajd accountability could be much improved.

But it's all (or mostly) about the money and hence a Pope from America as donations have plummeted under Francis lurching the faith left, or attempting to, while the laeity fight back!

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Exactly, you just don't get it No one can explain it. We will not agree.

We can't even agree on the Bible. You relate everything to scripture, Sola Scriptura. Catholics don't. We say the Latin Vulgate is authoritative, you say the KJ. You constantly quoting the KJ verses as proof means nothing, it is not authoritative to Catholics. Scripture is only part of the equation. Without the oral and Church tradition it is Bible Study. I actually feel bad for you., seems very empty only part of God's message.

---

No, I don't get it because you don't make any sense. You still aren't making sense. Who quoted the KJ?

Latin Vulgate? What does it say that is different than what I quoted? Isn't the Vulgate the work of Jerome, who believed that the apocrypha are not part of canon Scripture, yet Roman Catholicism holds that they are?

Church tradition? You mean fallible, man-made tradition that does not trace back to Jesus and the apostles? By what divine revelation did these traditions come from? How do you know? You don't, yet you're putting it on the same level of authority as Scripture, which we DO know is the infallible word of God. This is why sola scriptura, and abandoning it is the primary reason for all your church's mistakes. That's why you've been led to errant beliefs, even to the point of sheer heresy and idolatry.

---

Once again, you believe in Sola Scriptura. A document that is written by men. We say divinely inspired, so that makes it not of mans making? How is believing a document written by literally hundreds over hundreds of years and voted on in numerous Catholic councils to be "following God's instructions", but following the oral and Church traditions is not!

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, have at it. Sit around your Church Council and have as many little Council of Nicea's as you like. Argue the meaning of a Hebrew, Greek, Latin word ad nauseum. More power to you. Although I think Christ would say you missed the bigger point, but that is just me.

Just don't tell me my believes are wrong. But you can't do that. You have to attack the Catholics in a thread celebrating the naming of a new leader of our Church. No one said a word about your believes, you and your ilk attacked the naming of a new Church leader. Poor form.

---

We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him.

This person Jesus, then, told his disciples they would remember perfectly everything he did and said to tell the world: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:26

Thus, Jesus, who had the full stamp of approval from God by his resurrection, in turn gave his full stamp of approval over everything his apostles said and did. Thus, the tradition of the original apostles is the divinely inspired, infallible word of God.

Where do we learn this tradition of the original apostles? Only in Scripture. The only thing the church has that we know came from the original apostles is in the New Testament, thus it is the only thing in the church's possession that is the word of God, thus it is the only infallible rule of faith for the church. Thus, sola scriptura.

Where do Roman Catholic traditions that are not in the Bible come from? Who knows, and when they do know, they can't prove it came from Jesus or the apostles. Neither do they have any kind of divine stamp of approval on it. This most certainly can NOT be relied upon as an infallible rule of faith.

Did the writings of the apostles have to be "voted on in numerous Roman Catholic councils" in order to be accepted as the divine word of God by the early church? NO. The Gospels were already circulated among the first churches as being the infallible word of God. The letters of Paul, Peter, James, etc. were all viewed as Scripture in the early church and circulated among them - hundreds of years before any Roman Catholic council decreed them as such.

---

"We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him."

I get that. I am saying that if that is true for those Councils, it is true for the non-Bible councils on decisions the Church makes. You are cherry picking what is "devine" and what is not. Catholics believe that Holy Spirit plays just as big a role in dogmatic decisions as in the choosing the Bible books. As I said, it comes down to Faith. Do you believe? There are no absolutes, there are no guidebooks that don't have as aspect of Faith attached.
By the way, I said that I put the Gospels as the most important books in the New Testament. Much more so than Paul's letters.

You say who knows where decisions come from, each decision is just as documented as the choosing the Bible verses, probably more so.

My question to you is how can you just decide NOT to listen every other Church council, but the ones that chose the Bible books in your version of the Bible? All the others mean nothing, because an Augustinian Monk and his German Noble backers were pissed at Rome? How is that different than Henry the 8th? Seems cherry picking to me. There are some things I don't agree, such as Mary body and soul in heaven or speculating on the sexual habits of Christ's mother. Does it really matter? But, you take the good with the bad, there is no perfect. Or Faith would mean nothing if there was no doubt.

---

You didn't understand what I said. Again, councils did not determine the authority of the Gospels and letters of Paul, James, Peter, etc. The Christians of the early church did, hundreds of years before any council formally declared it. How did they know? Yes, the Holy Spirit was involved, but in the manner of helping them recognize the authenticity and reliability of the authorship of those writings. Jesus gave infallible authority to his first hand apostles, thus if the writing was truly authored by them, it was to be considered the infallible word of God. People did NOT "vote" to decide on the apostle's infallibility, Jesus had already decided that.

Councils were not given infallibility by Jesus. Councils are made up of fallible men, hopefully being led by the Holy Spirit (but that's no guarantee), who must rely on the infallibility of the original apostles as declared by Jesus, not on their own declaration of infallibility because of their claim of being led by the Holy Spirit. We only know that what comes out of Councils is the work of the Holy Spirit if it is agreement with Scripture. That is the standard of measure. What Roman Cathoicism does, and what you've bought in to, is the idea that fallible men claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit is just as infallible of an authority as Scripture. But as I keep saying, Jesus didn't give infallible authority to men outside of his apostles, that we know of. If you abandon sola scriptura, and you allow another standard of measure outside of what God guaranteed (Scripture), you're opening yourself up to compromise of God's truth and huge errors. As we have seen, this is exactly what has led to heresy and idolatry in the Roman Catholic Church. And the worst of it is, her adherents don't (or won't) even recognize or acknowledge it, because they have been conditioned (upon threat of being sent to Hell, btw) to consider the tradition of fallible men to be just as infallible as Scripture. I really hope I've shown you, in logical and biblical manner, that this isn't the case.

---

The original Apostles were dead when the Gospels were written. By the way, no one on here has had ANY issues with the Gospels. Outside of some Church leadership stuff the one thing we all seem to agree on IS the Gospels. Maybe we all should focus there. It is the other Books that seem to cause the problems. One persons opinion.

You keep missing my one overarching point. We are on the same side. We are arguing details. The Catholic Church, for all the mistakes it has made, still works with other Religions on education, health and other social aspects. I loved Church/Services in the Army in the field. Set up on a Jeep, just the sacraments and a bible reading. Sometimes it was a Priest, many times we had a Lutheran Pastor. It boiled religion down to the basics. I never felt closer to God and Christ than in the field in the Army receiving Communion off a Humvee hood or jumping out of a plane. That will cut through the Religious BS really quick....

There are truly hateful people out there. Maybe all of us should worry less about the details and more about living as Christ said. I am at the front of the line.

It may piss you and Shooter off, but these conversations are good. The more you talk the more you understand each other. Once again, one persons opinion.

---

I am not pissed off... sorry if anyone got that conclusion.
I am very sad that so many who call upon the name of Jesus, do not acknowledge the inspired Word of God as the inspired Word of God.

But I am not pissed off. These conversations are very good. I do want to understand why Catholics worship Mary, but don't call it idolatry. Why they don't accept the authority of scripture, but do accept the authority of a simple mortal man instead... even though catholics will almost always admit that previous Pope's have made mistakes.

---

We answered that early on. Catholics honor Jesus's mother and ask for intervention, not worship. There are several times in the Gospels where people asked Mary to intervene and he listened, Wedding at Cana for example. The Scriptures call for honoring Mary, see Gabriel's intro. Personally, I don't get into Mary stuff. But that is the Catholic view. Is it enough to abandon my faith or religion because others get into Mary as an intermediary? No.

I have a hard time praying to Jesus rather than God or going to Mass on Sunday vs the Sabbath. The Bible says there is no God but I am and the Sabbath is on Saturday. Yet, those and all the dietary stuff were set aside. Since there are no degrees of sin, we are all F-ed IF we were supposed to follow the Old Testimant too.

Who knows, you do your best. We can be certain all we want, but we won't know until the end if we were right.

---

If you don't believe in the sinlessness Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her bodily ascension, you are anathematized to Hell by your own Church. You don't seem to have any idea what Roman Catholicism is. Since you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus, apparently you don't know what Christianity is either. So how is it that you lecture others on "missing the point" of Jesus?

---

Hit a nerve, huh ...

Sorry, I guess I am misreading your posts. Maybe I am taking from it what I want, like you are with mine.

There is nothing your Church says that gives you pause or you don't understand as well as others? Nothing that some people in your congregation seem to connect with more than you? Some ideas that really appeal to you,ore than.l others. It is one blase, all the same level believe and feeling?

Mary? Non-issue. Don't see how it really impacts my relationship with God. Seems to bother the hell out of you.

Where I seem to diverge from you is that I believe Jesus came for the not perfect, those that are lost, those that don't go to Church or believe everything at same level they are told. Christ is in the ghetto with the junkies, prostitutes and thieves. The trans and homosexuals that need help. Not the main stream. I liked Francis message. You guys don't seem to. That is where I think Christ would be today, not in a suit in Church. I love the Catholic faith because it is big enough for you and me. Other denominations, not so much.

By the way, you took quite a few shots at me over the last few days. Insulting my believes in a Pope Leo thread. I make one comment on how I hope your narrow view doesn't derail you and you get pissy???

---

If anyone's got their nerve hit, it's you. I'm bringing up a perfectly fair point. You obviously don't understand what Roman Catholicism teaches, and you admitted things like you don't like Paul who wrote half the New Testament, and you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus instead of God. And now you're saying you "like Francis' message". These things fairly put your status as a true Christian under question imo, and I'll bet even the Roman Catholics here will agree. So how does this make you an adequate judge whether someone has "missed the point" on Jesus? And I'm still interested in your answer - what is it that you think I'm missing about Jesus' message, exactly? I agree with you that Jesus came for the lost - but in what way? I have a feeling I'm not going to agree with what you say here, just call it a hunch. You have "liberal, pro-LGBT Christian who compromises the gospel to suit your sensibilities" written all over you, but hey, I could be wrong. What's your answer?

---

Pro? There is a huge difference between pro-lgbt and saying that is who needs help. The sinner is who needs religious support. The person living a holy life and going to church every Sunday is covered. If we don't make those people welcome, we are abandoning them. Sorry, my read of Christ is he would be with those people that need help. That is not pro-lgbt. You don't see that? Huh...

You know whether you or other Catholics believe I am Christian enough doesn't enter into the equation. I will put my doubts and inclusion against your Regcock following of the Bible in the end any day. I know a Pharisee when I see one.

---

Pharisee! There it is! If I had a dollar for every time I've been called that merely for standing up for biblical principles and the true gospel..... Evidently, telling people that you can't make the gospel into what fits your agenda is being a Pharisee. If so, I guess I am one. And every Christian should be one, too. I'm starting to see why you hate Paul and half the New Testament.

You're being cryptic here - HOW do LGBT people need religious help and support? What does that entail? What does "welcoming" them to your church look like? If living a "holy life" covers you, how can that apply to them - is the LGBT lifestyle "holy" in your view? Going to church every weekend covers you? Do you really think all this is the gospel of Jesus Christ?

---

You think that someone living in sin just turns off the valve? One day wakes up bright eyed and I am converting NOW? Maybe if you are Christ and they look in your eye, yeah then I agree. Christ didn't need human help. Or maybe if your source of reference is only reading. But us mortals have to go through a process with people.

It has to be a process. It has to be about establishing trust. Just telling them to repent and come back when you got it licked is not a realistic few. If someone is gay, there are other issues that have to be addressed. I believe most people that gravitate to those lifestyles are looking for acceptance. Standing up for biblical principles and the true gospels without working with the people to feel acceptance is exactly what the Pharisees did. And exactly why many of these people go these lifestyles. They were not accepted into the normal social and religious circles.

I am furious with the Catholic Church with its treatment of Divorcees and the LGGBT. The Sacraments are about healing and bring God into your life. Keeping them away from those that need it the most? Seems counterproductive to me. You can include people without condoning the act. Christ was about the Shepard going after the one stray. God has always been about bringing the wayward back and celebrating. Paul turned it into an accounting exercise...

---

But what does this process entail, say, for LGBT people? Do you validate their lifestyle in any way?

There is a need to reach out to the lost, like unrepentant LGBT people, I fully agree. But the church is for the body of believers. It is not to include those who don't believe, or those who continue in an unrepentant sinful lifestyle (which indicates unbelief). We definitely should reach out and minister to these people, but only outside of church, and then invite them to your chuch if they come to repentance and belief. I have a feeling this is not the process you're talking about, though.

By the way, if you tell your church that you don't believe all the Mary stuff as you say, if they're adherent to the doctrine of Roman Catholicism, they are obligated to remove you from church as well. Because those beliefs are required. So all your "Mary stuff is BS" isn't really, at least in Roman Catholicism. It's a dogma - they tie your salvation to it. That's why I find it curious that you don't know, or don't seem to even care to know, the vital doctrines of the church you belong to. If you don't believe that you go to Hell because you don't believe in the Mary stuff, how can you believe that your church is true? And if you don't believe your church is true, why do you feel it is important to minister to LGBT people into your church, that you don't think is even true?

---

.....And no, the act IS a sin and even Francis didn't condone that!

Dogma is not my salvation. There are some things that I don't get. I logically can't make sense of. But, if logic was the driving force you wouldn't be religious. The whole thing is built around faith and obedience. Push comes to shove, I would pray for understanding that I do not have. Would I leave the Church over it? No. Not that big of an impact on my life whether Mary was a virgin forever or Jesus had a brother. Chalk it up to not getting it and move on. It seems to give you more of an issue. I also believe it is our duty to question and push from within, not cut and run if there is something I disagree with.

---

You're just not getting it. Dogma IS your salvation if you are a Roman Catholic. Obedience to these dogmas IS what your church is built around. If you don't believe this, then you believe your church isn't true. If you don't believe your church is true, then why are you a follower, and what exactly are you ministering LGBT people into? Something that isn't true?

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Exactly, you just don't get it No one can explain it. We will not agree.

We can't even agree on the Bible. You relate everything to scripture, Sola Scriptura. Catholics don't. We say the Latin Vulgate is authoritative, you say the KJ. You constantly quoting the KJ verses as proof means nothing, it is not authoritative to Catholics. Scripture is only part of the equation. Without the oral and Church tradition it is Bible Study. I actually feel bad for you., seems very empty only part of God's message.

---

No, I don't get it because you don't make any sense. You still aren't making sense. Who quoted the KJ?

Latin Vulgate? What does it say that is different than what I quoted? Isn't the Vulgate the work of Jerome, who believed that the apocrypha are not part of canon Scripture, yet Roman Catholicism holds that they are?

Church tradition? You mean fallible, man-made tradition that does not trace back to Jesus and the apostles? By what divine revelation did these traditions come from? How do you know? You don't, yet you're putting it on the same level of authority as Scripture, which we DO know is the infallible word of God. This is why sola scriptura, and abandoning it is the primary reason for all your church's mistakes. That's why you've been led to errant beliefs, even to the point of sheer heresy and idolatry.

---

Once again, you believe in Sola Scriptura. A document that is written by men. We say divinely inspired, so that makes it not of mans making? How is believing a document written by literally hundreds over hundreds of years and voted on in numerous Catholic councils to be "following God's instructions", but following the oral and Church traditions is not!

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, have at it. Sit around your Church Council and have as many little Council of Nicea's as you like. Argue the meaning of a Hebrew, Greek, Latin word ad nauseum. More power to you. Although I think Christ would say you missed the bigger point, but that is just me.

Just don't tell me my believes are wrong. But you can't do that. You have to attack the Catholics in a thread celebrating the naming of a new leader of our Church. No one said a word about your believes, you and your ilk attacked the naming of a new Church leader. Poor form.

---

We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him.

This person Jesus, then, told his disciples they would remember perfectly everything he did and said to tell the world: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:26

Thus, Jesus, who had the full stamp of approval from God by his resurrection, in turn gave his full stamp of approval over everything his apostles said and did. Thus, the tradition of the original apostles is the divinely inspired, infallible word of God.

Where do we learn this tradition of the original apostles? Only in Scripture. The only thing the church has that we know came from the original apostles is in the New Testament, thus it is the only thing in the church's possession that is the word of God, thus it is the only infallible rule of faith for the church. Thus, sola scriptura.

Where do Roman Catholic traditions that are not in the Bible come from? Who knows, and when they do know, they can't prove it came from Jesus or the apostles. Neither do they have any kind of divine stamp of approval on it. This most certainly can NOT be relied upon as an infallible rule of faith.

Did the writings of the apostles have to be "voted on in numerous Roman Catholic councils" in order to be accepted as the divine word of God by the early church? NO. The Gospels were already circulated among the first churches as being the infallible word of God. The letters of Paul, Peter, James, etc. were all viewed as Scripture in the early church and circulated among them - hundreds of years before any Roman Catholic council decreed them as such.

---

"We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him."

I get that. I am saying that if that is true for those Councils, it is true for the non-Bible councils on decisions the Church makes. You are cherry picking what is "devine" and what is not. Catholics believe that Holy Spirit plays just as big a role in dogmatic decisions as in the choosing the Bible books. As I said, it comes down to Faith. Do you believe? There are no absolutes, there are no guidebooks that don't have as aspect of Faith attached.
By the way, I said that I put the Gospels as the most important books in the New Testament. Much more so than Paul's letters.

You say who knows where decisions come from, each decision is just as documented as the choosing the Bible verses, probably more so.

My question to you is how can you just decide NOT to listen every other Church council, but the ones that chose the Bible books in your version of the Bible? All the others mean nothing, because an Augustinian Monk and his German Noble backers were pissed at Rome? How is that different than Henry the 8th? Seems cherry picking to me. There are some things I don't agree, such as Mary body and soul in heaven or speculating on the sexual habits of Christ's mother. Does it really matter? But, you take the good with the bad, there is no perfect. Or Faith would mean nothing if there was no doubt.

---

You didn't understand what I said. Again, councils did not determine the authority of the Gospels and letters of Paul, James, Peter, etc. The Christians of the early church did, hundreds of years before any council formally declared it. How did they know? Yes, the Holy Spirit was involved, but in the manner of helping them recognize the authenticity and reliability of the authorship of those writings. Jesus gave infallible authority to his first hand apostles, thus if the writing was truly authored by them, it was to be considered the infallible word of God. People did NOT "vote" to decide on the apostle's infallibility, Jesus had already decided that.

Councils were not given infallibility by Jesus. Councils are made up of fallible men, hopefully being led by the Holy Spirit (but that's no guarantee), who must rely on the infallibility of the original apostles as declared by Jesus, not on their own declaration of infallibility because of their claim of being led by the Holy Spirit. We only know that what comes out of Councils is the work of the Holy Spirit if it is agreement with Scripture. That is the standard of measure. What Roman Cathoicism does, and what you've bought in to, is the idea that fallible men claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit is just as infallible of an authority as Scripture. But as I keep saying, Jesus didn't give infallible authority to men outside of his apostles, that we know of. If you abandon sola scriptura, and you allow another standard of measure outside of what God guaranteed (Scripture), you're opening yourself up to compromise of God's truth and huge errors. As we have seen, this is exactly what has led to heresy and idolatry in the Roman Catholic Church. And the worst of it is, her adherents don't (or won't) even recognize or acknowledge it, because they have been conditioned (upon threat of being sent to Hell, btw) to consider the tradition of fallible men to be just as infallible as Scripture. I really hope I've shown you, in logical and biblical manner, that this isn't the case.

---

The original Apostles were dead when the Gospels were written. By the way, no one on here has had ANY issues with the Gospels. Outside of some Church leadership stuff the one thing we all seem to agree on IS the Gospels. Maybe we all should focus there. It is the other Books that seem to cause the problems. One persons opinion.

You keep missing my one overarching point. We are on the same side. We are arguing details. The Catholic Church, for all the mistakes it has made, still works with other Religions on education, health and other social aspects. I loved Church/Services in the Army in the field. Set up on a Jeep, just the sacraments and a bible reading. Sometimes it was a Priest, many times we had a Lutheran Pastor. It boiled religion down to the basics. I never felt closer to God and Christ than in the field in the Army receiving Communion off a Humvee hood or jumping out of a plane. That will cut through the Religious BS really quick....

There are truly hateful people out there. Maybe all of us should worry less about the details and more about living as Christ said. I am at the front of the line.

It may piss you and Shooter off, but these conversations are good. The more you talk the more you understand each other. Once again, one persons opinion.

---

I am not pissed off... sorry if anyone got that conclusion.
I am very sad that so many who call upon the name of Jesus, do not acknowledge the inspired Word of God as the inspired Word of God.

But I am not pissed off. These conversations are very good. I do want to understand why Catholics worship Mary, but don't call it idolatry. Why they don't accept the authority of scripture, but do accept the authority of a simple mortal man instead... even though catholics will almost always admit that previous Pope's have made mistakes.

---

We answered that early on. Catholics honor Jesus's mother and ask for intervention, not worship. There are several times in the Gospels where people asked Mary to intervene and he listened, Wedding at Cana for example. The Scriptures call for honoring Mary, see Gabriel's intro. Personally, I don't get into Mary stuff. But that is the Catholic view. Is it enough to abandon my faith or religion because others get into Mary as an intermediary? No.

I have a hard time praying to Jesus rather than God or going to Mass on Sunday vs the Sabbath. The Bible says there is no God but I am and the Sabbath is on Saturday. Yet, those and all the dietary stuff were set aside. Since there are no degrees of sin, we are all F-ed IF we were supposed to follow the Old Testimant too.

Who knows, you do your best. We can be certain all we want, but we won't know until the end if we were right.

---

If you don't believe in the sinlessness Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her bodily ascension, you are anathematized to Hell by your own Church. You don't seem to have any idea what Roman Catholicism is. Since you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus, apparently you don't know what Christianity is either. So how is it that you lecture others on "missing the point" of Jesus?

---

Hit a nerve, huh ...

Sorry, I guess I am misreading your posts. Maybe I am taking from it what I want, like you are with mine.

There is nothing your Church says that gives you pause or you don't understand as well as others? Nothing that some people in your congregation seem to connect with more than you? Some ideas that really appeal to you,ore than.l others. It is one blase, all the same level believe and feeling?

Mary? Non-issue. Don't see how it really impacts my relationship with God. Seems to bother the hell out of you.

Where I seem to diverge from you is that I believe Jesus came for the not perfect, those that are lost, those that don't go to Church or believe everything at same level they are told. Christ is in the ghetto with the junkies, prostitutes and thieves. The trans and homosexuals that need help. Not the main stream. I liked Francis message. You guys don't seem to. That is where I think Christ would be today, not in a suit in Church. I love the Catholic faith because it is big enough for you and me. Other denominations, not so much.

By the way, you took quite a few shots at me over the last few days. Insulting my believes in a Pope Leo thread. I make one comment on how I hope your narrow view doesn't derail you and you get pissy???

---

I'm not going to defend everything he said to you in this or another thread... but he did make an important point. The leaders of the Roman Catholic church have stated that if you do not believe that Mary was born without sin, never had sex, never committed any sins, and was taken up into heaven instead of dying... then the leaders of your church have stated that you are damned to hell.

Are you sure that you are a Catholic? Your church leaders would say that you are not... and according to your church, those leaders are infallible in this regard. So according to Roman Catholic teachings, you simply cannot be a catholic and also disagree with Catholicism on their teachings about Mary. It's not open for debate.

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Exactly, you just don't get it No one can explain it. We will not agree.

We can't even agree on the Bible. You relate everything to scripture, Sola Scriptura. Catholics don't. We say the Latin Vulgate is authoritative, you say the KJ. You constantly quoting the KJ verses as proof means nothing, it is not authoritative to Catholics. Scripture is only part of the equation. Without the oral and Church tradition it is Bible Study. I actually feel bad for you., seems very empty only part of God's message.

---

No, I don't get it because you don't make any sense. You still aren't making sense. Who quoted the KJ?

Latin Vulgate? What does it say that is different than what I quoted? Isn't the Vulgate the work of Jerome, who believed that the apocrypha are not part of canon Scripture, yet Roman Catholicism holds that they are?

