THE NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER

[Donna Kupp]

A thousand may pray until their knees are bloody, but if they are not
keeping His Commandments, God says their prayer is an abomination to
Him. Yet the prayers of one one man who abides in Him can change the
lives and circumstances of many:

"The effectual fervent prayer of a RIGHTEOUS man availeth much."
James 5:16 KJV

“Little children, let no one deceive you. He who DOES RIGHT is
RIGHTEOUS.” 1 John 3:7 RSV

[vince garcia]

Sounds good, doesn't it? SOUNDS like something a believer in Christ
might really say.

But what is the truth behind what Donna Kupp teaches and believes?

How can we know if this woman is of God or actually a false teacher when
she speaks?

Paul gives us the answer:

2 cor 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve
through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the
simplicity that is in Christ.
4 For if he that cometh preacheth ANOTHER JESUS, whom we have not
preached, or if ye receive ANOTHER SPIRIT, which ye have not received,
or ANOTHER GOSPEL, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with
him.

2 cor 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming
themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of
light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed
as the MINISTERS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS; whose end shall be according to their
works.

Donna Kupp, for those who do not know, is a woman preaching a false
gospel with a false Christ that denies virtually every possible
essential of the Christian faith.

Note here paul's words about false teachers: they will actually be
"MINISTERS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS"!!!!! Not antinomians, teaching lawlessness
and freedom to sin, but MINISTERS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, teaching an
apparently good-sounding Gospel that is actually ANOTHER GOSPEL about
ANOTHER JESUS!

Let us test Donna Kupp's own words against the doctrines of
the New Testament and the Christian church, and see if we can determine
whether she is a servant of God, or actually a minister of Satan!

1. First, Paul warns that a minister of Satan will teach "ANOTHER
JESUS."

Is Donna Kupp's Jesus YOUR Jesus? Or is her Jesus the Jesus of
Scripture?

While Donna Kupp just made a number of statements sound like something a
real Christian might make, we cannot make a judgment whether she is or
is not a true Christian based only on what she just posted here. We must
determine if she really teaches the same Jesus REAL Christians follow by
looking at statements she, herself, has made about Christ in the past,
that she may not throw out on a regular basis, because she knows it
reveals what she REALLY thinks about Christ.

So what does she actually say about the Jesus she follows, and
supposedly places faith in?

This...

>"In the beginning was Jesus

> and Jesus was with THE RULER,

> and Jesus was Ruler.

> The same was in the beginning with THE RULER."
>John was teaching that Jesus was our Ruler (our theos) and that
>Jesus was with the Father from the very beginning of creation.
>(Not that Jesus was one third of some mysterious and mind-
>boggling "Trinity" that no one had ever heard of.)

We can stop right there. Donna Kupp, denying the deity of Christ,
rewrites the Gospel of John in a manner that affirms that denial, so we
can either change all our Bibles to her new trenslation that "proves"
Jesus is NOT fully God, but some other sort of created lesser being, or
we can allow the sacred words of the apostle John to stand AS WRITTEN!

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the WORD
WAS GOD.

So we see her Jesus is ANOTHER JESUS that orthodox Protestants and
Evangelicals DO NOT believe in.

For US, Jesus is God in flesh, fully God and fully man, and 2nd Person
of the Trinity she goes on to mock and deny.


2. Next, Paul warns that a minister of Satan will teach or operate under
a "DIFFERENT SPIRIT".

Does Donna Kupp teach and receive anoining by the same Holy Spirit that
REAL Christians follow?

Judge for yourself by her own words.

> The concept that the Holy Spirit is God is based on a single verse in
> Acts (5:3) where it says that Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit - and
> later it says that he lied to God.
> To conclude that the Holy Spirit is God on the basis of those verses is
> merely an interpretation which adds to what is actually written. Since
> the Spirit is the means of communciation between God and man, if you
> lie to the Spirit you are in effect lying to God. Are there any verses
> which actually say that the Holy Spirit is God?
> Not one!
> Jesus did not teach the Trinity, the apostles did not teach it, and it
> was not taught by church leaders for three hundred years after the
> death of Christ.

All REAL Christians believe not only in the deity of Christ, but also
the Godhood of the Holy Spirit. As we see from her own words, Donna
Kupp denies those two essentials of the faith, and proclaims the Holy
Spirit is only some nebulous "means of communication between God and
man"

So now we see she has fulfilled the SECOND warning of Paul--she has
A DIFFERENT SPIRIT than REAL Christians do.

By the way, her LIES about the history of the Trinity are instantly
refutable:

The deity of Christ was EXPLICITLY taught by Ignatius in the early 2nd
century

"To the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by
the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God"
"FOR OUR GOD, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God�s
plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit"

Letter to the Ephesians 1 110 AD

False teacher kupp also adds:

> There is no record of the co-equal, co-eternal, three-in-one God
> being taught by a single one of the early church fathers. It
> was not a part of Christian teaching until it was formulated by the
> Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 381.A.D.

For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to
the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their
disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty . . . and in one
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in
the Holy Spirit

Irenaeus, before 200 AD

And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for
the unity is distributed in a TRINITY. Placed in order, the three are
the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition,
but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of
one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one
God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"

Tertullian "Against Praxeas" early 200s AD

For Scripture as much announces Christ AS ALSO GOD, as it announces God
himself as man. It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as
moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it
does not set forth him to be the Son of God only, but also the son of
man; nor does it only say, the son of man, but it has also been
accustomed to speak of him as the Son of God. So that being of both, he
is both, lest if he should be one only, he could not be the other. For
as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who
is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that he must be believed
to be God who is of God. . . . Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus
Christ the son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called
also God and the Son of God"

Novatian, Treatise on the Trinity 11 235 AD

And now the capstone to Kupp's historial and TEXTUAL illiteracy:

The Lord says: 'I and the Father are one.' And again of the Father and
Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: 'And these three are one'.
Cyprian --Treatise 1 on the unity of the Catholic Church, chapter 6,
early 3rd century, PROVING THE LEGITIMACY OF THE COMMA JOHANNEUM KUPP
(and other historical illiterates) SAY IS A FRAUD.


3. The minister of Satan will also teach "ANOTHER GOSPEL."

Does Donna Kupp uphold the CHRISTIAN gospel? We've already seen she
denies and perverts the nature of Jesus Himself and the precious Holy
Spirit. But what is her actual gospel message? She talks about
obedience, and making Jesus Lord...but what does she really believe
about sin, justification, and sanctification? Does she ever lay out her
beliefs in clear language so the body of Christ can see and judge
whether she is or is not a fellow believer?

Yes!

Again, these are her own words:

>To be saved is the first step in the process of salvation. Those who
>are saved do not have eternal life -

Did you get that? THOSE WHO ARE SAVED ___DO NOT___HAVE ETERNAL LIFE!!!

LET'S CONTRAST THAT WITH SCRIPTURE:

jn 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, HATH eternal life;
and I will raise him up at the last day.

1 jn 5:13 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.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of
yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

More from Donna Jupp:

> "If one who is born of God has truly repented of committing sin
> (chosen to cease from sin) and then deliberately commits sin he has
> despised the Holy Spirit, just as the OT the Israelites despised the
> Law of God. It is blasphemy!"
> "When we are converted all past sins are forgiven. After a person is
> born-again, only sins of ignorance are forgiven. If a person sins
> with knowledge and intent after that time, they have blasphemed
> the Holy Spirit and there is no more sacrifice for sin. See Hebrews
> 6:1-8; Hebrews 10:26-31."

LET'S CONTRAST THAT WITH SCRIPTURE:

Gal 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves
are ALSO FOUND SINNERS, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God
forbid.

Apparently, paul understood that even those justified in Christ STILL
SINNED!

Are we sure? Well, let's again test the doctrine of donna kupp by paul's
own words, written in the last months of his life:

1 tim 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation,
that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I AM
CHIEF.

Wait a minute--I thought Donna said any Christian who willingly commits
even ONE SIN is eternally damned!

Apparently, paul did not realize this when he acknowledged he was the
WORST of sinners in 67 AD when he wrote this, 30+ years after finding
Christ! Thus, he must have been guilty of blaspheming the spirit
according to false teachers harold and donna kupp

What else did Paul have to say about whether Christians do or do not
commit sin in romans 7?

18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing:
for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I
find not.

19 For the good that I would I do not: BUT THE EVIL WHICH I WOULD NOT,
____THAT I DO___.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin
that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with
me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my
mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my
members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this
death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I
myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Does THAT sound like a man who has reached the state of sinless
perfection like Donna Kupp, who claims any sin she commits is 100%
accidental and unintentional??????

And this is her ultimate blasphemy regarding the blood of Christ...

> Blood of Christ covers: 1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light,
> as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the
> blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. (Only sins
> of ignorance)

Notice how donna kupp added the words "Only sins of ignorance" to
pervert John's words? Just as she did with the powerful passage in John
1:1, she rejects the message and inserts her own heretical words flat
out CONTRADICTING what was actually written! John says Christ's blood
cleanses us from ALL sin; Donna adds words to change it to all
UNINTENTIONAL sins, making the blood of Christ LIMITED in its ability to
atone for sin.

Kupp also has missed what Jesus said about how imperfect His followers
will always be:

Luke 4:4 And FORGIVE US OUR SINS; for we also forgive every one that is
indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from
evil.

Meanwhile, THIS is God's true message of salvation:

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become
the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

And while Donna Kupp blasphemes the gospel by claiming we keep--and
actually earn--our salvation through keeping the 10 commandments
perfectly, here is what the SCRIPTURE says about how we stay in right
standing security with God:

1 peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a
lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not
away, reserved in heaven for you,
5 WHO ARE KEPT BY THE POWER OF GOD __THROUGH FAITH__ UNTO SALVATION
ready to be revealed in the last time.

So now we see her "gospel" IS NOT the gospel of the New testament. It is
a false gospel that...

A. Requires Bible verses to be rewritten in a heretical manner.
B. Requires adding a clarification to Scripture that TOTALLY overturns
what the Scripture actually SAYS.
C. Must deny the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit.
D. Requires remaining in a state of salvation by keeping the 10
commandments PERFECTLY, or else the person is now damned without
possibility of repentance.
E. Blasphemes and limits the atoning power of Christ's blood to
"Only sins of ignorance."


4. As we noted, Paul says the MINISTER OF SATAN will actually appear to
be a MINISTER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS! That is what makes them so deceptive.
They are serpents in the guise of sheep, preaching righteous living and
'keeping God's holy law' while in their hearts is satan himself, drawing
people away from TRUE righteousness, to a perverted notion of it based
on keeping commandments!

Take a look at Donna Kupp's deceptive posts, including this one. Every
one touts the keeping of biblical commandments, threatens people with
damnation for failing to keep biblical commandments, and threatenes them
with damnation if anyone should ever--EVEN ONE TIME--willingly BREAK a
biblical commandment.

So Kupp APPEARS to be preaching the righteousness of 'keeping God's holy
commandments'...yet she does it in a way that is an UTTER PERVERSION of
the gospel of grace, and comes right from the mouth of satan speaking
good things, and making her LOOK like a minister of righetousness.

So, summing it up, Paul says that a minister of satan will...

Preach another Jesus...
Preach under another spirit...
And preach a different gospel...
While appearing to be a minister of righteousness while doing so!

I believe Donna Kupp meets ALL FOUR CRITERIA.

Based on the totality of her teachings, I see no conclusion other than
that the "Jesus" she follows is a demon spirit, and the "Yahweh" she
speaks for is actually SATAN.



I am dead to the law by the crucified body of Christ. Are you?

[duke]

On Thu, 03 May 2012 17:06:01 -0700, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>Donna Kupp wrote:
>>
>> A thousand may pray until their knees are bloody, but if they are not
>> keeping His Commandments, God says their prayer is an abomination to
>> Him. Yet the prayers of one one man who abides in Him can change the
>> lives and circumstances of many:
>>
>> "The effectual fervent prayer of a RIGHTEOUS man availeth much."
>> James 5:16 KJV
>>
>> “Little children, let no one deceive you. He who DOES RIGHT is
>> RIGHTEOUS.” 1 John 3:7 RSV
>
>Sounds good, doesn't it? SOUNDS like something a believer in Christ
>might really say.
>
>But what is the truth behind what Donna Kupp teaches and believes?

If it dovetails into everything else in the bible.

duke, American - American

*****
1 John 3:4-6
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
sin has either seen him or known him.
*****

[Steve Hayes]

We know what Vince Garcia DOESN'T believe.

We know Vince Garcia doesn't believe what Elder{:}Child believes.

We know Vince Garcia doesn't believe what Donna Kupp believes.

But what DOES Vince Garcia believe?

THAT is the question.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Eastern-Orthodoxy/

What Beliefs do Eastern Orthodox Christians Hold in Common with the
Augustinian/Reformed Tradition?
- The inspiration of Scripture
- The two natures of Christ
- The historical uniqueness of Christ's death on the cross
- Christ's physical resurrection
- Our future hope of eternal life
- And all the early Christian creeds.
- Like Eastern Orthodoxy, we also hold in common the view that the
rejection of the Trinity constitutes
heresy.


What Beliefs do Eastern Orthodox Christians (EOC) Hold in Contrast to
the Augustinian/Reformed Tradition?
- EOC reject the Biblical teaching of the natural man's bondage to a
corruption of nature, embrace free will
and reject the Doctrines of Grace.
- EOC reject the Biblical doctrine of predestination. But like
Arminians believe that when the Bible speaks of
Predestination, it speaks of divine foreknowledge of the sinner's
choice.
- With regard to their soteriology, EOC, like Arminians, are
synergistic in their view of regeneration. In
other words, they embrace the teaching that man and God cooperate to
bring about the new birth.
- EOC reject the doctrine of justification by grace alone through
faith alone. Rather, "theosis" (becoming
God) or the progressive transformation of people into full likeness
to
God, in soul and body, takes
prominence. Regeneration & sanctification is viewed as a part of
justification.
- EOC reject the biblical idea (Romans 5) of inherited (imputed)
guilt; They believe, rather, that we are
guilty only for our own sins rather as a result of the consequences
of
Adam's fall.
- EOC unapologeticly hold that they are the one true church of Christ
on earth, which alone has guarded
right belief and true worship in absolute identity and unbroken
succession with the apostolic church. In
other words, Evangelicals have lapsed from the true faith into error,
if not outright heresy, according to
Orthodox believers. The salvation of non-Orthodox is, therefore, in
question.
- EOC hold to baptismal regeneration - no one can be saved unless he
is baptized with water.
- EOC reject Sola Scriptura. Orthodoxy affirms a single source of
revelation, holy tradition, of which
Scripture is the preeminent among several forms. The other forms of
tradition include the first seven
ecumenical councils, patristic writings, especially those of the
first
four centuries; later councils; icons; the
Liturgy; and canon law. The Protestant view which raises Scripture
above tradition as final authority in
matters of doctrine is considered by Orthodox as the sin of the
Reformation.
- EOC teach that there are seven sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation,
Holy Eucharist, Confession,
Ordination, Marriage, and Holy Unction
- Like Romans Catholics, EOC believe the Eucharist is a true,
propitiatory sacrifice.
- Veneration given to icons. For EOC, icons have always been a part
of
church tradition so this tradition is
considered on par with Scripture. In other words, we can only
conclude
that Eastern Orthodoxy is an inconsistent, unbiblical substitute for
a
Christ-centered Biblical Christianity.

["what does"]

"so this tradition is considered on par with Scripture. In other words, we
can only conclude that Eastern Orthodoxy is an inconsistent, unbiblical
substitute for a Christ-centered Biblical Christianity."

The conclusion does not derive from the presumption.

The church holds scripture as being part of tradition not on par nor aside
of it. It is a false dichotomy to oppose "tradition" and scripture.

All the
practices said to be "tradition" are found in scripture. The teachings and
practices were in place before scripture was committed to document form.
Scripture reports on what was already in place. That witness of christians
in faith and practice has an unbroken 2000 year history.

["what does"]

"Theosis and theotokos are not in scripture."

