Re: Heresies and Traditions of the Roman Catholic Church
Barry OGrady
>On Aug 13, 8:36�am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>
>> They didn't say that. God used his power to trick A and E.
>>
>> >>For by grace are we saved through faith and that not of ourselves,
>> >>***it is a gift from God*** (Gladys)
>> Gladys thinks God will save us all from himself because God knows he is
>> the one we need saving from.
>> You recognise that God must follow a script forced on him by a higher power.
>>
>Barry, there is no higher power than God.
Yet you keep telling me God can't learn or better himself.
>God gives us the choice, we can take Jesus Christ as our Saviour or not.
Why do we need saving from God?
>God does not force us to do something we don't wwant to do.
Are hospitals and mental asylums fake?
>But God is giving everyone the opportunity to know what is necessary
>for our salvation. He has given you many, many chances through these
>newsgroups,
I am aware that God is a poor communicator.
If God had communicated properly with Adam he would have no excuse
to downgrade us all.
>Barry, and you have made your choice, I trust that in time you will
>change your decisions as they are at present,
What choice is that?
<deleted your soapbox>
I think you post just to boast about how wonderful a teacher
you were.
>Gladys Swager
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
duke
wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:12:24 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>>On Aug 13, 8:36�am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>
>>> They didn't say that. God used his power to trick A and E.
>>>
>>> >>For by grace are we saved through faith and that not of ourselves,
>>> >>***it is a gift from God*** (Gladys)
>>> Gladys thinks God will save us all from himself because God knows he is
>>> the one we need saving from.
>>> You recognise that God must follow a script forced on him by a higher power.
>>>
>>Barry, there is no higher power than God.
>
>Yet you keep telling me God can't learn or better himself.
That's right - God IS perfection.
>>God gives us the choice, we can take Jesus Christ as our Saviour or not.
>Why do we need saving from God?
Because we're bad from the get-to. A&E showed us that right out of the box.
>>God does not force us to do something we don't wwant to do.
>Are hospitals and mental asylums fake?
Man runs those for other men, not God.
>>But God is giving everyone the opportunity to know what is necessary
>>for our salvation. He has given you many, many chances through these
>>newsgroups,
>I am aware that God is a poor communicator.
>If God had communicated properly with Adam he would have no excuse
>to downgrade us all.
I see God as a perfect communicator. He doesn't even expect us to fully
comprehend his words, yet still gives us all love for just even trying.
>>Barry, and you have made your choice, I trust that in time you will
>>change your decisions as they are at present,
>What choice is that?
They're yours. You explain them.
>I think you post just to boast about how wonderful a teacher
>you were.
It's a downright shame she never learned.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
gladys swager
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:, Barry OGrady wrote:
> >On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 gladys swager wrote:
> >>On Aug 13, 8:36 am, Barry OGrady wrote:
For by grace are we saved through faith and that not of ourselves,
***it is a gift from God***
> >>> Gladys thinks God will save us all from himself because God knows he is
> >>> the one we need saving from.
> >>> You recognise that God must follow a script forced on him by a higher power.
> >>Barry, there is no higher power than God.
> >Yet you keep telling me God can't learn or better himself.
> That's right - God IS perfection.
>
> >>God gives us the choice, we can take Jesus Christ as our Saviour or not.
> >Why do we need saving from God?
> Because we're bad from the get-to. A&E showed us that right out of the box.
>
and Eve.
God, Who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherwith He loved us,
even when we were dead in sins, has quickened us together with
Christ.
(by grace are we saved) Ephesians 2 : 4 - 5
> >>God does not force us to do something we don't want to do.
> >Are hospitals and mental asylums fake?
> Man runs those for other men, not God.
Hospitals were started by Christians. Healing methods have been learnt
as the one aspect of the 'greater things' that Jesus promised His
disciples
that they would do John 14 : 6
> >>But God is giving everyone the opportunity to know what is necessary
> >>for our salvation. He has given you many, many chances through these
> >>newsgroups,
> >I am aware that God is a poor communicator.
> >If God had communicated properly with Adam he would have no excuse
> >to downgrade us all.
>
God is not a poor communicator. Humans can be the poor communicators.
And humans can reject good communications.
> I see God as a perfect communicator. He doesn't even expect us to fully
> comprehend his words, yet still gives us all love for just even trying.
>
> >>Barry, you have made your choice, I trust that in time you will
> >>change your decisions as they are at present,
> >What choice is that?
>
Choice is a matter of 'this' or 'that'. You have to decide.
But decide carefuuly.
> They're yours. You explain them.
> >I think you post just to boast about how wonderful a teacher
> >you were.
> It's a downright shame she never learned.
>
Oh I have learnt, and on a steep learning curve in these Newsgroups.
I realise what a sheltered life I led though the years as I was
focused
on teaching children. Being in these Newsgroups has been a wonderful
experience for me, even though quite difficult at times.
I am thankful to God for the experience.
I do have a better understanding of why adults think as they (we) do.
Gladys Swager,
duke
wrote:
>On Aug 15, 5:47�am, duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 gladys swager wrote:
>> >>On Aug 13, 8:36�am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>For by grace are we saved through faith and that not of ourselves,
>***it is a gift from God*** �
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unless you willfully continue to sin, which is telling God "no", and then the
only thing left is the fires of hell.
Heb 10:26-27
>> >>> Gladys thinks God will save us all from himself because God knows he is
>> >>> the one we need saving from.
>> >>> You recognise that God must follow a script forced on him by a higher power.
>> >>Barry, there is no higher power than God.
>> >Yet you keep telling me God can't learn or better himself.
>> That's right - God IS perfection.
>> >>God gives us the choice, we can take Jesus Christ as our Saviour or not.
>> >Why do we need saving from God?
>> Because we're bad from the get-to. �A&E showed us that right out of the box.
>We have all inherited the sin nature through the generations from Adam
>and Eve. God, Who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherwith He loved us,
>even when we were dead in sins, has quickened us together with
>Christ.
>(by grace are we saved) Ephesians 2 : 4 - 5
But not if you are not quickened.
>> It's a downright shame she never learned.
>Oh I have learnt, and on a steep learning curve in these Newsgroups.
>I realise what a sheltered life I led though the years as I was
>focused on teaching children. Being in these Newsgroups has been a wonderful
>experience for me, even though quite difficult at times.
>I am thankful to God for the experience.
>I do have a better understanding of why adults think as they (we) do.
>Gladys Swager,
Yes, I know why I believe in God.
gladys swager
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 , gladys swager wrote:
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >For by grace are we saved through faith and that not of ourselves,
> >***it is a gift from God***
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >even when we were dead in sins, has quickened us together with
> >Christ. (by grace are we saved) Ephesians 2 : 4 - 5
duke
wrote:
>On Aug 15, 8:42�am, duke wrote:
Main Entry:quick�en
transitive verb
1 a : to make alive : REVIVE b : to cause to be enlivened : STIMULATE
And, gladys, if you aren't quickened, but only paying lip service, then what???
gladys swager
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, gladys swager wrote:
> >On Aug 15, 8:42 am, duke wrote:
> >> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 , gladys swager wrote:
> >> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> >For by grace are we saved through faith and that not of ourselves,
> >> >***it is a gift from God***
> >> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> > God, Who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherwith He loved us,
> >> >even when we were dead in sins, has quickened us together with
> >> >Christ. (by grace are we saved) Ephesians 2 : 4 - 5
> >Gladys Swager
>
> Main Entry:quick£en transitive verb
> 1 a : to make alive : REVIVE b : to cause to be enlivened : STIMULATE
>
> And, gladys, if you aren't quickened, but only paying lip service, then what???
>
Church
doesn't it?