Church tradition? You mean fallible, man-made tradition that does not trace back to Jesus and the apostles? By what divine revelation did these traditions come from? How do you know? You don't, yet you're putting it on the same level of authority as Scripture, which we DO know is the infallible word of God. This is why sola scriptura, and abandoning it is the primary reason for all your church's mistakes. That's why you've been led to errant beliefs, even to the point of sheer heresy and idolatry.

---

Once again, you believe in Sola Scriptura. A document that is written by men. We say divinely inspired, so that makes it not of mans making? How is believing a document written by literally hundreds over hundreds of years and voted on in numerous Catholic councils to be "following God's instructions", but following the oral and Church traditions is not!

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, have at it. Sit around your Church Council and have as many little Council of Nicea's as you like. Argue the meaning of a Hebrew, Greek, Latin word ad nauseum. More power to you. Although I think Christ would say you missed the bigger point, but that is just me.

Just don't tell me my believes are wrong. But you can't do that. You have to attack the Catholics in a thread celebrating the naming of a new leader of our Church. No one said a word about your believes, you and your ilk attacked the naming of a new Church leader. Poor form.

---

We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him.

This person Jesus, then, told his disciples they would remember perfectly everything he did and said to tell the world: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:26

Thus, Jesus, who had the full stamp of approval from God by his resurrection, in turn gave his full stamp of approval over everything his apostles said and did. Thus, the tradition of the original apostles is the divinely inspired, infallible word of God.

Where do we learn this tradition of the original apostles? Only in Scripture. The only thing the church has that we know came from the original apostles is in the New Testament, thus it is the only thing in the church's possession that is the word of God, thus it is the only infallible rule of faith for the church. Thus, sola scriptura.

Where do Roman Catholic traditions that are not in the Bible come from? Who knows, and when they do know, they can't prove it came from Jesus or the apostles. Neither do they have any kind of divine stamp of approval on it. This most certainly can NOT be relied upon as an infallible rule of faith.

Did the writings of the apostles have to be "voted on in numerous Roman Catholic councils" in order to be accepted as the divine word of God by the early church? NO. The Gospels were already circulated among the first churches as being the infallible word of God. The letters of Paul, Peter, James, etc. were all viewed as Scripture in the early church and circulated among them - hundreds of years before any Roman Catholic council decreed them as such.

---

"We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him."

I get that. I am saying that if that is true for those Councils, it is true for the non-Bible councils on decisions the Church makes. You are cherry picking what is "devine" and what is not. Catholics believe that Holy Spirit plays just as big a role in dogmatic decisions as in the choosing the Bible books. As I said, it comes down to Faith. Do you believe? There are no absolutes, there are no guidebooks that don't have as aspect of Faith attached.
By the way, I said that I put the Gospels as the most important books in the New Testament. Much more so than Paul's letters.

You say who knows where decisions come from, each decision is just as documented as the choosing the Bible verses, probably more so.

My question to you is how can you just decide NOT to listen every other Church council, but the ones that chose the Bible books in your version of the Bible? All the others mean nothing, because an Augustinian Monk and his German Noble backers were pissed at Rome? How is that different than Henry the 8th? Seems cherry picking to me. There are some things I don't agree, such as Mary body and soul in heaven or speculating on the sexual habits of Christ's mother. Does it really matter? But, you take the good with the bad, there is no perfect. Or Faith would mean nothing if there was no doubt.

---

You didn't understand what I said. Again, councils did not determine the authority of the Gospels and letters of Paul, James, Peter, etc. The Christians of the early church did, hundreds of years before any council formally declared it. How did they know? Yes, the Holy Spirit was involved, but in the manner of helping them recognize the authenticity and reliability of the authorship of those writings. Jesus gave infallible authority to his first hand apostles, thus if the writing was truly authored by them, it was to be considered the infallible word of God. People did NOT "vote" to decide on the apostle's infallibility, Jesus had already decided that.

Councils were not given infallibility by Jesus. Councils are made up of fallible men, hopefully being led by the Holy Spirit (but that's no guarantee), who must rely on the infallibility of the original apostles as declared by Jesus, not on their own declaration of infallibility because of their claim of being led by the Holy Spirit. We only know that what comes out of Councils is the work of the Holy Spirit if it is agreement with Scripture. That is the standard of measure. What Roman Cathoicism does, and what you've bought in to, is the idea that fallible men claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit is just as infallible of an authority as Scripture. But as I keep saying, Jesus didn't give infallible authority to men outside of his apostles, that we know of. If you abandon sola scriptura, and you allow another standard of measure outside of what God guaranteed (Scripture), you're opening yourself up to compromise of God's truth and huge errors. As we have seen, this is exactly what has led to heresy and idolatry in the Roman Catholic Church. And the worst of it is, her adherents don't (or won't) even recognize or acknowledge it, because they have been conditioned (upon threat of being sent to Hell, btw) to consider the tradition of fallible men to be just as infallible as Scripture. I really hope I've shown you, in logical and biblical manner, that this isn't the case.

---

The original Apostles were dead when the Gospels were written. By the way, no one on here has had ANY issues with the Gospels. Outside of some Church leadership stuff the one thing we all seem to agree on IS the Gospels. Maybe we all should focus there. It is the other Books that seem to cause the problems. One persons opinion.

You keep missing my one overarching point. We are on the same side. We are arguing details. The Catholic Church, for all the mistakes it has made, still works with other Religions on education, health and other social aspects. I loved Church/Services in the Army in the field. Set up on a Jeep, just the sacraments and a bible reading. Sometimes it was a Priest, many times we had a Lutheran Pastor. It boiled religion down to the basics. I never felt closer to God and Christ than in the field in the Army receiving Communion off a Humvee hood or jumping out of a plane. That will cut through the Religious BS really quick....

There are truly hateful people out there. Maybe all of us should worry less about the details and more about living as Christ said. I am at the front of the line.

It may piss you and Shooter off, but these conversations are good. The more you talk the more you understand each other. Once again, one persons opinion.

---

I am not pissed off... sorry if anyone got that conclusion.
I am very sad that so many who call upon the name of Jesus, do not acknowledge the inspired Word of God as the inspired Word of God.

But I am not pissed off. These conversations are very good. I do want to understand why Catholics worship Mary, but don't call it idolatry. Why they don't accept the authority of scripture, but do accept the authority of a simple mortal man instead... even though catholics will almost always admit that previous Pope's have made mistakes.

---

We answered that early on. Catholics honor Jesus's mother and ask for intervention, not worship. There are several times in the Gospels where people asked Mary to intervene and he listened, Wedding at Cana for example. The Scriptures call for honoring Mary, see Gabriel's intro. Personally, I don't get into Mary stuff. But that is the Catholic view. Is it enough to abandon my faith or religion because others get into Mary as an intermediary? No.

I have a hard time praying to Jesus rather than God or going to Mass on Sunday vs the Sabbath. The Bible says there is no God but I am and the Sabbath is on Saturday. Yet, those and all the dietary stuff were set aside. Since there are no degrees of sin, we are all F-ed IF we were supposed to follow the Old Testimant too.

Who knows, you do your best. We can be certain all we want, but we won't know until the end if we were right.

---

If you don't believe in the sinlessness Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her bodily ascension, you are anathematized to Hell by your own Church. You don't seem to have any idea what Roman Catholicism is. Since you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus, apparently you don't know what Christianity is either. So how is it that you lecture others on "missing the point" of Jesus?

---

Hit a nerve, huh ...

Sorry, I guess I am misreading your posts. Maybe I am taking from it what I want, like you are with mine.

There is nothing your Church says that gives you pause or you don't understand as well as others? Nothing that some people in your congregation seem to connect with more than you? Some ideas that really appeal to you,ore than.l others. It is one blase, all the same level believe and feeling?

Mary? Non-issue. Don't see how it really impacts my relationship with God. Seems to bother the hell out of you.

Where I seem to diverge from you is that I believe Jesus came for the not perfect, those that are lost, those that don't go to Church or believe everything at same level they are told. Christ is in the ghetto with the junkies, prostitutes and thieves. The trans and homosexuals that need help. Not the main stream. I liked Francis message. You guys don't seem to. That is where I think Christ would be today, not in a suit in Church. I love the Catholic faith because it is big enough for you and me. Other denominations, not so much.

By the way, you took quite a few shots at me over the last few days. Insulting my believes in a Pope Leo thread. I make one comment on how I hope your narrow view doesn't derail you and you get pissy???

---

I'm not going to defend everything he said to you in this or another thread... but he did make an important point. The leaders of the Roman Catholic church have stated that if you do not believe that Mary was born without sin, never had sex, never committed any sins, and was taken up into heaven instead of dying... then the leaders of your church have stated that you are damned to hell.

Are you sure that you are a Catholic? Your church leaders would say that you are not... and according to your church, those leaders are infallible in this regard. So according to Roman Catholic teachings, you simply cannot be a catholic and also disagree with Catholicism on their teachings about Mary. It's not open for debate.

---

Actually, in 50 years of Catholic services I have never heard a Priest tell someone they are going to Hell. That is reserved for the Protestants from the sidelines.

IF we had this discussion, they would say to research it, discuss it with people that actually know the Church's stances and finally pray for understanding. The one thing I have never seen is to ask if you are sure you are a Catholic and if you don't fall in line you will go to Hell. That has been totally foreign to my Catholic experience.

You guys seem to discuss it a lot. I really feel sorry for you guys having to go through life with such a guillotine over your head that if you have a doubt you are condemned to Hell. Sad, really.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Exactly, you just don't get it No one can explain it. We will not agree.

We can't even agree on the Bible. You relate everything to scripture, Sola Scriptura. Catholics don't. We say the Latin Vulgate is authoritative, you say the KJ. You constantly quoting the KJ verses as proof means nothing, it is not authoritative to Catholics. Scripture is only part of the equation. Without the oral and Church tradition it is Bible Study. I actually feel bad for you., seems very empty only part of God's message.

---

No, I don't get it because you don't make any sense. You still aren't making sense. Who quoted the KJ?

Latin Vulgate? What does it say that is different than what I quoted? Isn't the Vulgate the work of Jerome, who believed that the apocrypha are not part of canon Scripture, yet Roman Catholicism holds that they are?

Church tradition? You mean fallible, man-made tradition that does not trace back to Jesus and the apostles? By what divine revelation did these traditions come from? How do you know? You don't, yet you're putting it on the same level of authority as Scripture, which we DO know is the infallible word of God. This is why sola scriptura, and abandoning it is the primary reason for all your church's mistakes. That's why you've been led to errant beliefs, even to the point of sheer heresy and idolatry.

---

Once again, you believe in Sola Scriptura. A document that is written by men. We say divinely inspired, so that makes it not of mans making? How is believing a document written by literally hundreds over hundreds of years and voted on in numerous Catholic councils to be "following God's instructions", but following the oral and Church traditions is not!

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, have at it. Sit around your Church Council and have as many little Council of Nicea's as you like. Argue the meaning of a Hebrew, Greek, Latin word ad nauseum. More power to you. Although I think Christ would say you missed the bigger point, but that is just me.

Just don't tell me my believes are wrong. But you can't do that. You have to attack the Catholics in a thread celebrating the naming of a new leader of our Church. No one said a word about your believes, you and your ilk attacked the naming of a new Church leader. Poor form.

---

We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him.

This person Jesus, then, told his disciples they would remember perfectly everything he did and said to tell the world: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:26

Thus, Jesus, who had the full stamp of approval from God by his resurrection, in turn gave his full stamp of approval over everything his apostles said and did. Thus, the tradition of the original apostles is the divinely inspired, infallible word of God.

Where do we learn this tradition of the original apostles? Only in Scripture. The only thing the church has that we know came from the original apostles is in the New Testament, thus it is the only thing in the church's possession that is the word of God, thus it is the only infallible rule of faith for the church. Thus, sola scriptura.

Where do Roman Catholic traditions that are not in the Bible come from? Who knows, and when they do know, they can't prove it came from Jesus or the apostles. Neither do they have any kind of divine stamp of approval on it. This most certainly can NOT be relied upon as an infallible rule of faith.

Did the writings of the apostles have to be "voted on in numerous Roman Catholic councils" in order to be accepted as the divine word of God by the early church? NO. The Gospels were already circulated among the first churches as being the infallible word of God. The letters of Paul, Peter, James, etc. were all viewed as Scripture in the early church and circulated among them - hundreds of years before any Roman Catholic council decreed them as such.

---

"We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him."

I get that. I am saying that if that is true for those Councils, it is true for the non-Bible councils on decisions the Church makes. You are cherry picking what is "devine" and what is not. Catholics believe that Holy Spirit plays just as big a role in dogmatic decisions as in the choosing the Bible books. As I said, it comes down to Faith. Do you believe? There are no absolutes, there are no guidebooks that don't have as aspect of Faith attached.
By the way, I said that I put the Gospels as the most important books in the New Testament. Much more so than Paul's letters.

You say who knows where decisions come from, each decision is just as documented as the choosing the Bible verses, probably more so.

My question to you is how can you just decide NOT to listen every other Church council, but the ones that chose the Bible books in your version of the Bible? All the others mean nothing, because an Augustinian Monk and his German Noble backers were pissed at Rome? How is that different than Henry the 8th? Seems cherry picking to me. There are some things I don't agree, such as Mary body and soul in heaven or speculating on the sexual habits of Christ's mother. Does it really matter? But, you take the good with the bad, there is no perfect. Or Faith would mean nothing if there was no doubt.

---

You didn't understand what I said. Again, councils did not determine the authority of the Gospels and letters of Paul, James, Peter, etc. The Christians of the early church did, hundreds of years before any council formally declared it. How did they know? Yes, the Holy Spirit was involved, but in the manner of helping them recognize the authenticity and reliability of the authorship of those writings. Jesus gave infallible authority to his first hand apostles, thus if the writing was truly authored by them, it was to be considered the infallible word of God. People did NOT "vote" to decide on the apostle's infallibility, Jesus had already decided that.

Councils were not given infallibility by Jesus. Councils are made up of fallible men, hopefully being led by the Holy Spirit (but that's no guarantee), who must rely on the infallibility of the original apostles as declared by Jesus, not on their own declaration of infallibility because of their claim of being led by the Holy Spirit. We only know that what comes out of Councils is the work of the Holy Spirit if it is agreement with Scripture. That is the standard of measure. What Roman Cathoicism does, and what you've bought in to, is the idea that fallible men claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit is just as infallible of an authority as Scripture. But as I keep saying, Jesus didn't give infallible authority to men outside of his apostles, that we know of. If you abandon sola scriptura, and you allow another standard of measure outside of what God guaranteed (Scripture), you're opening yourself up to compromise of God's truth and huge errors. As we have seen, this is exactly what has led to heresy and idolatry in the Roman Catholic Church. And the worst of it is, her adherents don't (or won't) even recognize or acknowledge it, because they have been conditioned (upon threat of being sent to Hell, btw) to consider the tradition of fallible men to be just as infallible as Scripture. I really hope I've shown you, in logical and biblical manner, that this isn't the case.

---

The original Apostles were dead when the Gospels were written. By the way, no one on here has had ANY issues with the Gospels. Outside of some Church leadership stuff the one thing we all seem to agree on IS the Gospels. Maybe we all should focus there. It is the other Books that seem to cause the problems. One persons opinion.

You keep missing my one overarching point. We are on the same side. We are arguing details. The Catholic Church, for all the mistakes it has made, still works with other Religions on education, health and other social aspects. I loved Church/Services in the Army in the field. Set up on a Jeep, just the sacraments and a bible reading. Sometimes it was a Priest, many times we had a Lutheran Pastor. It boiled religion down to the basics. I never felt closer to God and Christ than in the field in the Army receiving Communion off a Humvee hood or jumping out of a plane. That will cut through the Religious BS really quick....

There are truly hateful people out there. Maybe all of us should worry less about the details and more about living as Christ said. I am at the front of the line.

It may piss you and Shooter off, but these conversations are good. The more you talk the more you understand each other. Once again, one persons opinion.

---

I am not pissed off... sorry if anyone got that conclusion.
I am very sad that so many who call upon the name of Jesus, do not acknowledge the inspired Word of God as the inspired Word of God.

But I am not pissed off. These conversations are very good. I do want to understand why Catholics worship Mary, but don't call it idolatry. Why they don't accept the authority of scripture, but do accept the authority of a simple mortal man instead... even though catholics will almost always admit that previous Pope's have made mistakes.

---

We answered that early on. Catholics honor Jesus's mother and ask for intervention, not worship. There are several times in the Gospels where people asked Mary to intervene and he listened, Wedding at Cana for example. The Scriptures call for honoring Mary, see Gabriel's intro. Personally, I don't get into Mary stuff. But that is the Catholic view. Is it enough to abandon my faith or religion because others get into Mary as an intermediary? No.

I have a hard time praying to Jesus rather than God or going to Mass on Sunday vs the Sabbath. The Bible says there is no God but I am and the Sabbath is on Saturday. Yet, those and all the dietary stuff were set aside. Since there are no degrees of sin, we are all F-ed IF we were supposed to follow the Old Testimant too.

Who knows, you do your best. We can be certain all we want, but we won't know until the end if we were right.

---

If you don't believe in the sinlessness Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her bodily ascension, you are anathematized to Hell by your own Church. You don't seem to have any idea what Roman Catholicism is. Since you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus, apparently you don't know what Christianity is either. So how is it that you lecture others on "missing the point" of Jesus?

---

Hit a nerve, huh ...

Sorry, I guess I am misreading your posts. Maybe I am taking from it what I want, like you are with mine.

There is nothing your Church says that gives you pause or you don't understand as well as others? Nothing that some people in your congregation seem to connect with more than you? Some ideas that really appeal to you,ore than.l others. It is one blase, all the same level believe and feeling?

Mary? Non-issue. Don't see how it really impacts my relationship with God. Seems to bother the hell out of you.

Where I seem to diverge from you is that I believe Jesus came for the not perfect, those that are lost, those that don't go to Church or believe everything at same level they are told. Christ is in the ghetto with the junkies, prostitutes and thieves. The trans and homosexuals that need help. Not the main stream. I liked Francis message. You guys don't seem to. That is where I think Christ would be today, not in a suit in Church. I love the Catholic faith because it is big enough for you and me. Other denominations, not so much.

By the way, you took quite a few shots at me over the last few days. Insulting my believes in a Pope Leo thread. I make one comment on how I hope your narrow view doesn't derail you and you get pissy???

---

If anyone's got their nerve hit, it's you. I'm bringing up a perfectly fair point. You obviously don't understand what Roman Catholicism teaches, and you admitted things like you don't like Paul who wrote half the New Testament, and you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus instead of God. And now you're saying you "like Francis' message". These things fairly put your status as a true Christian under question imo, and I'll bet even the Roman Catholics here will agree. So how does this make you an adequate judge whether someone has "missed the point" on Jesus? And I'm still interested in your answer - what is it that you think I'm missing about Jesus' message, exactly? I agree with you that Jesus came for the lost - but in what way? I have a feeling I'm not going to agree with what you say here, just call it a hunch. You have "liberal, pro-LGBT Christian who compromises the gospel to suit your sensibilities" written all over you, but hey, I could be wrong. What's your answer?

---

Pro? There is a huge difference between pro-lgbt and saying that is who needs help. The sinner is who needs religious support. The person living a holy life and going to church every Sunday is covered. If we don't make those people welcome, we are abandoning them. Sorry, my read of Christ is he would be with those people that need help. That is not pro-lgbt. You don't see that? Huh...

You know whether you or other Catholics believe I am Christian enough doesn't enter into the equation. I will put my doubts and inclusion against your Regcock following of the Bible in the end any day. I know a Pharisee when I see one.

---

Pharisee! There it is! If I had a dollar for every time I've been called that merely for standing up for biblical principles and the true gospel..... Evidently, telling people that you can't make the gospel into what fits your agenda is being a Pharisee. If so, I guess I am one. And every Christian should be one, too. I'm starting to see why you hate Paul and half the New Testament.

You're being cryptic here - HOW do LGBT people need religious help and support? What does that entail? What does "welcoming" them to your church look like? If living a "holy life" covers you, how can that apply to them - is the LGBT lifestyle "holy" in your view? Going to church every weekend covers you? Do you really think all this is the gospel of Jesus Christ?

---

You think that someone living in sin just turns off the valve? One day wakes up bright eyed and I am converting NOW? Maybe if you are Christ and they look in your eye, yeah then I agree. Christ didn't need human help. Or maybe if your source of reference is only reading. But us mortals have to go through a process with people.

It has to be a process. It has to be about establishing trust. Just telling them to repent and come back when you got it licked is not a realistic few. If someone is gay, there are other issues that have to be addressed. I believe most people that gravitate to those lifestyles are looking for acceptance. Standing up for biblical principles and the true gospels without working with the people to feel acceptance is exactly what the Pharisees did. And exactly why many of these people go these lifestyles. They were not accepted into the normal social and religious circles.

I am furious with the Catholic Church with its treatment of Divorcees and the LGGBT. The Sacraments are about healing and bring God into your life. Keeping them away from those that need it the most? Seems counterproductive to me. You can include people without condoning the act. Christ was about the Shepard going after the one stray. God has always been about bringing the wayward back and celebrating. Paul turned it into an accounting exercise...

---

But what does this process entail, say, for LGBT people? Do you validate their lifestyle in any way?

There is a need to reach out to the lost, like unrepentant LGBT people, I fully agree. But the church is for the body of believers. It is not to include those who don't believe, or those who continue in an unrepentant sinful lifestyle (which indicates unbelief). We definitely should reach out and minister to these people, but only outside of church, and then invite them to your chuch if they come to repentance and belief. I have a feeling this is not the process you're talking about, though.

By the way, if you tell your church that you don't believe all the Mary stuff as you say, if they're adherent to the doctrine of Roman Catholicism, they are obligated to remove you from church as well. Because those beliefs are required. So all your "Mary stuff is BS" isn't really, at least in Roman Catholicism. It's a dogma - they tie your salvation to it. That's why I find it curious that you don't know, or don't seem to even care to know, the vital doctrines of the church you belong to. If you don't believe that you go to Hell because you don't believe in the Mary stuff, how can you believe that your church is true? And if you don't believe your church is true, why do you feel it is important to minister to LGBT people into your church, that you don't think is even true?

---

At some point don't you have to believe that someone that is showing up to Church and not making a public display of themselves is on the level? Are we supposed to be the religious police? If they are trying to get over on the Church, why? If they make displays, I would expect the Priest to speak with them, the same if my wife and I were inappropriate. But at the end of the day, it is between them and God. I believe it is our job to give everyone the chance, what they do is up to them.

And no, the act IS a sin and even Francis didn't condone that!

Dogma is not my salvation. There are some things that I don't get. I logically can't make sense of. But, if logic was the driving force you wouldn't be religious. The whole thing is built around faith and obedience. Push comes to shove, I would pray for understanding that I do not have. Would I leave the Church over it? No. Not that big of an impact on my life whether Mary was a virgin forever or Jesus had a brother. Chalk it up to not getting it and move on. It seems to give you more of an issue. I also believe it is our duty to question and push from within, not cut and run if there is something I disagree with.

---

Sorry I didn't read through the entire thread before I jumped in. But I do want to say that I'm glad you won't leave behind your faith in Christ because you disagree about Mary.... but that isn't the point. The point is that the Catholic Church has said that you are going to hell because of your disagreement about their teachings on Mary having sex.

I totally agree with you that it is a very silly argument, but that's the point. We all know that there is no way Mary lived her whole life, married to a good man like Joseph, and they never had sex?? No way! That is just insane to suggest or believe. So why are Catholics trying to condemn you to hell for not believing it? Why is it so important to the Vatican? THAT is the question you are not asking, and you should be asking.

Protestants don't look down on Mary for having sex with her husband, and having children. Why would we? This is a very honorable and good thing to do. Psalm 31 is a great example of how God loves moms and Mary would most likely be in that category. Why do catholics believe that if Mary had sex and gave birth to other children, it would have made her less worthy or somehow sinful?

I am glad that you have a desire to help those in need. I agree that Jesus would be doing the same. I would suggest that he would not turn his back on Christians in order to do this, as you seem to suggest. Christ would first go to the churches and challenge Christians to go with him to help those in need and to bring the gospel to them. He might also rebuke the churches for not doing this before his arrival too. In reality, this is a moot point since Christ will not return to earth for any other reason than to bring about the End of Days. He will be returning as a conquering King, not a servant to the lost... that time will have passed.

