The Bible says the soul that sins it will die but people say no, they have eternal life so even babies should burn in hell...
old man joe
they conclude this by a single parable of Holy Scripture found in Luke 16... the parable
of the rich man and Lazarus.
we know Lk. 16 is a parable since the context of that occasion in which Jesus tells the
parable actually begins in Lk. chapter 15:1. in v. 3 God declares the context to be in
parabolic language. the context changes in Lk. 17:1.
interestingly enough, the Bible says plainly that Abraham died and was buried in Gen. 25.
somehow, without ever receiving his glorified spiritual body, which comes at the Rapture
of all elect believer's with the exception of Moses, Elijah, Enoch and those raised from
the dead the moment Jesus died who've received their's, the rich man spoken of in this
parable " seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. " amazing that so many read
into this parable by denominational tradition neglecting the rest of what the Bible has to
say about what happens when the unbeliever expires.
not only did Abraham not yet receive his glorified spiritual body but the rich man, in
order to be alive beyond the grave, must have eternal life so as to burn in hell forever
and ever. and he must have his glorified spiritual body as well since the human body can
not possibly endue fire without returning to it's native elements of carbon, iron,
magnesium and so on. no where does the Bible teach an unbeliever receives a spiritual
body anymore than it teaches he is given eternal life.
proponents of this view can not find a single statement not taken out of context by a
bogus translation of Holy Scripture and show where God says the unbeliever has eternal
life. the philosophy of denominational tradition tells them so but not God's Word, the
Bible.
is the Lord Jesus Christ referring to a seance where the dead are in a spirit world having
conversations with other spirit's ? that's what the perverter's of this parable are
really suggesting ever so subtly. they see the dead as having conversations with the
living, dead and buried as they are, bargaining with them over life eternal for someone
else though all the while not having had such concerns while they were alive.
furthermore, there is mercy only with the Living God, how is it then that this rich man is
asking Abraham for mercy ? the context is a parable and not a proof text where God throws
little babies in a burning, tormenting hell for all eternity. the wages of sin is death
and the soul who sins will die... not being given eternal life nor a glorified spiritual
body so as to endue a burning, tormenting hell forever.
the parable is teaching a lesson that those left behind will be weeping and gnashing teeth
as they find they've waisted their lives on folly on that day of the Rapture which
coincides with the first Day of Judgement, rather than seeking the Lord while He may be
found.
Michael James
take a trip to a burn unit in a local hospital..then ask yourself
whether this is not hell we're living in.
duke
>they conclude this by a single parable of Holy Scripture found in Luke 16... the parable
> of the rich man and Lazarus.
It's clear from NT Scripture that Laz a) did not die with the sin that leads to
death, and b) was not in hell but purgatory, as hell is a one way trip.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
vince garcia
>
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:02:02 -0500, old man joe <ne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >they conclude this by a single parable of Holy Scripture found in Luke 16... the parable
> > of the rich man and Lazarus.
>
> It's clear from NT Scripture that Laz a) did not die with the sin that leads to
> death, and b) was not in hell but purgatory, as hell is a one way trip.
But the vision doesn't fit with the doctrine of purgatory. There is no
indication of the beatific vision, and no indication lazarus (or
abraham) was being purified from his propensity to sin, or that he was
being punished for past veniel sins. It fits instead eph 4:8-11, where
Christ goes down and brings the righteous dead up to heaven with him
after the cross
Vince Garcia, unhypenated-American with no tolerence for political
correctness, or racial or religious sensitivity
Patrick
The Bible says the soul that sins it will die but people say no, they have
eternal life so even babies should burn in hell...
No, it doesn't. Stop lying.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
as it is written of him:
but woe to that man by whom
the Son of man is betrayed!
good were it for that man
if he had never been born.
Mr 9:44 - Where their worm dieth not,
and the fire is not quenched.
Mr 9:46 - Where their worm dieth not,
and the fire is not quenched.
Mr 9:48 - Where their worm dieth not,
and the fire is not quenched.
Patrick
>
> Mr 9:44 - Where their worm dieth not,
What is this "Mr"?
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
> <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote
The Gospel of Mark.
Jim
Mr 16:6 - And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus
of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold
the place where they laid him.
duke
wrote:
>duke wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:02:02 -0500, old man joe <ne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >they conclude this by a single parable of Holy Scripture found in Luke 16... the parable
>> > of the rich man and Lazarus.
>>
>> It's clear from NT Scripture that Laz a) did not die with the sin that leads to
>> death, and b) was not in hell but purgatory, as hell is a one way trip.
>But the vision doesn't fit with the doctrine of purgatory. There is no
>indication of the beatific vision, and no indication lazarus (or
>abraham) was being purified from his propensity to sin, or that he was
>being punished for past veniel sins. It fits instead eph 4:8-11, where
>Christ goes down and brings the righteous dead up to heaven with him
>after the cross
Where were the righteous dead when Christ raised them? It was not hell, for
that is a one way street, and after all, we are referring to the righteous.
Whether it was purgatory, or a "purgatory", or a state of limbo, it is not for
man to know.
Many protest_ants say "no" to purgatory. Yet they can't respond to the case of
laz, and outrageously reject purgatory.
vince garcia
>
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 04:50:47 -0800, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >duke wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:02:02 -0500, old man joe <ne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >they conclude this by a single parable of Holy Scripture found in Luke 16... the parable
> >> > of the rich man and Lazarus.
> >>
> >> It's clear from NT Scripture that Laz a) did not die with the sin that leads to
> >> death, and b) was not in hell but purgatory, as hell is a one way trip.
>
> >But the vision doesn't fit with the doctrine of purgatory. There is no
> >indication of the beatific vision, and no indication lazarus (or
> >abraham) was being purified from his propensity to sin, or that he was
> >being punished for past veniel sins. It fits instead eph 4:8-11, where
> >Christ goes down and brings the righteous dead up to heaven with him
> >after the cross
>
> Where were the righteous dead when Christ raised them?
Not sure what you mean. THE resurrection is yet to come. The righteous
dead in spirit were in abraham's bosom.
If you mean 'raised' in the sense of taking them to heaven after the
crucifixion, they were in sheol, where all souls were, with those in
covenant with God in a good part of it, and the unrighteous in a bad
part of it.
Peter alludes to it:
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust,
that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but
quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God
waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few,
that is, eight souls were saved by water.
And paul as well:
8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity
captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first
into the lower parts of the earth?
It was not hell, for
> that is a one way street, and after all, we are referring to the righteous.
> Whether it was purgatory, or a "purgatory", or a state of limbo, it is not for
> man to know.
We can make a reasonable surmise. What we can reasonable infer was that
it was a holding tank of some sort
>
> Many protest_ants say "no" to purgatory. Yet they can't respond to the case of
> laz, and outrageously reject purgatory.
Purgatory is a problematic doctrine. For one, it comes out of judaism,
and is not expressly taught in the Bible at all. Some NT inferences are
made that the process exists, and some of those inferences may have some
merit, but the way the RCC defines it does not seem to hold up to
scripture.
Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all
be changed,
__In a moment__, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the
trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we
shall be changed.
No room for purgatory there.
8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the
body, and to be present with the Lord.
9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be
accepted of him.
No room for purgatory there; in fact, every verse that talks about
leaving the physical life and being with God omits any mention of a
transitionary state of purgatory.
Take elijah or enoch. One ascends straight to heaven, and the other is
taken to be with God. No hint of purgatory. In fact, purgatory hadn't
even been established yet since the atonement of christ and indwelling
of the Spirit had yet to occur.
whether there is some sort of perfection of the soul after death may be
debatable, but the way the RCC expands and defines the doctrine is not
only unsubstantiated by scripture, but seems to contradict the
scripture.
I took an RCIA class in the 90s, and they suggested that new thinking on
the subject was that purgatory was an instantaneous process for the
soul. If the RCC did go in that direction, the doctrine would be much
more reasonable. But if we just leave it as it stands, and make it a
prolonged period of suffering and purification that can be affected by
saying masses for the dead, or applying indulgences and such, you're
left with a really flawed to false doctrine that won't stand up to
biblical scrutiny, and has to be accepted only under the (bad)
assumption that the teaching magisterium is incapable of error. Well,
it's not too hard to refute some doctrines of the magisterium by the
actual scripture (romans 10 and its denial that non-christians who never
hear and accept the gospel have any chance at dying in a state of grace
and making heaven is one case); and if one doctrine of the magisterium
can be shown to be in error, the whole system collapses
Patrick
news:bc59ea82-046b-43dd...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
Mark? ..........
Lets get back to mrrrr 9:44--48....
It is better for you to enter into life maimed than with two hands to go
into Gehenna, 10 into the unquenchable fire.
44
45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to
enter into life crippled than with two feet to be thrown into Gehenna.
47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. Better for you to
enter into the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown
into Gehenna,
48 where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'
RWKnapp
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 04:50:47 -0800, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >duke wrote:
>
> >> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:02:02 -0500, old man joe <ne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >they conclude this by a single parable of Holy Scripture found in Luke 16... the parable
> >> > of the rich man and Lazarus.
>
> >> It's clear from NT Scripture that Laz a) did not die with the sin that leads to
> >> death, and b) was not in hell but purgatory, as hell is a one way trip.
> >But the vision doesn't fit with the doctrine of purgatory. There is no
> >indication of the beatific vision, and no indication lazarus (or
> >abraham) was being purified from his propensity to sin, or that he was
> >being punished for past veniel sins. It fits instead eph 4:8-11, where
> >Christ goes down and brings the righteous dead up to heaven with him
> >after the cross
>
> Where were the righteous dead when Christ raised them? It was not hell, for
> that is a one way street, and after all, we are referring to the righteous.
> Whether it was purgatory, or a "purgatory", or a state of limbo, it is not for
> man to know.
>
> Many protest_ants say "no" to purgatory. Yet they can't respond to the case of
> laz, and outrageously reject purgatory.
The Catholic church uses the term purgatory, the story of laz was in
Paradise before the resurrection, as Hell was also in that one place
understood as the place of the dead and they could see each other.
The gulf was wide and so one could not pass from one to the other, no
limbo no second chance to get to heaven. After the resurrection we
see taking the keys of Hell and the grave and now it is in Heaven one
dies they are judged to hell or heaven. To have another chance is to
deny the Christ the son of Mary, an insult to her, and to Jesus. In
life we choose, after death it is too late. So nothing is outrageous
to reject what never was and is not found in the Bible. It was as
Martin Luther said it was a scam of the priest to earn money and get
money from ignorant people as only the priest could read the bible and
only the priest in that day had the write to say what is doctrine and
what was not.
Luke 16:22-31
22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to
Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being
in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off,
and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 "Then he cried and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and
send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool
my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.' 25 But Abraham said,
'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things,
and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are
tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a
great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you
cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.'
27 "Then he said, 'I beg you therefore, father, that you would send
him to my father's house, 28 for I have five brothers, that he may
testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.' 29
Abraham said to him,'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear
them.' 30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them
from the dead, they will repent.' 31 But he said to him,'If they do
not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though
one rise from the dead.'"
NKJV
UP INTO PRADADISE NOT IN HADES OR WHERE LIZ WAS AS THAT PLACE IS UP
AND IN HEAVEN NOW.
2 Cor 12:3-5
4 how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words,
which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
NKJV
The Roman Catholic church doctrine is not Bible and has no foundation
in Scripture. It was and still is a money getter, pay for prayers,
pay for Mass, pray for souls in a place that is not real. When one
dies then comes the Judgement not another shot at heaven.
Rom 6:20-23
20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to
righteousness. 21 What fruit did you have then in the things of which
you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22 But now
having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you
have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. 23 For the
wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ
Jesus our Lord. NKJV
Raymond
www.pioneers-for-jesus.org
duke
wrote:
>duke wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 04:50:47 -0800, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >duke wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:02:02 -0500, old man joe <ne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >they conclude this by a single parable of Holy Scripture found in Luke 16... the parable
>> >> > of the rich man and Lazarus.
>> >>
>> >> It's clear from NT Scripture that Laz a) did not die with the sin that leads to
>> >> death, and b) was not in hell but purgatory, as hell is a one way trip.
>>
>> >But the vision doesn't fit with the doctrine of purgatory. There is no
>> >indication of the beatific vision, and no indication lazarus (or
>> >abraham) was being purified from his propensity to sin, or that he was
>> >being punished for past veniel sins. It fits instead eph 4:8-11, where
>> >Christ goes down and brings the righteous dead up to heaven with him
>> >after the cross
>>
>> Where were the righteous dead when Christ raised them?
>Not sure what you mean. THE resurrection is yet to come. The righteous
>dead in spirit were in abraham's bosom.
I disagree. THE resurrection was 2000 years ago when the righteous that died
were raised to new life. That means heaven.
Matthew 27:51-52 (New International Version)
51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.
The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of
many holy people who had died were raised to life.
>If you mean 'raised' in the sense of taking them to heaven after the
>crucifixion, they were in sheol, where all souls were, with those in
>covenant with God in a good part of it, and the unrighteous in a bad
>part of it.
I disagree.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm
The Latin infernus (inferum, inferi), the Greek Hades, and the Hebrew sheol
correspond to the word hell.
>Peter alludes to it:
>18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust,
>that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but
>quickened by the Spirit:
>19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
Called hades/sheol
>20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God
>waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few,
>that is, eight souls were saved by water.
>And paul as well:
>8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity
>captive, and gave gifts unto men.
>9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first
>into the lower parts of the earth?
Yep, Jesus collected the souls of the just in God and raised them to life. Now,
even if that means purgatory, which is the stopover for the saved, they have
been raised to life.
>> It was not hell, for
>> that is a one way street, and after all, we are referring to the righteous.
>> Whether it was purgatory, or a "purgatory", or a state of limbo, it is not for
>> man to know.
>We can make a reasonable surmise. What we can reasonable infer was that
>it was a holding tank of some sort
Do you not believe that we are now in the kingdom of God, having been buried
with Christ to sin in baptism as the 2nd coming of Christ occurred 2000 years
ago?
>> Many protest_ants say "no" to purgatory. Yet they can't respond to the case of
>> laz, and outrageously reject purgatory.
>Purgatory is a problematic doctrine. For one, it comes out of judaism,
>and is not expressly taught in the Bible at all.
Sure it is, in 2Mac12:40 as well as the purification of the souls according to:
Purgatory:
Rev 21:27: "�nothing unclean will enter heaven�"
Mat 5:8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God"
Heb 12:14: "strive�for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord".
Mat 5:48: "�be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".
1Cor 3:13
13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light.
It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's
work.
Now here's the kicker.
Matthew 12
32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone
who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or
in the age to come.
What age to come? "Speaking against the Son of Man" forgiven in the age to come
and "nothing unclean will enter heaven" are contradictory terms in scripture if
there is nothing in between; ie, a state of purging of the sin nature.
Note:
Speaking against the Son of Man (man) can be forgiven in the next age. Anyone
who speaks against the Holy Spirit (God) will not be forgiven in the next age.
Now Rev 21:27 says: "�nothing unclean will enter heaven�". That means there is
an age to come that is short of heaven because sins can be forgiven there
whereas no sin enters heaven.
>Some NT inferences are
>made that the process exists, and some of those inferences may have some
>merit, but the way the RCC defines it does not seem to hold up to
>scripture.
>Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all
>be changed,
>__In a moment__, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the
>trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we
>shall be changed.
>No room for purgatory there.
I gave you more verses.
>whether there is some sort of perfection of the soul after death may be
>debatable, but the way the RCC expands and defines the doctrine is not
>only unsubstantiated by scripture, but seems to contradict the
>scripture.
We are all in sin the day we die according to Heb 4:15 and 1 John 1:8-10.
>I took an RCIA class in the 90s, and they suggested that new thinking on
>the subject was that purgatory was an instantaneous process for the
>soul. If the RCC did go in that direction, the doctrine would be much
>more reasonable. But if we just leave it as it stands, and make it a
>prolonged period of suffering and purification that can be affected by
>saying masses for the dead
Masses for and prayers for are rewarded since before the beginning of time. God
cannot be negotiated with.
>, or applying indulgences and such, you're
>left with a really flawed to false doctrine that won't stand up to
>biblical scrutiny, and has to be accepted only under the (bad)
>assumption that the teaching magisterium is incapable of error. Well,
>it's not too hard to refute some doctrines of the magisterium by the
>actual scripture (romans 10 and its denial that non-christians who never
>hear and accept the gospel have any chance at dying in a state of grace
>and making heaven is one case); and if one doctrine of the magisterium
>can be shown to be in error, the whole system collapses
Scripture does not say that one must know of and accept the gospel to be
accepted by God. The new commandment is that we love one another as he loves
us. John 13:34. This is the reason those that never heard of Jesus can be
saved - much to the chagrin that those that think they are saved cross paths at
death.
duke
>> Where were the righteous dead when Christ raised them? �It was not hell, for
>> that is a one way street, and after all, we are referring to the righteous.
>> Whether it was purgatory, or a "purgatory", or a state of limbo, it is not for
>> man to know.
>> Many protest_ants say "no" to purgatory. �Yet they can't respond to the case of
>> laz, and outrageously reject purgatory.
>The Catholic church uses the term purgatory, the story of laz was in
>Paradise before the resurrection, as Hell was also in that one place
>understood as the place of the dead and they could see each other.
Purgatory = supposed place of purging. The new Christians had to be made to
understand.
>The gulf was wide and so one could not pass from one to the other, no
>limbo no second chance to get to heaven.
Limbo is another issue to purgatory. And it's all very simple. Live in the
spirit of Christ and the door is open. Play God and you'll find A&E as next
door neighbors.
> After the resurrection we
>see taking the keys of Hell and the grave and now it is in Heaven one
>dies they are judged to hell or heaven.
Wrong. The Mortal sinner go directly at death.
>Luke 16:22-31
>22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to
>Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being
>in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off,
>and Lazarus in his bosom.
There you go, the begger lived is the spirit and the rich man didn't.
>The Roman Catholic church doctrine is not Bible and has no foundation
>in Scripture.
Don't be so stupid. The Catholic Church is not only the Church that Christ
founded 2000 years ago, but also the one Church that most fully follows
scripture and locked in on the bible.
vince garcia
>
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:45:31 -0800, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >duke wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 04:50:47 -0800, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >duke wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:02:02 -0500, old man joe <ne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >they conclude this by a single parable of Holy Scripture found in Luke 16... the parable
> >> >> > of the rich man and Lazarus.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's clear from NT Scripture that Laz a) did not die with the sin that leads to
> >> >> death, and b) was not in hell but purgatory, as hell is a one way trip.
> >>
> >> >But the vision doesn't fit with the doctrine of purgatory. There is no
> >> >indication of the beatific vision, and no indication lazarus (or
> >> >abraham) was being purified from his propensity to sin, or that he was
> >> >being punished for past veniel sins. It fits instead eph 4:8-11, where
> >> >Christ goes down and brings the righteous dead up to heaven with him
> >> >after the cross
> >>
> >> Where were the righteous dead when Christ raised them?
>
> >Not sure what you mean. THE resurrection is yet to come. The righteous
> >dead in spirit were in abraham's bosom.
>
> I disagree. THE resurrection was 2000 years ago when the righteous that died
> were raised to new life.
Guess I'll let paul speak to that claim then:
16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more
ungodliness.
17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and
Philetus;
18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is
past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
That means heaven.
>
> Matthew 27:51-52 (New International Version)
> 51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.
> The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of
> many holy people who had died were raised to life.
As you are an educated catholic, I assume you know that while the bible
does not say what became of these saints, the gospel of nicodemus says
they returned to their graves 3 days later, and I suspect that most
catholic scholars would take that view.
But even if you don't, I don't see how you can say THIS was the
resurrection given the fact that folks have died and been awaiting
resurrection for 2000 years since, and certainly paul's words to the
thessalonians are speaking of a future event
>
> >If you mean 'raised' in the sense of taking them to heaven after the
> >crucifixion, they were in sheol, where all souls were, with those in
> >covenant with God in a good part of it, and the unrighteous in a bad
> >part of it.
>
> I disagree.
>
> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm
> The Latin infernus (inferum, inferi), the Greek Hades, and the Hebrew sheol
> correspond to the word hell.
But HELL isn't the place of eternal perdition. That's the lake of fire
spoken of in revelation. The hades/sheol spoken of is the abode of the
dead before the judgment. I know we commonly use it as an
all-encompassing word for eternal perdition, but technically it's the
place one would go to BEFORE judgment.
So the rich man is in "hell", yes, but he still has the lake of fire
awaiting him, which is much worse.
>
> >Peter alludes to it:
>
> >18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust,
> >that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but
> >quickened by the Spirit:
> >19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
>
> Called hades/sheol
>
> >20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God
> >waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few,
> >that is, eight souls were saved by water.
>
> >And paul as well:
>
> >8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity
> >captive, and gave gifts unto men.
> >9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first
> >into the lower parts of the earth?
>
> Yep, Jesus collected the souls of the just in God and raised them to life. Now,
> even if that means purgatory, which is the stopover for the saved, they have
> been raised to life.
Are you saying that pope john paul (or any righteous departed catholic)
has a resurrected physical body at this time?
I'm not understanding your exact doctrine on this
>
> >> It was not hell, for
> >> that is a one way street, and after all, we are referring to the righteous.
> >> Whether it was purgatory, or a "purgatory", or a state of limbo, it is not for
> >> man to know.
>
> >We can make a reasonable surmise. What we can reasonable infer was that
> >it was a holding tank of some sort
>
> Do you not believe that we are now in the kingdom of God, having been buried
> with Christ to sin in baptism as the 2nd coming of Christ occurred 2000 years
> ago?
No, I'm a futurist, so i believe that we are in 'the age of the church'
for lack of a better term off the top of my head, and that the fulness
of the messianic age will come as follows
luke 21
24And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away
captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the
Gentiles, _____until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.____
(Hasn't happened yet; we're still in the times of the gentiles)
25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the
stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea
and the waves roaring;
26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those
things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be
shaken.
27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power
and great glory.
28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift
up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
THEN the messianic age starts, in my view
>
> >> Many protest_ants say "no" to purgatory. Yet they can't respond to the case of
> >> laz, and outrageously reject purgatory.
>
> >Purgatory is a problematic doctrine. For one, it comes out of judaism,
> >and is not expressly taught in the Bible at all.
>
> Sure it is, in 2Mac12:40 as well as the purification of the souls according to:
There is a bit of a problem there. It doen't really mention purgatory,
and the prayers for the dead were made for idolatrous jews who (being
idolotrous) died in mortal sin, for which purgatory can't save you.
You also have a situation where Jesus hadn't atoned for mankind yet, so
purgatory would do them no good because they could not leave it for
heaven since Jesus hadn't come yet.
So I acknowledge this passage reflects an accurate record of the
practice and belief of the jews that prayers and alms on behalf of the
dead could help atone for their sins (which many jews still believe
today), but those teachings are problematic, and to extrapolate
purgatory from them is a also bit problematical.
I think a much stronger argument could be made from heb 12:23, which is
very close--and virtually a proof text--for the basic doctrine of a
soul's purification after death. But then when weighed against the rest
of the NT, the way the RCC actually defines that process doesn't seem to
meld well.
>
> Purgatory:
>
> Rev 21:27: "�nothing unclean will enter heaven�"
> Mat 5:8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God"
> Heb 12:14: "strive�for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord".
> Mat 5:48: "�be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".
>
> 1Cor 3:13
> 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light.
> It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's
> work.
>
> Now here's the kicker.
>
> Matthew 12
> 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone
> who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or
> in the age to come.
>
> What age to come? "Speaking against the Son of Man" forgiven in the age to come
> and "nothing unclean will enter heaven" are contradictory terms in scripture if
> there is nothing in between; ie, a state of purging of the sin nature.
That is certainly one way to look at it. But another would be to look at
the context of what is actually going on in the passage. In the context
there, knowledgeable Jewish elders have seen a divine miracle, and
despite knowing in their hearts it is of God, attribute that miracle to
the devil simply because they reject the Messenger. This may be what
Jesus seems to say is unforgivable, and it may be unforgivable because
it is not repentable: someone who has committed it has no concern over
it, no desire to repent, and no desire to seek forgiveness, since that
ability comes from the Holy Spirit's conviction in the first place.
So you can make the argument the RCC way, but as is so often the case
with purgatory arguments, it does not seem to be that strong, nor does
it exclude other arguments
>
> Note:
>
> Speaking against the Son of Man (man) can be forgiven in the next age. Anyone
> who speaks against the Holy Spirit (God) will not be forgiven in the next age.
>
> Now Rev 21:27 says: "�nothing unclean will enter heaven�". That means there is
> an age to come that is short of heaven because sins can be forgiven there
> whereas no sin enters heaven.
ok
>
> >Some NT inferences are
> >made that the process exists, and some of those inferences may have some
> >merit, but the way the RCC defines it does not seem to hold up to
> >scripture.
>
> >Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all
> >be changed,
> >__In a moment__, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the
> >trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we
> >shall be changed.
> >No room for purgatory there.
>
> I gave you more verses.
Yes. And i even gave YOU one that can be used :)
I think the better question is whether pugatory-- as the RCC defines it
-- could exist. I think the totality of scripture indicates no, but that
the eastern orthodox view would be a bit closer to the scripture, while
still not clearly establising the doctrine
>
> >whether there is some sort of perfection of the soul after death may be
> >debatable, but the way the RCC expands and defines the doctrine is not
> >only unsubstantiated by scripture, but seems to contradict the
> >scripture.
>
> We are all in sin the day we die according to Heb 4:15 and 1 John 1:8-10.
>
> >I took an RCIA class in the 90s, and they suggested that new thinking on
> >the subject was that purgatory was an instantaneous process for the
> >soul. If the RCC did go in that direction, the doctrine would be much
> >more reasonable. But if we just leave it as it stands, and make it a
> >prolonged period of suffering and purification that can be affected by
> >saying masses for the dead
>
> Masses for and prayers for are rewarded since before the beginning of time. God
> cannot be negotiated with.
>
> >, or applying indulgences and such, you're
> >left with a really flawed to false doctrine that won't stand up to
> >biblical scrutiny, and has to be accepted only under the (bad)
> >assumption that the teaching magisterium is incapable of error. Well,
> >it's not too hard to refute some doctrines of the magisterium by the
> >actual scripture (romans 10 and its denial that non-christians who never
> >hear and accept the gospel have any chance at dying in a state of grace
> >and making heaven is one case); and if one doctrine of the magisterium
> >can be shown to be in error, the whole system collapses
>
> Scripture does not say that one must know of and accept the gospel to be
> accepted by God.
Paul indicates it very clearly in romans 10, and this is where the RCC
totally blows it with their doctrine that it's possible for someone who
never hears the gospel to somehow cooperate well enough with the grace
God gives him that he can die in a state of salvation:
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in
thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou
shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the
mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be
ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the
same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and
how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall
they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How
beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and
bring glad tidings of good things!
See? The pagan MUST have a missionary explain the gospel to him so he
can accept it and have salvation. He CAN'T have enough grace to
cooperate with that somehow he dies in a state of grace for a Lord he
has never heard of and called on. The RCC says he can, but the bible
teaches something else
By the way, the catholic church I grew up in the 50-60s taught everyone
but catholics were certainly going to hell.Period. At least, the
catholic churches i knew did.
RWKnapp
Stupid is something I never was or will be, the Catholic Church came
from the Orthodox Church, History shows that as fact. Ask any Greek
Orthodox priest and he will let you know real quick. The Church which
today is Universal but the Roman by its name is only a church from
Rome. So don't you be so stupid, then I gave you what the Holy Bible
said, and you cut it out to make your false teachings fool the
readers. Then most followers belong to the protestant and Orthodox
church that is as large in number as the billion catholic churches
worldwide, that means only 50 percent of the followers of the Holy
Bible are not Roman Catholics. What other falsehoods do you believe?
For one thing the true Church would never have image in their church
which without them the Catholic Church would be nothing, no images of
saints or Mary or the Apostles etc, for one thing no one knows what
they really looked like, and the images you have could be evil people
or who knows who was used to copy to make such images. The bible show
and the scriptures are locked in on the bible which the Catholic do
not follow or want to read. Check the out. Lev 26:1
26
'You shall not make idols for yourselves;
neither a carved image nor a sacred pillar shall you rear up for
yourselves;
nor shall you set up an engraved stone in your land, to bow down to
it;
for I am the Lord your God. NKJV
Even you Pope bow' down to engraved images made of stone, and wood
etc.
2 Chron 24:18-19
18 Therefore they left the house of the Lord God of their fathers, and
served wooden images and idols; and wrath came upon Judah and
Jerusalem because of their trespass. 19 Yet He sent prophets to them,
to bring them back to the Lord; and they testified against them, but
they would not listen.
NKJV
RWKnapp
> >> Where were the righteous dead when Christ raised them? It was not hell, for
> >> that is a one way street, and after all, we are referring to the righteous.
> >> Whether it was purgatory, or a "purgatory", or a state of limbo, it is not for
> >> man to know.
> >> Many protest_ants say "no" to purgatory. Yet they can't respond to the case of
> >> laz, and outrageously reject purgatory.
> >The Catholic church uses the term purgatory, the story of laz was in
> >Paradise before the resurrection, as Hell was also in that one place
> >understood as the place of the dead and they could see each other.
>
> Purgatory = supposed place of purging. The new Christians had to be made to understand.
Why there is no such place to start with and not a word of it is from
the Bible so the Christian need to understand it is only a make
believed place, made by some Pope to get more money out of the
people. Ever hear of a MASS that does not take money in for praying
for the souls that missed Heaven and really went to hell, so they now
can get a pass to bypass the bible and get to heaven some other way.
Not going to happen.
Matt 22:11-14
11 "But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there
who did not have on a wedding garment. 12 So he said to him, 'Friend,
how did you come in here without a wedding garment?' And he was
speechless. 13 Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and
foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be
weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."
NKJV
>
> >The gulf was wide and so one could not pass from one to the other, no
> >limbo no second chance to get to heaven.
>
> Limbo is another issue to purgatory. And it's all very simple. Live in the
> spirit of Christ and the door is open. Play God and you'll find A&E as next
> door neighbors.
Yes the Catholic church has many false doctrines such as this one on
Limbo. You really make no sense at all. It means this: "(theology) in
Roman Catholicism, the place of unbaptized but innocent or righteous
souls (such as infants and virtuous individuals)"
All man made doctrines never appoved by God. Justification and glory
1. The glory which disembodied spirits are enjoying now. The moment
that the soul leaves the body, the justified soul is in glory.
Romanism holds that some of the best saints go to heaven when they
die; but that the great mass of inferior saints must undergo
purgation. But the dying thief was no eminent saint. The only good
deed that we ever read of his doing was when he claimed Christ as
Lord, and rebuked his fellow-thief for slandering the Saviour. Yet,
hear the words, "To-day shalt thou be with Me in paradise." Nor is
this the only instance. We find, when Lazarus died, that he was
carried by angels into Abraham's bosom. Stephen expected the Lord
Jesus to receive his spirit, and the apostle Paul was in a strait
betwixt two, being willing "to depart and to be with Christ." In Eph
3:15, the apostle mentions the whole family as being in heaven and
earth, but he speaks of none of the Lord's people being in limbo .
Those whom we are bidden to follow, in Heb 6:12, are now inheriting
the promises. Let the voice of God decide the case for ever (Rev
14:13). The glory of paradise was that God walked there in the cool of
the evening with His creatures; and the glory of heaven is, that "they
need no candle, neither light of the sun, for the Lord God giveth them
light," and the days of their mourning shall be ended.
(from The Biblical Illustrator Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2006 Ages
Software, Inc. and Biblesoft, Inc.)
LIMBO
Limbo. In Roman Catholic theology, the region or state proximate to
heaven (limbo is from the Latin word for "edge" or "border") in which
reside departed souls who do not enjoy the beatific vision but do not
suffer any other privation. Two kinds of limbo are distinguished: the
limbus patrum, or limbo of the Old Testament believers, and the limbus
infantium, the limbo of unbaptized infants. The origin of the idea can
be traced with confidence only as far back as the high Middle Ages:
the word is not used either by Scripture or the church fathers. Some
theologians have seen the Old Testament believers as entering heaven
with Christ (as in 1 Peter 4:6). As for the latter group, Augustine
believed that the souls of unbaptized infants went to hell, thereby
implicitly denying the idea of limbo. Most theologians of the high
Middle Ages (notably Thomas Aquinas), on the other hand, defended the
view which came to predominate, that these souls went to an
intermediate state in which they were deprived of supernatural
blessing (since baptism was understood to be essential to full
salvation) but enjoyed full natural happiness. Only one official Roman
Catholic document speaks of limbo, the bull of Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei
(1794), and even this leaves open the question of limbo's very
existence. Since 1900, some theologians have suggested that God's
universal salvific will extend to these souls and have therefore
denied the existence of limbo altogether.
J. G. Stackhouse
(from Dictionary of Christianity in America, edited by Daniel G. Reid,
Robert D. Linder, Bruce L. Shelley and Harry S. Stout. © 1990 by
InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA; published by InterVarsity
Press. All rights reserved.)
You going to do as you did before make believe you never read this as
this may prove your faith has been wrong all this time?
duke
>> >The Roman Catholic church doctrine is not Bible and has no foundation
>> >in Scripture.
>> Don't be so stupid. �The Catholic Church is not only the Church that Christ
>> founded 2000 years ago, but also the one Church �that most fully follows
>> scripture and locked in on the bible.
>Stupid is something I never was or will be, the Catholic Church came
>from the Orthodox Church, History shows that as fact. Ask any Greek
>Orthodox priest and he will let you know real quick.
Ask the Roman Catholic Church today, including reading Church history for 2000
years, and you will find out your error - real quick.
Christ gave his Church on earth the Holy Mass, 7 sacraments, and the Papacy.
Thats 100% scriptural. The Church was called to be one church = universal =
katholocis in Greek = (c)atholic = (C)atholic Church = Western Catholic Church
(Rome) & Eastern Catholic Church (Constantinople) = Roman Catholic Church when
the EOC (Eastern) Church left the group.
The day before the schism, the Papacy was universal in Jesus's Church for the
last 1054 years. The day after the schism, the Papacy only existed in the
Western Church.
We can discuss EOC changes in the Eucharist in the next post.
>The Church which
>today is Universal but the Roman by its name is only a church from
>Rome.
See above.
>So don't you be so stupid, then I gave you what the Holy Bible
>said, and you cut it out to make your false teachings fool the
>readers.
Fool the readers? Why would they have to be more fooled than you? Don't you
give them credit for comprehension?
Your problem is that you read the bible as the end all (other than
scripturally). It's not a complete history book, but it is historical. It's
not a math book, but they do count.
> Then most followers belong to the protestant and Orthodox
>church that is as large in number as the billion catholic churches
>worldwide, that means only 50 percent of the followers of the Holy
>Bible are not Roman Catholics.
But most are closely Catholic. The EOC is, and the Anglicans are very close.
I would look forward to your explanation of why protest_ants reject the Church
characteristics given directly by Jesus in the gospels - the Holy Mass, 7
sacraments, and the Papacy.
> What other falsehoods do you believe?
>For one thing the true Church would never have image in their church
>which without them the Catholic Church would be nothing, no images of
>saints or Mary or the Apostles etc, for one thing no one knows what
>they really looked like, and the images you have could be evil people
>or who knows who was used to copy to make such images.
What difference does it make if the images in the church are exact physical
replications? Jesus was a baby and a man, and Mary was a woman. What are you
afraid of?
> The bible show
>and the scriptures are locked in on the bible which the Catholic do
>not follow or want to read.
What do you mean we do not follow? For your information, the RCC is lock step
in line with scripture, we read it every day at Mass, and many now read it at
home. Virtually every word repeated at Mass is found in the bible.
We Catholics follow scripture; you protest_ants just read it.
>Check the out. Lev 26:1
>26
>'You shall not make idols for yourselves;
1. Levi is for Jews.
2. No image of God or Jesus existed at that time.
3. The Jews tried a golden calf and look what it got them.
4. We don't worship the images.
>neither a carved image nor a sacred pillar shall you rear up for
>yourselves;
>nor shall you set up an engraved stone in your land, to bow down to
>it;
>for I am the Lord your God. NKJV
>Even you Pope bow' down to engraved images made of stone, and wood
>etc.
No, no he doesn't. He's not bowing to the statue or praying to it, any more
than you would be doing if you "talked" to a photo of a loved one, or at a grave
site.
>2 Chron 24:18-19
>18 Therefore they left the house of the Lord God of their fathers, and
>served wooden images and idols; and wrath came upon Judah and
>Jerusalem because of their trespass. 19 Yet He sent prophets to them,
>to bring them back to the Lord; and they testified against them, but
>they would not listen.
>NKJV
Yep, they **served** wooden images. We don't.
Patrick
Stupid is something I never was or will be, the Catholic Church came
from the Orthodox Church, History shows that as fact.
PB - OK, show me now....
Give me a reference....
-----------
The bible show
and the scriptures are locked in on the bible which the Catholic do
not follow or want to read. Check the out. Lev 26:1
26
'You shall not make idols for yourselves;
neither a carved image nor a sacred pillar shall you rear up for
yourselves;
nor shall you set up an engraved stone in your land, to bow down to
it;
for I am the Lord your God. NKJV
PRB -- Catholics don't bow down to "images " or "idols."
-------------------
Even you Pope bow' down to engraved images made of stone, and wood
etc.
PRB - <Yawn> same song, different day....
Catholics worship statues!" People still make this ridiculous claim. Because
Catholics have statues in their churches, goes the accusation, they are
violating God's commandment: "You shall not make for yourself a graven image
or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth
beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down to
them or serve them" (Ex. 20:4-5); "Alas, this people have sinned a great
sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold" (Ex. 32:31).
It is right to warn people against the sin of idolatry when they are
committing it. But calling Catholics idolaters because they have images of
Christ and the saints is based on misunderstanding or ignorance of what the
Bible says about the purpose and uses (both good and bad) of statues.
Anti-Catholic writer Loraine Boettner, in his book Roman Catholicism, makes
the blanket statement, "God has forbidden the use of images in worship"
(281). Yet if people were to "search the scriptures" (cf. John 5:39), they
would find the opposite is true. God forbade the worship of statues, but he
did not forbid the religious use of statues. Instead, he actually commanded
their use in religious contexts!
God Said To Make Them
People who oppose religious statuary forget about the many passages where
the Lord commands the making of statues. For example: "And you shall make
two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work
shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on
the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat
shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out
their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their
faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim
be" (Ex. 25:18-20).
David gave Solomon the plan "for the altar of incense made of refined gold,
and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that
spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this
he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all
the work to be done according to the plan" (1 Chr. 28:18-19). David's plan
for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was "by the writing of
the hand of the Lord concerning it all," included statues of angels.
Similarly Ezekiel 41:17-18 describes graven (carved) images in the idealized
temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, "On the walls round about in
the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim."
The Religious Uses of Images
During a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus,
God told Moses to "make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole;
and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live. So Moses made a
bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would
look at the bronze serpent and live" (Num. 21:8-9).
One had to look at the bronze statue of the serpent to be healed, which
shows that statues could be used ritually, not merely as religious
decorations.
Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the
person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one's mother by
looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints
by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching
tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction
of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible
pictures in Sunday school for teaching children. Catholics also use statues
to commemorate certain people and events, much as Protestant churches have
three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas.
If one measured Protestants by the same rule, then by using these "graven"
images, they would be practicing the "idolatry" of which they accuse
Catholics. But there's no idolatry going on in these situations. God forbids
the worship of images as gods, but he doesn't ban the making of images. If
he had, religious movies, videos, photographs, paintings, and all similar
things would be banned. But, as the case of the bronze serpent shows, God
does not even forbid the ritual use of religious images.
It is when people begin to adore a statue as a god that the Lord becomes
angry. Thus when people did start to worship the bronze serpent as a
snake-god (whom they named "Nehushtan"), the righteous king Hezekiah had it
destroyed (2 Kgs. 18:4).
What About Bowing?
Sometimes anti-Catholics cite Deuteronomy 5:9, where God said concerning
idols, "You shall not bow down to them." Since many Catholics sometimes bow
or kneel in front of statues of Jesus and the saints, anti-Catholics confuse
the legitimate veneration of a sacred image with the sin of idolatry.
Though bowing can be used as a posture in worship, not all bowing is
worship. In Japan, people show respect by bowing in greeting (the equivalent
of the Western handshake). Similarly, a person can kneel before a king
without worshipping him as a god. In the same way, a Catholic who may kneel
in front of a statue while praying isn't worshipping the statue or even
praying to it, any more than the Protestant who kneels with a Bible in his
hands when praying is worshipping the Bible or praying to it.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Do_Catholics_Worship_Statues.asp
Patrick
Good Golly.
Are you the same Ray Knapp who was the BIG missionary in
the Philippines and was sent home? Are you the dishwasher at
Burger King who took a bath in the dishwater?
I kicked your ass several years ago. Do you need another lesson
in humility? Where are you now? Texas? California? Are you
still picking fruit? Are you still all so proud about yer kids?
duke
>On Dec 27, 5:44�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:51:06 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>> >> Where were the righteous dead when Christ raised them? It was not hell, for
>> >> that is a one way street, and after all, we are referring to the righteous.
>> >> Whether it was purgatory, or a "purgatory", or a state of limbo, it is not for
>> >> man to know.