And how many in the RC Church only pay lip service as you use the
term,
because they know of no other as they have been indoctrinated in RC
Schools
from their earliest years?.
And they can be assured of absolution at confession with a RC priest
if they have made a Protestant responsible for any errors they have
made.
Gladys Swager
duke
wrote:
>On Aug 15, 10:47�pm, duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, gladys swager wrote:
>> >On Aug 15, 8:42�am, duke �wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 , gladys swager �wrote:
>> >> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >> >For by grace are we saved through faith and that not of ourselves,
>> >> >***it is a gift from God*** �
>> >> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >> > �God, Who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherwith He loved us,
>> >> >even when we were dead in sins, has quickened us together with
>> >> >Christ. (by grace are we saved) � �Ephesians 2 : 4 - 5
>> >Gladys Swager
>>
>> Main Entry:quick�en transitive verb �
>> 1 a : to make alive �: REVIVE �b : to cause to be enlivened �: STIMULATE
>> And, gladys, if you aren't quickened, but only paying lip service, then what???
>And 'quickened' to you means accepting all the teachings of the RC
>Church doesn't it?
It was a verse you offered, gladys. Quicken means to come alive in Christ, by
definition. I keep asking you for your feelings re avoiding lip service to
Christ, and all you do is turn around and keep accusing me of indoctrinations.
That tells me you're feeling uneasy standing on very sandy soil. I find joy is
every quickened move I make, whether it's saying a rosary "when I don't have
to", or saying a prayer when I'm driving, or more long term elective ministries
requiring weekly participation.
You just keep hiding from your own actions/inactions and act like Christ is
taking care of you with nothing called for on your part. So be it.
You have been foolishly indoctrinated by lute into thinking you don't have a
part to play in your salvation. You think you don't need to be quickened.
gladys swager
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 , gladys swager wrote:
> >On Aug 15, 10:47 pm, duke wrote:
For by grace are we saved through faith and that not of ourselves,
***it is a gift from God***
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
God, Who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherwith He loved us,
even when we were dead in sins, has quickened us together with
Christ. (by grace are we saved) Ephesians 2 : 4 - 5
> >> Main Entry:quick£en transitive verb
> >> 1 a : to make alive : REVIVE b : to cause to be enlivened : STIMULATE
> >> And, gladys, if you aren't quickened, but only paying lip service, then what???
> >And 'quickened' to you means accepting all the teachings of the RC
> >Church doesn't it?
>
> It was a verse you offered, gladys. Quicken means to come alive in Christ, by
> definition. I keep asking you for your feelings re avoiding lip service to
> Christ, and all you do is turn around and keep accusing me of indoctrinations.
> That tells me you're feeling uneasy standing on very sandy soil. I find joy in
> every quickened move I make, whether it's saying a rosary "when I don't have
> to",
And why say the Rosary when you have to and when you don't have to.
There is nothing in the New Testament about prayers to Mary.
And nothing about repeating that same prayer time and time again
with rosary beads.
or saying a prayer when I'm driving, or more long term elective
ministries
> requiring weekly participation.
>
I pray as I do these postings, when I am sitting in the sun on the
verandah etc.
My ministry now is participating in these newsgroups.
Which one of us is praying and ministering with God's blessing
because correct teaching is being given? I know how we both will
answer?
But we both can't be correct.
> You just keep hiding from your own actions/inactions and act like Christ is
> taking care of you with nothing called for on your part. So be it.
>
I have never, ever, ever, said that or acted in that way.
> You have been foolishly indoctrinated by <Luther> into thinking you don't have a
> part to play in your salvation.
My part is to accept what Jesus Christ did for me and then to go on in
good works. .
You think you don't need to be quickened.
The fact is you have a different definition of 'quickened' to what I
have.
And if I don't agree with you, your assessment is that
I am wrong, not you.
Duke, do start to re-think, and before you do pray that God will teach
you
wonderful things out of the Bible scriptures;
ie that God will show you where some of your RC teachings are
incorrect. .
Gladys Swager
duke
wrote:
>On Aug 16, 10:49�pm, duke wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 , gladys swager wrote:
>> >On Aug 15, 10:47�pm, duke �wrote:
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>For by grace are we saved through faith and that not of ourselves,
>***it is a gift from God*** �
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>God, Who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherwith He loved us,
>even when we were dead in sins, has quickened us together with
>Christ. (by grace are we saved) � �Ephesians 2 : 4 - 5
>
>> >> Main Entry:quick�en �transitive verb �
>> >> 1 a : to make alive �: REVIVE �b : to cause to be enlivened �: STIMULATE
>> >> And, gladys, if you aren't quickened, but only paying lip service, then what???
>> >And 'quickened' to you means accepting all the teachings of the RC
>> >Church doesn't it?
>> It was a verse you offered, gladys. � Quicken means to come alive in Christ, by
>> definition. � I keep asking you for your feelings re avoiding lip service to
>> Christ, and all you do is turn around and keep accusing me of indoctrinations.
>> That tells me you're feeling uneasy standing on very sandy soil. � I find joy in
>> every quickened move I make, whether it's saying a rosary "when I don't have
>> to",
>And why say the Rosary when you have to and when you don't have to.
I didnt' say "I have to". I don't reject "in the spirit".
>There is nothing in the New Testament about prayers to Mary.
>And nothing about repeating that same prayer time and time again
>with rosary beads.
That's right, and for heaven's sake, don't do what you don't "have to". Isn't
that right, gladys? Ever try living in the spirit, gladys?
>or saying a prayer when I'm driving, or more long term elective
>ministries
>> requiring weekly participation.
>I pray as I do these postings, when I am sitting in the sun on the
>verandah etc.
Great. Glad to hear that.
>My ministry now is participating in these newsgroups.
That's not a ministry. You're not freely giving of yourself. You're instead
participating in a discussion pushing your own views of scripture.
>Which one of us is praying and ministering with God's blessing
>because correct teaching is being given? I know how we both will
>answer?
I know you're redefining the words of Christ.
>> You just keep hiding from your own actions/inactions and act like Christ is
>> taking care of you with nothing called for on your part. � So be it.
>I have never, ever, ever, said that or acted in that way.
It is a major fault with protesters.
>> You have been foolishly indoctrinated by <Luther> into thinking you don't have a
>> part to play in your salvation. �
>My part is to accept what Jesus Christ did for me and then to go on in
>good works. .
Our part is to freely live in the spirit.
>You think you don't need to be quickened. �
>The fact is you have a different definition of 'quickened' to what I
>have.
>And if I don't agree with you, your assessment is that
>I am wrong, not you.
I even gave you a definition for it.
>Duke, do start to re-think, and before you do pray that God will teach
>you wonderful things out of the Bible scriptures;
He did, gladys. He gave us the Holy Mass and 7 sacraments.
Barry OGrady
>On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:14:50 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager <swa...@ozemail.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>On Aug 15, 5:47�am, duke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>> >On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 gladys swager wrote:
>>> >>On Aug 13, 8:36�am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>For by grace are we saved through faith and that not of ourselves,
>>***it is a gift from God*** �
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Unless you willfully continue to sin, which is telling God "no", and then the
>only thing left is the fires of hell.
Alternatively God could work with us to ensure a good outcome.
Do you know why you reject reality?
>The Dukester, American-American
Barry OGrady
>On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:48:28 +1000, Barry OGrady <god_fre...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:12:24 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>On Aug 13, 8:36�am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>>
>>>> They didn't say that. God used his power to trick A and E.
>>>>
>>>> >>For by grace are we saved through faith and that not of ourselves,
>>>> >>***it is a gift from God*** (Gladys)
>>>> Gladys thinks God will save us all from himself because God knows he is
>>>> the one we need saving from.