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Exactly, you just don't get it No one can explain it. We will not agree.

We can't even agree on the Bible. You relate everything to scripture, Sola Scriptura. Catholics don't. We say the Latin Vulgate is authoritative, you say the KJ. You constantly quoting the KJ verses as proof means nothing, it is not authoritative to Catholics. Scripture is only part of the equation. Without the oral and Church tradition it is Bible Study. I actually feel bad for you., seems very empty only part of God's message.

---

No, I don't get it because you don't make any sense. You still aren't making sense. Who quoted the KJ?

Latin Vulgate? What does it say that is different than what I quoted? Isn't the Vulgate the work of Jerome, who believed that the apocrypha are not part of canon Scripture, yet Roman Catholicism holds that they are?

Church tradition? You mean fallible, man-made tradition that does not trace back to Jesus and the apostles? By what divine revelation did these traditions come from? How do you know? You don't, yet you're putting it on the same level of authority as Scripture, which we DO know is the infallible word of God. This is why sola scriptura, and abandoning it is the primary reason for all your church's mistakes. That's why you've been led to errant beliefs, even to the point of sheer heresy and idolatry.

---

Once again, you believe in Sola Scriptura. A document that is written by men. We say divinely inspired, so that makes it not of mans making? How is believing a document written by literally hundreds over hundreds of years and voted on in numerous Catholic councils to be "following God's instructions", but following the oral and Church traditions is not!

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, have at it. Sit around your Church Council and have as many little Council of Nicea's as you like. Argue the meaning of a Hebrew, Greek, Latin word ad nauseum. More power to you. Although I think Christ would say you missed the bigger point, but that is just me.

Just don't tell me my believes are wrong. But you can't do that. You have to attack the Catholics in a thread celebrating the naming of a new leader of our Church. No one said a word about your believes, you and your ilk attacked the naming of a new Church leader. Poor form.

---

We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him.

This person Jesus, then, told his disciples they would remember perfectly everything he did and said to tell the world: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:26

Thus, Jesus, who had the full stamp of approval from God by his resurrection, in turn gave his full stamp of approval over everything his apostles said and did. Thus, the tradition of the original apostles is the divinely inspired, infallible word of God.

Where do we learn this tradition of the original apostles? Only in Scripture. The only thing the church has that we know came from the original apostles is in the New Testament, thus it is the only thing in the church's possession that is the word of God, thus it is the only infallible rule of faith for the church. Thus, sola scriptura.

Where do Roman Catholic traditions that are not in the Bible come from? Who knows, and when they do know, they can't prove it came from Jesus or the apostles. Neither do they have any kind of divine stamp of approval on it. This most certainly can NOT be relied upon as an infallible rule of faith.

Did the writings of the apostles have to be "voted on in numerous Roman Catholic councils" in order to be accepted as the divine word of God by the early church? NO. The Gospels were already circulated among the first churches as being the infallible word of God. The letters of Paul, Peter, James, etc. were all viewed as Scripture in the early church and circulated among them - hundreds of years before any Roman Catholic council decreed them as such.

---

"We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him."

I get that. I am saying that if that is true for those Councils, it is true for the non-Bible councils on decisions the Church makes. You are cherry picking what is "devine" and what is not. Catholics believe that Holy Spirit plays just as big a role in dogmatic decisions as in the choosing the Bible books. As I said, it comes down to Faith. Do you believe? There are no absolutes, there are no guidebooks that don't have as aspect of Faith attached.
By the way, I said that I put the Gospels as the most important books in the New Testament. Much more so than Paul's letters.

You say who knows where decisions come from, each decision is just as documented as the choosing the Bible verses, probably more so.

My question to you is how can you just decide NOT to listen every other Church council, but the ones that chose the Bible books in your version of the Bible? All the others mean nothing, because an Augustinian Monk and his German Noble backers were pissed at Rome? How is that different than Henry the 8th? Seems cherry picking to me. There are some things I don't agree, such as Mary body and soul in heaven or speculating on the sexual habits of Christ's mother. Does it really matter? But, you take the good with the bad, there is no perfect. Or Faith would mean nothing if there was no doubt.

---

You didn't understand what I said. Again, councils did not determine the authority of the Gospels and letters of Paul, James, Peter, etc. The Christians of the early church did, hundreds of years before any council formally declared it. How did they know? Yes, the Holy Spirit was involved, but in the manner of helping them recognize the authenticity and reliability of the authorship of those writings. Jesus gave infallible authority to his first hand apostles, thus if the writing was truly authored by them, it was to be considered the infallible word of God. People did NOT "vote" to decide on the apostle's infallibility, Jesus had already decided that.

Councils were not given infallibility by Jesus. Councils are made up of fallible men, hopefully being led by the Holy Spirit (but that's no guarantee), who must rely on the infallibility of the original apostles as declared by Jesus, not on their own declaration of infallibility because of their claim of being led by the Holy Spirit. We only know that what comes out of Councils is the work of the Holy Spirit if it is agreement with Scripture. That is the standard of measure. What Roman Cathoicism does, and what you've bought in to, is the idea that fallible men claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit is just as infallible of an authority as Scripture. But as I keep saying, Jesus didn't give infallible authority to men outside of his apostles, that we know of. If you abandon sola scriptura, and you allow another standard of measure outside of what God guaranteed (Scripture), you're opening yourself up to compromise of God's truth and huge errors. As we have seen, this is exactly what has led to heresy and idolatry in the Roman Catholic Church. And the worst of it is, her adherents don't (or won't) even recognize or acknowledge it, because they have been conditioned (upon threat of being sent to Hell, btw) to consider the tradition of fallible men to be just as infallible as Scripture. I really hope I've shown you, in logical and biblical manner, that this isn't the case.

---

The original Apostles were dead when the Gospels were written. By the way, no one on here has had ANY issues with the Gospels. Outside of some Church leadership stuff the one thing we all seem to agree on IS the Gospels. Maybe we all should focus there. It is the other Books that seem to cause the problems. One persons opinion.

You keep missing my one overarching point. We are on the same side. We are arguing details. The Catholic Church, for all the mistakes it has made, still works with other Religions on education, health and other social aspects. I loved Church/Services in the Army in the field. Set up on a Jeep, just the sacraments and a bible reading. Sometimes it was a Priest, many times we had a Lutheran Pastor. It boiled religion down to the basics. I never felt closer to God and Christ than in the field in the Army receiving Communion off a Humvee hood or jumping out of a plane. That will cut through the Religious BS really quick....

There are truly hateful people out there. Maybe all of us should worry less about the details and more about living as Christ said. I am at the front of the line.

It may piss you and Shooter off, but these conversations are good. The more you talk the more you understand each other. Once again, one persons opinion.

---

I am not pissed off... sorry if anyone got that conclusion.
I am very sad that so many who call upon the name of Jesus, do not acknowledge the inspired Word of God as the inspired Word of God.

But I am not pissed off. These conversations are very good. I do want to understand why Catholics worship Mary, but don't call it idolatry. Why they don't accept the authority of scripture, but do accept the authority of a simple mortal man instead... even though catholics will almost always admit that previous Pope's have made mistakes.

---

We answered that early on. Catholics honor Jesus's mother and ask for intervention, not worship. There are several times in the Gospels where people asked Mary to intervene and he listened, Wedding at Cana for example. The Scriptures call for honoring Mary, see Gabriel's intro. Personally, I don't get into Mary stuff. But that is the Catholic view. Is it enough to abandon my faith or religion because others get into Mary as an intermediary? No.

I have a hard time praying to Jesus rather than God or going to Mass on Sunday vs the Sabbath. The Bible says there is no God but I am and the Sabbath is on Saturday. Yet, those and all the dietary stuff were set aside. Since there are no degrees of sin, we are all F-ed IF we were supposed to follow the Old Testimant too.

Who knows, you do your best. We can be certain all we want, but we won't know until the end if we were right.

---

If you don't believe in the sinlessness Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her bodily ascension, you are anathematized to Hell by your own Church. You don't seem to have any idea what Roman Catholicism is. Since you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus, apparently you don't know what Christianity is either. So how is it that you lecture others on "missing the point" of Jesus?

---

Hit a nerve, huh ...

Sorry, I guess I am misreading your posts. Maybe I am taking from it what I want, like you are with mine.

There is nothing your Church says that gives you pause or you don't understand as well as others? Nothing that some people in your congregation seem to connect with more than you? Some ideas that really appeal to you,ore than.l others. It is one blase, all the same level believe and feeling?

Mary? Non-issue. Don't see how it really impacts my relationship with God. Seems to bother the hell out of you.

Where I seem to diverge from you is that I believe Jesus came for the not perfect, those that are lost, those that don't go to Church or believe everything at same level they are told. Christ is in the ghetto with the junkies, prostitutes and thieves. The trans and homosexuals that need help. Not the main stream. I liked Francis message. You guys don't seem to. That is where I think Christ would be today, not in a suit in Church. I love the Catholic faith because it is big enough for you and me. Other denominations, not so much.

By the way, you took quite a few shots at me over the last few days. Insulting my believes in a Pope Leo thread. I make one comment on how I hope your narrow view doesn't derail you and you get pissy???

---

If anyone's got their nerve hit, it's you. I'm bringing up a perfectly fair point. You obviously don't understand what Roman Catholicism teaches, and you admitted things like you don't like Paul who wrote half the New Testament, and you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus instead of God. And now you're saying you "like Francis' message". These things fairly put your status as a true Christian under question imo, and I'll bet even the Roman Catholics here will agree. So how does this make you an adequate judge whether someone has "missed the point" on Jesus? And I'm still interested in your answer - what is it that you think I'm missing about Jesus' message, exactly? I agree with you that Jesus came for the lost - but in what way? I have a feeling I'm not going to agree with what you say here, just call it a hunch. You have "liberal, pro-LGBT Christian who compromises the gospel to suit your sensibilities" written all over you, but hey, I could be wrong. What's your answer?

---

Pro? There is a huge difference between pro-lgbt and saying that is who needs help. The sinner is who needs religious support. The person living a holy life and going to church every Sunday is covered. If we don't make those people welcome, we are abandoning them. Sorry, my read of Christ is he would be with those people that need help. That is not pro-lgbt. You don't see that? Huh...

You know whether you or other Catholics believe I am Christian enough doesn't enter into the equation. I will put my doubts and inclusion against your Regcock following of the Bible in the end any day. I know a Pharisee when I see one.

---

Pharisee! There it is! If I had a dollar for every time I've been called that merely for standing up for biblical principles and the true gospel..... Evidently, telling people that you can't make the gospel into what fits your agenda is being a Pharisee. If so, I guess I am one. And every Christian should be one, too. I'm starting to see why you hate Paul and half the New Testament.

You're being cryptic here - HOW do LGBT people need religious help and support? What does that entail? What does "welcoming" them to your church look like? If living a "holy life" covers you, how can that apply to them - is the LGBT lifestyle "holy" in your view? Going to church every weekend covers you? Do you really think all this is the gospel of Jesus Christ?

---

You think that someone living in sin just turns off the valve? One day wakes up bright eyed and I am converting NOW? Maybe if you are Christ and they look in your eye, yeah then I agree. Christ didn't need human help. Or maybe if your source of reference is only reading. But us mortals have to go through a process with people.

It has to be a process. It has to be about establishing trust. Just telling them to repent and come back when you got it licked is not a realistic few. If someone is gay, there are other issues that have to be addressed. I believe most people that gravitate to those lifestyles are looking for acceptance. Standing up for biblical principles and the true gospels without working with the people to feel acceptance is exactly what the Pharisees did. And exactly why many of these people go these lifestyles. They were not accepted into the normal social and religious circles.

I am furious with the Catholic Church with its treatment of Divorcees and the LGGBT. The Sacraments are about healing and bring God into your life. Keeping them away from those that need it the most? Seems counterproductive to me. You can include people without condoning the act. Christ was about the Shepard going after the one stray. God has always been about bringing the wayward back and celebrating. Paul turned it into an accounting exercise...

---

But what does this process entail, say, for LGBT people? Do you validate their lifestyle in any way?

There is a need to reach out to the lost, like unrepentant LGBT people, I fully agree. But the church is for the body of believers. It is not to include those who don't believe, or those who continue in an unrepentant sinful lifestyle (which indicates unbelief). We definitely should reach out and minister to these people, but only outside of church, and then invite them to your chuch if they come to repentance and belief. I have a feeling this is not the process you're talking about, though.

By the way, if you tell your church that you don't believe all the Mary stuff as you say, if they're adherent to the doctrine of Roman Catholicism, they are obligated to remove you from church as well. Because those beliefs are required. So all your "Mary stuff is BS" isn't really, at least in Roman Catholicism. It's a dogma - they tie your salvation to it. That's why I find it curious that you don't know, or don't seem to even care to know, the vital doctrines of the church you belong to. If you don't believe that you go to Hell because you don't believe in the Mary stuff, how can you believe that your church is true? And if you don't believe your church is true, why do you feel it is important to minister to LGBT people into your church, that you don't think is even true?

---

At some point don't you have to believe that someone that is showing up to Church and not making a public display of themselves is on the level? Are we supposed to be the religious police? If they are trying to get over on the Church, why? If they make displays, I would expect the Priest to speak with them, the same if my wife and I were inappropriate. But at the end of the day, it is between them and God. I believe it is our job to give everyone the chance, what they do is up to them.

And no, the act IS a sin and even Francis didn't condone that!

Dogma is not my salvation. There are some things that I don't get. I logically can't make sense of. But, if logic was the driving force you wouldn't be religious. The whole thing is built around faith and obedience. Push comes to shove, I would pray for understanding that I do not have. Would I leave the Church over it? No. Not that big of an impact on my life whether Mary was a virgin forever or Jesus had a brother. Chalk it up to not getting it and move on. It seems to give you more of an issue. I also believe it is our duty to question and push from within, not cut and run if there is something I disagree with.

---

Sorry I didn't read through the entire thread before I jumped in. But I do want to say that I'm glad you won't leave behind your faith in Christ because you disagree about Mary.... but that isn't the point. The point is that the Catholic Church has said that you are going to hell because of your disagreement about their teachings on Mary having sex.

I totally agree with you that it is a very silly argument, but that's the point. We all know that there is no way Mary lived her whole life, married to a good man like Joseph, and they never had sex?? No way! That is just insane to suggest or believe. So why are Catholics trying to condemn you to hell for not believing it? Why is it so important to the Vatican? THAT is the question you are not asking, and you should be asking.

Protestants don't look down on Mary for having sex with her husband, and having children. Why would we? This is a very honorable and good thing to do. Psalm 31 is a great example of how God loves moms and Mary would most likely be in that category. Why do catholics believe that if Mary had sex and gave birth to other children, it would have made her less worthy or somehow sinful?

I am glad that you have a desire to help those in need. I agree that Jesus would be doing the same. I would suggest that he would not turn his back on Christians in order to do this, as you seem to suggest. Christ would first go to the churches and challenge Christians to go with him to help those in need and to bring the gospel to them. He might also rebuke the churches for not doing this before his arrival too. In reality, this is a moot point since Christ will not return to earth for any other reason than to bring about the End of Days. He will be returning as a conquering King, not a servant to the lost... that time will have passed.

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Exactly, you just don't get it No one can explain it. We will not agree.

We can't even agree on the Bible. You relate everything to scripture, Sola Scriptura. Catholics don't. We say the Latin Vulgate is authoritative, you say the KJ. You constantly quoting the KJ verses as proof means nothing, it is not authoritative to Catholics. Scripture is only part of the equation. Without the oral and Church tradition it is Bible Study. I actually feel bad for you., seems very empty only part of God's message.

---

No, I don't get it because you don't make any sense. You still aren't making sense. Who quoted the KJ?

Latin Vulgate? What does it say that is different than what I quoted? Isn't the Vulgate the work of Jerome, who believed that the apocrypha are not part of canon Scripture, yet Roman Catholicism holds that they are?

Church tradition? You mean fallible, man-made tradition that does not trace back to Jesus and the apostles? By what divine revelation did these traditions come from? How do you know? You don't, yet you're putting it on the same level of authority as Scripture, which we DO know is the infallible word of God. This is why sola scriptura, and abandoning it is the primary reason for all your church's mistakes. That's why you've been led to errant beliefs, even to the point of sheer heresy and idolatry.

---

Once again, you believe in Sola Scriptura. A document that is written by men. We say divinely inspired, so that makes it not of mans making? How is believing a document written by literally hundreds over hundreds of years and voted on in numerous Catholic councils to be "following God's instructions", but following the oral and Church traditions is not!

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, have at it. Sit around your Church Council and have as many little Council of Nicea's as you like. Argue the meaning of a Hebrew, Greek, Latin word ad nauseum. More power to you. Although I think Christ would say you missed the bigger point, but that is just me.

Just don't tell me my believes are wrong. But you can't do that. You have to attack the Catholics in a thread celebrating the naming of a new leader of our Church. No one said a word about your believes, you and your ilk attacked the naming of a new Church leader. Poor form.

---

We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him.

This person Jesus, then, told his disciples they would remember perfectly everything he did and said to tell the world: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:26

Thus, Jesus, who had the full stamp of approval from God by his resurrection, in turn gave his full stamp of approval over everything his apostles said and did. Thus, the tradition of the original apostles is the divinely inspired, infallible word of God.

Where do we learn this tradition of the original apostles? Only in Scripture. The only thing the church has that we know came from the original apostles is in the New Testament, thus it is the only thing in the church's possession that is the word of God, thus it is the only infallible rule of faith for the church. Thus, sola scriptura.

Where do Roman Catholic traditions that are not in the Bible come from? Who knows, and when they do know, they can't prove it came from Jesus or the apostles. Neither do they have any kind of divine stamp of approval on it. This most certainly can NOT be relied upon as an infallible rule of faith.

Did the writings of the apostles have to be "voted on in numerous Roman Catholic councils" in order to be accepted as the divine word of God by the early church? NO. The Gospels were already circulated among the first churches as being the infallible word of God. The letters of Paul, Peter, James, etc. were all viewed as Scripture in the early church and circulated among them - hundreds of years before any Roman Catholic council decreed them as such.

---

"We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him."

I get that. I am saying that if that is true for those Councils, it is true for the non-Bible councils on decisions the Church makes. You are cherry picking what is "devine" and what is not. Catholics believe that Holy Spirit plays just as big a role in dogmatic decisions as in the choosing the Bible books. As I said, it comes down to Faith. Do you believe? There are no absolutes, there are no guidebooks that don't have as aspect of Faith attached.
By the way, I said that I put the Gospels as the most important books in the New Testament. Much more so than Paul's letters.

You say who knows where decisions come from, each decision is just as documented as the choosing the Bible verses, probably more so.

My question to you is how can you just decide NOT to listen every other Church council, but the ones that chose the Bible books in your version of the Bible? All the others mean nothing, because an Augustinian Monk and his German Noble backers were pissed at Rome? How is that different than Henry the 8th? Seems cherry picking to me. There are some things I don't agree, such as Mary body and soul in heaven or speculating on the sexual habits of Christ's mother. Does it really matter? But, you take the good with the bad, there is no perfect. Or Faith would mean nothing if there was no doubt.

---

You didn't understand what I said. Again, councils did not determine the authority of the Gospels and letters of Paul, James, Peter, etc. The Christians of the early church did, hundreds of years before any council formally declared it. How did they know? Yes, the Holy Spirit was involved, but in the manner of helping them recognize the authenticity and reliability of the authorship of those writings. Jesus gave infallible authority to his first hand apostles, thus if the writing was truly authored by them, it was to be considered the infallible word of God. People did NOT "vote" to decide on the apostle's infallibility, Jesus had already decided that.

Councils were not given infallibility by Jesus. Councils are made up of fallible men, hopefully being led by the Holy Spirit (but that's no guarantee), who must rely on the infallibility of the original apostles as declared by Jesus, not on their own declaration of infallibility because of their claim of being led by the Holy Spirit. We only know that what comes out of Councils is the work of the Holy Spirit if it is agreement with Scripture. That is the standard of measure. What Roman Cathoicism does, and what you've bought in to, is the idea that fallible men claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit is just as infallible of an authority as Scripture. But as I keep saying, Jesus didn't give infallible authority to men outside of his apostles, that we know of. If you abandon sola scriptura, and you allow another standard of measure outside of what God guaranteed (Scripture), you're opening yourself up to compromise of God's truth and huge errors. As we have seen, this is exactly what has led to heresy and idolatry in the Roman Catholic Church. And the worst of it is, her adherents don't (or won't) even recognize or acknowledge it, because they have been conditioned (upon threat of being sent to Hell, btw) to consider the tradition of fallible men to be just as infallible as Scripture. I really hope I've shown you, in logical and biblical manner, that this isn't the case.

---

The original Apostles were dead when the Gospels were written. By the way, no one on here has had ANY issues with the Gospels. Outside of some Church leadership stuff the one thing we all seem to agree on IS the Gospels. Maybe we all should focus there. It is the other Books that seem to cause the problems. One persons opinion.

You keep missing my one overarching point. We are on the same side. We are arguing details. The Catholic Church, for all the mistakes it has made, still works with other Religions on education, health and other social aspects. I loved Church/Services in the Army in the field. Set up on a Jeep, just the sacraments and a bible reading. Sometimes it was a Priest, many times we had a Lutheran Pastor. It boiled religion down to the basics. I never felt closer to God and Christ than in the field in the Army receiving Communion off a Humvee hood or jumping out of a plane. That will cut through the Religious BS really quick....

There are truly hateful people out there. Maybe all of us should worry less about the details and more about living as Christ said. I am at the front of the line.

It may piss you and Shooter off, but these conversations are good. The more you talk the more you understand each other. Once again, one persons opinion.

---

I am not pissed off... sorry if anyone got that conclusion.
I am very sad that so many who call upon the name of Jesus, do not acknowledge the inspired Word of God as the inspired Word of God.

But I am not pissed off. These conversations are very good. I do want to understand why Catholics worship Mary, but don't call it idolatry. Why they don't accept the authority of scripture, but do accept the authority of a simple mortal man instead... even though catholics will almost always admit that previous Pope's have made mistakes.

---

We answered that early on. Catholics honor Jesus's mother and ask for intervention, not worship. There are several times in the Gospels where people asked Mary to intervene and he listened, Wedding at Cana for example. The Scriptures call for honoring Mary, see Gabriel's intro. Personally, I don't get into Mary stuff. But that is the Catholic view. Is it enough to abandon my faith or religion because others get into Mary as an intermediary? No.

I have a hard time praying to Jesus rather than God or going to Mass on Sunday vs the Sabbath. The Bible says there is no God but I am and the Sabbath is on Saturday. Yet, those and all the dietary stuff were set aside. Since there are no degrees of sin, we are all F-ed IF we were supposed to follow the Old Testimant too.

Who knows, you do your best. We can be certain all we want, but we won't know until the end if we were right.

---

If you don't believe in the sinlessness Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her bodily ascension, you are anathematized to Hell by your own Church. You don't seem to have any idea what Roman Catholicism is. Since you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus, apparently you don't know what Christianity is either. So how is it that you lecture others on "missing the point" of Jesus?

---

Hit a nerve, huh ...

Sorry, I guess I am misreading your posts. Maybe I am taking from it what I want, like you are with mine.

There is nothing your Church says that gives you pause or you don't understand as well as others? Nothing that some people in your congregation seem to connect with more than you? Some ideas that really appeal to you,ore than.l others. It is one blase, all the same level believe and feeling?

Mary? Non-issue. Don't see how it really impacts my relationship with God. Seems to bother the hell out of you.

Where I seem to diverge from you is that I believe Jesus came for the not perfect, those that are lost, those that don't go to Church or believe everything at same level they are told. Christ is in the ghetto with the junkies, prostitutes and thieves. The trans and homosexuals that need help. Not the main stream. I liked Francis message. You guys don't seem to. That is where I think Christ would be today, not in a suit in Church. I love the Catholic faith because it is big enough for you and me. Other denominations, not so much.

By the way, you took quite a few shots at me over the last few days. Insulting my believes in a Pope Leo thread. I make one comment on how I hope your narrow view doesn't derail you and you get pissy???