>> >> Many protest_ants say "no" to purgatory. Yet they can't respond to the case of
>> >> laz, and outrageously reject purgatory.
>> >The Catholic church uses the term purgatory, the story of laz was in
>> >Paradise before the resurrection, as Hell was also in that one place
>> >understood as the place of the dead and they could see each other.
>> Purgatory = supposed place of purging. �The new Christians had to be made to understand.
>Why there is no such place to start with and not a word of it is from
>the Bible so the Christian need to understand it is only a make
>believed place
"Who" said there was no such place to start with? It's scriptural as no man is
pure enough to stand before God without attaining a degree of purification. Heb
12:14.
> Ever hear of a MASS that does not take money in for praying
>for the souls that missed Heaven and really went to hell
As a Roman Catholic attending daily Mass, I never hear of such a thing. No
wonder you're a protest_er, you're totally ignorant of the RCC..
>, so they now
>can get a pass to bypass the bible and get to heaven some other way.
>Not going to happen.
>Matt 22:11-14
Clearly not those things that feed your wild imagination.
>11 "But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there
>who did not have on a wedding garment. 12 So he said to him, 'Friend,
>how did you come in here without a wedding garment?' And he was
>speechless. 13 Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and
>foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be
>weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
>14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."
>NKJV
Yep, God calls all men, but few are without sin to the point that they can go to
purgatory.
>> >The gulf was wide and so one could not pass from one to the other, no
>> >limbo no second chance to get to heaven.
>> Limbo is another issue to purgatory. �And it's all very simple. �Live in the
>> spirit of Christ and the door is open. �Play God and you'll find A&E as next
>> door neighbors.
>Yes the Catholic church has many false doctrines such as this one on
>Limbo.
How do you know how God handles the infants and youth that die without the
benefit of Baptism. I await you silly answer here.
> You really make no sense at all. It means this: "(theology) in
>Roman Catholicism, the place of unbaptized but innocent or righteous
>souls (such as infants and virtuous individuals)"
It means this: Christians..........
>All man made doctrines never appoved by God. Justification and glory
How would you know. You ignore all the teachings of Christ.
>1. The glory which disembodied spirits are enjoying now. The moment
>that the soul leaves the body, the justified soul is in glory.
>Romanism holds that some of the best saints go to heaven when they
>die; but that the great mass of inferior saints must undergo
>purgation.
It's scriptural.
> But the dying thief was no eminent saint. The only good
>deed that we ever read of his doing was when he claimed Christ as
>Lord, and rebuked his fellow-thief for slandering the Saviour. Yet,
>hear the words, "To-day shalt thou be with Me in paradise."
Those very words are what got him there, but "to day" does not mean in the next
24 hours.
You're trying to play silly games with the afterlife.
>LIMBO
>Limbo. In Roman Catholic theology, the region or state proximate to
>heaven (limbo is from the Latin word for "edge" or "border") in which
>reside departed souls who do not enjoy the beatific vision but do not
>suffer any other privation. Two kinds of limbo are distinguished: the
>limbus patrum, or limbo of the Old Testament believers, and the limbus
>infantium, the limbo of unbaptized infants.
And what is your problem with trying to satiate the immature mind of man.
> The origin of the idea can
>be traced with confidence only as far back as the high Middle Ages:
>the word is not used either by Scripture or the church fathers.
The things that Jesus said that are not recorded far outnumber the ones that
are. John 21:25.
>You going to do as you did before make believe you never read this as
>this may prove your faith has been wrong all this time?
Not a chance of that as you can't defend the opposite.
>> > �After the resurrection we
>> >see taking the keys of Hell and the grave and now it is in Heaven one
>> >dies they are judged to hell or heaven.
>> Wrong. �The Mortal sinner go directly at death.
>> >Luke 16:22-31
>> >22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to
>> >Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. �23 And being
>> >in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off,
>> >and Lazarus in his bosom.
>> There you go, the begger lived is the spirit and the rich man didn't.
GREAT no response.
>> >The Roman Catholic church doctrine is not Bible and has no foundation
>> >in Scripture.
>> Don't be so stupid. �The Catholic Church is not only the Church that Christ
>> founded 2000 years ago, but also the one Church �that most fully follows
>> scripture and locked in on the bible.
Another absolutely beautiful no response.
duke
wrote:
I'm starting over on this response. The reason is that **we're** trying to
quantify events after death, which is wishful thinking. We don't know, and we
can't impact in what it means.
First, I gather you investigated becoming a Catholic (RCIA class). Did you
become Catholic? {ps - I see at the end that you are/were Catholic}.
Second, your knowledge reflects fundamentalism where people speak as though they
know the actual events post death - Abraham's bosom and lake of fire, perdition,
etc.
>> >> Where were the righteous dead when Christ raised them?
>> >Not sure what you mean. THE resurrection is yet to come. The righteous
>> >dead in spirit were in abraham's bosom.
>> I disagree. THE resurrection was 2000 years ago when the righteous that died
>> were raised to new life.
>Guess I'll let paul speak to that claim then:
Ok, let's see it.
>16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more
>ungodliness.
>17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and
>Philetus;
>18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is
>past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
Yep, 2 Thess. They were packing up the stores & goodies thinking the Day of the
Lord had already passed. However, the resurrection of the Lord had already
taken place.
> That means heaven.
>> Matthew 27:51-52 (New International Version)
>> 51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.
>> The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of
>> many holy people who had died were raised to life.
>As you are an educated catholic, I assume you know that while the bible
>does not say what became of these saints, the gospel of nicodemus says
>they returned to their graves 3 days later, and I suspect that most
>catholic scholars would take that view.
Nico saying 3 days may be THE error that kept it out of the gospels.
And the bible does say they were raised to **LIFE**. If they were raised
pre-glorified Jesus, say from a lowly spot to a purgatory, it's still proper to
say they were raised to life.
>But even if you don't, I don't see how you can say THIS was the
>resurrection given the fact that folks have died and been awaiting
>resurrection for 2000 years since, and certainly paul's words to the
>thessalonians are speaking of a future event
Yes, the Day of the Lord.
>> >If you mean 'raised' in the sense of taking them to heaven after the
>> >crucifixion, they were in sheol, where all souls were, with those in
>> >covenant with God in a good part of it, and the unrighteous in a bad
>> >part of it.
>> I disagree.
>> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm
>> The Latin infernus (inferum, inferi), the Greek Hades, and the Hebrew sheol
>> correspond to the word hell.
>But HELL isn't the place of eternal perdition. That's the lake of fire
>spoken of in revelation. The hades/sheol spoken of is the abode of the
>dead before the judgment. I know we commonly use it as an
>all-encompassing word for eternal perdition, but technically it's the
>place one would go to BEFORE judgment.
Forget hades/sheol/lake of fire/high land/low land. There's only two places -
the saved with God or the damned with satan. Those who die separated from God
(in mortal sin) go directly to hell. Those who die completely in Christ go
directly to God. Those others that are all of us must be purified first to
stand before God.
It is not for man to know if "directly to hell" is instantaneous or a billion
man years. The same is true of standing face to face with God. It is not for
man to know the time frame for the dead in Christ who rose when Christ died is a
quick or long trip or a round about trip when they were raised to life.
>So the rich man is in "hell", yes, but he still has the lake of fire
>awaiting him, which is much worse.
Three places - heaven, hell, purification. Those dying in mortal sin never make
it to purification. Mat 12:32.
>> >Peter alludes to it:
>> >18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust,
>> >that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but
>> >quickened by the Spirit:
>> >19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
>> > Called hades/sheol
>> >20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God
>> >waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few,
>> >that is, eight souls were saved by water.
>>
>> >And paul as well:
>>
>> >8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity
>> >captive, and gave gifts unto men.
>> >9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first
>> >into the lower parts of the earth?
>>
>> Yep, Jesus collected the souls of the just in God and raised them to life. Now,
>> even if that means purgatory, which is the stopover for the saved, they have
>> been raised to life.
>Are you saying that pope john paul (or any righteous departed catholic)
>has a resurrected physical body at this time?
Absolutely yes, subject to the state of his soul being pure. And not just
Catholics but all people of all faiths and non-faiths everywhere. Those are the
canonized saints.
BTW, I consider the idea of all humankind having to rise at one time to be a
silly idea. When our souls in purgatory give up the love of sin, God will take
us.
>I'm not understanding your exact doctrine on this
Heaven or hell or purging on the way to heaven.
>> >> It was not hell, for
>> >> that is a one way street, and after all, we are referring to the righteous.
>> >> Whether it was purgatory, or a "purgatory", or a state of limbo, it is not for
>> >> man to know.
>>
>> >We can make a reasonable surmise. What we can reasonable infer was that
>> >it was a holding tank of some sort
>> Do you not believe that we are now in the kingdom of God, having been buried
>> with Christ to sin in baptism as the 2nd coming of Christ occurred 2000 years
>> ago?
>No, I'm a futurist, so i believe that we are in 'the age of the church'
>for lack of a better term off the top of my head, and that the fulness
>of the messianic age will come as follows
So, when Jesus was glorified upon his death on the cross and his subsequent
return 3 days later, you don't believe that the kingdom of God is upon us?
Luke 17:21 (New International Version)
21nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of
God is within you."
We now live under the new covenant of love of God, written on our hearts and not
by the sacrifice of bulls..
>luke 21
>24And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away
>captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the
>Gentiles, _____until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.____
>(Hasn't happened yet; we're still in the times of the gentiles)
And Jesus has been glorified.
>25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the
>stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea
>and the waves roaring;
>26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those
>things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be
>shaken.
>27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power
>and great glory.
>28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift
>up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
>THEN the messianic age starts, in my view
You can see V25 occurring daily around the world.
>> >> Many protest_ants say "no" to purgatory. Yet they can't respond to the case of
>> >> laz, and outrageously reject purgatory.
>> >Purgatory is a problematic doctrine. For one, it comes out of judaism,
>> >and is not expressly taught in the Bible at all.
>> Sure it is, in 2Mac12:40 as well as the purification of the souls according to:
>There is a bit of a problem there. It doen't really mention purgatory,
>and the prayers for the dead were made for idolatrous jews who (being
>idolotrous) died in mortal sin, for which purgatory can't save you.
Yet he prayed that his soldiers that died would be released from their sins.
Just the belief that there was still hope and their sins be blotted out.
>You also have a situation where Jesus hadn't atoned for mankind yet, so
>purgatory would do them no good because they could not leave it for
>heaven since Jesus hadn't come yet.
No purgatory mentioned. Just the concept that there was hope for the dead thru
prayer. The purifying became evident with the develop of the new covenant.
>So I acknowledge this passage reflects an accurate record of the
>practice and belief of the jews that prayers and alms on behalf of the
>dead could help atone for their sins (which many jews still believe
>today), but those teachings are problematic, and to extrapolate
>purgatory from them is a also bit problematical.
The first acknowledgement of the concept of prayer for the dead.
>I think a much stronger argument could be made from heb 12:23, which is
>very close--and virtually a proof text--for the basic doctrine of a
>soul's purification after death. But then when weighed against the rest
>of the NT, the way the RCC actually defines that process doesn't seem to
>meld well.
Like I said, heaven and hell and purification before heaven.
>> Purgatory:
>> Rev 21:27: "�nothing unclean will enter heaven�"
>> Mat 5:8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God"
>> Heb 12:14: "strive�for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord".
>> Mat 5:48: "�be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".
>> 1Cor 3:13
>> 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light.
>> It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's
>> work.
>>
>> Now here's the kicker.
>>
>> Matthew 12
>> 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone
>> who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or
>> in the age to come.
>>
>> What age to come? "Speaking against the Son of Man" forgiven in the age to come
>> and "nothing unclean will enter heaven" are contradictory terms in scripture if
>> there is nothing in between; ie, a state of purging of the sin nature.
>That is certainly one way to look at it. But another would be to look at
>the context of what is actually going on in the passage.
What's going on in the passage is clear. Venial sins are forgivable in the
"next life", mortal sin is not. What is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? It
is dying playing God, telling God no, telling God we are his equal, that we can
decide right v wrong as well as he can.
>So you can make the argument the RCC way, but as is so often the case
>with purgatory arguments, it does not seem to be that strong, nor does
>it exclude other arguments
Heaven, hell, and purification.
>> Note:
>>
>> Speaking against the Son of Man (man) can be forgiven in the next age. Anyone
>> who speaks against the Holy Spirit (God) will not be forgiven in the next age.
>>
>> Now Rev 21:27 says: "�nothing unclean will enter heaven�". That means there is
>> an age to come that is short of heaven because sins can be forgiven there
>> whereas no sin enters heaven.
>
>ok
>> >Some NT inferences are
>> >made that the process exists, and some of those inferences may have some
>> >merit, but the way the RCC defines it does not seem to hold up to
>> >scripture.
>>
>> >Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all
>> >be changed,
>> >__In a moment__, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the
>> >trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we
>> >shall be changed.
>> >No room for purgatory there.
>> I gave you more verses.
Being raised incorruptible does not necessarily mean one step - one to
purification and one to incorruptible..
>> Scripture does not say that one must know of and accept the gospel to be
>> accepted by God.
>Paul indicates it very clearly in romans 10, and this is where the RCC
>totally blows it with their doctrine that it's possible for someone who
>never hears the gospel to somehow cooperate well enough with the grace
>God gives him that he can die in a state of salvation:
Why would God restrict his love for his newborn creation that dies unbaptized?
He is unable to sin. But he still possesses the stain of original sin.
>8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in
>thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
>9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
>believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou
>shalt be saved.
Definitely the case for the grown man.
And he also says that our new marching orders are that we love one another as he
loves us.
>10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the
>mouth confession is made unto salvation.
>11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be
>ashamed.
>12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the
>same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Yes, of course, and why send the infants to burn in hell because they died sans
baptism?
>13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Definitely the case for the grown man.
>See? The pagan MUST have a missionary explain the gospel to him so he
>can accept it and have salvation. He CAN'T have enough grace to
>cooperate with that somehow he dies in a state of grace for a Lord he
>has never heard of and called on. The RCC says he can, but the bible
>teaches something else
No, the bible doesn't. I often enjoy pointing out how many sin-filled
Christians will gnash their teeth in unbelief when they go to hell while
non-Christians who live in the spirit of Christ go to heaven.
>By the way, the catholic church I grew up in the 50-60s taught everyone
>but catholics were certainly going to hell.Period. At least, the
>catholic churches i knew did.
I suggest that word is (c)atholic and not (C)atholic.
vince garcia
>
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:16:36 -0800, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> I'm starting over on this response. The reason is that **we're** trying to
> quantify events after death, which is wishful thinking. We don't know, and we
> can't impact in what it means.
>
> First, I gather you investigated becoming a Catholic (RCIA class). Did you
> become Catholic? {ps - I see at the end that you are/were Catholic}.
I was raised catholic as a youth before becoming a spiritualist medium.
Today i am an evangelical with good memories of the catholic church,
though I reject its claim of infallibility, and teach against some of
its bad doctrines.
>
> Second, your knowledge reflects fundamentalism where people speak as though they
> know the actual events post death - Abraham's bosom and lake of fire, perdition,
> etc.
Yes. We are reasonably confident the Bible outlines the basics, though
there are always questions and debatable issues on the subject
>
> >> >> Where were the righteous dead when Christ raised them?
> >> >Not sure what you mean. THE resurrection is yet to come. The righteous
> >> >dead in spirit were in abraham's bosom.
>
> >> I disagree. THE resurrection was 2000 years ago when the righteous that died
> >> were raised to new life.
> >Guess I'll let paul speak to that claim then:
>
> Ok, let's see it.
>
> >16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more
> >ungodliness.
> >17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and
> >Philetus;
> >18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is
> >past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
>
> Yep, 2 Thess. They were packing up the stores & goodies thinking the Day of the
> Lord had already passed. However, the resurrection of the Lord had already
> taken place.
I honestly don't know how you're getting that. that's not a view taught
by the RCC that I've ever heard. Can you give me a reference?
>
> > That means heaven.
> >> Matthew 27:51-52 (New International Version)
> >> 51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.
> >> The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of
> >> many holy people who had died were raised to life.
>
> >As you are an educated catholic, I assume you know that while the bible
> >does not say what became of these saints, the gospel of nicodemus says
> >they returned to their graves 3 days later, and I suspect that most
> >catholic scholars would take that view.
>
> Nico saying 3 days may be THE error that kept it out of the gospels.
>
> And the bible does say they were raised to **LIFE**. If they were raised
> pre-glorified Jesus, say from a lowly spot to a purgatory, it's still proper to
> say they were raised to life.
Yes. but we don't know what happened next, which amazes me that matthew
does not say
>
> >But even if you don't, I don't see how you can say THIS was the
> >resurrection given the fact that folks have died and been awaiting
> >resurrection for 2000 years since, and certainly paul's words to the
> >thessalonians are speaking of a future event
>
> Yes, the Day of the Lord.
>
> >> >If you mean 'raised' in the sense of taking them to heaven after the
> >> >crucifixion, they were in sheol, where all souls were, with those in
> >> >covenant with God in a good part of it, and the unrighteous in a bad
> >> >part of it.
>
> >> I disagree.
>
> >> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm
> >> The Latin infernus (inferum, inferi), the Greek Hades, and the Hebrew sheol
> >> correspond to the word hell.
>
> >But HELL isn't the place of eternal perdition. That's the lake of fire
> >spoken of in revelation. The hades/sheol spoken of is the abode of the
> >dead before the judgment. I know we commonly use it as an
> >all-encompassing word for eternal perdition, but technically it's the
> >place one would go to BEFORE judgment.
>
> Forget hades/sheol/lake of fire/high land/low land. There's only two places -
> the saved with God or the damned with satan. Those who die separated from God
> (in mortal sin) go directly to hell.
But not the lake of fire, which gets filled at the last judgment
Those who die completely in Christ go
> directly to God. Those others that are all of us must be purified first to
> stand before God.
And that there is an arguable issue. Perhps. Perhps not. The bible does
not explicitly say that, but one might infer that and argue the case.
What we CAN seem to say with reasonable certainty is that the RCC view
of purgatory does not hold up to scripture, in that it is a prolonged
process that can take centuries, with prayers and alms for the dead all
that time helping those there get out. The Bible really does not affirm
those ideas
>
> It is not for man to know if "directly to hell" is instantaneous or a billion
> man years. The same is true of standing face to face with God. It is not for
> man to know the time frame for the dead in Christ who rose when Christ died is a
> quick or long trip or a round about trip when they were raised to life.
>
> >So the rich man is in "hell", yes, but he still has the lake of fire
> >awaiting him, which is much worse.
>
> Three places - heaven, hell, purification. Those dying in mortal sin never make
> it to purification. Mat 12:32.
Apparently they can: 2 macc 12(?), where the guys being prayed for are
idolators, which is mortal sin
So either someone in the mortal sin of idolatry CAN go to purgatory, or
that passage is not a good proof text to use since it refutes catholic
teaching on the subject
>
> >> >Peter alludes to it:
>
> >> >18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust,
> >> >that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but
> >> >quickened by the Spirit:
> >> >19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
> >> > Called hades/sheol
>
> >> >20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God
> >> >waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few,
> >> >that is, eight souls were saved by water.
> >>
> >> >And paul as well:
> >>
> >> >8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity
> >> >captive, and gave gifts unto men.
> >> >9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first
> >> >into the lower parts of the earth?
> >>
> >> Yep, Jesus collected the souls of the just in God and raised them to life. Now,
> >> even if that means purgatory, which is the stopover for the saved, they have
> >> been raised to life.
>
> >Are you saying that pope john paul (or any righteous departed catholic)
> >has a resurrected physical body at this time?
>
> Absolutely yes, subject to the state of his soul being pure. And not just
> Catholics but all people of all faiths and non-faiths everywhere. Those are the
> canonized saints.
Is this a catholic teaching?? Can you give me a source for it?
>
> BTW, I consider the idea of all humankind having to rise at one time to be a
> silly idea. When our souls in purgatory give up the love of sin, God will take
> us.
>
> >I'm not understanding your exact doctrine on this
>
> Heaven or hell or purging on the way to heaven.
>
> >> >> It was not hell, for
> >> >> that is a one way street, and after all, we are referring to the righteous.
> >> >> Whether it was purgatory, or a "purgatory", or a state of limbo, it is not for
> >> >> man to know.
> >>
> >> >We can make a reasonable surmise. What we can reasonable infer was that
> >> >it was a holding tank of some sort
>
> >> Do you not believe that we are now in the kingdom of God, having been buried
> >> with Christ to sin in baptism as the 2nd coming of Christ occurred 2000 years
> >> ago?
>
> >No, I'm a futurist, so i believe that we are in 'the age of the church'
> >for lack of a better term off the top of my head, and that the fulness
> >of the messianic age will come as follows
>
> So, when Jesus was glorified upon his death on the cross and his subsequent
> return 3 days later, you don't believe that the kingdom of God is upon us?
Nope:
Luke 11
11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because
he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of
God should immediately appear.
12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to
receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and
said unto them, Occupy till I come.
Heb 2 8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in
that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put
under him. ___But now we see not yet all things put under him.___
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the
suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace
of God should taste death for every man.
The kingdom of God in its fullness is yet to come.
>
> Luke 17:21 (New International Version)
> 21nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of
> God is within you."
>
> We now live under the new covenant of love of God, written on our hearts and not
> by the sacrifice of bulls..
Yeah. That's the NEW COVENANT, not the miessianic kingdom
Uh. no--it is attributing the power of God to satan. Even the didache
takes a similar view, saying judging a propghet of God is the
unforgivable sin, and the didache is right from the time the apostles
were still living
>
> >So you can make the argument the RCC way, but as is so often the case
> >with purgatory arguments, it does not seem to be that strong, nor does
> >it exclude other arguments
>
> Heaven, hell, and purification.
"purification" might indeed be argued. PURGATORY (as defined) is the
problem
Different issue. I'm talking about adults. Paul clearly indicates they
must hear/receive Christ to be saved, the RCC says they don't have to,
but can cooperate with the inner grace of God and die in a state of
grace.
FOOEY, as my jewish friend rob would say
>
> >8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in
> >thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
> >9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
> >believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou
> >shalt be saved.
>
> Definitely the case for the grown man.
>
> And he also says that our new marching orders are that we love one another as he
> loves us.
>
> >10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the
> >mouth confession is made unto salvation.
> >11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be
> >ashamed.
> >12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the
> >same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
>
> Yes, of course, and why send the infants to burn in hell because they died sans
> baptism?
>
Based on deut 1:39, i would say they go to heaven. But that is
speculation. Another possibility is that in the milennium they will be
raised to life and be returned to earth to live out the lives they did
not have a chance to live. No scripture for that; it's only my
speculation
> >13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
>
> Definitely the case for the grown man.
>
> >See? The pagan MUST have a missionary explain the gospel to him so he
> >can accept it and have salvation. He CAN'T have enough grace to
> >cooperate with that somehow he dies in a state of grace for a Lord he
> >has never heard of and called on. The RCC says he can, but the bible
> >teaches something else
>
> No, the bible doesn't. I often enjoy pointing out how many sin-filled
> Christians will gnash their teeth in unbelief when they go to hell while
> non-Christians who live in the spirit of Christ go to heaven.
impossible. period. NO non-christian is going to heaven. Period. End of
story. Not one jew. Not one moslem. Not one atheist. Not one hindu. No
one nothing. ONLY Christians in covenant with God thru faith in Christ
will be there.
See the parable in matt 22 about the wedding garment handed out at the
gate (Christ), where a guy who did not come thru that gate and get the
garment was thrown out even though he was invited in with the rest!
>
> >By the way, the catholic church I grew up in the 50-60s taught everyone
> >but catholics were certainly going to hell.Period. At least, the
> >catholic churches i knew did.
>
> I suggest that word is (c)atholic and not (C)atholic.
huh?? You mean you're not a ROMAN catholic? You're some sort of
orthodox?
Bob Young
On 12/28/09 9:44 PM, in article o5bhj51v8t8ktdbht...@4ax.com,
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:34:21 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwk...@aim.com> wrote:
>
>>>> The Roman Catholic church doctrine is not Bible and has no foundation
>>>> in Scripture.
>
>>> Don't be so stupid. �The Catholic Church is not only the Church that Christ
>>> founded 2000 years ago, but also the one Church �that most fully follows
>>> scripture and locked in on the bible.
>
>> Stupid is something I never was or will be, the Catholic Church came
>> from the Orthodox Church, History shows that as fact. Ask any Greek
>> Orthodox priest and he will let you know real quick.
>
> Ask the Roman Catholic Church today, including reading Church history for 2000
> years, and you will find out your error - real quick.
>
> Christ gave his Church on earth the Holy Mass, 7 sacraments, and the Papacy.
> Thats 100% scriptural.
Which means it is 100% firmly ensconced in the section marked . .
'Mythology and Fiction'
duke
>
>
>
>On 12/28/09 9:44 PM, in article o5bhj51v8t8ktdbht...@4ax.com,
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:34:21 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwk...@aim.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> The Roman Catholic church doctrine is not Bible and has no foundation
>>>>> in Scripture.
>>
>>>> Don't be so stupid. �The Catholic Church is not only the Church that Christ
>>>> founded 2000 years ago, but also the one Church �that most fully follows
>>>> scripture and locked in on the bible.
>>
>>> Stupid is something I never was or will be, the Catholic Church came
>>> from the Orthodox Church, History shows that as fact. Ask any Greek
>>> Orthodox priest and he will let you know real quick.
>>
>> Ask the Roman Catholic Church today, including reading Church history for 2000
>> years, and you will find out your error - real quick.
>> Christ gave his Church on earth the Holy Mass, 7 sacraments, and the Papacy.
>> Thats 100% scriptural.
>Which means it is 100% firmly ensconced in the section marked . .
>'Mythology and Fiction'
Oh, well, that's your problem, not mine.
duke
wrote:
>duke wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:16:36 -0800, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I'm starting over on this response. The reason is that **we're** trying to
>> quantify events after death, which is wishful thinking. We don't know, and we
>> can't impact in what it means.
>>
>> First, I gather you investigated becoming a Catholic (RCIA class). Did you
>> become Catholic? {ps - I see at the end that you are/were Catholic}.
>I was raised catholic as a youth before becoming a spiritualist medium.
>Today i am an evangelical with good memories of the catholic church,
>though I reject its claim of infallibility, and teach against some of
>its bad doctrines.
What is a "spiritualist medium"?
Hopefully at some point you will address your line of authority in declaring the
RCC teachings of 2000 years and millions of man hours of learned research as bad
doctrine.
>> Second, your knowledge reflects fundamentalism where people speak as though they
>> know the actual events post death - Abraham's bosom and lake of fire, perdition,
>> etc.
>Yes. We are reasonably confident the Bible outlines the basics, though
>there are always questions and debatable issues on the subject
Or, as I say, heaven and hell and purification. I am always amused at the way
some speak of lakes and 2nd judgments like anybody would has a grip on these
things.
>> >> >> Where were the righteous dead when Christ raised them?
>> >> >Not sure what you mean. THE resurrection is yet to come. The righteous
>> >> >dead in spirit were in abraham's bosom.
>> >> I disagree. THE resurrection was 2000 years ago when the righteous that died
>> >> were raised to new life.
>> >Guess I'll let paul speak to that claim then:
>>
>> Ok, let's see it.
>> >16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more
>> >ungodliness.
>> >17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and
>> >Philetus;
>> >18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is
>> >past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
>> Yep, 2 Thess. They were packing up the stores & goodies thinking the Day of the
>> Lord had already passed. However, the resurrection of the Lord had already
>> taken place.
>I honestly don't know how you're getting that. that's not a view taught
>by the RCC that I've ever heard. Can you give me a reference?
Which part? The prelude to 2Thes states this in my Catholic Study bible. The
reference is to the Day of the Lord. Jesus of course had already risen from
the dead, so I don't think you mean that.
>> > That means heaven.
>> >> Matthew 27:51-52 (New International Version)
>> >> 51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.
>> >> The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of
>> >> many holy people who had died were raised to life.
>>
>> >As you are an educated catholic, I assume you know that while the bible
>> >does not say what became of these saints, the gospel of nicodemus says
>> >they returned to their graves 3 days later, and I suspect that most
>> >catholic scholars would take that view.
>>
>> Nico saying 3 days may be THE error that kept it out of the gospels.
>>
>> And the bible does say they were raised to **LIFE**. If they were raised
>> pre-glorified Jesus, say from a lowly spot to a purgatory, it's still proper to
>> say they were raised to life.
>Yes. but we don't know what happened next, which amazes me that matthew
>does not say
Matthew didn't know. The gospels are records of what people said that Jesus
said. And they are clearly not records of everything Jesus said and did. John
21:25.
>> >But even if you don't, I don't see how you can say THIS was the
>> >resurrection given the fact that folks have died and been awaiting
>> >resurrection for 2000 years since, and certainly paul's words to the
>> >thessalonians are speaking of a future event
>>
>> Yes, the Day of the Lord.
>>
>> >> >If you mean 'raised' in the sense of taking them to heaven after the
>> >> >crucifixion, they were in sheol, where all souls were, with those in
>> >> >covenant with God in a good part of it, and the unrighteous in a bad
>> >> >part of it.
>>
>> >> I disagree.
>>
>> >> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm
>> >> The Latin infernus (inferum, inferi), the Greek Hades, and the Hebrew sheol
>> >> correspond to the word hell.
>>
>> >But HELL isn't the place of eternal perdition. That's the lake of fire
>> >spoken of in revelation. The hades/sheol spoken of is the abode of the
>> >dead before the judgment. I know we commonly use it as an
>> >all-encompassing word for eternal perdition, but technically it's the
>> >place one would go to BEFORE judgment.
>>
>> Forget hades/sheol/lake of fire/high land/low land. There's only two places -
>> the saved with God or the damned with satan. Those who die separated from God
>> (in mortal sin) go directly to hell.
>
>But not the lake of fire, which gets filled at the last judgment
I submit that the first judgment (particular Heb 9:27) is the last judgment for
those relegated to hell at death. And further, that the last judgment (general
Rev 21:27) is only for the saved where they stand face to face with their
sinfulness in purgatory.
>> Those who die completely in Christ go
>> directly to God. Those others that are all of us must be purified first to
>> stand before God.
>And that there is an arguable issue. Perhps. Perhps not. The bible does
>not explicitly say that, but one might infer that and argue the case.
>What we CAN seem to say with reasonable certainty is that the RCC view
>of purgatory does not hold up to scripture, in that it is a prolonged
>process that can take centuries, with prayers and alms for the dead all
>that time helping those there get out. The Bible really does not affirm
>those ideas
Of course it does. The bible clearly says about a purging:
Rev 21:27: "�nothing unclean will enter heaven�"
Mat 5:8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God"
Heb 12:14: "strive�for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord".
Mat 5:48: "�be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".
1Cor 3:13
13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light.
It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's
work.
1 John 1:8-10 makes it clear that we die as sinners. And for sure we have the
human nature to sin well tattooed on our soul.
>> It is not for man to know if "directly to hell" is instantaneous or a billion
>> man years. The same is true of standing face to face with God. It is not for
>> man to know the time frame for the dead in Christ who rose when Christ died is a
>> quick or long trip or a round about trip when they were raised to life.
>>
>> >So the rich man is in "hell", yes, but he still has the lake of fire
>> >awaiting him, which is much worse.
>>
>> Three places - heaven, hell, purification. Those dying in mortal sin never make
>> it to purification. Mat 12:32.
>Apparently they can: 2 macc 12(?), where the guys being prayed for are
>idolators, which is mortal sin
>So either someone in the mortal sin of idolatry CAN go to purgatory, or
>that passage is not a good proof text to use since it refutes catholic
>teaching on the subject
2Mac 12:40 has prayers asking that the dead soldiers be released from their
sins. That's the point. Judas couldn't know the actual state of their souls,
or the nature of their sins but that he believed, as a Jew, that prayer for them
was proper. Only God knew that.
>> >Are you saying that pope john paul (or any righteous departed catholic)
>> >has a resurrected physical body at this time?
>> Absolutely yes, subject to the state of his soul being pure. And not just
>> Catholics but all people of all faiths and non-faiths everywhere. Those are the
>> canonized saints.
>Is this a catholic teaching?? Can you give me a source for it?
Let me rephrase. Canonized saints are already in heaven, by definition. OTOH,
I've never heard a Catholic priest deny the possibility of salvation for
non-Christians. Jesus said he is the only way to the Father, not that one had
to be a Christian.
>Nope:
Interesting. I thought Protestants thought we already were in the kingdom of
God. But not that it's heaven. We Catholics never talk about such a thing.
Nobody knows.
I would think that Jesus tasting death for every man would put us in the kingdom
of God. Jesus is glorified, and raised to the Father, and we are buried with
him to sin in baptism in hopes of following him to the Father.
>> We now live under the new covenant of love of God, written on our hearts and not
>> by the sacrifice of bulls..
>Yeah. That's the NEW COVENANT, not the miessianic kingdom
Agreed, and we are currently of the Body of Christ.
Those in serious sin worship satan. See A&E. They told God "no", that they'll
decide right from wrong and not he. If we die in a state of telling God "no",
we are satan, we are blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
>> >So you can make the argument the RCC way, but as is so often the case
>> >with purgatory arguments, it does not seem to be that strong, nor does
>> >it exclude other arguments
>> Heaven, hell, and purification.
>"purification" might indeed be argued. PURGATORY (as defined) is the
>problem
Now, now. We're dealing with the mind of a goat herder 2000 years ago. Purging
and purifying are the same thing. That a "place" exists, or not, is not the
issue.
>> Why would God restrict his love for his newborn creation that dies unbaptized?
>> He is unable to sin. But he still possesses the stain of original sin.
>Different issue. I'm talking about adults.
And I'm talking about both. Certainly an adult who submits to baptism has
attained a desire via knowledge. Catholics do the same in Confirmation where
youth previous receiving John's baptism at birth now make their own baptismal
promises as one mature enough to know what he's doing.
> Paul clearly indicates they
>must hear/receive Christ to be saved, the RCC says they don't have to,
>but can cooperate with the inner grace of God and die in a state of
>grace.
Why "must", but instead "do"? As far as dying in the state of grace, 1 John
1:8-10 pretty much eliminates that.
>FOOEY, as my jewish friend rob would say
I agree, FOOEY as far as dying in the state of grace. Only God knows.
>> >8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in
>> >thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
>> >9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
>> >believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou
>> >shalt be saved.
>> Definitely the case for the grown man.
>> And he also says that our new marching orders are that we love one another as he
>> loves us.
>> >10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the
>> >mouth confession is made unto salvation.
>> >11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be
>> >ashamed.
>> >12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the
>> >same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
>>
>> Yes, of course, and why send the infants to burn in hell because they died sans
>> baptism?
>Based on deut 1:39, i would say they go to heaven.
Deut is for Jews. Christ is for Christians, where the covenant is written on
the heart and not on stone tablets.
>> No, the bible doesn't. I often enjoy pointing out how many sin-filled
>> Christians will gnash their teeth in unbelief when they go to hell while
>> non-Christians who live in the spirit of Christ go to heaven.
>impossible. period. NO non-christian is going to heaven. Period. End of
>story. Not one jew. Not one moslem. Not one atheist. Not one hindu. No
>one nothing. ONLY Christians in covenant with God thru faith in Christ
>will be there.
Sorry. Jesus said "I give you a new command, that you love one another as I
have loved you." Jews, atheists, hindus, muslims "can" live in the spirit of
Christ as well as any baptized person. After all, they are God's children
also.
>See the parable in matt 22 about the wedding garment handed out at the
>gate (Christ), where a guy who did not come thru that gate and get the
>garment was thrown out even though he was invited in with the rest!
Nice parable about God's invitation, but not every non-Christian worships satan.
>> >By the way, the catholic church I grew up in the 50-60s taught everyone
>> >but catholics were certainly going to hell.Period. At least, the
>> >catholic churches i knew did.
>> I suggest that word is (c)atholic and not (C)atholic.
>huh?? You mean you're not a ROMAN catholic? You're some sort of
>orthodox?
(c)atholic means "ONE church", with the Holy Mass and 7 sacraments.
RWKnapp
> "RWKnapp" < wrotewww.pioneers-for-jesus.org
I am not sure who that Ray Knapp was, their were a few people that
used the name "Knapp" I am the Chairman of the board and never was
sent home by anyone or any group etc. So I can not be that person.
I like Burger King for the meals, nothing else, that guy must be weird
if he took a bath in dishwater and never worked for such a place.
No one has been able to kick me or hurt me, I am big enough and
trained to win any fight, and never lost one either.
Anyone that wants to know where I am, only needs to look, it is posted
and has been since the BBS days and since the Internet went online. I
buy fruit, I pay others to do any picking of such. So seems you never
met me and have no idea who you posting to.
My Children are business managers and own companies and are very
successful. Something by your post, you are not.
If you run my full name on the Internet you will find over 75 people
with that name from all over the States.
I do know a Ray Knapp that lives in W.V and a Raymond Knapp that lived
in NEB., also a town called Knapp with lots of Knapp's and none that I
know is family.
Enjoy looking it is interesting.
RWKnapp
> "RWKnapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote
>
> Stupid is something I never was or will be, the Catholic Church came
> from the Orthodox Church, History shows that as fact.
>
> PB - OK, show me now....
> Give me a reference....
> -----------
> The bible show
> and the scriptures are locked in on the bible which the Catholic do
> not follow or want to read. Check the out. Lev 26:1
> 26
> 'You shall not make idols for yourselves;
> neither a carved image nor a sacred pillar shall you rear up for
> yourselves;
> nor shall you set up an engraved stone in your land, to bow down to
> it;
> for I am the Lord your God. NKJV
>
> PRB -- Catholics don't bow down to "images " or "idols."
Then you better tell that to the folks in the Philippines as they do
all that and even have books full of them doing just that. Your
statement is false.
>
> -------------------
> Even you Pope bow' down to engraved images made of stone, and wood
> etc.
>
> PRB - <Yawn> same song, different day....
> Catholics worship statues!" People still make this ridiculous claim. Because
> Catholics have statues in their churches, goes the accusation, they are
> violating God's commandment: "You shall not make for yourself a graven image
> or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth
> beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down to
> them or serve them" (Ex. 20:4-5); "Alas, this people have sinned a great
> sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold" (Ex. 32:31).
> It is right to warn people against the sin of idolatry when they are
> committing it. But calling Catholics idolaters because they have images of
> Christ and the saints is based on misunderstanding or ignorance of what the
There is no image of Christ or Saints past, so what ever you call a
image of Christ etc, are false and have no foundation in facts.
> Bible says about the purpose and uses (both good and bad) of statues.
> Anti-Catholic writer Loraine Boettner, in his book Roman Catholicism, makes
> the blanket statement, "God has forbidden the use of images in worship"
> (281). Yet if people were to "search the scriptures" (cf. John 5:39), they
> would find the opposite is true. God forbade the worship of statues, but he
> did not forbid the religious use of statues. Instead, he actually commanded
> their use in religious contexts!
Lots of double talk, only shows the blind lead the bind.
>
> God Said To Make Them
Never not one, the Cerebrums were in a closed room in the Holy of
Hollies, and no person could look on them or they would die. No one
not even the Priest were to look at them. So no one could make them
as a image to knee down to.
>
> People who oppose religious statuary forget about the many passages where
> the Lord commands the making of statues. For example: "And you shall make
> two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work
> shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on
> the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat
> shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out
> their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their
> faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim
> be" (Ex. 25:18-20).
So read it again and see where they were in the Tent or Tabernacle or
even the Temple. No person seen them or touch them. Then the images
that the Church uses are not given by God they are images of man and
woman people that God told people NOT to make. Even a Angel is not
listed to be made or seen in the form of any image. They are works of
men, and are ordered by God not to make, of any thing in heaven or on
earth.
> David gave Solomon the plan "for the altar of incense made of refined gold,
> and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that
> spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this
Using gold to build a altar or a chariot is not something people
worship or pray to, a Golden calf was made and Moses had it broken up
and them that made such a image were killed.
> he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all
> the work to be done according to the plan" (1 Chr. 28:18-19). David's plan
> for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was "by the writing of
> the hand of the Lord concerning it all," included statues of angels.
> Similarly Ezekiel 41:17-18 describes graven (carved) images in the idealized
> temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, "On the walls round about in
> the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim."
Ex 20:4-6
4 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image — any likeness of
anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or
that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them
nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting
the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth
generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing mercy to thousands, to
those who love Me and keep My commandments. NKJV
Hos 13:2
2 Now they sin more and more,
And have made for themselves molded images,
Idols of their silver, according to their skill;
All of it is the work of craftsmen.
They say of them,
"Let the men who sacrifice kiss the calves!" NKJV
>
> The Religious Uses of Images
> During a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus,
> God told Moses to "make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole;
> and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live. So Moses made a
> bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would
> look at the bronze serpent and live" (Num. 21:8-9).
> One had to look at the bronze statue of the serpent to be healed, which
> shows that statues could be used ritually, not merely as religious
> decorations.
No one touch that serpent statue, that image of bronze never was seen
again and never used in a building or temple or Church.
> Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the
> person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one's mother by
> looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints
> by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching
All the images used are not pictures as no one has such, no one
painted such at the time they lived, who are these fake saints and
even the Mother of Jesus that Image of Mary, is not Mary it could be
any woman, a sinner a evil person since there is no image of Mary or
Jesus or any of the so called saints. God said not to make them, the
catholics disobey God and made such images and call them names of
Saints and such.
> tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction
> of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible
> pictures in Sunday school for teaching children. Catholics also use statues
> to commemorate certain people and events, much as Protestant churches have
> three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas.
Nice point. They should not use such pictures either, since those
people are not the image or from any picture of the real person.
> If one measured Protestants by the same rule, then by using these "graven"
> images, they would be practicing the "idolatry" of which they accuse
> Catholics. But there's no idolatry going on in these situations. God forbids
> the worship of images as gods, but he doesn't ban the making of images. If
Hos 13:2
2 Now they sin more and more,
And have made for themselves molded images,
Idols of their silver, according to their skill;
All of it is the work of craftsmen.
They say of them,
"Let the men who sacrifice kiss the calves!"
NKJV
> he had, religious movies, videos, photographs, paintings, and all similar
> things would be banned. But, as the case of the bronze serpent shows, God
> does not even forbid the ritual use of religious images.
Sure he does forbid them.
> It is when people begin to adore a statue as a god that the Lord becomes
> angry. Thus when people did start to worship the bronze serpent as a
> snake-god (whom they named "Nehushtan"), the righteous king Hezekiah had it
> destroyed (2 Kgs. 18:4).
>
> What About Bowing?
>
> Sometimes anti-Catholics cite Deuteronomy 5:9, where God said concerning
> idols, "You shall not bow down to them." Since many Catholics sometimes bow
> or kneel in front of statues of Jesus and the saints, anti-Catholics confuse
Since that Statue IS NOT JESUS but some imaginary image of some guy
that does not even look Jewish. Same with Mary a nice lady from the
UK or some other white long nose with a face like the European not a
Jewish woman, or one from Asia.
> the legitimate veneration of a sacred image with the sin of idolatry.
> Though bowing can be used as a posture in worship, not all bowing is
No such thing for veneration or is any image sacred that is pure sin
to even say such things.
> worship. In Japan, people show respect by bowing in greeting (the equivalent
> of the Western handshake). Similarly, a person can kneel before a king
> without worshipping him as a god. In the same way, a Catholic who may kneel
> in front of a statue while praying isn't worshipping the statue or even
> praying to it, any more than the Protestant who kneels with a Bible in his
> hands when praying is worshipping the Bible or praying to it.
One knee before a image of Mary, then talk to that image and pray the
Rosary over and over again telling to that image calling it Hail Mary
full of grace the Lord is with thee,........ A MASS can not be said
with out such prayers to images and saints. God is the only one that
can answer prayer and the only one that the Bible says to pray to and
only Jesus can bring on to God no one else.
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life.
No one comes to the Father except through Me. NKJV
Col 3:16-17
16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching
and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,
singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. 17 And whatever you do
in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks
to God the Father through Him. NKJV
We are only to pray to JESUS CHRIST as this is what Jesus said to do.
John 14:13-14
13 And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father
may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask anything in My name, I
will do it. NKJV
1 John 5:14-15
14 Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask
anything according to His will, He hears us. 15 And if we know that He
hears us, whatever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we
have asked of Him. NKJV
No one else are we to pray to, or honor with our prayers, only Jesus,
God can hear and answers what we ask Him. Not some saint or even Mary
or some image of stone, clay or painting etc.
duke
>On Dec 28, 1:04�pm, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
>> "RWKnapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote
>>
>> Stupid is something I never was or will be, the Catholic Church came
>> from the Orthodox Church, History shows that as fact.
>>
>> PB - OK, show me now....
>> Give me a reference....
>> -----------
>> The bible show
>> and the scriptures are locked in on the bible which the Catholic do
>> not follow or want to read. �Check the out. �Lev 26:1
>> 26
>> 'You shall not make idols for yourselves;
>> neither a carved image nor a sacred pillar shall you rear up for
>> yourselves;
>> nor shall you set up an engraved stone in your land, to bow down to
>> it;
>> for I am the Lord your God. NKJV
>>
>> PRB -- Catholics don't bow down to "images " or "idols."
>
>Then you better tell that to the folks in the Philippines as they do
>all that and even have books full of them doing just that. Your
>statement is false.
Surprise: They're not bowing to the statue. Any more than you are talking to a
photo of a deceased loved one.
Patrick
On Dec 28, 1:18 pm, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
> "RWKnapp" < wrotewww.pioneers-for-jesus.org
>
> Good Golly.
> Are you the same Ray Knapp who was the BIG missionary in
> the Philippines and was sent home? Are you the dishwasher at
> Burger King who took a bath in the dishwater?
> I kicked your ass several years ago. Do you need another lesson
> in humility? Where are you now? Texas? California? Are you
> still picking fruit? Are you still all so proud about yer kids?
I am not sure who that Ray Knapp was, their were a few people that
used the name "Knapp" I am the Chairman of the board and never was
sent home by anyone or any group etc. So I can not be that person.
Enjoy looking it is interesting.
PB - Both of us know who you are.
You do seem somewhat subdued after your beatings though.
Perhaps you have learned to be nicer to others.
RWKnapp
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:57:22 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 28, 1:04 pm, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
> >> "RWKnapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote
>
> >> Stupid is something I never was or will be, the Catholic Church came
> >> from the Orthodox Church, History shows that as fact.
>
> >> PB - OK, show me now....
> >> Give me a reference....
> >> -----------
> >> The bible show
> >> and the scriptures are locked in on the bible which the Catholic do
> >> not follow or want to read. Check the out. Lev 26:1
> >> 26
> >> 'You shall not make idols for yourselves;
> >> neither a carved image nor a sacred pillar shall you rear up for
> >> yourselves;
> >> nor shall you set up an engraved stone in your land, to bow down to
> >> it;
> >> for I am the Lord your God. NKJV
>
> >> PRB -- Catholics don't bow down to "images " or "idols."
>
> >Then you better tell that to the folks in the Philippines as they do
> >all that and even have books full of them doing just that. Your
> >statement is false.
>
> Surprise: They're not bowing to the statue. Any more than you are talking to a
> photo of a deceased loved one.
I never talk to photo's or the dead, which bring us back to you folks
do bow to statues, I do neither.
RWKnapp
> "RWKnapp" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote .
You lie, and you could not beat me even in a game. It sounds like you
are playing both parts since if one is so bad he would of whipped you
real bad, and it seems you imagination is all you have.
RWKnapp
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 04:37:53 -0800, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >duke wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:16:36 -0800, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> I'm starting over on this response. The reason is that **we're** trying to
> >> quantify events after death, which is wishful thinking. We don't know, and we
> >> can't impact in what it means.
>
> >> First, I gather you investigated becoming a Catholic (RCIA class). Did you
> >> become Catholic? {ps - I see at the end that you are/were Catholic}.
> >I was raised catholic as a youth before becoming a spiritualist medium.
> >Today i am an evangelical with good memories of the catholic church,
> >though I reject its claim of infallibility, and teach against some of
> >its bad doctrines.
>
> What is a "spiritualist medium"?
Hi Duke, I was told such is a person that deals with spirits of the
dead and demons, and the Medium is one that is in between so that
person surrenders their body to the spirit of dead speak thru them.
They tell people that the ghost of people are alive and are always
with so they can connect like a cellphone does and they will tell you
what you died friend or family member forgot to tell you when they
were still living on earth. The Bible condemns then when I think it
was Saul was suppose to called by a medium.
Lev 20:27
27 'A man or a woman who is a medium, or who has familiar spirits,
shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones. Their
blood shall be upon them.'" NKJV
Deut 18:10-14
10 There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his
daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a
soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who
conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the
dead. 12 For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord,
and because of these abominations the Lord your God drives them out
from before you. 13 You shall be blameless before the Lord your God.
14 For these nations which you will dispossess listened to soothsayers
and diviners; but as for you, the Lord your God has not appointed such
for you.
NKJV
1 Chron 10:13-14
13 So Saul died for his unfaithfulness which he had committed against
the Lord, because he did not keep the word of the Lord, and also
because he consulted a medium for guidance. NKJV
Hope that helps.
> Hopefully at some point you will address your line of authority in declaring the
> RCC teachings of 2000 years and millions of man hours of learned research as bad
> doctrine.
Like any group just because the members of that group spent years in
research does not make them collect, look at the Buddhist religion,
they date back to the with in 500 years after Abraham time. Making
their teachings over four thousand years old, not as long as the Old
Testament, and Jewish people could of shown Buddha the Word of God.
Many of the teachings are about the same as found in Proverbs, and
originally they did believe only ONE GOD.
Bob Young
On 1/1/10 7:14 AM, in article
4022b0cf-b8a7-401d...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, "RWKnapp"
<rwk...@aim.com> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 8:37�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 04:37:53 -0800, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> duke wrote:
>>
>>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:16:36 -0800, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com>
>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm starting over on this response. �The reason is that **we're** trying to
>>>> quantify events after death, which is wishful thinking. �We don't know, and
>>>> we
>>>> can't impact in what it means.
>>
>>>> First, I gather you investigated becoming a Catholic (RCIA class). �Did you
>>>> become Catholic? �{ps - I see at the end that you are/were Catholic}.
>
>>> I was raised catholic as a youth before becoming a spiritualist medium.
>>> Today i am an evangelical with good memories of the catholic church,
>>> though I reject its claim of infallibility, and teach against some of
>>> its bad doctrines.
>>
>> What is a "spiritualist medium"?
>
> Hi Duke, I was told such is a person that deals with spirits of the
> dead and demons, and the Medium is one that is in between so that
> person surrenders their body to the spirit of dead speak thru them.
Ay indeed. More charlatanism and more reason for calling oneself an atheist.
> They tell people that the ghost of people are alive and are always
> with so they can connect like a cellphone does and they will tell you
> what you died friend or family member forgot to tell you when they
> were still living on earth. The Bible condemns then when I think it
> was Saul was suppose to called by a medium.
Of course they are/were condemned. We cant have that kind of silly
competition can we ?
> Lev 20:27
> 27 'A man or a woman who is a medium, or who has familiar spirits,
> shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones. Their
> blood shall be upon them.'" NKJV
Brings out the best in people - religions - eh ?
Had to smile at that - you folks talk here in terms of four thousand odd
years as being periods where current religions were thriving, disregarding
completely the fact that this planet and the humans, or their antecedents,
on it have been around for over six million years !
Do you folks concede that early humans almost surely had no method of verbal
communication, other than one or two recognizable grunts and that they lived
like this for millions of years virtually unchanged?
If you do then you will understand as well that man's fist ever gods were
only spoken about as they are today after man had achieved the ability to
express himself in a lucid manner - bringing us soundly back to the period
that your god was around i.e. About four thousand to six thousand years ago.
Too logical for yer' ? Maybe . . . . . but it's not too illogical for me.
Cheers
Bob
Bob Young
On 12/30/09 8:22 PM, in article 6dhmj5hn1bbdtncfi...@4ax.com,
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On 29 Dec 2009 23:08:01 -0600, Bob Young <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/28/09 9:44 PM, in article o5bhj51v8t8ktdbht...@4ax.com,
>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:34:21 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwk...@aim.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> The Roman Catholic church doctrine is not Bible and has no foundation
>>>>>> in Scripture.
>>>
>>>>> Don't be so stupid. �The Catholic Church is not only the Church that
>>>>> Christ
>>>>> founded 2000 years ago, but also the one Church �that most fully follows
>>>>> scripture and locked in on the bible.
>>>
>>>> Stupid is something I never was or will be, the Catholic Church came
>>>> from the Orthodox Church, History shows that as fact. Ask any Greek
>>>> Orthodox priest and he will let you know real quick.
>>>
>>> Ask the Roman Catholic Church today, including reading Church history for
>>> 2000
>>> years, and you will find out your error - real quick.
>
>>> Christ gave his Church on earth the Holy Mass, 7 sacraments, and the Papacy.
>>> Thats 100% scriptural.
>
>> Which means it is 100% firmly ensconced in the section marked . .
>> 'Mythology and Fiction'
>
> Oh, well, that's your problem, not mine.
And your problem is and it's a big one, you cannot prove that anything in
The Scriptures is not mythology.
Your gonna have to get used to it.
duke
>> >I was raised catholic as a youth before becoming a spiritualist medium.
>Hope that helps.
I hope you're not doing that satan trick any more.
>> Hopefully at some point you will address your line of authority in declaring the
>> RCC teachings of 2000 years and millions of man hours of learned research as bad
>> doctrine.
>Like any group just because the members of that group spent years in
>research does not make them collect, look at the Buddhist religion,
>they date back to the with in 500 years after Abraham time. Making
>their teachings over four thousand years old, not as long as the Old
>Testament, and Jewish people could of shown Buddha the Word of God.
>Many of the teachings are about the same as found in Proverbs, and
>originally they did believe only ONE GOD.
Actually they don't believe in any god.
But my point is that millions of manhours of research have gone into Scripture,
pulling all the parts together in an effort to understand God's message to us.
That being said, how can protestant individuals who by and large reject much of
scripture tell the RCC it's wrong?
>> >> Second, your knowledge reflects fundamentalism where people speak as though they
>> >> know the actual events post death - Abraham's bosom and lake of fire, perdition,
>> >> etc.
>> >Yes. We are reasonably confident the Bible outlines the basics, though
>> >there are always questions and debatable issues on the subject
>> Or, as I say, heaven and hell and purification. �I am always amused at the way
>> some speak of lakes and 2nd judgments like anybody would has a grip on these
>> things.
No response? To me, it's clear. We are born, we live, we die. Only one man
went to the other side and came back to talk about it. That's Christ. To us,
it has no value in details. Those details are of God only.
duke
>And your problem is and it's a big one, you cannot prove that anything in
>The Scriptures is not mythology.
>Your gonna have to get used to it.
And your problem is a big one, that only volunteers go to hell.
You're going to have to get used to that.
duke
No, we do not, any more than you communicate with a photo.
vince garcia
>
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 04:37:53 -0800, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >duke wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:16:36 -0800, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm starting over on this response. The reason is that **we're** trying to
> >> quantify events after death, which is wishful thinking. We don't know, and we
> >> can't impact in what it means.
> >>
> >> First, I gather you investigated becoming a Catholic (RCIA class). Did you
> >> become Catholic? {ps - I see at the end that you are/were Catholic}.
>
> >I was raised catholic as a youth before becoming a spiritualist medium.
> >Today i am an evangelical with good memories of the catholic church,
> >though I reject its claim of infallibility, and teach against some of
> >its bad doctrines.
>
> What is a "spiritualist medium"?
Randy did a good job of explaining it. Otherwise, look at some of the
supernatural reality shows where they bring in a psychic to commune with
"ghosts"
>
> Hopefully at some point you will address your line of authority in declaring the
> RCC teachings of 2000 years and millions of man hours of learned research as bad
> doctrine.
The authority is the scripture, which the RCC perverts, denies or
contradicts on some issues. I gave you one example.
Another example would be mandating preistly celebacy when even
Paul--whom they appeal to--said bishops MUST be the husband of one wife;
and Paul himself never REQUIRED any minister or bishop to be unmarried.
>
> >> Second, your knowledge reflects fundamentalism where people speak as though they
> >> know the actual events post death - Abraham's bosom and lake of fire, perdition,
> >> etc.
>
> >Yes. We are reasonably confident the Bible outlines the basics, though
> >there are always questions and debatable issues on the subject
>
> Or, as I say, heaven and hell and purification. I am always amused at the way
> some speak of lakes and 2nd judgments like anybody would has a grip on these
> things.
Bible's reasonably clear on it
the Day of the
> >> Lord had already passed. However, the resurrection of the Lord had already
> >> taken place.
>
> >I honestly don't know how you're getting that. that's not a view taught
> >by the RCC that I've ever heard. Can you give me a reference?
>
> Which part?
The part about you getting your perfected physical body as soon as you
get to heaven. The RCC i'm sure does not teach this.
> >But not the lake of fire, which gets filled at the last judgment
>
> I submit that the first judgment (particular Heb 9:27) is the last judgment for
> those relegated to hell at death.
Well, the RCC position is that there is a speicific judgment at death,
then go to a bad place for the sinner, then the general judgment comes
at the end of time, and you go to a worse place:
the Catholic Encyclopedia says "Few truths are more often or more
clearly proclaimed in Scripture than that of the general judgment".
When the individual dies, general judgment holds that the person's final
dispensation will await the general judgment of the dead at the end of
the world, rather than be judged immediately.
And further, that the last judgment (general
> Rev 21:27) is only for the saved where they stand face to face with their
> sinfulness in purgatory.
Not what the catholic encyclopedia says
> >What we CAN seem to say with reasonable certainty is that the RCC view
> >of purgatory does not hold up to scripture, in that it is a prolonged
> >process that can take centuries, with prayers and alms for the dead all
> >that time helping those there get out. The Bible really does not affirm
> >those ideas
>
> Of course it does. The bible clearly says about a purging:
>
> Rev 21:27: "�nothing unclean will enter heaven�"
> Mat 5:8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God"
> Heb 12:14: "strive�for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord".
> Mat 5:48: "�be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".
>
> 1Cor 3:13
> 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light.
> It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's
> work.
See how weak the argument is? Those verses don't make the point at all,
and are the best you can do to try and force the point to be made.
That's what happens when you try and teach purgatory.
> Rev 21:27: "�nothing unclean will enter heaven�"
jn 15 3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
>
> 1 John 1:8-10 makes it clear that we die as sinners. And for sure we have the
> human nature to sin well tattooed on our soul.
Reread vs 9 and the part about "cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness"
Not talking about purgatory since the person is obviously still alive to
confess his sins, and so the cleansing comes while the guy IS still
alive.
We could go on and on, but it's still true that the scriptural arguments
for purgatory are so weak that they really have no good merit.
> >Apparently they can: 2 macc 12(?), where the guys being prayed for are
> >idolators, which is mortal sin
>
> >So either someone in the mortal sin of idolatry CAN go to purgatory, or
> >that passage is not a good proof text to use since it refutes catholic
> >teaching on the subject
>
> 2Mac 12:40 has prayers asking that the dead soldiers be released from their
> sins. That's the point.
And I could, if I wanted to (and if I considered 2 Macc. inspired
scripture), make the point that the inspiration behind the thought
wasn't purgatory, but that the messiah come and take the departed
covenant people--the jews--from abraham's bosm, where they were
separtated fom God, to heaven.
I don't consider intertestamental books to be fully inspired,* so i
don't need to reconcile evangelical theology with them...tho I actually
could if i DID need to.
* Here's just one reason the apocrypha is not fully inspired: In the
apocrypha, the ark of the covenant was said to be hidden by jeremiah on
mt Nebo until the end of the age, when it would be found again
Well, just compare that thought to the REAL scripture of jeremiah 3:16,
and you'll see the apocrypha has errors, and thus is not infallible.
>
> Interesting. I thought Protestants thought we already were in the kingdom of
> God.
Preterists do. I'm not one.
But not that it's heaven. We Catholics never talk about such a thing.
> Nobody knows.
>
> I would think that Jesus tasting death for every man would put us in the kingdom
> of God. Jesus is glorified, and raised to the Father, and we are buried with
> him to sin in baptism in hopes of following him to the Father.
Not in hope--but of absolute assurance!
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son
of God; that ye MAY KNOW that ye have eternal life, and that ye may
believe on the name of the Son of God.
ong as well as he can.
>
> >Uh. no--it is attributing the power of God to satan. Even the didache
> >takes a similar view, saying judging a propghet of God is the
> >unforgivable sin, and the didache is right from the time the apostles
> >were still living
>
> Those in serious sin worship satan. See A&E. They told God "no", that they'll
> decide right from wrong and not he. If we die in a state of telling God "no",
> we are satan, we are blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
That's not what the Sin is. sorry. But I acknowledge the pope thought
that.
>
> >> >So you can make the argument the RCC way, but as is so often the case
> >> >with purgatory arguments, it does not seem to be that strong, nor does
> >> >it exclude other arguments
>
> >> Heaven, hell, and purification.
>
> >"purification" might indeed be argued. PURGATORY (as defined) is the
> >problem
>
> Now, now. We're dealing with the mind of a goat herder 2000 years ago. Purging
> and purifying are the same thing. That a "place" exists, or not, is not the
> issue.
OK. And you cannot make a very good argument that it does. You can try,
but the argument is not very strong, and even weaker goes the argument
if you define the catholic verion of purgatory
>
> >> Why would God restrict his love for his newborn creation that dies unbaptized?
> >> He is unable to sin. But he still possesses the stain of original sin.
>
> >Different issue. I'm talking about adults.
>
> And I'm talking about both.
You can't lump them together.
For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin
revived, and I died.
Even paul admits it was only after he was old enough to know right from
wrong did he enter a state of condemed sinner
Certainly an adult who submits to baptism has
> attained a desire via knowledge. Catholics do the same in Confirmation where
> youth previous receiving John's baptism at birth now make their own baptismal
> promises as one mature enough to know what he's doing.
>
> > Paul clearly indicates they
> >must hear/receive Christ to be saved, the RCC says they don't have to,
> >but can cooperate with the inner grace of God and die in a state of
> >grace.
>
> Why "must",
cuz paul says
but instead "do"? As far as dying in the state of grace, 1 John
> 1:8-10 pretty much eliminates that.
Your argument is with the RCC then; that's their doctrine, not mine
>
> >FOOEY, as my jewish friend rob would say
>
> I agree, FOOEY as far as dying in the state of grace. Only God knows.
>
> >> >8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in
> >> >thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
> >> >9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
> >> >believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou
> >> >shalt be saved.
>
> >> Definitely the case for the grown man.
>
> >> And he also says that our new marching orders are that we love one another as he
> >> loves us.
>
> >> >10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the
> >> >mouth confession is made unto salvation.
> >> >11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be
> >> >ashamed.
> >> >12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the
> >> >same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
> >>
> >> Yes, of course, and why send the infants to burn in hell because they died sans
> >> baptism?
>
> >Based on deut 1:39, i would say they go to heaven.
>
> Deut is for Jews. Christ is for Christians, where the covenant is written on
> the heart and not on stone tablets.
ok...kinda leaves the sincere moslem out of it, huh?
>
> >> No, the bible doesn't. I often enjoy pointing out how many sin-filled
> >> Christians will gnash their teeth in unbelief when they go to hell while
> >> non-Christians who live in the spirit of Christ go to heaven.
>
> >impossible. period. NO non-christian is going to heaven. Period. End of
> >story. Not one jew. Not one moslem. Not one atheist. Not one hindu. No
> >one nothing. ONLY Christians in covenant with God thru faith in Christ
> >will be there.
>
> Sorry. Jesus said "I give you a new command, that you love one another as I
> have loved you." Jews, atheists, hindus, muslims "can" live in the spirit of
> Christ as well as any baptized person.
no. That's salvation through the works of righteous living. Does not
work.
After all, they are God's children
> also.
They are children of adam. And they can go to heaven or hell based on
their receipt or non-receipt of the gospel
>
> >See the parable in matt 22 about the wedding garment handed out at the
> >gate (Christ), where a guy who did not come thru that gate and get the
> >garment was thrown out even though he was invited in with the rest!
>
> Nice parable about God's invitation, but not every non-Christian worships satan.
Sure they do. Perhaps not knowingly, but a sincere moslem is still
following a religion that has a demonic spirit behind it.
The HOLY Spirit is not the spirit that invented Islam, Hinduism,
Atheism, rabinnic judaism, Shintoism, Buddhism, and so on. SATAN is the
guiding influence behind ALL other religions:
But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice
to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have
fellowship with devils.
> >> >By the way, the catholic church I grew up in the 50-60s taught everyone
> >> >but catholics were certainly going to hell.Period. At least, the
> >> >catholic churches i knew did.
>
> >> I suggest that word is (c)atholic and not (C)atholic.
>
> >huh?? You mean you're not a ROMAN catholic? You're some sort of
> >orthodox?
>
> (c)atholic means "ONE church", with the Holy Mass and 7 sacraments.
So are you a rmoman catholic, in submission to the teaching magisterium
and pope, or not???
RWKnapp
>
> <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 8:37 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 04:37:53 -0800, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> duke wrote:
>
> >>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:16:36 -0800, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com>
>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>> I'm starting over on this response. The reason is that **we're** trying to
> >>>> quantify events after death, which is wishful thinking. We don't know, and
> >>>> we
> >>>> can't impact in what it means.
>
> >>>> First, I gather you investigated becoming a Catholic (RCIA class). Did you
> >>>> become Catholic? {ps - I see at the end that you are/were Catholic}.
>
> >>> I was raised catholic as a youth before becoming a spiritualist medium.
> >>> Today i am an evangelical with good memories of the catholic church,
> >>> though I reject its claim of infallibility, and teach against some of
> >>> its bad doctrines.
>
> >> What is a "spiritualist medium"?
>
> > Hi Duke, I was told such is a person that deals with spirits of the
> > dead and demons, and the Medium is one that is in between so that
> > person surrenders their body to the spirit of dead speak thru them.
>
> Ay indeed. More charlatanism and more reason for calling oneself an atheist.
People call themselves all kind of name, what this shows me is to test
what people say and not be scammed. Your remarks do not hold water,
be like just because someone uses fake money from their printer or
counterfeit does not mean there is no real legal money that is real
and good and only a foolish one would accept what is false. They may
want to work for the FBI or some government to stop such false bills,
they do not use such to prove money is useless etc.
>
> > They tell people that the ghost of people are alive and are always
> > with so they can connect like a cellphone does and they will tell you
> > what you died friend or family member forgot to tell you when they
> > were still living on earth. The Bible condemns then when I think it
> > was Saul was suppose to called by a medium.
>
> Of course they are/were condemned. We cant have that kind of silly
> competition can we ?
Saul was not the medium, he called one, and that was silly, since he
knew God and like an atheist he did what he wanted and that made the
problem that ended his life, total waste of years. He chose to do
what he wanted with out Gods OK and in the end without God, which
seems to fit your story of being raised in a church then later
rejecting God as if that Church was some kind of god. Reject the
religion is fine, rejecting the creator is pure stupidity.
>
> > Lev 20:27
> > 27 'A man or a woman who is a medium, or who has familiar spirits,
> > shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones. Their
> > blood shall be upon them.'" NKJV
>
> Brings out the best in people - religions - eh ?
Yes it does, and shows how many people refuse to accept God and want
to find information outside of God, like atheist do, eh?
There is nothing written that is six million years old, not a paper,
book nothing such only came into being in thousands of years. Then
the Christian as the Jew have no problem with billions of years, if
you want to go that route, In the Beginning GOD! The beginning of the
worlds and all that is, has no date, and six million years, has
already been rejected. Since such can not be proven and the last time
I read a book on Evolution they are now into many billions of years,
showing they make it up and have nothing to prove what they said, so
why not start with this word, what ever day or date one wants, the
Beginning when God made it, has no date, the date only points to this
earth and moon and such that we can see. Well no need to go on with
that, six million or six thousands at least with the thousand there is
documentation.
>
> Do you folks concede that early humans almost surely had no method of verbal
> communication, other than one or two recognizable grunts and that they lived
> like this for millions of years virtually unchanged?
I can not speak for the other folks only myself as you only speak for
yourself. I will not agree, since they found caves with pictures and
tools that was left in them show they had a form of verbal or graphic
ways of communication. Since we do not have a tape recorder or
Computer DVD then one thing for sure the atheist has no prove they did
not verbal communicate. Like they say today "I would ratter see a
sermon then hear one" "A picture is worth a thousand words." I
worked with some natives that sound like all they do is grunt only
they also understand what the sound of that grunt means. My cat makes
sounds also, and after a while I learn to understand that sound means
he is hungry or clean my litter box now. If you do such to displease
the cat he sure lets one know and we understand by his grunts what is
being verbalized.
>
> If you do then you will understand as well that man's fist ever gods were
> only spoken about as they are today after man had achieved the ability to
> express himself in a lucid manner - bringing us soundly back to the period
> that your god was around i.e. About four thousand to six thousand years ago.
>
> Too logical for yer' ? Maybe . . . . . but it's not too illogical for me.
Very logical why would you think otherwise??? I do not see what you
think is disagreeable with that statement! Unless you had nothing to
say, and hope someone reading would agree or not agree, not thinking
about what you said.
> Cheers
Yes Cheers have another cup of tea or coffee.
Raymond.
>
> Bob
>
> and Jewish people could of shown Buddha the Word of God.
That may of been why the teaching on morals does sound like some was
copied from the Old Testament, I know today we do such and many have
converted to Christ and one Buddhist monk stopped us and wanted to
know about the Holy Spirit and the power that our God does for
people. Seems like he seen a service and people accepting Jesus, and
many lives turn from evil to good lives and honoring life and
family.
>
>
>
> > Many of the teachings are about the same as found in Proverbs, and
> > originally they did believe only ONE GOD.
>
Raymond
www.pioneers-for-jesus.org
RWKnapp
> On 12/30/09 8:22 PM, in article 6dhmj5hn1bbdtncfic1osucirmhgvft...@4ax.com,
>
>
>
>
>
> "duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On 29 Dec 2009 23:08:01 -0600, Bob Young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 12/28/09 9:44 PM, in article o5bhj51v8t8ktdbhtk8ocposn5n2qca...@4ax.com,
> >> "duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:34:21 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> The Roman Catholic church doctrine is not Bible and has no foundation
> >>>>>> in Scripture.
>
> >>>>> Don't be so stupid. The Catholic Church is not only the Church that
> >>>>> Christ
> >>>>> founded 2000 years ago, but also the one Church that most fully follows
> >>>>> scripture and locked in on the bible.
>
> >>>> Stupid is something I never was or will be, the Catholic Church came
> >>>> from the Orthodox Church, History shows that as fact. Ask any Greek
> >>>> Orthodox priest and he will let you know real quick.
>
> >>> Ask the Roman Catholic Church today, including reading Church history for
> >>> 2000
> >>> years, and you will find out your error - real quick.
>
> >>> Christ gave his Church on earth the Holy Mass, 7 sacraments, and the Papacy.
> >>> Thats 100% scriptural.
>
> >> Which means it is 100% firmly ensconced in the section marked . .
> >> 'Mythology and Fiction'
>
> > Oh, well, that's your problem, not mine.
>
> And your problem is and it's a big one, you cannot prove that anything in
> The Scriptures is not mythology.
>
> Your gonna have to get used to it.
You are not that ignorant to believe what you just wrote. "Anything
in the Scriptures" So Egypt, Israel, man, woman, house, horse, etc for
thousand of things, all are and were and still have the same names
today" You would call yourself a mythology example, I was going to
point out the name you use "YOUNG" is found in the Bible only it is
used thousands of times, I did not know where to start.
Heb 12:7-11
7 If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what
son is there whom a father does not chasten? 8 But if you are without
chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are
illegitimate and not sons. 9 Furthermore, we have had human fathers
who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more
readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For
they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He
for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. 11 Now no
chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful;
nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness
to those who have been trained by it. NKJV
So you see all that as mythology? If you had children and I believe
you said you did, did you punish them "chasten" and if you did, was it
joyful later when they obeyed you? No need to go on, you have
nothing but empty words, and silly generalized remarks that when
looked at, show ignorants of what they used to made a point only
foolish, lawyer in many law schools use the Holy Bible laws to learn
by. Military leaders even since 1918 on to today use the wars in the
Bible to learn how to attack and win a battle.
Nice talking to you Bob,
Raymond
RWKnapp
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:14:44 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >> >I was raised catholic as a youth before becoming a spiritualist medium.
> >Hope that helps.
>
> I hope you're not doing that satan trick any more.
Nope that is your way, when I let Jesus Christ into my life and I gave
all my life to God, I suppose one could say I did kick that old master
Satan and his tricks in the behind and Jesus tossed him away and set
his punishment to Hell and them that do as he does to follow satan in
to the lake of fire. So now why don't you do the same?
>
> >> Hopefully at some point you will address your line of authority in declaring the
> >> RCC teachings of 2000 years and millions of man hours of learned research as bad
> >> doctrine.
> >Like any group just because the members of that group spent years in
> >research does not make them collect, look at the Buddhist religion,
> >they date back to the with in 500 years after Abraham time. Making
> >their teachings over four thousand years old, not as long as the Old
> >Testament, and Jewish people could of shown Buddha the Word of God.
> >Many of the teachings are about the same as found in Proverbs, and
> >originally they did believe only ONE GOD.
>
> Actually they don't believe in any god.
You seem not to know much about them Buddhist either, some do not have
any god, but many gods, in one temple that was near the town I lived
in for many years, had a Temple with 10,000 gods images all just a few
inches tall. All kind of images, if you do not see them as gods, they
did and like the Roman Catholic church they had images all over the
temple. I have talked to many monks and they with me, been to their
temples and such, so you seem to be ignorant or what they do and
believe and their history is much like the Catholic Church in these
matters. I have seen a Roman Catholic priest past a Buddha temple and
the only way to know who was who is the Catholic priest had a Rosary
and beads while the buddhist monk in the same color of robes and such
did not have on his long beads a rosary. Both bow to the images and
both say prayers and both take offerings for their prayers and such.
>
> But my point is that millions of manhours of research have gone into Scripture,
> pulling all the parts together in an effort to understand God's message to us.
> That being said, how can protestant individuals who by and large reject much of
> scripture tell the RCC it's wrong?
You believe your priest too much, the Protestant see that the Catholic
rejected much of the Scriptures and add to the Bible books that even
the Jews rejected they put into the Word of God, where St. John wrote
not to ADD to the Word of God. They do reject bowing to images and
praying to the dead saints and such, as wrong.
>
> >> >> Second, your knowledge reflects fundamentalism where people speak as though they
> >> >> know the actual events post death - Abraham's bosom and lake of fire, perdition,
> >> >> etc.
> >> >Yes. We are reasonably confident the Bible outlines the basics, though
> >> >there are always questions and debatable issues on the subject
> >> Or, as I say, heaven and hell and purification. I am always amused at the way
> >> some speak of lakes and 2nd judgments like anybody would has a grip on these
> >> things.
>
> No response? To me, it's clear. We are born, we live, we die. Only one man
> went to the other side and came back to talk about it. That's Christ. To us,
> it has no value in details. Those details are of God only.
NO RESPONSE? You got to be blind or talking to someone else, I always
have an response, just because you do not accept them or disagree,
doesn't mean anything you get a response, if I see your post. We are
born to die. Simple as that. Jesus did just that, then you seem to
forget that Jesus Moses and Abraham who had died and went to heaven,
did show up on a mountain and the Apostles seen them so they did come
back and bible does talk about it. I not sure what you think you mean
by the "To us it has no value in details. Those details are of God
only?" All that the Holy Word of God the Bible has to say should mean
and have value to them that say they are believers in Christ Jesus.
Raymond
Patrick
news:4f41ff69-cf35-4ca8...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
PB _ You are dismissed, once again.
I'll call you when I need more entertainment.
Bob Young
On 1/2/10 1:48 AM, in article
db4adede-32e7-4af0...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com, "RWKnapp"
<rwk...@aim.com> wrote:
And nothing written from two thousand+ years ago either.
Then
> the Christian as the Jew have no problem with billions of years, if
> you want to go that route, In the Beginning GOD! The beginning of the
> worlds and all that is, has no date, and six million years, has
> already been rejected. Since such can not be proven and the last time
> I read a book on Evolution they are now into many billions of years,
> showing they make it up and have nothing to prove what they said, so
> why not start with this word, what ever day or date one wants, the
> Beginning when God made it, has no date, the date only points to this
> earth and moon and such that we can see. Well no need to go on with
> that, six million or six thousands at least with the thousand there is
> documentation.
Yet you still tell the adam and Eve story. Which way do you want things to
be then ?
>
>>
>> Do you folks concede that early humans almost surely had no method of verbal
>> communication, other than one or two recognizable grunts and that they lived
>> like this for millions of years virtually unchanged?
>
> I can not speak for the other folks only myself as you only speak for
> yourself. I will not agree, since they found caves with pictures and
> tools that was left in them show they had a form of verbal or graphic
> ways of communication.
I was going much further back than that, and being able to paint does not
prove the ability to converse since no characters are found in early cave
paintings.
Since we do not have a tape recorder or
> Computer DVD then one thing for sure the atheist has no prove they did
> not verbal communicate.
Yes it's that nasty old common sense thing rearing it's ugly head again
Raymond !
Like they say today "I would ratter see a
> sermon then hear one" "A picture is worth a thousand words." I
> worked with some natives that sound like all they do is grunt only
> they also understand what the sound of that grunt means. My cat makes
> sounds also, and after a while I learn to understand that sound means
> he is hungry or clean my litter box now. If you do such to displease
> the cat he sure lets one know and we understand by his grunts what is
> being verbalized.
Smile - one needs to be able to do more than grunt to make up a religion
Raymond. The first thing one has to be able to say and claim is that there
are 'Evil spirits out there in the forest'
Today we can ignore that fact that the sounds these poor early huamns heard
as they slept together full of fear was no doubt two tree branches rubbing
together in the breeze making a groaning sound
>
>>
>> If you do then you will understand as well that man's fist ever gods were
>> only spoken about as they are today after man had achieved the ability to
>> express himself in a lucid manner - bringing us soundly back to the period
>> that your god was around i.e. About four thousand to six thousand years ago.
>>
>> Too logical for yer' ? �Maybe . . . . . �but it's not too illogical for me.
>
> Very logical why would you think otherwise??? I do not see what you
> think is disagreeable with that statement! Unless you had nothing to
> say, and hope someone reading would agree or not agree, not thinking
> about what you said.
>
>> Cheers
>
> Yes Cheers have another cup of tea or coffee.
I used to enjoy one Guinness a day with my dinner but Doc Choi says it is
not a good idea, so that has gone forever.
Cheers
duke
>On Jan 1, 7:29�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:14:44 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>> >> >I was raised catholic as a youth before becoming a spiritualist medium.
>> >Hope that helps.
>> I hope you're not doing that satan trick any more.
>Nope that is your way, when I let Jesus Christ into my life and I gave
>all my life to God, I suppose one could say I did kick that old master
>Satan and his tricks in the behind and Jesus tossed him away and set
>his punishment to Hell and them that do as he does to follow satan in
>to the lake of fire. So now why don't you do the same?
Letting Jesus into your life is a huge leap forward from being a satanist
spiritual medium.
But it's more than letting Jesus into your life. It's a matter of following
Jesus by living in his spirit. Protestants like to talk about there being
nothing we can do re salvation, but the truth is that we have everything to do
with losing that salvation. In fact, scripture clearly says that if we want to
he his disciple, we must repent of our sins, PICK UP OUR OWN CROSS, and follow
him in service to God and mankind. John 13:34, Mat 7:21, Mat 25:31-46.
And 1 JOhn 1:9-10 clearly says we live a life of sin. So loss of salvation
rests solely in our hands. Heb 10:26-27. Choose wisely.
>> >> Hopefully at some point you will address your line of authority in declaring the
>> >> RCC teachings of 2000 years and millions of man hours of learned research as bad
>> >> doctrine.
>> >Like any group just because the members of that group spent years in
>> >research does not make them collect, look at the Buddhist religion,
>> >they date back to the with in 500 years after Abraham time. �Making
>> >their teachings over four thousand years old, not as long as the Old
>> >Testament, and Jewish people could of shown Buddha the Word of God.
>> >Many of the teachings are about the same as found in Proverbs, and
>> >originally they did believe only ONE GOD.
>> Actually they don't believe in any god. �
>You seem not to know much about them Buddhist either, some do not have
>any god, but many gods, in one temple that was near the town I lived
>in for many years, had a Temple with 10,000 gods images all just a few
>inches tall.
http://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm
Do Buddhist believe in god?
No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern
sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the
god idea have their origin in fear.
>> But my point is that millions of manhours of research have gone into Scripture,
>> pulling all the parts together in an effort to understand God's message to us.
>> That being said, how can protestant individuals who by and large reject much of
>> scripture tell the RCC it's wrong?
>You believe your priest too much, the Protestant see that the Catholic
>rejected much of the Scriptures
We did??? Where? Jesus taught Peter and the Apostles. Peter, the first Pope,
taught the 2nd pope St. Linus (67-76) who taught the 3rd Pope St. Anacletus
(Cletus) (76-88) who taught the 4th pope St. Clement I (88-97).............who
taught the 265th Pope John Paul II (1978-2005) who taught the 266th Pope
Benedict XVI (2005�).
The Catholic Church is responsible for the bible.
(In his commentary on St John, (Chapter 16) Martin Luther wrote, "We are
obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics) that they possess
the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have
known nothing at all about it.")
> and add to the Bible books that even
>the Jews rejected they put into the Word of God, where St. John wrote
>not to ADD to the Word of God. They do reject bowing to images and
>praying to the dead saints and such, as wrong.
NOT a chance. The protestants removed from the bible.
The books of the Apocrypha, which is strictly Old Testament, were rejected as
canon scripture by the Jews because they were written in Greece rather than the
Holy Land.
So the protestants, who reject so much of NT scripture and siding with the Jews,
took the Apocrypha out of their bibles.
>> >> >> Second, your knowledge reflects fundamentalism where people speak as though they
>> >> >> know the actual events post death - Abraham's bosom and lake of fire, perdition,
>> >> >> etc.
>> >> >Yes. We are reasonably confident the Bible outlines the basics, though
>> >> >there are always questions and debatable issues on the subject
>> >> Or, as I say, heaven and hell and purification. �I am always amused at the way
>> >> some speak of lakes and 2nd judgments like anybody would has a grip on these
>> >> things.