>>>> You recognise that God must follow a script forced on him by a higher power.
>>>>
>>>Barry, there is no higher power than God.
>>
>>Yet you keep telling me God can't learn or better himself.
>
>That's right - God IS perfection.
Apparently your idea of perfection allows a perfect being to make stupid
and disastrous mistakes, and the inability to learn means those mistakes
will never be corrected.
Essentially then, God is an automaton following a script set by some unknown
force.
God is also incapable of any emotions.
>>>God gives us the choice, we can take Jesus Christ as our Saviour or not.
>>Why do we need saving from God?
>
>Because we're bad from the get-to. A&E showed us that right out of the box.
God did try to fix his mistakes with the global flood but that was doomed from
the start too.
You admit that God was a failure from the start. I admire that. Gladys won't
accept that God continues to screw up.
>>>God does not force us to do something we don't wwant to do.
>>Are hospitals and mental asylums fake?
>
>Man runs those for other men, not God.
Do the patients choose to require their services?
There is nothing we can or should do for a being for whom all things are possible.
>>>But God is giving everyone the opportunity to know what is necessary
>>>for our salvation. He has given you many, many chances through these
>>>newsgroups,
>
>>I am aware that God is a poor communicator.
>>If God had communicated properly with Adam he would have no excuse
>>to downgrade us all.
>
>I see God as a perfect communicator.
Your idea of perfection includes the ability to make stupid mistakes
and to be corrupted by absolute power.
>He doesn't even expect us to fully comprehend his words, yet still
>gives us all love for just even trying.
Does that mean sincerity alone will allow a person into heaven?
>>>Barry, and you have made your choice, I trust that in time you will
>>>change your decisions as they are at present,
>>What choice is that?
>
>They're yours. You explain them.
I choose to have every creature happy and healthy at all times.
>>I think you post just to boast about how wonderful a teacher
>>you were.
>
>It's a downright shame she never learned.
It's a downright shame you both are incapable of learning.
>The Dukester, American-American
Barry OGrady
>On Aug 15, 5:47�am, duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 gladys swager wrote:
>> >>On Aug 13, 8:36�am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>For by grace are we saved through faith and that not of ourselves,
>***it is a gift from God*** �
In that case you have no need to spread the message. God will save us all from
himself regardless of what we do or think.
God owes us big time.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >>> Gladys thinks God will save us all from himself because God knows he is
>> >>> the one we need saving from.
>> >>> You recognise that God must follow a script forced on him by a higher power.
>> >>Barry, there is no higher power than God.
>> >Yet you keep telling me God can't learn or better himself.
>> That's right - God IS perfection.
>>
>> >>God gives us the choice, we can take Jesus Christ as our Saviour or not.
>> >Why do we need saving from God?
>> Because we're bad from the get-to. �A&E showed us that right out of the box.
>>
>We have all inherited the sin nature through the generations from Adam
>and Eve.
Duke blames God for not making Adam perfect.
>God, Who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherwith He loved us,
>even when we were dead in sins, has quickened us together with
>Christ.
Does God express his great love by ensuring all creatures are happy
and healthy at all times?
>(by grace are we saved) Ephesians 2 : 4 - 5
>
>> >>God does not force us to do something we don't want to do.
>> >Are hospitals and mental asylums fake?
>> Man runs those for other men, not God.
>Hospitals were started by Christians. Healing methods have been learnt
>as the one aspect of the 'greater things' that Jesus promised His
>disciples that they would do John 14 : 6
Duke can't accept they are needed because God does make us do things
we don't want to do.
>> >>But God is giving everyone the opportunity to know what is necessary
>> >>for our salvation. He has given you many, many chances through these
>> >>newsgroups,
>> >I am aware that God is a poor communicator.
>> >If God had communicated properly with Adam he would have no excuse
>> >to downgrade us all.
>>
>God is not a poor communicator.
Does everybody agree on what God wants?
>Humans can be the poor communicators.
Not a problem for God.
>And humans can reject good communications.
Humans don't reject good communications from their creator.
>> I see God as a perfect communicator. �He doesn't even expect us to fully
>> comprehend his words, yet still gives us all love for just even trying.
>>
>> >>Barry, you have made your choice, I trust that in time you will
>> >>change your decisions as they are at present,
>> >What choice is that?
>>
>Choice is a matter of 'this' or 'that'.
What if there are no good choices in the list?
>You have to decide.
>But decide carefuuly.
Fear not! If God has made my choosing mechanism correctly and God
has given me all the required information I will always make the right choice.
>> They're yours. �You explain them.
>> >I think you post just to boast about how wonderful a teacher
>> >you were.
>> It's a downright shame she never learned.
>>
>Oh I have learnt, and on a steep learning curve in these Newsgroups.
>I realise what a sheltered life I led though the years as I was focused
>on teaching children. Being in these Newsgroups has been a wonderful
>experience for me, even though quite difficult at times.
>I am thankful to God for the experience.
>I do have a better understanding of why adults think as they (we) do.
I doubt that. You have no concept of the how the brain works and
how it malfunctions.
>Gladys Swager,
gladys swager
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, gladys swager wrote:
> >On Aug 16, 10:49 pm, duke wrote:
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >For by grace are we saved through faith and that not of ourselves,
> >***it is a gift from God***
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >God, Who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherwith He loved us,
> >even when we were dead in sins, has quickened us together with
> >Christ. (by grace are we saved) Ephesians 2 : 4 - 5
>
> I didnt' say "I have to". I don't reject "in the spirit".
> >There is nothing in the New Testament about prayers to Mary.
> >And nothing about repeating that same prayer time and time again
> >with rosary beads.
>
> That's right, and for heaven's sake, don't do what you don't "have to". Isn't
> that right, gladys? Ever try living in the spirit, gladys?
> >verandah etc.
> Great. Glad to hear that.
> >My ministry now is participating in these newsgroups.
> That's not a ministry. You're not freely giving of yourself. You're instead
> participating in a discussion pushing your own views of scripture.
And you are pushing true teachings?
> >Which one of us is praying and ministering with God's blessing
> >because correct teaching is being given? I know how we both will
> >answer?
> I know you're redefining the words of Christ.
> It is a major fault with Protestants.
You are being judgemental. What percentage of Protestants do you know
of all Protestants in the world? Protestants are acting from our
teachings
as you are acting from yours. .
>
> >> You have been foolishly indoctrinated by <Luther> into thinking you don't have a
> >> part to play in your salvation.
> >My part is to accept what Jesus Christ did for me and then to go on in
> >good works. .
> Our part is to freely live in the spirit.
>
> >Duke, do start to re-think, and before you do pray that God will teach
> >you wonderful things out of the Bible scriptures;
>
> He did, gladys. He gave us the Holy Mass and 7 sacraments.
>
This just goes round in circles.
You do not understand the metaphoric language that Jesus used.
You will not accept the the RC Church added teachings to the New
Testament scriptures.
You would keep the laity in the pews for all their lives.
The Christian faith cannot be presented in any other form except
when
the hierarchy at Rome decides to behaviour modify (trick) others
to accept its teachings.
It closed ramks in the late 1300's when Wycliffe, one of its own
priests
diagreed with its teachings, even burnt his bones and threw them into
the river.
(desecration of the dead).
I wonder if it was a Roman Catholic person who placed a live bullet
outside
my office, and erotic literature on my classroom table confessed those
actions
to her priest, did the priest just say 'Just keep quiet about
it!'
Did a Roman Catholic priest say to a person who implemented my idea
of
Community Education programmes say 'That's good. We''ll be in on that
and
hope that she never gets wind of what you are doing.