---

If anyone's got their nerve hit, it's you. I'm bringing up a perfectly fair point. You obviously don't understand what Roman Catholicism teaches, and you admitted things like you don't like Paul who wrote half the New Testament, and you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus instead of God. And now you're saying you "like Francis' message". These things fairly put your status as a true Christian under question imo, and I'll bet even the Roman Catholics here will agree. So how does this make you an adequate judge whether someone has "missed the point" on Jesus? And I'm still interested in your answer - what is it that you think I'm missing about Jesus' message, exactly? I agree with you that Jesus came for the lost - but in what way? I have a feeling I'm not going to agree with what you say here, just call it a hunch. You have "liberal, pro-LGBT Christian who compromises the gospel to suit your sensibilities" written all over you, but hey, I could be wrong. What's your answer?

---

Pro? There is a huge difference between pro-lgbt and saying that is who needs help. The sinner is who needs religious support. The person living a holy life and going to church every Sunday is covered. If we don't make those people welcome, we are abandoning them. Sorry, my read of Christ is he would be with those people that need help. That is not pro-lgbt. You don't see that? Huh...

You know whether you or other Catholics believe I am Christian enough doesn't enter into the equation. I will put my doubts and inclusion against your Regcock following of the Bible in the end any day. I know a Pharisee when I see one.

---

Pharisee! There it is! If I had a dollar for every time I've been called that merely for standing up for biblical principles and the true gospel..... Evidently, telling people that you can't make the gospel into what fits your agenda is being a Pharisee. If so, I guess I am one. And every Christian should be one, too. I'm starting to see why you hate Paul and half the New Testament.

You're being cryptic here - HOW do LGBT people need religious help and support? What does that entail? What does "welcoming" them to your church look like? If living a "holy life" covers you, how can that apply to them - is the LGBT lifestyle "holy" in your view? Going to church every weekend covers you? Do you really think all this is the gospel of Jesus Christ?

---

You think that someone living in sin just turns off the valve? One day wakes up bright eyed and I am converting NOW? Maybe if you are Christ and they look in your eye, yeah then I agree. Christ didn't need human help. Or maybe if your source of reference is only reading. But us mortals have to go through a process with people.

It has to be a process. It has to be about establishing trust. Just telling them to repent and come back when you got it licked is not a realistic few. If someone is gay, there are other issues that have to be addressed. I believe most people that gravitate to those lifestyles are looking for acceptance. Standing up for biblical principles and the true gospels without working with the people to feel acceptance is exactly what the Pharisees did. And exactly why many of these people go these lifestyles. They were not accepted into the normal social and religious circles.

I am furious with the Catholic Church with its treatment of Divorcees and the LGGBT. The Sacraments are about healing and bring God into your life. Keeping them away from those that need it the most? Seems counterproductive to me. You can include people without condoning the act. Christ was about the Shepard going after the one stray. God has always been about bringing the wayward back and celebrating. Paul turned it into an accounting exercise...

---

But what does this process entail, say, for LGBT people? Do you validate their lifestyle in any way?

There is a need to reach out to the lost, like unrepentant LGBT people, I fully agree. But the church is for the body of believers. It is not to include those who don't believe, or those who continue in an unrepentant sinful lifestyle (which indicates unbelief). We definitely should reach out and minister to these people, but only outside of church, and then invite them to your chuch if they come to repentance and belief. I have a feeling this is not the process you're talking about, though.

By the way, if you tell your church that you don't believe all the Mary stuff as you say, if they're adherent to the doctrine of Roman Catholicism, they are obligated to remove you from church as well. Because those beliefs are required. So all your "Mary stuff is BS" isn't really, at least in Roman Catholicism. It's a dogma - they tie your salvation to it. That's why I find it curious that you don't know, or don't seem to even care to know, the vital doctrines of the church you belong to. If you don't believe that you go to Hell because you don't believe in the Mary stuff, how can you believe that your church is true? And if you don't believe your church is true, why do you feel it is important to minister to LGBT people into your church, that you don't think is even true?

---

At some point don't you have to believe that someone that is showing up to Church and not making a public display of themselves is on the level? Are we supposed to be the religious police? If they are trying to get over on the Church, why? If they make displays, I would expect the Priest to speak with them, the same if my wife and I were inappropriate. But at the end of the day, it is between them and God. I believe it is our job to give everyone the chance, what they do is up to them.

And no, the act IS a sin and even Francis didn't condone that!

Dogma is not my salvation. There are some things that I don't get. I logically can't make sense of. But, if logic was the driving force you wouldn't be religious. The whole thing is built around faith and obedience. Push comes to shove, I would pray for understanding that I do not have. Would I leave the Church over it? No. Not that big of an impact on my life whether Mary was a virgin forever or Jesus had a brother. Chalk it up to not getting it and move on. It seems to give you more of an issue. I also believe it is our duty to question and push from within, not cut and run if there is something I disagree with.

---

Sorry I didn't read through the entire thread before I jumped in. But I do want to say that I'm glad you won't leave behind your faith in Christ because you disagree about Mary.... but that isn't the point. The point is that the Catholic Church has said that you are going to hell because of your disagreement about their teachings on Mary having sex.

I totally agree with you that it is a very silly argument, but that's the point. We all know that there is no way Mary lived her whole life, married to a good man like Joseph, and they never had sex?? No way! That is just insane to suggest or believe. So why are Catholics trying to condemn you to hell for not believing it? Why is it so important to the Vatican? THAT is the question you are not asking, and you should be asking.

Protestants don't look down on Mary for having sex with her husband, and having children. Why would we? This is a very honorable and good thing to do. Psalm 31 is a great example of how God loves moms and Mary would most likely be in that category. Why do catholics believe that if Mary had sex and gave birth to other children, it would have made her less worthy or somehow sinful?

I am glad that you have a desire to help those in need. I agree that Jesus would be doing the same. I would suggest that he would not turn his back on Christians in order to do this, as you seem to suggest. Christ would first go to the churches and challenge Christians to go with him to help those in need and to bring the gospel to them. He might also rebuke the churches for not doing this before his arrival too. In reality, this is a moot point since Christ will not return to earth for any other reason than to bring about the End of Days. He will be returning as a conquering King, not a servant to the lost... that time will have passed.

---

---

TIme out, let's be clear I have some issues with the logic. Do I know? No. Do you know? No. Unless you were there you have no idea. There is a huge jump between doubting the logic and knowing. No one should change their believes on things they can't know. So, if you want to have an honest discussion, I am game. You want to play Party line, I can do that too.

I also agree with Francis and his hope that Hell is empty. That people really don't want to be separated from God when the rubber meets the road. But, seems like you guys really want people there.

The Election of Pope Leo XIV:

A fractured Bergoglian-wing, organized resistance by conservatives and a united front of U.S. cardinals allowed Robert Prevost to ascend to the papacy.

This thread, based on conversations with Church insiders, details how the conclave transpired. pic.twitter.com/gY7cJ4NkLf

— Alex Salvi (@alexsalvinews) May 13, 2025

FLBear5630 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Exactly, you just don't get it No one can explain it. We will not agree.

We can't even agree on the Bible. You relate everything to scripture, Sola Scriptura. Catholics don't. We say the Latin Vulgate is authoritative, you say the KJ. You constantly quoting the KJ verses as proof means nothing, it is not authoritative to Catholics. Scripture is only part of the equation. Without the oral and Church tradition it is Bible Study. I actually feel bad for you., seems very empty only part of God's message.

---

No, I don't get it because you don't make any sense. You still aren't making sense. Who quoted the KJ?

Latin Vulgate? What does it say that is different than what I quoted? Isn't the Vulgate the work of Jerome, who believed that the apocrypha are not part of canon Scripture, yet Roman Catholicism holds that they are?

Church tradition? You mean fallible, man-made tradition that does not trace back to Jesus and the apostles? By what divine revelation did these traditions come from? How do you know? You don't, yet you're putting it on the same level of authority as Scripture, which we DO know is the infallible word of God. This is why sola scriptura, and abandoning it is the primary reason for all your church's mistakes. That's why you've been led to errant beliefs, even to the point of sheer heresy and idolatry.

---

Once again, you believe in Sola Scriptura. A document that is written by men. We say divinely inspired, so that makes it not of mans making? How is believing a document written by literally hundreds over hundreds of years and voted on in numerous Catholic councils to be "following God's instructions", but following the oral and Church traditions is not!

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, have at it. Sit around your Church Council and have as many little Council of Nicea's as you like. Argue the meaning of a Hebrew, Greek, Latin word ad nauseum. More power to you. Although I think Christ would say you missed the bigger point, but that is just me.

Just don't tell me my believes are wrong. But you can't do that. You have to attack the Catholics in a thread celebrating the naming of a new leader of our Church. No one said a word about your believes, you and your ilk attacked the naming of a new Church leader. Poor form.

---

We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him.

This person Jesus, then, told his disciples they would remember perfectly everything he did and said to tell the world: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:26

Thus, Jesus, who had the full stamp of approval from God by his resurrection, in turn gave his full stamp of approval over everything his apostles said and did. Thus, the tradition of the original apostles is the divinely inspired, infallible word of God.

Where do we learn this tradition of the original apostles? Only in Scripture. The only thing the church has that we know came from the original apostles is in the New Testament, thus it is the only thing in the church's possession that is the word of God, thus it is the only infallible rule of faith for the church. Thus, sola scriptura.

Where do Roman Catholic traditions that are not in the Bible come from? Who knows, and when they do know, they can't prove it came from Jesus or the apostles. Neither do they have any kind of divine stamp of approval on it. This most certainly can NOT be relied upon as an infallible rule of faith.

Did the writings of the apostles have to be "voted on in numerous Roman Catholic councils" in order to be accepted as the divine word of God by the early church? NO. The Gospels were already circulated among the first churches as being the infallible word of God. The letters of Paul, Peter, James, etc. were all viewed as Scripture in the early church and circulated among them - hundreds of years before any Roman Catholic council decreed them as such.

---

"We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him."

I get that. I am saying that if that is true for those Councils, it is true for the non-Bible councils on decisions the Church makes. You are cherry picking what is "devine" and what is not. Catholics believe that Holy Spirit plays just as big a role in dogmatic decisions as in the choosing the Bible books. As I said, it comes down to Faith. Do you believe? There are no absolutes, there are no guidebooks that don't have as aspect of Faith attached.
By the way, I said that I put the Gospels as the most important books in the New Testament. Much more so than Paul's letters.

You say who knows where decisions come from, each decision is just as documented as the choosing the Bible verses, probably more so.

My question to you is how can you just decide NOT to listen every other Church council, but the ones that chose the Bible books in your version of the Bible? All the others mean nothing, because an Augustinian Monk and his German Noble backers were pissed at Rome? How is that different than Henry the 8th? Seems cherry picking to me. There are some things I don't agree, such as Mary body and soul in heaven or speculating on the sexual habits of Christ's mother. Does it really matter? But, you take the good with the bad, there is no perfect. Or Faith would mean nothing if there was no doubt.

---

You didn't understand what I said. Again, councils did not determine the authority of the Gospels and letters of Paul, James, Peter, etc. The Christians of the early church did, hundreds of years before any council formally declared it. How did they know? Yes, the Holy Spirit was involved, but in the manner of helping them recognize the authenticity and reliability of the authorship of those writings. Jesus gave infallible authority to his first hand apostles, thus if the writing was truly authored by them, it was to be considered the infallible word of God. People did NOT "vote" to decide on the apostle's infallibility, Jesus had already decided that.

Councils were not given infallibility by Jesus. Councils are made up of fallible men, hopefully being led by the Holy Spirit (but that's no guarantee), who must rely on the infallibility of the original apostles as declared by Jesus, not on their own declaration of infallibility because of their claim of being led by the Holy Spirit. We only know that what comes out of Councils is the work of the Holy Spirit if it is agreement with Scripture. That is the standard of measure. What Roman Cathoicism does, and what you've bought in to, is the idea that fallible men claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit is just as infallible of an authority as Scripture. But as I keep saying, Jesus didn't give infallible authority to men outside of his apostles, that we know of. If you abandon sola scriptura, and you allow another standard of measure outside of what God guaranteed (Scripture), you're opening yourself up to compromise of God's truth and huge errors. As we have seen, this is exactly what has led to heresy and idolatry in the Roman Catholic Church. And the worst of it is, her adherents don't (or won't) even recognize or acknowledge it, because they have been conditioned (upon threat of being sent to Hell, btw) to consider the tradition of fallible men to be just as infallible as Scripture. I really hope I've shown you, in logical and biblical manner, that this isn't the case.

---

The original Apostles were dead when the Gospels were written. By the way, no one on here has had ANY issues with the Gospels. Outside of some Church leadership stuff the one thing we all seem to agree on IS the Gospels. Maybe we all should focus there. It is the other Books that seem to cause the problems. One persons opinion.

You keep missing my one overarching point. We are on the same side. We are arguing details. The Catholic Church, for all the mistakes it has made, still works with other Religions on education, health and other social aspects. I loved Church/Services in the Army in the field. Set up on a Jeep, just the sacraments and a bible reading. Sometimes it was a Priest, many times we had a Lutheran Pastor. It boiled religion down to the basics. I never felt closer to God and Christ than in the field in the Army receiving Communion off a Humvee hood or jumping out of a plane. That will cut through the Religious BS really quick....

There are truly hateful people out there. Maybe all of us should worry less about the details and more about living as Christ said. I am at the front of the line.

It may piss you and Shooter off, but these conversations are good. The more you talk the more you understand each other. Once again, one persons opinion.

---

I am not pissed off... sorry if anyone got that conclusion.
I am very sad that so many who call upon the name of Jesus, do not acknowledge the inspired Word of God as the inspired Word of God.

But I am not pissed off. These conversations are very good. I do want to understand why Catholics worship Mary, but don't call it idolatry. Why they don't accept the authority of scripture, but do accept the authority of a simple mortal man instead... even though catholics will almost always admit that previous Pope's have made mistakes.

---

We answered that early on. Catholics honor Jesus's mother and ask for intervention, not worship. There are several times in the Gospels where people asked Mary to intervene and he listened, Wedding at Cana for example. The Scriptures call for honoring Mary, see Gabriel's intro. Personally, I don't get into Mary stuff. But that is the Catholic view. Is it enough to abandon my faith or religion because others get into Mary as an intermediary? No.

I have a hard time praying to Jesus rather than God or going to Mass on Sunday vs the Sabbath. The Bible says there is no God but I am and the Sabbath is on Saturday. Yet, those and all the dietary stuff were set aside. Since there are no degrees of sin, we are all F-ed IF we were supposed to follow the Old Testimant too.

Who knows, you do your best. We can be certain all we want, but we won't know until the end if we were right.

---

If you don't believe in the sinlessness Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her bodily ascension, you are anathematized to Hell by your own Church. You don't seem to have any idea what Roman Catholicism is. Since you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus, apparently you don't know what Christianity is either. So how is it that you lecture others on "missing the point" of Jesus?

---

Hit a nerve, huh ...

Sorry, I guess I am misreading your posts. Maybe I am taking from it what I want, like you are with mine.

There is nothing your Church says that gives you pause or you don't understand as well as others? Nothing that some people in your congregation seem to connect with more than you? Some ideas that really appeal to you,ore than.l others. It is one blase, all the same level believe and feeling?

Mary? Non-issue. Don't see how it really impacts my relationship with God. Seems to bother the hell out of you.

Where I seem to diverge from you is that I believe Jesus came for the not perfect, those that are lost, those that don't go to Church or believe everything at same level they are told. Christ is in the ghetto with the junkies, prostitutes and thieves. The trans and homosexuals that need help. Not the main stream. I liked Francis message. You guys don't seem to. That is where I think Christ would be today, not in a suit in Church. I love the Catholic faith because it is big enough for you and me. Other denominations, not so much.

By the way, you took quite a few shots at me over the last few days. Insulting my believes in a Pope Leo thread. I make one comment on how I hope your narrow view doesn't derail you and you get pissy???

---

If anyone's got their nerve hit, it's you. I'm bringing up a perfectly fair point. You obviously don't understand what Roman Catholicism teaches, and you admitted things like you don't like Paul who wrote half the New Testament, and you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus instead of God. And now you're saying you "like Francis' message". These things fairly put your status as a true Christian under question imo, and I'll bet even the Roman Catholics here will agree. So how does this make you an adequate judge whether someone has "missed the point" on Jesus? And I'm still interested in your answer - what is it that you think I'm missing about Jesus' message, exactly? I agree with you that Jesus came for the lost - but in what way? I have a feeling I'm not going to agree with what you say here, just call it a hunch. You have "liberal, pro-LGBT Christian who compromises the gospel to suit your sensibilities" written all over you, but hey, I could be wrong. What's your answer?

---

Pro? There is a huge difference between pro-lgbt and saying that is who needs help. The sinner is who needs religious support. The person living a holy life and going to church every Sunday is covered. If we don't make those people welcome, we are abandoning them. Sorry, my read of Christ is he would be with those people that need help. That is not pro-lgbt. You don't see that? Huh...

You know whether you or other Catholics believe I am Christian enough doesn't enter into the equation. I will put my doubts and inclusion against your Regcock following of the Bible in the end any day. I know a Pharisee when I see one.

---

Pharisee! There it is! If I had a dollar for every time I've been called that merely for standing up for biblical principles and the true gospel..... Evidently, telling people that you can't make the gospel into what fits your agenda is being a Pharisee. If so, I guess I am one. And every Christian should be one, too. I'm starting to see why you hate Paul and half the New Testament.

You're being cryptic here - HOW do LGBT people need religious help and support? What does that entail? What does "welcoming" them to your church look like? If living a "holy life" covers you, how can that apply to them - is the LGBT lifestyle "holy" in your view? Going to church every weekend covers you? Do you really think all this is the gospel of Jesus Christ?

---

You think that someone living in sin just turns off the valve? One day wakes up bright eyed and I am converting NOW? Maybe if you are Christ and they look in your eye, yeah then I agree. Christ didn't need human help. Or maybe if your source of reference is only reading. But us mortals have to go through a process with people.

It has to be a process. It has to be about establishing trust. Just telling them to repent and come back when you got it licked is not a realistic few. If someone is gay, there are other issues that have to be addressed. I believe most people that gravitate to those lifestyles are looking for acceptance. Standing up for biblical principles and the true gospels without working with the people to feel acceptance is exactly what the Pharisees did. And exactly why many of these people go these lifestyles. They were not accepted into the normal social and religious circles.

I am furious with the Catholic Church with its treatment of Divorcees and the LGGBT. The Sacraments are about healing and bring God into your life. Keeping them away from those that need it the most? Seems counterproductive to me. You can include people without condoning the act. Christ was about the Shepard going after the one stray. God has always been about bringing the wayward back and celebrating. Paul turned it into an accounting exercise...

---

But what does this process entail, say, for LGBT people? Do you validate their lifestyle in any way?

There is a need to reach out to the lost, like unrepentant LGBT people, I fully agree. But the church is for the body of believers. It is not to include those who don't believe, or those who continue in an unrepentant sinful lifestyle (which indicates unbelief). We definitely should reach out and minister to these people, but only outside of church, and then invite them to your chuch if they come to repentance and belief. I have a feeling this is not the process you're talking about, though.

By the way, if you tell your church that you don't believe all the Mary stuff as you say, if they're adherent to the doctrine of Roman Catholicism, they are obligated to remove you from church as well. Because those beliefs are required. So all your "Mary stuff is BS" isn't really, at least in Roman Catholicism. It's a dogma - they tie your salvation to it. That's why I find it curious that you don't know, or don't seem to even care to know, the vital doctrines of the church you belong to. If you don't believe that you go to Hell because you don't believe in the Mary stuff, how can you believe that your church is true? And if you don't believe your church is true, why do you feel it is important to minister to LGBT people into your church, that you don't think is even true?

---

At some point don't you have to believe that someone that is showing up to Church and not making a public display of themselves is on the level? Are we supposed to be the religious police? If they are trying to get over on the Church, why? If they make displays, I would expect the Priest to speak with them, the same if my wife and I were inappropriate. But at the end of the day, it is between them and God. I believe it is our job to give everyone the chance, what they do is up to them.

And no, the act IS a sin and even Francis didn't condone that!

Dogma is not my salvation. There are some things that I don't get. I logically can't make sense of. But, if logic was the driving force you wouldn't be religious. The whole thing is built around faith and obedience. Push comes to shove, I would pray for understanding that I do not have. Would I leave the Church over it? No. Not that big of an impact on my life whether Mary was a virgin forever or Jesus had a brother. Chalk it up to not getting it and move on. It seems to give you more of an issue. I also believe it is our duty to question and push from within, not cut and run if there is something I disagree with.

---

Sorry I didn't read through the entire thread before I jumped in. But I do want to say that I'm glad you won't leave behind your faith in Christ because you disagree about Mary.... but that isn't the point. The point is that the Catholic Church has said that you are going to hell because of your disagreement about their teachings on Mary having sex.

I totally agree with you that it is a very silly argument, but that's the point. We all know that there is no way Mary lived her whole life, married to a good man like Joseph, and they never had sex?? No way! That is just insane to suggest or believe. So why are Catholics trying to condemn you to hell for not believing it? Why is it so important to the Vatican? THAT is the question you are not asking, and you should be asking.

Protestants don't look down on Mary for having sex with her husband, and having children. Why would we? This is a very honorable and good thing to do. Psalm 31 is a great example of how God loves moms and Mary would most likely be in that category. Why do catholics believe that if Mary had sex and gave birth to other children, it would have made her less worthy or somehow sinful?

I am glad that you have a desire to help those in need. I agree that Jesus would be doing the same. I would suggest that he would not turn his back on Christians in order to do this, as you seem to suggest. Christ would first go to the churches and challenge Christians to go with him to help those in need and to bring the gospel to them. He might also rebuke the churches for not doing this before his arrival too. In reality, this is a moot point since Christ will not return to earth for any other reason than to bring about the End of Days. He will be returning as a conquering King, not a servant to the lost... that time will have passed.

---

---

TIme out, let's be clear I have some issues with the logic. Do I know? No. Do you know? No. Unless you were there you have no idea. There is a huge jump between doubting the logic and knowing. No one should change their believes on things they can't know. So, if you want to have an honest discussion, I am game. You want to play Party line, I can do that too.

I also agree with Francis and his hope that Hell is empty. That people really don't want to be separated from God when the rubber meets the road. But, seems like you guys really want people there.

---

I don't want people to go to Hell. That is why I tell people about Jesus.
That is why I have travelled to Asia to tell Budhist and Muslims the Gospel and lead them to Christ and disciple them and help them start local churches.
That is also why I talk to people I meet at the park, the BBQ place, the coffee house...

I don't want people to go to Hell, but sadly there are millions who have already passed away and are there now. To say otherwise is to directly contradict the Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ.
It's a nice thought, but it is totally un-Christian to teach that Hell is empty. We cannot deny the validity of the teachings of Christ, even when it is sad or upsetting. Hell is horrible.. and it should motivate us to spread the Good News even more.

It is a false religion to claim that there is no Hell or that Hell is empty. To deny the teachings of Christ is to deny Christ Himself. If Hell is not a reality, then why exactly did Christ die on the cross?

FLBear5630 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Exactly, you just don't get it No one can explain it. We will not agree.

We can't even agree on the Bible. You relate everything to scripture, Sola Scriptura. Catholics don't. We say the Latin Vulgate is authoritative, you say the KJ. You constantly quoting the KJ verses as proof means nothing, it is not authoritative to Catholics. Scripture is only part of the equation. Without the oral and Church tradition it is Bible Study. I actually feel bad for you., seems very empty only part of God's message.

---

No, I don't get it because you don't make any sense. You still aren't making sense. Who quoted the KJ?

Latin Vulgate? What does it say that is different than what I quoted? Isn't the Vulgate the work of Jerome, who believed that the apocrypha are not part of canon Scripture, yet Roman Catholicism holds that they are?

Church tradition? You mean fallible, man-made tradition that does not trace back to Jesus and the apostles? By what divine revelation did these traditions come from? How do you know? You don't, yet you're putting it on the same level of authority as Scripture, which we DO know is the infallible word of God. This is why sola scriptura, and abandoning it is the primary reason for all your church's mistakes. That's why you've been led to errant beliefs, even to the point of sheer heresy and idolatry.