>> No response? �To me, it's clear. �We are born, we live, we die. � Only one man
>> went to the other side and came back to talk about it. �That's Christ. �To us,
>> it has no value in details. �Those details are of God only.
>NO RESPONSE? You got to be blind or talking to someone else, I always
>have an response, just because you do not accept them or disagree,
>doesn't mean anything you get a response, if I see your post.
When I use "no response", that means you offered no counter response at the end
of my comment, of which I thought you would say something. You can see from
above that the discussion moved from 4> to 2>, or when you read this, it should
be from 5> to 3>.
>We are born to die. Simple as that. Jesus did just that, then you seem to
>forget that Jesus Moses and Abraham who had died and went to heaven,
>did show up on a mountain and the Apostles seen them so they did come
>back and bible does talk about it.
Well, I believe it was Elijah rather than Abraham but congrats on being the
first protestant ever to acknowledge salvation of non-Christians, even though
they didn't say anything, plus not having to wait for THE "resurrection".
> I not sure what you think you mean
>by the "To us it has no value in details. Those details are of God
>only?" All that the Holy Word of God the Bible has to say should mean
>and have value to them that say they are believers in Christ Jesus.
What I mean, rk, is that we die, as you said above. Now whether we are dealing
with "lakes of fire, first death, 2nd death, purgatory, heaven, hell" is not for
man to talk of with authority. It's simple - we die and then are judged for the
way we lived our human lives - the details of what comes next are beyond our
control and authority. Our primary concern for the after is the way we lived
the before.
>Raymond
duke
wrote:
>> Hopefully at some point you will address your line of authority in declaring the
>> RCC teachings of 2000 years and millions of man hours of learned research as bad
>> doctrine.
>The authority is the scripture, which the RCC perverts, denies or
>contradicts on some issues. I gave you one example.
Your example does not hold water. The written word is only a partial record of
everything Jesus said and did. John 21:25. Now, the gospels were firstly not a
record of what Jesus said and did as they are a record of what other people said
that Jesus said and did. This is evident in that the gospels were not
"published" until 30-60 years after Christ, only John being the Apostle that
personally met Jesus. And the NT scripture was not canonized until the 4th
century.
This means that everything we read today originated as Holy Tradition, or the
verbal word rather than the written word, and existed for 300 years before
canonization.
>Another example would be mandating preistly celebacy when even
>Paul--whom they appeal to--said bishops MUST be the husband of one wife;
>and Paul himself never REQUIRED any minister or bishop to be unmarried.
Neither Jesus, Paul or John were married. And be careful with the words "must"
and "required". Paul was saying "NO divorced, no concubines, no one from
prison".
>> >> Second, your knowledge reflects fundamentalism where people speak as though they
>> >> know the actual events post death - Abraham's bosom and lake of fire, perdition,
>> >> etc.
>> >Yes. We are reasonably confident the Bible outlines the basics, though
>> >there are always questions and debatable issues on the subject
>> Or, as I say, heaven and hell and purification. I am always amused at the way
>> some speak of lakes and 2nd judgments like anybody would has a grip on these
>> things.
>Bible's reasonably clear on it
Words, not meaning. For instance, for the sinner, the "first death or
judgment" is also the last.
The bible also says that those that died in God's friendship were raised to
**NEW LIFE** at the moment Jesus died. No waiting for resurrection day for them
according to your way of thinking.
>the Day of the
>> >> Lord had already passed. However, the resurrection of the Lord had already
>> >> taken place.
>> >I honestly don't know how you're getting that. that's not a view taught
>> >by the RCC that I've ever heard. Can you give me a reference?
>> Which part?
>The part about you getting your perfected physical body as soon as you
>get to heaven. The RCC i'm sure does not teach this.
How does anybody know FOR SURE? What difference does it make? God has a plan
whether we know what it is or not. But I believe we will be glorified as Jesus
is glorified. He was raised to new life showing us that we would to. And he
showed us with God in heaven after.
I'd much rather go that way rather than think of a great "war on horseback" some
few to billions of years in the future.
>> >But not the lake of fire, which gets filled at the last judgment
>> I submit that the first judgment (particular Heb 9:27) is the last judgment for
>> those relegated to hell at death.
>Well, the RCC position is that there is a speicific judgment at death,
>then go to a bad place for the sinner, then the general judgment comes
>at the end of time, and you go to a worse place:
>the Catholic Encyclopedia says "Few truths are more often or more
>clearly proclaimed in Scripture than that of the general judgment".
>When the individual dies, general judgment holds that the person's final
>dispensation will await the general judgment of the dead at the end of
>the world, rather than be judged immediately.
Sounds more like the friends of God hang around purgatory and the damned go
direct to hell. What does it matter for the damned? Or maybe it means that we
all hang around the grave until resurrection day, all get the general judgment
with the damned going straight to satanville, and the friends of God exposed for
their sinfulness, purified, and on to heaven.
It still says heaven, hell, and purgatory. For those in the grave know nothing.
> And further, that the last judgment (general
>> Rev 21:27) is only for the saved where they stand face to face with their
>> sinfulness in purgatory.
>Not what the catholic encyclopedia says
My disagreement is with your analysis. I gave you an equally accurate rendition
above. It just doesn't matter to us as we make our path on this earth and it is
only for God to handle the rest.
>> >What we CAN seem to say with reasonable certainty is that the RCC view
>> >of purgatory does not hold up to scripture, in that it is a prolonged
>> >process that can take centuries, with prayers and alms for the dead all
>> >that time helping those there get out. The Bible really does not affirm
>> >those ideas
>> Of course it does. The bible clearly says about a purging:
>> Rev 21:27: "�nothing unclean will enter heaven�"
>> Mat 5:8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God"
>> Heb 12:14: "strive�for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord".
>> Mat 5:48: "�be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".
>>
>> 1Cor 3:13
>> 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light.
>> It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's
>> work.
>See how weak the argument is? Those verses don't make the point at all,
>and are the best you can do to try and force the point to be made.
>That's what happens when you try and teach purgatory.
See how STRONG that is. These verses says that we must be purified before we
can stand before God. The damned are gone to hell. And we are cleaned.
>> Rev 21:27: "�nothing unclean will enter heaven�"
>jn 15 3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
Right, Revelation 21:27.
You need to also remember 1 JOhn 1:8-10 which says we are sinners - period.
>> 1 John 1:8-10 makes it clear that we die as sinners. And for sure we have the
>> human nature to sin well tattooed on our soul.
>Reread vs 9 and the part about "cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness"
The cleansing is in the purifying process.
You see, I come in the front door, and you come in the back door, but we both
get in.
>Not talking about purgatory since the person is obviously still alive to
>confess his sins, and so the cleansing comes while the guy IS still
>alive.
>We could go on and on, but it's still true that the scriptural arguments
>for purgatory are so weak that they really have no good merit.
And as I keep saying, heaven and hell and purification. You go in the back and
I go in thru the front. It still says nothing unclean will see God.
>> >Apparently they can: 2 macc 12(?), where the guys being prayed for are
>> >idolators, which is mortal sin
>> >So either someone in the mortal sin of idolatry CAN go to purgatory, or
>> >that passage is not a good proof text to use since it refutes catholic
>> >teaching on the subject
>> 2Mac 12:40 has prayers asking that the dead soldiers be released from their
>> sins. That's the point.
>And I could, if I wanted to (and if I considered 2 Macc. inspired
>scripture), make the point that the inspiration behind the thought
>wasn't purgatory, but that the messiah come and take the departed
>covenant people--the jews--from abraham's bosm, where they were
>separtated fom God, to heaven.
Abraham's bosom, yeah, right. Using your flawed line of thinking, how does
Abraham hold all those Jews? But no purgatory - right???
I'll stick with heaven, hell, and purification.
>I don't consider intertestamental books to be fully inspired,* so i
>don't need to reconcile evangelical theology with them...tho I actually
>could if i DID need to.
It doesn't matter what you and I think. All that matters is what God does,
regardless of our way of pretend-viewing.
>* Here's just one reason the apocrypha is not fully inspired: In the
>apocrypha, the ark of the covenant was said to be hidden by jeremiah on
>mt Nebo until the end of the age, when it would be found again
Now there's a biggie. So VG "doesn't consider" the Apocapha to be inspired
because the Jews had a problem with them because they were written in Greece
rather than the Holy Land.
>Well, just compare that thought to the REAL scripture of jeremiah 3:16,
>and you'll see the apocrypha has errors, and thus is not infallible.
All scripture has literal errors - OT, NT, Gospels, Letters. Not every word in
the bible is literally true, except for God's word regarding our souls and his
plans for the salvation thereof.
>> Interesting. I thought Protestants thought we already were in the kingdom of
>> God.
>Preterists do. I'm not one.
I don't now what they are.
>>But not that it's heaven. We Catholics never talk about such a thing.
>> Nobody knows.
>> I would think that Jesus tasting death for every man would put us in the kingdom
>> of God. Jesus is glorified, and raised to the Father, and we are buried with
>> him to sin in baptism in hopes of following him to the Father.
>Not in hope--but of absolute assurance!
And Heb 10:26-27 says that if we keep on sinning after learning of Christ (and
I'll assume baptism) then the only thing left for us are the fires of hell.
Of course, we will get that removed in purgatory if we are judged saved. Right??
>These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son
>of God; that ye MAY KNOW that ye have eternal life, and that ye may
>believe on the name of the Son of God.
Does "believe on" mandate absolute following in his steps?
>> >Uh. no--it is attributing the power of God to satan. Even the didache
>> >takes a similar view, saying judging a propghet of God is the
>> >unforgivable sin, and the didache is right from the time the apostles
>> >were still living
>> Those in serious sin worship satan. See A&E. They told God "no", that they'll
>> decide right from wrong and not he. If we die in a state of telling God "no",
>> we are satan, we are blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
>That's not what the Sin is. sorry. But I acknowledge the pope thought
>that.
Sin = telling God no. Sin = making ourselves his equal.
>> >> >So you can make the argument the RCC way, but as is so often the case
>> >> >with purgatory arguments, it does not seem to be that strong, nor does
>> >> >it exclude other arguments
>> >> Heaven, hell, and purification.
>
>> >"purification" might indeed be argued. PURGATORY (as defined) is the
>> >problem
>> Now, now. We're dealing with the mind of a goat herder 2000 years ago. Purging
>> and purifying are the same thing. That a "place" exists, or not, is not the
>> issue.
>OK. And you cannot make a very good argument that it does. You can try,
>but the argument is not very strong, and even weaker goes the argument
>if you define the catholic verion of purgatory
I never will try to make a case for a "place", but scripture quite clearly says
purification so you're welcome to make your own decision on that is.
>> >> Why would God restrict his love for his newborn creation that dies unbaptized?
>> >> He is unable to sin. But he still possesses the stain of original sin.
>> >Different issue. I'm talking about adults.
>> And I'm talking about both.
>You can't lump them together.
God doesn't treat mankind differently. An infant is unable to make a reasoned
decision, but an adult is.
>For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin
>revived, and I died.
>Even paul admits it was only after he was old enough to know right from
>wrong did he enter a state of condemed sinner
Exactly. But scripture still says we are born with a sin nature like we are
with 10 fingers and 10 toes. And according to scripture, that is removed in
baptism.
>> Certainly an adult who submits to baptism has
>> attained a desire via knowledge. Catholics do the same in Confirmation where
>> youth previous receiving John's baptism at birth now make their own baptismal
>> promises as one mature enough to know what he's doing.
Good no comment.
>> > Paul clearly indicates they
>> >must hear/receive Christ to be saved, the RCC says they don't have to,
>> >but can cooperate with the inner grace of God and die in a state of
>> >grace.
>>
>> Why "must",
>cuz paul says
But the big guy, Jesus, said he gives us a new command - that we love one
another as he loves us. John 13:34. And a muslim is God's creation also. So
infants are baptized into God's grace per John 3:5-7. If they die without
baptism, they await the resurrection like the rest of us.
>>but instead "do"? As far as dying in the state of grace, 1 John
>> 1:8-10 pretty much eliminates that.
>Your argument is with the RCC then; that's their doctrine, not mine
No, it's not.
>> >FOOEY, as my jewish friend rob would say
>> I agree, FOOEY as far as dying in the state of grace. Only God knows.
Another great no response.
>> >> Yes, of course, and why send the infants to burn in hell because they died sans
>> >> baptism?
>> >Based on deut 1:39, i would say they go to heaven.
>
>> Deut is for Jews. Christ is for Christians, where the covenant is written on
>> the heart and not on stone tablets.
>ok...kinda leaves the sincere moslem out of it, huh?
Only God knows.
>> >> No, the bible doesn't. I often enjoy pointing out how many sin-filled
>> >> Christians will gnash their teeth in unbelief when they go to hell while
>> >> non-Christians who live in the spirit of Christ go to heaven.
>>
>> >impossible. period. NO non-christian is going to heaven. Period. End of
>> >story. Not one jew. Not one moslem. Not one atheist. Not one hindu. No
>> >one nothing. ONLY Christians in covenant with God thru faith in Christ
>> >will be there.
>>
>> Sorry. Jesus said "I give you a new command, that you love one another as I
>> have loved you." Jews, atheists, hindus, muslims "can" live in the spirit of
>> Christ as well as any baptized person.
>no. That's salvation through the works of righteous living. Does not
>work.
James 2:26 (New International Version)
26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
Matthew 25:31-46 (New International Version)
The Sheep and the Goats
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory,33He will put the sheep on his right
and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by
my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the
creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I
was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited
me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after
me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and
feed you
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the
least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed,
into the eternal fire
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the
least of these, you did not do for me.'
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal
life."
>> After all, they are God's children
>> also.
>They are children of adam. And they can go to heaven or hell based on
>their receipt or non-receipt of the gospel
Actually, I'll leave this one in the hands of God.
>> >See the parable in matt 22 about the wedding garment handed out at the
>> >gate (Christ), where a guy who did not come thru that gate and get the
>> >garment was thrown out even though he was invited in with the rest!
>> Nice parable about God's invitation, but not every non-Christian worships satan.
>Sure they do. Perhaps not knowingly, but a sincere moslem is still
>following a religion that has a demonic spirit behind it.
Muslims, Jews, and Christians all call Abraham Father of their religion.
We see in scripture that the children of Adam, the Jews, were raised to **NEW
LIFE** when Christ died on the cross. Why not Muslims and atheists IF God so
decides?
>The HOLY Spirit is not the spirit that invented Islam, Hinduism,
>Atheism, rabinnic judaism, Shintoism, Buddhism, and so on. SATAN is the
>guiding influence behind ALL other religions:
You are in serious need of reading Mat 27:51+ and rethinking your position.
>But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice
>to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have
>fellowship with devils.
Conversion. Peter is the Apostles to the Gentiles. As is Paul.
>> >> >By the way, the catholic church I grew up in the 50-60s taught everyone
>> >> >but catholics were certainly going to hell.Period. At least, the
>> >> >catholic churches i knew did.
>>
>> >> I suggest that word is (c)atholic and not (C)atholic.
>> >huh?? You mean you're not a ROMAN catholic? You're some sort of
>> >orthodox?
>> (c)atholic means "ONE church", with the Holy Mass and 7 sacraments.
>So are you a rmoman catholic, in submission to the teaching magisterium
>and pope, or not???
I'm a Roman Catholic who follows Jesus's commission to the Apostles in Mat
28:16-20.
RWKnapp
That statement only shows you are not educated. All one has to do is
go to a Museum a depository for collecting and displaying objects
having scientific or historical or artistic value of early history and
find lots of things written and picture writing and so on. More then
just two thousand years ago. Then six million null.
> > Then the Christian as the Jew have no problem with billions of years, if
> > you want to go that route, In the Beginning GOD! The beginning of the
> > worlds and all that is, has no date, and six million years, has
> > already been rejected. Since such can not be proven and the last time
> > I read a book on Evolution they are now into many billions of years,
> > showing they make it up and have nothing to prove what they said, so
> > why not start with this word, what ever day or date one wants, the
> > Beginning when God made it, has no date, the date only points to this
> > earth and moon and such that we can see. Well no need to go on with
> > that, six million or six thousands at least with the thousand there is
> > documentation.
>
> Yet you still tell the adam and Eve story. Which way do you want things to
> be then ?
Why not it is recorded in records that go back six thousand years.
Evolution does not go back in records thousands of years, they just in
the last few hundred years started telling lies and making up stories
that have no historical evidents, and to day they try to add a few
billion years, which had no foundation either. A lie repeated is
still only a lie, and when dealing with history and facts, it is a
joke and was laughed at for years, and to the educated person still
only a insult to intelligences.
>
> >> Do you folks concede that early humans almost surely had no method of verbal
> >> communication, other than one or two recognizable grunts and that they lived
> >> like this for millions of years virtually unchanged?
>
> > I can not speak for the other folks only myself as you only speak for
> > yourself. I will not agree, since they found caves with pictures and
> > tools that was left in them show they had a form of verbal or graphic
> > ways of communication.
>
> I was going much further back than that, and being able to paint does not
> prove the ability to converse since no characters are found in early cave
> paintings.
Only in your mind, then they were not only painting like a wall they
were telling stories of what happen in painting pictures that can
still be seen today and pictures taken in such caves, dating back
thousand of years, never even a small million years and surly not a
billion or such silly mind games. Look up the term "characters" and it
is also seen as this "Engrave or inscribe characters on" a picture is
a form of character and it does tell a story as the written letters or
characters you seem to want. Then Chinese is only picture characters
that when if you learn it, It shows what is meant. Since we are not
in a character accepted newsgroup it is difficult to show you that,
then check with a Chinese friend or translator from chines to English
and you would know that. Now in English the Chinese word for MAN is
only a picture of a stick man. check it out and remember readers
their language goes back over five thousand years. I know as I have
lieved in China for over 27 years now. The sound of the word "man" in
Mandarin Chinese is "Ren" and if one dobbles that it means "Ren Ren"
or people..
> > Since we do not have a tape recorder or
>
> > Computer DVD then one thing for sure the atheist has no prove they did
> > not verbal communicate.
>
> Yes it's that nasty old common sense thing rearing it's ugly head again
> Raymond !
Which fits all you said as your story is not old or new common sense,
like Chinese all one that knows that language can today pronounce it
and say it, and so no need for a recording or tape and the only ugly
head here seem to be yourself. Than thank you for using my name as
you seem to be able to say or write it also with out hearing me say it
or a tape of my word.
> > Like they say today "I would ratter see a
> > sermon then hear one" "A picture is worth a thousand words." I
> > worked with some natives that sound like all they do is grunt only
> > they also understand what the sound of that grunt means. My cat makes
> > sounds also, and after a while I learn to understand that sound means
> > he is hungry or clean my litter box now. If you do such to displease
> > the cat he sure lets one know and we understand by his grunts what is
> > being verbalized.
>
> Smile - one needs to be able to do more than grunt to make up a religion
> Raymond. The first thing one has to be able to say and claim is that there
> are 'Evil spirits out there in the forest'
Then what you see as a grunt to another is a language, you really do
not think a Japanese or a Chinese person can understand all the grunts
they hear and you call English is anything more then noise? I
remember a person saying the Japanese sound like they are singing a
song not talking but singing. Then since in Chinese we have four to
nine tones and it is a language to the unlearned just a song, does not
make it so.
They had a movie about a man in I believe Africa about the a bottle
falling from an airplane and the person spoke to his tribe about it,
and all it sounded like was clicking and grunts, that movie was shown
all over the world and now on cable TV. So the more you try to excuse
your errors you only make people wonder if you even when to a high
school or have any knowledge of languages that you seem to want people
of little education believe you know what your saying.
I've been in the Jungles, where only one person could read and write,
the whole village. They could not, to them pictures and drawings
where their way of sending a note to one another on paper, wood, or
stone. Then the way your acting here could be seen as an evil
spirit has control over you mind be it in a city, or forest, on the
sea or land. Most even atheist know there is good and evil in the
world. Many times people want someone else to blame and will say a
spirit made me do it, or a evil spirit did it. Some may say a good
spirit that person has, his personally is wonderful and he or she is
good spirited.
>
> Today we can ignore that fact that the sounds these poor early huamns heard
> as they slept together full of fear was no doubt two tree branches rubbing
> together in the breeze making a groaning sound
So you can not even call them "early HUMANS", then that is not
strange for one of your kind. So know you think people then are
different then today, and only those folks had or were as you put it
"full of fear" it seems you are very young, as in the world wars,
those people lived under fear and full of it, not knowing if a bomb
would end their life in a second. I been in the Military and know
what fear is when planes were heading for the base and from the air
they bomb us out of being. All we had was riffles and such, big deal,
people that did not believe in God were praying and writing home,
thinking we all would be dead soon.
You think those folks were full of more fear then the modern man today
and you use that excuse in your story, please get a life! It seem you
never were a boyscout as rubbing two tree branches together can bring
a fire that is warm and also shows intelligences. Then even two rocks
of a certain kind can be hit together and make a fire, then and
today. Only it takes smarts to know what stone to use.
I wonder if they were smarter then you think you are today. I know
how to do it, also where in a jungle to find good drinking water that
is always near a plant and how deep to dig to find it at its roots.
How to make a cup and such to eat and drink out of, without a store to
buy them in. Just like them smart stone age folks did and people in
remote areas do, even in 2010 AD. :-)
> >> Cheers
>
> > Yes Cheers have another cup of tea or coffee.
>
> I used to enjoy one Guinness a day with my dinner but Doc Choi says it is
> not a good idea, so that has gone forever.
Sorry to hear that, then some times it is what we eat or do not eat,
that will give us another day on this earth. I cut out most all sugar
and use the fake kind to sweeten a cup of coffee or tea.
Cheers,
Raymond
Bob Young
On 1/3/10 3:05 AM, in article
599c2320-62e9-486d...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, "RWKnapp"
<rwk...@aim.com> wrote:
Proof please
> Evolution does not go back in records thousands of years, they just in
> the last few hundred years started telling lies and making up stories
> that have no historical evidents, and to day they try to add a few
> billion years, which had no foundation either.
Try reading about evolution, you may then decide to scrap all of your
primitive ideas
A lie repeated is
> still only a lie, and when dealing with history and facts, it is a
> joke and was laughed at for years, and to the educated person still
> only a insult to intelligences.
>
>>
>>>> Do you folks concede that early humans almost surely had no method of
>>>> verbal
>>>> communication, other than one or two recognizable grunts and that they
>>>> lived
>>>> like this for millions of years virtually unchanged?
>>
>>> I can not speak for the other folks only myself as you only speak for
>>> yourself. �I will not agree, since they found caves with pictures and
>>> tools that was left in them show they had a form of verbal or graphic
>>> ways of communication.
>>
>> I was going much further back than that, and being able to paint does not
>> prove the ability to converse since no characters are found in early cave
>> paintings.
>
> Only in your mind, then they were not only painting like a wall they
> were telling stories of what happen in painting pictures that can
> still be seen today and pictures taken in such caves, dating back
> thousand of years, never even a small million years and surly not a
> billion or such silly mind games. Look up the term "characters" and it
> is also seen as this "Engrave or inscribe characters on" a picture is
> a form of character and it does tell a story as the written letters or
> characters you seem to want.
Groan, you need to go further back in time. Why do Christians have to cheat,
is your belief so fragile you need to do behave in this manner ?
Then Chinese is only picture characters
> that when if you learn it, It shows what is meant. Since we are not
> in a character accepted newsgroup it is difficult to show you that,
> then check with a Chinese friend or translator from chines to English
> and you would know that.
No need to, I have a Chinese wife. Also you again ignore the fact that
there was a time when even the Chinese had no characters at all - simply
grunts like the rest of our ancestors
Now in English the Chinese word for MAN is . . . .
Yan [if you want it in Cantonese]
> only a picture of a stick man. check it out and remember readers
> their language goes back over five thousand years.
Yes Yes Yes . . . . but I am going back five million years
I know as I have
> lieved in China for over 27 years now. The sound of the word "man" in
> Mandarin Chinese is "Ren" and if one dobbles that it means "Ren Ren"
> or people..
Yan Yan means people in Cantonese - SO WHAT ?
>
>>> �Since we do not have a tape recorder or
>>
>>> Computer DVD then one thing for sure the atheist has no prove they did
>>> not verbal communicate.
>>
>> Yes it's that nasty old common sense thing rearing it's ugly head again
>> Raymond !
>
> Which fits all you said as your story is not old or new common sense,
> like Chinese all one that knows that language can today pronounce it
> and say it, and so no need for a recording or tape and the only ugly
> head here seem to be yourself. Than thank you for using my name as
> you seem to be able to say or write it also with out hearing me say it
> or a tape of my word.
Chee sin
>
>>> � Like they say today "I would ratter see a
>>> sermon then hear one" �"A picture is worth a thousand words." � I
>>> worked with some natives that sound like all they do is grunt only
>>> they also understand what the sound of that grunt means. �My cat makes
>>> sounds also, and after a while I learn to understand that sound means
>>> he is hungry or clean my litter box now. �If you do such to displease
>>> the cat he sure lets one know and we understand by his grunts what is
>>> being verbalized.
>>
>> Smile - one needs to be able to do more than grunt to make up a religion
>> Raymond. �The first thing one has to be able to say and claim is that there
>> are 'Evil spirits out there in the forest'
>
> Then what you see as a grunt to another is a language, you really do
> not think a Japanese or a Chinese person can understand all the grunts
> they hear and you call English is anything more then noise? I
> remember a person saying the Japanese sound like they are singing a
> song not talking but singing. Then since in Chinese we have four to
> nine tones and it is a language to the unlearned just a song, does not
> make it so.
G r o a n Go back further and stop playing around frantically trying to
justify an old myth from about two thousand years back - go back two million
years
>
> They had a movie about a man in I believe Africa about the a bottle
> falling from an airplane and the person spoke to his tribe about it,
> and all it sounded like was clicking and grunts, that movie was shown
> all over the world and now on cable TV. So the more you try to excuse
> your errors you only make people wonder if you even when to a high
> school or have any knowledge of languages that you seem to want people
> of little education believe you know what your saying.
>
> I've been in the Jungles, where only one person could read and write,
> the whole village. They could not, to them pictures and drawings
> where their way of sending a note to one another on paper, wood, or
> stone.
Indeed and these same villagers that I met in Africa [Malawi] would hang
dried up small animals at head height along the tracks used for moving
around. When I asked what they were there for the answer I got was "The
villagers put them there to frighten away the Evil Spirits"
So you are not very far removed from them it would appear - so don't talk to
me about intelligence
I do believe you have 'evil spirits' in your *myth* - right ?
Then the way your acting here could be seen as an evil
> spirit has control over you mind be it in a city, or forest, on the
> sea or land. Most even atheist know there is good and evil in the
> world.
Yes we know that, but we don not harness these aspects of morality and 'use'
them to perpetrate a lie
Many times people want someone else to blame and will say a
> spirit made me do it, or a evil spirit did it. Some may say a good
> spirit that person has, his personally is wonderful and he or she is
> good spirited.
Right - I will now leave a space below so that you can define your spirit
>
>>
>> Today we can ignore that fact that the sounds these poor early huamns heard
>> as they slept together full of fear was no doubt two tree branches rubbing
>> together in the breeze making a groaning sound
>
> So you can not even call them "early HUMANS", then that is not
> strange for one of your kind.
Chee sin
So know you think people then are
> different then today, and only those folks had or were as you put it
> "full of fear" it seems you are very young, as in the world wars,
> those people lived under fear and full of it, not knowing if a bomb
> would end their life in a second. I been in the Military and know
> what fear is when planes were heading for the base and from the air
> they bomb us out of being. All we had was riffles and such, big deal,
> people that did not believe in God were praying and writing home,
> thinking we all would be dead soon.
Aye and the ones who prayed to their god and the ones who did not had the
same chance of dying.
See - more lying for your god. Purveyors of falsehoods have no rights to
question the intelligence of those who do not lie
>
> You think those folks were full of more fear then the modern man today
> and you use that excuse in your story, please get a life!
Well let us try your intelligence, hard as this might be to do. Imagine
yourself lying in bed tonight and you hear noises outside suggesting that
someone is trying to break in. Out comes your cell phone and you call 911.
If the police catch someone with your prosperity they will take him to court
and you can get it back.
Now try really hard to use your imagination. I know how difficult this
might be for you since you have been brainwashed but nevertheless give it a
try. Now imagine yourself out in the desert three thousand years ago and
you hear noises outside. There is nothing stopping you from being tossed
out of your home by a large group who then take it over for themselves and
there is NOTHING at all you can do about it.
Now it might be hard for you to accept but I have just demonstrated for you
the difference between 'fear' today and 'fear' of the days when fools had to
make up a book of rules with Ten Commandments in it. No police, no laws only
the fear of an imaginary god for protection
Juvenile isn't it ?
It seem you
> never were a boyscout as rubbing two tree branches together can bring
> a fire that is warm and also shows intelligences.
Nothing to do with the topic in hand
Then even two rocks
> of a certain kind can be hit together and make a fire, then and
> today. Only it takes smarts to know what stone to use.
>
> I wonder if they were smarter then you think you are today.
GROAN, if they were they would have done heart transplants and made cell
phones back then . . . . GROAN
I know
> how to do it, also where in a jungle to find good drinking water that
> is always near a plant and how deep to dig to find it at its roots.
> How to make a cup and such to eat and drink out of, without a store to
> buy them in. Just like them smart stone age folks did and people in
> remote areas do, even in 2010 AD. :-)
>
>>>> Cheers
>>
>>> Yes Cheers have another cup of tea or coffee.
>>
>> I used to enjoy one Guinness a day with my dinner but Doc Choi says it is
>> not a good idea, so that has gone forever.
>
> Sorry to hear that, then some times it is what we eat or do not eat,
> that will give us another day on this earth. I cut out most all sugar
> and use the fake kind to sweeten a cup of coffee or tea.
Good advice
I have given you a hard time today Raymond. Not my choice - you always seem
to ask for it.
Praise be to the imaginary Lord
Cheers
Hey HK has had an awful winter, cloudy, rainy almost every day. October
November was when we used to tell relatives to visit to enjoy the lovely
weather, not any more.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Raymond
>
RWKnapp
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:02:12 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 27, 5:44 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:51:06 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >> >> Where were the righteous dead when Christ raised them? It was not hell, for
> >> >> that is a one way street, and after all, we are referring to the righteous.
> >> >> man to know.
> >> >> Many protest_ants say "no" to purgatory. Yet they can't respond to the case of
> >> >> laz, and outrageously reject purgatory.
> >> >The Catholic church uses the term purgatory, the story of laz was in
> >> >Paradise before the resurrection, as Hell was also in that one place
> >> >understood as the place of the dead and they could see each other.
> >> Purgatory = supposed place of purging. The new Christians had to be made to understand.
> >Why there is no such place to start with and not a word of it is from
> >the Bible so the Christian need to understand it is only a make
> >believed place
>
> "Who" said there was no such place to start with? It's scriptural as no man is
> pure enough to stand before God without attaining a degree of purification. Heb
> 12:14.
Only Christ Jesus is pure enough and by Him we stand in His
purification, that is one reason Jesus died and rose from the dead to
pay for our sins and only by His blood given freely on the cross can
we have such purification. Nothing we do will ever make or give
anyone a degree of purification.
>
> > Ever hear of a MASS that does not take money in for praying
> >for the souls that missed Heaven and really went to hell
>
> As a Roman Catholic attending daily Mass, I never hear of such a thing. No
> wonder you're a protest_er, you're totally ignorant of the RCC..
Oh please half of my relatives are Roman Catholic, I attended Catholic
summer camp six weeks long, and been in many a MASS and heard some
good messages by a few Priest. Also I have spoke to nuns and priest
that came to hear me in the past. I know what I am talking about and
your the ignorant one. Go to Jersey City NJ and you can attend daily
mass, some as many as six in one morning, such as in San Antonio,
Texas as well as Mexico and the Philippines. I been to them, I even
see one of the past Pope's in person, as well as other leaders of the
Roman Catholic Church. You need to study some, as it does not matter
what you "never heard of" it happens daily in even in Spain and other
nations that the Roman Catholic Church has lots of members.
>
> >, so they now
> >can get a pass to bypass the bible and get to heaven some other way.
> >Not going to happen.
> >Matt 22:11-14
>
> Clearly not those things that feed your wild imagination.
Then I do not have any wild imagination, every thing I know, I learned
by study and reading as well as talking to church leaders.
>
> >11 "But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there
> >who did not have on a wedding garment. 12 So he said to him, 'Friend,
> >how did you come in here without a wedding garment?' And he was
> >speechless. 13 Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and
> >foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be
> >weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
> >14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."
> >NKJV
>
> Yep, God calls all men, but few are without sin to the point that they can go to
> purgatory.
Show me the verse that says there is such a place as Purgatory. It
is not found in the Bible and the only chance people have of salvation
is when they are alive, as after death comes the Judgement. 2 Cor
6:1-2
6 We then, as workers together with Him also plead with you not to
receive the grace of God in vain. 2 For He says:
"In an acceptable time I have heard you,
And in the day of salvation I have helped you."
Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.
NKJV
> >> >The gulf was wide and so one could not pass from one to the other, no
> >> >limbo no second chance to get to heaven.
> >> Limbo is another issue to purgatory. And it's all very simple. Live in the
> >> spirit of Christ and the door is open. Play God and you'll find A&E as next
> >> door neighbors.
> >Yes the Catholic church has many false doctrines such as this one on
> >Limbo.
>
> How do you know how God handles the infants and youth that die without the
> benefit of Baptism. I await you silly answer here.
How do I know? I know God and have studied and taught His Word for
over 50 years now. Infants have no sin, there is no such thing as we
are under the sin of Adam and Eve. A child is born without sin, as
such has to learned and only them that REPENT as Peter who you call
your first Pope himself said. A child or infant can not repent and no
one can repent for them, Baptism is for believers also as Peter
pointed out in. The promise is for their children they also when they
understand what sin is need to Repent. I was baptized as a infant and
if I did not find the paper that said I was, I would never have know
it, as I was a sinner baptism or no baptism. Your answer is silly
mind is from the Holy Bible that even the here by the guy you say,
your church was built on, be nice to obey him, then false teachers
have fogged your mind and without understanding one misses the mark
and is lost.
Baptism is not a benefit it is a time to accept and confess Jesus as
Lord and Saviour, no one else can do it for you, a baby can not do
such until they are older and understand.
Acts 3:18-20
18 But those things which God foretold by the mouth of all His
prophets, that the Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. 19
Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out,
so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,
NKJV
Acts 8:20-23
20 But Peter said to him, "Your money perish with you, because you
thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money! 21 You
have neither part nor portion in this matter, for your heart is not
right in the sight of God. 22 Repent therefore of this your
wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be
forgiven you. NKJV
Rev 3:19-22
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and
repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My
voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and
he with Me. 21 To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My
throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.
22 "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the
churches."'" NKJV
You see reader it is not what I think is true on these matters it is
what says the LORD in the Holy Bible. The last verses I quoted here
was not from Peter but from JESUS and if one loves the LORD they obey
HIM, no matter what a church says, it is not the church that rules or
has power it is only Jesus that saves and only He and the Scriptures
that is our rule book and knowledge about heave, Hell and all other
places that God has chosen to love. If one refuses to repent when the
Word says rebuke and chasten they are lost. It says to be zealous and
repent, no infant is zealous or can repent, as they are too young to
sin or understand what they are doing is right or wrong.
>
> > You really make no sense at all. It means this: "(theology) in
> >Roman Catholicism, the place of unbaptized but innocent or righteous
> >souls (such as infants and virtuous individuals)"
> It means this: Christians..........
It means that doctrine is not from God or the Bible but only from the
man made built on Peter Roman Catholic church that does these things
without foundations in the Holy Word of God the Holy Bible.
>
> >All man made doctrines never appoved by God. Justification and glory
>
> How would you know. You ignore all the teachings of Christ.
I know as I take the time to read all what JESUS CHRIST said, did and
all His Teachings, years in Bible college and as a teacher of the Holy
Bible, full of the Holy Spirit of God and in in love with all my heart
the Lord Jesus and all that He has said. As well as over many years
as a clergyman and full time missionary in different nations. I never
ignore the teachings of Christ, I do ignore the teachings of popes and
false teachers and such that in no way represents God or the Lord
Jesus Christ. You accept the teachings of your church and you are the
that ignore the teachings of Christ. Then "ignore all" is too, too
general a statement as many follow some, and do not understand all.
Nice try, but the Word of God even the words of Peter condemns your
statements and is not the teachings of the Holy Word of God as the RCC
try to trick people into believing them.
>
> >1. The glory which disembodied spirits are enjoying now. The moment
> >that the soul leaves the body, the justified soul is in glory.
> >Romanism holds that some of the best saints go to heaven when they
> >die; but that the great mass of inferior saints must undergo
> >purgation.
>
> It's scriptural.
No it is not! It is only a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church
which sits on seven mountains that Rome and the Vatican sit on. The
bible points out who they are. Rev 17:9-18
9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven
mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the
other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short
space.
11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is
of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have
received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with
the beast.
13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto
the beast.
14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome
them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are
with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore
sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall
hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat
her flesh, and burn her with fire.
17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree,
and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be
fulfilled.
18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth
over the kings of the earth. KJV
>
> > But the dying thief was no eminent saint. The only good
> >deed that we ever read of his doing was when he claimed Christ as
> >Lord, and rebuked his fellow-thief for slandering the Saviour. Yet,
> >hear the words, "To-day shalt thou be with Me in paradise."
>
> Those very words are what got him there, but "to day" does not mean in the next
> 24 hours.
It means to the reader TODAY NOW IS THE TIME then if you do not want a
24 hour day, try what God says is One day. Rev 17:9-18
9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven
mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the
other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short
space.
11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is
of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have
received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with
the beast.
13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto
the beast.
14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome
them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are
with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore
sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall
hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat
her flesh, and burn her with fire.
17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree,
and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be
fulfilled.
18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth
over the kings of the earth.
KJV
Ps 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it
is past, and as a watch in the night. KJV
> You're trying to play silly games with the afterlife.
I do not play games silly or otherwise with the life after death to
the body, I do trust the Lord Jesus and His promises.
>
> >LIMBO
> >Limbo. In Roman Catholic theology, the region or state proximate to
> >heaven (limbo is from the Latin word for "edge" or "border") in which
> >reside departed souls who do not enjoy the beatific vision but do not
> >suffer any other privation. Two kinds of limbo are distinguished: the
> >limbus patrum, or limbo of the Old Testament believers, and the limbus
> >infantium, the limbo of unbaptized infants.
>
> And what is your problem with trying to satiate the immature mind of man.
Such doctrines are the teaching of immature minds that ratter follow a
man then God and the Holy Bible. No problem of mine, a false teaching
is just that not worth the time to follow. Limbo is the Catholic not
the Bible teachings, another pagan teaching added to the church by so
called "holy men".
>
> > The origin of the idea can
> >be traced with confidence only as far back as the high Middle Ages:
> >the word is not used either by Scripture or the church fathers.
>
> The things that Jesus said that are not recorded far outnumber the ones that
> are. John 21:25.
Yes only what he did say and do, you do not follow, so who cares how
many there are, if one does not follower them all is a waste of time,
the wages of sin is death.
>
> >You going to do as you did before make believe you never read this as
> >this may prove your faith has been wrong all this time?
>
> Not a chance of that as you can't defend the opposite.
Why should I defend falsehoods? Then you may only have one chance and
when you put the words of popes and priest above the teaching of the
FATHER, THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIIRT you loose and then comes the
judgement.
>
> >> > After the resurrection we
> >> >see taking the keys of Hell and the grave and now it is in Heaven one
> >> >dies they are judged to hell or heaven.
> >> Wrong. The Mortal sinner go directly at death.
> >> >Luke 16:22-31
> >> >22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to
> >> >Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being
> >> >in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off,
> >> >and Lazarus in his bosom.
> >> There you go, the begger lived is the spirit and the rich man didn't.
>
> GREAT no response.
Yes poor is your no response, the bible says faith comes by hearing
and such come by the Word of God, which is what is in my response as
my word means little, but the verses of scripture is the best response
one can give, when dealing with the Word of God. The foolishness is
only blindness and rejecting is not repenting and with out such no man
can be saved.
>
> >> >The Roman Catholic church doctrine is not Bible and has no foundation
> >> >in Scripture.
> >> Don't be so stupid. The Catholic Church is not only the Church that Christ
> >> founded 2000 years ago, but also the one Church that most fully follows
> >> scripture and locked in on the bible.
>
> Another absolutely beautiful no response.
Rejecting or denying the bible and things you refuse to check out as
no response shows the readers you are lying as all can see what I did
post and that is a response, unless you are blind and can not see.
Then you did cut out my response to must of the above so the no
response is your way of saying you do not have a answer and you know
your wrong, and are rejecting the Word of God for the mumblings of
some Pope of priest.
Yours truly in Christ Jesus,
Raymond
>
> The Dukester, American-American
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bob Young
On 1/4/10 12:17 PM, in article
72ee2b0a-c888-4394...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com, "RWKnapp"
<rwk...@aim.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28 2009, 1:53ļæ½pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:02:12 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 27, 5:44 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:51:06 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Where were the righteous dead when Christ raised them? It was not hell,
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> that is a one way street, and after all, we are referring to the
>>>>>> righteous.