Did a Roman Catholic priest say to those who acted from the
initiatives given
by Public school teachers (two I am aware of, one myself).
"That's good. we''ll set up our own University to reasearch and
further extend those
ideas so that they will appear to be all our own".
Confession to priests can keep them abreast of the times and take
advantages,
if they can'. for their own belief system.
"God is merciful and forgiving, Donlt worry about those from whom you
gained
those intiatives". especially if they are Protestants.
Gladys Swager
duke
wrote:
>On Aug 17, 9:38�pm, duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, gladys swager wrote:
>> >On Aug 16, 10:49�pm, duke wrote:
>> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >For by grace are we saved through faith and that not of ourselves,
>> >***it is a gift from God*** �
>> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >God, Who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherwith He loved us,
>> >even when we were dead in sins, has quickened us together with
>> >Christ. (by grace are we saved) � �Ephesians 2 : 4 - 5
>>
>> >And why say the Rosary when you have to and when you don't have to.
>> I didnt' say "I have to". �I don't reject "in the spirit". �
>> >There is nothing in the New Testament about prayers to Mary.
>> >And nothing about repeating that same prayer time and time again
>> >with rosary beads.
>>
>> That's right, and for heaven's sake, don't do what you don't "have to". �Isn't
>> that right, gladys? �Ever try living in the spirit, gladys?
>> >I pray as I do these postings, when I am sitting in the sun on the
>> >verandah etc.
>> Great. �Glad to hear that.
>> >My ministry now is participating in these newsgroups.
>> That's not a ministry. �You're not freely giving of yourself. �You're instead
>> participating in a discussion pushing your own views of scripture.
>
>And you are pushing true teachings?
Those of Christ and the RCC. You push lute teaching.
>> >Which one of us is praying and ministering with God's blessing
>> >because correct teaching is being given? I know how we both will
>> >answer?
>> I know you're redefining the words of Christ.
>> It is a major fault with Protestants.
>You are being judgemental. What percentage of Protestants do you know
>of all Protestants in the world? Protestants are acting from our
>teachings as you are acting from yours. .
YOU...........are the one rejecting the Holy Mass and 5 of 7 sacraments, not
me..
>> >> You have been foolishly indoctrinated by <Luther> into thinking you don't have a
>> >> part to play in your salvation. �
>> >My part is to accept what Jesus Christ did for me and then to go on in
>> >good works. .
>> Our part is to freely live in the spirit.
No comment.
>> >Duke, do start to re-think, and before you do pray that God will teach
>> >you wonderful things out of the Bible scriptures;
>>
>> He did, gladys. �He gave us the Holy Mass and 7 sacraments.
>This just goes round in circles.
>You do not understand the metaphoric language that Jesus used.
The RCC does, but you don't. You elected to follow the protester.
>You will not accept the the RC Church added teachings to the New
>Testament scriptures.
You can't show any. The only two that were confirmed from early Christian
teachings are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption - both of Mary.
Why don't you complain that the Mass vestments are green for ordinary time and
red for feasts of martyrs. Or that many RC churches have bells, or a steeple.
Why don't you complain that churches have aisles and seats to sit in.
>You would keep the laity in the pews for all their lives.
Nope, roughly 1 hour every Sunday and the few Holy Days.
>The Christian faith cannot be presented in any other form except
>when the hierarchy at Rome decides to behaviour modify (trick) others
>to accept its teachings.
The only one to do that is lute, and you bit.
Meaningless crying deleted.
duke
wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:42:42 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:14:50 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager <swa...@ozemail.com.au>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Aug 15, 5:47�am, duke wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>> >On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 gladys swager wrote:
>>>> >>On Aug 13, 8:36�am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>For by grace are we saved through faith and that not of ourselves,
>>>***it is a gift from God*** �
>>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>Unless you willfully continue to sin, which is telling God "no", and then the
>>only thing left is the fires of hell.
>
>Alternatively God could work with us to ensure a good outcome.
He's doing that. You're running away.
duke
wrote:
>>>>Barry, there is no higher power than God.
>>>Yet you keep telling me God can't learn or better himself.
>>That's right - God IS perfection.
>Apparently your idea of perfection allows a perfect being to make stupid
>and disastrous mistakes, and the inability to learn means those mistakes
>will never be corrected.
Not unless the person wants to correct them. God is standing by waiting on your
decision.
Barry OGrady
>On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:07:47 +1000, Barry OGrady <god_fre...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:42:42 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:14:50 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager <swa...@ozemail.com.au>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Aug 15, 5:47�am, duke wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>>> >On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 gladys swager wrote:
>>>>> >>On Aug 13, 8:36�am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>For by grace are we saved through faith and that not of ourselves,
>>>>***it is a gift from God*** �
>>>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>>Unless you willfully continue to sin, which is telling God "no", and then the
>>>only thing left is the fires of hell.
>>
>>Alternatively God could work with us to ensure a good outcome.
>
>He's doing that. You're running away.
Why doesn't God want a good outcome?
Barry OGrady
>On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:07:47 +1000, Barry OGrady <god_fre...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>>>Barry, there is no higher power than God.
>>>>Yet you keep telling me God can't learn or better himself.
>>>That's right - God IS perfection.
>
>>Apparently your idea of perfection allows a perfect being to make stupid
>>and disastrous mistakes, and the inability to learn means those mistakes
>>will never be corrected.
>
>Not unless the person wants to correct them.
It could be that God is incapable of correcting his errors.
If you are right about God being a robot he may be unable to do anything
outside his programming.
>God is standing by waiting on your decision.
I'm glad you told me. God is such a poor communicator he would have
just stood there waiting without telling me.
My decision is that God stop making mistakes which impact adversely on
us and for God to fix all of his existing errors so that all creatures are
happy and healthy at all times.
Please pass my decision on to God.
gladys swager
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2009, gladys swager wrote:
> >On Aug 17, 9:38 pm, duke wrote:
> >> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, gladys swager wrote:
> >> >On Aug 16, 10:49 pm, duke wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For by grace are we saved through faith and that not of ourselves,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
even when we were dead in sins, has quickened us together with
Christ. (by grace are we saved) Ephesians 2 : 4 - 5
>
good works. .
> >Testament scriptures.
>
> You can't show any. The only two that were confirmed from early Christian
> teachings are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption - both of Mary.
>
Luke, a doctor, could have written that Mary in Her conception was
perfect,
but he knew that er parents were not perfect in their own concepions
an way back through history was the same.
And why is it that Peter, James, John, Jude and Paul did not write
about
the ascent of Mary into heaven, in a similar fashion to the ascent of
Jesus?
> Why don't you complain that the Mass vestments are green for ordinary time and
> red for feasts of martyrs.
That is something I did not understand as i hadn't thought to check it
out.
But surely the parishioners would know by the type of service,
Why two sets of vestments and the added cost, money that could be
spent
better, of the time of the nun in stitching them?
Or that many RC churches have bells, or a steeple.
And some Protestant churches too.
But the church could be a tin shed in outback Australia.
> >The Christian faith cannot be presented in any other form except
> >when the hierarchy at Rome decides to behaviour modify (trick) others
> >to accept its teachings.
>
> The only one to do that is lute, and you bit.
>
Luther did not trick those to whom he minisitered, nor did Wycliffe,
the "Morning Star of the Reformation", nor did other reformers of
that
period of history
The leaders of the Church at Rome were wrong, they wouldn't admit it
then,
they are not willing to admit now they are wrong in some aspects of
the Christian faith.
What a trick World Youth Days are to behaviour modify Protestants
to realign themselves with its teachings, that are not made public
on such occasions. I hope that Protestants will not fall for such
deceit.