The list of supposed "traditions" did not include these. But having evoked
the question they are fully found there. Please don't evoke "if the exact
name doesn't appear it isn't in scripture" excuse.

["what does"]

> "Theosis and theotokos are not in scripture."
>
> The list of supposed "traditions" did not include these. But having
evoked
> the question they are fully found there. Please don't evoke "if the
exact
> name doesn't appear it isn't in scripture" excuse.

"It is up to you to show all the scripture involved, so rather than have
you prove two Just do one, Theosis. Take all your steps of theosis and show
exactly the scripture that supports it. Use the EO doctrines, like the one
the monk/Bishop wrote. There are no similar names in scripture either."

It means to become Christ like, as He directed,ie. sanctification. I'm
sure you know where in scripture this is found, or do you deny it? Proof
texting is not in scripture as you request. To evoke the practice is to
request a modern inovation.

"There is no worship of Mary in any shape or form in the NT either."

Ah, you said just one and picked it. Now you want to double dip, shame.

Correct, and it is not taught as part of any doctrine. While you have
evoked the second one, it means "God bearer", ie. the one who bore God in
her womb. That would be mother of God in common usage. Guess who?

"Your reply will be the third one after which this thread is complete"

Typical and completely predictable. Any excuse to cut and run. That is
not in scripture. In fact we are to stand ready to defend what we believe.

[anon...@nowhere.you.know]

> All the practices said to be "tradition" are found in scripture.

"Proof of you equivocating."

Proof of any excuse not to engage when you cann't reasonably engage,
leaving cut and run.

All the practices are first found in scripture, then they are found in the
unbroken 2000 year christian witness.

Scripture as part of tradition records their roots before scripture was
recorded. Christians did not hold those beliefs because of scripture but
scripture recorded what christians already believed.

To become like Christ and Mary as mother of Christ are there. Not to
mention all those practices of the original post.

[Donna Kupp]

EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT!

Why listen to rumors? We invite you to our free journal, website and
moderated forum:

Forum:

http://groups.google.com/group/Freetruth?hl=en,

Journal:

http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/show.php?i=630302&cat=0

Website:

The Seven Deadly Deceptions Of Counterfeit Christianity
http://www.freetruth.info

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

http://mphilliber.blogspot.com/2010/05/st-basil-great-tradition-should-follow.html

St. Basil the Great: Tradition Should Follow Scripture
St. Basil was a senior pastor in Christ’s Church during the 4th
Century AD. During this stormy time he found himself beset by
opponents on several fronts. During one of the conflicts he wrote a
short little piece, “On the Holy Spirit”. In this work he strove to
counter the pneumatomachoi (fighters against the Spirit). Their
position was that the Son was less than the Father and came after Him
in time, and that the Spirit was underneath the Father and the Son.

While St. Basil was showing that the Father and the Son are
“inseparably joined in name and nature” (34), he made a unexpected
statement about tradition and Scripture. What is surprising is the
position in which he puts tradition:


“…therefore we offer the doxology to the Father with the Son. But we
are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers.
What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of
Scripture, beginning with the evidence which I have just extracted
from the Scriptures and presented to you” (34, emphasis mine-MWP).

Now to give Basil his due, later in “On the Holy Spirit” he made a
case for the equal force of dogmatic pronouncements that “have been
given to us secretly, through apostolic tradition” (98), which then
included a whole host of practices that are nowhere found in the
apostolic writings, nor in the earlier pastors/theologians of the
Church (99ff). Basil got seriously sidetracked in this area because he
followed too closely the maxim lex orandi lex credendi est (the law of
prayer is the law of faith), or to put it in other words, he adhered
to the problematic model: practice establishing principle.

Nevertheless, Basil’s earlier claim to not be content with tradition,
but that the important thing was for the tradition (found in the
Fathers) to follow Scripture, shows that at times a tension-of-
priority between tradition and Scripture existed in the hearts and
minds of the early pastors. In fact, Basil’s statement sounds almost
as if he conceived of a hierarchy of authority: tradition was good,
but above tradition reigned Holy Scripture. That pattern resurfaced in
the Reformation and still, technically, holds the day for classic
Protestant churches. Tradition is good (“Westminster Confession of
Faith and Catechisms”, “Three Forms of Unity”, “Thirty Nine Articles
of Religion”, etc), but Holy Scripture is the final rule of faith and
life.

The trap we must be leery of is the very trap Basil got snagged by in
the later portion of his little book: practice establishing principle.

Mike the Muckraker

[Steve Hayes]

On Fri, 4 May 2012 09:55:19 -0700 (PDT), "jwshe...@satx.rr.com"
<jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:

>What Beliefs do Eastern Orthodox Christians Hold in Common with the
>Augustinian/Reformed Tradition?

Does Vince Garcia belong to either or neither?

[Steve Hayes]

On Fri, 4 May 2012 13:55:31 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:

>Theosis and theotokos are not in scripture.

Neither is Vince Garcia.

So what does Vince Garcia believe?

[Steve Hayes]

On Fri, 4 May 2012 15:59:11 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:

>Sadly you waffled. You use scripture when you think it benefits you and
>otherwise ignore it. In part because you church is *not* based on it by its
>own admission.

Is that what Vince Garcia believes and teaches?

[Steve Hayes]

On 05 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT, anon...@nowhere.you.know wrote:

>> All the practices said to be "tradition" are found in scripture.
>
>"Proof of you equivocating."
>
>Proof of any excuse not to engage when you cann't reasonably engage,
>leaving cut and run.

Does that apply to vince Garcia?

[Steve Hayes]

On Fri, 4 May 2012 19:55:54 -0700 (PDT), "jwshe...@satx.rr.com"
<jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:

>St. Basil the Great: Tradition Should Follow Scripture

So are you saying that Vince Garcia is channelling St Basil the Great?

The question is not what St Basil the Great believes and teaches - he's
written lots of books that you gan go to the library and read.

The question is: what does Vince Garcia believe and teach?

One can make no sense of his criticisms of other people unless one knows where
he himself is coming from.

[pyotr filipivich]

"what does" on 04 May 2012 22:46:46 GMT typed in
alt.christnet.christianlife the following:

Appears to me, that PeterB is ready to defend what he believes. If
only he knew it.

Which seems to put him in the same boat as Vince Garcia: only they
know what they believe, a belief they seem incapable of articulating.
--
pyotr
After the war two Army Chaplains were mustering out. The one said to
the other "Chaplain, it has been a real pleasure serving God with you.
You in your way, and I in His."

[vince garcia]

I guess you're too stupid to read, or you would know.

But this we know about YOU--you're a mouthpiece for satan, a member of a
dead, idolatrous church, and fellow heretic with elder child and Donna
Kupp, defending Godless heresy, and upholding those who deny nearly
every essential of the faith, starting with the hypostatic union.

Enhoiy hell

[vince garcia]

Steve Hayes wrote:
>
> On Fri, 4 May 2012 15:59:11 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>
> >Sadly you waffled. You use scripture when you think it benefits you and
> >otherwise ignore it. In part because you church is *not* based on it by its
> >own admission.
>
> Is that what Vince Garcia believes and teaches?

[vince garcia]

Steve Hayes wrote:
>
> On 05 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT, anon...@nowhere.you.know wrote:
>
> >> All the practices said to be "tradition" are found in scripture.
> >
> >"Proof of you equivocating."
> >
> >Proof of any excuse not to engage when you cann't reasonably engage,
> >leaving cut and run.
>
> Does that apply to vince Garcia?
>
>

[vince garcia]

[vince garcia]

[vince garcia]

Donna Kupp wrote:
>
> A thousand may pray until their knees are bloody, but if they are not
> keeping His Commandments, God says their prayer is an abomination to
> Him. Yet the prayers of one one man who abides in Him can change the
> lives and circumstances of many:
>
> "The effectual fervent prayer of a RIGHTEOUS man availeth much."
> James 5:16 KJV
>
> “Little children, let no one deceive you. He who DOES RIGHT is
> RIGHTEOUS.” 1 John 3:7 RSV

Sounds good, doesn't it? SOUNDS like something a believer in Christ
might really say.

But what is the truth behind what Donna Kupp teaches and believes?

[duke]

On Fri, 4 May 2012 13:55:31 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:

>Theosis and theotokos are not in scripture.

What you're really erroneously saying is that they are not in your strong's. The
concepts behind the Greek words are definitely there.

[duke]

On Fri, 4 May 2012 14:35:13 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:

>It is up to you to show all the scripture involved, so rather than have you
>prove two Just do one, Theosis. Take all your steps of theosis and show
>exactly the scripture that supports it. Use the EO doctrines, like the one
>the monk/Bishop wrote. There are no similar names in scripture either.
>

>There is no worship of Mary in any shape or form in the NT either.

That's right. Mary is not worshipped.

>Your reply will be the third one after which this thread is complete

>between you and I, and if you waffle I will accept it as proof that you
>cannot support your doctrine biblically. Or use a different reader and it
>can continue.

[duke]

On Fri, 4 May 2012 15:59:11 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:

>Here is what you snipped, and what I have been saying for quite a while.
>[ Your reply will be the third one after which this thread is complete
>[ between you and I, and if you waffle I will accept it as proof that you

>[ cannot support your doctrine biblically. Or use a different reader and it
>[ can continue.
>

>Sadly you waffled. You use scripture when you think it benefits you and
>otherwise ignore it. In part because you church is *not* based on it by its
>own admission.
>

>However, if response to JWSheffield

>>
>> All the practices said to be "tradition" are found in scripture.
>

>Proof of you equivocating.
>End of thread. (our part)

There you go again - running away like the coward you are when you're faced with
facts you didn't know.

[duke]

On Sat, 05 May 2012 06:29:12 +0200, Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 4 May 2012 09:55:19 -0700 (PDT), "jwshe...@satx.rr.com"
><jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>What Beliefs do Eastern Orthodox Christians Hold in Common with the
>>Augustinian/Reformed Tradition?
>
>Does Vince Garcia belong to either or neither?

I think he quit some time back.

[vince garcia]

At least in theory. But I think you know there are many who cross the
line INTO flat out worship.

"Blessed Virgin, please heal me of cancer" is an idolatrous prayer.

"Blessed Virgin, please add your prayers to mine, and intercede with
your Son to heal me of cancer" is NOT an idolatrous prayer.

But a vast number of people would pray the first prayer, rather than the
second one, and that is the problem

[Steve Hayes]

On Sat, 05 May 2012 05:04:17 -0700, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>I guess you're too stupid to read, or you would know.

Well, that's a unique statement of faith.

[pyotr filipivich]

vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> on Sat, 05 May 2012 05:03:47
-0700 typed in alt.christnet.christianlife the following:

>Steve Hayes wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 4 May 2012 19:55:54 -0700 (PDT), "jwshe...@satx.rr.com"
>> <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >St. Basil the Great: Tradition Should Follow Scripture
>>
>> So are you saying that Vince Garcia is channelling St Basil the Great?
>>
>> The question is not what St Basil the Great believes and teaches - he's
>> written lots of books that you gan go to the library and read.
>>
>> The question is: what does Vince Garcia believe and teach?
>>
>> One can make no sense of his criticisms of other people unless one knows where
>> he himself is coming from.
>>
>> --
>> Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
>> Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
>> E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
>
>
>I guess you're too stupid to read, or you would know.

Well, that is a cogent, thoughtful and life affirming rebuttal.
Not to mention the essence of Christian humility, love and compassion.

>
>But this we know about YOU--you're a mouthpiece for satan, a member of a
>dead, idolatrous church, and fellow heretic with elder child and Donna
>Kupp, defending Godless heresy, and upholding those who deny nearly
>every essential of the faith, starting with the hypostatic union.

So, you say.

But what do _you_ Vince Garcia, actually believe?

Is Jesus just a man who said good things? (Obviously not,by the
way you write.)

Is the purpose of Christianity to allow people to avoid hell, or
to reunite with God?

[pyotr filipivich]

vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> on Sat, 05 May 2012 05:04:23

-0700 typed in alt.christnet.christianlife the following:

He's repeating himself, with a canned' response. That would seem
to me, to indicate that he really doesn't know what he believes, just
that if he repeats the script often enough, it will convince others.

[duke]

On Sat, 05 May 2012 06:44:42 -0700, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

No, I've NEVER met a person in my life that even came close to making a
reference to worshiping Mary.

>"Blessed Virgin, please heal me of cancer" is an idolatrous prayer.

Never heard that one either. Now there can be a lot of "please ask your son
Jesus to cure me of cancer".

>"Blessed Virgin, please add your prayers to mine, and intercede with
>your Son to heal me of cancer" is NOT an idolatrous prayer.

Agreed.

>But a vast number of people would pray the first prayer, rather than the
>second one, and that is the problem

Not a Catholic. We all know better. Only a totally confused and unlearned
person would consider using the first.

[duke]

On Sat, 5 May 2012 08:53:34 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:

>Then stop praying to her, and burning incense to her.

100% of all prayer to Mary is to ask her to pray to her son along side us for
some purpose. Mary has no divinity, dumbass.

And burning incense is not individualized, but an "representation" of our
prayers and gifts being carried "upward to the Father"

You're making a real unlearned fool on this one, pete.

>Volumes have been written to her and she is bowed down to my every RC, and
>they call her Immaculate.

No bowing. The closest you can get is to view one speaking to a photo of a
deceased loved one. You might refer to such actions as representative of
considering the pictured in high esteem.

>>>Your reply will be the third one after which this thread is complete
>>>between you and I, and if you waffle I will accept it as proof that you
>>>cannot support your doctrine biblically. Or use a different reader and it
>>>can continue.

Run, pete, run.

[duke]

On Sat, 5 May 2012 08:55:01 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:

>On Sat, 05 May 2012 07:39:51 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 4 May 2012 13:55:31 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>>
>>>On 04 May 2012 20:23:48 GMT, what does wrote:
>>>
>>>> "so this tradition is considered on par with Scripture. In other words, we
>>>> can only conclude that Eastern Orthodoxy is an inconsistent, unbiblical
>>>> substitute for a Christ-centered Biblical Christianity."
>>>>
>>>> The conclusion does not derive from the presumption.
>>>>
>>>> The church holds scripture as being part of tradition not on par nor aside
>>>> of it. It is a false dichotomy to oppose "tradition" and scripture.
>>>>
>>>> All the
>>>> practices said to be "tradition" are found in scripture. The teachings and
>>>> practices were in place before scripture was committed to document form.
>>>> Scripture reports on what was already in place. That witness of christians
>>>> in faith and practice has an unbroken 2000 year history.
>>>
>>>Theosis and theotokos are not in scripture.
>>
>> What you're really erroneously saying is that they are not in your strong's. The
>> concepts behind the Greek words are definitely there.

>nope if it was you could prove it.

One liners of weak linkage is a dead giveaway.

[vince garcia]

Steve Hayes wrote:
>
> On Sat, 05 May 2012 05:04:17 -0700, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I guess you're too stupid to read, or you would know.
>
> Well, that's a unique statement of faith.
>

I have been posting here for 15 years, and my theology is on record.

But I guess you're so ignorant (no surprise) that I have to take your
hand and walk your mental retardation through the very clearly
articulated theological points of my post you criticized-- apparently
without reading; or else could not understand because of an incapability
of English reading and comprehension.

I hope these words and concepts are not too difficult for you, so to
condense it into something you might be aable to understand, you will
see that I uphold and proclaim the following doctrines in the post to
Donna Kupp, whose proud defender you show yourself to be:

The full deity of Christ, and the Hypostatic Union. (If you don't
understand what the Hypostatic Union is--big words for you, I know--I
suggest looking up the term online.)


Salvation by faith, apart from perfect keeping of the 10 comamndments.

(If you don't understand that man is incapable of keeping even 10
comamdnments to God's standard to earn justifiation, I suggest you go
online to a Christian web site and learn about justification through
faith and grace.)




The blood of Christ cleansing from ALL sin, willful AND unintentional.