>>>>>> Whether it was purgatory, or a "purgatory", or a state of limbo, it is
>>>>>> not for
>>>>>> man to know.
>>>>>> Many protest_ants say "no" to purgatory. Yet they can't respond to the
>>>>>> case of
>>>>>> laz, and outrageously reject purgatory.
>>>>> The Catholic church uses the term purgatory, the story of laz was in
>>>>> Paradise before the resurrection, as Hell was also in that one place
>>>>> understood as the place of the dead and they could see each other.
>>>> Purgatory = supposed place of purging. The new Christians had to be made to
>>>> understand.
>>> Why there is no such place to start with and not a word of it is from
>>> the Bible so the Christian need to understand it is only a make
>>> believed place
>>
>> "Who" said there was no such place to start with? ļæ½It's scriptural as no man
>> is
>> pure enough to stand before God without attaining a degree of purification.
>> Heb
>> 12:14.
>
> Only Christ Jesus is pure enough and by Him we stand in His
> purification, that is one reason Jesus died and rose from the dead to
> pay for our sins and only by His blood given freely on the cross can
> we have such purification. Nothing we do will ever make or give
> anyone a degree of purification.
I assume you have verifiable proof for all of that?
If not then the very idea of a god with a son on this earth would, to a
logical thinking person, be proven for all to see in magnificent glory; and
I am not talking about some story in a book full of contradictions, written
by early humans - I am talking about the actions of the god that created the
universe, us and everything else in it, a god that would surely to reveal to
all concerned that his son had lived.
Too logical - ? Better be, since logic, intelligence, common sense, science
and human creativity is all we have
THAT my friend, is . . . . LOGIC
Bob
Humanist, atheist, realist, sentimentalist Brit.
Man creates his gods in his own image,
then spends the rest of his life
manipulating them to his heart's content
R E L I G I O N ļæ½ it is all in the mind,
an escape from lifeļæ½s realities and hardships,
sixty percent ritual, forty percent fantasy
Oh how I wish there 'were' a loving god.
A god that would take care of manļæ½s ills and fulfill his desires and dreams.
But I have the common sense and intelligence to know that this is simply the
way man desires things to be.
>
>>
>>> Ever hear of a MASS that does not take money in for praying
>>> for the souls that missed Heaven and really went to hell
>>
>> As a Roman Catholic attending daily Mass, I never hear of such a thing. ļæ½No
>> wonder you're a protest_er, you're totally ignorant of the RCC..
>
> Oh please half of my relatives are Roman Catholic, I attended Catholic
> summer camp six weeks long, and been in many a MASS and heard some
> good messages by a few Priest. Also I have spoke to nuns and priest
> that came to hear me in the past. I know what I am talking about and
> your the ignorant one. Go to Jersey City NJ and you can attend daily
> mass, some as many as six in one morning, such as in San Antonio,
> Texas as well as Mexico and the Philippines. I been to them, I even
> see one of the past Pope's in person, as well as other leaders of the
> Roman Catholic Church. You need to study some, as it does not matter
> what you "never heard of" it happens daily in even in Spain and other
> nations that the Roman Catholic Church has lots of members.
>
>>
>>> , so they now
>>> can get a pass to bypass the bible and get to heaven some other way.
>>> Not going to happen.
>>> Matt 22:11-14
>>
>> Clearly not those things that feed your wild imagination.
>
> Then I do not have any wild imagination, every thing I know, I learned
> by study and reading as well as talking to church leaders.
>
>>
>>> 11 "But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there
>>> who did not have on a wedding garment. ļæ½12 So he said to him, 'Friend,
>>> how did you come in here without a wedding garment?' And he was
>>> speechless. ļæ½13 Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and
>> benefit of Baptism. ļæ½I await you silly answer here.
>>> You really make no sense at all. ļæ½It means this: "(theology) in
>>> Roman Catholicism, the place of unbaptized but innocent or righteous
>>> souls (such as infants and virtuous individuals)"
>
>> It means this: ļæ½Christians..........
>
> It means that doctrine is not from God or the Bible but only from the
> man made built on Peter Roman Catholic church that does these things
> without foundations in the Holy Word of God the Holy Bible.
>
>>
>>> All man made doctrines never appoved by God. ļæ½Justification and glory
>>
>> How would you know. ļæ½You ignore all the teachings of Christ.
>> are. ļæ½John 21:25.
Bob Young
On 1/4/10 12:17 PM, in article
72ee2b0a-c888-4394...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com, "RWKnapp"
<rwk...@aim.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28 2009, 1:53ļæ½pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:02:12 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 27, 5:44 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:51:06 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Where were the righteous dead when Christ raised them? It was not hell,
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> that is a one way street, and after all, we are referring to the
>>>>>> righteous.
>>>>>> Whether it was purgatory, or a "purgatory", or a state of limbo, it is
>>>>>> not for
>>>>>> man to know.
>>>>>> Many protest_ants say "no" to purgatory. Yet they can't respond to the
>>>>>> case of
>>>>>> laz, and outrageously reject purgatory.
>>>>> The Catholic church uses the term purgatory, the story of laz was in
>>>>> Paradise before the resurrection, as Hell was also in that one place
>>>>> understood as the place of the dead and they could see each other.
>>>> Purgatory = supposed place of purging. The new Christians had to be made to
>>>> understand.
>>> Why there is no such place to start with and not a word of it is from
>>> the Bible so the Christian need to understand it is only a make
>>> believed place
>>
>> "Who" said there was no such place to start with? ļæ½It's scriptural as no man
>> is
>> pure enough to stand before God without attaining a degree of purification.
>> Heb
>> 12:14.
>
> Only Christ Jesus is pure enough and by Him we stand in His
> purification, that is one reason Jesus died and rose from the dead to
> pay for our sins and only by His blood given freely on the cross can
> we have such purification. Nothing we do will ever make or give
> anyone a degree of purification.
Do you 'believers' never realise that were your god for real NONE of you
would be arguing about what it stands for and what it does not stand for.
Your inflammatory dialogue proves one thing - your god is solely the product
of man, so therefore becomes the subject of man's desires and differences.
Bob
Humanist, atheist, realist, sentimentalist Brit.
Man creates his gods in his own image,
then spends the rest of his life
manipulating them to his heart's content
R E L I G I O N ļæ½ it is all in the mind,
an escape from lifeļæ½s realities and hardships,
sixty percent ritual, forty percent fantasy
Oh how I wish there were a loving god. A god that would take care of manļæ½s
ills and fulfill his desires and dreams. But I have the common sense and
intelligence to know that this is simply the way man wishes things to be.
>
>>
>>> Ever hear of a MASS that does not take money in for praying
>>> for the souls that missed Heaven and really went to hell
>>
>> As a Roman Catholic attending daily Mass, I never hear of such a thing. ļæ½No
>> wonder you're a protest_er, you're totally ignorant of the RCC..
>
> Oh please half of my relatives are Roman Catholic, I attended Catholic
> summer camp six weeks long, and been in many a MASS and heard some
> good messages by a few Priest. Also I have spoke to nuns and priest
> that came to hear me in the past. I know what I am talking about and
> your the ignorant one. Go to Jersey City NJ and you can attend daily
> mass, some as many as six in one morning, such as in San Antonio,
> Texas as well as Mexico and the Philippines. I been to them, I even
> see one of the past Pope's in person, as well as other leaders of the
> Roman Catholic Church. You need to study some, as it does not matter
> what you "never heard of" it happens daily in even in Spain and other
> nations that the Roman Catholic Church has lots of members.
>
>>
>>> , so they now
>>> can get a pass to bypass the bible and get to heaven some other way.
>>> Not going to happen.
>>> Matt 22:11-14
>>
>> Clearly not those things that feed your wild imagination.
>
> Then I do not have any wild imagination, every thing I know, I learned
> by study and reading as well as talking to church leaders.
>
>>
>>> 11 "But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there
>>> who did not have on a wedding garment. ļæ½12 So he said to him, 'Friend,
>>> how did you come in here without a wedding garment?' And he was
>>> speechless. ļæ½13 Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and
>> benefit of Baptism. ļæ½I await you silly answer here.
>>> You really make no sense at all. ļæ½It means this: "(theology) in
>>> Roman Catholicism, the place of unbaptized but innocent or righteous
>>> souls (such as infants and virtuous individuals)"
>
>> It means this: ļæ½Christians..........
>
> It means that doctrine is not from God or the Bible but only from the
> man made built on Peter Roman Catholic church that does these things
> without foundations in the Holy Word of God the Holy Bible.
>
>>
>>> All man made doctrines never appoved by God. ļæ½Justification and glory
>>
>> How would you know. ļæ½You ignore all the teachings of Christ.
>> are. ļæ½John 21:25.
duke
>On Dec 28 2009, 1:53�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:02:12 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 27, 5:44 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:51:06 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Where were the righteous dead when Christ raised them? It was not hell, for
>> >> >> that is a one way street, and after all, we are referring to the righteous.
>> >> >> Whether it was purgatory, or a "purgatory", or a state of limbo, it is not for
>> >> >> man to know.
>> >> >> Many protest_ants say "no" to purgatory. Yet they can't respond to the case of
>> >> >> laz, and outrageously reject purgatory.
>> >> >The Catholic church uses the term purgatory, the story of laz was in
>> >> >Paradise before the resurrection, as Hell was also in that one place
>> >> >understood as the place of the dead and they could see each other.
>> >> Purgatory = supposed place of purging. The new Christians had to be made to understand.
>> >Why there is no such place to start with and not a word of it is from
>> >the Bible so the Christian need to understand it is only a make
>> >believed place
>>
>> "Who" said there was no such place to start with? �It's scriptural as no man is
>> pure enough to stand before God without attaining a degree of purification. Heb
>> 12:14.
>Only Christ Jesus is pure enough and by Him we stand in His
>purification,
Well, yes. He uses a purification process to do that.
> that is one reason Jesus died and rose from the dead to
>pay for our sins and only by His blood given freely on the cross can
>we have such purification.
You digress. God became man to redeem us from sin and to restore salvation of
souls. WHY..........would Jesus die on the cross to pay for something? I say
he died on the cross to show us unquestioned obedience to the Father, and so in
that way, we too would/could be raised to new life as he was.
He even begged his Father to spare him the cup - not his will but the Father's
will.
>Nothing we do will ever make or give anyone a degree of purification.
Jesus runs the factory.
>> > Ever hear of a MASS that does not take money in for praying
>> >for the souls that missed Heaven and really went to hell
>> As a Roman Catholic attending daily Mass, I never hear of such a thing. �No
>> wonder you're a protest_er, you're totally ignorant of the RCC..
>Oh please half of my relatives are Roman Catholic, I attended Catholic
>summer camp six weeks long, and been in many a MASS and heard some
>good messages by a few Priest. Also I have spoke to nuns and priest
>that came to hear me in the past. I know what I am talking about and
>your the ignorant one.
Attending a summer camp hardly prepares you for correcting a Catholic. I
suspect you're never been to a Mass, at least not one that collects money for
souls.
>> >, so they now
>> >can get a pass to bypass the bible and get to heaven some other way.
>> >Not going to happen.
>> >Matt 22:11-14
>> Clearly not those things that feed your wild imagination.
>Then I do not have any wild imagination, every thing I know, I learned
>by study and reading as well as talking to church leaders.
Protesting leaders?
>> Yep, God calls all men, but few are without sin to the point that they can go to
>> purgatory.
>Show me the verse that says there is such a place as Purgatory. It
>is not found in the Bible and the only chance people have of salvation
>is when they are alive, as after death comes the Judgement. 2 Cor
>6:1-2
There are 2 judgments. And a "place" is a no show. It's a purification.
>Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.
>NKJV
Only the saved as judged by Jesus are then purified before they can stand before
God.
Rev 21:27: "�nothing unclean will enter heaven�"
Mat 5:8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God"
Heb 12:14: "strive�for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord".
Mat 5:48: "�be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".
>> >Yes the Catholic church has many false doctrines such as this one on
>> >Limbo.
>> How do you know how God handles the infants and youth that die without the
>> benefit of Baptism. �I await you silly answer here.
>How do I know?
Yes, how do you know?
> I know God and have studied and taught His Word for
>over 50 years now. Infants have no sin, there is no such thing as we
>are under the sin of Adam and Eve.
You didn't learn very well.
Romans 5:12-14 (New International Version)
Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through
sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned� 13for before the
law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when
there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time
of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam,
who was a pattern of the one to come.
> A child is born without sin, as
>such has to learned and only them that REPENT as Peter who you call
>your first Pope himself said. A child or infant can not repent and no
>one can repent for them, Baptism is for believers also as Peter
>pointed out in. The promise is for their children they also when they
>understand what sin is need to Repent. I was baptized as a infant and
>if I did not find the paper that said I was, I would never have know
>it, as I was a sinner baptism or no baptism. Your answer is silly
>mind is from the Holy Bible that even the here by the guy you say,
>your church was built on, be nice to obey him, then false teachers
>have fogged your mind and without understanding one misses the mark
>and is lost.
>Baptism is not a benefit it is a time to accept and confess Jesus as
>Lord and Saviour, no one else can do it for you, a baby can not do
>such until they are older and understand.
Infant baptism removes the stain of original sin (see Romans above) - this is
required before one can enter the kingdom of God. John 3:5.
Whe the infant attains the age young adult maturity and can speak for himself,
he confirms his baptismal promises in the sacrament of Confirmation.
>You see reader it is not what I think is true on these matters it is
>what says the LORD in the Holy Bible.
I completely agree.
> The last verses I quoted here was not from Peter but from JESUS
Jesus taught Peter.
>> > You really make no sense at all. �It means this: "(theology) in
>> >Roman Catholicism, the place of unbaptized but innocent or righteous
>> >souls (such as infants and virtuous individuals)"
>
>> It means this: �Christians..........
>
>It means that doctrine is not from God or the Bible but only from the
>man made built on Peter Roman Catholic church that does these things
>without foundations in the Holy Word of God the Holy Bible.
Jesus taught Peter.
>> >All man made doctrines never appoved by God. �Justification and glory
>> How would you know. �You ignore all the teachings of Christ.
>I know as I take the time to read all what JESUS CHRIST said, did and
>all His Teachings, years in Bible college and as a teacher of the Holy
>Bible, full of the Holy Spirit of God and in in love with all my heart
>the Lord Jesus and all that He has said.
You clearly ignore a LOT of what he said.
>As well as over many years
>as a clergyman and full time missionary in different nations. I never
>ignore the teachings of Christ, I do ignore the teachings of popes and
>false teachers and such that in no way represents God or the Lord
>Jesus Christ. You accept the teachings of your church and you are the
>that ignore the teachings of Christ. Then "ignore all" is too, too
>general a statement as many follow some, and do not understand all.
>Nice try, but the Word of God even the words of Peter condemns your
>statements and is not the teachings of the Holy Word of God as the RCC
>try to trick people into believing them.
It's in the Holy Bible. Why don't you pay attention?
Quite frankly, I don't see how any person familiar with the NT would be anything
but Roman Catholic. The OT prefigured the NT and the Messiah. The NT fulfilled
the OT.
>> >1. The glory which disembodied spirits are enjoying now. The moment
>> >that the soul leaves the body, the justified soul is in glory.
>> >Romanism holds that some of the best saints go to heaven when they
>> >die; but that the great mass of inferior saints must undergo
>> >purgation.
>>
>> It's scriptural.
>No it is not! It is only a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church
>which sits on seven mountains that Rome and the Vatican sit on. The
>bible points out who they are. Rev 17:9-18
Rev 21:27: "�nothing unclean will enter heaven�"
Mat 5:8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God"
Heb 12:14: "strive�for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord".
Mat 5:48: "�be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".
>> > But the dying thief was no eminent saint. The only good
>> >deed that we ever read of his doing was when he claimed Christ as
>> >Lord, and rebuked his fellow-thief for slandering the Saviour. Yet,
>> >hear the words, "To-day shalt thou be with Me in paradise."
>> Those very words are what got him there, but "to day" does not mean in the next
>> 24 hours.
>It means to the reader TODAY NOW IS THE TIME then if you do not want a
>24 hour day, try what God says is One day. Rev 17:9-18
As a thousand years.
>> You're trying to play silly games with the afterlife.
>I do not play games silly or otherwise with the life after death to
>the body, I do trust the Lord Jesus and His promises.
You sure do reject a lot of what he said in scripture.
>> >LIMBO
>> >Limbo. In Roman Catholic theology, the region or state proximate to
>> >heaven (limbo is from the Latin word for "edge" or "border") in which
>> >reside departed souls who do not enjoy the beatific vision but do not
>> >suffer any other privation. Two kinds of limbo are distinguished: the
>> >limbus patrum, or limbo of the Old Testament believers, and the limbus
>> >infantium, the limbo of unbaptized infants.
>> And what is your problem with trying to satiate the immature mind of man.
>Such doctrines are the teaching of immature minds that ratter follow a
>man then God and the Holy Bible.
Go back and read John 3:5-7 and you'll change your mind.
>> The things that Jesus said that are not recorded far outnumber the ones that
>> are. �John 21:25.
>Yes only what he did say and do, you do not follow,
We Roman Catholics are the ones that pay attention to ALL he said.
>> >You going to do as you did before make believe you never read this as
>> >this may prove your faith has been wrong all this time?
>> Not a chance of that as you can't defend the opposite.
>Why should I defend falsehoods? Then you may only have one chance and
>when you put the words of popes and priest above the teaching of the
>FATHER, THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIIRT you loose and then comes the
>judgement.
What the Pope says is found in scripture.
>> >> >The Roman Catholic church doctrine is not Bible and has no foundation
>> >> >in Scripture.
>> >> Don't be so stupid. The Catholic Church is not only the Church that Christ
>> >> founded 2000 years ago, but also the one Church that most fully follows
>> >> scripture and locked in on the bible.
>> Another absolutely beautiful no response.
>Rejecting or denying the bible and things you refuse to check out as
>no response shows the readers you are lying
I know what is in scripture.
duke
>> Only Christ Jesus is pure enough and by Him we stand in His
>> purification, that is one reason Jesus died and rose from the dead to
>> pay for our sins and only by His blood given freely on the cross can
>> we have such purification. Nothing we do will ever make or give
>> anyone a degree of purification.
>Do you 'believers' never realise that were your god for real NONE of you
>would be arguing about what it stands for and what it does not stand for.
>
>Your inflammatory dialogue proves one thing - your god is solely the product
>of man, so therefore becomes the subject of man's desires and differences.
Yet we Catholics accept everything God says and he doesn't.
RWKnapp
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 10:36:32 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 1, 7:29 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:14:44 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
Hi Duke,
> >> >> >I was raised catholic as a youth before becoming a spiritualist medium.
> >> >Hope that helps.
> >> I hope you're not doing that satan trick any more.
> >Nope that is your way, when I let Jesus Christ into my life and I gave
> >all my life to God, I suppose one could say I did kick that old master
> >Satan and his tricks in the behind and Jesus tossed him away and set
> >his punishment to Hell and them that do as he does to follow satan in
> >to the lake of fire. So now why don't you do the same?
>
> Letting Jesus into your life is a huge leap forward from being a satanist
> spiritual medium.
Yes it is and it is a joy to know that Jesus love me and now in Christ
there is power over satanist and spiritual mediums, I have prayed for
people with those kind of problems and God did answer prayer.
>
> But it's more than letting Jesus into your life. It's a matter of following
> Jesus by living in his spirit. Protestants like to talk about there being
> nothing we can do re salvation, but the truth is that we have everything to do
> with losing that salvation. In fact, scripture clearly says that if we want to
> he his disciple, we must repent of our sins, PICK UP OUR OWN CROSS, and follow
> him in service to God and mankind. John 13:34, Mat 7:21, Mat 25:31-46.
I have a problem with people that feel they need to point to a church
group as it being a Protestant, Catholic, Atheist, Muslin instead of
just dealing with the person and their problem. We can always point
out that all the rules and such of a group is not responsible for how
a person acts or accept things etc. We can pick apart any church by
its members and that is not fair.
I am sure if your like me, that it is offensive for people to use a
general term and apply such to me or to you, should we say all
Catholics do this or that etc, I am not a Protestant, I am a Christian
that loves Jesus. I am sure many protestant or Catholic or Islamic
like to talk about this or that. I really do not care what someone
else say or does. It is an excuse to avoid a real answer of what a
person is doing. Like some church handles snakes and other anoint
with oil. some were robes as some pastor wear vestments and other do
not. Big deal what does that have to do with us or these matters?
Really how many times have you ever picked up CROSS the size that
JESUS did? We may wear a small cross but we do not PICK up the CROSS
that is like the one Jesus did. When I read "In fact, scripture
clearly says" if that was so, we all would belong to one church and
agree on the same thing. Which we both know is not what is fact, you
try to make a point with such terms, but for thousand of years and
thousands of churches and groups. Shows us such a statement leaves
more questions then not. We have people that are educated in these
matters and good people that just hear what the pastor or the priest
say and take it for the truth and there is no other truth. One reason
even in the Catholic Church we find Sisters of Saint..... and Brothers
of ........ as well as Monks and other if they were protestant would
be seen as denominations. My Dad use to say "it is clear as MUD"!
>
> And 1 JOhn 1:9-10 clearly says we live a life of sin. So loss of salvation
> rests solely in our hands. Heb 10:26-27. Choose wisely.
Here you go again if it was so clearly to all there be no argument or
post on this. I am not sure why you bring this up, as I have no
problem agreeing with that. Be nice if you would read and apply to
what was said, and not just popping in something that is not a
problem. Then we can point out, the loss of salvation may rest in
our hands but not solely, as Satan and others temp people, one can
yield or not to such. If there was no temptation or no devil etc,
they would not have sin to loss their salvation. So there is no just
clearly anything. Life is not that simple. Many priest have done
things the Pope or the Church did not approve us, even if it was very
clear that the law of the church or the word of GOD said not to do
this or that. I suppose if it was so clear they would lock themselves
in a confessional and the side the priest enters and never leave it,
and if they do, they blame the Bishop or the Church for not keeping
away from their want to sin with others. Then in Christ they have a
chance to repent and such really rest in the hands of God, man does
not go to Heaven as it is not on them but on God to accept them in the
first place.
>
> >> >> Hopefully at some point you will address your line of authority in declaring the
> >> >> RCC teachings of 2000 years and millions of man hours of learned research as bad
> >> >> doctrine.
> >> >Like any group just because the members of that group spent years in
> >> >research does not make them collect, look at the Buddhist religion,
> >> >they date back to the with in 500 years after Abraham time. Making
> >> >their teachings over four thousand years old, not as long as the Old
> >> >Testament, and Jewish people could of shown Buddha the Word of God.
> >> >Many of the teachings are about the same as found in Proverbs, and
> >> >originally they did believe only ONE GOD.
> >> Actually they don't believe in any god.
> >You seem not to know much about them Buddhist either, some do not have
> >any god, but many gods, in one temple that was near the town I lived
> >in for many years, had a Temple with 10,000 gods images all just a few
> >inches tall.
>
> http://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm
> Do Buddhist believe in god?
Many do! I have had a Buddhist priest tell one of our members that
went to the Temple with her family, she being a Christian and at the
same time obeying her mother and father as the Bible says to do. The
priest told her she was a Christian and had already reached
"Enlightenment" and is blessed by God. They say they have to work at
that enlightenment and hope someday they will reach it. I also have
had Buddhist monks and nuns as me about Jesus and how to attend the
Grace and Mercy of God. Originally if you would check Buddha preached
about ONE GOD and he preached how to please God so they may get closer
to God. Now it seems they have many kinds of images of Buddha and
Buddha told people He is not a god and should not treat him as a god.
We know by looking and how people pray and such it seems they do, no
matter what the monk says.
> No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern
> sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the
> god idea have their origin in fear.
It is interesting you speak about the Buddha or buddhist, have you
ever been in their temple, have you ever talked one on one with them.
I have and many are good people, just looking for a way to go to
Heaven, as they have many heavens. What you point to them is the same
as I see in many Roman Catholics so what? I have found many
religionist or all faiths with the god ideal and they origin in
fear.And while we are pointing to this, what brings more fear then
telling people if they do not join and obey the catholic faith they
will not go to Heaven, and if they are not Catholic they can not take
part in the MASS and so would go to hell etc. One has to pray so many
Hail Mary and so many Our Fathers etc, and at least go the
Confessional once or more in a year of they would go to Hell. That is
all based in the origin in fear. The Buddhist wear robes like priest
do and even have Nuns like the Catholic church does as well as Order
and Monks like the Catholic church has and prayer beads like the
Catholic have. You need not go there but you did. Jesus said fear
not! How many Christians follow that or accept that as truth, they
fear when anything happens that may hurt them, all people even demons
do.
> >> But my point is that millions of manhours of research have gone into Scripture,
> >> pulling all the parts together in an effort to understand God's message to us.
> >> That being said, how can protestant individuals who by and large reject much of
> >> scripture tell the RCC it's wrong?
> >You believe your priest too much, the Protestant see that the Catholic
> >rejected much of the Scriptures
>
> We did??? Where? Jesus taught Peter and the Apostles. Peter, the first Pope,
Who is the "We" here, only you or the "we" as a teaching of the
Catholic church and the followers of such? Peter or the Bible ever
said he was a POPE and JAMES sat Peter down and told him his problems
so if anyone would of been the first pope it would of been James the
half bother of Jesus Christ. Then that would mess up a lot of
Catholic teachings about the Mother of Jesus.
> taught the 2nd pope St. Linus (67-76) who taught the 3rd Pope St. Anacletus
> (Cletus) (76-88) who taught the 4th pope St. Clement I (88-97).............who
> taught the 265th Pope John Paul II (1978-2005) who taught the 266th Pope
> Benedict XVI (2005—).
If you want to go to all the Popes then tell us about a woman pope
also, or did you not learn about her? Did any of these Popes you
referent here not have a WIFE as Peter sure did, and the Church with
out the permission of history and its Popes now will not let a Roman
Catholic priest marry or take a wife and still be the a priest. So
if you want to go to Peter, the doctrines of Peter is not the
doctrines in many areas of the Roman Catholic Church today.
>
> The Catholic Church is responsible for the bible.
No it is not they just copied it from and we find now that early monks
and such long before any Catholic church was built already had copies
of the Bible. Evidents of such found in the caves of the area and
time of Christ. If we want to bring in the responsibly of the Bible
we would have to point to them that printed the bible and the pope at
that time did not approve, and it if was not for the Martin Luther and
others the Holy Bible would still be chained to a pulpit in the center
of the church and only priest and monks etc were able to look at it.
The English Bible that we use here in English had nothing to do with
the Catholic Church they wanted only Latin a languages most people did
not know or understand.
>
> (In his commentary on St John, (Chapter 16) Martin Luther wrote, "We are
> obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics) that they possess
> the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have
> known nothing at all about it.")
Oh may, to use Martin Luther you seem to forget that the POPE
EXCUMUCATED as a false teacher and monk, and now you use his words,
seems like even you do not accept what the Church or Pope says. He
said "to yield many things" which as tells us that
He did not agree with many things also. I have no problem with the
Catholic Church or the Greek Orthodox churches etc, as they also keep
the bible from being destroyed and hid it from such people so we have
it today. The monks that copied it over and over again trying to keep
it to the original did a great job. Then they did no write the text
they only copied it, be like me saying all the honor today has nothing
to do with any church, but the one that made the printing press and
those that made the paper to print on or the story that sells it.
Lots of people many not catholic some only for profit keeps the Holy
Bible in the stores so we today can have a Bible. I do not buy a
Bible from the Pope or a Catholic book Store, I buy them and I have
used many over the years till they wear out and are falling apart,
need a replacement from any book store that has them. Now can get
them over the Internet.
>
> > and add to the Bible books that even
> >the Jews rejected they put into the Word of God, where St. John wrote
> >not to ADD to the Word of God. They do reject bowing to images and
> >praying to the dead saints and such, as wrong.
>
> NOT a chance. The protestants removed from the bible.
They are seen as Old Testament records and the stories in many do not
fit the record in the Holy Word. They were rejected by the early
church and added only later by the Catholic Church. So their
doctrines would fit the Bible as they did not till they added them.
By the way, I have those books in a book by themselves, I can
reference them or read them, so why do you thing one needs to have
them in the Bible itself.
It is called the APOCRYPHA 14 books of the Old Testament included in
the Vulgate (except for II Esdras) but omitted in Jewish and
Protestant versions of the Bible; eastern Christian churches (except
the Coptic Church) accept all these books as canonical; the Russian
Orthodox Church accepts these texts as divinely inspired but does not
grant them the same status.
> The books of the Apocrypha, which is strictly Old Testament, were rejected as
> canon scripture by the Jews because they were written in Greece rather than the
> Holy Land.
More information on that in my reply above this statement of yours.
Like I said I have them and they are index so I can read them easier.
The book I have was says it is According to the Authorized Version
with the seal of "Her Majesty's Printer" which shows me the Protestant
Queen ok'ed it and had it printed, does not sound like your story at
all. Has offices in London, Eyre and Spottiswoode limited, as well as
New York: Harper & Brothers publishers.
My copy was printed in Great Britain. The Introduction to the
Apocrypha has the history of the book and history in fine print, pages
on pager going back to the Greek Septuagint the earliest Christian
Bible the authors of the Apocrypha are unknown with the exception of
Jesus the son of Sirahch (the author of the Ecclesilastricus and James
of Cyrene those five books are summarized in II Maccabees. Get a copy
of it and learn something, it is too much to post here and I am not
sure if there is a copyright by the printer on it or not. I had that
book for fifty years now. I may look for a new copy as my is old and
the binding is not holding up as I would like it to.
>
> So the protestants, who reject so much of NT scripture and siding with the Jews,
> took the Apocrypha out of their bibles.
I suppose to retaliate, we could say the Catholics who rejected so
mush of the NT etc......... I have it and many Pastors I know have
it, so what does that have to do with anything. No Protestant has
destroyed it or burned it etc. It is still on sale at book stores
etc.
>
> >> >> >> Second, your knowledge reflects fundamentalism where people speak as though they
> >> >> >> know the actual events post death - Abraham's bosom and lake of fire, perdition,
> >> >> >> etc.
> >> >> >Yes. We are reasonably confident the Bible outlines the basics, though
> >> >> >there are always questions and debatable issues on the subject
> >> >> Or, as I say, heaven and hell and purification. I am always amused at the way
> >> >> some speak of lakes and 2nd judgments like anybody would has a grip on these
> >> >> things.
> >> No response? To me, it's clear. We are born, we live, we die. Only one man
> >> went to the other side and came back to talk about it. That's Christ. To us,
> >> it has no value in details. Those details are of God only.
> >NO RESPONSE? You got to be blind or talking to someone else, I always
> >have an response, just because you do not accept them or disagree,
> >doesn't mean anything you get a response, if I see your post.
>
> When I use "no response", that means you offered no counter response at the end
> of my comment, of which I thought you would say something. You can see from
> above that the discussion moved from 4> to 2>, or when you read this, it should
> be from 5> to 3>.
All what I offer is to counter your response as ALL that I am posting
today does, then I am also addressing the Readers so they can see why
you have a problem
>
> >We are born to die. Simple as that. Jesus did just that, then you seem to
> >forget that Jesus Moses and Abraham who had died and went to heaven,
> >did show up on a mountain and the Apostles seen them so they did come
> >back and bible does talk about it.
>
> Well, I believe it was Elijah rather than Abraham but congrats on being the
> first protestant ever to acknowledge salvation of non-Christians, even though
> they didn't say anything, plus not having to wait for THE "resurrection".
I am not the first Protestant and there is no way for you to know if
that is true either, as I learned over the years there are billions of
people out there and it is hard to find anyone that agree with
everyone or that one person is the only one that said this or that.
That may make you think you sound good, in fact it is not a fact so
such is useless to prove anything at all. I never heard does not
mean I am correct, only I personally never heard any Catholic Bishop
say non-Christians can have salvation. Salvation is from a God and He
and only He has the right to acknowledge who is or who is not. I do
now by cannon law the Bible law that sin is what separates a person
from salvation. We are not accountable for what someone else did or
did not do, even our family. We are asked to be born or what sex we
are it is out of our control even if today some think they can choose
what their child will be. Sin not age has to do with this, and a
child is innocent and Jesus did say this:
Matt 18:2-5
2 Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of
them, 3 and said, "Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted
and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom
of heaven. 4 Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child
is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 Whoever receives one
little child like this in My name receives Me.
> > I am not sure what you think you mean
> >by the "To us it has no value in details. Those details are of God
> >only?" All that the Holy Word of God the Bible has to say should mean
> >and have value to them that say they are believers in Christ Jesus.
>
> What I mean, rk, is that we die, as you said above. Now whether we are dealing
> with "lakes of fire, first death, 2nd death, purgatory, heaven, hell" is not for
> man to talk of with authority. It's simple - we die and then are judged for the
> way we lived our human lives - the details of what comes next are beyond our
> control and authority. Our primary concern for the after is the way we lived
> the before.
The Lake of Fire the Bible says will be for the Devil and those that
follow him. That judgement is given and in time will happen.
Since there is no purgatory and the Bible never used that term as it
gives a second chance where the Bible does not, if one rejects Jesus
there is no second opportunity to miss hell, Now is the time to repent
and be saved, if one rejects that payment for sins, they rejected
Jesus as saviour. We are to judge ourselves today, and everyday, as
it says Judge one another as we Judge ourselves and with such
judgement we will be judged. Jesus is the one that judges us today if
we follow him, the second death means nothing to us, as we already
have a home in Heaven and Jesus said He want to prepare a place for
us. Hell was for the devil and evil, if you do what you can do to not
sin and not do evil, Jesus is our lawyer and He by His blood paid the
price, as St John wrote in first John Chapter one verses one to seven
nice to read the whole book it is short and anyone should be able to
understand it, if they have a education even of grade school.
I have no problem with agreeing with you on "Our primary concern for
the after is the way we live the before, if we add to that faith and
trust in God and that Jesus is our Redeemer and He and only is the Way
the truth and the life.
Raymond
Bob Young
On 1/4/10 9:25 PM, in article jvq3k5171e803crt3...@4ax.com,
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On 4 Jan 2010 04:03:02 -0600, Bob Young <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>
>>> Only Christ Jesus is pure enough and by Him we stand in His
>>> purification, that is one reason Jesus died and rose from the dead to
>>> pay for our sins and only by His blood given freely on the cross can
>>> we have such purification. Nothing we do will ever make or give
>>> anyone a degree of purification.
>
>> Do you 'believers' never realise that were your god for real NONE of you
>> would be arguing about what it stands for and what it does not stand for.
>>
>> Your inflammatory dialogue proves one thing - your god is solely the product
>> of man, so therefore becomes the subject of man's desires and differences.
>
> Yet we Catholics accept everything God says and he doesn't.
Well you know what they say 'Two wrongs don't make a right'
duke
>> Letting Jesus into your life is a huge leap forward from being a satanist
>> spiritual medium.
>Yes it is and it is a joy to know that Jesus love me and now in Christ
>there is power over satanist and spiritual mediums, I have prayed for
>people with those kind of problems and God did answer prayer.
Great.
>> But it's more than letting Jesus into your life. �It's a matter of following
>> Jesus by living in his spirit. �Protestants like to talk about there being
>> nothing we can do re salvation, but the truth is that we have everything to do
>> with losing that salvation. �In fact, scripture clearly says that if we want to
>> he his disciple, we must repent of our sins, PICK UP OUR OWN CROSS, and follow
>> him in service to God and mankind. �John 13:34, Mat 7:21, Mat 25:31-46. � �
>I have a problem with people that feel they need to point to a church
>group as it being a Protestant, Catholic, Atheist, Muslin instead of
>just dealing with the person and their problem. We can always point
>out that all the rules and such of a group is not responsible for how
>a person acts or accept things etc. We can pick apart any church by
>its members and that is not fair.
Good point, but I don't pick apart a church basis it's members, but instead pick
apart the teaching to it's members because of their church.
Their church promotes and drives their daily lives/
>I am sure if your like me, that it is offensive for people to use a
>general term and apply such to me or to you, should we say all
>Catholics do this or that etc, I am not a Protestant, I am a Christian
>that loves Jesus.
I'm sure you are. But there are major mistakes to be made basis what you learn
from your church.
> I am sure many protestant or Catholic or Islamic
>like to talk about this or that. I really do not care what someone
>else say or does. It is an excuse to avoid a real answer of what a
>person is doing. Like some church handles snakes and other anoint
>with oil. some were robes as some pastor wear vestments and other do
>not. Big deal what does that have to do with us or these matters?
>Really how many times have you ever picked up CROSS the size that
>JESUS did? We may wear a small cross but we do not PICK up the CROSS
>that is like the one Jesus did.
That cross is not a wooden one but the burdens of our lives - illness, money,
family problems, etc - but still maintaining our belief in Christ and his love
instead of turning from him.
> When I read "In fact, scripture
>clearly says" if that was so, we all would belong to one church and
>agree on the same thing.
And why don't we? One faith tells us to kill in God's name, another to follow
every word of Jesus, another to turn form God, etc.
>> And 1 JOhn 1:9-10 clearly says we live a life of sin. �So loss of salvation
>> rests solely in our hands. �Heb 10:26-27. �Choose wisely.
>Here you go again if it was so clearly to all there be no argument or
>post on this. I am not sure why you bring this up, as I have no
>problem agreeing with that.
Because so many don't agree.
> Be nice if you would read and apply to
>what was said, and not just popping in something that is not a
>problem. Then we can point out, the loss of salvation may rest in
>our hands but not solely, as Satan and others temp people, one can
>yield or not to such.
You don't..........believe that satan is the evil in our own hearts that we
gleefully turn to?
>If there was no temptation or no devil etc,
>they would not have sin to loss their salvation. So there is no just
>clearly anything. Life is not that simple. Many priest have done
>things the Pope or the Church did not approve us, even if it was very
>clear that the law of the church or the word of GOD said not to do
>this or that. I suppose if it was so clear they would lock themselves
>in a confessional and the side the priest enters and never leave it,
>and if they do, they blame the Bishop or the Church for not keeping
>away from their want to sin with others. Then in Christ they have a
>chance to repent and such really rest in the hands of God, man does
>not go to Heaven as it is not on them but on God to accept them in the
>first place.
>> http://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm
>> Do Buddhist believe in god?
>Many do! I have had a Buddhist priest tell one of our members that
>went to the Temple with her family, she being a Christian and at the
>same time obeying her mother and father as the Bible says to do. The
>priest told her she was a Christian and had already reached
>"Enlightenment" and is blessed by God. They say they have to work at
>that enlightenment and hope someday they will reach it. I also have
>had Buddhist monks and nuns as me about Jesus and how to attend the
>Grace and Mercy of God. Originally if you would check Buddha preached
>about ONE GOD and he preached how to please God so they may get closer
>to God. Now it seems they have many kinds of images of Buddha and
>Buddha told people He is not a god and should not treat him as a god.
>We know by looking and how people pray and such it seems they do, no
>matter what the monk says.
Interesting. I did a google on Buddhists and saw where they don't believe in a
god. But not my problem.
>.And while we are pointing to this, what brings more fear then
>telling people if they do not join and obey the catholic faith they
>will not go to Heaven, and if they are not Catholic they can not take
>part in the MASS and so would go to hell etc. One has to pray so many
>Hail Mary and so many Our Fathers etc, and at least go the
>Confessional once or more in a year of they would go to Hell. That is
>all based in the origin in fear.
Not true, as you explain it. God told us how to live our lives in the bible. To
sin is to break away from him. And if it's sin we want, sin we get for all
eternity.
>> >You believe your priest too much, the Protestant see that the Catholic
>> >rejected much of the Scriptures
>> We did??? �Where? �Jesus taught Peter and the Apostles. �Peter, the first Pope,
>Who is the "We" here, only you or the "we" as a teaching of the
>Catholic church and the followers of such?
> Peter or the Bible ever
>said he was a POPE and JAMES sat Peter down and told him his problems
>so if anyone would of been the first pope it would of been James the
>half bother of Jesus Christ. Then that would mess up a lot of
>Catholic teachings about the Mother of Jesus.
Jesus the man left us 2000 years ago, sent the Holy Spirit in his place, and
assigned Simon Peter the leader of his new Church on earth. No man except Jesus
was ever sinfree. Heb 4:15. The Pope is not God and only a man, and hence if
not sin free.
>> taught the 2nd pope St. Linus (67-76) who taught the 3rd Pope St. Anacletus
>> (Cletus) (76-88) who taught the 4th pope St. Clement I (88-97).............who
>> taught the 265th Pope John Paul II (1978-2005) who taught the 266th Pope
>> Benedict XVI (2005�).
>If you want to go to all the Popes then tell us about a woman pope
>also, or did you not learn about her?
She wasn't. There is only one POpe at any time, and she wasn't.
> Did any of these Popes you
>referent here not have a WIFE as Peter sure did, and the Church with
>out the permission of history and its Popes now will not let a Roman
>Catholic priest marry or take a wife and still be the a priest.
Celibacy is a discipline that priests accept. At one time priests were married,
and they imposed celibacy on themselves, not by the Pope.
> So
>if you want to go to Peter, the doctrines of Peter is not the
>doctrines in many areas of the Roman Catholic Church today.
A celibacy doctrine, which can change, is not a dogma, which cannot change.
>> The Catholic Church is responsible for the bible.
>No it is not they just copied it from and we find now that early monks
>and such long before any Catholic church was built already had copies
>of the Bible.