- granted that the leaders of the Church at Rome do not understand it
is so.
but an Internet search would clarify the situation for them
Gladys Swager
duke
wrote:
>On Aug 18, 10:19�ｿｽpm, duke wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2009, gladys swager wrote:
>> >On Aug 17, 9:38�ｿｽpm, duke wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, gladys swager wrote:
>> >> >On Aug 16, 10:49�ｿｽpm, duke wrote:
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>For by grace are we saved through faith and that not of ourselves,
>*it is a gift from God*** �ｿｽ
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>My part is to accept what Jesus Christ did for me and then to go on in
>good works. .
That's not what Jesus said. He clearly said **repent of your sins, pick up your
own cross, and follow me**.
>>>You will not accept the the RC Church added teachings to the New
>> >Testament scriptures.
>> You can't show any. �ｿｽThe only two that were confirmed from early Christian
>> teachings are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption - both of Mary.
>And they are not in the New Testament teachings.
They are Christ's original Holy Tradition and are now dogma.
>And why is it that Peter, James, John, Jude and Paul did not write
>about the ascent of Mary into heaven, in a similar fashion to the ascent of
>Jesus?
They wrote down what people were saying in their words, actions and worship.
Like Holy Orders gives men the authority to forgive sins against God.
>> Why don't you complain that the Mass vestments are green for ordinary time and
>> red for feasts of martyrs. �ｿｽ
>That is something I did not understand as i hadn't thought to check it
>out.
>But surely the parishioners would know by the type of service,
>Why two sets of vestments and the added cost, money that could be
>spent >better, of the time of the nun in stitching them?
And white/gold for memorial Masses like Easter and purple for Lent. We
Catholics don't act like you protest_ers and take the easy way out, rejecting
anything too time consuming for the love of Christ.
>Or that many RC churches have bells, or a steeple.
Now there's something of real dogma orientation. Bells were used the call the
faithful to service and to denote time of the hour. Flat roofs collapse under
snow or water load.
>And some Protestant churches too.
>But the church could be a tin shed in outback Australia.
Not good. Following Christ, it should be a cave.
>> >The Christian faith cannot be presented in any other form except
>> >when the hierarchy at Rome decides �ｿｽto behaviour modify (trick) others
>> >to accept its teachings.
>>
>> The only one to do that is lute, and you bit.
>Luther did not trick those to whom he minisitered,
Lut is the worst of the bunch. He has misled protest_ants the world over to
reject much of the words of Christ.
duke
wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 07:19:39 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:07:47 +1000, Barry OGrady <god_fre...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:42:42 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:14:50 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager <swa...@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Aug 15, 5:47�am, duke wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>>>> >On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 gladys swager wrote:
>>>>>> >>On Aug 13, 8:36�am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>For by grace are we saved through faith and that not of ourselves,
>>>>>***it is a gift from God*** �
>>>>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>
>>>>Unless you willfully continue to sin, which is telling God "no", and then the
>>>>only thing left is the fires of hell.
>>>
>>>Alternatively God could work with us to ensure a good outcome.
>>
>>He's doing that. You're running away.
>
>Why doesn't God want a good outcome?
He gives you the choice to refuse a good outcome.
gladys swager
> On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, gladys swager wrote:
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >For by grace are we saved through faith and that not of ourselves,
> >*it is a gift from God***
> 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >My part is to accept what Jesus Christ did for me and then to go on in
> >good works. .
> That's not what Jesus said. He clearly said **repent of your sins, pick up your
> own cross, and follow me**.
begotten Son
that ***wosoever believes in Him*** should not perish ,
***but have everlasting Life.*** John 3 : 16
If a person does not have faith in Jsus, how can that person follow
Jesus.
Step 1 of the the Christian life is faith for salvation Step 2 good
works.
Not as you have been taught, Duke.
Step 1 and Step 2 combined give salvation. = faith + works give
salvation.
and if you miss out on any works its "To Purgatory you go'.
>
>(Immaculate conception and Assunption of Mary) are now dogma.
Duke they were decreed in 1854 and 1950.
They are not written in the New Testament.
> >And why is it that Peter, James, John, Jude and Paul did not write
> >about the ascent of Mary into heaven, in a similar fashion to the ascent of
> >Jesus?
> They wrote down what people were saying in their words, actions and worship.
> Like Holy Orders gives men the authority to forgive sins against God.
>
them???
Yes. paul was told by others, although it sis possible that he had
heard quite a lot
about hesus ans His teachings and miracles before His crucifixion and
resurrection.
Protestants do have the canon of scripture and in the mainstream
the New Testament truths are the ones followed.
Wycliffe, Luther and others did the Chrsitian faith a good service
when
they protested about the errors that had been brought into it.
And do not mimic again to me 'You have not said any of them'.
Gladys Swager
duke
wrote:
>On Aug 20, 10:15�pm, duke wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, gladys swager wrote:
>> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >For by grace are we saved through faith and that not of ourselves,
>> >*it is a gift from God*** �
>> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >My part is to accept what Jesus Christ did for me and then to go on in
>> >good works. .
>> That's not what Jesus said. �He clearly said **repent of your sins, pick up your
>> own cross, and follow me**.
>Jesus also said, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only
>begotten Son
>that ***wosoever believes in Him*** should not perish ,
>***but have everlasting Life.*** John 3 : 16
Matthew 26:42 (New International Version)
42He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if it is not possible for
this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done."
Proceed with your easy way and lip service to God, gladys.
Romans 8:14-17 (New International Version)
14because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15For you did
not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the
Spirit of sonship.[a] And by him we cry, "Abba,[b] Father." 16The Spirit himself
testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. 17Now if we are children,
then we are heirs�heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in
his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.
Footnotes:
a.Romans 8:15 Or adoption
b.Romans 8:15 Aramaic for Father
>If a person does not have faith in Jsus, how can that person follow
>Jesus.
You don't. You say so. You reject much of what he taught.
>>(Immaculate conception and Assunption of Mary) are now dogma.
>Duke they were decreed in 1854 and 1950.
They were made infallible statements in 1854 and 1950. They are unwritten
Christian profession since 33AD.
>They are not written in the New Testament.
But they are part of NT Holy Tradition of 33AD.
>> >And why is it that Peter, James, John, Jude and Paul did not write
>> >about the ascent of Mary into heaven, in a similar fashion to the ascent of
>> >Jesus?
>> They wrote down what people were saying in their words, actions and worship.
>> Like Holy Orders gives men the authority to forgive sins against God.
>And Peter, James, John, and Jude did not know, but others had to tell
>them???
Tell them what. The Apostles lived the life, unlike you, and spent time
writing. Not everything Christ said and did is written down. You didn't know
that, did you. John 21:25.
>Yes. paul was told by others, although it sis possible that he had
>heard quite a lot
>about hesus ans His teachings and miracles before His crucifixion and
>resurrection.
Wrong. Paul was a Jew persecutor of Christians until his experience with Jesus
on the road to Damascus.
>Protestants do have the canon of scripture and in the mainstream
>the New Testament truths are the ones followed.
Martin Luther, father of the Protestant Reformation admits, "We are obliged to
yield many things to the Papists (Catholics) - that they possess the Word of God
which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about
it."
(In his commentary on St John, (Chapter 16) Martin Luther wrote, "We are
obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics) that they possess
the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have
known nothing at all about it.")
Barry OGrady
That's not good.
Why doesn't God ensure a good outcome?
�R. L. Measures
god_fre...@yahoo.com wrote:
� Mmmmmm. . . because He doesn't give a damn?
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Barry OGrady
Probably. When nobody can stop you there is no incentive to care.
Or it could be he doesn't exist.