(If you do not comprehend that when John says that Christ's blood
cleanses "ALL" sin, and Donan Kupp is wrong when she rewrites that to
all "unintentional sin," I again suggest you go online to a Christian
web site and learn about justification.)


Orthodox interpretation of scripture on matters of hamartology,
soteriology. and justification.

I know those are big words for you. Please look them up online.

Denunciation of Donna Kupp's historical illiteracy when she says:

> There is no record of the co-equal, co-eternal, three-in-one God
> being taught by a single one of the early church fathers.

Note that: "NO RECORD"

Now, I know you don't know much about ancient Christian history to know
when someone is LYING when they make that claim, so for your benefit I
have shared some of my decades of study on the subject for you, and
refuted it with some Patristic quotes, including the first use of the
word "Trinity" In Christian writings from the 2nd century.

However, you can, if you wish, continue to stand with Kupp, and hold
that:

> There is no record of the co-equal, co-eternal, three-in-one God
> being taught by a single one of the early church fathers.

I know I've presented some complicated words and points for you in this
post, but I've tried to make the post as simple as I can for your simple
level of comprehension.

Let me know if I can be of further help.

[vince garcia]

Duke...ALL the catholics I knew in my youth, including myself, would
have prayed that first prayer. Now that was the 60s, so I can only speak
to what I observed in the faith then.

If you're saying the average catholic today is so educated in his faith
that he would never pray that way, I don;t know that I can swallow that

[Jim]

duke wrote:
>
[....]

>
> No, I've NEVER met a person in my life that even came close to making a
> reference to worshiping Mary.
>

[....]

>
> Not a Catholic. We all know better.

[....]
>
> duke, American - American

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=catholic+wordhiping+mary&view=detail&id=3DDC508D77D21D79324BC15E6EDC5C24FB0F5A17&first=0&qpvt=catholic+wordhiping+mary&FORM=IDFRIR

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---

[duke]

On Sat, 05 May 2012 11:35:11 -0700, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>The full deity of Christ, and the Hypostatic Union. (If you don't
>understand what the Hypostatic Union is--big words for you, I know--I
>suggest looking up the term online.)

Well, vince, do you know?

>Salvation by faith, apart from perfect keeping of the 10 comamndments.

To hell you say. That's not at all what the bible says.

[vince garcia]

oops--one correction...the quote of the trinity is from the early 3rd
century, not the 2nd.

[vince garcia]

duke wrote:
>
> On Sat, 05 May 2012 11:35:11 -0700, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The full deity of Christ, and the Hypostatic Union. (If you don't
> >understand what the Hypostatic Union is--big words for you, I know--I
> >suggest looking up the term online.)
>
> Well, vince, do you know?
>
> >Salvation by faith, apart from perfect keeping of the 10 comamndments.
>
> To hell you say. That's not at all what the bible says.

ok...so you agree with kupp that perfect keeping of the 10 comamdnments
is required for salvation, and that the blood of christ can only cover
UNINTENTIONAL sin?

[duke]

On Sat, 05 May 2012 11:52:36 -0700, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>

wrote:

>duke wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 05 May 2012 11:35:11 -0700, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The full deity of Christ, and the Hypostatic Union. (If you don't
>> >understand what the Hypostatic Union is--big words for you, I know--I
>> >suggest looking up the term online.)
>>
>> Well, vince, do you know?
>>
>> >Salvation by faith, apart from perfect keeping of the 10 comamndments.
>>
>> To hell you say. That's not at all what the bible says.
>
>ok...so you agree with kupp that perfect keeping of the 10 comamdnments
>is required for salvation, and that the blood of christ can only cover
>UNINTENTIONAL sin?

I don't know what Donna says. But I do know that the 10 commandments are God's
input into proper living. Abraham didn't have them and he was saved because
he simply believed God. The Jews needed 639 new rules to use to follow them the
10 commandments. And Christians know that they reflect God's love of us and so
follow them in our hearts..

So if you think you can violate 1 or more of the 10 commandments of God and get
away with it, I suggest you dress for a hot eternity. I recommend an asbestos
suit for you. Not that it would help.

[vince garcia]

duke wrote:
>
> On Sat, 05 May 2012 11:52:36 -0700, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >duke wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 05 May 2012 11:35:11 -0700, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The full deity of Christ, and the Hypostatic Union. (If you don't
> >> >understand what the Hypostatic Union is--big words for you, I know--I
> >> >suggest looking up the term online.)
> >>
> >> Well, vince, do you know?
> >>
> >> >Salvation by faith, apart from perfect keeping of the 10 comamndments.
> >>
> >> To hell you say. That's not at all what the bible says.
> >
> >ok...so you agree with kupp that perfect keeping of the 10 comamdnments
> >is required for salvation, and that the blood of christ can only cover
> >UNINTENTIONAL sin?
>
> I don't know what Donna says. But I do know that the 10 commandments are God's
> input into proper living. Abraham didn't have them and he was saved because
> he simply believed God. The Jews needed 639 new rules to use to follow them the
> 10 commandments. And Christians know that they reflect God's love of us and so
> follow them in our hearts..

i have no big issue with what you say here

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 5, 1:45 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

"Salvation by faith, apart from perfect keeping of the 10
comamndments.


To hell you say. That's not at all what the bible says."

Eph 2:9 -Not of works,

lest any man should boast.

Methinks! some like to boast.

http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/II/2-9.htm

Justification Before God and Men
Our justification before God and before our fellow men are not the
same. Before God we are justified by faith without works (Rom. 3:28;
4:5, 6). Before men we are justified by works and not by faith only
(James 2:24). As soon as the sinner accepts Christ by faith, his name
is inscribed in the Lamb's book of life — he is registered as a member
of the church universal. But in order to join the church on earth,
something more than faith is required. He must show his faith by his
works. Before heaven he is justified by faith. Before men he is
justified by works.

Failure to understand the difference between justification before God
and man has occasioned much misunderstanding over the interpretation
of Paul and James. Paul declares that man is justified by faith. James
says he is justified by works. Unless we understand that one is
speaking of justification before God, and the other of justification
before men, James would appear to flatly contradict Paul. But they
were writing about different issues. Paul is concerned with the
question, "How should man be just with God?" In Romans 3 he says that
the whole world stands guilty "before God," and that by works no man
can be "justified in His sight" (Verses 19, 20). Then in the next
chapter he continues, "If Abraham were justified by works, he hath
whereof to glory; but not before God." Rom. 4:2. It is therefore clear
that Paul is dealing with justification "before God" — right standing
"in His sight."

James addresses himself to another problem. Here were professed
believers hearing the Word without doing it. They were failing to
bring forth the fruit of practical godliness. This was revealed in
their attitude to their fellow men. So the apostle declared:

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and
have not works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked,
and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in
peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those
things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so
faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say,
Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works,
and I will shew thee my faith by my works." James 2:14-18.


Notice that James is dealing with the matter of showing his
faith:" . . . I will show thee my faith by my works." If "faith"
yields no fruit, it is not faith at all, but a counterfeit. So James
continues:

"Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils
also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith
without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works,
when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith
wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the
scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was
imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of
God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by
faith only." James 2:19-24.

In his justification with God, Abraham believed God, and that was
counted unto him for righteousness. But how do we know that his faith
was genuine? How do we know that God's way of making men righteous in
His sight is genuine? Abraham's life of implicit obedience proves
this. It requires faith to obey God in all things.

Writing on the problem of Paul and James, Luther declared:
"Insist on it, then, that inwardly, in the spirit, before God, man is
justified through faith alone, without all work. But outwardly and
publicly, before the people and himself, he is justified through
works, that is, he thereby becomes known and certain himself that he
honestly believes and is pious. Therefore you may call the one a
public justification, and the other an inward justification, but in
this sense that the public justification is only a fruit, a result,
and a proof of the justification in the heart. Accordingly, man is not
justified by it before God but must previously be justified before
Him. Just so you may call the fruits of the tree the obvious goodness
of the tree, which follows and proves its inner, natural goodness.

"This is what St. James means in his Epistle when he says (2:26):
'Faith without works is dead,' that is, the fact that works do not
follow is a certain sign that there is no faith, but a dead thought
and dream, which people falsely call faith." —What Luther Says, vol.3,
pp.1231, 1232.

Paul Justified by Works Before Men

Paul also knew that before men he was justified by his works. He
frequently justified himself before the churches by recounting his
works. To answer his critics, he magnified his office of apostleship
and vindicated his course of action. In this manner of justification,
Paul did not talk of his faith, but he talked of his works. To the
Thessalonian believers he wrote:

"For our exhortation was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor in
guile: but as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the
gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth
our hearts. For neither at any time used we flattering words, as ye
know, nor a cloke of covetousness; God is witness: nor of men sought
we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been
burdensome, as the apostles of Christ. But we were gentle among you,
even as a nurse cherisheth her children: so being affectionately
desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted unto you, not the
gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because ye were dear unto
us. For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for laboring
night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we
preached unto you the gospel of God. Ye are witnesses and God also,
how holily and justly and unblamably we behaved ourselves among you
that believe." 1 Thess. 2:3-10.

Thus was the apostle justified by his works before the Thessalonians.
Then, to answer his critics at Corinth, he wrote:

"Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also. For ye
suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise. For ye suffer, if
a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take of
you, if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face. I speak
as concerning reproach, as though we had been weak. Howbeit
whereinsoever any is bold, (I speak foolishly,) I am bold also. Are
they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed
of Abraham? so am I. Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool)
I am more; in labors, more abundant, in stripes above measure, in
prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received
I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I
stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in
the deep; in journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of
robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen,
in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the
sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and painfulness, in
watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and
nakedness. Beside those things that are without, that which cometh
upon me daily, the care of all the churches." 2 Cor. 11:18-28.

Thus was Paul justified by works before the Corinthians. And in many
other places, and before many other people, Paul showed that he was
justified by works.

No Works Could Justify Before God

When arraigned before his judges and accusers, Paul protested that he
had done nothing worthy of death. He said that his conscience was void
of offence toward God and toward men (Acts 24:16;25:11). But this was
never his plea before God. His blameless life and holy ministry were
not the basis of his right standing before God. So he declared: "I am
not aware of anything against myself, but I am not there by acquitted
[justified — K.J.V.]." 1 Cor. 4:4, R.S.V. He well knew that his
justification before God was by grace alone, by the blood of Christ
alone, and that it was not ever on the basis of what the Holy Spirit
had done in him, but on the basis of God's act of liberation on the
cross in the Person of Christ (See Rom. 3:24, N.E.B.).

God's people must be grounded on this gospel of justification before
Heaven can entrust them with the latter rain, for under the great
outpouring of God's Spirit, signs and wonders will follow the
believers as they proclaim the truth in the might of the Spirit's
power. Yet with Paul they will still confess, "I am not hereby
justified." It requires God's righteousness, all of His righteousness,
to be accepted in His sight. That righteousness is found only in the
Man Christ Jesus. We can rest our salvation on nothing less than His
humiliation, suffering and death. His was not just the humiliation of
a man, but of a God. His excellence of character was infinite, for His
earthly life was the embodiment of divine perfection. His sufferings
were infinite, His death of infinite value. The sacrifice of Christ
amazed the angels. It will be the science, song and wonder of the
redeemed for eternity. Upon this one magnificent and unspeakable Gift
we must base our right standing with God for time and for eternity.
Praise God that there is such a solid ground of hope! What comfort to
know that we need never ground our salvation on anything that is
within us! And to teach us these things God gives the Holy Spirit.

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 5, 12:54 am, Catherine Jefferson <spamt...@spambouncer.org>
wrote:


> On 5/4/2012 8:21 PM, jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com wrote:

> > Justification:
> > The Doctrine of Karl Barth
> > and a Catholic Reflection [Paperback]
> > Hans Küng (Author)


> FYI (since the Orthodox participants here know this), none of these
> individuals is Orthodox Christian. Their teaching and their arguments
> are based on presuppositions some of which Orthodox Christians do not
> share.



Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon me, a sinner.

This prayer is consistent with the Protestant view
of Justification by Faith.


Kyrie Eleison - Christe eleison - Kyrie eleison


When one is without sin, there is no need
to ask for mercy!

[duke]

On Sat, 05 May 2012 17:29:21 -0700, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>

Great.

[duke]

On Sat, 5 May 2012 17:41:31 -0700 (PDT), "jwshe...@satx.rr.com"
<jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:

>On May 5, 1:45 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>"Salvation by faith, apart from perfect keeping of the 10
>comamndments.
>
>
>To hell you say. That's not at all what the bible says."
>
> Eph 2:9 -Not of works,
> lest any man should boast.

>Methinks! some like to boast.

>http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/II/2-9.htm

>Justification Before God and Men
>Our justification before God and before our fellow men are not the
>same. Before God we are justified by faith without works (Rom. 3:28;
>4:5, 6). Before men we are justified by works and not by faith only
>(James 2:24). As soon as the sinner accepts Christ by faith, his name
>is inscribed in the Lamb's book of life — he is registered as a member
>of the church universal. But in order to join the church on earth,
>something more than faith is required. He must show his faith by his
>works. Before heaven he is justified by faith. Before men he is
>justified by works.

I don't see putting too much into this mag. There is no value in "justified by
works before men". If that were ever true, it was in the 639 levi laws which
were abandoned by Jesus on the cross.

Mat 25:31-46 + James 2-14-26 pretty much say it all. If you don't have works,
especially in charity, you don't have faith other than dead faith.

>Failure to understand the difference between justification before God
>and man has occasioned much misunderstanding over the interpretation
>of Paul and James.

Justification is a weird word. My scripture references above are all I really
need for understanding.

[duke]

On Sat, 05 May 2012 11:50:50 -0700, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>oops--one correction...the quote of the trinity is from the early 3rd
>century, not the 2nd.

Does this mean that you don't see the NT gospels revealing the Trinity?

[vince garcia]

Of course they do. I'm only noting one date about one patristic quote i
was going off memory of

[duke]

On Sun, 06 May 2012 08:57:12 -0700, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>

wrote:

>duke wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 05 May 2012 11:50:50 -0700, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >oops--one correction...the quote of the trinity is from the early 3rd
>> >century, not the 2nd.
>>
>> Does this mean that you don't see the NT gospels revealing the Trinity?

>Of course they do. I'm only noting one date about one patristic quote i
>was going off memory of

Oh, ok. I got it.

[duke]

On Sat, 5 May 2012 13:56:40 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:

>Anytime you bend the knee you are bowing.

How close do you have to be? 5 ft? The back of the church? Across the street?
Across the city?

You are in no position to judge the mental state of a person "bending a knee"
before a statue. All Catholics well understand that a statue is nothing more
than a photo in principle and we Catholics hold certain images which remind us
of others in high esteem, but we never worship them.

>Jesus also said that we are to approach the Father in prayer, not Him., in
>the name of Jesus. Yet you disregard His desires.

Did Jesus tell us that we are to pray ONLY to the Father, never to Jesus?

[Steve Hayes]

On Sun, 6 May 2012 22:59:46 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:

>The word of God is your judge, "Bow" means many things prostrate, kneel,
>etc. I will let you research the word for yourself if you even want to
>bother. and the very last verse I put in for you. Yet there are many more.
>You will knot find one word showin alternative ways of worshipping God the
>Father. Not One.

Which of those does Vince Garcia believe and teach?