(In his commentary on St John, (Chapter 16) Martin Luther wrote, "We are
obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics) that they possess
the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have
known nothing at all about it.")
The Catholic Church was started by Christ, and given the characteristics of the
Holy Mass, 7 sacraments and the Papacy. Why did the protest_ants turn away?
>Evidents of such found in the caves of the area and
>time of Christ. If we want to bring in the responsibly of the Bible
>we would have to point to them that printed the bible and the pope at
>that time did not approve, and it if was not for the Martin Luther and
>others the Holy Bible would still be chained to a pulpit in the center
>of the church and only priest and monks etc were able to look at it.
>The English Bible that we use here in English had nothing to do with
>the Catholic Church they wanted only Latin a languages most people did
>not know or understand.
And until about 100 years ago, the man on the street could not read or write.
And clearly, to know the word of God is to know the whole bible, not one
statement here and there. Now that's an impossible task for a anybody but a
large group of researchers.
>> (In his commentary on St John, (Chapter 16) Martin Luther wrote, "We are
>> obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics) that they possess
>> the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have
>> known nothing at all about it.")
>Oh may, to use Martin Luther you seem to forget that the POPE
>EXCUMUCATED as a false teacher and monk
Luther left the Church, rejected much of that which Jesus gave his
Church on earth.
>> NOT a chance. �The protestants removed from the bible.
>They are seen as Old Testament records and the stories in many do not
>fit the record in the Holy Word. They were rejected by the early
>church and added only later by the Catholic Church.
Wrong. The Books of the Apocrypha were rejected by Jews as canon scripture
because these were written in Greece and not the Holy Land. The protest_ants,
in 1600 AD when luther broke away, removed them from the protestant bible. I
wonder why he followed the Jews instead of the Christians. Interesting
question.
>> So the protestants, who reject so much of NT scripture and siding with the Jews,
>> took the Apocrypha out of their bibles.
>I suppose to retaliate, we could say the Catholics who rejected so
>mush of the NT etc.........
Where? Everything my Church teaches is clearly still found in the bible.
>All what I offer is to counter your response as ALL that I am posting
>today does, then I am also addressing the Readers so they can see why
>you have a problem
I don't have a problem. If you can name one, I will be glad to discuss for the
benefit of the readers.
>> >We are born to die. Simple as that. �Jesus did just that, then you seem to
>> >forget that Jesus Moses and Abraham who had died and went to heaven,
>> >did show up on a mountain and the Apostles seen them so they did come
>> >back and bible does talk about it.
>> Well, I believe it was Elijah rather than Abraham but congrats on being the
>> first protestant ever to acknowledge salvation of non-Christians, even though
>> they didn't say anything, plus not having to wait for THE "resurrection".
>I am not the first Protestant and there is no way for you to know if
>that is true either, as I learned over the years there are billions of
>people out there and it is hard to find anyone that agree with
>everyone or that one person is the only one that said this or that.
?? These things come from the bible.
>That may make you think you sound good, in fact it is not a fact so
>such is useless to prove anything at all. I never heard does not
>mean I am correct, only I personally never heard any Catholic Bishop
>say non-Christians can have salvation. Salvation is from a God and He
>and only He has the right to acknowledge who is or who is not.
Exactly. Jesus did NOT say that only Christians would be saved, but instead
that he was the only way to the Father. He also said that we are called to love
one another as he loves us, and people of others faiths and non-faiths are his
creation also.
> I do
>now by cannon law the Bible law that sin is what separates a person
>from salvation.
Yep.
>> What I mean, rk, is that we die, as you said above. � Now whether we are dealing
>> with "lakes of fire, first death, 2nd death, purgatory, heaven, hell" is not for
>> man to talk of with authority. �It's simple - we die and then are judged for the
>> way we lived our human lives - the details of what comes next are beyond our
>> control and authority. �Our primary concern for the after is the way we lived
>> the before.
>The Lake of Fire the Bible says will be for the Devil and those that
>follow him.
It doesn't matter. We live then die, and from there it's heaven, or hell, or
heaven via purgatory. After that, it's not for us to worry about what comes
next.
>Since there is no purgatory and the Bible never used that term as it
>gives a second chance where the Bible does not, if one rejects Jesus
>there is no second opportunity to miss hell,
Nope, when you die, all decision making is over. If you die separated from God
ie, believing you know better than God what is right and what is wrong, then you
die with blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
When God said "do not", he meant it. There is no reason for us to think we can.
>I have no problem with agreeing with you on "Our primary concern for
>the after is the way we live the before, if we add to that faith and
>trust in God and that Jesus is our Redeemer and He and only is the Way
>the truth and the life.
That's one and the same.
vince garcia
>
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 05:19:55 -0800, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Hopefully at some point you will address your line of authority in declaring the
> >> RCC teachings of 2000 years and millions of man hours of learned research as bad
> >> doctrine.
>
> >The authority is the scripture, which the RCC perverts, denies or
> >contradicts on some issues. I gave you one example.
>
> Your example does not hold water.
Of course it does. At the point that the Bible ceases to be the supreme
authority by which God's will is revealed, you now have a religion that
is open to change with the winds of public opinion, as we see happen
with the mainline denominations that started out good--adhering to
scripture--but now tout gay marriage and other liberal viewpoints.
God also says He exalts His word above His own name--not that He exalts
man's oral tradition above His name! That is as high a recommendation of
scripture as the final court of arbitration.
And peter confirms the scripture is "more sure" than his own oral
tradition of what happened on the holy mount!
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him
in the holy mount.
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that
ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the
day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: [the prophesies of
SCRIPTURE as he goes on to say]
So when the RCC claims tradition is equal to scripture, God Himself does
not afffirm that, but actually elevates the scripture above His own
name.
Don't get no better than that
The written word is only a partial record of
> everything Jesus said and did. John 21:25. Now, the gospels were firstly not a
> record of what Jesus said and did as they are a record of what other people said
> that Jesus said and did. This is evident in that the gospels were not
> "published" until 30-60 years after Christ, only John being the Apostle that
> personally met Jesus. And the NT scripture was not canonized until the 4th
> century.
>
> This means that everything we read today originated as Holy Tradition, or the
> verbal word rather than the written word, and existed for 300 years before
> canonization.
>
> >Another example would be mandating preistly celebacy when even
> >Paul--whom they appeal to--said bishops MUST be the husband of one wife;
> >and Paul himself never REQUIRED any minister or bishop to be unmarried.
>
> Neither Jesus, Paul or John were married.
You're wrong. Jesus, no. John, perhaps. Paul definitely (at some point,
anyway, because he was a member of the sanhedrin, and you had to be
married to be a part of it it)
But in no way does an apostle's being single translate into an ungodly
regulation that most priests MUST be unmarried. That actually
contradicts what the NT does say.
And be careful with the words "must"
> and "required". Paul was saying "NO divorced, no concubines, no one from
> prison".
MUST is in the verse paul wrote, duke. Argue with him, not me.
>
> >> >> Second, your knowledge reflects fundamentalism where people speak as though they
> >> >> know the actual events post death - Abraham's bosom and lake of fire, perdition,
> >> >> etc.
>
> >> >Yes. We are reasonably confident the Bible outlines the basics, though
> >> >there are always questions and debatable issues on the subject
>
> >> Or, as I say, heaven and hell and purification. I am always amused at the way
> >> some speak of lakes and 2nd judgments like anybody would has a grip on these
> >> things.
>
> >Bible's reasonably clear on it
>
> Words, not meaning. For instance, for the sinner, the "first death or
> judgment" is also the last.
>
> The bible also says that those that died in God's friendship were raised to
> **NEW LIFE** at the moment Jesus died. No waiting for resurrection day for them
> according to your way of thinking.
I disagree
>
> >the Day of the
> >> >> Lord had already passed. However, the resurrection of the Lord had already
> >> >> taken place.
>
> >> >I honestly don't know how you're getting that. that's not a view taught
> >> >by the RCC that I've ever heard. Can you give me a reference?
>
> >> Which part?
>
> >The part about you getting your perfected physical body as soon as you
> >get to heaven. The RCC i'm sure does not teach this.
>
> How does anybody know FOR SURE?
scripture. So i guess you're admitting this is not a position of the
RCC, but your own.
What difference does it make? God has a plan
> whether we know what it is or not. But I believe we will be glorified as Jesus
> is glorified. He was raised to new life showing us that we would to. And he
> showed us with God in heaven after.
>
> I'd much rather go that way rather than think of a great "war on horseback" some
> few to billions of years in the future.
Fine, except no one but you thinks the dead get a physical body prior to
THE resurrection in the future. Your own church certainly does not teach
that. I think they might even rebuke you for this belief of yours
>
> >> >But not the lake of fire, which gets filled at the last judgment
> >> I submit that the first judgment (particular Heb 9:27) is the last judgment for
> >> those relegated to hell at death.
>
> >Well, the RCC position is that there is a speicific judgment at death,
> >then go to a bad place for the sinner, then the general judgment comes
> >at the end of time, and you go to a worse place:
>
> >the Catholic Encyclopedia says "Few truths are more often or more
> >clearly proclaimed in Scripture than that of the general judgment".
> >When the individual dies, general judgment holds that the person's final
> >dispensation will await the general judgment of the dead at the end of
> >the world, rather than be judged immediately.
>
> Sounds more like the friends of God hang around purgatory and the damned go
> direct to hell. What does it matter for the damned? Or maybe it means that we
> all hang around the grave until resurrection day, all get the general judgment
> with the damned going straight to satanville, and the friends of God exposed for
> their sinfulness, purified, and on to heaven.
>
> It still says heaven, hell, and purgatory. For those in the grave know nothing.
>
> > And further, that the last judgment (general
> >> Rev 21:27) is only for the saved where they stand face to face with their
> >> sinfulness in purgatory.
no--read matt 25:35-41
>
> >Not what the catholic encyclopedia says
>
> My disagreement is with your analysis. I gave you an equally accurate rendition
> above. It just doesn't matter to us as we make our path on this earth and it is
> only for God to handle the rest.
>
> >> >What we CAN seem to say with reasonable certainty is that the RCC view
> >> >of purgatory does not hold up to scripture, in that it is a prolonged
> >> >process that can take centuries, with prayers and alms for the dead all
> >> >that time helping those there get out. The Bible really does not affirm
> >> >those ideas
>
> >> Of course it does. The bible clearly says about a purging:
>
> >> Rev 21:27: "�nothing unclean will enter heaven�"
> >> Mat 5:8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God"
> >> Heb 12:14: "strive�for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord".
> >> Mat 5:48: "�be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".
> >>
> >> 1Cor 3:13
> >> 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light.
> >> It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's
> >> work.
>
> >See how weak the argument is? Those verses don't make the point at all,
> >and are the best you can do to try and force the point to be made.
> >That's what happens when you try and teach purgatory.
>
> See how STRONG that is. These verses says that we must be purified before we
> can stand before God. The damned are gone to hell. And we are cleaned.
And i just showed you where JESUS said we're cleaned by THE WORD, not
purgatory, and you rejected it.
This the problem with the RCC: reject what scripture says, and appeal to
its own authority
Being captive in a holding tank does not equate to purgatory. Angels are
locked up in the pit--are they in purgatory, or simply held captive?
>
> I'll stick with heaven, hell, and purification.
>
> >I don't consider intertestamental books to be fully inspired,* so i
> >don't need to reconcile evangelical theology with them...tho I actually
> >could if i DID need to.
>
> It doesn't matter what you and I think. All that matters is what God does,
> regardless of our way of pretend-viewing.
>
> >* Here's just one reason the apocrypha is not fully inspired: In the
> >apocrypha, the ark of the covenant was said to be hidden by jeremiah on
> >mt Nebo until the end of the age, when it would be found again
>
> Now there's a biggie. So VG "doesn't consider" the Apocapha to be inspired
> because the Jews had a problem with them because they were written in Greece
> rather than the Holy Land.
among other resasons, tho I don't say they were written in greece.
Their problem is that errors can be shown to exist in some of those
supposedly inerrant works, so oi can accept they may be PARTIALLY
inspired, but certainly not fully inspired, and thus canonical
You can't have the apocrypha contradict what jeremiah says, and have the
apocrypha be equally scripture
>
> >Well, just compare that thought to the REAL scripture of jeremiah 3:16,
> >and you'll see the apocrypha has errors, and thus is not infallible.
>
> All scripture has literal errors - OT, NT, Gospels, Letters. Not every word in
> the bible is literally true, except for God's word regarding our souls and his
> plans for the salvation thereof.
The bible is always true when it speaks prophetically, and jeremiah
prophesises the ark will never be found or visited, while the apocrypha
says it will be. (which is a common desire of the jews, and many
deceived Christians, to this day)
The apocrypha (that part of it, anyway) is thus shown to be fallible,
and thus not scripture
>
> >> Interesting. I thought Protestants thought we already were in the kingdom of
> >> God.
> >Preterists do. I'm not one.
>
> I don't now what they are.
Guys who think all biblical prophesies of the end times were fulfilled
in the 1st century. See pastor dave
>
> >>But not that it's heaven. We Catholics never talk about such a thing.
> >> Nobody knows.
>
> >> I would think that Jesus tasting death for every man would put us in the kingdom
> >> of God. Jesus is glorified, and raised to the Father, and we are buried with
> >> him to sin in baptism in hopes of following him to the Father.
>
> >Not in hope--but of absolute assurance!
>
> And Heb 10:26-27 says that if we keep on sinning after learning of Christ (and
> I'll assume baptism) then the only thing left for us are the fires of hell.
Talking about willful, unrepentant mortal sin, to use catholic terms;
not sins comitted in weakness as the person continues TRYING to walk
forward in Christ
>
> Of course, we will get that removed in purgatory if we are judged saved. Right??
probably not, but possibly. That's the best one can speculate, and be
honest with what the scripture MOGHT imply but certainly not state
clearly.
>
> >These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son
> >of God; that ye MAY KNOW that ye have eternal life, and that ye may
> >believe on the name of the Son of God.
>
> Does "believe on" mandate absolute following in his steps?
no. That would equal mankind achiveing perfection thru its own efforts
in a flesh body paul says will always be corrupt with sin.
yeah. That's what i'm saying. But there is NO chance a pagan 'adult' can
be saved withoput accepting the gospel. Paul is clear on that.
He also says babies of unbelievers are "unclean," so you must deal with
that
>
> >For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin
> >revived, and I died.
> >Even paul admits it was only after he was old enough to know right from
> >wrong did he enter a state of condemed sinner
>
> Exactly. But scripture still says we are born with a sin nature like we are
> with 10 fingers and 10 toes. And according to scripture, that is removed in
> baptism.
nope. I guarantee you still have a sin nature. I guarantee the pedophile
priests out there also still have sin natures too
>
> >> Certainly an adult who submits to baptism has
> >> attained a desire via knowledge. Catholics do the same in Confirmation where
> >> youth previous receiving John's baptism at birth now make their own baptismal
> >> promises as one mature enough to know what he's doing.
>
> Good no comment.
don't think i have an argument with that. The catholic in confirmation
still needs to understand the gospel well enough to know what he's
accepting or rejecting, i might note
>
> >> > Paul clearly indicates they
> >> >must hear/receive Christ to be saved, the RCC says they don't have to,
> >> >but can cooperate with the inner grace of God and die in a state of
> >> >grace.
> >>
> >> Why "must",
> >cuz paul says
>
> But the big guy, Jesus, said he gives us a new command - that we love one
> another as he loves us. John 13:34. And a muslim is God's creation also. So
> infants are baptized into God's grace per John 3:5-7. If they die without
> baptism, they await the resurrection like the rest of us.
You are expressing New Age thinking. God does not accept those who do
not accept the invitation and come through conscious receipt of the
gospel. Paul is very clear on that. You are contradicting paul with
emotional appeals
>
> >>but instead "do"? As far as dying in the state of grace, 1 John
> >> 1:8-10 pretty much eliminates that.
>
> >Your argument is with the RCC then; that's their doctrine, not mine
>
> No, it's not.
>
> >> >FOOEY, as my jewish friend rob would say
> >> I agree, FOOEY as far as dying in the state of grace. Only God knows.
>
> Another great no response.
I did respond, and say FOOEY. The notion you're advocating contradicts
scripture
>
> >> >> Yes, of course, and why send the infants to burn in hell because they died sans
> >> >> baptism?
> >> >Based on deut 1:39, i would say they go to heaven.
> >
> >> Deut is for Jews. Christ is for Christians, where the covenant is written on
> >> the heart and not on stone tablets.
>
> >ok...kinda leaves the sincere moslem out of it, huh?
>
> Only God knows.
I know too based on romans 10
so? Good deeds can't save you. Faith and grace save you. Or you must
reject paul as contradictibng Jesus here if what you think He is saying
is true
>
> >> After all, they are God's children
> >> also.
> >They are children of adam. And they can go to heaven or hell based on
> >their receipt or non-receipt of the gospel
>
> Actually, I'll leave this one in the hands of God.
>
> >> >See the parable in matt 22 about the wedding garment handed out at the
> >> >gate (Christ), where a guy who did not come thru that gate and get the
> >> >garment was thrown out even though he was invited in with the rest!
>
> >> Nice parable about God's invitation, but not every non-Christian worships satan.
>
> >Sure they do. Perhaps not knowingly, but a sincere moslem is still
> >following a religion that has a demonic spirit behind it.
>
> Muslims, Jews, and Christians all call Abraham Father of their religion.
so? Abraham can't save you. Only faith in christ can
>
> We see in scripture that the children of Adam, the Jews, were raised to **NEW
> LIFE** when Christ died on the cross. Why not Muslims and atheists IF God so
> decides?
>
> >The HOLY Spirit is not the spirit that invented Islam, Hinduism,
> >Atheism, rabinnic judaism, Shintoism, Buddhism, and so on. SATAN is the
> >guiding influence behind ALL other religions:
>
> You are in serious need of reading Mat 27:51+ and rethinking your position.
That's the same argument my christ-rejecting jewish friend rob gives me.
But he's going to hell because he thinks his good works will save him,
based on the verses you're misusing as he does.
The fact that a reform jew thinks this is how you get to heaven should
give you pause to rethink your position
duke
wrote:
>duke wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 05:19:55 -0800, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Hopefully at some point you will address your line of authority in declaring the
>> >> RCC teachings of 2000 years and millions of man hours of learned research as bad
>> >> doctrine.
>> >The authority is the scripture, which the RCC perverts, denies or
>> >contradicts on some issues. I gave you one example.
>> Your example does not hold water.
>Of course it does. At the point that the Bible ceases to be the supreme
>authority by which God's will is revealed, you now have a religion that
>is open to change with the winds of public opinion, as we see happen
>with the mainline denominations that started out good--adhering to
>scripture--but now tout gay marriage and other liberal viewpoints.
Begging your pardon. The RCC did not change anything. The Protestants didn't
change anything. But the protest_ers did elect to not follow much of what Jesus
said and did.
Those that promote gay marriage are flat out denying scripture.
>God also says He exalts His word above His own name--not that He exalts
>man's oral tradition above His name! That is as high a recommendation of
>scripture as the final court of arbitration.
>And peter confirms the scripture is "more sure" than his own oral
>tradition of what happened on the holy mount!
>18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him
>in the holy mount.
>19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that
>ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the
>day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: [the prophesies of
>SCRIPTURE as he goes on to say]
>So when the RCC claims tradition is equal to scripture, God Himself does
>not afffirm that, but actually elevates the scripture above His own
>name.
And where do you think the written word comes from but Holy Tradition.
Until the 4th century, there was no canon scripture. And the gospels were
written 30-60 years after the cross.
>> Neither Jesus, Paul or John were married.
>You're wrong. Jesus, no. John, perhaps. Paul definitely (at some point,
>anyway, because he was a member of the sanhedrin, and you had to be
>married to be a part of it it)
Oops, I think that's Peter, John, and Jesus.
>But in no way does an apostle's being single translate into an ungodly
>regulation that most priests MUST be unmarried. That actually
>contradicts what the NT does say.
It's a personal discipline elected by the priesthood for the good of the kingdom
of God in accordance with Mat 19:12.
> And be careful with the words "must"
>> and "required". Paul was saying "NO divorced, no concubines, no one from
>> prison".
>MUST is in the verse paul wrote, duke. Argue with him, not me.
Fine, and maybe Paul was thinking as a Jew. So you argue with Paul over what
Jesus said in Mat 19.
>> >> Or, as I say, heaven and hell and purification. I am always amused at the way
>> >> some speak of lakes and 2nd judgments like anybody would has a grip on these
>> >> things.
>>
>> >Bible's reasonably clear on it
>>
>> Words, not meaning. For instance, for the sinner, the "first death or
>> judgment" is also the last.
>>
>> The bible also says that those that died in God's friendship were raised to
>> **NEW LIFE** at the moment Jesus died. No waiting for resurrection day for them
>> according to your way of thinking.
>I disagree
Cool.
>> >The part about you getting your perfected physical body as soon as you
>> >get to heaven. The RCC i'm sure does not teach this.
>>
>> How does anybody know FOR SURE?
>scripture. So i guess you're admitting this is not a position of the
>RCC, but your own.
>> What difference does it make? God has a plan
>> whether we know what it is or not. But I believe we will be glorified as Jesus
>> is glorified. He was raised to new life showing us that we would to. And he
>> showed us with God in heaven after.
>> I'd much rather go that way rather than think of a great "war on horseback" some
>> few to billions of years in the future.
>Fine, except no one but you thinks the dead get a physical body prior to
>THE resurrection in the future. Your own church certainly does not teach
>that. I think they might even rebuke you for this belief of yours
Who mandates future? The canonized saints are already there. Aren't you just
playing a little game thinking that all rise at one time? God takes us when he
wants to, when we are ready. Nobody knows one way or the other anyway.
>And i just showed you where JESUS said we're cleaned by THE WORD, not
>purgatory, and you rejected it.
>
>This the problem with the RCC: reject what scripture says, and appeal to
>its own authority
The Jews that rose when the veil split didn't know the Word. And furthermore,
the Word says the Sacrament of Confession. See Jesus on Easter afternoon in
John 20:22-23.
>> Abraham's bosom, yeah, right. Using your flawed line of thinking, how does
>> Abraham hold all those Jews? But no purgatory - right???
>Being captive in a holding tank does not equate to purgatory. Angels are
>locked up in the pit--are they in purgatory, or simply held captive?
Have you met an angel?
>> Now there's a biggie. So VG "doesn't consider" the Apocapha to be inspired
>> because the Jews had a problem with them because they were written in Greece
>> rather than the Holy Land.
>among other resasons, tho I don't say they were written in greece.
I'll stick with what the experts say.
>Their problem is that errors can be shown to exist in some of those
>supposedly inerrant works, so oi can accept they may be PARTIALLY
>inspired, but certainly not fully inspired, and thus canonical
Talk to the Jews, not me.
>> All scripture has literal errors - OT, NT, Gospels, Letters. Not every word in
>> the bible is literally true, except for God's word regarding our souls and his
>> plans for the salvation thereof.
>The bible is always true when it speaks prophetically, and jeremiah
>prophesises the ark will never be found or visited, while the apocrypha
>says it will be. (which is a common desire of the jews, and many
>deceived Christians, to this day)
Not Catholics. WE believe we are to go forward to do God's work and not worry
about lakes of fire and if the ark is found.
>The apocrypha (that part of it, anyway) is thus shown to be fallible,
>and thus not scripture
The only parts of the bible that are without error are God's plans for mankind
and the salvation of our souls. You look for the ark; I'll do God's work.
>> >>But not that it's heaven. We Catholics never talk about such a thing.
>> >> Nobody knows.
>> >> I would think that Jesus tasting death for every man would put us in the kingdom
>> >> of God. Jesus is glorified, and raised to the Father, and we are buried with
>> >> him to sin in baptism in hopes of following him to the Father.
>> >Not in hope--but of absolute assurance!
>> And Heb 10:26-27 says that if we keep on sinning after learning of Christ (and
>> I'll assume baptism) then the only thing left for us are the fires of hell.
>Talking about willful, unrepentant mortal sin, to use catholic terms;
>not sins comitted in weakness as the person continues TRYING to walk
>forward in Christ
I agree, but what is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? What does the OT say?
It says our playing God rather than listening to God. Now, how many thousands
and thousands can we people do daily that constitute rejecting God and deciding
for ourselves right v wrong?
Those are not "weaknesses", but mortal, death-dealing sins.
>> Of course, we will get that removed in purgatory if we are judged saved. Right??
>probably not, but possibly. That's the best one can speculate, and be
>honest with what the scripture MOGHT imply but certainly not state
>clearly.
As I keep saying, we don't get a say so. Once we die, our fate is sealed by our
actions while in the flesh.
>> >These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son
>> >of God; that ye MAY KNOW that ye have eternal life, and that ye may
>> >believe on the name of the Son of God.
>>
>> Does "believe on" mandate absolute following in his steps?
>
>no. That would equal mankind achiveing perfection thru its own efforts
>in a flesh body paul says will always be corrupt with sin.
Forget Paul saying. God said.
>> >> >> Why would God restrict his love for his newborn creation that dies unbaptized?
>> >> >> He is unable to sin. But he still possesses the stain of original sin.
>> >> >Different issue. I'm talking about adults.
>> >> And I'm talking about both.
>> >You can't lump them together.
>> God doesn't treat mankind differently. An infant is unable to make a reasoned
>> decision, but an adult is.
>yeah. That's what i'm saying. But there is NO chance a pagan 'adult' can
>be saved withoput accepting the gospel. Paul is clear on that.
And Jesus said the Jews, muslims, atheists, hindus, etc that died in the
friendship of God at the time Jesus died on the cross were raised to new life.
And new life = salvation.
>> Exactly. But scripture still says we are born with a sin nature like we are
>> with 10 fingers and 10 toes. And according to scripture, that is removed in
>> baptism.
>nope. I guarantee you still have a sin nature. I guarantee the pedophile
>priests out there also still have sin natures too
Correction, I meant that our original sin is removed at baptism. We definitely
live out our lives with the sin nature which is removed in the place of
purification.
>> >> Certainly an adult who submits to baptism has
>> >> attained a desire via knowledge. Catholics do the same in Confirmation where
>> >> youth previous receiving John's baptism at birth now make their own baptismal
>> >> promises as one mature enough to know what he's doing.
>>
>> Good no comment.
>don't think i have an argument with that. The catholic in confirmation
>still needs to understand the gospel well enough to know what he's
>accepting or rejecting, i might note
WE call those the baptismal promises.
>> But the big guy, Jesus, said he gives us a new command - that we love one
>> another as he loves us. John 13:34. And a muslim is God's creation also. So
>> infants are baptized into God's grace per John 3:5-7. If they die without
>> baptism, they await the resurrection like the rest of us.
>You are expressing New Age thinking. God does not accept those who do
>not accept the invitation and come through conscious receipt of the
>gospel. Paul is very clear on that. You are contradicting paul with
>emotional appeals
Again, the Jews, et al, who died in the friendship of God and had no idea of the
gospel were raised to new life. I'll stick with the words of the Lord.
It's fully apparent both Jesus and Paul are in step with each other, but not us.
>> >> Deut is for Jews. Christ is for Christians, where the covenant is written on
>> >> the heart and not on stone tablets.
>> >ok...kinda leaves the sincere moslem out of it, huh?
>> Only God knows.
>I know too based on romans 10
A good muslim can be saved over a sinful Christian.
>so? Good deeds can't save you. Faith and grace save you. Or you must
>reject paul as contradictibng Jesus here if what you think He is saying
>is true
James 2:26 says that faith without deeds is dead faith.
>> We see in scripture that the children of Adam, the Jews, were raised to **NEW
>> LIFE** when Christ died on the cross. Why not Muslims and atheists IF God so
>> decides?
>> >The HOLY Spirit is not the spirit that invented Islam, Hinduism,
>> >Atheism, rabinnic judaism, Shintoism, Buddhism, and so on. SATAN is the
>> >guiding influence behind ALL other religions:
>> You are in serious need of reading Mat 27:51+ and rethinking your position.
>That's the same argument my christ-rejecting jewish friend rob gives me.
>But he's going to hell because he thinks his good works will save him,
>based on the verses you're misusing as he does.
I use the words of Jesus. You try to take Jesus out of Pauls words.
>The fact that a reform jew thinks this is how you get to heaven should
>give you pause to rethink your position
I'm more sure than ever.
vince garcia
>
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 04:11:20 -0800, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >duke wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 05:19:55 -0800, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Hopefully at some point you will address your line of authority in declaring the
> >> >> RCC teachings of 2000 years and millions of man hours of learned research as bad
> >> >> doctrine.
>
> >> >The authority is the scripture, which the RCC perverts, denies or
> >> >contradicts on some issues. I gave you one example.
>
> >> Your example does not hold water.
>
> >Of course it does. At the point that the Bible ceases to be the supreme
> >authority by which God's will is revealed, you now have a religion that
> >is open to change with the winds of public opinion, as we see happen
> >with the mainline denominations that started out good--adhering to
> >scripture--but now tout gay marriage and other liberal viewpoints.
>
> Begging your pardon. The RCC did not change anything. The Protestants didn't
> change anything. But the protest_ers did elect to not follow much of what Jesus
> said and did.
>
> Those that promote gay marriage are flat out denying scripture.
duh
And yes, the RCC changed a whole lot. Show me one isntance of priest and
confessional in the new testamnent
>
> >God also says He exalts His word above His own name--not that He exalts
> >man's oral tradition above His name! That is as high a recommendation of
> >scripture as the final court of arbitration.
>
> >And peter confirms the scripture is "more sure" than his own oral
> >tradition of what happened on the holy mount!
>
> >18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him
> >in the holy mount.
> >19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that
> >ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the
> >day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: [the prophesies of
> >SCRIPTURE as he goes on to say]
>
> >So when the RCC claims tradition is equal to scripture, God Himself does
> >not afffirm that, but actually elevates the scripture above His own
> >name.
>
> And where do you think the written word comes from but Holy Tradition.
Nope. It came from people inspired by God to write it down
>
> Until the 4th century, there was no canon scripture. And the gospels were
> written 30-60 years after the cross.
so? They were written and copied, not written down thru someone's oral
tradiditon.
In fact, here is what John had to say about the supposedly infallible
oral tradition among the direct apostles and disciples of jesus:
22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is
that to thee? follow thou me.
23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple
should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I
will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
Real reliable
>
> >> Neither Jesus, Paul or John were married.
>
> >You're wrong. Jesus, no. John, perhaps. Paul definitely (at some point,
> >anyway, because he was a member of the sanhedrin, and you had to be
> >married to be a part of it it)
>
> Oops, I think that's Peter, John, and Jesus.
you know peter ewas married
>
> >But in no way does an apostle's being single translate into an ungodly
> >regulation that most priests MUST be unmarried. That actually
> >contradicts what the NT does say.
>
> It's a personal discipline elected by the priesthood for the good of the kingdom
> of God in accordance with Mat 19:12.
yes--but it is forced on them, not optional. That's the problem
>
> > And be careful with the words "must"
> >> and "required". Paul was saying "NO divorced, no concubines, no one from
> >> prison".
> >MUST is in the verse paul wrote, duke. Argue with him, not me.
>
> Fine, and maybe Paul was thinking as a Jew. So you argue with Paul over what
> Jesus said in Mat 19.
Jesus did not COMMAND celibacy. The RCC does
There is some validitiy to what you say. But whatever Jesus means there,
the notion of priest and confessional isn't even hinted at and is not
shown in the NT or the didache
>
> >> Abraham's bosom, yeah, right. Using your flawed line of thinking, how does
> >> Abraham hold all those Jews? But no purgatory - right???
>
> >Being captive in a holding tank does not equate to purgatory. Angels are
> >locked up in the pit--are they in purgatory, or simply held captive?
>
> Have you met an angel?
yes. and demons
>
> >> Now there's a biggie. So VG "doesn't consider" the Apocapha to be inspired
> >> because the Jews had a problem with them because they were written in Greece
> >> rather than the Holy Land.
>
> >among other resasons, tho I don't say they were written in greece.
>
> I'll stick with what the experts say.
me too, lol
>
> >Their problem is that errors can be shown to exist in some of those
> >supposedly inerrant works, so oi can accept they may be PARTIALLY
> >inspired, but certainly not fully inspired, and thus canonical
>
> Talk to the Jews, not me.
could care lesss about what the jews think; i'd sooner listen to the
pope since he at least is a believer in Christ
>
> >> All scripture has literal errors - OT, NT, Gospels, Letters. Not every word in
> >> the bible is literally true, except for God's word regarding our souls and his
> >> plans for the salvation thereof.
>
> >The bible is always true when it speaks prophetically, and jeremiah
> >prophesises the ark will never be found or visited, while the apocrypha
> >says it will be. (which is a common desire of the jews, and many
> >deceived Christians, to this day)
>
> Not Catholics. WE believe we are to go forward to do God's work and not worry
> about lakes of fire and if the ark is found.
great
>
> >The apocrypha (that part of it, anyway) is thus shown to be fallible,
> >and thus not scripture
>
> The only parts of the bible that are without error are God's plans for mankind
> and the salvation of our souls. You look for the ark; I'll do God's work.
I don't care about the ark. The problem is with those who do
>
> >> >>But not that it's heaven. We Catholics never talk about such a thing.
> >> >> Nobody knows.
>
> >> >> I would think that Jesus tasting death for every man would put us in the kingdom
> >> >> of God. Jesus is glorified, and raised to the Father, and we are buried with
> >> >> him to sin in baptism in hopes of following him to the Father.
> >> >Not in hope--but of absolute assurance!
>
> >> And Heb 10:26-27 says that if we keep on sinning after learning of Christ (and
> >> I'll assume baptism) then the only thing left for us are the fires of hell.
>
> >Talking about willful, unrepentant mortal sin, to use catholic terms;
> >not sins comitted in weakness as the person continues TRYING to walk
> >forward in Christ
>
> I agree, but what is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? What does the OT say?
>
> It says our playing God rather than listening to God. Now, how many thousands
> and thousands can we people do daily that constitute rejecting God and deciding
> for ourselves right v wrong?
Already told you what it was, and my view is basically confirmed by the
didache, which is 1st century
>
> Those are not "weaknesses", but mortal, death-dealing sins.
that's arguable, and an open door to legalism. If i kindkle a fire on
the sabbath, is that mortal sin? the Bible says it calls for the death
penalty.
I will remind you what I have to remind the deceived messianic jews
Where no law is, there is no transgression
>
> >> Of course, we will get that removed in purgatory if we are judged saved. Right??
>
> >probably not, but possibly. That's the best one can speculate, and be
> >honest with what the scripture MOGHT imply but certainly not state
> >clearly.
>
> As I keep saying, we don't get a say so. Once we die, our fate is sealed by our
> actions while in the flesh.
ok
>
> >> >These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son
> >> >of God; that ye MAY KNOW that ye have eternal life, and that ye may
> >> >believe on the name of the Son of God.
> >>
> >> Does "believe on" mandate absolute following in his steps?
> >
> >no. That would equal mankind achiveing perfection thru its own efforts
> >in a flesh body paul says will always be corrupt with sin.
>
> Forget Paul saying.
can't forget paul--his words are equal to God's
God said.
>
> >> >> >> Why would God restrict his love for his newborn creation that dies unbaptized?
> >> >> >> He is unable to sin. But he still possesses the stain of original sin.
> >> >> >Different issue. I'm talking about adults.
> >> >> And I'm talking about both.
> >> >You can't lump them together.
>
> >> God doesn't treat mankind differently. An infant is unable to make a reasoned
> >> decision, but an adult is.
>
> >yeah. That's what i'm saying. But there is NO chance a pagan 'adult' can
> >be saved withoput accepting the gospel. Paul is clear on that.
>
> And Jesus said the Jews, muslims, atheists, hindus, etc that died in the
> friendship of God at the time Jesus died on the cross were raised to new life.
no He did not!
>
> And new life = salvation.
>
> >> Exactly. But scripture still says we are born with a sin nature like we are
> >> with 10 fingers and 10 toes. And according to scripture, that is removed in
> >> baptism.
>
> >nope. I guarantee you still have a sin nature. I guarantee the pedophile
> >priests out there also still have sin natures too
>
> Correction, I meant that our original sin is removed at baptism. We definitely
> live out our lives with the sin nature which is removed in the place of
> purification.
ok that is much better
>
> >> >> Certainly an adult who submits to baptism has
> >> >> attained a desire via knowledge. Catholics do the same in Confirmation where
> >> >> youth previous receiving John's baptism at birth now make their own baptismal
> >> >> promises as one mature enough to know what he's doing.
> >>
> >> Good no comment.
>
> >don't think i have an argument with that. The catholic in confirmation
> >still needs to understand the gospel well enough to know what he's
> >accepting or rejecting, i might note
>
> WE call those the baptismal promises.
>
> >> But the big guy, Jesus, said he gives us a new command - that we love one
> >> another as he loves us. John 13:34. And a muslim is God's creation also. So
> >> infants are baptized into God's grace per John 3:5-7. If they die without
> >> baptism, they await the resurrection like the rest of us.
>
> >You are expressing New Age thinking. God does not accept those who do
> >not accept the invitation and come through conscious receipt of the
> >gospel. Paul is very clear on that. You are contradicting paul with
> >emotional appeals
>
> Again, the Jews, et al, who died in the friendship of God and had no idea of the
> gospel were raised to new life.
And they didn't go to heaven when they died. But they were in covenant
with God. A "good moral man" who worshipped zeus was not
> I'll stick with the words of the Lord.
I'll stick with the whole of the NT, not just the parts in the gospels I
like, to the exclusion of what paul says
>
> It's fully apparent both Jesus and Paul are in step with each other, but not us.
>
> >> >> Deut is for Jews. Christ is for Christians, where the covenant is written on
> >> >> the heart and not on stone tablets.
> >> >ok...kinda leaves the sincere moslem out of it, huh?
> >> Only God knows.
> >I know too based on romans 10
>
> A good muslim can be saved over a sinful Christian.
nope. All christians are sinful, yet saved. Some are TOO sinful to make
heaven, but there is no such a thing as a sinless man. Even paul said he
was chief among sinners.
By the way--JESUS said there is "none good but God", so there is no such
thing as a "good" muslim or "good" anything. ALL are evil in God's sight
>
> >so? Good deeds can't save you. Faith and grace save you. Or you must
> >reject paul as contradictibng Jesus here if what you think He is saying
> >is true
>
> James 2:26 says that faith without deeds is dead faith.
and that is the verse every false teacher and cultist goes straight to,
showing their deception.
That verse is a non issue to a saved Christian. Only a cultist or person
with a false salvation doctrine needs to appeal to that verse to verify
their false soteriology, and across the board someone who DOES bing up
that verse will now start listing a list of comamnds one MUST follow to
make heaven. Be it the 10 comamdnments, the Torah, obedience to the
Mormon prophet, Teaching Magisterium, or Watchtower Society, the
deceived person will always use this verse to include a "law" one must
keep in order to be saved
Again: where no law is, there is no transgression
RWKnapp
> confessional in the new testamnent
I am not siding with the R C C but KJV seems to show one instance
since a priest is also a member of a church people are told to pray
one for another. So two people of the same church seems to be
following this NT verse. James 5:16
16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that
ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man
availeth much. KJV
The word confess can be done in a room which would be private and a
confessional.
Raymond
RWKnapp
>
> >
> >> "Who" said there was no such place to start with? It's scriptural as no man
> >> is
> >> pure enough to stand before God without attaining a degree of purification.
> >> Heb
> >> 12:14.
>
> > Only Christ Jesus is pure enough and by Him we stand in His
> > purification, that is one reason Jesus died and rose from the dead to
> > pay for our sins and only by His blood given freely on the cross can
> > we have such purification. Nothing we do will ever make or give
> > anyone a degree of purification.
>
> Do you 'believers' never realise that were your god for real NONE of you
> would be arguing about what it stands for and what it does not stand for.
>
> Your inflammatory dialogue proves one thing - your god is solely the product
> of man, so therefore becomes the subject of man's desires and differences.
So when one disagrees with your atheist teachings you call that
"inflammatory" you only prove you have no foundation for your
statements and now think anyone is going to believe you and such a
self interest statement like that. To any believer in God and know
God, you lies as seen in your insult and lets say inflammatory remarks
bout God, just proved my statements and shows what kind of a person
you really are.
duke
wrote:
>> >Of course it does. At the point that the Bible ceases to be the supreme
>> >authority by which God's will is revealed, you now have a religion that
>> >is open to change with the winds of public opinion, as we see happen
>> >with the mainline denominations that started out good--adhering to
>> >scripture--but now tout gay marriage and other liberal viewpoints.
>> Begging your pardon. The RCC did not change anything. The Protestants didn't
>> change anything. But the protest_ers did elect to not follow much of what Jesus
>> said and did.
>> Those that promote gay marriage are flat out denying scripture.
>duh
>And yes, the RCC changed a whole lot. Show me one isntance of priest and
>confessional in the new testamnent
The Jewish priest was Levitical. Christ in Heb 4:15 is our high priest on the
order of Melchizedek and is passed on in the sacrament of Holy Orders. The
confessional is only a private place for discussion between priest and confessee
in accordance with John 20:20-23.
>> >So when the RCC claims tradition is equal to scripture, God Himself does
>> >not afffirm that, but actually elevates the scripture above His own
>> >name.
>>
>> And where do you think the written word comes from but Holy Tradition.