>--
>R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Barry
�R. L. Measures
god_fre...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:11:40 -0700, r...@somis.org (�R. L. Measures) wrote:
>
> >In article <qqes859m0g5ar2i1l...@4ax.com>,
> >god_fre...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >> That's not good.
> >> Why doesn't God ensure a good outcome?
> >>
> >� Mmmmmm. . . because He doesn't give a damn?
>
> Probably. When nobody can stop you there is no incentive to care.
> Or it could be he doesn't exist.
>
� everybody's guessing on that one Barry. cheerz
Ms.Moneypenny
"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:q7a495demdlotk556...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:11:40 -0700, r...@somis.org (.R. L. Measures)
>
>>In article <qqes859m0g5ar2i1l...@4ax.com>,
>>god_fre...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> That's not good.
>>> Why doesn't God ensure a good outcome?
>>>
>
> Probably. When nobody can stop you there is no incentive to care.
> Or it could be he doesn't exist.
>
>>--
>>R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
>
> Barry
> =====
> Home page
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Barry were you ever part of a church of any kind?
Just curious.
Moneypenny
Barry OGrady
Barry OGrady
>"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:q7a495demdlotk556...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:11:40 -0700, r...@somis.org (.R. L. Measures)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <qqes859m0g5ar2i1l...@4ax.com>,
>>>god_fre...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's not good.
>>>> Why doesn't God ensure a good outcome?
>>>>
>>>. Mmmmmm. . . because He doesn't give a damn?
>>
>> Probably. When nobody can stop you there is no incentive to care.
>> Or it could be he doesn't exist.
>>
>>>--
>>>R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
>>
>> Barry
>
>Barry were you ever part of a church of any kind?
No.
>
>Just curious.
>
>Moneypenny
duke
wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:08:12 -0400, "Ms.Moneypenny" <money...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:q7a495demdlotk556...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:11:40 -0700, r...@somis.org (.R. L. Measures)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <qqes859m0g5ar2i1l...@4ax.com>,
>>>>god_fre...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That's not good.
>>>>> Why doesn't God ensure a good outcome?
>>>>>
>>>>. Mmmmmm. . . because He doesn't give a damn?
>>>
>>> Probably. When nobody can stop you there is no incentive to care.
>>> Or it could be he doesn't exist.
>>>
>>>>--
>>>>R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
>>>
>>> Barry
>>
>>Barry were you ever part of a church of any kind?
>
>No.
It shows.
gladys swager
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, gladys swager wrote:
> >On Aug 20, 10:15 pm, duke wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, gladys swager wrote:
> >> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> >For by grace are we saved through faith and that not of ourselves,
> >> >*it is a gift from God***
> >> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> >My part is to accept what Jesus Christ did for me and then to go on in
> >> >good works. .
> >> That's not what Jesus said. He clearly said **repent of your sins, pick up your
> >> own cross, and follow me**.
> >Jesus also said, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only
> >begotten Son that ***wosoever believes in Him*** should not perish ,
> >***but have everlasting Life.*** John 3 : 16
>
> Matthew 26:42 (New International Version)
> 42He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if it is not possible for
> this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done."
> Proceed with your easy way and lip service to God, gladys.
>
an easy way
of 'just lip service' to God. You make judgements that you cannot
substantiate.
>
> >If a person does not have faith in Jesus, how can that person follow
> >Jesus.
> You don't. You say so. You reject much of what he taught.
hierarchy there
have added to the New Testament teachings. But, as yet, you do not,
cannot,
understand that.
> >>(Immaculate conception and Assunption of Mary) are now dogma.
> >Duke they were decreed in 1854 and 1950.
> They were made infallible statements in 1854 and 1950. They are unwritten
> Christian profession since 33AD.
>
And as unwritten Christian profession since 33AD - (the Immaculate
Conception
would have been known by Mary's parents, well before the beginning of
the NT
era). You mean they were just transmytted orally through all the
centuries until
the 1800'sAD?. Just try again by pulling the other leg!
However, I have just realised another matter. Papal Infallibility was
proclaimed in 1870AD,
just sexteen years after the proclamation of the Immaculate
Conception.
Common sense tells me that there could have been much debate, both in
the Vatican,
and in the wider sphere of local RC Churches during that period and
that Papal Infallibility
was declared to squash it. If the Pope says it, well, it must be so,
as he is infallible
when he speakes 'ex-cathedra- ie from his chair (throne).
> >They are not written in the New Testament.
> But they are part of NT Holy Tradition of 33AD.
>
Who said they are Holy Tradition?
Fallible men promoted to the positions of Cardinals and Popes.
> >> >And why is it that Peter, James, John, Jude and Paul did not write
> >> >about the ascent of Mary into heaven, in a similar fashion to the ascent of
> >> >Jesus?
> >> They wrote down what people were saying in their words, actions and worship.
So ordinary persons going about their ordinary daily chores knew more
than Peter,
James and John who had spent much time with Jesus, and most likely had
contact
with Mary and her parents and with Joseph?.
> >> Like Holy Orders gives men the authority to forgive sins against God.
> >And Peter, James, John, and Jude did not know, but others had to tell
> >them???
It was Jesus Who gave authority to forgive sins, John 20 : 23
Jesus said to (the disciples), Whosoever sins you remit, they are
remitted
unto them; and whosoever sins you retain. they are retained.
> Tell them what. The Apostles lived the life, unlike you, and spent time
> writing. Not everything Christ said and did is written down. You didn't know
> that, did you?. John 21:25.
>
My understanding is that the twelve apostles were given specific areas
of ministry.
The writings of Matthew, James, Jude, Peter and John have been kept.
Paul was the most prolific writer of them all. But he had been trained
under Gamaliel,
(the most illustrious teacher of his time) to be a Pharisee.and as
both a Jew and a
Roman citizen had much better qualifications that the others did.
> >Protestants do have the canon of scripture and in the mainstream
> >the New Testament truths are the ones followed.
> Martin Luther, father of the Protestant Reformation admits, "We are obliged to
> yield many things to the Papists (Catholics) - that they possess the Word of God
> which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about
> it."
>
The Word of God was possessed by the churches that were begun in the
Mediterranean area,
at first in oral form, and then in written form as Paul wrote to the
various churches and, no
doubt, there were extra copies made extremely carefully so that they
were accurate
as the copying by the Jewish scribes had been.
In respect of Mary, not one reference after Acts 1 : 14.
Therefore any ideas about her given after that time are just
speculation,
and the ideas should not have been made up centuries later.
Gladys Swager
�R. L. Measures
god_fre...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 05:01:24 -0700, r...@somis.org (�R. L. Measures) wrote:
>
> >In article <q7a495demdlotk556...@4ax.com>,
> >god_fre...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:11:40 -0700, r...@somis.org (�R. L. Measures) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <qqes859m0g5ar2i1l...@4ax.com>,
> >> >god_fre...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> That's not good.
> >> >> Why doesn't God ensure a good outcome?
> >> >>
> >> >� Mmmmmm. . . because He doesn't give a damn?
> >>
> >> Probably. When nobody can stop you there is no incentive to care.
> >> Or it could be he doesn't exist.
> >>
> >� everybody's guessing on that one Barry. cheerz
>
> We do know the Christian God does not exist.
>
� It does seem a bit curious that Christianity's Supreme Diety has so
many of mankind's worst personality characteristics.
Barry OGrady
>On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:37:41 +1000, Barry OGrady <god_fre...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:08:12 -0400, "Ms.Moneypenny" <money...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:q7a495demdlotk556...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:11:40 -0700, r...@somis.org (.R. L. Measures)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <qqes859m0g5ar2i1l...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>god_fre...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not good.
>>>>>> Why doesn't God ensure a good outcome?