[Rockinghorse Winner]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but

>> The word of God is your judge, "Bow" means many things prostrate, kneel,
>> etc. I will let you research the word for yourself if you even want to
>> bother. and the very last verse I put in for you. Yet there are many more.
>> You will knot find one word showin alternative ways of worshipping God the
>> Father. Not One.
>>

>>>>Jesus also said that we are to approach the Father in prayer, not Him., in
>>>>the name of Jesus. Yet you disregard His desires.
>>>
>>> Did Jesus tell us that we are to pray ONLY to the Father, never to Jesus?
>>>
>>

>> Yes.
>
> Here are the verses I forgot to enter...
> Lev 26:1 Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up
> a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land,
> to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God.
>
>
> Psa 97:7 Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast
> themselves of idols: worship him, all ye gods.
>
> Psa 106:36 And they served their idols: which were a snare unto them.
>
>
> Psa 135:15 The idols of the heathen are silver and gold, the work of men's
> hands.
>
>
> Eze 6:5 And I will lay the dead carcases of the children of Israel before
> their idols; and I will scatter your bones round about your altars.
>
>
> Eze 6:13 Then shall ye know that I am the LORD, when their slain men shall
> be among their idols round about their altars, upon every high hill, in all
> the tops of the mountains, and under every green tree, and under every
> thick oak, the place where they did offer sweet Savoir to all their idols.
>
>
> Eze 14:6 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD;
> Repent, and turn yourselves from your idols; and turn away your faces from
> all your abominations.
>
> Some RCC types consider themselves Israel
>
> Rev 9:20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues
> yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship
> devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood:
> which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:
>

The history of iconoclasm is a long one. The first proscription against it
of course occurs in the Torah, in the messages that Moses received on Mt.
Sinai. This didn't seem to stop the Israelis from decorating the Ark of the
Covenant with images of 'Cherubim.' Nor does it stop them from decorating
the Temple with the same images.

Obviously the proscription against images is not to be taken absolutely. The
key term is 'worship;' one is not to worship an 'image.' Since all Being can
be referred to God as it's source, it is to God that one must pay ultimate
homage. Any homage that supplants God is idolatry in this sense.

This doesn't mean that one can't pay homage to other things. Certainly, the
same bible which cautions against idolatry, instructs us to 'honor' our
mother and father. Also, the King was honored, as were elders, priests and
others. There is a difference between showing signs of respect and
deference, and making a God of someone or something.

Indeed, it was just such a charge that was made against Christ, that he
being a man was making himself equal to God. As Christians who profess the
Nicene Creed, we believe that Christ is equal to God, because he is the 2nd
Person of a Trinitarian God, and there is no idolatry involved because
Christ is truly God. I suspect you don't subscribe to the Nicene Creed.

There have been some interesting events in Church history related to
iconclasm. In the early Middle Ages, there was a movement by some Eastern
clergy, under the influence of Islam, to outlaw all Christian icons in the
realm. Many icons were smashed or removed, but the policy was very
unpopular with the faithful, and condemed by the Western Church. The Pope
excommunicated these clergy. After some time the Eastern Church relented,
and today the Eastern Orthodox are even more devoted to icons than the
Western Church.

Not only do we have to be cautious about supplanting God with works of art;
we must also be on the lookout for idolizing modern icons like power,
wealth, political leaders, ideologies. It is even possible to idolize
oneself, in which case we become so puffed up with pride - even religious
pride - that we forget the two great commandments of Christ: to have faith
in His word, and to love each other. 'By this all men will know that you
are my disciples...'

Anything that gets in the way of this is an idol of sorts. The really
pernicious form of idolatry is that which masquerades as religiosity, but is
in reality a kind of egotism. Since we all partake of the same sacred meal,
we are all one Body united with Christ as our head. We are not isolated
atoms vying individually for salvation, but members of one body. We are
'saved' to the extent that we exert our energies for the salvation of our
fellows. Only when we die to self and Christ becomes all in all can we
really claim to be 'saved.' This is not easy - it often takes a lifetime.
May God richly bless you in your walk with Christ.

Terry

--
"There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats."
-Albert Schweitzer

badass linux - 3.2.12-gentoo

[duke]

On Sun, 6 May 2012 22:59:46 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:

>> You are in no position to judge the mental state of a person "bending a knee"
>> before a statue. All Catholics well understand that a statue is nothing more
>> than a photo in principle and we Catholics hold certain images which remind us
>> of others in high esteem, but we never worship them.

>The word of God is your judge, "Bow" means many things prostrate, kneel,
>etc. I will let you research the word for yourself if you even want to
>bother.

True but it is not limited to worship. It's also applicable to holding
something in high esteem, which is not worship. Or a good feeling about
something.

> and the very last verse I put in for you. Yet there are many more.
>You will knot find one word showin alternative ways of worshipping God the
>Father. Not One.

We don't worship God by bowing to a statue. ONly you protest_ants think
otherwise.

>>>Jesus also said that we are to approach the Father in prayer, not Him., in
>>>the name of Jesus. Yet you disregard His desires.
>> Did Jesus tell us that we are to pray ONLY to the Father, never to Jesus?

>Yes.

Where did he tell us that? The only thing I can find is the Lord's Prayer,
which is an example, ie, showing us how to pray but not the only prayer.

So do you limit yourself to the Lord's Prayer strictly and completely?

[duke]

On Sun, 6 May 2012 23:02:41 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:

>On Sun, 6 May 2012 22:59:46 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:

>> The word of God is your judge, "Bow" means many things prostrate, kneel,
>> etc. I will let you research the word for yourself if you even want to

>> bother. and the very last verse I put in for you. Yet there are many more.

>> You will knot find one word showin alternative ways of worshipping God the
>> Father. Not One.
>>

>>>>Jesus also said that we are to approach the Father in prayer, not Him., in
>>>>the name of Jesus. Yet you disregard His desires.
>>>
>>> Did Jesus tell us that we are to pray ONLY to the Father, never to Jesus?
>>>
>>

>> Yes.

>Here are the verses I forgot to enter...

Then I invited you to look up "graven image", not "graven" and "image"
separately in the dictionary. "Graven image" is defined.

>Lev 26:1 Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up
>a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land,
>to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God.

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 7 May 2012 10:05:11 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:

>On Mon, 07 May 2012 11:59:04 +0200, Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net>
>wrote:

>
>> On Sun, 6 May 2012 22:59:46 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>>
>>>The word of God is your judge, "Bow" means many things prostrate, kneel,
>>>etc. I will let you research the word for yourself if you even want to
>>>bother. and the very last verse I put in for you. Yet there are many more.
>>>You will knot find one word showin alternative ways of worshipping God the
>>>Father. Not One.
>>
>> Which of those does Vince Garcia believe and teach?
>

>I don't know, never asked him. I would hope both.

Well I did, in this thread, and he hasn't answered, but you seem mto be
answering for him.

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 7 May 2012 23:13:00 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:

>On Tue, 08 May 2012 07:03:32 +0200, Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net>

>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 7 May 2012 10:05:11 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 07 May 2012 11:59:04 +0200, Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 6 May 2012 22:59:46 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The word of God is your judge, "Bow" means many things prostrate, kneel,
>>>>>etc. I will let you research the word for yourself if you even want to
>>>>>bother. and the very last verse I put in for you. Yet there are many more.
>>>>>You will knot find one word showin alternative ways of worshipping God the
>>>>>Father. Not One.
>>>>
>>>> Which of those does Vince Garcia believe and teach?
>>>
>>>I don't know, never asked him. I would hope both.
>>
>> Well I did, in this thread, and he hasn't answered, but you seem mto be
>> answering for him.
>

>I seldom answer for another as I would not want to misrepresent them.

Well you have written several messages in this thread, so if you're messages
are not about the beliefs and teachings of Vince Garcia, perhaps you should
change the subject line.

>You might want to ask him directly. You subject line speaks to "what do you
>all know about him?"

It is patterned after his own messages, with headings like "Who is Donna Kupp
and what does she believe and teach?"

He's dead eager to tell us what other people believe and teach, but seems
singularly reticent about his own beliefs and teachings.

[Steve Hayes]

On Tue, 8 May 2012 00:33:24 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:

>On Tue, 08 May 2012 08:37:36 +0200, Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net>

>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 7 May 2012 23:13:00 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 08 May 2012 07:03:32 +0200, Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 7 May 2012 10:05:11 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 07 May 2012 11:59:04 +0200, Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 6 May 2012 22:59:46 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The word of God is your judge, "Bow" means many things prostrate, kneel,
>>>>>>>etc. I will let you research the word for yourself if you even want to
>>>>>>>bother. and the very last verse I put in for you. Yet there are many more.
>>>>>>>You will knot find one word showin alternative ways of worshipping God the
>>>>>>>Father. Not One.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which of those does Vince Garcia believe and teach?
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't know, never asked him. I would hope both.
>>>>
>>>> Well I did, in this thread, and he hasn't answered, but you seem mto be
>>>> answering for him.
>>>
>>>I seldom answer for another as I would not want to misrepresent them.
>>
>> Well you have written several messages in this thread, so if you're messages
>> are not about the beliefs and teachings of Vince Garcia, perhaps you should
>> change the subject line.
>>
>

>Well he has said where his teachings etc are to be found several times it
>responses to your questions, so I would suppose efforts of studying his
>posts would be the thing to do at this point.

Yes, he posted several times "I guess you're too stupid to read, or you would
know"

And that's about it.

That's a really coherent and well-explained belief system - not.

[Jim]

duke wrote:
>
[.....]

>
> We don't worship God by bowing to a statue. ONly you protest_ants think
> otherwise.
>

[....]
>
> duke, American - American

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=catholic+wordhiping+mary&view=detail&id=3DDC508D77D21D79324BC15E6EDC5C24FB0F5A17&first=0&qpvt=catholic+wordhiping+mary&FORM=IDFRIR



.
.
.

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---

[vince garcia]

Steve Hayes wrote:
>
> On Sat, 05 May 2012 05:04:17 -0700, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I guess you're too stupid to read, or you would know.
>
> Well, that's a unique statement of faith.
>

I have been posting here for 15 years, and my theology is on record.

But I guess you're so ignorant (no surprise) that I have to take your
hand and walk your mental retardation through the very clearly
articulated theological points of my post you criticized-- apparently
without reading; or else could not understand because of an incapability
of English reading and comprehension.

I hope these words and concepts are not too difficult for you, so to
condense it into something you might be able to understand, you will
see that _I_ uphold and proclaim the following doctrines in the post to
Donna Kupp, whose proud defender you show yourself to be:

The full deity of Christ, and the Hypostatic Union. (If you don't
understand what the Hypostatic Union is--big words for you, I know--I
suggest looking up the term online.)

Salvation by faith, apart from perfect keeping of the 10 comamndments.

(If you don't understand that man is incapable of keeping even 10
comamdnments to God's standard to earn justifiation, I suggest you go
online to a Christian web site and learn about justification through
faith and grace.)




The blood of Christ cleansing from ALL sin, willful AND unintentional.

(If you do not comprehend that when John says that Christ's blood
cleanses "ALL" sin, and Donna Kupp is wrong when she rewrites that to
all "unintentional sin," I again suggest you go online to a Christian
web site and learn about justification...you need it)


Orthodox interpretation of scripture on matters of hamartology,
soteriology, and justification.

I know those are big words for you. Please look them up online.

Denunciation of Donna Kupp's historical illiteracy when she says:

> There is no record of the co-equal, co-eternal, three-in-one God
> being taught by a single one of the early church fathers.

Note that: "NO RECORD"

Now, I know you don't know much about ancient Christian history to know
when someone is LYING when they make that claim, so for your benefit I
have shared some of my decades of study on the subject for you, and
refuted it with some Patristic quotes, including the first use of the
word "Trinity" In Christian writings from the 3rd century.

However, you can, if you wish, continue to stand with Kupp, and hold
that:

> There is no record of the co-equal, co-eternal, three-in-one God
> being taught by a single one of the early church fathers.


I know I've presented some complicated words and points for you in this
post, but I've tried to make the post about my perfectly fundamental
theological beliefs as simple as I can for what appears to be an
icon-worshipping member of a dead orthodox church with a juvenile level
of reading and comprehension.

Let me know if I can be of further help to you.

[duke]

On Tue, 08 May 2012 06:04:18 -0700, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

A few words of caution:

>Salvation by faith, apart from perfect keeping of the 10 comamndments.

God laws still stand. If you think you can take your neighbors goods, you're in
trouble.

>The blood of Christ cleansing from ALL sin, willful AND unintentional.

There is no such thing as unintentional. All sins are deliberate acts.

[duke]

On Mon, 7 May 2012 20:12:03 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:

>On Mon, 07 May 2012 13:54:07 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 6 May 2012 22:59:46 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>>
>>>> You are in no position to judge the mental state of a person "bending a knee"
>>>> before a statue. All Catholics well understand that a statue is nothing more
>>>> than a photo in principle and we Catholics hold certain images which remind us
>>>> of others in high esteem, but we never worship them.
>>
>>>The word of God is your judge, "Bow" means many things prostrate, kneel,
>>>etc. I will let you research the word for yourself if you even want to
>>>bother.
>>
>> True but it is not limited to worship. It's also applicable to holding
>> something in high esteem, which is not worship. Or a good feeling about
>> something.
>>
>>> and the very last verse I put in for you. Yet there are many more.
>>>You will knot find one word showin alternative ways of worshipping God the
>>>Father. Not One.
>>
>> We don't worship God by bowing to a statue. ONly you protest_ants think
>> otherwise.

>No, you are "venerating" the other objects, and we all know that you often
>venerate Jesus in the same manner.

You're all confused, pete. Nothing new there. Worship and venerate are two
different things. If you don't know about these things, you should ask
questions and not issue false corrections.

> Thus either lying about venerating
>equals worship, or you are lowering Jesus to a position of a saint of angel
>you think are so hot.

God authorizes all sainthood.

>>>>>Jesus also said that we are to approach the Father in prayer, not Him., in
>>>>>the name of Jesus. Yet you disregard His desires.
>>>> Did Jesus tell us that we are to pray ONLY to the Father, never to Jesus?
>>>Yes.

>> Where did he tell us that? The only thing I can find is the Lord's Prayer,
>> which is an example, ie, showing us how to pray but not the only prayer.

>> So do you limit yourself to the Lord's Prayer strictly and completely?

>Jesus said to pray in this manner.

Yep, "in this manner" is not the same as "to whom".

>It was a training lesson that many do
>not learn and pray that pray like any other prayer in a prayer book.

Are you saying that some prayers are not prayers? Do you know what is prayer
is?

>That
>is a non-relational prayer or discussion, a totally impersonal thing. Oh I
>realize that God in His graciousness will often here a non- believers cry
>for help who use the Lords prayer as the only way they know of addressing
>Him. And fortunately the Holy spirit will fill God in on the details, but
>otherwise in isn't useful. How would you like it if you tried to speak to
>me and at the end of every statement I read a chapter of a book to you?
>That is what repetitive prayers accomplish.

Jesus told us in scripture to pray continuously.

>And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you,
>Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

How about an example of "asking the Father for something in Jesus' name"?

[duke]

On Mon, 7 May 2012 23:13:00 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:

>On Tue, 08 May 2012 07:03:32 +0200, Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net>

>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 7 May 2012 10:05:11 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 07 May 2012 11:59:04 +0200, Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 6 May 2012 22:59:46 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The word of God is your judge, "Bow" means many things prostrate, kneel,
>>>>>etc. I will let you research the word for yourself if you even want to
>>>>>bother. and the very last verse I put in for you. Yet there are many more.
>>>>>You will knot find one word showin alternative ways of worshipping God the
>>>>>Father. Not One.
>>>>
>>>> Which of those does Vince Garcia believe and teach?
>>>
>>>I don't know, never asked him. I would hope both.
>>
>> Well I did, in this thread, and he hasn't answered, but you seem mto be
>> answering for him.
>

>I seldom answer for another as I would not want to misrepresent them.

You sure show no concern about misrepresenting God, interpreting his words for
him the way you do.

[pyotr filipivich]

Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> on Tue, 08 May 2012 13:19:43 +0200
typed in alt.christnet.christianlife the following:

He appears a modern day Gnostic - if you can't suss out what he
believes from what he has written, then how are you going to suss out
the True Meaning (tm,pat pend,c) from the Bible?
--
pyotr
After the war two Army Chaplains were mustering out. The one said to
the other "Chaplain, it has been a real pleasure serving God with you.
You in your way, and I in His."