>
>Nope. It came from people inspired by God to write it down
And you think the writer was a steno clerk? The Gospel writers, except for
John, did not know Jesus, but instead recorded the beliefs of the new Christians
some 30-60 years after Christ. In case you don't catch the connection, Holy
Scripture is that part of Holy Tradition put in writing years later.
>> Until the 4th century, there was no canon scripture. And the gospels were
>> written 30-60 years after the cross.
>so? They were written and copied, not written down thru someone's oral
>tradiditon.
Oral "tradition" means word of mouth. At least learn what you are dealing with.
>In fact, here is what John had to say about the supposedly infallible
>oral tradition among the direct apostles and disciples of jesus:
>22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is
>that to thee? follow thou me.
>23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple
>should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I
>will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
>Real reliable
Who can possibly understand that. Let's see what it says in English.
John 21:22-23 (New International Version)
22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that
to you? You must follow me." 23Because of this, the rumor spread among the
brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would
not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is
that to you?"
Do you deny this scripture passage?
>> >> Neither Jesus, Paul or John were married.
>> >You're wrong. Jesus, no. John, perhaps. Paul definitely (at some point,
>> >anyway, because he was a member of the sanhedrin, and you had to be
>> >married to be a part of it it)
>> Oops, I think that's Peter, John, and Jesus.
>you know peter ewas married
Sorry, eventually I'm going to get myself straight re married v gospel writers
that knew Jesus
Jesus, James, John and Paul (at time of his writings regardless of sanhedrin)
were believed unmarried.
>> >But in no way does an apostle's being single translate into an ungodly
>> >regulation that most priests MUST be unmarried. That actually
>> >contradicts what the NT does say.
>> It's a personal discipline elected by the priesthood for the good of the kingdom
>> of God in accordance with Mat 19:12.
>yes--but it is forced on them, not optional. That's the problem
And? They choose the discipline.
>> > And be careful with the words "must"
>> >> and "required". Paul was saying "NO divorced, no concubines, no one from
>> >> prison".
>> >MUST is in the verse paul wrote, duke. Argue with him, not me.
>> Fine, and maybe Paul was thinking as a Jew. So you argue with Paul over what
> Jesus said in Mat 19.
>Jesus did not COMMAND celibacy. The RCC does
No, the priesthood imposes celibacy on themselves.
>> >> The bible also says that those that died in God's friendship were raised to
>> >> **NEW LIFE** at the moment Jesus died. No waiting for resurrection day for them
>> >> according to your way of thinking.
>> >I disagree
>> Cool.
Good no response.
>> >This the problem with the RCC: reject what scripture says, and appeal to
>> >its own authority
>> The Jews that rose when the veil split didn't know the Word. And furthermore,
>> the Word says the Sacrament of Confession. See Jesus on Easter afternoon in
>> John 20:22-23.
>There is some validitiy to what you say. But whatever Jesus means there,
>the notion of priest and confessional isn't even hinted at and is not
>shown in the NT or the didache
Confession of sins is. The sacrament was in use 2000 years ago. The
confessional is a place of privacy, nothing else.
>> >> Abraham's bosom, yeah, right. Using your flawed line of thinking, how does
>> >> Abraham hold all those Jews? But no purgatory - right???
>> >Being captive in a holding tank does not equate to purgatory. Angels are
>> >locked up in the pit--are they in purgatory, or simply held captive?
>> Have you met an angel?
>yes. and demons
What did they say to you?
>> >> Now there's a biggie. So VG "doesn't consider" the Apocapha to be inspired
>> >> because the Jews had a problem with them because they were written in Greece
>> >> rather than the Holy Land.
>> >among other resasons, tho I don't say they were written in greece.
>> I'll stick with what the experts say.
>me too, lol
Me too. Written in Greece.
>> >Their problem is that errors can be shown to exist in some of those
>> >supposedly inerrant works, so oi can accept they may be PARTIALLY
>> >inspired, but certainly not fully inspired, and thus canonical
>> Talk to the Jews, not me.
>could care lesss about what the jews think; i'd sooner listen to the
>pope since he at least is a believer in Christ
You don't see the Jewish faith as the early part of the Christian faith?
>> >> All scripture has literal errors - OT, NT, Gospels, Letters. Not every word in
>> >> the bible is literally true, except for God's word regarding our souls and his
>> >> plans for the salvation thereof.
>> >The bible is always true when it speaks prophetically, and jeremiah
>> >prophesises the ark will never be found or visited, while the apocrypha
>> >says it will be. (which is a common desire of the jews, and many
>> >deceived Christians, to this day)
>> Not Catholics. WE believe we are to go forward to do God's work and not worry
>> about lakes of fire and if the ark is found.
>great
Yep.
>> >Talking about willful, unrepentant mortal sin, to use catholic terms;
>> >not sins comitted in weakness as the person continues TRYING to walk
>> >forward in Christ
>> I agree, but what is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? What does the OT say?
>> It says our playing God rather than listening to God. Now, how many thousands
>> and thousands can we people do daily that constitute rejecting God and deciding
>> for ourselves right v wrong?
>Already told you what it was, and my view is basically confirmed by the
>didache, which is 1st century
Mortal sin is playing God. Minor sin is not the problem.
1 John 5:16-17 (New International Version)
16If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he
should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead
to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should
pray about that. 17All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to
death.
>> Those are not "weaknesses", but mortal, death-dealing sins.
>that's arguable, and an open door to legalism. If i kindkle a fire on
>the sabbath, is that mortal sin? the Bible says it calls for the death
>penalty.
Kindling a fire on the sabbath is doing work on the sabbath. That's a levi law,
and strictly man made.
>> As I keep saying, we don't get a say so. Once we die, our fate is sealed by our
>> actions while in the flesh.
>ok
Ok.
>> >> >These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son
>> >> >of God; that ye MAY KNOW that ye have eternal life, and that ye may
>> >> >believe on the name of the Son of God.
>> >>
>> >> Does "believe on" mandate absolute following in his steps?
>> >
>> >no. That would equal mankind achiveing perfection thru its own efforts
>> >in a flesh body paul says will always be corrupt with sin.
>>
>> Forget Paul saying.
>can't forget paul--his words are equal to God's
NO, revealing God's words to him.
>> And Jesus said the Jews, muslims, atheists, hindus, etc that died in the
>> friendship of God at the time Jesus died on the cross were raised to new life.
>
>no He did not!
Sure he did. At the moment of Jesus's death and the veil was ripped in two,
those that died in the friendship of God were raised to new life.
>> Correction, I meant that our original sin is removed at baptism. We definitely
>> live out our lives with the sin nature which is removed in the place of
>> purification.
>ok that is much better
Yep.
>> Again, the Jews, et al, who died in the friendship of God and had no idea of the
>> gospel were raised to new life.
>And they didn't go to heaven when they died. But they were in covenant
>with God. A "good moral man" who worshipped zeus was not
Scripture says new life. You may visualize that as you wish.
>> I'll stick with the words of the Lord.
>I'll stick with the whole of the NT, not just the parts in the gospels I
>like, to the exclusion of what paul says
Paul reveals God's word. We need to marry all scripture to derive truth. One
cannot say this is right and that is wrong.
>> A good muslim can be saved over a sinful Christian.
>
>nope. All christians are sinful, yet saved. Some are TOO sinful to make
>heaven, but there is no such a thing as a sinless man. Even paul said he
>was chief among sinners.
Yes.
>By the way--JESUS said there is "none good but God", so there is no such
>thing as a "good" muslim or "good" anything. ALL are evil in God's sight
And those that died when the veil ripped were all Jews, Muslaims, Hindu, etc.
And it says "new life". That is heaven regardless of the road traveled to get
there.
>> >so? Good deeds can't save you. Faith and grace save you. Or you must
>> >reject paul as contradictibng Jesus here if what you think He is saying
>> >is true
>> James 2:26 says that faith without deeds is dead faith.
>and that is the verse every false teacher and cultist goes straight to,
>showing their deception.
It's inspired scripture. What it means is well revealed in James 2:14-16 and
Mat 25:31-46, and Mat 10:38, Mat 16:24, Luke 9:22.
>That verse is a non issue to a saved Christian.
No one is "saved" until they stand before Christ at the moment of their death in
judgment.
Apparently you have a man-made definition of "saved".
vince garcia
That is indeed one of the main verses the RCC appeals to on this. But
the argument is still horribly weak, and the actual practice isn't shown
anywhere in the NT. We don't even see anyone going to JESUS for
absolution in the sense of relating their ins to Him, asking
forgiveness, and then His imposing proper penance
We do see people repenting. Or we see them coming for healing and Jesus
pronouncing their sins--which they have not confessed to Him--forgiven.
Then they are healed
No confessionals, however
duke
wrote:
>RWKnapp wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 8, 7:35 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > duke wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > And yes, the RCC changed a whole lot. Show me one isntance of priest and
>> > confessional in the new testamnent
>>
>> I am not siding with the R C C but KJV seems to show one instance
>> since a priest is also a member of a church people are told to pray
>> one for another. So two people of the same church seems to be
>> following this NT verse. James 5:16
>>
>> 16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that
>> ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man
>> availeth much. KJV
>>
>> The word confess can be done in a room which would be private and a
>> confessional.
>>
>> Raymond
>That is indeed one of the main verses the RCC appeals to on this. But
>the argument is still horribly weak, and the actual practice isn't shown
>anywhere in the NT.
How convenience you hide from the teachings of Jesus on the first Easter Sunday
afternoon.
John 20:20-23 (New International Version)
20After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were
overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending
you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them,
they are not forgiven."
That's only the 2nd time God breathed into man, the first to give him physical
live. The 2nd is to provide for spiritual life. WOW - RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT.
And sin is against God, not against man. Jesus assigned the apostles to go
forth and baptize all peoples everywhere, and to teach them. Mat 28:16-20.
And Jesus well said that the SON OF MAN, Mat 9:2-8, has authority to forgive sin
(as opposed to trespasses against other men). Uh, you do recognize the
reference to BLASPHEMY in those verses, don't you.
> We don't even see anyone going to JESUS for
>absolution in the sense of relating their ins to Him, asking
>forgiveness, and then His imposing proper penance
>
>We do see people repenting. Or we see them coming for healing and Jesus
>pronouncing their sins--which they have not confessed to Him--forgiven.
>Then they are healed
>
>No confessionals, however
I love this part. Haahaahaa. There is no such thing as a "confessional". It's
just a private place for a priest as Son of Man to hear and forgive/remove the
stain of the confessed sin in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
vince garcia
And all you've said doesn't make your point at all, but simply is a
bunch of non-sequitur statements
>
> And Jesus well said that the SON OF MAN, Mat 9:2-8, has authority to forgive sin
> (as opposed to trespasses against other men). Uh, you do recognize the
> reference to BLASPHEMY in those verses, don't you.
not at all.
>
> > We don't even see anyone going to JESUS for
> >absolution in the sense of relating their ins to Him, asking
> >forgiveness, and then His imposing proper penance
> >
> >We do see people repenting. Or we see them coming for healing and Jesus
> >pronouncing their sins--which they have not confessed to Him--forgiven.
> >Then they are healed
> >
> >No confessionals, however
>
> I love this part. Haahaahaa. There is no such thing as a "confessional".
Nope. Not in the bible
It's
> just a private place for a priest as Son of Man to hear and forgive/remove the
> stain of the confessed sin in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Sounds nice, but is not shown in scripture. Acts gives us a good
snapshot of the church from 30 AD to 62 AD, and you won't see one
instance of anything even remotely resembling priest and penitent. In
fact, in the closest thing you can come to it (acts 8), peter tells the
SINNER to go ask God for forgiveness!
This would have been a perfect time for peter to hear his confession and
institute penance, but instead he tells the guy to pray to God himself.
Sounds totally evangelical, and not catholic at all
duke
wrote:
Gotcha.
>> And Jesus well said that the SON OF MAN, Mat 9:2-8, has authority to forgive sin
>> (as opposed to trespasses against other men). Uh, you do recognize the
>> reference to BLASPHEMY in those verses, don't you.
>not at all.
Gotcha again. I love it when people like you say "not at all" when confronted
with the words of God in scripture showing you the error of your beliefs.
>> > We don't even see anyone going to JESUS for
>> >absolution in the sense of relating their ins to Him, asking
>> >forgiveness, and then His imposing proper penance
>> >
>> >We do see people repenting. Or we see them coming for healing and Jesus
>> >pronouncing their sins--which they have not confessed to Him--forgiven.
>> >Then they are healed
>> >
>> >No confessionals, however
>> I love this part. Haahaahaa. There is no such thing as a "confessional".
>Nope. Not in the bible
Gotcha a 3rd time. The confessional is only a private place. Nothing more. A
room, a bench in the park, a car seat can be used.
>It's
>> just a private place for a priest as Son of Man to hear and forgive/remove the
>> stain of the confessed sin in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
>Sounds nice, but is not shown in scripture.
Then you've never read the NT.
> Acts gives us a good
>snapshot of the church from 30 AD to 62 AD, and you won't see one
>instance of anything even remotely resembling priest and penitent.
Well, you clearly show you're don't know what the gospel of John says.
> In
>fact, in the closest thing you can come to it (acts 8), peter tells the
>SINNER to go ask God for forgiveness!
And in John 20, Jesus puts the Sons of men in charge of sin forgiveness.
>This would have been a perfect time for peter to hear his confession and
>institute penance, but instead he tells the guy to pray to God himself.
>Sounds totally evangelical, and not catholic at all
Nothing like you telling Jesus you're going to pick and choose which of his
teachings you will accept.
vince garcia
My point stands. You made a bunch of religious statements that had
nothing to do with proving the doctrine of confession
>
> >> And Jesus well said that the SON OF MAN, Mat 9:2-8, has authority to forgive sin
> >> (as opposed to trespasses against other men). Uh, you do recognize the
> >> reference to BLASPHEMY in those verses, don't you.
> >not at all.
>
> Gotcha again. I love it when people like you say "not at all" when confronted
> with the words of God in scripture showing you the error of your beliefs.
Look who's talking! I gave you clear, unambiguous scripture showing
we're cleansed by the word of the gospel, but you quickly denied IT,
didn't you?
>
> >> > We don't even see anyone going to JESUS for
> >> >absolution in the sense of relating their ins to Him, asking
> >> >forgiveness, and then His imposing proper penance
> >> >
> >> >We do see people repenting. Or we see them coming for healing and Jesus
> >> >pronouncing their sins--which they have not confessed to Him--forgiven.
> >> >Then they are healed
> >> >
> >> >No confessionals, however
>
> >> I love this part. Haahaahaa. There is no such thing as a "confessional".
> >Nope. Not in the bible
>
> Gotcha a 3rd time. The confessional is only a private place. Nothing more. A
> room, a bench in the park, a car seat can be used.
I meant in a general sense. As i went on to reiterate, nothing in the NT
shows the concept of priest and penitant. You can't find that practice
anywhere in the new testament
>
> >It's
> >> just a private place for a priest as Son of Man to hear and forgive/remove the
> >> stain of the confessed sin in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
>
> >Sounds nice, but is not shown in scripture.
>
> Then you've never read the NT.
I guarantee i've read it more in the last year than you have your entire
life. I've read through it, line by line, at least once a month for the
last 5 years. I spend at least 2 hrs a day going over it line by line,
and i'm still finding stuff I had not noticed before. But i certainly do
know it quite well, if not as well as some other folks.
That's why I can say the concept of confessing sins to a priest is not
shown anywhere in the NT, and you cannot refute that except to appeal to
some vague verses that do not show a direct application to the doctrine
as the RCC practices it.
>
> > Acts gives us a good
> >snapshot of the church from 30 AD to 62 AD, and you won't see one
> >instance of anything even remotely resembling priest and penitent.
>
> Well, you clearly show you're don't know what the gospel of John says.
I know it quite well, thx. It's you who don't understand it
>
> > In
> >fact, in the closest thing you can come to it (acts 8), peter tells the
> >SINNER to go ask God for forgiveness!
>
> And in John 20, Jesus puts the Sons of men in charge of sin forgiveness.
That is a doctrine you hold; john 20 does not say that, nor do we see
that concept in practice anyahere in the NT.
But even if you were right, Jesus doesn't clearly indicate that anyone
other than the apostles there would have that authority.
If you're going to say people other than apostles could have that
authority, where does it says only priests would?
Can you show me one instance after this saying by Christ where anyone
heard someone's confession, granted them absolution, and imposed penance
on them?
answer: no
see below
>
> >This would have been a perfect time for peter to hear his confession and
> >institute penance, but instead he tells the guy to pray to God himself.
> >Sounds totally evangelical, and not catholic at all
>
> Nothing like you telling Jesus you're going to pick and choose which of his
> teachings you will accept.
You're the one whose doctrine is easily refuted by what the scripture
does show, duke. If what you say is true, peter should have heard the
man's confdession then and there, not told him to go to God on his own.
That is actually CONTRADICTING the catholic doctrine of confession if
you think about it.
If I blasphemed in the presence of the pope, and rendered myself guilty
of mortal sin, would the pope exhort me to confess and receive
absolution, or would he tell me to go pray to God on my own for
forgiveness?
If you want to hold the doctrine based on the magisterium's supposed
authority to encat whatever it wants to do, that's fine. But please
don't claim the new testament teaches it when it really doesn't.
vince garcia
>
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 04:35:54 -0800, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >Of course it does. At the point that the Bible ceases to be the supreme
> >> >authority by which God's will is revealed, you now have a religion that
> >> >is open to change with the winds of public opinion, as we see happen
> >> >with the mainline denominations that started out good--adhering to
> >> >scripture--but now tout gay marriage and other liberal viewpoints.
>
> >> Begging your pardon. The RCC did not change anything. The Protestants didn't
> >> change anything. But the protest_ers did elect to not follow much of what Jesus
> >> said and did.
> >> Those that promote gay marriage are flat out denying scripture.
> >duh
>
> >And yes, the RCC changed a whole lot. Show me one isntance of priest and
> >confessional in the new testamnent
>
> The Jewish priest was Levitical. Christ in Heb 4:15 is our high priest on the
> order of Melchizedek and is passed on in the sacrament of Holy Orders. The
> confessional is only a private place for discussion between priest and confessee
> in accordance with John 20:20-23.
You're not understanding me, so let me say it differently: show me one
instance in the new testment where someone goes to a so-called Christian
"priest" and:
Confesses his sins with the intention of being absolved from sin.
The priest absolves him.
The priest imposes penance.
>
> >> >So when the RCC claims tradition is equal to scripture, God Himself does
> >> >not afffirm that, but actually elevates the scripture above His own
> >> >name.
> >>
> >> And where do you think the written word comes from but Holy Tradition.
> >
> >Nope. It came from people inspired by God to write it down
>
> And you think the writer was a steno clerk?
Sometimes, yes. The point is, they were inspired to write, and what they
WROTE--not what they supposedly orally passed down as binding religious
doctrines that aren't shown in scripture--is what God gave us
The Gospel writers, except for
> John, did not know Jesus, but instead recorded the beliefs of the new Christians
> some 30-60 years after Christ.
When are you going to stop saying such statements and read your Bible?!
MATTHEW knew jesus, and was an apostle.
MARK probably knew jesus because Jesus knew his family, and is thought
by many to have had passover at his house; and many think mark writes of
himself slipping out to follow the group to gethsemane, which is why he
could write down that an angel appeared and strengthened Jesus when
everyone else was asleep and could not have seen it!
Sheesh!
In case you don't catch the connection, Holy
> Scripture is that part of Holy Tradition put in writing years later.
>
> >> Until the 4th century, there was no canon scripture. And the gospels were
> >> written 30-60 years after the cross.
>
> >so? They were written and copied, not written down thru someone's oral
> >tradiditon.
>
> Oral "tradition" means word of mouth. At least learn what you are dealing with.
>
> >In fact, here is what John had to say about the supposedly infallible
> >oral tradition among the direct apostles and disciples of jesus:
>
> >22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is
> >that to thee? follow thou me.
> >23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple
> >should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I
> >will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
> >Real reliable
>
> Who can possibly understand that. Let's see what it says in English.
>
> John 21:22-23 (New International Version)
> 22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that
> to you? You must follow me." 23Because of this, the rumor spread among the
> brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would
> not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is
> that to you?"
>
> Do you deny this scripture passage?
You can quoite it in any version you like; the fact remains it shows a
false oral tradition among the apostles that jesus was returning in
john's lifetime
> It's inspired scripture. What it means is well revealed in James 2:14-16 and
> Mat 25:31-46, and Mat 10:38, Mat 16:24, Luke 9:22.
>
> >That verse is a non issue to a saved Christian.
>
> No one is "saved" until they stand before Christ at the moment of their death in
> judgment.
Again you contradict the Bible.
rom 8:24 For in hope we HAVE BEEN saved, but hope that is seen is not
hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?
eph 2:5 even when we were (dead in our transgressions, made us alive
together with Christ (by grace you HAVE BEEN saved),
>
> Apparently you have a man-made definition of "saved".
nope--a biblical one, while you have a philosophical one that wrongly
holds unbelievers up as possibly "good" when there are no good people in
God's eyes
duke
wrote:
>> >> That's only the 2nd time God breathed into man, the first to give him physical
>> >> live. The 2nd is to provide for spiritual life. WOW - RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT.
>> >> And sin is against God, not against man. Jesus assigned the apostles to go
>> >> forth and baptize all peoples everywhere, and to teach them. Mat 28:16-20.
>> >And all you've said doesn't make your point at all, but simply is a
>> >bunch of non-sequitur statements
>> Gotcha.
>My point stands. You made a bunch of religious statements that had
>nothing to do with proving the doctrine of confession
Well, Jesus make it a spiritual-life sacrament, and so it's Christian dogma.
Your refusing to listen to Jesus and use his gift when it comes to actual
personal sin is to your account, not mine.
>> >> And Jesus well said that the SON OF MAN, Mat 9:2-8, has authority to forgive sin
>> >> (as opposed to trespasses against other men). Uh, you do recognize the
>> >> reference to BLASPHEMY in those verses, don't you.
>> >not at all.
>> Gotcha again. I love it when people like you say "not at all" when confronted
>> with the words of God in scripture showing you the error of your beliefs.
>Look who's talking! I gave you clear, unambiguous scripture showing
>we're cleansed by the word of the gospel, but you quickly denied IT,
>didn't you?
And I gave you clear, unambiguous scripture showing you what Jesus told us to do
and you deny the IT.
It's really sad how you protest_ers quickly take the easy road as gospel but not
the rest of what the Lord said as gospel. The word of the gospel IS the
confessional. Jesus wouldn't have given the apostles the authority to
bind/loosen to man to be so in heaven if he didn't mean it.
>> >> >No confessionals, however
>> >> I love this part. Haahaahaa. There is no such thing as a "confessional".
>> >Nope. Not in the bible
>> Gotcha a 3rd time. The confessional is only a private place. Nothing more. A
>> room, a bench in the park, a car seat can be used.
>I meant in a general sense. As i went on to reiterate, nothing in the NT
>shows the concept of priest and penitant. You can't find that practice
>anywhere in the new testament
They it is your problem to explain John 20:20-23 if he was just kidding.
>> >It's
>> >> just a private place for a priest as Son of Man to hear and forgive/remove the
>> >> stain of the confessed sin in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
>> >Sounds nice, but is not shown in scripture.
>> Then you've never read the NT.
>I guarantee i've read it more in the last year than you have your entire
>life. I've read through it, line by line, at least once a month for the
>last 5 years. I spend at least 2 hrs a day going over it line by line,
>and i'm still finding stuff I had not noticed before. But i certainly do
>know it quite well, if not as well as some other folks.
The tell me how you conveniently read, but failed to comprehend, John 20:20-23.
That's where your position falls completely apart - deciding for yourself that
"this" is mandatory but "that" is just discussion.
That's the major weakness of the protest_ant faith - flying directly in the face
of Jesus and his directives to us. You believe in reading the gospel but not
living the gospel.
James 1:22-25 (New International Version)
22Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.
23Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who
looks at his face in a mirror 24and, after looking at himself, goes away and
immediately forgets what he looks like. 25But the man who looks intently into
the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting
what he has heard, but doing it�he will be blessed in what he does.
How easy it is to glance at his words and then move on, quickly forgetting his
gifts to us.
>That's why I can say the concept of confessing sins to a priest is not
>shown anywhere in the NT, and you cannot refute that except to appeal to
>some vague verses that do not show a direct application to the doctrine
>as the RCC practices it.
Mat 28:16-20 told the apostles to teach the world everything that he taught
them.
>> > Acts gives us a good
>> >snapshot of the church from 30 AD to 62 AD, and you won't see one
>> >instance of anything even remotely resembling priest and penitent.
>> Well, you clearly show you're don't know what the gospel of John says.
>I know it quite well, thx. It's you who don't understand it
**I** know what it ................... says.
>> > In
>> >fact, in the closest thing you can come to it (acts 8), peter tells the
>> >SINNER to go ask God for forgiveness!
>> And in John 20, Jesus puts the Sons of men in charge of sin forgiveness.
>That is a doctrine you hold; john 20 does not say that, nor do we see
>that concept in practice anyahere in the NT.
You see it in John 20:20-23. He clearly gave man the authority to
forgive/retain sins to be so in heaven.
But what the heck, if you can't see it in action in Acts, in which the written
word is only a small part of what Jesus said and did (John 21:25), then it just
isn't necessary.
>But even if you were right, Jesus doesn't clearly indicate that anyone
>other than the apostles there would have that authority.
Mat 28:16-20 says you're wrong. As the Father sent me, I send you and you send
others.
>If you're going to say people other than apostles could have that
>authority, where does it says only priests would?
Holy Orders.
>Can you show me one instance after this saying by Christ where anyone
>heard someone's confession, granted them absolution, and imposed penance
>on them? Answer: no
I repeat: But what the heck, if you can't see it in action in Acts, in which
the written word is only a small part of what Jesus said and did (John 21:25),
then it just isn't necessary.
>> >This would have been a perfect time for peter to hear his confession and
>> >institute penance, but instead he tells the guy to pray to God himself.
>> >Sounds totally evangelical, and not catholic at all
>> Nothing like you telling Jesus you're going to pick and choose which of his
>> teachings you will accept.
>You're the one whose doctrine is easily refuted by what the scripture
>does show, duke. If what you say is true, peter should have heard the
>man's confdession then and there, not told him to go to God on his own.
If it was refuted, the Apostles wouldn't have followed Jesus as he instructed
them and established the sacrament of confession in the Church that Christ
founded for the last 2000 years.
>That is actually CONTRADICTING the catholic doctrine of confession if
>you think about it.
>If I blasphemed in the presence of the pope, and rendered myself guilty
>of mortal sin, would the pope exhort me to confess and receive
>absolution, or would he tell me to go pray to God on my own for
>forgiveness?
Go to confession.
>If you want to hold the doctrine based on the magisterium's supposed
>authority to encat whatever it wants to do, that's fine. But please
>don't claim the new testament teaches it when it really doesn't.
I suggest you listen to Jesus and not reject his words of salvation.
RWKnapp
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:51:36 -0800, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> It's really sad how you protest_ers quickly take the easy road as gospel but not
Why do you keep pointing to the Roman Catholic Church as the
"protest_ers" here? You are the one protesting what was written and
you are a Catholic.
> the rest of what the Lord said as gospel. The word of the gospel IS the
> confessional. Jesus wouldn't have given the apostles the authority to
> bind/loosen to man to be so in heaven if he didn't mean it.
If you want to hold that to the letter, I do not believe any of the
apostles as you put it gave that authority is alive today and now you
can again protest_er that also since if you accept that as fact, you
have no authority to bind or loose since you have no apostles today or
since they all died over two thousand years ago? Protest-er some more
all you and the Roman Church has to do. PROTEST_ERS ARE ALL ROMAN
CATHOLICS it you disagree with what I just pointed out to you, in the
verses you used to support yourself.
> >I guarantee i've read it more in the last year than you have your entire
> >life. I've read through it, line by line, at least once a month for the
> >last 5 years. I spend at least 2 hrs a day going over it line by line,
> >and i'm still finding stuff I had not noticed before. But i certainly do
> >know it quite well, if not as well as some other folks.
He should be careful he can not guarantee such, some people all they
do day in and day out is study the scriptures as man monks and
scholars do, no matter what presentation they have Protestant or
Catholic. Maybe even some atheist that try to find errors and stuff
to support their views as well.
>
> The tell me how you conveniently read, but failed to comprehend, John 20:20-23.
> That's where your position falls completely apart - deciding for yourself that
> "this" is mandatory but "that" is just discussion.
>
> That's the major weakness of the protest_ant faith - flying directly in the face
Well yes the Catholic protest-ant do just that kind of thing only seem
to duck when it is pointed at their face.
> of Jesus and his directives to us. You believe in reading the gospel but not
> living the gospel.
You are just as bad as he is, he tells you what you do and here you
are telling him what he does not do with the gospel. Looks like you
both need to repent and go to confession, a Pastor will be glad to lay
hands on you and pray for you both. Some may even cast out evil
spirits so you can be helped.
> James 1:22-25 (New International Version)
> 22Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.
> 23Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who
> looks at his face in a mirror 24and, after looking at himself, goes away and
> immediately forgets what he looks like. 25But the man who looks intently into
> the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting
> what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does.
>
> How easy it is to glance at his words and then move on, quickly forgetting his gifts to us.
So true of many people, I would hope those that love Jesus would not
do such, then like the wind it blows and how soon we forget the feel
of it.
> >That's why I can say the concept of confessing sins to a priest is not
> >shown anywhere in the NT, and you cannot refute that except to appeal to
> >some vague verses that do not show a direct application to the doctrine
> >as the RCC practices it.
>
> Mat 28:16-20 told the apostles to teach the world everything that he taught them.
So true only what the Catholic and some Protestant churches do not do
that, and that is a shame. If you want to take that verse 20 as truth
and facts that it is, you would be baptized in THE NAME OF JESUS, as
no where does the bible show one baptized as the Catholic church say
to be.
Acts 2:38-39
38 Then Peter said to them,"Repent, and let every one of you be
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and
you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is
to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as
the Lord our God will call."
Remember you call Peter the first Pope but do not follow what Jesus
taught him to do, as this was the first baptism after Jesus told Peter
what to do. Did Peter lie? I know again you will be that protest_er
here. Go ahead if you must protest only Peter did it more then once
in the NAME of JESUS.
Acts 8:12-13
12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning
the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women
were baptized. 13 Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was
baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles
and signs which were done. NKJV
> You see it in John 20:20-23. He clearly gave man the authority to
> forgive/retain sins to be so in heaven.
I do not see anything in those verses that talk about going to Heaven
or anything about heaven. John 20:20-24
20 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. Then
the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.
21 So Jesus said to them again, "Peace to you! As the Father has sent
Me, I also send you." 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on
them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive
the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of
any, they are retained."
I can retain what I want, or forgive who I want, it has to do with
life here as only Jesus Christ can give a person to enter Heaven, no
human, no person has the right or the authority to get past Jesus and
put a person in heaven or kick them out just because they "retained"
them. So Duke the protest_er do what you think you can do and
protest.
> But what the heck, if you can't see it in action in Acts, in which the written
> word is only a small part of what Jesus said and did (John 21:25), then it just
> isn't necessary.
I have no idea what you think you said here. The bible is not up to
what one thinks is necessary or not necessary.
>
> >But even if you were right, Jesus doesn't clearly indicate that anyone
> >other than the apostles there would have that authority.
>
> Mat 28:16-20 says you're wrong. As the Father sent me, I send you and you send others.
Again are you the "me" here, I believe that is suppose to be Jesus
speaking. If anything is to grow it takes others to do the same to
latter have a crop.
>
> >If you're going to say people other than apostles could have that
> >authority, where does it says only priests would?
>
> Holy Orders.
Given by whom, other priest kind of self serving one would say. Like
agreeing that something is true because you say it is, no matter if it
is or not. Tell you boss, you give him a order to pay you more money
for your work, because you say so. Or a group of bosses giving
themselves more money as they should have it. Lots of court cases
today over people that did just that, a million or so pay raise etc.
The Bible does not give "Holy Orders" I looked in over 30 different
bible versions not a word to the Church about such. So where does the
Church any church get the right to make such "HOLY ORDERS"? "(usually
plural) the status or rank or office of a Christian clergyman in an
ecclesiastical hierarchy"
>
> >Can you show me one instance after this saying by Christ where anyone
> >heard someone's confession, granted them absolution, and imposed penance
> >on them? Answer: no
One has to wonder why a person thinks they are so correct to answer
their own question. I suppose if he is looking for word for word as
he wrote it, there would not be much in the bible that would agree
with such.
> >You're the one whose doctrine is easily refuted by what the scripture
> >does show, duke. If what you say is true, peter should have heard the
> >man's confdession then and there, not told him to go to God on his own.
>
> If it was refuted, the Apostles wouldn't have followed Jesus as he instructed
> them and established the sacrament of confession in the Church that Christ
> founded for the last 2000 years.
Such has nothing to do with the Apostles, but with them that said they
followed them years after the Apostles died and were gone. It is only
a sacrament because the Pope said it was nothing to do with what the
Apostles had to say or do. " (Roman Catholic Church) the act of a
penitent disclosing his sinfulness before a priest in the sacrament of
penance in the hope of absolution"!
>
> >That is actually CONTRADICTING the catholic doctrine of confession if
> >you think about it.
> >If I blasphemed in the presence of the pope, and rendered myself guilty
> >of mortal sin, would the pope exhort me to confess and receive
> >absolution, or would he tell me to go pray to God on my own for
> >forgiveness?
>
> Go to confession.
I suppose the Pope would have to say that, and then in the
confessional one is to pray on their own and ask the priest to pray
also with them for forgiveness. At least that was the way 65-69 years
ago when I went to a confessional with a priest. As I pointed out
before, I knew many Priest over the years and we would talk about such
matters.
> >If you want to hold the doctrine based on the magisterium's supposed
> >authority to encat whatever it wants to do, that's fine. But please
> >don't claim the new testament teaches it when it really doesn't.
>
> I suggest you listen to Jesus and not reject his words of salvation.
I suppose you should take your own advice here, and not reject His
words about Salvation either.
Matt 10:22
22 And you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But he who endures
to the end will be saved.
Mark 16:15-17
He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every
creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he
who does not believe will be condemned.
Luke 8:11-13
11 "Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. 12 Those by
the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away
the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.
John 10:8-10
9 I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will
go in and out and find pasture. 10 The thief does not come except to
steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have
life, and that they may have it more abundantly. NKJV
Learn and grow in the Lord and be blessed.
Raymond
www.pioneers-for-jesus.org
duke
wrote:
>duke wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 04:35:54 -0800, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Of course it does. At the point that the Bible ceases to be the supreme
>> >> >authority by which God's will is revealed, you now have a religion that
>> >> >is open to change with the winds of public opinion, as we see happen
>> >> >with the mainline denominations that started out good--adhering to
>> >> >scripture--but now tout gay marriage and other liberal viewpoints.
>>
>> >> Begging your pardon. The RCC did not change anything. The Protestants didn't
>> >> change anything. But the protest_ers did elect to not follow much of what Jesus
>> >> said and did.
>> >> Those that promote gay marriage are flat out denying scripture.
>> >duh
>>
>> >And yes, the RCC changed a whole lot. Show me one isntance of priest and
>> >confessional in the new testamnent
>>
>> The Jewish priest was Levitical. Christ in Heb 4:15 is our high priest on the
>> order of Melchizedek and is passed on in the sacrament of Holy Orders. The
>> confessional is only a private place for discussion between priest and confessee
>> in accordance with John 20:20-23.
>You're not understanding me, so let me say it differently: show me one
>instance in the new testment where someone goes to a so-called Christian
>"priest" and:
Why are you limiting the response to a limited series of writings specifically
in the bible? The worst part for you is the clear and specific directives of
Jesus to his Apostles to go forward to do and teach this to all nations.
>Confesses his sins with the intention of being absolved from sin.
Yes.
>The priest absolves him.
Yes, forgiveness and absolution in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
>The priest imposes penance.
Prayer in contemplation of repentance.
>> >> >So when the RCC claims tradition is equal to scripture, God Himself does
>> >> >not afffirm that, but actually elevates the scripture above His own
>> >> >name.
>> >> And where do you think the written word comes from but Holy Tradition.
>> >Nope. It came from people inspired by God to write it down
>> And you think the writer was a steno clerk?
>Sometimes, yes. The point is, they were inspired to write, and what they
>WROTE--not what they supposedly orally passed down as binding religious
>doctrines that aren't shown in scripture--is what God gave us
Sorry, but the written word is only some the things written down that Christ
said and did (John 21:25). These were written down some 30-60 years after
Christ basis the words of the new Christians rather than personal experience of
the writers, and not canonized until the 4th century.
So the written word is a very limited revelation of all that Christ revealed.
These were passed on to the Apostles and on down thru the centuries by the
teaching authority granted by Jesus to the Papacy. In addition, we have the
writings of the early church fathers as backup and development.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
You see, you protest_ants that followed the likes of luther are on the short end
of the stick.
> The Gospel writers, except for
>> John, did not know Jesus, but instead recorded the beliefs of the new Christians
>> some 30-60 years after Christ.
>When are you going to stop saying such statements and read your Bible?!
>MATTHEW knew jesus, and was an apostle.
Knowing Jesus and receiving his teachings from JEsus is what defines him as an
Apostle. And the Matthew in the gospel is highly improbable as being the author
of the Gospel of Matthew. The intro to each book in my bible reveals these
things.
>MARK probably knew jesus
You're making up stuff. Mark was never been in the company of the Lord, but
instead using Peter's words. Peter is the first Pope.
>Sheesh!
The bible fully reveals God's plans for us and the salvation of our souls -
Baptism, Holy Eucarist, Confession, Anointing - but there are many, many more
writings on the historical side.
>> >> Until the 4th century, there was no canon scripture. And the gospels were
>> >> written 30-60 years after the cross.
>> >so? They were written and copied, not written down thru someone's oral
>> >tradiditon.
>> Oral "tradition" means word of mouth. At least learn what you are dealing with.
Now you're learning.
>> >In fact, here is what John had to say about the supposedly infallible
>> >oral tradition among the direct apostles and disciples of jesus:
>> Who can possibly understand that. Let's see what it says in English.
>> John 21:22-23 (New International Version)
>> 22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that
>> to you? You must follow me." 23Because of this, the rumor spread among the
>> brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would
>> not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is
>> that to you?"
>> Do you deny this scripture passage?
>You can quoite it in any version you like; the fact remains it shows a
>false oral tradition among the apostles that jesus was returning in
>john's lifetime
Again, oral tradition means word of mouth, and the NT was not written down for
some 30-60 years after Christ, and the selection of which book make up the NT
canon did not occur until the 4th century.
>> It's inspired scripture. What it means is well revealed in James 2:14-16 and
>> Mat 25:31-46, and Mat 10:38, Mat 16:24, Luke 9:22.
>> No one is "saved" until they stand before Christ at the moment of their death in
>> judgment.
>Again you contradict the Bible.
>rom 8:24 For in hope we HAVE BEEN saved, but hope that is seen is not
>hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?
Hebrews 9:27 (New International Version)
27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,
>eph 2:5 even when we were (dead in our transgressions, made us alive
>together with Christ (by grace you HAVE BEEN saved),
That's because we are sinners always in our own fault, in what we think and say,
in what we do and don't do.
But as scripture says, venial sins can be forgiven in the next life, but mortal
sin - no way.
1 John 5:16-17 (New International Version)
16If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he
should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead
to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should
pray about that. 17All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to
death.
Read my lips - Jesus gave us the sacrament of confession to set us right with
God on mortal sins (sins that lead to death).
>> Apparently you have a man-made definition of "saved".
I'll just stick with the bible.
vince garcia
Because God exalts His word above His name, and if you're going to claim
a doctrine not clearly taught in scripture is a necessity of the faith
to believe in, I need to see decent proof from scripture or at least
verfiable 1st century history, that it was followed and believed
The worst part for you is the clear and specific directives of
> Jesus to his Apostles to go forward to do and teach this to all nations.
>
> >Confesses his sins with the intention of being absolved from sin.
> Yes.
> >The priest absolves him.
> Yes, forgiveness and absolution in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
> >The priest imposes penance.
> Prayer in contemplation of repentance.
yeah=--so show me this in practice in the days of the apostles. Cite me
the didache or other FIRST CENTURY writings if you have to
Don't just tell me they believed that without some decent evidence of it
>
> >> >> >So when the RCC claims tradition is equal to scripture, God Himself does
> >> >> >not afffirm that, but actually elevates the scripture above His own
> >> >> >name.
> >> >> And where do you think the written word comes from but Holy Tradition.
> >> >Nope. It came from people inspired by God to write it down
> >> And you think the writer was a steno clerk?
>
> >Sometimes, yes. The point is, they were inspired to write, and what they
> >WROTE--not what they supposedly orally passed down as binding religious
> >doctrines that aren't shown in scripture--is what God gave us
>
> Sorry, but the written word is only some the things written down that Christ
> said and did (John 21:25). These were written down some 30-60 years after
> Christ basis the words of the new Christians rather than personal experience of
> the writers, and not canonized until the 4th century.
All the more reason the writings should be comprehensive enough to show
the claimed doctrine in practice
>
> So the written word is a very limited revelation of all that Christ revealed.
> These were passed on to the Apostles and on down thru the centuries by the
> teaching authority granted by Jesus to the Papacy. In addition, we have the
> writings of the early church fathers as backup and development.