---

Once again, you believe in Sola Scriptura. A document that is written by men. We say divinely inspired, so that makes it not of mans making? How is believing a document written by literally hundreds over hundreds of years and voted on in numerous Catholic councils to be "following God's instructions", but following the oral and Church traditions is not!

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, have at it. Sit around your Church Council and have as many little Council of Nicea's as you like. Argue the meaning of a Hebrew, Greek, Latin word ad nauseum. More power to you. Although I think Christ would say you missed the bigger point, but that is just me.

Just don't tell me my believes are wrong. But you can't do that. You have to attack the Catholics in a thread celebrating the naming of a new leader of our Church. No one said a word about your believes, you and your ilk attacked the naming of a new Church leader. Poor form.

---

We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him.

This person Jesus, then, told his disciples they would remember perfectly everything he did and said to tell the world: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:26

Thus, Jesus, who had the full stamp of approval from God by his resurrection, in turn gave his full stamp of approval over everything his apostles said and did. Thus, the tradition of the original apostles is the divinely inspired, infallible word of God.

Where do we learn this tradition of the original apostles? Only in Scripture. The only thing the church has that we know came from the original apostles is in the New Testament, thus it is the only thing in the church's possession that is the word of God, thus it is the only infallible rule of faith for the church. Thus, sola scriptura.

Where do Roman Catholic traditions that are not in the Bible come from? Who knows, and when they do know, they can't prove it came from Jesus or the apostles. Neither do they have any kind of divine stamp of approval on it. This most certainly can NOT be relied upon as an infallible rule of faith.

Did the writings of the apostles have to be "voted on in numerous Roman Catholic councils" in order to be accepted as the divine word of God by the early church? NO. The Gospels were already circulated among the first churches as being the infallible word of God. The letters of Paul, Peter, James, etc. were all viewed as Scripture in the early church and circulated among them - hundreds of years before any Roman Catholic council decreed them as such.

---

"We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him."

I get that. I am saying that if that is true for those Councils, it is true for the non-Bible councils on decisions the Church makes. You are cherry picking what is "devine" and what is not. Catholics believe that Holy Spirit plays just as big a role in dogmatic decisions as in the choosing the Bible books. As I said, it comes down to Faith. Do you believe? There are no absolutes, there are no guidebooks that don't have as aspect of Faith attached.
By the way, I said that I put the Gospels as the most important books in the New Testament. Much more so than Paul's letters.

You say who knows where decisions come from, each decision is just as documented as the choosing the Bible verses, probably more so.

My question to you is how can you just decide NOT to listen every other Church council, but the ones that chose the Bible books in your version of the Bible? All the others mean nothing, because an Augustinian Monk and his German Noble backers were pissed at Rome? How is that different than Henry the 8th? Seems cherry picking to me. There are some things I don't agree, such as Mary body and soul in heaven or speculating on the sexual habits of Christ's mother. Does it really matter? But, you take the good with the bad, there is no perfect. Or Faith would mean nothing if there was no doubt.

---

You didn't understand what I said. Again, councils did not determine the authority of the Gospels and letters of Paul, James, Peter, etc. The Christians of the early church did, hundreds of years before any council formally declared it. How did they know? Yes, the Holy Spirit was involved, but in the manner of helping them recognize the authenticity and reliability of the authorship of those writings. Jesus gave infallible authority to his first hand apostles, thus if the writing was truly authored by them, it was to be considered the infallible word of God. People did NOT "vote" to decide on the apostle's infallibility, Jesus had already decided that.

Councils were not given infallibility by Jesus. Councils are made up of fallible men, hopefully being led by the Holy Spirit (but that's no guarantee), who must rely on the infallibility of the original apostles as declared by Jesus, not on their own declaration of infallibility because of their claim of being led by the Holy Spirit. We only know that what comes out of Councils is the work of the Holy Spirit if it is agreement with Scripture. That is the standard of measure. What Roman Cathoicism does, and what you've bought in to, is the idea that fallible men claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit is just as infallible of an authority as Scripture. But as I keep saying, Jesus didn't give infallible authority to men outside of his apostles, that we know of. If you abandon sola scriptura, and you allow another standard of measure outside of what God guaranteed (Scripture), you're opening yourself up to compromise of God's truth and huge errors. As we have seen, this is exactly what has led to heresy and idolatry in the Roman Catholic Church. And the worst of it is, her adherents don't (or won't) even recognize or acknowledge it, because they have been conditioned (upon threat of being sent to Hell, btw) to consider the tradition of fallible men to be just as infallible as Scripture. I really hope I've shown you, in logical and biblical manner, that this isn't the case.

---

The original Apostles were dead when the Gospels were written. By the way, no one on here has had ANY issues with the Gospels. Outside of some Church leadership stuff the one thing we all seem to agree on IS the Gospels. Maybe we all should focus there. It is the other Books that seem to cause the problems. One persons opinion.

You keep missing my one overarching point. We are on the same side. We are arguing details. The Catholic Church, for all the mistakes it has made, still works with other Religions on education, health and other social aspects. I loved Church/Services in the Army in the field. Set up on a Jeep, just the sacraments and a bible reading. Sometimes it was a Priest, many times we had a Lutheran Pastor. It boiled religion down to the basics. I never felt closer to God and Christ than in the field in the Army receiving Communion off a Humvee hood or jumping out of a plane. That will cut through the Religious BS really quick....

There are truly hateful people out there. Maybe all of us should worry less about the details and more about living as Christ said. I am at the front of the line.

It may piss you and Shooter off, but these conversations are good. The more you talk the more you understand each other. Once again, one persons opinion.

---

I am not pissed off... sorry if anyone got that conclusion.
I am very sad that so many who call upon the name of Jesus, do not acknowledge the inspired Word of God as the inspired Word of God.

But I am not pissed off. These conversations are very good. I do want to understand why Catholics worship Mary, but don't call it idolatry. Why they don't accept the authority of scripture, but do accept the authority of a simple mortal man instead... even though catholics will almost always admit that previous Pope's have made mistakes.

---

We answered that early on. Catholics honor Jesus's mother and ask for intervention, not worship. There are several times in the Gospels where people asked Mary to intervene and he listened, Wedding at Cana for example. The Scriptures call for honoring Mary, see Gabriel's intro. Personally, I don't get into Mary stuff. But that is the Catholic view. Is it enough to abandon my faith or religion because others get into Mary as an intermediary? No.

I have a hard time praying to Jesus rather than God or going to Mass on Sunday vs the Sabbath. The Bible says there is no God but I am and the Sabbath is on Saturday. Yet, those and all the dietary stuff were set aside. Since there are no degrees of sin, we are all F-ed IF we were supposed to follow the Old Testimant too.

Who knows, you do your best. We can be certain all we want, but we won't know until the end if we were right.

---

If you don't believe in the sinlessness Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her bodily ascension, you are anathematized to Hell by your own Church. You don't seem to have any idea what Roman Catholicism is. Since you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus, apparently you don't know what Christianity is either. So how is it that you lecture others on "missing the point" of Jesus?

---

Hit a nerve, huh ...

Sorry, I guess I am misreading your posts. Maybe I am taking from it what I want, like you are with mine.

There is nothing your Church says that gives you pause or you don't understand as well as others? Nothing that some people in your congregation seem to connect with more than you? Some ideas that really appeal to you,ore than.l others. It is one blase, all the same level believe and feeling?

Mary? Non-issue. Don't see how it really impacts my relationship with God. Seems to bother the hell out of you.

Where I seem to diverge from you is that I believe Jesus came for the not perfect, those that are lost, those that don't go to Church or believe everything at same level they are told. Christ is in the ghetto with the junkies, prostitutes and thieves. The trans and homosexuals that need help. Not the main stream. I liked Francis message. You guys don't seem to. That is where I think Christ would be today, not in a suit in Church. I love the Catholic faith because it is big enough for you and me. Other denominations, not so much.

By the way, you took quite a few shots at me over the last few days. Insulting my believes in a Pope Leo thread. I make one comment on how I hope your narrow view doesn't derail you and you get pissy???

---

If anyone's got their nerve hit, it's you. I'm bringing up a perfectly fair point. You obviously don't understand what Roman Catholicism teaches, and you admitted things like you don't like Paul who wrote half the New Testament, and you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus instead of God. And now you're saying you "like Francis' message". These things fairly put your status as a true Christian under question imo, and I'll bet even the Roman Catholics here will agree. So how does this make you an adequate judge whether someone has "missed the point" on Jesus? And I'm still interested in your answer - what is it that you think I'm missing about Jesus' message, exactly? I agree with you that Jesus came for the lost - but in what way? I have a feeling I'm not going to agree with what you say here, just call it a hunch. You have "liberal, pro-LGBT Christian who compromises the gospel to suit your sensibilities" written all over you, but hey, I could be wrong. What's your answer?

---

Pro? There is a huge difference between pro-lgbt and saying that is who needs help. The sinner is who needs religious support. The person living a holy life and going to church every Sunday is covered. If we don't make those people welcome, we are abandoning them. Sorry, my read of Christ is he would be with those people that need help. That is not pro-lgbt. You don't see that? Huh...

You know whether you or other Catholics believe I am Christian enough doesn't enter into the equation. I will put my doubts and inclusion against your Regcock following of the Bible in the end any day. I know a Pharisee when I see one.

---

Pharisee! There it is! If I had a dollar for every time I've been called that merely for standing up for biblical principles and the true gospel..... Evidently, telling people that you can't make the gospel into what fits your agenda is being a Pharisee. If so, I guess I am one. And every Christian should be one, too. I'm starting to see why you hate Paul and half the New Testament.

You're being cryptic here - HOW do LGBT people need religious help and support? What does that entail? What does "welcoming" them to your church look like? If living a "holy life" covers you, how can that apply to them - is the LGBT lifestyle "holy" in your view? Going to church every weekend covers you? Do you really think all this is the gospel of Jesus Christ?

---

You think that someone living in sin just turns off the valve? One day wakes up bright eyed and I am converting NOW? Maybe if you are Christ and they look in your eye, yeah then I agree. Christ didn't need human help. Or maybe if your source of reference is only reading. But us mortals have to go through a process with people.

It has to be a process. It has to be about establishing trust. Just telling them to repent and come back when you got it licked is not a realistic few. If someone is gay, there are other issues that have to be addressed. I believe most people that gravitate to those lifestyles are looking for acceptance. Standing up for biblical principles and the true gospels without working with the people to feel acceptance is exactly what the Pharisees did. And exactly why many of these people go these lifestyles. They were not accepted into the normal social and religious circles.

I am furious with the Catholic Church with its treatment of Divorcees and the LGGBT. The Sacraments are about healing and bring God into your life. Keeping them away from those that need it the most? Seems counterproductive to me. You can include people without condoning the act. Christ was about the Shepard going after the one stray. God has always been about bringing the wayward back and celebrating. Paul turned it into an accounting exercise...

---

But what does this process entail, say, for LGBT people? Do you validate their lifestyle in any way?

There is a need to reach out to the lost, like unrepentant LGBT people, I fully agree. But the church is for the body of believers. It is not to include those who don't believe, or those who continue in an unrepentant sinful lifestyle (which indicates unbelief). We definitely should reach out and minister to these people, but only outside of church, and then invite them to your chuch if they come to repentance and belief. I have a feeling this is not the process you're talking about, though.

By the way, if you tell your church that you don't believe all the Mary stuff as you say, if they're adherent to the doctrine of Roman Catholicism, they are obligated to remove you from church as well. Because those beliefs are required. So all your "Mary stuff is BS" isn't really, at least in Roman Catholicism. It's a dogma - they tie your salvation to it. That's why I find it curious that you don't know, or don't seem to even care to know, the vital doctrines of the church you belong to. If you don't believe that you go to Hell because you don't believe in the Mary stuff, how can you believe that your church is true? And if you don't believe your church is true, why do you feel it is important to minister to LGBT people into your church, that you don't think is even true?

---

At some point don't you have to believe that someone that is showing up to Church and not making a public display of themselves is on the level? Are we supposed to be the religious police? If they are trying to get over on the Church, why? If they make displays, I would expect the Priest to speak with them, the same if my wife and I were inappropriate. But at the end of the day, it is between them and God. I believe it is our job to give everyone the chance, what they do is up to them.

And no, the act IS a sin and even Francis didn't condone that!

Dogma is not my salvation. There are some things that I don't get. I logically can't make sense of. But, if logic was the driving force you wouldn't be religious. The whole thing is built around faith and obedience. Push comes to shove, I would pray for understanding that I do not have. Would I leave the Church over it? No. Not that big of an impact on my life whether Mary was a virgin forever or Jesus had a brother. Chalk it up to not getting it and move on. It seems to give you more of an issue. I also believe it is our duty to question and push from within, not cut and run if there is something I disagree with.

---

Sorry I didn't read through the entire thread before I jumped in. But I do want to say that I'm glad you won't leave behind your faith in Christ because you disagree about Mary.... but that isn't the point. The point is that the Catholic Church has said that you are going to hell because of your disagreement about their teachings on Mary having sex.

I totally agree with you that it is a very silly argument, but that's the point. We all know that there is no way Mary lived her whole life, married to a good man like Joseph, and they never had sex?? No way! That is just insane to suggest or believe. So why are Catholics trying to condemn you to hell for not believing it? Why is it so important to the Vatican? THAT is the question you are not asking, and you should be asking.

Protestants don't look down on Mary for having sex with her husband, and having children. Why would we? This is a very honorable and good thing to do. Psalm 31 is a great example of how God loves moms and Mary would most likely be in that category. Why do catholics believe that if Mary had sex and gave birth to other children, it would have made her less worthy or somehow sinful?

I am glad that you have a desire to help those in need. I agree that Jesus would be doing the same. I would suggest that he would not turn his back on Christians in order to do this, as you seem to suggest. Christ would first go to the churches and challenge Christians to go with him to help those in need and to bring the gospel to them. He might also rebuke the churches for not doing this before his arrival too. In reality, this is a moot point since Christ will not return to earth for any other reason than to bring about the End of Days. He will be returning as a conquering King, not a servant to the lost... that time will have passed.

---

---

TIme out, let's be clear I have some issues with the logic. Do I know? No. Do you know? No. Unless you were there you have no idea. There is a huge jump between doubting the logic and knowing. No one should change their believes on things they can't know. So, if you want to have an honest discussion, I am game. You want to play Party line, I can do that too.

I also agree with Francis and his hope that Hell is empty. That people really don't want to be separated from God when the rubber meets the road. But, seems like you guys really want people there.

---

Just to throw another wrench in there for you... it wasn't until the Council of Trent that the Roman Catholics decreed that Mary lived her life without sin, and never had any other children. The it wasn't until the 1950s when the Vatican suddenly decreed that Mary never died, but she was taken up into heaven.

So yeah... we DO know the truth. The evidence is very clear that all of the teachings about Mary came from men. There is NO scriptural support for the idea that Mary was born without original sin, or that she lived a life without sin, or that she never had other children, or that she was taken up into heaven without dying a mortal death.

Just think for a minute... do you really think that NO ONE would have written a single word about the first person in history to live a perfectly sinless life? NO ONE wrote a single letter or book about Mary being taken up into heaven? NO ONE ever wrote about how she had all those kids... but never had sex with her husband? You must also understand that it was culturally seen as a very shameful sin to be married and never have sex. If this happened, it would have been discussed. If it was hidden to protect the reputations of Mary & Joseph... then how did the Catholics suddenly figure it out one thousand five hundred years later??


Come on man... we DO know the truth. You know it and I know it and so does everyone who reads the Bible.

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Exactly, you just don't get it No one can explain it. We will not agree.

We can't even agree on the Bible. You relate everything to scripture, Sola Scriptura. Catholics don't. We say the Latin Vulgate is authoritative, you say the KJ. You constantly quoting the KJ verses as proof means nothing, it is not authoritative to Catholics. Scripture is only part of the equation. Without the oral and Church tradition it is Bible Study. I actually feel bad for you., seems very empty only part of God's message.

---

No, I don't get it because you don't make any sense. You still aren't making sense. Who quoted the KJ?

Latin Vulgate? What does it say that is different than what I quoted? Isn't the Vulgate the work of Jerome, who believed that the apocrypha are not part of canon Scripture, yet Roman Catholicism holds that they are?

Church tradition? You mean fallible, man-made tradition that does not trace back to Jesus and the apostles? By what divine revelation did these traditions come from? How do you know? You don't, yet you're putting it on the same level of authority as Scripture, which we DO know is the infallible word of God. This is why sola scriptura, and abandoning it is the primary reason for all your church's mistakes. That's why you've been led to errant beliefs, even to the point of sheer heresy and idolatry.

---

Once again, you believe in Sola Scriptura. A document that is written by men. We say divinely inspired, so that makes it not of mans making? How is believing a document written by literally hundreds over hundreds of years and voted on in numerous Catholic councils to be "following God's instructions", but following the oral and Church traditions is not!

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, have at it. Sit around your Church Council and have as many little Council of Nicea's as you like. Argue the meaning of a Hebrew, Greek, Latin word ad nauseum. More power to you. Although I think Christ would say you missed the bigger point, but that is just me.

Just don't tell me my believes are wrong. But you can't do that. You have to attack the Catholics in a thread celebrating the naming of a new leader of our Church. No one said a word about your believes, you and your ilk attacked the naming of a new Church leader. Poor form.

---

We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him.

This person Jesus, then, told his disciples they would remember perfectly everything he did and said to tell the world: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:26

Thus, Jesus, who had the full stamp of approval from God by his resurrection, in turn gave his full stamp of approval over everything his apostles said and did. Thus, the tradition of the original apostles is the divinely inspired, infallible word of God.

Where do we learn this tradition of the original apostles? Only in Scripture. The only thing the church has that we know came from the original apostles is in the New Testament, thus it is the only thing in the church's possession that is the word of God, thus it is the only infallible rule of faith for the church. Thus, sola scriptura.

Where do Roman Catholic traditions that are not in the Bible come from? Who knows, and when they do know, they can't prove it came from Jesus or the apostles. Neither do they have any kind of divine stamp of approval on it. This most certainly can NOT be relied upon as an infallible rule of faith.

Did the writings of the apostles have to be "voted on in numerous Roman Catholic councils" in order to be accepted as the divine word of God by the early church? NO. The Gospels were already circulated among the first churches as being the infallible word of God. The letters of Paul, Peter, James, etc. were all viewed as Scripture in the early church and circulated among them - hundreds of years before any Roman Catholic council decreed them as such.

---

"We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him."

I get that. I am saying that if that is true for those Councils, it is true for the non-Bible councils on decisions the Church makes. You are cherry picking what is "devine" and what is not. Catholics believe that Holy Spirit plays just as big a role in dogmatic decisions as in the choosing the Bible books. As I said, it comes down to Faith. Do you believe? There are no absolutes, there are no guidebooks that don't have as aspect of Faith attached.
By the way, I said that I put the Gospels as the most important books in the New Testament. Much more so than Paul's letters.

You say who knows where decisions come from, each decision is just as documented as the choosing the Bible verses, probably more so.

My question to you is how can you just decide NOT to listen every other Church council, but the ones that chose the Bible books in your version of the Bible? All the others mean nothing, because an Augustinian Monk and his German Noble backers were pissed at Rome? How is that different than Henry the 8th? Seems cherry picking to me. There are some things I don't agree, such as Mary body and soul in heaven or speculating on the sexual habits of Christ's mother. Does it really matter? But, you take the good with the bad, there is no perfect. Or Faith would mean nothing if there was no doubt.

---

You didn't understand what I said. Again, councils did not determine the authority of the Gospels and letters of Paul, James, Peter, etc. The Christians of the early church did, hundreds of years before any council formally declared it. How did they know? Yes, the Holy Spirit was involved, but in the manner of helping them recognize the authenticity and reliability of the authorship of those writings. Jesus gave infallible authority to his first hand apostles, thus if the writing was truly authored by them, it was to be considered the infallible word of God. People did NOT "vote" to decide on the apostle's infallibility, Jesus had already decided that.

Councils were not given infallibility by Jesus. Councils are made up of fallible men, hopefully being led by the Holy Spirit (but that's no guarantee), who must rely on the infallibility of the original apostles as declared by Jesus, not on their own declaration of infallibility because of their claim of being led by the Holy Spirit. We only know that what comes out of Councils is the work of the Holy Spirit if it is agreement with Scripture. That is the standard of measure. What Roman Cathoicism does, and what you've bought in to, is the idea that fallible men claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit is just as infallible of an authority as Scripture. But as I keep saying, Jesus didn't give infallible authority to men outside of his apostles, that we know of. If you abandon sola scriptura, and you allow another standard of measure outside of what God guaranteed (Scripture), you're opening yourself up to compromise of God's truth and huge errors. As we have seen, this is exactly what has led to heresy and idolatry in the Roman Catholic Church. And the worst of it is, her adherents don't (or won't) even recognize or acknowledge it, because they have been conditioned (upon threat of being sent to Hell, btw) to consider the tradition of fallible men to be just as infallible as Scripture. I really hope I've shown you, in logical and biblical manner, that this isn't the case.

---

The original Apostles were dead when the Gospels were written. By the way, no one on here has had ANY issues with the Gospels. Outside of some Church leadership stuff the one thing we all seem to agree on IS the Gospels. Maybe we all should focus there. It is the other Books that seem to cause the problems. One persons opinion.

You keep missing my one overarching point. We are on the same side. We are arguing details. The Catholic Church, for all the mistakes it has made, still works with other Religions on education, health and other social aspects. I loved Church/Services in the Army in the field. Set up on a Jeep, just the sacraments and a bible reading. Sometimes it was a Priest, many times we had a Lutheran Pastor. It boiled religion down to the basics. I never felt closer to God and Christ than in the field in the Army receiving Communion off a Humvee hood or jumping out of a plane. That will cut through the Religious BS really quick....

There are truly hateful people out there. Maybe all of us should worry less about the details and more about living as Christ said. I am at the front of the line.

It may piss you and Shooter off, but these conversations are good. The more you talk the more you understand each other. Once again, one persons opinion.

---

I am not pissed off... sorry if anyone got that conclusion.
I am very sad that so many who call upon the name of Jesus, do not acknowledge the inspired Word of God as the inspired Word of God.

But I am not pissed off. These conversations are very good. I do want to understand why Catholics worship Mary, but don't call it idolatry. Why they don't accept the authority of scripture, but do accept the authority of a simple mortal man instead... even though catholics will almost always admit that previous Pope's have made mistakes.

---

We answered that early on. Catholics honor Jesus's mother and ask for intervention, not worship. There are several times in the Gospels where people asked Mary to intervene and he listened, Wedding at Cana for example. The Scriptures call for honoring Mary, see Gabriel's intro. Personally, I don't get into Mary stuff. But that is the Catholic view. Is it enough to abandon my faith or religion because others get into Mary as an intermediary? No.

I have a hard time praying to Jesus rather than God or going to Mass on Sunday vs the Sabbath. The Bible says there is no God but I am and the Sabbath is on Saturday. Yet, those and all the dietary stuff were set aside. Since there are no degrees of sin, we are all F-ed IF we were supposed to follow the Old Testimant too.

Who knows, you do your best. We can be certain all we want, but we won't know until the end if we were right.

---

If you don't believe in the sinlessness Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her bodily ascension, you are anathematized to Hell by your own Church. You don't seem to have any idea what Roman Catholicism is. Since you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus, apparently you don't know what Christianity is either. So how is it that you lecture others on "missing the point" of Jesus?

---

Hit a nerve, huh ...

Sorry, I guess I am misreading your posts. Maybe I am taking from it what I want, like you are with mine.

There is nothing your Church says that gives you pause or you don't understand as well as others? Nothing that some people in your congregation seem to connect with more than you? Some ideas that really appeal to you,ore than.l others. It is one blase, all the same level believe and feeling?

Mary? Non-issue. Don't see how it really impacts my relationship with God. Seems to bother the hell out of you.

Where I seem to diverge from you is that I believe Jesus came for the not perfect, those that are lost, those that don't go to Church or believe everything at same level they are told. Christ is in the ghetto with the junkies, prostitutes and thieves. The trans and homosexuals that need help. Not the main stream. I liked Francis message. You guys don't seem to. That is where I think Christ would be today, not in a suit in Church. I love the Catholic faith because it is big enough for you and me. Other denominations, not so much.