[pyotr filipivich]

vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> on Tue, 08 May 2012 06:04:18
-0700 typed in alt.christnet.christianlife the following:

>Steve Hayes wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 05 May 2012 05:04:17 -0700, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I guess you're too stupid to read, or you would know.
>>
>> Well, that's a unique statement of faith.
>>
>
>I have been posting here for 15 years, and my theology is on record.
>
>But I guess you're so ignorant (no surprise) that I have to take your
>hand and walk your mental retardation through the very clearly
>articulated theological points of my post you criticized-- apparently
>without reading; or else could not understand because of an incapability
>of English reading and comprehension.
>
>I hope these words and concepts are not too difficult for you, so to
>condense it into something you might be able to understand, you will
>see that _I_ uphold and proclaim the following doctrines in the post to
>Donna Kupp, whose proud defender you show yourself to be:
>
>The full deity of Christ, and the Hypostatic Union. (If you don't
>understand what the Hypostatic Union is--big words for you, I know--I
>suggest looking up the term online.)
>
>
>Salvation by faith, apart from perfect keeping of the 10 comamndments.

Hmm, James 2 would seem to put a constraint on your theology.

What good is it, my brethren, if someone claims to have faith but has
no works? Can faith save such a person? If a brother or sister is in
rags and lacking daily food, and one of you tells them, "Go in peace,
be warmed and filled" and does not give them what the body needs, what
good is that? Likewise faith, if it has no works, is dead in itself.
Yes, someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works!" Show me
your faith without works, and by my works, I will show you my faith.
You believe that God is one! You do well! The demons also believe, and
they shudder. Fool! Will you not recognize that apart from works,
faith is dead? Was not our father Abraham justified by works, by
offering up his son Isaac on the altar? You can see that [his] faith
was working with his actions, and that by works, faith was perfected.
Thus, the Scripture which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was
accounted to him as righteousness" was fulfilled, and he was called
the friend of God. You see, then, that one is justified by works, and
not only by faith. In the same way, was not Rahab the prostitute also
justified by works, by receiving the messengers and sending them out
another way? For just as the body is dead apart from the spirit, so is
faith dead apart from works.

>
>(If you don't understand that man is incapable of keeping even 10
>comamdnments to God's standard to earn justifiation, I suggest you go
>online to a Christian web site and learn about justification through
>faith and grace.)
>
>
>
>
>The blood of Christ cleansing from ALL sin, willful AND unintentional.

Ah, so you believe that Jesus paid your cosmic sin tax and you can
now be in the presence of God because He will think that you are
really Jesus, and not you.

So, what is your belief re the Trinity?

[duke]

On Tue, 8 May 2012 09:53:45 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:

>On Tue, 08 May 2012 11:03:10 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> You sure show no concern about misrepresenting God, interpreting his words for
>> him the way you do.
>>
>> duke, American - American
>

>I am not responsible to you, only to him. I do not follow you religion nor
>its erroneous ways.

But..........everybody can see reference after reference in your ways that are
contrary to that which Jesus taught. I'm absolutely sure you don't murder
others or rob banks, but Jesus does hold us accountable for what we say and what
we thing, in what we do and what we don't do.

And hence satan has you falling into a false sense of security and you let your
guard down because you believe your sins no longer count against you. BAD
mistake.

[duke]

On Tue, 8 May 2012 09:50:53 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:

>>>> We don't worship God by bowing to a statue. ONly you protest_ants think
>>>> otherwise.
>>
>>>No, you are "venerating" the other objects, and we all know that you often
>>>venerate Jesus in the same manner.
>>
>> You're all confused, pete. Nothing new there. Worship and venerate are two
>> different things. If you don't know about these things, you should ask
>> questions and not issue false corrections.

>You still have a blind spot, about as big as the earth.

Which you can't point out.

>>> Thus either lying about venerating
>>>equals worship, or you are lowering Jesus to a position of a saint of angel
>>>you think are so hot.

>> God authorizes all sainthood.

>Authorizes what? The point was you demean God by venerating Him and making
>him lower in your mind like one of his creations, same as the EO's.

We don't venerate God. We worship God. We venerate Mary and the Saints in
heaven, but we only give reverence to depictions of mary and the saints. See
you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

>>>>>>>Jesus also said that we are to approach the Father in prayer, not Him., in
>>>>>>>the name of Jesus. Yet you disregard His desires.
>>>>>> Did Jesus tell us that we are to pray ONLY to the Father, never to Jesus?
>>>>>Yes.

>>>> Where did he tell us that? The only thing I can find is the Lord's Prayer,
>>>> which is an example, ie, showing us how to pray but not the only prayer.
>>>> So do you limit yourself to the Lord's Prayer strictly and completely?

>>>Jesus said to pray in this manner.
>> Yep, "in this manner" is not the same as "to whom".

>He gave both instructions, and you snipped out the verses that backed up
>who to pray to, so here it is, again.....

If snipped, they were of no value.

>And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you,
>Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

You don't even follow his teachings revealed in scripture. How can you truly
"ask in HIS name"? Youi remember the his saying "if you have faith in me, you
can move mountains"? Well, when did you last move a mountain. Now you know how
weak your faith is.

>Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that
>your joy may be full.

You are too full of sin to ask in his name.

>That is pretty obvious and He included the reason why.

>>>It was a training lesson that many do
>>>not learn and pray that pray like any other prayer in a prayer book.

>> Are you saying that some prayers are not prayers? Do you know what is prayer
>> is?

>I am saying He turns away from certain prayers.

Bullshit! He said "ask in my name and I will give it to you". Are you
beginning to see the weakness of your faith?

>>>That
>>>is a non-relational prayer or discussion, a totally impersonal thing. Oh I
>>>realize that God in His graciousness will often here a non- believers cry
>>>for help who use the Lords prayer as the only way they know of addressing
>>>Him. And fortunately the Holy spirit will fill God in on the details, but
>>>otherwise in isn't useful. How would you like it if you tried to speak to
>>>me and at the end of every statement I read a chapter of a book to you?
>>>That is what repetitive prayers accomplish.

>> Jesus told us in scripture to pray continuously.

>So you would actually by into that? Well, given your canned replies I guess
>you would.

Are you calling Jesus a liar now? Yes you are if you deny continuous prayer. At
least be man enough to admit being a failure like the rest of us.

>>>And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you,
>>>Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

>> How about an example of "asking the Father for something in Jesus' name"?

>Dear heavenly Father, thank you (and recount past the things He has done
>your you recently)(continue on with thanksgiving)then clear up any mistakes
>on your part if any, maybe recounting any other joyous experiences with Him
>recently or things learned from the word, then say Father I heard on the
>phone today that my mom is sick and feeling pretty miserable, I am asking
>for her healing and am joining my prayers with others for her, and am
>beliving in your word that by the Stripes of Jesus she too is healed, thank
>you for this, and I ask it in the name of Jesus, your son. Amen, or thank
>you.

Basically you start off with the wrong formula. He's your Father. Treat him
like it.

Do you think he's impressed with you if you say "in the name of Jesus"?

>On what might seem a certain death event, Father Help ME PLEASE in Jesus
>name!

There it is again? Another mistake. You can't even duplicate the Lord's Prayer
in format.

[duke]

On Tue, 8 May 2012 13:00:59 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:

>On Tue, 08 May 2012 14:30:33 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 8 May 2012 09:53:45 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 08 May 2012 11:03:10 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You sure show no concern about misrepresenting God, interpreting his words for
>>>> him the way you do.
>>>>
>>>> duke, American - American
>>>
>>>I am not responsible to you, only to him. I do not follow you religion nor
>>>its erroneous ways.
>>
>> But..........everybody can see reference after reference in your ways that are
>> contrary to that which Jesus taught. I'm absolutely sure you don't murder
>> others or rob banks, but Jesus does hold us accountable for what we say and what
>> we thing, in what we do and what we don't do.
>>
>> And hence satan has you falling into a false sense of security and you let your
>> guard down because you believe your sins no longer count against you. BAD
>> mistake.

>Earl, after a couple years of trying you have failed.

God alone knows. Only people who have limited knowledge of scripture believe
you can continue to sin and get away with it. The NT is full of suggestions
otherwise.

[vince garcia]

duke wrote:
>
> On Tue, 8 May 2012 13:00:59 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 08 May 2012 14:30:33 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 8 May 2012 09:53:45 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 08 May 2012 11:03:10 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> You sure show no concern about misrepresenting God, interpreting his words for
> >>>> him the way you do.
> >>>>
> >>>> duke, American - American
> >>>
> >>>I am not responsible to you, only to him. I do not follow you religion nor
> >>>its erroneous ways.
> >>
> >> But..........everybody can see reference after reference in your ways that are
> >> contrary to that which Jesus taught. I'm absolutely sure you don't murder
> >> others or rob banks, but Jesus does hold us accountable for what we say and what
> >> we thing, in what we do and what we don't do.
> >>
> >> And hence satan has you falling into a false sense of security and you let your
> >> guard down because you believe your sins no longer count against you. BAD
> >> mistake.
>
> >Earl, after a couple years of trying you have failed.
>
> God alone knows. Only people who have limited knowledge of scripture believe
> you can continue to sin and get away with it. The NT is full of suggestions
> otherwise.
>

it don't suggest it--it STATES it. And it's clear the SORT of sin it's
talking about:

Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Clear enough.

What it DOESN'T say will exclude you from the kingdom is stuff like not
fasting during lent, missing mass on manmade days of obligation, and so
forth

You mentioned being held accountable for sins of omission, and that's
valid. But at least off the top of my head, I can't think of a sin of
omission that would cause you to lose your salvation.

One might earn you comviction and/or corrective punishment, though.

You might bring up matthew 25, but the context there indicates not a
specific uncharitable act or a few uncharitable acts, but bespeaks a
constant lifestyle lacking charity; and in that case, it makes sense
these were never saved to start with.

So say a street person comes up to you and says, "You spare a dollar,
man?"

Will you go to hell if you don't give him one?

But say you your whole world view is disdian and contempt for the poor.

That would be a different issue, and more in keeping w/matt 25

[duke]

On Tue, 8 May 2012 13:31:49 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:

>On Tue, 08 May 2012 14:42:03 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 8 May 2012 09:50:53 -0700, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> We don't worship God by bowing to a statue. ONly you protest_ants think
>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>
>>>>>No, you are "venerating" the other objects, and we all know that you often
>>>>>venerate Jesus in the same manner.
>>>>
>>>> You're all confused, pete. Nothing new there. Worship and venerate are two
>>>> different things. If you don't know about these things, you should ask
>>>> questions and not issue false corrections.
>>
>>>You still have a blind spot, about as big as the earth.
>>
>> Which you can't point out.

>I have all along in everything spiritual. Free gifts from God, free
>unearned salvation, and on and on.

Or so you've led yourself to believe. God gave us our part to do. You call it
free??

>>>>> Thus either lying about venerating
>>>>>equals worship, or you are lowering Jesus to a position of a saint of angel
>>>>>you think are so hot.
>>
>>>> God authorizes all sainthood.
>>
>>>Authorizes what? The point was you demean God by venerating Him and making
>>>him lower in your mind like one of his creations, same as the EO's.
>>
>> We don't venerate God. We worship God. We venerate Mary and the Saints in
>> heaven, but we only give reverence to depictions of mary and the saints. See
>> you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

>You have not been paying attention to what is written in this thread, thus
>you cannot even speak about it intelligently.

Now that's exactly what I see you doing.

>I have seen people in these groups using the term venerate when speaking of
>Jesus.

Venerate means to hold in high esteem. We worship Jesus, not venerate him. I
venerate the Blessed Virgin Mary, but I don't worship her. I venerate the bare
cross on Good Friday, the day that Jesus died on the cross. I don't worship it.
If you want to learn something for a change, ask someone who knows.

>? Every time I bring it up to show that they are either putting Jesus
>down, or they are thinking all the saints are on the same level. Last time
>for this thread I am repeating this.

Run, pete, run. NO one, and I mean NO CATHOLIC, puts Jesus down, or puts the
saints on the same level as the Lord. That's just an open admission on your
part that you lack the overall knowledge to understand what you're seeing and
hearing. But we've known that about you all along.

>>>>>Jesus said to pray in this manner.
>>>> Yep, "in this manner" is not the same as "to whom".

>>>He gave both instructions, and you snipped out the verses that backed up
>>>who to pray to, so here it is, again.....

>> If snipped, they were of no value.

>God is the judge of that, here it is for all to see...

I am the judge of why I snip stuff. It's to cut out the irrelevant stuff to the
discussion for which there is no debate.

>>>And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you,
>>>Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

>> You don't even follow his teachings revealed in scripture. How can you truly
>> "ask in HIS name"? Youi remember the his saying "if you have faith in me, you
>> can move mountains"? Well, when did you last move a mountain. Now you know how
>> weak your faith is.

>My faith is small, the Faith that God gave me is the exact same as the
>Apostle Peter's.

Oh, nooooo. Today's 1st reading at Mass was:

John 15:5-8 (New International Version)
5 的 am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you
will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain
in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are
picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words
remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 This is to
my Father痴 glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my
disciples.

You must note that our call is for us to REMAIN in him and he IN us. That call
greatly supercedes the call of faith. Have you ever done something that Jesus
would not do, or you assured that everything you do that Jesus would do also.

Clearly, the answer is no. And in "no", you and I don't come close to being
Christ-like. Pope Peter is already declared a saint by God, that means he far
surpassed the concept of faith and actually lived his life as though Jesus was
living in him.

Are you trying to convince me that you live that life - never having stepped out
of line with that which Jesus would do? Are you, pete?

>>>Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that
>>>your joy may be full.
>> You are too full of sin to ask in his name.

>You err again, mine has been forgiven. You have obviously slipped greatly.

Your's has never been forgiven. You've never been to confession. John
20:22-23. Jesus didn't go to the cross so you and I would get a free ride. Your
faith and mine is so weak that we are far removed form living in Christ and him
living in us. You and I can barely accept him as real.

>>>That is pretty obvious and He included the reason why.
>>>>>It was a training lesson that many do
>>>>>not learn and pray that pray like any other prayer in a prayer book.
>>
>>>> Are you saying that some prayers are not prayers? Do you know what is prayer
>>>> is?

>>>I am saying He turns away from certain prayers.

>> Bullshit! He said "ask in my name and I will give it to you". Are you
>> beginning to see the weakness of your faith?

>He turns away from selfish prayers and repetitious prayers as the heathen
>do. There is no weakness in the faith of God.

He is our daddy, Pete. We are his children. Ask of him. That's the definition
of prayer - to ask of. That's why we pray to Mary and the saints - to **ask**
them to offer prayer to Jesus on our behalf.

>>>>>That
>>>>>is a non-relational prayer or discussion, a totally impersonal thing. Oh I
>>>>>realize that God in His graciousness will often here a non- believers cry
>>>>>for help who use the Lords prayer as the only way they know of addressing
>>>>>Him. And fortunately the Holy spirit will fill God in on the details, but
>>>>>otherwise in isn't useful. How would you like it if you tried to speak to
>>>>>me and at the end of every statement I read a chapter of a book to you?
>>>>>That is what repetitive prayers accomplish.
>>
>>>> Jesus told us in scripture to pray continuously.
>>
>>>So you would actually by into that? Well, given your canned replies I guess
>>>you would.

>> Are you calling Jesus a liar now? Yes you are if you deny continuous prayer. At
>> least be man enough to admit being a failure like the rest of us.

>Jesus was the one who said not to pray repetitious prayers and why. Are you
>starting to wig out?

He did NOT tell us that repetitious prayer was vain. He said that "vain prayer"
is of no value in repetition.

Matthew 6:7-8 (New International Version)
7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they
will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your
Father knows what you need before you ask him.

1 Thessalonians 5:16-18 (New International Version)
16 Rejoice always, 17 pray continually, 18 give thanks in all circumstances;
for this is God痴 will for you in Christ Jesus.

Just another one you're massively got wrong by listening solely to yourself.

>>>Dear heavenly Father, thank you (and recount past the things He has done
>>>your you recently)(continue on with thanksgiving)then clear up any mistakes
>>>on your part if any, maybe recounting any other joyous experiences with Him
>>>recently or things learned from the word, then say Father I heard on the
>>>phone today that my mom is sick and feeling pretty miserable, I am asking
>>>for her healing and am joining my prayers with others for her, and am
>>>beliving in your word that by the Stripes of Jesus she too is healed, thank
>>>you for this, and I ask it in the name of Jesus, your son. Amen, or thank
>>>you.
>>
>> Basically you start off with the wrong formula. He's your Father. Treat him
>> like it.