>>>>>>
>>>>>. Mmmmmm. . . because He doesn't give a damn?
>>>>
>>>> Probably. When nobody can stop you there is no incentive to care.
>>>> Or it could be he doesn't exist.
>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
>>>>
>>>> Barry
>>>
>>>Barry were you ever part of a church of any kind?
>>
>>No.
>
>It shows.
Thank you.
>The Dukester, American-American
==============
Barry
duke
wrote:
>On Aug 21, 10:10�pm, duke wrote:
Sorry, gladys, let me rephrase.
1. "Easy" is directed at your approach to following Jesus. This is evident in
your denial of the Holy Mass, 5 of 7 sacraments, and doing any more than
absolutely minimal in following Jesu.
2. You substantiated them for me.
>> >If a person does not have faith in Jesus, how can that person follow
>> >Jesus.
>> You don't. �You say so. �You reject much of what he taught.
>I reject certain teachings of the RC Church at Rome because the
>hierarchy there have added to the New Testament teachings. But, as yet, you do not,
>cannot, understand that.
Nope, no additions. You can't name any.
>> >>(Immaculate conception and Assunption of Mary) are now dogma.
>> >Duke they were decreed in 1854 and 1950.
>> They were made infallible statements in 1854 and 1950. �They are unwritten
>> Christian profession since 33AD.
>And as unwritten Christian profession since 33AD - (the Immaculate
>Conception would have been known by Mary's parents, well before the beginning of
>the NT era. You mean they were just transmytted orally through all the
>centuries until the 1800'sAD?
Already answered multiple times.
>Just try again by pulling the other leg!
>However, I have just realised another matter. Papal Infallibility was
>proclaimed in 1870AD, just sexteen years after the proclamation of the Immaculate
>Conception. Common sense tells me that there could have been much debate, both in
>the Vatican, and in the wider sphere of local RC Churches during that period and
>that Papal Infallibility was declared to squash it. If the Pope says it, well, it must be so,
>as he is infallible when he speakes 'ex-cathedra- ie from his chair (throne).
Oh, ye of little faith.
Papal infallibility took a lot of gnashing of teeth, infighting, posturing, etc
before was finally declared a valid position in matters of faith and morals
(ONLY)
Even though the IC and the A were strong Christian beliefs all the way back to
33AD, the infallibility of the Pope with the counseling and guidance of the Holy
Spirit and the Magestarium took a while to develop.
>> >They are not written in the New Testament.
>> But they are part of NT Holy Tradition of 33AD.
>Who said they are Holy Tradition?
All written words started as Holy Tradition. The Body of Christ as the Catholic
Church professed these views all the way back to Christ.
>Fallible men promoted to the positions of Cardinals and Popes.
All mankind is fallible.
>> >> >And why is it that Peter, James, John, Jude and Paul did not write
>> >> >about the ascent of Mary into heaven, in a similar fashion to the ascent of
>> >> >Jesus?
>> >> They wrote down what people were saying in their words, actions and worship.
>So ordinary persons going about their ordinary daily chores knew more
>than Peter,
>James and John who had spent much time with Jesus, and most likely had
>contact
>with Mary and her parents and with Joseph?.
Matthew, Mark and Luke never met Jesus. Of the 4 gospels, only John had 1:1
contact with Jesus.
>> >> Like Holy Orders gives men the authority to forgive sins against God.
>> >And Peter, James, John, and Jude �did not know, but others had to tell
>> >them???
>It was Jesus Who gave authority to forgive sins, John 20 : 23
>Jesus said to (the disciples), Whosoever sins you remit, they are
>remitted unto them; and whosoever sins you retain. they are retained.
Yep, he gave it to the Apostles gathered about him on Easter Sunday night, and
it was passed by laying of hands so that Mat 28:19 could be fulfilled until the
time Jesus returns.
>> Tell them what. �The Apostles lived the life, unlike you, and spent time
>> writing. �Not everything Christ said and did is written down. �You didn't know
>> that, did you?. �John 21:25.
>My understanding is that the twelve apostles were given specific areas
>of ministry.
If so, it was the primacy of Peter doing it.
> The writings of Matthew, James, Jude, Peter and John have been kept.
???
>Paul was the most prolific writer of them all. But he had been trained
>under Gamaliel, (the most illustrious teacher of his time) to be a Pharisee.and as
>both a Jew and a Roman citizen had much better qualifications that the others did.
Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote the inspired scripture coming out of the lips of
the new Christians in their acts, words and religious practices, but never met
Jesus. John knew Jesus. Paul wrote letters to and visited the expanding
Church.
>> >Protestants do have the canon of scripture and in the mainstream
>> >the New Testament truths are the ones followed.
>> Martin Luther, father of the Protestant Reformation admits, "We are obliged to
>> yield many things to the Papists (Catholics) - that they possess the Word of God
>> which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about
>> it."
>The Word of God was possessed by the churches that were begun in the
>Mediterranean area, at first in oral form
Right, oral form makes it "tradition".
>, and then in written form as Paul wrote to the
>various churches
Paul's letter were to guide the expanding Church and keep it on path.
> and, no
>doubt, there were extra copies made extremely carefully so that they
>were accurate as the copying by the Jewish scribes had been.
Extra copies??? Haahahaa. There was no printing press then, which was not to
come for another 1500 years.
>In respect of Mary, not one reference after Acts 1 : 14.
>Therefore any ideas about her given after that time are just
>speculation, and the ideas should not have been made up centuries later.
Much that could have been written about what Jesus said and did wasn't. John
21:25. Other non-inspired writings of the early Church Fathers confirm
Christian beliefs about her.
duke
wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:37:16 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:37:41 +1000, Barry OGrady <god_fre...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:08:12 -0400, "Ms.Moneypenny" <money...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:q7a495demdlotk556...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:11:40 -0700, r...@somis.org (.R. L. Measures)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <qqes859m0g5ar2i1l...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>god_fre...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's not good.
>>>>>>> Why doesn't God ensure a good outcome?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>. Mmmmmm. . . because He doesn't give a damn?
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably. When nobody can stop you there is no incentive to care.
>>>>> Or it could be he doesn't exist.
>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Barry
>>>>
>>>>Barry were you ever part of a church of any kind?
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>>It shows.
>
>Thank you.
You're welcome. Now everyone knows why you should not be listened to. Your
knowledge of God is .................well, pretty much nonexistent.
Barry OGrady
>God is .................well, pretty much nonexistent.
>
>The Dukester, American-American
==============
Barry
duke
wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 06:43:22 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>God is .................well, pretty much nonexistent.
Sorry, bo, good try, but no cigar.
Barry OGrady
bam
"gladys swager" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote i
>In respect of Mary, not one reference after Acts 1 : 14.
>Therefore any ideas about her given after that time are just
>speculation,
>and the ideas should not have been made up centuries later.
>Gladys Swager
Not one word about Syracuse NY either. What a blunder to think that nothing
can be accepted that's not written in scripture. But I have found that
persons who use such an argument are trying to conform reality to their own
personal desires. If this were not the case, you would not always be looking
for the negative argument; you would merely set out to learn as much about
Mary as you could from as many sources as you could find.
Please confine your outburst to 15 words or less.
BAM
gladys swager
> "gladys swager" wrote
> >In respect of Mary, not one reference after Acts 1 : 14.
> >Therefore any ideas about her given after that time are just
> >speculation,
> >and the ideas should not have been made up centuries later.
> Not one word about Syracuse NY either. What a blunder to think that nothing
> can be accepted that's not written in scripture. But I have found that
> persons who use such an argument are trying to conform reality to their own
> personal desires. If this were not the case, you would not always be looking
> for the negative argument; you would merely set out to learn as much about
> Mary as you could from as many sources as you could find.