By the way, you took quite a few shots at me over the last few days. Insulting my believes in a Pope Leo thread. I make one comment on how I hope your narrow view doesn't derail you and you get pissy???

---

If anyone's got their nerve hit, it's you. I'm bringing up a perfectly fair point. You obviously don't understand what Roman Catholicism teaches, and you admitted things like you don't like Paul who wrote half the New Testament, and you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus instead of God. And now you're saying you "like Francis' message". These things fairly put your status as a true Christian under question imo, and I'll bet even the Roman Catholics here will agree. So how does this make you an adequate judge whether someone has "missed the point" on Jesus? And I'm still interested in your answer - what is it that you think I'm missing about Jesus' message, exactly? I agree with you that Jesus came for the lost - but in what way? I have a feeling I'm not going to agree with what you say here, just call it a hunch. You have "liberal, pro-LGBT Christian who compromises the gospel to suit your sensibilities" written all over you, but hey, I could be wrong. What's your answer?

---

Pro? There is a huge difference between pro-lgbt and saying that is who needs help. The sinner is who needs religious support. The person living a holy life and going to church every Sunday is covered. If we don't make those people welcome, we are abandoning them. Sorry, my read of Christ is he would be with those people that need help. That is not pro-lgbt. You don't see that? Huh...

You know whether you or other Catholics believe I am Christian enough doesn't enter into the equation. I will put my doubts and inclusion against your Regcock following of the Bible in the end any day. I know a Pharisee when I see one.

---

Pharisee! There it is! If I had a dollar for every time I've been called that merely for standing up for biblical principles and the true gospel..... Evidently, telling people that you can't make the gospel into what fits your agenda is being a Pharisee. If so, I guess I am one. And every Christian should be one, too. I'm starting to see why you hate Paul and half the New Testament.

You're being cryptic here - HOW do LGBT people need religious help and support? What does that entail? What does "welcoming" them to your church look like? If living a "holy life" covers you, how can that apply to them - is the LGBT lifestyle "holy" in your view? Going to church every weekend covers you? Do you really think all this is the gospel of Jesus Christ?

---

You think that someone living in sin just turns off the valve? One day wakes up bright eyed and I am converting NOW? Maybe if you are Christ and they look in your eye, yeah then I agree. Christ didn't need human help. Or maybe if your source of reference is only reading. But us mortals have to go through a process with people.

It has to be a process. It has to be about establishing trust. Just telling them to repent and come back when you got it licked is not a realistic few. If someone is gay, there are other issues that have to be addressed. I believe most people that gravitate to those lifestyles are looking for acceptance. Standing up for biblical principles and the true gospels without working with the people to feel acceptance is exactly what the Pharisees did. And exactly why many of these people go these lifestyles. They were not accepted into the normal social and religious circles.

I am furious with the Catholic Church with its treatment of Divorcees and the LGGBT. The Sacraments are about healing and bring God into your life. Keeping them away from those that need it the most? Seems counterproductive to me. You can include people without condoning the act. Christ was about the Shepard going after the one stray. God has always been about bringing the wayward back and celebrating. Paul turned it into an accounting exercise...

---

But what does this process entail, say, for LGBT people? Do you validate their lifestyle in any way?

There is a need to reach out to the lost, like unrepentant LGBT people, I fully agree. But the church is for the body of believers. It is not to include those who don't believe, or those who continue in an unrepentant sinful lifestyle (which indicates unbelief). We definitely should reach out and minister to these people, but only outside of church, and then invite them to your chuch if they come to repentance and belief. I have a feeling this is not the process you're talking about, though.

By the way, if you tell your church that you don't believe all the Mary stuff as you say, if they're adherent to the doctrine of Roman Catholicism, they are obligated to remove you from church as well. Because those beliefs are required. So all your "Mary stuff is BS" isn't really, at least in Roman Catholicism. It's a dogma - they tie your salvation to it. That's why I find it curious that you don't know, or don't seem to even care to know, the vital doctrines of the church you belong to. If you don't believe that you go to Hell because you don't believe in the Mary stuff, how can you believe that your church is true? And if you don't believe your church is true, why do you feel it is important to minister to LGBT people into your church, that you don't think is even true?

---

At some point don't you have to believe that someone that is showing up to Church and not making a public display of themselves is on the level? Are we supposed to be the religious police? If they are trying to get over on the Church, why? If they make displays, I would expect the Priest to speak with them, the same if my wife and I were inappropriate. But at the end of the day, it is between them and God. I believe it is our job to give everyone the chance, what they do is up to them.

And no, the act IS a sin and even Francis didn't condone that!

Dogma is not my salvation. There are some things that I don't get. I logically can't make sense of. But, if logic was the driving force you wouldn't be religious. The whole thing is built around faith and obedience. Push comes to shove, I would pray for understanding that I do not have. Would I leave the Church over it? No. Not that big of an impact on my life whether Mary was a virgin forever or Jesus had a brother. Chalk it up to not getting it and move on. It seems to give you more of an issue. I also believe it is our duty to question and push from within, not cut and run if there is something I disagree with.

---

Sorry I didn't read through the entire thread before I jumped in. But I do want to say that I'm glad you won't leave behind your faith in Christ because you disagree about Mary.... but that isn't the point. The point is that the Catholic Church has said that you are going to hell because of your disagreement about their teachings on Mary having sex.

I totally agree with you that it is a very silly argument, but that's the point. We all know that there is no way Mary lived her whole life, married to a good man like Joseph, and they never had sex?? No way! That is just insane to suggest or believe. So why are Catholics trying to condemn you to hell for not believing it? Why is it so important to the Vatican? THAT is the question you are not asking, and you should be asking.

Protestants don't look down on Mary for having sex with her husband, and having children. Why would we? This is a very honorable and good thing to do. Psalm 31 is a great example of how God loves moms and Mary would most likely be in that category. Why do catholics believe that if Mary had sex and gave birth to other children, it would have made her less worthy or somehow sinful?

I am glad that you have a desire to help those in need. I agree that Jesus would be doing the same. I would suggest that he would not turn his back on Christians in order to do this, as you seem to suggest. Christ would first go to the churches and challenge Christians to go with him to help those in need and to bring the gospel to them. He might also rebuke the churches for not doing this before his arrival too. In reality, this is a moot point since Christ will not return to earth for any other reason than to bring about the End of Days. He will be returning as a conquering King, not a servant to the lost... that time will have passed.

---

---

TIme out, let's be clear I have some issues with the logic. Do I know? No. Do you know? No. Unless you were there you have no idea. There is a huge jump between doubting the logic and knowing. No one should change their believes on things they can't know. So, if you want to have an honest discussion, I am game. You want to play Party line, I can do that too.

I also agree with Francis and his hope that Hell is empty. That people really don't want to be separated from God when the rubber meets the road. But, seems like you guys really want people there.

---

Just to throw another wrench in there for you... it wasn't until the Council of Trent that the Roman Catholics decreed that Mary lived her life without sin, and never had any other children. The it wasn't until the 1950s when the Vatican suddenly decreed that Mary never died, but she was taken up into heaven.

So yeah... we DO know the truth. The evidence is very clear that all of the teachings about Mary came from men. There is NO scriptural support for the idea that Mary was born without original sin, or that she lived a life without sin, or that she never had other children, or that she was taken up into heaven without dying a mortal death.

Just think for a minute... do you really think that NO ONE would have written a single word about the first person in history to live a perfectly sinless life? NO ONE wrote a single letter or book about Mary being taken up into heaven? NO ONE ever wrote about how she had all those kids... but never had sex with her husband? You must also understand that it was culturally seen as a very shameful sin to be married and never have sex. If this happened, it would have been discussed. If it was hidden to protect the reputations of Mary & Joseph... then how did the Catholics suddenly figure it out one thousand five hundred years later??


Come on man... we DO know the truth. You know it and I know it and so does everyone who reads the Bible.

---

Tradition holds that Mary belonged to an order of religious women who were consecrated as virgins from birth. Joseph was a widower who married her to serve as a guardian. We know that such things happened in Jewish society at the time, and it was considered highly honorable.

If you read carefully, Mary's conversation with Gabriel in Luke 1:31-34 actually makes it rather clear. He doesn't say she has conceived, and she doesn't protest that she hasn't had sex. He says, "You will conceive and bear a son." She says, "How can this be since I don't have sex?" This is not the answer you would expect from someone who is already betrothed and planning to have children.

The point of all this was not to imply that married relations are shameful in any way. It was to prove, lest anyone should doubt, that Jesus' birth was a miracle and he was indeed the Son of God.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Exactly, you just don't get it No one can explain it. We will not agree.

We can't even agree on the Bible. You relate everything to scripture, Sola Scriptura. Catholics don't. We say the Latin Vulgate is authoritative, you say the KJ. You constantly quoting the KJ verses as proof means nothing, it is not authoritative to Catholics. Scripture is only part of the equation. Without the oral and Church tradition it is Bible Study. I actually feel bad for you., seems very empty only part of God's message.

---

No, I don't get it because you don't make any sense. You still aren't making sense. Who quoted the KJ?

Latin Vulgate? What does it say that is different than what I quoted? Isn't the Vulgate the work of Jerome, who believed that the apocrypha are not part of canon Scripture, yet Roman Catholicism holds that they are?

Church tradition? You mean fallible, man-made tradition that does not trace back to Jesus and the apostles? By what divine revelation did these traditions come from? How do you know? You don't, yet you're putting it on the same level of authority as Scripture, which we DO know is the infallible word of God. This is why sola scriptura, and abandoning it is the primary reason for all your church's mistakes. That's why you've been led to errant beliefs, even to the point of sheer heresy and idolatry.

---

Once again, you believe in Sola Scriptura. A document that is written by men. We say divinely inspired, so that makes it not of mans making? How is believing a document written by literally hundreds over hundreds of years and voted on in numerous Catholic councils to be "following God's instructions", but following the oral and Church traditions is not!

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, have at it. Sit around your Church Council and have as many little Council of Nicea's as you like. Argue the meaning of a Hebrew, Greek, Latin word ad nauseum. More power to you. Although I think Christ would say you missed the bigger point, but that is just me.

Just don't tell me my believes are wrong. But you can't do that. You have to attack the Catholics in a thread celebrating the naming of a new leader of our Church. No one said a word about your believes, you and your ilk attacked the naming of a new Church leader. Poor form.

---

We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him.

This person Jesus, then, told his disciples they would remember perfectly everything he did and said to tell the world: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:26

Thus, Jesus, who had the full stamp of approval from God by his resurrection, in turn gave his full stamp of approval over everything his apostles said and did. Thus, the tradition of the original apostles is the divinely inspired, infallible word of God.

Where do we learn this tradition of the original apostles? Only in Scripture. The only thing the church has that we know came from the original apostles is in the New Testament, thus it is the only thing in the church's possession that is the word of God, thus it is the only infallible rule of faith for the church. Thus, sola scriptura.

Where do Roman Catholic traditions that are not in the Bible come from? Who knows, and when they do know, they can't prove it came from Jesus or the apostles. Neither do they have any kind of divine stamp of approval on it. This most certainly can NOT be relied upon as an infallible rule of faith.

Did the writings of the apostles have to be "voted on in numerous Roman Catholic councils" in order to be accepted as the divine word of God by the early church? NO. The Gospels were already circulated among the first churches as being the infallible word of God. The letters of Paul, Peter, James, etc. were all viewed as Scripture in the early church and circulated among them - hundreds of years before any Roman Catholic council decreed them as such.

---

"We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him."

I get that. I am saying that if that is true for those Councils, it is true for the non-Bible councils on decisions the Church makes. You are cherry picking what is "devine" and what is not. Catholics believe that Holy Spirit plays just as big a role in dogmatic decisions as in the choosing the Bible books. As I said, it comes down to Faith. Do you believe? There are no absolutes, there are no guidebooks that don't have as aspect of Faith attached.
By the way, I said that I put the Gospels as the most important books in the New Testament. Much more so than Paul's letters.

You say who knows where decisions come from, each decision is just as documented as the choosing the Bible verses, probably more so.

My question to you is how can you just decide NOT to listen every other Church council, but the ones that chose the Bible books in your version of the Bible? All the others mean nothing, because an Augustinian Monk and his German Noble backers were pissed at Rome? How is that different than Henry the 8th? Seems cherry picking to me. There are some things I don't agree, such as Mary body and soul in heaven or speculating on the sexual habits of Christ's mother. Does it really matter? But, you take the good with the bad, there is no perfect. Or Faith would mean nothing if there was no doubt.

---

You didn't understand what I said. Again, councils did not determine the authority of the Gospels and letters of Paul, James, Peter, etc. The Christians of the early church did, hundreds of years before any council formally declared it. How did they know? Yes, the Holy Spirit was involved, but in the manner of helping them recognize the authenticity and reliability of the authorship of those writings. Jesus gave infallible authority to his first hand apostles, thus if the writing was truly authored by them, it was to be considered the infallible word of God. People did NOT "vote" to decide on the apostle's infallibility, Jesus had already decided that.

Councils were not given infallibility by Jesus. Councils are made up of fallible men, hopefully being led by the Holy Spirit (but that's no guarantee), who must rely on the infallibility of the original apostles as declared by Jesus, not on their own declaration of infallibility because of their claim of being led by the Holy Spirit. We only know that what comes out of Councils is the work of the Holy Spirit if it is agreement with Scripture. That is the standard of measure. What Roman Cathoicism does, and what you've bought in to, is the idea that fallible men claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit is just as infallible of an authority as Scripture. But as I keep saying, Jesus didn't give infallible authority to men outside of his apostles, that we know of. If you abandon sola scriptura, and you allow another standard of measure outside of what God guaranteed (Scripture), you're opening yourself up to compromise of God's truth and huge errors. As we have seen, this is exactly what has led to heresy and idolatry in the Roman Catholic Church. And the worst of it is, her adherents don't (or won't) even recognize or acknowledge it, because they have been conditioned (upon threat of being sent to Hell, btw) to consider the tradition of fallible men to be just as infallible as Scripture. I really hope I've shown you, in logical and biblical manner, that this isn't the case.

---

The original Apostles were dead when the Gospels were written. By the way, no one on here has had ANY issues with the Gospels. Outside of some Church leadership stuff the one thing we all seem to agree on IS the Gospels. Maybe we all should focus there. It is the other Books that seem to cause the problems. One persons opinion.

You keep missing my one overarching point. We are on the same side. We are arguing details. The Catholic Church, for all the mistakes it has made, still works with other Religions on education, health and other social aspects. I loved Church/Services in the Army in the field. Set up on a Jeep, just the sacraments and a bible reading. Sometimes it was a Priest, many times we had a Lutheran Pastor. It boiled religion down to the basics. I never felt closer to God and Christ than in the field in the Army receiving Communion off a Humvee hood or jumping out of a plane. That will cut through the Religious BS really quick....

There are truly hateful people out there. Maybe all of us should worry less about the details and more about living as Christ said. I am at the front of the line.

It may piss you and Shooter off, but these conversations are good. The more you talk the more you understand each other. Once again, one persons opinion.

---

I am not pissed off... sorry if anyone got that conclusion.
I am very sad that so many who call upon the name of Jesus, do not acknowledge the inspired Word of God as the inspired Word of God.

But I am not pissed off. These conversations are very good. I do want to understand why Catholics worship Mary, but don't call it idolatry. Why they don't accept the authority of scripture, but do accept the authority of a simple mortal man instead... even though catholics will almost always admit that previous Pope's have made mistakes.

---

We answered that early on. Catholics honor Jesus's mother and ask for intervention, not worship. There are several times in the Gospels where people asked Mary to intervene and he listened, Wedding at Cana for example. The Scriptures call for honoring Mary, see Gabriel's intro. Personally, I don't get into Mary stuff. But that is the Catholic view. Is it enough to abandon my faith or religion because others get into Mary as an intermediary? No.

I have a hard time praying to Jesus rather than God or going to Mass on Sunday vs the Sabbath. The Bible says there is no God but I am and the Sabbath is on Saturday. Yet, those and all the dietary stuff were set aside. Since there are no degrees of sin, we are all F-ed IF we were supposed to follow the Old Testimant too.

Who knows, you do your best. We can be certain all we want, but we won't know until the end if we were right.

---

If you don't believe in the sinlessness Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her bodily ascension, you are anathematized to Hell by your own Church. You don't seem to have any idea what Roman Catholicism is. Since you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus, apparently you don't know what Christianity is either. So how is it that you lecture others on "missing the point" of Jesus?

---

Hit a nerve, huh ...

Sorry, I guess I am misreading your posts. Maybe I am taking from it what I want, like you are with mine.

There is nothing your Church says that gives you pause or you don't understand as well as others? Nothing that some people in your congregation seem to connect with more than you? Some ideas that really appeal to you,ore than.l others. It is one blase, all the same level believe and feeling?

Mary? Non-issue. Don't see how it really impacts my relationship with God. Seems to bother the hell out of you.

Where I seem to diverge from you is that I believe Jesus came for the not perfect, those that are lost, those that don't go to Church or believe everything at same level they are told. Christ is in the ghetto with the junkies, prostitutes and thieves. The trans and homosexuals that need help. Not the main stream. I liked Francis message. You guys don't seem to. That is where I think Christ would be today, not in a suit in Church. I love the Catholic faith because it is big enough for you and me. Other denominations, not so much.

By the way, you took quite a few shots at me over the last few days. Insulting my believes in a Pope Leo thread. I make one comment on how I hope your narrow view doesn't derail you and you get pissy???

---

If anyone's got their nerve hit, it's you. I'm bringing up a perfectly fair point. You obviously don't understand what Roman Catholicism teaches, and you admitted things like you don't like Paul who wrote half the New Testament, and you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus instead of God. And now you're saying you "like Francis' message". These things fairly put your status as a true Christian under question imo, and I'll bet even the Roman Catholics here will agree. So how does this make you an adequate judge whether someone has "missed the point" on Jesus? And I'm still interested in your answer - what is it that you think I'm missing about Jesus' message, exactly? I agree with you that Jesus came for the lost - but in what way? I have a feeling I'm not going to agree with what you say here, just call it a hunch. You have "liberal, pro-LGBT Christian who compromises the gospel to suit your sensibilities" written all over you, but hey, I could be wrong. What's your answer?

---

Pro? There is a huge difference between pro-lgbt and saying that is who needs help. The sinner is who needs religious support. The person living a holy life and going to church every Sunday is covered. If we don't make those people welcome, we are abandoning them. Sorry, my read of Christ is he would be with those people that need help. That is not pro-lgbt. You don't see that? Huh...

You know whether you or other Catholics believe I am Christian enough doesn't enter into the equation. I will put my doubts and inclusion against your Regcock following of the Bible in the end any day. I know a Pharisee when I see one.

---

Pharisee! There it is! If I had a dollar for every time I've been called that merely for standing up for biblical principles and the true gospel..... Evidently, telling people that you can't make the gospel into what fits your agenda is being a Pharisee. If so, I guess I am one. And every Christian should be one, too. I'm starting to see why you hate Paul and half the New Testament.

You're being cryptic here - HOW do LGBT people need religious help and support? What does that entail? What does "welcoming" them to your church look like? If living a "holy life" covers you, how can that apply to them - is the LGBT lifestyle "holy" in your view? Going to church every weekend covers you? Do you really think all this is the gospel of Jesus Christ?

---

You think that someone living in sin just turns off the valve? One day wakes up bright eyed and I am converting NOW? Maybe if you are Christ and they look in your eye, yeah then I agree. Christ didn't need human help. Or maybe if your source of reference is only reading. But us mortals have to go through a process with people.

It has to be a process. It has to be about establishing trust. Just telling them to repent and come back when you got it licked is not a realistic few. If someone is gay, there are other issues that have to be addressed. I believe most people that gravitate to those lifestyles are looking for acceptance. Standing up for biblical principles and the true gospels without working with the people to feel acceptance is exactly what the Pharisees did. And exactly why many of these people go these lifestyles. They were not accepted into the normal social and religious circles.

I am furious with the Catholic Church with its treatment of Divorcees and the LGGBT. The Sacraments are about healing and bring God into your life. Keeping them away from those that need it the most? Seems counterproductive to me. You can include people without condoning the act. Christ was about the Shepard going after the one stray. God has always been about bringing the wayward back and celebrating. Paul turned it into an accounting exercise...

---

But what does this process entail, say, for LGBT people? Do you validate their lifestyle in any way?

There is a need to reach out to the lost, like unrepentant LGBT people, I fully agree. But the church is for the body of believers. It is not to include those who don't believe, or those who continue in an unrepentant sinful lifestyle (which indicates unbelief). We definitely should reach out and minister to these people, but only outside of church, and then invite them to your chuch if they come to repentance and belief. I have a feeling this is not the process you're talking about, though.

By the way, if you tell your church that you don't believe all the Mary stuff as you say, if they're adherent to the doctrine of Roman Catholicism, they are obligated to remove you from church as well. Because those beliefs are required. So all your "Mary stuff is BS" isn't really, at least in Roman Catholicism. It's a dogma - they tie your salvation to it. That's why I find it curious that you don't know, or don't seem to even care to know, the vital doctrines of the church you belong to. If you don't believe that you go to Hell because you don't believe in the Mary stuff, how can you believe that your church is true? And if you don't believe your church is true, why do you feel it is important to minister to LGBT people into your church, that you don't think is even true?

---

At some point don't you have to believe that someone that is showing up to Church and not making a public display of themselves is on the level? Are we supposed to be the religious police? If they are trying to get over on the Church, why? If they make displays, I would expect the Priest to speak with them, the same if my wife and I were inappropriate. But at the end of the day, it is between them and God. I believe it is our job to give everyone the chance, what they do is up to them.

And no, the act IS a sin and even Francis didn't condone that!

Dogma is not my salvation. There are some things that I don't get. I logically can't make sense of. But, if logic was the driving force you wouldn't be religious. The whole thing is built around faith and obedience. Push comes to shove, I would pray for understanding that I do not have. Would I leave the Church over it? No. Not that big of an impact on my life whether Mary was a virgin forever or Jesus had a brother. Chalk it up to not getting it and move on. It seems to give you more of an issue. I also believe it is our duty to question and push from within, not cut and run if there is something I disagree with.

---

Sorry I didn't read through the entire thread before I jumped in. But I do want to say that I'm glad you won't leave behind your faith in Christ because you disagree about Mary.... but that isn't the point. The point is that the Catholic Church has said that you are going to hell because of your disagreement about their teachings on Mary having sex.

I totally agree with you that it is a very silly argument, but that's the point. We all know that there is no way Mary lived her whole life, married to a good man like Joseph, and they never had sex?? No way! That is just insane to suggest or believe. So why are Catholics trying to condemn you to hell for not believing it? Why is it so important to the Vatican? THAT is the question you are not asking, and you should be asking.

Protestants don't look down on Mary for having sex with her husband, and having children. Why would we? This is a very honorable and good thing to do. Psalm 31 is a great example of how God loves moms and Mary would most likely be in that category. Why do catholics believe that if Mary had sex and gave birth to other children, it would have made her less worthy or somehow sinful?

I am glad that you have a desire to help those in need. I agree that Jesus would be doing the same. I would suggest that he would not turn his back on Christians in order to do this, as you seem to suggest. Christ would first go to the churches and challenge Christians to go with him to help those in need and to bring the gospel to them. He might also rebuke the churches for not doing this before his arrival too. In reality, this is a moot point since Christ will not return to earth for any other reason than to bring about the End of Days. He will be returning as a conquering King, not a servant to the lost... that time will have passed.

---

---

TIme out, let's be clear I have some issues with the logic. Do I know? No. Do you know? No. Unless you were there you have no idea. There is a huge jump between doubting the logic and knowing. No one should change their believes on things they can't know. So, if you want to have an honest discussion, I am game. You want to play Party line, I can do that too.

I also agree with Francis and his hope that Hell is empty. That people really don't want to be separated from God when the rubber meets the road. But, seems like you guys really want people there.

---

Just to throw another wrench in there for you... it wasn't until the Council of Trent that the Roman Catholics decreed that Mary lived her life without sin, and never had any other children. The it wasn't until the 1950s when the Vatican suddenly decreed that Mary never died, but she was taken up into heaven.