>Jesus said, Our father which art in heaven. Also Daddy dearest. I know who
>loves me and it sure ain't you. It is Him.

Yes, he loves you but you have many reservations about him. You do all day what
Jesus would never do.

>> Do you think he's impressed with you if you say "in the name of Jesus"?

>Jesus seems to think so.

Really!! You do all day what Jesus would never do.

>>>On what might seem a certain death event, Father Help ME PLEASE in Jesus
>>>name!
>> There it is again? Another mistake. You can't even duplicate the Lord's Prayer
>> in format.

>It isn't a religion, it is a relationship. One that you cannot seem to
>grasp.

May up your mind. Did Jesus show us how to pray, to whom, when, why, one format
only. You can't have it all your way, pete. You got to cut Jesus some slack.

>I am sorry that God nor Jesus pleases you, and I don't think they are happy
>of your overwriting and or dismissing their word in the Bible.

I am sorry that neither God nor Jesus pleases YOU. YOU are the one that rejects
all he teachings to us and calls us to.

[duke]

On Wed, 09 May 2012 06:20:44 -0700, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

I do't recall saying YOU were one that didn't understand. However, there are
many, many in these ng's that think exactly that. Take pete for instance, and
many others.

>What it DOESN'T say will exclude you from the kingdom is stuff like not
>fasting during lent, missing mass on manmade days of obligation, and so
>forth

Well, I certainly agree with you on that. But then again, if Jesus gave us the
Holy Mass as his stated way of worship of the Father, and he did, and if he
called us to a day given to him, and he does, why is it permissible for you and
I to miss Mass on Sunday?

Now, as far as fasting in lent, it's a meager attempt to follow Jesus in his 40
day fast in the desert. Did the Pope have the authority to hold us to such a
standard as 1 day a week during lent. Did Jesus give Peter the authority to
bind/loosen on earth to be so in heaven? Yes, Mat 16:19.

If we don't go to Mass, or follow a minor fasting in our steps following the
Lord, are we doing such a good job? Remember, he clearly demanded that we
"follow him, and not just to read about him".

>You mentioned being held accountable for sins of omission, and that's
>valid. But at least off the top of my head, I can't think of a sin of
>omission that would cause you to lose your salvation.

I don't think it was me, but it's still valid. If you conveniently fail, and
remember that sin is not accidental, then aren't you then committing a new
mortal sin by "forgetting" to mention something major.

Lying in the confessional is a NEW mortal sin in itself as we are directly lying
to God thru the Priest.

>One might earn you comviction and/or corrective punishment, though.

And only Jesus knows where he draws the line.

>You might bring up matthew 25, but the context there indicates not a
>specific uncharitable act or a few uncharitable acts, but bespeaks a
>constant lifestyle lacking charity; and in that case, it makes sense
>these were never saved to start with.

I bring up Mat 25:31-46 frequently. Do you live your life directed towards
helping those that need help, such as the hungry or thirst or naked? The
parable of the vine and the branches at Mass today is very appropriate.

John 15:5-8 (New International Version)
5 的 am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you
will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain
in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are
picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words
remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 This is to
my Father痴 glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my
disciples.

Do you and I live in Jesus and does Jesus live in us? Would Jesus do what you
do. Would he act the same way - each and every day of our lives?

>So say a street person comes up to you and says, "You spare a dollar,
>man?"
>Will you go to hell if you don't give him one?

I have denied, but because of repeat performance. My highest donation was $27
at one time. I knew I was being taken, but even in sin, he needed the $27 more
than I did.

>But say you your whole world view is disdian and contempt for the poor.
>That would be a different issue, and more in keeping w/matt 25

Oh, I'm extremely sensitive to Mat 25:31-46.

[vince garcia]

Well...while I am not in the Eternal Security camp, I see why others can
be. But note that those who are, from what I can see, all affirm living
right lives before God, and not using Eteral Security as license to sin

> >What it DOESN'T say will exclude you from the kingdom is stuff like not
> >fasting during lent, missing mass on manmade days of obligation, and so
> >forth
>
> Well, I certainly agree with you on that. But then again, if Jesus gave us the
> Holy Mass

He Didn't. He never said Mass in His life. And the 1st century didache
does NOT show a catholic Mass in existence with a priest conducting it.

as his stated way of worship of the Father, and he did, and if he
> called us to a day given to him, and he does, why is it permissible for you and
> I to miss Mass on Sunday?

Because the Bible never says nor hints--and actually denies-- that
salvation is tied to outward religious observances like that even if
they are "good" in some folks' eyes

>
> Now, as far as fasting in lent, it's a meager attempt to follow Jesus in his 40
> day fast in the desert. Did the Pope have the authority to hold us to such a
> standard as 1 day a week during lent. Did Jesus give Peter the authority to
> bind/loosen on earth to be so in heaven? Yes, Mat 16:19.
>
> If we don't go to Mass, or follow a minor fasting in our steps following the
> Lord, are we doing such a good job? Remember, he clearly demanded that we
> "follow him, and not just to read about him".

Again, this sort of reasoning is the same deception the pharisees were
under, who did precisely the same thing: invent religious laws and make
salvation dependent on keeping them.

And they--scripturally--had the same sort of "right" to do that.

Yet Christ denied and denouced their actions, and moved the church
beyond their deception and claimed authority, because they SUBVERTED THE
SCRIPTURE (which the RCC does) by making up its own rules, and declaring
them binding for salvation

So when Paul talks about our freedom/liberty in Christ to the Galatians,
there IS no freedom under the catholic system. There is the same sort of
error as the judaisers, who added and tied both biblical and religious
comamdnments to salvation, and replaced the burden on the people that
Christ lifted

It is easier to go to hell as a CATHOLIC than it ever was under the
JEWSISH law!

The RCC even has the gall to tell people what they can do in bed, and
declare what is and is not mortal sin for married couples.

The RCC does precisely the same sort of error as the people paul was
opposing, and is similarly blind to it as they were

[duke]

On Sun, 13 May 2012 04:44:25 -0700, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>

Many do, but not you or me.

>> >What it DOESN'T say will exclude you from the kingdom is stuff like not
>> >fasting during lent, missing mass on manmade days of obligation, and so
>> >forth

>> Well, I certainly agree with you on that. But then again, if Jesus gave us the
>> Holy Mass

>He Didn't. He never said Mass in His life. And the 1st century didache
>does NOT show a catholic Mass in existence with a priest conducting it.

He did. He said keep hold the Lord's day. What is the primary difference
between Mass and a protest_ant service? Answer - consecration and distribution
of Holy Communion. And only a recipient of Holy Orders can consecrate the
Eucharist.

>>as his stated way of worship of the Father, and he did, and if he
>> called us to a day given to him, and he does, why is it permissible for you and
>> I to miss Mass on Sunday?

>Because the Bible never says nor hints--and actually denies-- that
>salvation is tied to outward religious observances like that even if
>they are "good" in some folks' eyes

God said to work for 6 days and then to dedicate the 7th day to him. We go to
Mass.

>> Now, as far as fasting in lent, it's a meager attempt to follow Jesus in his 40
>> day fast in the desert. Did the Pope have the authority to hold us to such a
>> standard as 1 day a week during lent. Did Jesus give Peter the authority to
>> bind/loosen on earth to be so in heaven? Yes, Mat 16:19.

>> If we don't go to Mass, or follow a minor fasting in our steps following the
>> Lord, are we doing such a good job? Remember, he clearly demanded that we
>> "follow him, and not just to read about him".

>Again, this sort of reasoning is the same deception the pharisees were
>under, who did precisely the same thing: invent religious laws and make
>salvation dependent on keeping them.

What deception? Jesus said "follow me". In Mat 25, he required that we
(collectively) feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked. And
then he addressed heaven/hell for those that do/don't follow. In James 2:26, we
well stated that faith without works (of charity/love/etc) is dead faith, and we
know that dead faith makes satan smile.

>And they--scripturally--had the same sort of "right" to do that.
>Yet Christ denied and denouced their actions, and moved the church
>beyond their deception and claimed authority, because they SUBVERTED THE
>SCRIPTURE (which the RCC does) by making up its own rules, and declaring
>them binding for salvation

What rules? But then again, remember that Jesus declared the Pope the authority
to bind/loose on earth to be held so in heaven. Mat 16:19. What is it to
require Catholics to fast on Fridays in Lent as a very weak and poor effort on
our part at following the Lord Jesus on the way to the cross.

>So when Paul talks about our freedom/liberty in Christ to the Galatians,
>there IS no freedom under the catholic system. There is the same sort of
>error as the judaisers, who added and tied both biblical and religious
>comamdnments to salvation, and replaced the burden on the people that
>Christ lifted

Perhaps a brief statement of what you're seeing might help.

>It is easier to go to hell as a CATHOLIC than it ever was under the
>JEWSISH law!

Which is another way of saying that the more God expects of you, the harder it
is to comply, or that when there is no law, there is no punishment. However,
both Jews and Christians MUST live by the 10 commandments for salvation. Jews
followed the 639 levi laws (maybe) and Christians do it out of love of God and
man.

>The RCC even has the gall to tell people what they can do in bed, and
>declare what is and is not mortal sin for married couples.

The RCC has never defined any action one way or the other except fully in line
with the 10 commandments. Just like the Jews derived 639 man made laws to
follow to measure their success in keeping the 10 commandments.

>The RCC does precisely the same sort of error as the people paul was
>opposing, and is similarly blind to it as they were

What error is that? And I assume you mean Paul and not Saul.

>> >You mentioned being held accountable for sins of omission, and that's
>> >valid. But at least off the top of my head, I can't think of a sin of
>> >omission that would cause you to lose your salvation.

>> I don't think it was me, but it's still valid. If you conveniently fail, and
>> remember that sin is not accidental, then aren't you then committing a new
>> mortal sin by "forgetting" to mention something major.

>> Lying in the confessional is a NEW mortal sin in itself as we are directly lying
>> to God thru the Priest.

Good.

2012 - end of an error
Vote Republican in 2012

[vince garcia]

Not much. And I'm not criticiaing the Mass in favor of an equally
chboreographed Protestant service.

My point is that attendance or non-attendance of either one cannot
factor for or against your salvation.

Answer - consecration and distribution
> of Holy Communion.

Agree. That is one big benefit church's that take Communion seriously
have over those who relegate it to a cutesy thing we do with no
metaphysical aspects behind it

And only a recipient of Holy Orders can consecrate the
> Eucharist.

Bible doesn't back that claim up.

"Holy orders" are not found in scripture or, again, in the Didache as a
recognized apostolic church practice, though the eucharist is affirmed

>
> >>as his stated way of worship of the Father, and he did, and if he
> >> called us to a day given to him, and he does, why is it permissible for you and
> >> I to miss Mass on Sunday?
>
> >Because the Bible never says nor hints--and actually denies-- that
> >salvation is tied to outward religious observances like that even if
> >they are "good" in some folks' eyes
>
> God said to work for 6 days and then to dedicate the 7th day to him. We go to
> Mass.

great. And someone else goes to 1st Baptist (or whatever)

>
> >> Now, as far as fasting in lent, it's a meager attempt to follow Jesus in his 40
> >> day fast in the desert. Did the Pope have the authority to hold us to such a
> >> standard as 1 day a week during lent. Did Jesus give Peter the authority to
> >> bind/loosen on earth to be so in heaven? Yes, Mat 16:19.
>
> >> If we don't go to Mass, or follow a minor fasting in our steps following the
> >> Lord, are we doing such a good job? Remember, he clearly demanded that we
> >> "follow him, and not just to read about him".
>
> >Again, this sort of reasoning is the same deception the pharisees were
> >under, who did precisely the same thing: invent religious laws and make
> >salvation dependent on keeping them.
>
> What deception? Jesus said "follow me". In Mat 25, he required that we
> (collectively) feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked. And
> then he addressed heaven/hell for those that do/don't follow. In James 2:26, we
> well stated that faith without works (of charity/love/etc) is dead faith, and we
> know that dead faith makes satan smile.

JESUS isn't the liar. The lie is ultimtaly the claim that the RCC is
incap[abale of falling into or teaching scriptural error; and that it
has such wide sweeping authroty toi invent binding rules on people, that
they tell people what they can do in bed

Don't see Jesus or paul doing it, but a bunch of bishops sure think THEY
can...

>
> >And they--scripturally--had the same sort of "right" to do that.
> >Yet Christ denied and denouced their actions, and moved the church
> >beyond their deception and claimed authority, because they SUBVERTED THE
> >SCRIPTURE (which the RCC does) by making up its own rules, and declaring
> >them binding for salvation
>
> What rules?

No meat on friday, fast during lent, madatory mass attendance in August
to venerate the Virgin mary, and stuff like that.

But then again, remember that Jesus declared the Pope the authority
> to bind/loose on earth to be held so in heaven. Mat 16:19.

Not the pope--the apostles. And to determine whether the popes' claim of
CONTINUED supreme authority is right must be measured against scripture
and known apostolic practices, amnd the fruit of what has come about
through this claimed authority. When we do that, we see the claim does
not stand up, and the fruit doesn't seem all that great. (At least from
what I would call an independent, non-prejudicial perspective)

What is it to
> require Catholics to fast on Fridays in Lent as a very weak and poor effort on
> our part at following the Lord Jesus on the way to the cross.

That's a nice, religious thing to do as is eating fish on friday fro
some manmde religious reason. But to declare that failure to follow suit
with this manmade practice sends you to hell is an obscene misuse of
this so-called authority, and is a good proof that this authority really
doesn't exist.

>
> >So when Paul talks about our freedom/liberty in Christ to the Galatians,
> >there IS no freedom under the catholic system. There is the same sort of
> >error as the judaisers, who added and tied both biblical and religious
> >comamdnments to salvation, and replaced the burden on the people that
> >Christ lifted
>
> Perhaps a brief statement of what you're seeing might help.

I've given some: not eating meat on friday, madatory fasting during lent
(a season that does not exist in the bible, but was invented), inventing
days of obligation that Mass must be attended, making missing Mass
without an allowable reason a salvation issue. Things like that.

And there are hosts of other minutiae I don't know off the top of my
head, but they're there under the theory that "We can make up any rule
or practice we like, and if you fail to follow it, you go to hell unless
you receive absolution"

>
> >It is easier to go to hell as a CATHOLIC than it ever was under the
> >JEWSISH law!
>
> Which is another way of saying that the more God expects of you, the harder it
> is to comply, or that when there is no law, there is no punishment. However,
> both Jews and Christians MUST live by the 10 commandments for salvation. Jews
> followed the 639 levi laws (maybe) and Christians do it out of love of God and
> man.
>
> >The RCC even has the gall to tell people what they can do in bed, and
> >declare what is and is not mortal sin for married couples.
>
> The RCC has never defined any action one way or the other except fully in line
> with the 10 commandments. Just like the Jews derived 639 man made laws to
> follow to measure their success in keeping the 10 commandments.
>
> >The RCC does precisely the same sort of error as the people paul was
> >opposing, and is similarly blind to it as they were
>
> What error is that? And I assume you mean Paul and not Saul.

I mean the RCC in its practice has fallen into the same mindset as the
religious judaisers.

[Steve Hayes]

On Sun, 13 May 2012 04:44:25 -0700, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>Well...while I am not in the Eternal Security camp, I see why others can
>be. But note that those who are, from what I can see, all affirm living
>right lives before God, and not using Eteral Security as license to sin

Is there any camp that you ARE in?

You keep telling us what you DON'T believe; how about telling us what you DO
believe for a change?