> http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
>
> You see, you protest_ants that followed the likes of luther are on the short end
> of the stick.
Yet what we believe (on the essentials of the faith, and doictrine of
salvation) accords fully with scripture.
>
> > The Gospel writers, except for
> >> John, did not know Jesus, but instead recorded the beliefs of the new Christians
> >> some 30-60 years after Christ.
>
> >When are you going to stop saying such statements and read your Bible?!
> >MATTHEW knew jesus, and was an apostle.
>
> Knowing Jesus and receiving his teachings from JEsus is what defines him as an
> Apostle. And the Matthew in the gospel is highly improbable as being the author
> of the Gospel of Matthew.
You're denying christian oral tradition on this?? Eusebius says THE
matthew wrote it
The intro to each book in my bible reveals these
> things.
You're reading a bad bible that is too secular. That bible probably
believes in the Q document too, and questions the legitimacy of all the
synoptics
>
> >MARK probably knew jesus
>
> You're making up stuff.
Not at all. Many commentators believe that. Else we must ask why he
writes about the boy, and how the boy could come to be there. And you
still have Luke--who knew mark--mentioning a fact in the garden it would
be impossible for any of the apostles to tell him because they were
asleep. Only someone OTHER THAN JESUS who was awake would know about the
angel, and the only person there who was not one of the 11--and had to
be awake to see it--was the young man, who was probably mark, whom luke
knew
Not absolutely, but very possibly
Still a false oral tradition, duke, that you might have heard
preached--and might be the false belief that caused paul and the others
to believe jesus was coming back in their lifetimes!
(assuming the preterist view is wrong)
>
> >> It's inspired scripture. What it means is well revealed in James 2:14-16 and
> >> Mat 25:31-46, and Mat 10:38, Mat 16:24, Luke 9:22.
>
> >> No one is "saved" until they stand before Christ at the moment of their death in
> >> judgment.
>
> >Again you contradict the Bible.
>
> >rom 8:24 For in hope we HAVE BEEN saved, but hope that is seen is not
> >hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?
>
> Hebrews 9:27 (New International Version)
> 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,
>
> >eph 2:5 even when we were (dead in our transgressions, made us alive
> >together with Christ (by grace you HAVE BEEN saved),
>
> That's because we are sinners always in our own fault, in what we think and say,
> in what we do and don't do.
right--but we ARE saved! Paul said he was chief among sinners. Could the
chief sinner on earth be a saved man? Apparently!
>
> But as scripture says, venial sins can be forgiven in the next life, but mortal
> sin - no way.
I won't fight you too hard on this, except to say there is nothing to
forgive in the nest life. You are forgiven or not in THIS life
>
> 1 John 5:16-17 (New International Version)
> 16If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he
> should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead
> to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should
> pray about that. 17All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to
> death.
>
> Read my lips - Jesus gave us the sacrament of confession to set us right with
> God on mortal sins (sins that lead to death).
read the NT, and you'll not find any application or clear anunciation of
that doctrine
>
> >> Apparently you have a man-made definition of "saved".
>
> I'll just stick with the bible.
me 2--which contradicts what you say in romans 10
oh--i missed responding to these points you made, so here they are:
>> Have you met an angel?
>yes. and demons
>What did they say to you?
The angel, nothing. The demon, "I'll lay off you if you're willing to go
to heaven, but just not with a reward"
>> >Their problem is that errors can be shown to exist in some of those
>> >supposedly inerrant works, so oi can accept they may be PARTIALLY
>> >inspired, but certainly not fully inspired, and thus canonical
>> Talk to the Jews, not me.
>could care lesss about what the jews think; i'd sooner listen to the
>pope since he at least is a believer in Christ
>You don't see the Jewish faith as the early part of the Christian faith?
Their faith was filled with error, i presume you know
>> Neither Jesus, Paul or John were married.
> You're wrong. Jesus, no. John, perhaps. Paul definitely (at some point,
> anyway, because he was a member of the sanhedrin, and you had to be
> married to be a part of it it)
> Oops, I think that's Peter, John, and Jesus.
>> But in no way does an apostle's being single translate into an ungodly
>> regulation that most priests MUST be unmarried. That actually
>> contradicts what the NT does say.
> It's a personal discipline elected by the priesthood for the good of >the kingdom of God in accordance with Mat 19:12.
1 cor 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as
other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
Apparently, paul felt it perfectly appropriate for even apostles to be
married if they wanted to be. And peter's wife appears to have been
alive and travelled with peter.
For the RCC to hang up on priestly celibacy--and all the problems that
come with it--shows how out of touch it is with God's way
The orthodox and byzantine catholics have a better, more scriptural
view, but the latin influcnce is really bad and corrupting on this issue
duke
>> It's really sad how you protest_ers quickly take the easy road as gospel but not
>Why do you keep pointing to the Roman Catholic Church as the
>"protest_ers" here? You are the one protesting what was written and
>you are a Catholic.
HOw can you deny that it is the protest_ers that fail to follow Christ of the
NT?
>> the rest of what the Lord said as gospel. �The word of the gospel IS the
>> confessional. �Jesus wouldn't have given the apostles the authority to
>> bind/loosen to man to be so in heaven �if he didn't mean it.
>If you want to hold that to the letter, I do not believe any of the
>apostles as you put it gave that authority is alive today and now you
>can again protest_er that also since if you accept that as fact, you
>have no authority to bind or loose since you have no apostles today or
>since they all died over two thousand years ago?
Of course you don't believe. Just like you don't believe that Jesus sent the
Apostles forward to baptize ALL people everywhere and to teach them all that he
had taught them. Mat 28:16-20.
>> >I guarantee i've read it more in the last year than you have your entire
>> >life. I've read through it, line by line, at least once a month for the
>> >last 5 years. I spend at least 2 hrs a day going over it line by line,
>> >and i'm still finding stuff I had not noticed before. But i certainly do
>> >know it quite well, if not as well as some other folks.
>He should be careful he can not guarantee such, some people all they
>do day in and day out is study the scriptures as man monks and
>scholars do, no matter what presentation they have Protestant or
>Catholic. Maybe even some atheist that try to find errors and stuff
>to support their views as well.
Only you protest_ers enjoy telling Jesus he didn't know what he was saying and
clearly didn't mean it.
>> The tell me how you conveniently read, but failed to comprehend, John 20:20-23.
>> That's where your position falls completely apart - deciding for yourself that
>> "this" is mandatory but "that" is just discussion.
>> That's the major weakness of the protest_ant faith - flying directly in the face
>Well yes the Catholic protest-ant do just that kind of thing only seem
>to duck when it is pointed at their face.
Well, at least I can read Mat 28:16-20 and John 20:20-23.
>>�You believe in reading the gospel but not
>> living the gospel. �
>You are just as bad as he is, he tells you what you do and here you
>are telling him what he does not do with the gospel.
Of course it's in the bible. Try reading it for a change.
>> James 1:22-25 (New International Version)
>> �22Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.
>> 23Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who
>> looks at his face in a mirror 24and, after looking at himself, goes away and
>> immediately forgets what he looks like. 25But the man who looks intently into
>> the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting
>> what he has heard, but doing it�he will be blessed in what he does.
>> How easy it is to glance at his words and then move on, quickly forgetting his gifts to us.
>So true of many people, I would hope those that love Jesus would not
>do such, then like the wind it blows and how soon we forget the feel
>of it.
But it's protest_ants that do exactly that.
>> >That's why I can say the concept of confessing sins to a priest is not
>> >shown anywhere in the NT, and you cannot refute that except to appeal to
>> >some vague verses that do not show a direct application to the doctrine
>> >as the RCC practices it.
>>
>> Mat 28:16-20 told the apostles to teach the world everything that he taught them.
>So true only what the Catholic and some Protestant churches do not do
>that, and that is a shame.
The Catholic Church does. You protest_ers don't.
> If you want to take that verse 20 as truth
>and facts that it is, you would be baptized in THE NAME OF JESUS, as
>no where does the bible show one baptized as the Catholic church say
>to be.
I don't know what you protest_ers do, but we Catholics make a major issue of
profession is both baptism and confession that this is done in the name of the
Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
>Acts 2:38-39
>38 Then Peter said to them,"Repent, and let every one of you be
>baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and
>you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is
>to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as
>the Lord our God will call."
>Remember you call Peter the first Pope but do not follow what Jesus
>taught him to do, as this was the first baptism after Jesus told Peter
>what to do. Did Peter lie? I know again you will be that protest_er
>here. Go ahead if you must protest only Peter did it more then once
>in the NAME of JESUS.
Neither you nor I have any idea what malarkey you're pushing now.
>Acts 8:12-13
>12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning
>the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women
>were baptized. 13 Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was
>baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles
>and signs which were done. NKJV
Wait a minute!!! Are you trying to make a case for Acts 2 categorically being
before Acts 8? Tell me you're not that silly
>> You see it in John 20:20-23. �He clearly gave man the authority to
>> forgive/retain sins to be so in heaven. �
>I do not see anything in those verses that talk about going to Heaven
>or anything about heaven. John 20:20-24
> 20 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. Then
>the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.
>
>21 So Jesus said to them again, "Peace to you! As the Father has sent
>Me, I also send you." 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on
>them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive
>the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of
>any, they are retained."
>I can retain what I want, or forgive who I want
Nope, you rejected Holy Orders and don't have such authority to act on the sins
against God by others.
>> >But even if you were right, Jesus doesn't clearly indicate that anyone
>> >other than the apostles there would have that authority.
>> Mat 28:16-20 says you're wrong. �As the Father sent me, I send you and you send others. �
>Again are you the "me" here
Nope, recipients of Holy Orders.
>Given by whom, other priest kind of self serving one would say.
>The Bible does not give "Holy Orders"
Right, Jesus did to the Apostles and told them to do as he taught them. You
never received Holy Orders.
>> >You're the one whose doctrine is easily refuted by what the scripture
>> >does show, duke. If what you say is true, peter should have heard the
>> >man's confdession then and there, not told him to go to God on his own.
>> If it was refuted, the Apostles wouldn't have followed Jesus as he instructed
>> them and established the sacrament of confession in the Church that Christ
>> founded for the last 2000 years.
>Such has nothing to do with the Apostles
It has everything with their Holy Orders to go forth to all nations and o as he
told them. Too bad you protest_ers did a 180 and ran away.
>> >That is actually CONTRADICTING the catholic doctrine of confession if
>> >you think about it.
>> >If I blasphemed in the presence of the pope, and rendered myself guilty
>> >of mortal sin, would the pope exhort me to confess and receive
>> >absolution, or would he tell me to go pray to God on my own for
>> >forgiveness?
>> Go to confession.
>I suppose the Pope would have to say that
He has no option. That's what Jesus said.
> and then in the
>confessional one is to pray on their own and ask the priest to pray
>also with them for forgiveness.
Of course we have to ask. Haven't you heard of the day of atonement which
prefigures confession. We have to come forward and volunteer our failures and
then ask for forgiveness. You think a priest can read minds?????
>> >If you want to hold the doctrine based on the magisterium's supposed
>> >authority to encat whatever it wants to do, that's fine. But please
>> >don't claim the new testament teaches it when it really doesn't.
>> I suggest you listen to Jesus and not reject his words of salvation.
>I suppose you should take your own advice here, and not reject His
>words about Salvation either.
You can't endure, as a man that says he has no sin is a liar.
>Matt 10:22
>22 And you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But he who endures
>to the end will be saved.
>Mark 16:15-17
>He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every
>creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he
>who does not believe will be condemned.
And Christian baptism calls for the expression by the one being baptized to
reject satan and all his evil ways.
Turn away from the protest_ers who are leading you down the wrong path away from
the teachings of Jesus.
duke
wrote:
>> >You're not understanding me, so let me say it differently: show me one
>> >instance in the new testment where someone goes to a so-called Christian
>> >"priest" and:
>> Why are you limiting the response to a limited series of writings specifically
>> in the bible?
>Because God exalts His word above His name,
And Jesus categorically told the apostles that he was assigning them sin
forgiveness to be bound in heaven. If you can't see that in John 20:20-23, then
you're not looking.
>> The worst part for you is the clear and specific directives of
>> Jesus to his Apostles to go forward to do and teach this to all nations.
Glad to see you're finally coming to see the truth.
>> >Confesses his sins with the intention of being absolved from sin.
>> Yes.
>> >The priest absolves him.
>> Yes, forgiveness and absolution in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
>> >The priest imposes penance.
>> Prayer in contemplation of repentance.
>yeah=--so show me this in practice in the days of the apostles. Cite me
>the didache or other FIRST CENTURY writings if you have to
I TOLD you - John 20:20-23. Wake up before it's too late.
on't just tell me they believed that without some decent evidence of it
>> >Sometimes, yes. The point is, they were inspired to write, and what they
>> >WROTE--not what they supposedly orally passed down as binding religious
>> >doctrines that aren't shown in scripture--is what God gave us
>> Sorry, but the written word is only some the things written down that Christ
>> said and did (John 21:25). These were written down some 30-60 years after
>> Christ basis the words of the new Christians rather than personal experience of
>> the writers, and not canonized until the 4th century.
>All the more reason the writings should be comprehensive enough to show
>the claimed doctrine in practice
I see it in absolutely clearly-assigned duty from Christ to the Apostles.
>> So the written word is a very limited revelation of all that Christ revealed.
>> These were passed on to the Apostles and on down thru the centuries by the
>> teaching authority granted by Jesus to the Papacy. In addition, we have the
>> writings of the early church fathers as backup and development.
>> http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
>> You see, you protest_ants that followed the likes of luther are on the short end
>> of the stick.
>Yet what we believe (on the essentials of the faith, and doictrine of
>salvation) accords fully with scripture.
Only if you elect what to believe and not believe. And that makes you the equal
of God in right v wrong, and look what that little mistake cost A&E.
>> > The Gospel writers, except for
>> >> John, did not know Jesus,
>You're denying christian oral tradition on this?? Eusebius says THE
>matthew wrote it
Current biblical scholars clearly state that the latest makes it improbable the
author is the Mathew of the first 3 Gospels.
> The intro to each book in my bible reveals these
>> things.
>You're reading a bad bible that is too secular.
You're hiding now.
>> >MARK probably knew jesus
>> You're making up stuff.
>> Mark was never been in the company of the Lord, but
>> instead using Peter's words. Peter is the first Pope.
>> >Sheesh!
>> The bible fully reveals God's plans for us and the salvation of our souls -
>> Baptism, Holy Eucarist, Confession, Anointing - but there are many, many more
>> writings on the historical side.
>> >> Oral "tradition" means word of mouth. At least learn what you are dealing with.
>> Now you're learning.
Another good no response.
>> Again, oral tradition means word of mouth, and the NT was not written down for
>> some 30-60 years after Christ, and the selection of which book make up the NT
>> canon did not occur until the 4th century.
>Still a false oral tradition, duke, that you might have heard
>preached--and might be the false belief that caused paul and the others
>to believe jesus was coming back in their lifetimes!
It's the gospel.
>> >> It's inspired scripture. What it means is well revealed in James 2:14-16 and
>> >> Mat 25:31-46, and Mat 10:38, Mat 16:24, Luke 9:22.
>> >> No one is "saved" until they stand before Christ at the moment of their death in
>> >> judgment.
>> >Again you contradict the Bible.
>> Hebrews 9:27 (New International Version)
>> 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,
>> That's because we are sinners always in our own fault, in what we think and say,
>> in what we do and don't do.
>right--but we ARE saved! Paul said he was chief among sinners. Could the
>chief sinner on earth be a saved man? Apparently!
And salvation is revealed at the moment we die. Or you have an unacceptable
special definition you fall back on.
>> But as scripture says, venial sins can be forgiven in the next life, but mortal
>> sin - no way.
>I won't fight you too hard on this, except to say there is nothing to
>forgive in the nest life. You are forgiven or not in THIS life
Exactly. And you find out when you die.
>> 1 John 5:16-17 (New International Version)
>> 16If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he
>> should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead
>> to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should
>> pray about that. 17All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to
>> death.
>> Read my lips - Jesus gave us the sacrament of confession to set us right with
>> God on mortal sins (sins that lead to death).
>read the NT, and you'll not find any application or clear anunciation of
>that doctrine
I don't need a partial application. I see what God said.
>> >> Apparently you have a man-made definition of "saved".
>> I'll just stick with the bible.
>me 2--which contradicts what you say in romans 10
I'll stick with the word of God.
>oh--i missed responding to these points you made, so here they are:
>>> Have you met an angel?
>>yes. and demons
>>What did they say to you?
>The angel, nothing. The demon, "I'll lay off you if you're willing to go
>to heaven, but just not with a reward"
Heaven is the reward.
>>> >Their problem is that errors can be shown to exist in some of those
>>> >supposedly inerrant works, so oi can accept they may be PARTIALLY
>>> >inspired, but certainly not fully inspired, and thus canonical
>>> Talk to the Jews, not me.
>>could care lesss about what the jews think; i'd sooner listen to the
>>pope since he at least is a believer in Christ
>
>>You don't see the Jewish faith as the early part of the Christian faith?
>Their faith was filled with error, i presume you know
And the OT, which prefigured the NT, is not error but the first covenant.
>>> Neither Jesus, Paul or John were married.
>> You're wrong. Jesus, no. John, perhaps. Paul definitely (at some point,
>> anyway, because he was a member of the sanhedrin, and you had to be
>> married to be a part of it it)
>> It's a personal discipline elected by the priesthood for the good of >the kingdom of God in accordance with Mat 19:12.
>1 cor 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as
>other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
>Apparently, paul felt it perfectly appropriate for even apostles to be
>married if they wanted to be. And peter's wife appears to have been
>alive and travelled with peter.
Like I said - a personal discipline for the good of the kingdom of God.
Matthew 19:11-12 (New International Version)
11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it
has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others
were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[a]because of the
kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
Footnotes:
a.Matthew 19:12 Or have made themselves eunuchs
>For the RCC to hang up on priestly celibacy--and all the problems that
>come with it--shows how out of touch it is with God's way
It's clearly addressed in the bible.
>The orthodox and byzantine catholics have a better, more scriptural
>view, but the latin influcnce is really bad and corrupting on this issue
What's left out in the cold are the protest_ants.
RWKnapp
> > > Only Christ Jesus is pure enough and by Him we stand in His
> > purification, that is one reason Jesus died and rose from the dead to
> > pay for our sins and only by His blood given freely on the cross can
> > we have such purification. Nothing we do will ever make or give
> > anyone a degree of purification.
>
> would be arguing about what it stands for and what it does not stand for.
Why would you an atheist care what we do here, unless you do not
understand what newsgroups are, they are for discussion. You can see
it as an argument, since one side sees things one way and the other
another side. One earns from arguments and our God is real while you
have none.
> Your inflammatory dialog proves one thing - your god is solely the product
> of man, so therefore becomes the subject of man's desires and differences.
What you see as inflammatory is a joke, your remarks can be seen as
such all the time, you being a atheist that adds nothing to a
Christian news group, except inflammatory dialogue. My God is the
God and now if you had a god, it would be solely the product of your
mind and still have nothing to do with GOD just a idea, it is a wonder
that atheist do not make a god, like nothing at all, then you already
have that. Now to others your remarks above prove your inflammatory
dialogue, argument and insults is all you do here, proven by your own
remarks above.
>
> Man creates his gods in his own image,
> then spends the rest of his life
> manipulating them to his heart's content
Which to them that know God, sees your remarks is inflammatory.
>
> R E L I G I O N it is all in the mind,
> an escape from life¹s realities and hardships,
> sixty percent ritual, forty percent fantasy
Only in your mind.
>
> Oh how I wish there were a loving god. A god that would take care of man¹s
> ills and fulfill his desires and dreams. But I have the common sense and
> intelligence to know that this is simply the way man wishes things to be.
If what you say is common sense your lacking it and like a person in a
deep hole, there is no such thing as light and never was a sun, or
light. Just because you don't look and leave your hole.
It is nice to see how a mind of a atheist works, and when such can not
prove their remarks they result in insults. They are telling others
they are ignorant because they see nothing worthwhile in what a
atheist have to offer. These subjects here are addressed to
Christians or them in churches, and a want to understand why another
believer does not accept the doctrines. A learning experience, I
respect Duke because we disagree, but try to point out why each of us
do not see eye to eye. We learn nothing if we say nothing, which it
seems Bob thinks his nothing is something that believers care about.
RWKnapp
> On 1/4/10 12:17 PM, in article
> 72ee2b0a-c888-4394-87c2-0c8da8089...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com, "RWKnapp"
>
> > On Dec 28 2009, 1:53 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:02:12 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >>> On Dec 27, 5:44 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:51:06 -0800 (PST), RWKnapp <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Where were the righteous dead when Christ raised them? It was not hell,
> >>>>>> for
> >>>>>> that is a one way street, and after all, we are referring to the
> >>>>>> righteous.
> >>>>>> not for
> >>>>>> man to know.
> >>>>>> Many protest_ants say "no" to purgatory. Yet they can't respond to the
> >>>>>> case of
> >>>>>> laz, and outrageously reject purgatory.
> >>>>> The Catholic church uses the term purgatory, the story of laz was in
> >>>>> Paradise before the resurrection, as Hell was also in that one place
> >>>>> understood as the place of the dead and they could see each other.
> >>>> Purgatory = supposed place of purging. The new Christians had to be made to
> >>>> understand.
> >>> Why there is no such place to start with and not a word of it is from
> >>> the Bible so the Christian need to understand it is only a make
> >>> believed place
>
> >> is
> >> pure enough to stand before God without attaining a degree of purification.
> >> Heb
> >> 12:14.
>
> > purification, that is one reason Jesus died and rose from the dead to
> > pay for our sins and only by His blood given freely on the cross can
> > we have such purification. Nothing we do will ever make or give
> > anyone a degree of purification.
>
Yes, then nothing is verifiable to you as you reject the Bible to
start with. To them this matter was addressed to the believers, I
have all the proof I or any believer would need.
>
> If not then the very idea of a god with a son on this earth would, to a
> logical thinking person, be proven for all to see in magnificent glory; and
> I am not talking about some story in a book full of contradictions, written
> by early humans - I am talking about the actions of the god that created the
> universe, us and everything else in it, a god that would surely to reveal to
> all concerned that his son had lived.
Well since I said YES I have proof, the above is null and has nothing
to do with this matter.
>
> Too logical - ? Better be, since logic, intelligence, common sense, science
> and human creativity is all we have
Really since you asked and answered your own statement as if I would
of said such silly things, there is no Logic only your illogical
statements. You are not showing any intelligences here.
> THAT my friend, is . . . . LOGIC
Seems you need to tell yourself such as no one that reads this would
say that is LOGIC it sure is NOT no matter how much you say.
>
> Bob
> Humanist, atheist, realist, sentimentalist Brit.
>
> Man creates his gods in his own image,
> then spends the rest of his life
> manipulating them to his heart's content
Unless your not a "Man" it would be logical that you also as a man
created your own god in your own image. that would be LOGIC since it
is your own words and your own statement here. That is so, unless now
you say your not a "man" as such a general remarks apply to your
accountability here. Which it seems your lacking, even if you try
manipulating such to your heart's content.
Raymond :-o
Bob Young
On 1/13/10 5:31 AM, in article
ea8e0a7d-7563-4574...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com, "RWKnapp"
<rwk...@aim.com> wrote:
Tell that to all those pityful fokks right now in Haiti
>
>>
>> R E L I G I O N � it is all in the mind,
>> an escape from life�s realities and hardships,
>> sixty percent ritual, forty percent fantasy
>
> Only in your mind.
Prove it
>
>>
>> Oh how I wish there were a loving god. A god that would take care of man�s
>> ills and fulfill his desires and dreams. But I have the common sense and
>> intelligence to know that this is simply the way man wishes things to be.
>
> If what you say is common sense your lacking it and like a person in a
> deep hole, there is no such thing as light and never was a sun, or
> light. Just because you don't look and leave your hole.
>
> It is nice to see how a mind of a atheist works, and when such can not
> prove their remarks they result in insults.
Nope - the insults always come from your side and you KNOW it
WHY? Because it is impossible to prove an invisible god therefore the
doubts often creep in, aided by atheistic common sense and logic - even with
people like your good self
They are telling others
> they are ignorant because they see nothing worthwhile in what a
> atheist have to offer.
We have to offer only clear uncluttered thinking FREE from superstition
RWKnapp
You tell them, as the atheist does nothing to help them in Haiti and
then many in Haiti are in cults and do voodoo etc, if they have
repented and know Jesus as their Lord, they go to Heaven and are then
free from all the troubles in Haiti. Their is no promise to them that
do not love God to protect them, what they sow the reap. It is sad
that such has happen in Haiti and Cuba, then Cuba is more atheist and
what are you doing to help them out of their pity? Nothing I
suppose. The Church are sending all kinds of food, help and sending
people to help, as Christ has pointed out, we will always have the
poor, but we can help make their problems easier and medically,
prayer, labor, cash etc, are or will be on its way, as that is what
Christians do, now let us hear what you and you folks do for them.
> > Only in your mind.
>
> Prove it
I did and still do.
> >> Oh how I wish there were a loving god. A god that would take care of man¹s
> >> ills and fulfill his desires and dreams. But I have the common sense and
> >> intelligence to know that this is simply the way man wishes things to be.
>
> > If what you say is common sense your lacking it and like a person in a
> > deep hole, there is no such thing as light and never was a sun, or
> > light. Just because you don't look and leave your hole.
>
> > It is nice to see how a mind of a atheist works, and when such can not
> > prove their remarks they result in insults.
>
> Nope - the insults always come from your side and you KNOW it
So insulting a persons faith in God is not an insult, your lying out
of both sides of your mouth with that farce as a, comedy characterized
by broad satire and improbable situations .
>
> WHY? Because it is impossible to prove an invisible god therefore the
> doubts often creep in, aided by atheistic common sense and logic - even with
> people like your good self
To one that thinks such it is impossible to prove there is a wind or
heat or cold, chills etc. God is proven by answer to prayer, and His
Presents seeing what God does that can not be done such as a healing
of the blind or sickness that doctors can not cure, and after prayer
they are well, and the doctors as I have heard many say, "It had to be
God" they did not see God, but they seen what happens when God is
there. Like the light of the Sun it can not be seen in a dark room,
or late at night, or to one that is blind. But most would be a fool
to say there is no Sun or heat, or wind etc. your logic is not common
or sensible it is silly and just a lie. Good people like me, know
their is a God and that God blesses and answers prayer, as He has done
since I let Him into my life and I am blessed.
> They are telling others
>
> > they are ignorant because they see nothing worthwhile in what a
> > atheist have to offer.
>
> We have to offer only clear uncluttered thinking FREE from superstition
Nothing clear and sure nothing is uncluttered by the superstitions
that their is no God, the only think you give FREE is nothing.
> > These subjects here are addressed to
>
> > Christians or them in churches, and a want to understand why another
> > believer does not accept the doctrines. A learning experience, I
> > respect Duke because we disagree, but try to point out why each of us
> > do not see eye to eye. We learn nothing if we say nothing, which it
> > seems Bob thinks his nothing is something that believers care about.-
Bob Young
On 1/13/10 12:41 PM, in article
b19b006c-29e1-4e61...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, "RWKnapp"
<rwk...@aim.com> wrote:
Thank you for proving the sickening immature thinking that religion can get
'their own' people using
A disgusting response Raymond
Their is no promise to them that
> do not love God to protect them, what they sow the reap. It is sad
> that such has happen in Haiti and Cuba, then Cuba is more atheist and
> what are you doing to help them out of their pity? Nothing I
> suppose. The Church are sending all kinds of food, help and sending
> people to help, as Christ has pointed out, we will always have the
> poor, but we can help make their problems easier and medically,
> prayer, labor, cash etc, are or will be on its way, as that is what
> Christians do, now let us hear what you and you folks do for them.
Yes well you overlooked that China and Taiwan are also sending teams with
aid.
Again there are times when your belief has you going down the road marked
'disgusting' and only an idiot and a fool such as you would try to suggest
that everyone on the ways to Haiti right now are not atheists and are all
Christians.
G R O W U P
>
>>> Only in your mind.
>>
>> Prove it
>
> I did and still do.
>
>>>> Oh how I wish there were a loving god. A god that would take care of man�s
>>>> ills and fulfill his desires and dreams. But I have the common sense and
>>>> intelligence to know that this is simply the way man wishes things to be.
>>
>>> If what you say is common sense your lacking it and like a person in a
>>> deep hole, there is no such thing as light and never was a sun, or
>>> light. �Just because you don't look and leave your hole.
>>
>>> It is nice to see how a mind of a atheist works, and when such can not
>>> prove their remarks they result in insults.
>>
>> Nope - the insults always come from your side and you KNOW it
>
> So insulting a persons faith in God is not an insult, your lying out
> of both sides of your mouth with that farce as a, comedy characterized
> by broad satire and improbable situations .
Prove the lie and we will talk about it and dissect it. Until you can do
that SHUT THE FUCK UP
>
>>
>> WHY? �Because it is impossible to prove an invisible god therefore the
>> doubts often creep in, aided by atheistic common sense and logic - even with
>> people like your good self
>
> To one that thinks such it is impossible to prove there is a wind or
> heat or cold, chills etc.
I can prove these
God is proven by answer to prayer, and His
> Presents seeing what God does that can not be done such as a healing
> of the blind or sickness that doctors can not cure, and after prayer
> they are well, and the doctors as I have heard many say, "It had to be
> God" they did not see God, but they seen what happens when God is
> there. Like the light of the Sun it can not be seen in a dark room,
> or late at night, or to one that is blind. But most would be a fool
> to say there is no Sun or heat, or wind etc. your logic is not common
> or sensible it is silly and just a lie. Good people like me, know
> their is a God and that God blesses and answers prayer, as He has done
> since I let Him into my life and I am blessed.
>
>> � They �are telling others
>>
>>> they are ignorant because they see nothing worthwhile in what a
>>> atheist have to offer.
>>
>> We have to offer only clear uncluttered thinking FREE from superstition
>
> Nothing clear and sure nothing is uncluttered by the superstitions
> that their is no God, the only think you give FREE is nothing.
To make that stick you need to prove your god A G A I N.
And A G A I N you cannot.
>
>
>>> �These subjects here are addressed to
RWKnapp
Snip.
>
> >> Tell that to all those pityful fokks right now in Haiti
>
> > You tell them, as the atheist does nothing to help them in Haiti and
> > then many in Haiti are in cults and do voodoo etc, if they have
> > repented and know Jesus as their Lord, they go to Heaven and are then
> > free from all the troubles in Haiti.
>
> Thank you for proving the sickening immature thinking that religion can get
> 'their own' people using
I should thank you as your do provide such immature and ignorant
remarks.
> A disgusting response Raymond
Why is that what atheist think and response when they have nothing
else to say?
> > Their is no promise to them that
>
> > do not love God to protect them, what they sow the reap. It is sad
> > that such has happen in Haiti and Cuba, then Cuba is more atheist and
> > what are you doing to help them out of their pity? Nothing I
> > suppose. The Church are sending all kinds of food, help and sending
> > people to help, as Christ has pointed out, we will always have the
> > poor, but we can help make their problems easier and medically,
> > prayer, labor, cash etc, are or will be on its way, as that is what
> > Christians do, now let us hear what you and you folks do for them.
>
> Yes well you overlooked that China and Taiwan are also sending teams with aid.
Yes it is about time, then you are of neither being English. Then
everyone should help, as they are humans in need. Then I am getting
information from many Christian churches that already have people
their and the churches are raising money, food and sending medical
terms and such as I post. In fact I just got a email from the United
Methodist Church about aid to Haiti and are doing what they can
help.
> Again there are times when your belief has you going down the road marked
> 'disgusting' and only an idiot and a fool such as you would try to suggest
> that everyone on the ways to Haiti right now are not atheists and are all
> Christians.
You are the disgusting one here. I suppose those remarks all apply to
yourself. I did not say all were Christians only they do care and they
do more then any atheist.
>
> G R O W U P
I Did you seem not to even know HOW to G R O W U P.
> >>> Only in your mind.
> > So insulting a persons faith in God is not an insult, your lying out
> > of both sides of your mouth with that farce as a, comedy characterized
> > by broad satire and improbable situations .
>
> Prove the lie and we will talk about it and dissect it. Until you can do
> that SHUT THE FUCK UP
It seems you did it all, and proved I told the truth and now you need
to go down the toilet, If you do not like what is posted, just don't
post and change the newsgroup that show just the charter of your
atheist belief system and the language which is disgusting, then you
posted it and that does show all your personality.
Bob Young
On 1/15/10 12:06 PM, in article
8c19afea-c24f-4180...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com, "RWKnapp"
<rwk...@aim.com> wrote:
Indeed. I watched a young mother there with three children, all of them
were injured but luckily they were alive and recovering. In her remarks she
finished by thanking god for the fact, whilst all around here were dead
bodies lying by the roadside. THAT is what superstition does to the human
mind, that a god should spare her and her three children but allow thousands
of others to die just didn't seem to cross her mind. It is this keenness in
humans to accept the impossible that is played upon by priests, mullahs,
monks and geomancers right across the globe.
Some humans, regrettably, are incapable of rational thought
Reminds me of an earthquake at another time, also on TV. They interviewed a
man in northern Afghanistan about six years ago. I never forgot it. He had
lost his wife, all of his family of five children only he was left alive.
After they pulled him out alive a television crew asked him what his first
thoughts were and he answered "I gave thanks to Allah"
Need I say More !
Well maybe I should say 'There goes another brainwashed individual' I
wonder if his wife was thanking Allah ?
>
>> Again there are times when your belief has you going down the road marked
>> 'disgusting' and only an idiot and a fool such as you would try to suggest
>> that everyone on the ways to Haiti right now are not atheists and are all
>> Christians.
>
> You are the disgusting one here. I suppose those remarks all apply to
> yourself. I did not say all were Christians only they do care and they
> do more then any atheist.
You intimated that no atheists would be going to Haiti to help out.
Disingenuous, wrong, nasty and as I said, disgusting. As well as stupid.
>
>>
>> G R O W � U P �
>
> I Did you seem not to even know HOW to G R O W U P.
>
>>>>> Only in your mind.
>>> So insulting a persons faith in God is not an insult, your lying out
>>> of both sides of your mouth with that farce as a, comedy characterized
>>> by broad satire and improbable situations �.
>>
>> Prove the lie and we will talk about it and dissect it. �Until you can do
>> that SHUT THE FUCK UP
>
> It seems you did it all, and proved I told the truth and now you need
> to go down the toilet, If you do not like what is posted, just don't
> post and change the newsgroup that show just the charter of your
> atheist belief system and the language which is disgusting, then you
> posted it and that does show all your personality.
That you did not prove the lie is duly noted.
Anyway. I hope all true humans, Christian and all other denominations will
help out in Haiti. Let us hope the country does not descend into rioting.
No food, no water, no medicine . . . . . One can't help wondering . . .
. . . . . .'No gods' ?
Bob Young
On 1/13/10 12:41 PM, in article
b19b006c-29e1-4e61...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, "RWKnapp"
<rwk...@aim.com> wrote:
No no no you miss the point, or avoid it, as usual. We atheists do not
claim to have the power to stop earthquakes, but you in your religion you
teach young children that your all powerful loving god has the power to
create everything leaving them to believe it until they die, or the other
lucky ones who question the nonsense like we atheists do when reaching age
around fourteen
and
> then many in Haiti are in cults and do voodoo etc, if they have
> repented and know Jesus as their Lord, they go to Heaven and are then
> free from all the troubles in Haiti. Their is no promise to them that
> do not love God to protect them, what they sow the reap. It is sad
> that such has happen in Haiti and Cuba, then Cuba is more atheist and
> what are you doing to help them out of their pity? Nothing I
> suppose. The Church are sending all kinds of food, help and sending
> people to help, as Christ has pointed out, we will always have the
> poor, but we can help make their problems easier and medically,
> prayer, labor, cash etc, are or will be on its way, as that is what
> Christians do, now let us hear what you and you folks do for them.
>
>>> Only in your mind.
>>
>> Prove it
>
> I did and still do.
Prove it one more time or retire through the door wearing a label "I am a
liar'
RWKnapp
God is loving to them that accept God and love God and want to follow
the rules set down so they can live a wonderful life. Health rules,
family rules what to do in court and obeying rulers and pay their
taxes and such. God is a judge and will judge the earth and punish
the earth and those that break His laws and have told God to mind His
own business, people that do evil will suffer, nations that do evil
will suffer as seen in that Bible you do not want to accept, but will
happen in the future such will happen no matter what you say or think.
Deut 32:39-41
39 'Now see that I, even I, am He,
And there is no God besides Me;
I kill and I make alive;
I wound and I heal;
Nor is there any who can deliver from My hand.
40 For I raise My hand to heaven,
And say, "As I live forever,
41 If I whet My glittering sword,
And My hand takes hold on judgment,
I will render vengeance to My enemies,
And repay those who hate Me. NKJV
>
> and
>
Since you put a "and" here, I will provide some more on this matter. 2
Tim 4:1-5
4 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who
will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: 2
Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince,
rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time
will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to
their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up
for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the
truth, and be turned aside to fables.
NKJV
> > I did and still do.
>
> Prove it one more time or retire through the door wearing a label "I am a liar'
It seems you know I did prove it and now you want me to obey you and
do it again, you have no authority to ask or demand anything. What it
does show is that YOU are the LIAR and do not want to be alone as the
only one that is lying. You can look in the mirror and tell yourself
that label over and over again if you like. The proof has been
provided, you do the homework and you find it. I have no need to do
it one more time. Then anyone wanting more information, just read and
read again this post, I am posting here now.
I wonder are you going to show your real self again and use the F
word, as you did before yesterdays post. Then you do not have to
prove it again, as you made it clear the above scriptures will come to
pass and your end is not one, I would want for myself, you make up
your own mind and your own path in life and death.
So sorry.
Raymond
Bob Young
On 1/16/10 1:56 AM, in article
f69c4c96-a4e5-4dfb...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com, "RWKnapp"
<rwk...@aim.com> wrote:
More of the same unsubstantiated throwbacks to early mythology
Sorry won't do for those who believe. Yes we believe - we believe in logic
and common sense; supported by a tad of proof.
nd pay their
> taxes and such. God is a judge and will judge the earth and punish
> the earth and those that break His laws and have told God to mind His
> own business, people that do evil will suffer, nations that do evil
> will suffer as seen in that Bible you do not want to accept, but will
> happen in the future such will happen no matter what you say or think.
> Deut 32:39-41
Well I say and think that is ancient codswallop. AND you have no proof and
you know it.
OH N O Not that con again.
Have you people NO SHAME ~~ !!!!! ?????
you have no authority to ask or demand anything. What it
> does show is that YOU are the LIAR and do not want to be alone as the
> only one that is lying. You can look in the mirror and tell yourself
> that label over and over again if you like. The proof has been
> provided, you do the homework and you find it.
If you had the proof you would be screaming here asnd from the roof tops.
I have no need to do
> it one more time. Then anyone wanting more information, just read and
> read again this post, I am posting here now.
>
> I wonder are you going to show your real self again and use the F
> word, as you did before yesterdays post.
Well you can be so frustrating with your lies there sooner or later comes a
time when people boil over. Try posting honestly here and no one will
Then you do not have to
> prove it again, as you made it clear the above scriptures will come to
> pass and your end is not one, I would want for myself, you make up
> your own mind and your own path in life and death.
That approach has been worn out to death a million times this past thousand
years. No matter how many times it is trotted out it has no more substance
now than it did when some preacher way back at a time unknown trotted it out
for the very first time.
We are not children Raymond, so please do not treat us as such.
As an eight year old at school I remember the 'Mistress' teaching us about
The Baby Jesus and the Five Wise men who traveled from afar following a star
to reach him, and I swallowed it hook line and sinker.
I am now nearly eighty and have grown wiser, I can recognize a con when I
see one.
What bothers me more these days is the fact that this trash is still taught
to youngsters.
Verily I say unto you,
�Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God
as a little child, he shall not enter therein�.
(Mark 10:15)
"Immature and defenseless children are early indoctrinated with religious
ideas by their parents, grandparents, Sunday school teachers, etc. By
adulthood they become convinced that they possess the truth, and spend the
rest of their lives elaborating and defending their religion."
[C. W. Dalton, "The Right Brain and Religion"]
Bob
>
> So sorry.
>
> Raymond
>
Fred A Stover
> On 1/16/10 1:56 AM, in article
> f69c4c96-a4e5-4dfb...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com,
> "RWKnapp" <rwk...@aim.com> wrote:
>
>>> On 1/13/10 12:41 PM, in article
>>> b19b006c-29e1-4e61-bc08-df679864b...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com,
>>> "RWKnapp"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> (Mark 10:15)
>
> "Immature and defenseless children are early indoctrinated with
> religious ideas by their parents, grandparents, Sunday school
> teachers, etc. By adulthood they become convinced that they possess
> the truth, and spend the rest of their lives elaborating and
> defending their religion." [C. W. Dalton, "The Right Brain and
> Religion"]
>
> Bob
I'm sitting here reading your post and eating one of the cookies just sent
to me by a woman who died years ago and feeling greatful that I'm not as
gullible as you.
--
His,
More @ www.selah-tx.net
ho echon ota akoueto Preparing the way of the
Lord
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever
shall not receive the kingdom of God
as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
(Mark 10:15)
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<)))))))><.
>
>
>>
>> So sorry.
>>
>> Raymond