So yeah... we DO know the truth. The evidence is very clear that all of the teachings about Mary came from men. There is NO scriptural support for the idea that Mary was born without original sin, or that she lived a life without sin, or that she never had other children, or that she was taken up into heaven without dying a mortal death.

Just think for a minute... do you really think that NO ONE would have written a single word about the first person in history to live a perfectly sinless life? NO ONE wrote a single letter or book about Mary being taken up into heaven? NO ONE ever wrote about how she had all those kids... but never had sex with her husband? You must also understand that it was culturally seen as a very shameful sin to be married and never have sex. If this happened, it would have been discussed. If it was hidden to protect the reputations of Mary & Joseph... then how did the Catholics suddenly figure it out one thousand five hundred years later??


Come on man... we DO know the truth. You know it and I know it and so does everyone who reads the Bible.

---

Tradition holds that Mary belonged to an order of religious women who were consecrated as virgins from birth. Joseph was a widower who married her to serve as a guardian..

---

Serious question…did those kind of orders exist among Jewish women at the time?

I know they existed among Romans (the Vestal Virgins of course were Noble women chosen to be consecrated virgins and serve the sacred flame/hearth of Rome)

And there were Jewish groups of men who went into the desert and became bands of religious men leading a harsh spartan life and being celibate (the Essenes)

But were Jewish women doing this?

Yes, it was something quite similar to the Vestals.

ShooterTX said:

---

historian said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Are you also unaware that the catholic Catechism teaches that Mary was born without sin, never had sex, and lived her life without sinning?

---

Absolutely! These facts have been believed for nearly 2000 years. Martin Luther believed the same. It wasn't until less than 500 years ago did protestant believe otherwise when they had to manufacture some differences to separate themselves from Catholics.

---

---

---

Quote:

---

Absolutely! These facts have been believed for nearly 2000 years. Martin Luther believed the same. It wasn't until less than 500 years ago did protestant believe otherwise when they had to manufacture some differences to separate themselves from Catholics.

---

CokeBear has already been shown in another thread that everything he is claiming here is false. This one is a flat out lie. Mary was NOT taught or believed to be any of these things - not in the Bible, not in the early church. These beliefs happened via slow accretion as Roman Catholicism became compromised with pagan beliefs and fallible tradition. All this is historically factual. What Catholics believe today, the early church would not even recognize, and would even believe to be a Satanic corruption of the truth. When CokeBear says that "it's been believed for nearly 2000 years", that may or may not be true, but what IS true is that it wasn't a belief in Christianity. There have been many wrong beliefs that have been held by Christians. Gnosticism has also been believed for nearly 2000 years but it was never accepted by Christianity and was rejected as heresy.

---

You use the term Christianity. Nothing was put in writing for 70 years after Christ died on the cross. Until the Council of Nicea there was NO one (correct) "Christian Believe", only several factions following different aspects of Christ believes.

The first sign to be wary of false prophets, is when someone says THIS is what was believed you are wrong! Oral and Religious tradition was always part of Christian believe, as it came from Jewish traditions. That only changed when Luther and the German Nobility didn't want their money sent to Rome. Than, the Bible became the ONLY source. So, I take with a grain of salt you are wrong comments. Coke Bear did not say anyone was wrong, only explaining the Catholic believe.

Very Paul-ish. To determine what is right and wrong. Never a fan of Paul...

---

You just removed 1/2 of the New Testament, then. If anyone's opinion on Christianity is invalid, it would be someone who did this. Even CokeBear is cringing at your comment. If I was CokeBear, I would be second-guessing my beliefs if it had the support of someone who just rejected the New Testament as authoritative. But that's just me.

Every tradition, oral or written, that we know came from the original apostles is in the New Testament. The Roman Catholic Church can NOT trace any of their non-biblical traditions to the original apostles. Yet they hold them as equal in authority to Scripture. Therein lies the fatal flaw of Roman Catholicism. If you can't see the problem with this, then either you're a Roman Catholic who is dug in to your beliefs and won't accept facts, or you're not very discerning.

Indulgences were not the only reason for the Reformation. It also involved the very gospel itselfI did

---

Ok, gloves are off...

I didn't remove anything. Nice leap there, though. But, if we are going down this road take a look at the Vulgate versus the King James and tell me who left things out.

But, you did come back with another you are wrong, I know comment. Seems to be the go to...

So, tell us how YOU know what is correct, without it being "faith" based the Bible told me so as your answer. Have you ever had a real discussion on these texts and the ambiguity of the times? Or how oral tradition were part of Jewish faith (Torah Shebaal Peh)? Get it?

"The Written Law"Torah Shebichtav

"The Oral Tradition"Torah Shebaal Peh

It comes from the Jewish faith, which Peter (the first Pope) belonged. Starting to see how it comes together

You do realize that the Apostles came from Judaism and would have looked at Christianity as augmenting Judaism, valuing tradition AND the scripture. ? This was the big Peter/Paul disagreement? Any of this sound familiar?

But, I think not. You go to your church every Sunday, wear a suit, and are on Church council and NEVER look at anything outside of the King James... Because you know...

---

Relevance to anything you just said??

By "removed" you removed the authority of Paul, at least for yourself. If you don't consider the whole New Testament authoritative, then you're not going to get agreement even from the Roman Catholics you are trying to support.

And can you tell me one Roman Catholic tradition not in the Bible - ONE - that they can trace back to the original apostles? Has Roman Catholicism defined any infallible saying or teaching of Jesus and the apostles that is NOT in the Bible?

Did Jesus ever hold as infallibly authoritative for his people including Christians, any Jewish oral tradition that was NOT written in their Law, Prophets, and Writings (the Tanakh)? In fact, Jesus utterly lambasted the Pharisees when they used their oral traditions to void the written law (The Corban Rule, Mark 7:11), saying that they corrupted the written word with their man-made traditions. This is exactly what Roman Catholicism is doing, and it's simply incredible that you guys don't see it.

---

Geez, not being a fan and totally disregarding are two different things. But, being Baptist I can see how Paul is attractive to you. Personally, I have never cared for Paul or his condescending, paternalistic, and judgmental style.

Of the whole resurrection narrative, I have always found his part sensationalistic and inconsistent with the rest of New Testament. How did Jesus appear to the Apostles? Very low key and stayed with them in a room. How did he appear to Paul? Bombastic, knocking him off his horse and blinding him. Sound like any other time Christ came and made himself known? Birth in a stable, trip to Egypt, wedding a Canna, Sermon on the Mount, Herod, Crucifixon, resurrection, and Pentacost. Any seem like Paul's story?

So, yes. I put the Gospels and Revelation above Paul's letters. I value Mark the most, being the oldest and closest to Christ. I value Augustine over Aquinas. Why? Closer to the event. You don't think about this information and have some that you find more credible than others? Identify with one over the other? Or even like more than others? Have a favorite story as a kid???

As for tracing to the Apostles, honoring Mary, mother of Jesus. It is supported in numerous places in the Gospels and the Apostles placed her in high esteem and even asked her several times to speak to Jesus. SO, why wouldn't we emulate that? That is not worshipping, it is honoring. Following what the Angel Gabriel said, you are honored among women. Was Gabriel worshipping Mary?

---

Jesus appeared in power to Paul, because it was after he had ascended into heaven and became glorified. When he appeared to his apostles, he was risen, but not yet had ascended and glorified. See how Jesus appeared to John in Revelation, also after his ascension and glorification - John reacted almost the same way as Paul.

Here we go with the atrocious logic regarding Mary - so because Mary was merely "honored" by people..... it means that Mary was sinless, a forever-virgin, ascended bodily to heaven, etc?? Remember, these beliefs are REQUIRED by the Roman Catholic Church or you are anathematized, meaning you are separated from the body of Christ and you go to Hell. Don't you think that there should be some semblance, just SOME, of Mary being any of these things in the Gospels for Roman Catholicism to bind one's salvation to it?

Jesus never even called Mary his "mother" anywhere in the New Testament. He even redirected the honor people were trying to give her (Luke 11:27-28). This makes for a really, really hard sell for what Roman Catholicism dogmatizes about her.

---

Mary was a sinner. The only exception to Romans 3:23 in all of human history was Jesus Christ. There is no reason to believe Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. She was married to Joseph after all and the gospels do mention Jesus's brothers and sisters, some by name. Like many other ordinary people in the Bible (Abraham, Moses, David, Esther, Ruth, Daniel, all of the disciples, Barnabas, John Mark, Timothy, etc), Mary played an extraordinary role in events because God chose her and she was willing to serve His purpose.

---

I think Catholics don't understand it. No one in Christianity hates Mary. We only hate the idolatry of Mary.
Don't claim it's not idolatry when you literally pray to her, make statues of her, have pilgrimages to places where her likeness appears in a potato chip or a street light or a the side of a building, and you sing worship songs to get & about her.... how can anyone claim that this is not idolatry.
There are literal catholic shrines made to honor Mary... but don't call it idolatry?

---

All good points. I never understand how some Catholics seem to treat Mary as equal to God. I also don't understand praying to Mary or anyone else except God. When Christ taught people how to pray He did not begin with, "My Mom in heaven" but with "Our Father in heaven".

FLBear5630 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Exactly, you just don't get it No one can explain it. We will not agree.

We can't even agree on the Bible. You relate everything to scripture, Sola Scriptura. Catholics don't. We say the Latin Vulgate is authoritative, you say the KJ. You constantly quoting the KJ verses as proof means nothing, it is not authoritative to Catholics. Scripture is only part of the equation. Without the oral and Church tradition it is Bible Study. I actually feel bad for you., seems very empty only part of God's message.

---

No, I don't get it because you don't make any sense. You still aren't making sense. Who quoted the KJ?

Latin Vulgate? What does it say that is different than what I quoted? Isn't the Vulgate the work of Jerome, who believed that the apocrypha are not part of canon Scripture, yet Roman Catholicism holds that they are?

Church tradition? You mean fallible, man-made tradition that does not trace back to Jesus and the apostles? By what divine revelation did these traditions come from? How do you know? You don't, yet you're putting it on the same level of authority as Scripture, which we DO know is the infallible word of God. This is why sola scriptura, and abandoning it is the primary reason for all your church's mistakes. That's why you've been led to errant beliefs, even to the point of sheer heresy and idolatry.

---

Once again, you believe in Sola Scriptura. A document that is written by men. We say divinely inspired, so that makes it not of mans making? How is believing a document written by literally hundreds over hundreds of years and voted on in numerous Catholic councils to be "following God's instructions", but following the oral and Church traditions is not!

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, have at it. Sit around your Church Council and have as many little Council of Nicea's as you like. Argue the meaning of a Hebrew, Greek, Latin word ad nauseum. More power to you. Although I think Christ would say you missed the bigger point, but that is just me.

Just don't tell me my believes are wrong. But you can't do that. You have to attack the Catholics in a thread celebrating the naming of a new leader of our Church. No one said a word about your believes, you and your ilk attacked the naming of a new Church leader. Poor form.

---

We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him.

This person Jesus, then, told his disciples they would remember perfectly everything he did and said to tell the world: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:26

Thus, Jesus, who had the full stamp of approval from God by his resurrection, in turn gave his full stamp of approval over everything his apostles said and did. Thus, the tradition of the original apostles is the divinely inspired, infallible word of God.

Where do we learn this tradition of the original apostles? Only in Scripture. The only thing the church has that we know came from the original apostles is in the New Testament, thus it is the only thing in the church's possession that is the word of God, thus it is the only infallible rule of faith for the church. Thus, sola scriptura.

Where do Roman Catholic traditions that are not in the Bible come from? Who knows, and when they do know, they can't prove it came from Jesus or the apostles. Neither do they have any kind of divine stamp of approval on it. This most certainly can NOT be relied upon as an infallible rule of faith.

Did the writings of the apostles have to be "voted on in numerous Roman Catholic councils" in order to be accepted as the divine word of God by the early church? NO. The Gospels were already circulated among the first churches as being the infallible word of God. The letters of Paul, Peter, James, etc. were all viewed as Scripture in the early church and circulated among them - hundreds of years before any Roman Catholic council decreed them as such.

---

"We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him."

I get that. I am saying that if that is true for those Councils, it is true for the non-Bible councils on decisions the Church makes. You are cherry picking what is "devine" and what is not. Catholics believe that Holy Spirit plays just as big a role in dogmatic decisions as in the choosing the Bible books. As I said, it comes down to Faith. Do you believe? There are no absolutes, there are no guidebooks that don't have as aspect of Faith attached.
By the way, I said that I put the Gospels as the most important books in the New Testament. Much more so than Paul's letters.

You say who knows where decisions come from, each decision is just as documented as the choosing the Bible verses, probably more so.

My question to you is how can you just decide NOT to listen every other Church council, but the ones that chose the Bible books in your version of the Bible? All the others mean nothing, because an Augustinian Monk and his German Noble backers were pissed at Rome? How is that different than Henry the 8th? Seems cherry picking to me. There are some things I don't agree, such as Mary body and soul in heaven or speculating on the sexual habits of Christ's mother. Does it really matter? But, you take the good with the bad, there is no perfect. Or Faith would mean nothing if there was no doubt.

---

You didn't understand what I said. Again, councils did not determine the authority of the Gospels and letters of Paul, James, Peter, etc. The Christians of the early church did, hundreds of years before any council formally declared it. How did they know? Yes, the Holy Spirit was involved, but in the manner of helping them recognize the authenticity and reliability of the authorship of those writings. Jesus gave infallible authority to his first hand apostles, thus if the writing was truly authored by them, it was to be considered the infallible word of God. People did NOT "vote" to decide on the apostle's infallibility, Jesus had already decided that.

Councils were not given infallibility by Jesus. Councils are made up of fallible men, hopefully being led by the Holy Spirit (but that's no guarantee), who must rely on the infallibility of the original apostles as declared by Jesus, not on their own declaration of infallibility because of their claim of being led by the Holy Spirit. We only know that what comes out of Councils is the work of the Holy Spirit if it is agreement with Scripture. That is the standard of measure. What Roman Cathoicism does, and what you've bought in to, is the idea that fallible men claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit is just as infallible of an authority as Scripture. But as I keep saying, Jesus didn't give infallible authority to men outside of his apostles, that we know of. If you abandon sola scriptura, and you allow another standard of measure outside of what God guaranteed (Scripture), you're opening yourself up to compromise of God's truth and huge errors. As we have seen, this is exactly what has led to heresy and idolatry in the Roman Catholic Church. And the worst of it is, her adherents don't (or won't) even recognize or acknowledge it, because they have been conditioned (upon threat of being sent to Hell, btw) to consider the tradition of fallible men to be just as infallible as Scripture. I really hope I've shown you, in logical and biblical manner, that this isn't the case.

---

The original Apostles were dead when the Gospels were written. By the way, no one on here has had ANY issues with the Gospels. Outside of some Church leadership stuff the one thing we all seem to agree on IS the Gospels. Maybe we all should focus there. It is the other Books that seem to cause the problems. One persons opinion.

You keep missing my one overarching point. We are on the same side. We are arguing details. The Catholic Church, for all the mistakes it has made, still works with other Religions on education, health and other social aspects. I loved Church/Services in the Army in the field. Set up on a Jeep, just the sacraments and a bible reading. Sometimes it was a Priest, many times we had a Lutheran Pastor. It boiled religion down to the basics. I never felt closer to God and Christ than in the field in the Army receiving Communion off a Humvee hood or jumping out of a plane. That will cut through the Religious BS really quick....

There are truly hateful people out there. Maybe all of us should worry less about the details and more about living as Christ said. I am at the front of the line.

It may piss you and Shooter off, but these conversations are good. The more you talk the more you understand each other. Once again, one persons opinion.

---

I am not pissed off... sorry if anyone got that conclusion.
I am very sad that so many who call upon the name of Jesus, do not acknowledge the inspired Word of God as the inspired Word of God.

But I am not pissed off. These conversations are very good. I do want to understand why Catholics worship Mary, but don't call it idolatry. Why they don't accept the authority of scripture, but do accept the authority of a simple mortal man instead... even though catholics will almost always admit that previous Pope's have made mistakes.

---

We answered that early on. Catholics honor Jesus's mother and ask for intervention, not worship. There are several times in the Gospels where people asked Mary to intervene and he listened, Wedding at Cana for example. The Scriptures call for honoring Mary, see Gabriel's intro. Personally, I don't get into Mary stuff. But that is the Catholic view. Is it enough to abandon my faith or religion because others get into Mary as an intermediary? No.

I have a hard time praying to Jesus rather than God or going to Mass on Sunday vs the Sabbath. The Bible says there is no God but I am and the Sabbath is on Saturday. Yet, those and all the dietary stuff were set aside. Since there are no degrees of sin, we are all F-ed IF we were supposed to follow the Old Testimant too.

Who knows, you do your best. We can be certain all we want, but we won't know until the end if we were right.

---

If you don't believe in the sinlessness Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her bodily ascension, you are anathematized to Hell by your own Church. You don't seem to have any idea what Roman Catholicism is. Since you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus, apparently you don't know what Christianity is either. So how is it that you lecture others on "missing the point" of Jesus?

---

Hit a nerve, huh ...

Sorry, I guess I am misreading your posts. Maybe I am taking from it what I want, like you are with mine.

There is nothing your Church says that gives you pause or you don't understand as well as others? Nothing that some people in your congregation seem to connect with more than you? Some ideas that really appeal to you,ore than.l others. It is one blase, all the same level believe and feeling?

Mary? Non-issue. Don't see how it really impacts my relationship with God. Seems to bother the hell out of you.

Where I seem to diverge from you is that I believe Jesus came for the not perfect, those that are lost, those that don't go to Church or believe everything at same level they are told. Christ is in the ghetto with the junkies, prostitutes and thieves. The trans and homosexuals that need help. Not the main stream. I liked Francis message. You guys don't seem to. That is where I think Christ would be today, not in a suit in Church. I love the Catholic faith because it is big enough for you and me. Other denominations, not so much.

By the way, you took quite a few shots at me over the last few days. Insulting my believes in a Pope Leo thread. I make one comment on how I hope your narrow view doesn't derail you and you get pissy???

---

If anyone's got their nerve hit, it's you. I'm bringing up a perfectly fair point. You obviously don't understand what Roman Catholicism teaches, and you admitted things like you don't like Paul who wrote half the New Testament, and you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus instead of God. And now you're saying you "like Francis' message". These things fairly put your status as a true Christian under question imo, and I'll bet even the Roman Catholics here will agree. So how does this make you an adequate judge whether someone has "missed the point" on Jesus? And I'm still interested in your answer - what is it that you think I'm missing about Jesus' message, exactly? I agree with you that Jesus came for the lost - but in what way? I have a feeling I'm not going to agree with what you say here, just call it a hunch. You have "liberal, pro-LGBT Christian who compromises the gospel to suit your sensibilities" written all over you, but hey, I could be wrong. What's your answer?

---

Pro? There is a huge difference between pro-lgbt and saying that is who needs help. The sinner is who needs religious support. The person living a holy life and going to church every Sunday is covered. If we don't make those people welcome, we are abandoning them. Sorry, my read of Christ is he would be with those people that need help. That is not pro-lgbt. You don't see that? Huh...

You know whether you or other Catholics believe I am Christian enough doesn't enter into the equation. I will put my doubts and inclusion against your Regcock following of the Bible in the end any day. I know a Pharisee when I see one.

---

Pharisee! There it is! If I had a dollar for every time I've been called that merely for standing up for biblical principles and the true gospel..... Evidently, telling people that you can't make the gospel into what fits your agenda is being a Pharisee. If so, I guess I am one. And every Christian should be one, too. I'm starting to see why you hate Paul and half the New Testament.

You're being cryptic here - HOW do LGBT people need religious help and support? What does that entail? What does "welcoming" them to your church look like? If living a "holy life" covers you, how can that apply to them - is the LGBT lifestyle "holy" in your view? Going to church every weekend covers you? Do you really think all this is the gospel of Jesus Christ?

---

You think that someone living in sin just turns off the valve? One day wakes up bright eyed and I am converting NOW? Maybe if you are Christ and they look in your eye, yeah then I agree. Christ didn't need human help. Or maybe if your source of reference is only reading. But us mortals have to go through a process with people.

It has to be a process. It has to be about establishing trust. Just telling them to repent and come back when you got it licked is not a realistic few. If someone is gay, there are other issues that have to be addressed. I believe most people that gravitate to those lifestyles are looking for acceptance. Standing up for biblical principles and the true gospels without working with the people to feel acceptance is exactly what the Pharisees did. And exactly why many of these people go these lifestyles. They were not accepted into the normal social and religious circles.

I am furious with the Catholic Church with its treatment of Divorcees and the LGGBT. The Sacraments are about healing and bring God into your life. Keeping them away from those that need it the most? Seems counterproductive to me. You can include people without condoning the act. Christ was about the Shepard going after the one stray. God has always been about bringing the wayward back and celebrating. Paul turned it into an accounting exercise...

---

But what does this process entail, say, for LGBT people? Do you validate their lifestyle in any way?

There is a need to reach out to the lost, like unrepentant LGBT people, I fully agree. But the church is for the body of believers. It is not to include those who don't believe, or those who continue in an unrepentant sinful lifestyle (which indicates unbelief). We definitely should reach out and minister to these people, but only outside of church, and then invite them to your chuch if they come to repentance and belief. I have a feeling this is not the process you're talking about, though.

By the way, if you tell your church that you don't believe all the Mary stuff as you say, if they're adherent to the doctrine of Roman Catholicism, they are obligated to remove you from church as well. Because those beliefs are required. So all your "Mary stuff is BS" isn't really, at least in Roman Catholicism. It's a dogma - they tie your salvation to it. That's why I find it curious that you don't know, or don't seem to even care to know, the vital doctrines of the church you belong to. If you don't believe that you go to Hell because you don't believe in the Mary stuff, how can you believe that your church is true? And if you don't believe your church is true, why do you feel it is important to minister to LGBT people into your church, that you don't think is even true?

---

At some point don't you have to believe that someone that is showing up to Church and not making a public display of themselves is on the level? Are we supposed to be the religious police? If they are trying to get over on the Church, why? If they make displays, I would expect the Priest to speak with them, the same if my wife and I were inappropriate. But at the end of the day, it is between them and God. I believe it is our job to give everyone the chance, what they do is up to them.

And no, the act IS a sin and even Francis didn't condone that!

Dogma is not my salvation. There are some things that I don't get. I logically can't make sense of. But, if logic was the driving force you wouldn't be religious. The whole thing is built around faith and obedience. Push comes to shove, I would pray for understanding that I do not have. Would I leave the Church over it? No. Not that big of an impact on my life whether Mary was a virgin forever or Jesus had a brother. Chalk it up to not getting it and move on. It seems to give you more of an issue. I also believe it is our duty to question and push from within, not cut and run if there is something I disagree with.

---

Sorry I didn't read through the entire thread before I jumped in. But I do want to say that I'm glad you won't leave behind your faith in Christ because you disagree about Mary.... but that isn't the point. The point is that the Catholic Church has said that you are going to hell because of your disagreement about their teachings on Mary having sex.

I totally agree with you that it is a very silly argument, but that's the point. We all know that there is no way Mary lived her whole life, married to a good man like Joseph, and they never had sex?? No way! That is just insane to suggest or believe. So why are Catholics trying to condemn you to hell for not believing it? Why is it so important to the Vatican? THAT is the question you are not asking, and you should be asking.

Protestants don't look down on Mary for having sex with her husband, and having children. Why would we? This is a very honorable and good thing to do. Psalm 31 is a great example of how God loves moms and Mary would most likely be in that category. Why do catholics believe that if Mary had sex and gave birth to other children, it would have made her less worthy or somehow sinful?

I am glad that you have a desire to help those in need. I agree that Jesus would be doing the same. I would suggest that he would not turn his back on Christians in order to do this, as you seem to suggest. Christ would first go to the churches and challenge Christians to go with him to help those in need and to bring the gospel to them. He might also rebuke the churches for not doing this before his arrival too. In reality, this is a moot point since Christ will not return to earth for any other reason than to bring about the End of Days. He will be returning as a conquering King, not a servant to the lost... that time will have passed.

---

---

I also agree with Francis and his hope that Hell is empty. That people really don't want to be separated from God when the rubber meets the road. But, seems like you guys really want people there.