[vince garcia]

Steve Hayes wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 04:44:25 -0700, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Well...while I am not in the Eternal Security camp, I see why others can
> >be. But note that those who are, from what I can see, all affirm living
> >right lives before God, and not using Eteral Security as license to sin
>
> Is there any camp that you ARE in?
>
> You keep telling us what you DON'T believe; how about telling us what you DO
> believe for a change?
>

Steve Hayes wrote:

>
> On Sat, 05 May 2012 05:04:17 -0700, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I guess you're too stupid to read, or you would know.
>
> Well, that's a unique statement of faith.
>

I have been posting here for 15 years, and my theology is on record.

But I guess you're so ignorant (no surprise) that I have to take your
hand and walk your mental retardation through the very clearly
articulated theological points of my post you criticized-- apparently
without reading; or else could not understand because of an incapability
of English reading and comprehension.

I hope these words and concepts are not too difficult for you, so to

condense it into something you might be aable to understand, you will
see that I uphold and proclaim the following doctrines in the post to

Donna Kupp, whose proud defender you show yourself to be:

The full deity of Christ, and the Hypostatic Union. (If you don't
understand what the Hypostatic Union is--big words for you, I know--I
suggest looking up the term online.)


Salvation by faith, apart from perfect keeping of the 10 comamndments.

(If you don't understand that man is incapable of keeping even 10
comamdnments to God's standard to earn justifiation, I suggest you go
online to a Christian web site and learn about justification through
faith and grace.)




The blood of Christ cleansing from ALL sin, willful AND unintentional.

(If you do not comprehend that when John says that Christ's blood

cleanses "ALL" sin, and Donan Kupp is wrong when she rewrites that to

all "unintentional sin," I again suggest you go online to a Christian

web site and learn about justification.)

Orthodox interpretation of scripture on matters of hamartology,

soteriology. and justification.

I know those are big words for you. Please look them up online.

Denunciation of Donna Kupp's historical illiteracy when she says:

> There is no record of the co-equal, co-eternal, three-in-one God
> being taught by a single one of the early church fathers.

Note that: "NO RECORD"

Now, I know you don't know much about ancient Christian history to know
when someone is LYING when they make that claim, so for your benefit I
have shared some of my decades of study on the subject for you, and
refuted it with some Patristic quotes, including the first use of the

word "Trinity" In Christian writings from the 2nd century.

However, you can, if you wish, continue to stand with Kupp, and hold
that:

> There is no record of the co-equal, co-eternal, three-in-one God
> being taught by a single one of the early church fathers.


I know I've presented some complicated words and points for you in this

post, but I've tried to make the post as simple as I can for your simple
level of comprehension.

Let me know if I can be of further help.

[duke]

On Sun, 13 May 2012 11:05:33 -0700, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>

Answer: Exactly what Jesus instituted at the Last Supper - the Holy Eucharist..

>My point is that attendance or non-attendance of either one cannot
>factor for or against your salvation.

It is in terms of God's commandment to keep holy the Lord's day. The Last
Supper as spiritual sustenance show us that unless we do this, we have no life
in us (John 6:53-54). The acceptance or rejection of such an act will only be
resolved with the Lord Jesus at our individual judgment day.

1 Corinthians 10:16-17 (New International Version)
16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in
the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the
body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body,
for we all share the one loaf.

>Answer - consecration and distribution
>> of Holy Communion.

>Agree. That is one big benefit church's that take Communion seriously
>have over those who relegate it to a cutesy thing we do with no
>metaphysical aspects behind it

>> And only a recipient of Holy Orders can consecrate the
>> Eucharist.

>Bible doesn't back that claim up.

>"Holy orders" are not found in scripture or, again, in the Didache as a
>recognized apostolic church practice, though the eucharist is affirmed

That was given when Jesus sent the apostles forward to "let another take his
place". They "assigned" presbyters in each city they went to. For instance,
Matthias took Judas Iscarot's place. Pope B16 took Pope JPII's place.
Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim

>> >>as his stated way of worship of the Father, and he did, and if he
>> >> called us to a day given to him, and he does, why is it permissible for you and
>> >> I to miss Mass on Sunday?
>>
>> >Because the Bible never says nor hints--and actually denies-- that
>> >salvation is tied to outward religious observances like that even if
>> >they are "good" in some folks' eyes

>> God said to work for 6 days and then to dedicate the 7th day to him. We go to
>> Mass.

>great. And someone else goes to 1st Baptist (or whatever)

I'd be the last person do deny Christian status to a 1st Baptist. It's all a
matter of following the Lord's teachings thereof vs instead substituting a
religious service of one's own choosing. To me, Jesus said "do this and I'm
happy." Does something else make Jesus unhappy? That's not for me to say.

>> >> Now, as far as fasting in lent, it's a meager attempt to follow Jesus in his 40
>> >> day fast in the desert. Did the Pope have the authority to hold us to such a
>> >> standard as 1 day a week during lent. Did Jesus give Peter the authority to
>> >> bind/loosen on earth to be so in heaven? Yes, Mat 16:19.
>>
>> >> If we don't go to Mass, or follow a minor fasting in our steps following the
>> >> Lord, are we doing such a good job? Remember, he clearly demanded that we
>> >> "follow him, and not just to read about him".
>>
>> >Again, this sort of reasoning is the same deception the pharisees were
>> >under, who did precisely the same thing: invent religious laws and make
>> >salvation dependent on keeping them.
>>
>> What deception? Jesus said "follow me". In Mat 25, he required that we
>> (collectively) feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked. And
>> then he addressed heaven/hell for those that do/don't follow. In James 2:26, we
>> well stated that faith without works (of charity/love/etc) is dead faith, and we
>> know that dead faith makes satan smile.

>JESUS isn't the liar. The lie is ultimtaly the claim that the RCC is
>incap[abale of falling into or teaching scriptural error; and that it
>has such wide sweeping authroty toi invent binding rules on people, that
>they tell people what they can do in bed

I know Jesus isn't the liar. Nor am I a perfect Catholic and Christian. But
it's still a proven fact from Holy Script that Jesus instituted a human
leadership and organization for his church on earth (Mat 28:16-20) and gave it
binding authority (Mat 16:19, John 20:22-23).

The RCC does not tell people what they can do in bed. The RCC advises, within
it's teaching capacity, what the Lord Jesus said, be it in a specific statement
or a generalized summary statement from throughout the bible. That's what a
teaching authority does. Mat 28:16-20.

The RCC guides us to living in Christ and he living in us. Would Jesus murder
an unborn baby for his comfort and convenience - no, he would not. Would he
feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give drink to the thirsty - yes. he would.
Did he say that faith without deeds of love is dead faith - yes he did.

>Don't see Jesus or paul doing it, but a bunch of bishops sure think THEY
>can...

It's still the teaching authority at work.

>> >And they--scripturally--had the same sort of "right" to do that.
>> >Yet Christ denied and denouced their actions, and moved the church
>> >beyond their deception and claimed authority, because they SUBVERTED THE
>> >SCRIPTURE (which the RCC does) by making up its own rules, and declaring
>> >them binding for salvation

>> What rules?

>No meat on friday, fast during lent, madatory mass attendance in August
>to venerate the Virgin mary, and stuff like that.

Those, and many more, are an effort of the leadership of the Church to bring us
closer to the Lord by instituting doctrines (not dogma) that in some very minor
way direct us to follow in the Lord's steps. He fasted for 40 days, we skip
meat on Lenten Fridays - wow, big deal.

What's wrong with a Church doctrine honoring specific events in the history of
the Christian Church? It's their job to guide the Church in important events.
We call these 6 Holy Days of Obligation.

1) January 1, the solemnity of Mary, Mother of God (was baptism of Lord)
2) Thursday of the Sixth Week of Easter, the solemnity of the Ascension
3) August 15, the solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
4) November 1, the solemnity of All Saints
5) December 8, the solemnity of the Immaculate Conception
6) December 25, the solemnity of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ

>But then again, remember that Jesus declared the Pope the authority
>> to bind/loose on earth to be held so in heaven. Mat 16:19.

>Not the pope--the apostles.

That discussion was with Peter only according to (historical) scripture. Other
discussions were with the group. John 20:22-23, etc. The early Chruch was there
when Jesus spoke, and they know better what was said to whom, and that has been
passed down for 2000 years.

>And to determine whether the popes' claim of
>CONTINUED supreme authority is right must be measured against scripture
>and known apostolic practices

I, and the RCC, agree fully. Jesus said his Church would last forever (Mat
16:18) Even Isaish 22:19-23 reflects an everlasting church.

>, amnd the fruit of what has come about
>through this claimed authority. When we do that, we see the claim does
>not stand up, and the fruit doesn't seem all that great. (At least from
>what I would call an independent, non-prejudicial perspective)

> What is it to
>> require Catholics to fast on Fridays in Lent as a very weak and poor effort on
>> our part at following the Lord Jesus on the way to the cross.

>That's a nice, religious thing to do as is eating fish on friday fro
>some manmde religious reason. But to declare that failure to follow suit
>with this manmade practice sends you to hell is an obscene misuse of
>this so-called authority, and is a good proof that this authority really
>doesn't exist.

It definitely did to us Catholics. Why is it you are so adamantly opposed to
any leadership authority outside of Jesus himself? He left us a Church of men
led by men but guided by the Holy Spirit. Even God understood the need to
utilize "flesh on flesh" to make his point. And so he became man. The Jews
well showed they were not prepared to follow "God on flesh".

>> >So when Paul talks about our freedom/liberty in Christ to the Galatians,
>> >there IS no freedom under the catholic system. There is the same sort of
>> >error as the judaisers, who added and tied both biblical and religious
>> >comamdnments to salvation, and replaced the burden on the people that
>> >Christ lifted
> >
>> Perhaps a brief statement of what you're seeing might help.

>I've given some: not eating meat on friday, madatory fasting during lent
>(a season that does not exist in the bible, but was invented), inventing
>days of obligation that Mass must be attended, making missing Mass
>without an allowable reason a salvation issue. Things like that.

Answered above.

>And there are hosts of other minutiae I don't know off the top of my
>head, but they're there under the theory that "We can make up any rule
>or practice we like, and if you fail to follow it, you go to hell unless
>you receive absolution"

But the Church doesn't make "any old" rule. They are tasked with guiding us in
the ways of the Lord, to live as he lived, to be one flesh with him - he in us,
we in him.

>> >It is easier to go to hell as a CATHOLIC than it ever was under the
>> >JEWSISH law!
>>
>> Which is another way of saying that the more God expects of you, the harder it
>> is to comply, or that when there is no law, there is no punishment. However,
>> both Jews and Christians MUST live by the 10 commandments for salvation. Jews
>> followed the 639 levi laws (maybe) and Christians do it out of love of God and
>> man.
>>
>> >The RCC even has the gall to tell people what they can do in bed, and
>> >declare what is and is not mortal sin for married couples.
>>
>> The RCC has never defined any action one way or the other except fully in line
>> with the 10 commandments. Just like the Jews derived 639 man made laws to
>> follow to measure their success in keeping the 10 commandments.
>>
>> >The RCC does precisely the same sort of error as the people paul was
>> >opposing, and is similarly blind to it as they were
>>
>> What error is that? And I assume you mean Paul and not Saul.
>
>I mean the RCC in its practice has fallen into the same mindset as the
>religious judaisers.

A further explanation would help.

>> >> >You mentioned being held accountable for sins of omission, and that's
>> >> >valid. But at least off the top of my head, I can't think of a sin of
>> >> >omission that would cause you to lose your salvation.
>>
>> >> I don't think it was me, but it's still valid. If you conveniently fail, and
>> >> remember that sin is not accidental, then aren't you then committing a new
>> >> mortal sin by "forgetting" to mention something major.
>>
>> >> Lying in the confessional is a NEW mortal sin in itself as we are directly lying
>> >> to God thru the Priest.
>>
>> Good.

duke - American American
*****

2012 - end of an error
Vote Republican in 2012

*****

[vince garcia]

And that same comamndment whre God DEFINES WHAT THAT MEANS says nothing
about worhip, but is a comamnd for strict rest.

Are you aware that the whole idea of going to church on the sabbath did
not even exist until the jews were in captivity, and THEY invented the
practice in baybylon?

Before that, they obeyed the commandment (when they DID obey it) as
listed: they ceased from traveling and activities.

The Last
> Supper as spiritual sustenance show us that unless we do this, we have no life
> in us (John 6:53-54). The acceptance or rejection of such an act will only be
> resolved with the Lord Jesus at our individual judgment day.

it sounds nice to say that, but to mean "miss Mass on Sunday sends you
to hell" is, again, a crazy and extreme leap in logic that has no
scriptural support; only the declaration of a group of men who seek to
regulate every aspect of the Christian's life, including what he can do
in bed.

>
> 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 (New International Version)
> 16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in
> the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the
> body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body,
> for we all share the one loaf.
>
> >Answer - consecration and distribution
> >> of Holy Communion.
>
> >Agree. That is one big benefit church's that take Communion seriously
> >have over those who relegate it to a cutesy thing we do with no
> >metaphysical aspects behind it
>
> >> And only a recipient of Holy Orders can consecrate the
> >> Eucharist.
>
> >Bible doesn't back that claim up.
>
> >"Holy orders" are not found in scripture or, again, in the Didache as a
> >recognized apostolic church practice, though the eucharist is affirmed
>
> That was given when Jesus sent the apostles forward to "let another take his
> place". They "assigned" presbyters in each city they went to. For instance,
> Matthias took Judas Iscarot's place. Pope B16 took Pope JPII's place.
> Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim

yes. But that's not "holy orders" in the way the RCC defines it.

Here is an example: Only a priest who has received holy orders, who
needs his bishop's consent, can perform an exorcism.

Now go read mark 9 to see how the bible contradicts catholic theology
and practice on this

>
> >> >>as his stated way of worship of the Father, and he did, and if he
> >> >> called us to a day given to him, and he does, why is it permissible for you and
> >> >> I to miss Mass on Sunday?
> >>
> >> >Because the Bible never says nor hints--and actually denies-- that
> >> >salvation is tied to outward religious observances like that even if
> >> >they are "good" in some folks' eyes
>
> >> God said to work for 6 days and then to dedicate the 7th day to him. We go to
> >> Mass.
>
> >great. And someone else goes to 1st Baptist (or whatever)
>
> I'd be the last person do deny Christian status to a 1st Baptist. It's all a
> matter of following the Lord's teachings thereof vs instead substituting a
> religious service of one's own choosing. To me, Jesus said "do this and I'm
> happy." Does something else make Jesus unhappy? That's not for me to say.

fair enough

>
> >> >> Now, as far as fasting in lent, it's a meager attempt to follow Jesus in his 40
> >> >> day fast in the desert. Did the Pope have the authority to hold us to such a
> >> >> standard as 1 day a week during lent. Did Jesus give Peter the authority to
> >> >> bind/loosen on earth to be so in heaven? Yes, Mat 16:19.
> >>
> >> >> If we don't go to Mass, or follow a minor fasting in our steps following the
> >> >> Lord, are we doing such a good job? Remember, he clearly demanded that we
> >> >> "follow him, and not just to read about him".
> >>
> >> >Again, this sort of reasoning is the same deception the pharisees were
> >> >under, who did precisely the same thing: invent religious laws and make
> >> >salvation dependent on keeping them.
> >>
> >> What deception? Jesus said "follow me". In Mat 25, he required that we
> >> (collectively) feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked. And
> >> then he addressed heaven/hell for those that do/don't follow. In James 2:26, we
> >> well stated that faith without works (of charity/love/etc) is dead faith, and we
> >> know that dead faith makes satan smile.
>
> >JESUS isn't the liar. The lie is ultimtaly the claim that the RCC is
> >incap[abale of falling into or teaching scriptural error; and that it
> >has such wide sweeping authroty toi invent binding rules on people, that
> >they tell people what they can do in bed
>
> I know Jesus isn't the liar. Nor am I a perfect Catholic and Christian. But
> it's still a proven fact from Holy Script that Jesus instituted a human
> leadership and organization for his church on earth (Mat 28:16-20) and gave it
> binding authority (Mat 16:19, John 20:22-23).

yes, as far as the scripture goes. The questions are:

1. Does this authority continue past the apostolic age?
2. Are the bishops assured of inerrant understanding of the scrioture
when they make a ruling as a group?
3. Does this authority extend to creating manmade rules and customs, on
threat of damnation, if the people do not follow them?
4. Does this group have such authority they can even tell peopple what
they can do in bed, what they can eat, and when, and so on?
5. Must God work only through this group, or can the group so depart
from truth that Christ cannot move beyond it as He did the jewish
authorities?

I believe the answer is NO to all

>
> The RCC does not tell people what they can do in bed.

But it does. I've heard CA teach on this. I don't wanna be graphic, so
I'll leave it at that

The RCC advises, within
> it's teaching capacity, what the Lord Jesus said, be it in a specific statement
> or a generalized summary statement from throughout the bible. That's what a
> teaching authority does. Mat 28:16-20.

Well, Jesus never told people what to do in bed

>
> The RCC guides us to living in Christ and he living in us. Would Jesus murder
> an unborn baby for his comfort and convenience - no, he would not. Would he
> feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give drink to the thirsty - yes. he would.
> Did he say that faith without deeds of love is dead faith - yes he did.

and that part is fine. We shou;d all be able to agree. It's the minutiae
beyond that which is in question.

>
> >Don't see Jesus or paul doing it, but a bunch of bishops sure think THEY
> >can...
>
> It's still the teaching authority at work.
>
> >> >And they--scripturally--had the same sort of "right" to do that.
> >> >Yet Christ denied and denouced their actions, and moved the church
> >> >beyond their deception and claimed authority, because they SUBVERTED THE
> >> >SCRIPTURE (which the RCC does) by making up its own rules, and declaring
> >> >them binding for salvation
>
> >> What rules?
>
> >No meat on friday, fast during lent, madatory mass attendance in August
> >to venerate the Virgin mary, and stuff like that.
>
> Those, and many more, are an effort of the leadership of the Church to bring us
> closer to the Lord by instituting doctrines (not dogma) that in some very minor
> way direct us to follow in the Lord's steps.

I understand that. And some churches have a "let's fast for 7 days at
the beginning of the year to sanctify it to God" practicee.

That's also a nice, religious thing to do. Has nothing to do with
scripture, and no one has a right to treaten christians with damnation
if they don't follow suit

Ditto the lent thing

He fasted for 40 days, we skip
> meat on Lenten Fridays - wow, big deal.

It IS a big deal when you invent your own manmade rule for it.

That's what the parisees kept doing

>
> What's wrong with a Church doctrine honoring specific events in the history of
> the Christian Church?

Nothing. THAT isn't the problem

It's their job to guide the Church in important events.
> We call these 6 Holy Days of Obligation.
>
> 1) January 1, the solemnity of Mary, Mother of God (was baptism of Lord)
> 2) Thursday of the Sixth Week of Easter, the solemnity of the Ascension
> 3) August 15, the solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
> 4) November 1, the solemnity of All Saints
> 5) December 8, the solemnity of the Immaculate Conception
> 6) December 25, the solemnity of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ
>
> >But then again, remember that Jesus declared the Pope the authority
> >> to bind/loose on earth to be held so in heaven. Mat 16:19.
>
> >Not the pope--the apostles.
>
> That discussion was with Peter only according to (historical) scripture. Other
> discussions were with the group. John 20:22-23, etc. The early Chruch was there
> when Jesus spoke, and they know better what was said to whom, and that has been
> passed down for 2000 years.

Do you realize how little of catholic theology can actually be traced to
the apostles?

You wanna know what is actually traceable to the apostles? read the
didache, which shows what apostilic practice actually was. You'll find
repentance, baptism, the eucharist, and that's about it for the key
doctrines of the church.

>
> >And to determine whether the popes' claim of
> >CONTINUED supreme authority is right must be measured against scripture
> >and known apostolic practices
>
> I, and the RCC, agree fully. Jesus said his Church would last forever (Mat
> 16:18) Even Isaish 22:19-23 reflects an everlasting church.
>
> >, amnd the fruit of what has come about
> >through this claimed authority. When we do that, we see the claim does
> >not stand up, and the fruit doesn't seem all that great. (At least from
> >what I would call an independent, non-prejudicial perspective)
>
> > What is it to
> >> require Catholics to fast on Fridays in Lent as a very weak and poor effort on
> >> our part at following the Lord Jesus on the way to the cross.
>
> >That's a nice, religious thing to do as is eating fish on friday fro
> >some manmde religious reason. But to declare that failure to follow suit
> >with this manmade practice sends you to hell is an obscene misuse of
> >this so-called authority, and is a good proof that this authority really
> >doesn't exist.
>
> It definitely did to us Catholics. Why is it you are so adamantly opposed to
> any leadership authority outside of Jesus himself?

Because we see from scripture it leads to error:

matt 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the
commandments of men.

That's the RCC problem right there, and why many (certainly not all) in
it are not saved.

col 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the
world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and
doctrines of men?
23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and
humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the
satisfying of the flesh.

[duke]

On Tue, 15 May 2012 05:37:39 -0700, vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>

It say "keep holy". I guess if it's your style to bbq ants as an exercise in
keeping a day holy, go for it. God showed it to us as a day of rest to give to
him.

>Are you aware that the whole idea of going to church on the sabbath did
>not even exist until the jews were in captivity, and THEY invented the
>practice in baybylon?

Every input takes a while to understand and institute. The new Church didn't
understand what to do after the cross. See Acts 15.

>Before that, they obeyed the commandment (when they DID obey it) as
>listed: they ceased from traveling and activities.

Yes, and the Jews still see it that way.

> The Last
>> Supper as spiritual sustenance show us that unless we do this, we have no life
>> in us (John 6:53-54). The acceptance or rejection of such an act will only be
>> resolved with the Lord Jesus at our individual judgment day.

>it sounds nice to say that, but to mean "miss Mass on Sunday sends you
>to hell" is, again, a crazy and extreme leap in logic that has no
>scriptural support; only the declaration of a group of men who seek to
>regulate every aspect of the Christian's life, including what he can do
>in bed.

Jesus gave us the Last Supper as a declaration. We do it in holiness.

>> 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 (New International Version)
>> 16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in
>> the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the
>> body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body,
>> for we all share the one loaf.
>>
>> >Answer - consecration and distribution
>> >> of Holy Communion.
>>
>> >Agree. That is one big benefit church's that take Communion seriously
>> >have over those who relegate it to a cutesy thing we do with no
>> >metaphysical aspects behind it
>>
>> >> And only a recipient of Holy Orders can consecrate the
>> >> Eucharist.
>>
>> >Bible doesn't back that claim up.
>>
>> >"Holy orders" are not found in scripture or, again, in the Didache as a
>> >recognized apostolic church practice, though the eucharist is affirmed
>>
>> That was given when Jesus sent the apostles forward to "let another take his
>> place". They "assigned" presbyters in each city they went to. For instance,
>> Matthias took Judas Iscarot's place. Pope B16 took Pope JPII's place.
>> Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim

>yes. But that's not "holy orders" in the way the RCC defines it.

Holy Orders is ordination as a priest, etc. Another was appointed to take the
place of Judas, and the apostles appointed presbyters is each new city they went
to..

>Here is an example: Only a priest who has received holy orders, who
>needs his bishop's consent, can perform an exorcism.
>Now go read mark 9 to see how the bible contradicts catholic theology
>and practice on this

Haahaha. Only one that has received Holy orders **is** a priest.

>> >> >>as his stated way of worship of the Father, and he did, and if he
>> >> >> called us to a day given to him, and he does, why is it permissible for you and
>> >> >> I to miss Mass on Sunday?
>> >>
>> >> >Because the Bible never says nor hints--and actually denies-- that
>> >> >salvation is tied to outward religious observances like that even if
>> >> >they are "good" in some folks' eyes
>>
>> >> God said to work for 6 days and then to dedicate the 7th day to him. We go to
>> >> Mass.
>>
>> >great. And someone else goes to 1st Baptist (or whatever)
>>
>> I'd be the last person do deny Christian status to a 1st Baptist. It's all a
>> matter of following the Lord's teachings thereof vs instead substituting a
>> religious service of one's own choosing. To me, Jesus said "do this and I'm
>> happy." Does something else make Jesus unhappy? That's not for me to say.

>fair enough

Good.

Yes, to last forever. Mat 16:18.

>2. Are the bishops assured of inerrant understanding of the scrioture
>when they make a ruling as a group?

They understand it far more than anybody else.

>3. Does this authority extend to creating manmade rules and customs, on
>threat of damnation, if the people do not follow them?

Mat 16:19 gives the Pope authority to bind/loosen.

>4. Does this group have such authority they can even tell peopple what
>they can do in bed, what they can eat, and when, and so on?

They can only rule in support of that the Lord himself said.

>5. Must God work only through this group, or can the group so depart
>from truth that Christ cannot move beyond it as He did the jewish
>authorities?

Anybody can get a revelation, but it must withstand scrutiny in accordance with
all of scripture.

>I believe the answer is NO to all

I see you as losing that one.

>> The RCC does not tell people what they can do in bed.
>But it does. I've heard CA teach on this. I don't wanna be graphic, so
>I'll leave it at that

But all comment is in accordance with the understanding of scripture of the Lord
and not personal directive. It's reasonable to assume that the people of God
always look to procreation in the sex act. That's why even withdrawal is
basically considered in opposition to God's command to go forth and multiply and
he well gave us the tools to do just that. It's not inconceivable to think in
terms of using sex as a pleasure of the flesh first and procreation second.

Mankind is a weak creature. <g>

> The RCC advises, within
>> it's teaching capacity, what the Lord Jesus said, be it in a specific statement
>> or a generalized summary statement from throughout the bible. That's what a
>> teaching authority does. Mat 28:16-20.
>Well, Jesus never told people what to do in bed

It's all a matter of using a spiritual gift for fleshy purposes. I'm not the
judge, nor a prude.

>> The RCC guides us to living in Christ and he living in us. Would Jesus murder
>> an unborn baby for his comfort and convenience - no, he would not. Would he
>> feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give drink to the thirsty - yes. he would.
>> Did he say that faith without deeds of love is dead faith - yes he did.

>and that part is fine. We shou;d all be able to agree. It's the minutiae
>beyond that which is in question.

>> >Don't see Jesus or paul doing it, but a bunch of bishops sure think THEY
>> >can...
>>
>> It's still the teaching authority at work.
>>
>> >> >And they--scripturally--had the same sort of "right" to do that.
>> >> >Yet Christ denied and denouced their actions, and moved the church
>> >> >beyond their deception and claimed authority, because they SUBVERTED THE
>> >> >SCRIPTURE (which the RCC does) by making up its own rules, and declaring
>> >> >them binding for salvation
>>
>> >> What rules?
>>
>> >No meat on friday, fast during lent, madatory mass attendance in August
>> >to venerate the Virgin mary, and stuff like that.
>>
>> Those, and many more, are an effort of the leadership of the Church to bring us
>> closer to the Lord by instituting doctrines (not dogma) that in some very minor
>> way direct us to follow in the Lord's steps.

>I understand that. And some churches have a "let's fast for 7 days at
>the beginning of the year to sanctify it to God" practicee.

Could be. I'm not familiar with that one.

>That's also a nice, religious thing to do. Has nothing to do with
>scripture, and no one has a right to treaten christians with damnation
>if they don't follow suit
>Ditto the lent thing

Lent is our participation (in an extremely minor way) in the suffering of Christ
leading up to and including the cross.

> He fasted for 40 days, we skip
>> meat on Lenten Fridays - wow, big deal.
>It IS a big deal when you invent your own manmade rule for it.
>That's what the parisees kept doing

I don't know what the pharisees did, but our minimal effort in "suffering" to
follow Jesus is a welcome participation for us in his body.

>> What's wrong with a Church doctrine honoring specific events in the history of
>> the Christian Church?
>Nothing. THAT isn't the problem

>>It's their job to guide the Church in important events.
>> We call these 6 Holy Days of Obligation.

>> 1) January 1, the solemnity of Mary, Mother of God (was baptism of Lord)
>> 2) Thursday of the Sixth Week of Easter, the solemnity of the Ascension
>> 3) August 15, the solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
>> 4) November 1, the solemnity of All Saints
>> 5) December 8, the solemnity of the Immaculate Conception
>> 6) December 25, the solemnity of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ

>> >But then again, remember that Jesus declared the Pope the authority
>> >> to bind/loose on earth to be held so in heaven. Mat 16:19.

>> >Not the pope--the apostles.

>> That discussion was with Peter only according to (historical) scripture. Other
>> discussions were with the group. John 20:22-23, etc. The early Chruch was there
>> when Jesus spoke, and they know better what was said to whom, and that has been
>> passed down for 2000 years.

>Do you realize how little of catholic theology can actually be traced to
>the apostles?

It comes from Jesus. The disciples learned from Jesus. Those sent forward to
preach the gospels are the apostles (sent forth).

>You wanna know what is actually traceable to the apostles? read the
>didache, which shows what apostilic practice actually was. You'll find
>repentance, baptism, the eucharist, and that's about it for the key
>doctrines of the church.

That could be, but I need to know more what you have in mind. A doctrine is
man-made and can change, dogma comes from God and cannot change.

For instance, the Holy Eucharist is dogma. Limbo, otoh, is doctrine - strictly
man made in an attempt by man to explain something. So is celibacy. That WILL
change.

>> >And to determine whether the popes' claim of
>> >CONTINUED supreme authority is right must be measured against scripture
>> >and known apostolic practices

>> I, and the RCC, agree fully. Jesus said his Church would last forever (Mat
>> 16:18) Even Isaish 22:19-23 reflects an everlasting church.

>> >, amnd the fruit of what has come about
>> >through this claimed authority. When we do that, we see the claim does
>> >not stand up, and the fruit doesn't seem all that great. (At least from
>> >what I would call an independent, non-prejudicial perspective)
>>
>> > What is it to
>> >> require Catholics to fast on Fridays in Lent as a very weak and poor effort on
>> >> our part at following the Lord Jesus on the way to the cross.
>>
>> >That's a nice, religious thing to do as is eating fish on friday fro
>> >some manmde religious reason. But to declare that failure to follow suit
>> >with this manmade practice sends you to hell is an obscene misuse of
>> >this so-called authority, and is a good proof that this authority really
>> >doesn't exist.

>> It definitely did to us Catholics. Why is it you are so adamantly opposed to
>> any leadership authority outside of Jesus himself?
>Because we see from scripture it leads to error:

But not in God's word, but it can be so in man's attempts to follow God.

>matt 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the
>commandments of men.
>That's the RCC problem right there, and why many (certainly not all) in
>it are not saved.

>col 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the
>world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
>21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
>22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and
>doctrines of men?
>23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and
>humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the
>satisfying of the flesh.

>> He left us a Church of men
>> led by men but guided by the Holy Spirit. Even God understood the need to
>> utilize "flesh on flesh" to make his point. And so he became man. The Jews
>> well showed they were not prepared to follow "God on flesh".

No comment?

>> >> >So when Paul talks about our freedom/liberty in Christ to the Galatians,
>> >> >there IS no freedom under the catholic system. There is the same sort of
>> >> >error as the judaisers, who added and tied both biblical and religious
>> >> >comamdnments to salvation, and replaced the burden on the people that
>> >> >Christ lifted

>> >> Perhaps a brief statement of what you're seeing might help.

>> >I've given some: not eating meat on friday, madatory fasting during lent
>> >(a season that does not exist in the bible, but was invented), inventing
>> >days of obligation that Mass must be attended, making missing Mass
>> >without an allowable reason a salvation issue. Things like that.

>> Answered above.

>> >And there are hosts of other minutiae I don't know off the top of my
>> >head, but they're there under the theory that "We can make up any rule
>> >or practice we like, and if you fail to follow it, you go to hell unless
>> >you receive absolution"

>> But the Church doesn't make "any old" rule. They are tasked with guiding us in
>> the ways of the Lord, to live as he lived, to be one flesh with him - he in us,
>> we in him.

Comment?