---

I'll never understand this oft held sentiment. If we really wanted people to go to Hell, we would just shut up and let you wallow in your error.

Here's the amazing irony to your comment, though: we have a lot of Roman Catholics here, and NONE of them are confronting you on your damnable errors in your Catholic beliefs. They believe your errors can damn you to Hell, but they are saying nothing. The only people who are trying to correct you are Protestants. So who is it that really wants people in Hell? Doesn't it look like it's your own?

I appreciate your clear statement of faith and I think you nailed it. It definitely is all about faith, as stated repeatedly throughout the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. For example, the most famous verse, John 3:16, is very clear about it. But we also cannot discount works, as James argued very effectively.

I don't think denomination matters much at all. It's about one's personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord & Savior. While I have serious doctrinal issues with various faiths or denominations, I cannot conclude whether or not another person is saved. That is between each one of us and God. Only He can say definitely. But I do have strong doubts when someone openly contradicts God's word, effectively calling God a liar.

I'm no expert on ancient or church history but I'm fairly certain early church councils were by the church leaders of the day and were not Roman Catholic per se. Catholicism and the popes were not firmly established institutions until a few centuries later. Some councils were sponsored by later Roman emperors.

Many of the more debatable traditions of Catholicism came later and because of leaders in Rome, especially popes, making decisions. Some have a scriptural basis but only loosely and with some questionable interpretations. That could be said about the specific teachings of most denominations.

historian said:

---

I appreciate your clear statement of faith and I think you nailed it. It definitely is all about faith, as stated repeatedly throughout the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. For example, the most famous verse, John 3:16, is very clear about it. But we also cannot discount works, as James argued very effectively.

I don't think denomination matters much at all. It's about one's personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord & Savior. While I have serious doctrinal issues with various faiths or denominations, I cannot conclude whether or not another person is saved. That is between each one of us and God. Only He can say definitely. But I do have strong doubts when someone openly contradicts God's word, effectively calling God a liar.

---

I am with you. You do your best.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Exactly, you just don't get it No one can explain it. We will not agree.

We can't even agree on the Bible. You relate everything to scripture, Sola Scriptura. Catholics don't. We say the Latin Vulgate is authoritative, you say the KJ. You constantly quoting the KJ verses as proof means nothing, it is not authoritative to Catholics. Scripture is only part of the equation. Without the oral and Church tradition it is Bible Study. I actually feel bad for you., seems very empty only part of God's message.

---

No, I don't get it because you don't make any sense. You still aren't making sense. Who quoted the KJ?

Latin Vulgate? What does it say that is different than what I quoted? Isn't the Vulgate the work of Jerome, who believed that the apocrypha are not part of canon Scripture, yet Roman Catholicism holds that they are?

Church tradition? You mean fallible, man-made tradition that does not trace back to Jesus and the apostles? By what divine revelation did these traditions come from? How do you know? You don't, yet you're putting it on the same level of authority as Scripture, which we DO know is the infallible word of God. This is why sola scriptura, and abandoning it is the primary reason for all your church's mistakes. That's why you've been led to errant beliefs, even to the point of sheer heresy and idolatry.

---

Once again, you believe in Sola Scriptura. A document that is written by men. We say divinely inspired, so that makes it not of mans making? How is believing a document written by literally hundreds over hundreds of years and voted on in numerous Catholic councils to be "following God's instructions", but following the oral and Church traditions is not!

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, have at it. Sit around your Church Council and have as many little Council of Nicea's as you like. Argue the meaning of a Hebrew, Greek, Latin word ad nauseum. More power to you. Although I think Christ would say you missed the bigger point, but that is just me.

Just don't tell me my believes are wrong. But you can't do that. You have to attack the Catholics in a thread celebrating the naming of a new leader of our Church. No one said a word about your believes, you and your ilk attacked the naming of a new Church leader. Poor form.

---

We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him.

This person Jesus, then, told his disciples they would remember perfectly everything he did and said to tell the world: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:26

Thus, Jesus, who had the full stamp of approval from God by his resurrection, in turn gave his full stamp of approval over everything his apostles said and did. Thus, the tradition of the original apostles is the divinely inspired, infallible word of God.

Where do we learn this tradition of the original apostles? Only in Scripture. The only thing the church has that we know came from the original apostles is in the New Testament, thus it is the only thing in the church's possession that is the word of God, thus it is the only infallible rule of faith for the church. Thus, sola scriptura.

Where do Roman Catholic traditions that are not in the Bible come from? Who knows, and when they do know, they can't prove it came from Jesus or the apostles. Neither do they have any kind of divine stamp of approval on it. This most certainly can NOT be relied upon as an infallible rule of faith.

Did the writings of the apostles have to be "voted on in numerous Roman Catholic councils" in order to be accepted as the divine word of God by the early church? NO. The Gospels were already circulated among the first churches as being the infallible word of God. The letters of Paul, Peter, James, etc. were all viewed as Scripture in the early church and circulated among them - hundreds of years before any Roman Catholic council decreed them as such.

---

"We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him."

I get that. I am saying that if that is true for those Councils, it is true for the non-Bible councils on decisions the Church makes. You are cherry picking what is "devine" and what is not. Catholics believe that Holy Spirit plays just as big a role in dogmatic decisions as in the choosing the Bible books. As I said, it comes down to Faith. Do you believe? There are no absolutes, there are no guidebooks that don't have as aspect of Faith attached.
By the way, I said that I put the Gospels as the most important books in the New Testament. Much more so than Paul's letters.

You say who knows where decisions come from, each decision is just as documented as the choosing the Bible verses, probably more so.

My question to you is how can you just decide NOT to listen every other Church council, but the ones that chose the Bible books in your version of the Bible? All the others mean nothing, because an Augustinian Monk and his German Noble backers were pissed at Rome? How is that different than Henry the 8th? Seems cherry picking to me. There are some things I don't agree, such as Mary body and soul in heaven or speculating on the sexual habits of Christ's mother. Does it really matter? But, you take the good with the bad, there is no perfect. Or Faith would mean nothing if there was no doubt.

---

You didn't understand what I said. Again, councils did not determine the authority of the Gospels and letters of Paul, James, Peter, etc. The Christians of the early church did, hundreds of years before any council formally declared it. How did they know? Yes, the Holy Spirit was involved, but in the manner of helping them recognize the authenticity and reliability of the authorship of those writings. Jesus gave infallible authority to his first hand apostles, thus if the writing was truly authored by them, it was to be considered the infallible word of God. People did NOT "vote" to decide on the apostle's infallibility, Jesus had already decided that.

Councils were not given infallibility by Jesus. Councils are made up of fallible men, hopefully being led by the Holy Spirit (but that's no guarantee), who must rely on the infallibility of the original apostles as declared by Jesus, not on their own declaration of infallibility because of their claim of being led by the Holy Spirit. We only know that what comes out of Councils is the work of the Holy Spirit if it is agreement with Scripture. That is the standard of measure. What Roman Cathoicism does, and what you've bought in to, is the idea that fallible men claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit is just as infallible of an authority as Scripture. But as I keep saying, Jesus didn't give infallible authority to men outside of his apostles, that we know of. If you abandon sola scriptura, and you allow another standard of measure outside of what God guaranteed (Scripture), you're opening yourself up to compromise of God's truth and huge errors. As we have seen, this is exactly what has led to heresy and idolatry in the Roman Catholic Church. And the worst of it is, her adherents don't (or won't) even recognize or acknowledge it, because they have been conditioned (upon threat of being sent to Hell, btw) to consider the tradition of fallible men to be just as infallible as Scripture. I really hope I've shown you, in logical and biblical manner, that this isn't the case.

---

The original Apostles were dead when the Gospels were written. By the way, no one on here has had ANY issues with the Gospels. Outside of some Church leadership stuff the one thing we all seem to agree on IS the Gospels. Maybe we all should focus there. It is the other Books that seem to cause the problems. One persons opinion.

You keep missing my one overarching point. We are on the same side. We are arguing details. The Catholic Church, for all the mistakes it has made, still works with other Religions on education, health and other social aspects. I loved Church/Services in the Army in the field. Set up on a Jeep, just the sacraments and a bible reading. Sometimes it was a Priest, many times we had a Lutheran Pastor. It boiled religion down to the basics. I never felt closer to God and Christ than in the field in the Army receiving Communion off a Humvee hood or jumping out of a plane. That will cut through the Religious BS really quick....

There are truly hateful people out there. Maybe all of us should worry less about the details and more about living as Christ said. I am at the front of the line.

It may piss you and Shooter off, but these conversations are good. The more you talk the more you understand each other. Once again, one persons opinion.

---

I am not pissed off... sorry if anyone got that conclusion.
I am very sad that so many who call upon the name of Jesus, do not acknowledge the inspired Word of God as the inspired Word of God.

But I am not pissed off. These conversations are very good. I do want to understand why Catholics worship Mary, but don't call it idolatry. Why they don't accept the authority of scripture, but do accept the authority of a simple mortal man instead... even though catholics will almost always admit that previous Pope's have made mistakes.

---

We answered that early on. Catholics honor Jesus's mother and ask for intervention, not worship. There are several times in the Gospels where people asked Mary to intervene and he listened, Wedding at Cana for example. The Scriptures call for honoring Mary, see Gabriel's intro. Personally, I don't get into Mary stuff. But that is the Catholic view. Is it enough to abandon my faith or religion because others get into Mary as an intermediary? No.

I have a hard time praying to Jesus rather than God or going to Mass on Sunday vs the Sabbath. The Bible says there is no God but I am and the Sabbath is on Saturday. Yet, those and all the dietary stuff were set aside. Since there are no degrees of sin, we are all F-ed IF we were supposed to follow the Old Testimant too.

Who knows, you do your best. We can be certain all we want, but we won't know until the end if we were right.

---

If you don't believe in the sinlessness Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her bodily ascension, you are anathematized to Hell by your own Church. You don't seem to have any idea what Roman Catholicism is. Since you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus, apparently you don't know what Christianity is either. So how is it that you lecture others on "missing the point" of Jesus?

---

Hit a nerve, huh ...

Sorry, I guess I am misreading your posts. Maybe I am taking from it what I want, like you are with mine.

There is nothing your Church says that gives you pause or you don't understand as well as others? Nothing that some people in your congregation seem to connect with more than you? Some ideas that really appeal to you,ore than.l others. It is one blase, all the same level believe and feeling?

Mary? Non-issue. Don't see how it really impacts my relationship with God. Seems to bother the hell out of you.

Where I seem to diverge from you is that I believe Jesus came for the not perfect, those that are lost, those that don't go to Church or believe everything at same level they are told. Christ is in the ghetto with the junkies, prostitutes and thieves. The trans and homosexuals that need help. Not the main stream. I liked Francis message. You guys don't seem to. That is where I think Christ would be today, not in a suit in Church. I love the Catholic faith because it is big enough for you and me. Other denominations, not so much.

By the way, you took quite a few shots at me over the last few days. Insulting my believes in a Pope Leo thread. I make one comment on how I hope your narrow view doesn't derail you and you get pissy???

---

If anyone's got their nerve hit, it's you. I'm bringing up a perfectly fair point. You obviously don't understand what Roman Catholicism teaches, and you admitted things like you don't like Paul who wrote half the New Testament, and you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus instead of God. And now you're saying you "like Francis' message". These things fairly put your status as a true Christian under question imo, and I'll bet even the Roman Catholics here will agree. So how does this make you an adequate judge whether someone has "missed the point" on Jesus? And I'm still interested in your answer - what is it that you think I'm missing about Jesus' message, exactly? I agree with you that Jesus came for the lost - but in what way? I have a feeling I'm not going to agree with what you say here, just call it a hunch. You have "liberal, pro-LGBT Christian who compromises the gospel to suit your sensibilities" written all over you, but hey, I could be wrong. What's your answer?

---

Pro? There is a huge difference between pro-lgbt and saying that is who needs help. The sinner is who needs religious support. The person living a holy life and going to church every Sunday is covered. If we don't make those people welcome, we are abandoning them. Sorry, my read of Christ is he would be with those people that need help. That is not pro-lgbt. You don't see that? Huh...

You know whether you or other Catholics believe I am Christian enough doesn't enter into the equation. I will put my doubts and inclusion against your Regcock following of the Bible in the end any day. I know a Pharisee when I see one.

---

Pharisee! There it is! If I had a dollar for every time I've been called that merely for standing up for biblical principles and the true gospel..... Evidently, telling people that you can't make the gospel into what fits your agenda is being a Pharisee. If so, I guess I am one. And every Christian should be one, too. I'm starting to see why you hate Paul and half the New Testament.

You're being cryptic here - HOW do LGBT people need religious help and support? What does that entail? What does "welcoming" them to your church look like? If living a "holy life" covers you, how can that apply to them - is the LGBT lifestyle "holy" in your view? Going to church every weekend covers you? Do you really think all this is the gospel of Jesus Christ?

---

You think that someone living in sin just turns off the valve? One day wakes up bright eyed and I am converting NOW? Maybe if you are Christ and they look in your eye, yeah then I agree. Christ didn't need human help. Or maybe if your source of reference is only reading. But us mortals have to go through a process with people.

It has to be a process. It has to be about establishing trust. Just telling them to repent and come back when you got it licked is not a realistic few. If someone is gay, there are other issues that have to be addressed. I believe most people that gravitate to those lifestyles are looking for acceptance. Standing up for biblical principles and the true gospels without working with the people to feel acceptance is exactly what the Pharisees did. And exactly why many of these people go these lifestyles. They were not accepted into the normal social and religious circles.

I am furious with the Catholic Church with its treatment of Divorcees and the LGGBT. The Sacraments are about healing and bring God into your life. Keeping them away from those that need it the most? Seems counterproductive to me. You can include people without condoning the act. Christ was about the Shepard going after the one stray. God has always been about bringing the wayward back and celebrating. Paul turned it into an accounting exercise...

---

But what does this process entail, say, for LGBT people? Do you validate their lifestyle in any way?

There is a need to reach out to the lost, like unrepentant LGBT people, I fully agree. But the church is for the body of believers. It is not to include those who don't believe, or those who continue in an unrepentant sinful lifestyle (which indicates unbelief). We definitely should reach out and minister to these people, but only outside of church, and then invite them to your chuch if they come to repentance and belief. I have a feeling this is not the process you're talking about, though.

By the way, if you tell your church that you don't believe all the Mary stuff as you say, if they're adherent to the doctrine of Roman Catholicism, they are obligated to remove you from church as well. Because those beliefs are required. So all your "Mary stuff is BS" isn't really, at least in Roman Catholicism. It's a dogma - they tie your salvation to it. That's why I find it curious that you don't know, or don't seem to even care to know, the vital doctrines of the church you belong to. If you don't believe that you go to Hell because you don't believe in the Mary stuff, how can you believe that your church is true? And if you don't believe your church is true, why do you feel it is important to minister to LGBT people into your church, that you don't think is even true?

---

At some point don't you have to believe that someone that is showing up to Church and not making a public display of themselves is on the level? Are we supposed to be the religious police? If they are trying to get over on the Church, why? If they make displays, I would expect the Priest to speak with them, the same if my wife and I were inappropriate. But at the end of the day, it is between them and God. I believe it is our job to give everyone the chance, what they do is up to them.

And no, the act IS a sin and even Francis didn't condone that!

Dogma is not my salvation. There are some things that I don't get. I logically can't make sense of. But, if logic was the driving force you wouldn't be religious. The whole thing is built around faith and obedience. Push comes to shove, I would pray for understanding that I do not have. Would I leave the Church over it? No. Not that big of an impact on my life whether Mary was a virgin forever or Jesus had a brother. Chalk it up to not getting it and move on. It seems to give you more of an issue. I also believe it is our duty to question and push from within, not cut and run if there is something I disagree with.

---

Sorry I didn't read through the entire thread before I jumped in. But I do want to say that I'm glad you won't leave behind your faith in Christ because you disagree about Mary.... but that isn't the point. The point is that the Catholic Church has said that you are going to hell because of your disagreement about their teachings on Mary having sex.

I totally agree with you that it is a very silly argument, but that's the point. We all know that there is no way Mary lived her whole life, married to a good man like Joseph, and they never had sex?? No way! That is just insane to suggest or believe. So why are Catholics trying to condemn you to hell for not believing it? Why is it so important to the Vatican? THAT is the question you are not asking, and you should be asking.

Protestants don't look down on Mary for having sex with her husband, and having children. Why would we? This is a very honorable and good thing to do. Psalm 31 is a great example of how God loves moms and Mary would most likely be in that category. Why do catholics believe that if Mary had sex and gave birth to other children, it would have made her less worthy or somehow sinful?

I am glad that you have a desire to help those in need. I agree that Jesus would be doing the same. I would suggest that he would not turn his back on Christians in order to do this, as you seem to suggest. Christ would first go to the churches and challenge Christians to go with him to help those in need and to bring the gospel to them. He might also rebuke the churches for not doing this before his arrival too. In reality, this is a moot point since Christ will not return to earth for any other reason than to bring about the End of Days. He will be returning as a conquering King, not a servant to the lost... that time will have passed.

---

---

I also agree with Francis and his hope that Hell is empty. That people really don't want to be separated from God when the rubber meets the road. But, seems like you guys really want people there.

---

I'll never understand this oft held sentiment. If we really wanted people to go to Hell, we would just shut up and let you wallow in your error.

Here's the amazing irony to your comment, though: we have a lot of Roman Catholics here, and NONE of them are confronting you on your damnable errors in your Catholic beliefs. They believe your errors can damn you to Hell, but they are saying nothing. The only people who are trying to correct you are Protestants. So who is it that really wants people in Hell? Doesn't it look like it's your own?

---

You really have a hard on for the Catholic Church. You are not Catholic, so you are covered. What isn't your religion giving you that you have to focus so hard on the Catholic Church. You believe what you do, we believe what we do. No issues. Yet, you come to a Pope Leo thread and spend a week arguing. Why??? You won't accept any answer from multiple people. Why? Haven't seen someone so interested in Catholicism in a long time.

You know if you are interested in becoming Catholic, there are classes at your local Parish. It is a committment, but you can do it. Just show the tenacity you showed here asking about Mary.

I have no doubt that Jesus did pray for all the disciples, even Judas who He knew would betray Him. It's a logical assumption that He did this although the Bible does not explicitly say so because it aligns with what we know He did and said elsewhere in scripture. In the specific passage mentioned, Jesus told Peter He prayed for Him because in that specific circumstance it was necessary, both for Him to pray and for Him to tell Peter.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630If anyone's got their nerve hit, it's you. I'm bringing up a perfectly fair point. You obviously don't understand what Roman Catholicism teaches, and you admitted things like you don't like Paul who wrote half the New Testament, and you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus instead of God. And now you're saying you "like Francis' message". These things fairly put your status as a true Christian under question imo, and I'll bet even the Roman Catholics here will agree. So how does this make you an adequate judge whether someone has "missed the point" on Jesus? And I'm still interested in your answer - what is it that you think I'm missing about Jesus' message, exactly? I agree with you that Jesus came for the lost - but in what way? I have a feeling I'm not going to agree with what you say here, just call it a hunch. You have "liberal, pro-LGBT Christian who compromises the gospel to suit your sensibilities" written all over you, but hey, I could be wrong. What's your answer? said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Pro? There is a huge difference between pro-lgbt and saying that is who needs help. The sinner is who needs religious support. The person living a holy life and going to church every Sunday is covered. If we don't make those people welcome, we are abandoning them. Sorry, my read of Christ is he would be with those people that need help. That is not pro-lgbt. You don't see that? Huh...

You know whether you or other Catholics believe I am Christian enough doesn't enter into the equation. I will put my doubts and inclusion against your Regcock following of the Bible in the end any day. I know a Pharisee when I see one.

---

Pharisee! There it is! If I had a dollar for every time I've been called that merely for standing up for biblical principles and the true gospel..... Evidently, telling people that you can't make the gospel into what fits your agenda is being a Pharisee. If so, I guess I am one. And every Christian should be one, too. I'm starting to see why you hate Paul and half the New Testament.

You're being cryptic here - HOW do LGBT people need religious help and support? What does that entail? What does "welcoming" them to your church look like? If living a "holy life" covers you, how can that apply to them - is the LGBT lifestyle "holy" in your view? Going to church every weekend covers you? Do you really think all this is the gospel of Jesus Christ?

---

You think that someone living in sin just turns off the valve? One day wakes up bright eyed and I am converting NOW? Maybe if you are Christ and they look in your eye, yeah then I agree. Christ didn't need human help. Or maybe if your source of reference is only reading. But us mortals have to go through a process with people.

It has to be a process. It has to be about establishing trust. Just telling them to repent and come back when you got it licked is not a realistic few. If someone is gay, there are other issues that have to be addressed. I believe most people that gravitate to those lifestyles are looking for acceptance. Standing up for biblical principles and the true gospels without working with the people to feel acceptance is exactly what the Pharisees did. And exactly why many of these people go these lifestyles. They were not accepted into the normal social and religious circles.

I am furious with the Catholic Church with its treatment of Divorcees and the LGGBT. The Sacraments are about healing and bring God into your life. Keeping them away from those that need it the most? Seems counterproductive to me. You can include people without condoning the act. Christ was about the Shepard going after the one stray. God has always been about bringing the wayward back and celebrating. Paul turned it into an accounting exercise...

---

But what does this process entail, say, for LGBT people? Do you validate their lifestyle in any way?

There is a need to reach out to the lost, like unrepentant LGBT people, I fully agree. But the church is for the body of believers. It is not to include those who don't believe, or those who continue in an unrepentant sinful lifestyle (which indicates unbelief). We definitely should reach out and minister to these people, but only outside of church, and then invite them to your chuch if they come to repentance and belief. I have a feeling this is not the process you're talking about, though.

By the way, if you tell your church that you don't believe all the Mary stuff as you say, if they're adherent to the doctrine of Roman Catholicism, they are obligated to remove you from church as well. Because those beliefs are required. So all your "Mary stuff is BS" isn't really, at least in Roman Catholicism. It's a dogma - they tie your salvation to it. That's why I find it curious that you don't know, or don't seem to even care to know, the vital doctrines of the church you belong to. If you don't believe that you go to Hell because you don't believe in the Mary stuff, how can you believe that your church is true? And if you don't believe your church is true, why do you feel it is important to minister to LGBT people into your church, that you don't think is even true?

---

At some point don't you have to believe that someone that is showing up to Church and not making a public display of themselves is on the level? Are we supposed to be the religious police? If they are trying to get over on the Church, why? If they make displays, I would expect the Priest to speak with them, the same if my wife and I were inappropriate. But at the end of the day, it is between them and God. I believe it is our job to give everyone the chance, what they do is up to them.

---

Going to church and not making a display makes them "on the level"?

Your beliefs are really weird, unfocused, and unprincipled. They're not Christian. You don't seem to adhere to any kind of standard other than that of your own making. The church is supposed to be believers only. And yes, we ARE actually to "police" church discipline and the beliefs of its members because Jesus said so (Matthew 18:15-17). And a significant part of Paul's letters are about church discipline and doctrine (no wonder you don't like him). Have you read Jesus' letters to the seven churches in Revelation? Church doctrine and discipline are primarily important. Jesus demands doctrinal and lifestyle purity. Do the admonishments in those letters sound like Jesus thinks simply the fact that they are going to church and not making displays makes them "on the level" with him?

---

Well, wait a minute. Let me remind you of this hypothetical that you offered on another thread:

Quote:

---

Suppose someone only hears that there's this Jesus who is the Son of the Creator who says that if they believe in him, they will have eternal life - and in their heart they believe it, and they put their trust in this Jesus, while not knowing anything about Baptism, repentance, works, what is sin or what is not sin, how to pray.... anything else other than what he just heard. Let's say he dies without doing any of those things, but continued to believe in his heart about this Jesus person and what he promised. Unlikely hypothetical, sure, but not impossible. Is this person saved, even though he never really repented of anything or obeyed anything? I say yes. Because the gospel is that faith in Jesus is what saves, not anyting else. What do you say?

---

How are you saying that FLBear and these LGBT folks aren't Christian just because they don't have the right lifestyle or the right idea about what is and isn't sin? The gospel is that faith in Jesus saves. Not anything else...right?