>
Number of words demanded by you snipped.
Please quote the references you have within the first one hundred
years AD
that are ***authorative*** about Mary.
Also give reasons why such information is authorative.
When was it first written that she, herself, had an immaculate
conception?.
When was it first written that she was bodily assumed into heaven?
Gladys Swager
bam
"gladys swager" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:799ae1f0-60fa-4dd8...@d4g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
This confirms my suspicion. What sin are you hiding? What sin do you refuse
to confess? When was your last Confession?
Perhaps you can show me the original parchment in your possession that
contains what you call the full word of God? Otherwise, it looks like you've
put your trust in mere mortals to preserve the scripture uncorrupted. No
reason to assume that the Bible was preserved verbatim, while claiming that
the Church Jesus founded became corrupted. That's illogical.
Keep your repsonse succinct, please.
BAM
gladys swager
> "gladys swager" wrote ..
> > On Aug 30, 3:10 am, "bam" wrote:
> > >In respect of Mary, not one reference after Acts 1 : 14.
> > >Therefore any ideas about her given after that time are just
> > >speculation,
> > >and the ideas should not have been made up centuries later.
> >years AD that are ***authorative*** about Mary.
> >Also give reasons why such information is authorative.
> >When was it first written that she, herself, had an immaculate
> >conception?.
> >When was it first written that she was bodily assumed into heaven?
> What sin do you refuse to confess? When was your last Confession?
>
Another thing is 'for sure' You are deliberately ignoring my questions
about
authorative proof about Mary?
> Perhaps you can show me the original parchment in your possession that
> contains what you call the full word of God? Otherwise, it looks like you've
> put your trust in mere mortals to preserve the scripture uncorrupted. No
> reason to assume that the Bible was preserved verbatim, while claiming that
> the Church Jesus founded became corrupted. That's illogical.
>
Himself
as the foundation (1 Corinthians 3 : 11), not Peter,
***did not*** become corrupted during the following centuries?
Gladys Swager
bam
I wish you'd stop using the word "proof". Religion has no basis in proof.
Now please don't attempt to undermine the meaning of the word "religion" so
that you can procede to undermine the meaning of the word "proof". That
would be your obvious subversive course of action.
I don't have proof. I have what I believe to be the word of the Son of God,
who promised Peter that the gates of hell would not prevail against His
Church.
But you never answered my questions. Your turn - remember - brevity please.
BAM
gladys swager
> "gladys swager" wrote ...
> > Perhaps you can show me the original parchment in your possession that
> > contains what you call the full word of God? Otherwise, it looks like
> > you've
> > put your trust in mere mortals to preserve the scripture uncorrupted. No
> > reason to assume that the Bible was preserved verbatim, while claiming
> > that the Church Jesus founded became corrupted. That's illogical.
>
> >What is your proof that the Church that was founded by Jesus with
> >Himself as the foundation (1 Corinthians 3 : 11), not Peter,
> >***did not*** become corrupted during the following centuries?
> I wish you'd stop using the word "proof". Religion has no basis in proof.
> Now please don't attempt to undermine the meaning of the word "religion" so
> that you can procede to undermine the meaning of the word "proof". That
> would be your obvious subversive course of action.
> I don't have proof. I have what I believe to be the word of the Son of God,
> who promised Peter that the gates of hell would not prevail against His
> Church.
>
I am not working subversively, it would seem that you do not know
the meaning of that word.
And that church was not in Rome when it was begun by Jesus Christ.
Rome only became the centre as Rome was the capital of the Roman
Empire,
And Paul had more of his writings preserved in the New Testament than
Peter had. How do you account for that if Peter was the first (back-
dated) Pope,
as the title was first used in 610AD and given by a wicked
Emperor???.
Gladys Swager
duke
wrote:
>On Aug 31, 1:19�am, "bam" wrote:
>> "gladys swager" wrote ...
>> > Perhaps you can show me the original parchment in your possession that
>> > contains what you call the full word of God? Otherwise, it looks like
>> > you've
>> > put your trust in mere mortals to preserve the scripture uncorrupted. No
>> > reason to assume that the Bible was preserved verbatim, while claiming
>> > that the Church Jesus founded became corrupted. That's illogical.
>>
>> >What is your proof that the Church that was founded by Jesus with
>> >Himself as the foundation (1 Corinthians 3 : 11), �not Peter,
>> >***did not*** become corrupted during the following centuries?
>
>> I wish you'd stop using the word "proof". Religion has no basis in proof.
>> Now please don't attempt to undermine the meaning of the word "religion" so
>> that you can procede to undermine the meaning of the word "proof". That
>> would be your obvious subversive course of action.
>> I don't have proof. I have what I believe to be the word of the Son of God,
>> who promised Peter that the gates of hell would not prevail against His
>> Church.
>>
>I am not working subversively, it would seem that you do not know
>the meaning of that word. And that church was not in Rome when it was begun by Jesus Christ.
Right, Peter brought it there. Just like other apostles brought it to other
places in the world.
>Rome only became the centre as Rome was the capital of the Roman
>Empire,
No, because Peter moved there.
>And Paul had more of his writings preserved in the New Testament than
>Peter had. How do you account for that if Peter was the first (back-
>dated) Pope, >as the title was first used in 610AD and given by a wicked
>Emperor???.
But the job description was given to Peter BY JESUS DIRECTLY in 33AD.
You're losing badly, gladys. Why not get on board with the Church that Christ
founded - the Catholic Church?
gladys swager
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, gladys swager wrote:
> > And that church was not in Rome when it was begun by Jesus Christ.
> Right, Peter brought it there. Just like other apostles brought it to other
> places in the world.
> >Rome only became the centre as Rome was the capital of the Roman
> >Empire,
> No, because Peter moved there.
>
And no record in the New Testament that Peter was in Rome, except
some historical proof that he was martyred there in the time of the
Emperor Nero.
at a time when he could have been just visiting.
Christ was to build his church on what Peter said to Him
"You are the Christ , the son of the Living God.' that is on Himself
as I Corinthians 3 : 11
> >And Paul had more of his writings preserved in the New Testament than
> >Peter had. How do you account for that if Peter was the first (back-
> >dated) Pope, as the title was first used in 610AD and given by a wicked
> >Emperor???.
>
> You're losing badly, gladys. Why not get on board with the Church that Christ
> founded - the Catholic Church?
The Church was established at places throughout the Mediterranean area
with
Paul being the most important apostle involved in those missionary
endeavours..
Rome was just one of those places.
After 310AD the Church at Rome was corrupted by pagan influences.
which I have stated to you from sources that I have, but which you do
not accept because of your RC indoctrinations,
Do some more study, Duke, instead of relying on those
indoctrinations.
Gladys Swager
duke
wrote:
>On Aug 31, 7:59�am, duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, gladys swager wrote:
>
>> >�And that church was not in Rome �when it was begun by Jesus Christ.
>> Right, Peter brought it there. �Just like other apostles brought it to other
>> places in the world.
>> >Rome only became the centre as Rome was the capital of the Roman
>> >Empire,
>> No, because Peter moved there.
>And no record in the New Testament that Peter was in Rome, except
>some historical proof that he was martyred there in the time of the
>Emperor Nero.
He's buried there.
>at a time when he could have been just visiting.
Haahaahaa. Now that's a vain attempt to deny history.
>Christ was to build his church on what Peter said to Him
>"You are the Christ , the son of the Living God.' that is on Himself
>as I Corinthians 3 : 11
He is the cornerstone, the apostles and prophets are the foundation.
>> >And Paul had more of his writings preserved in the New Testament than
>> >Peter had. How do you account for that if Peter was the first (back-
>> >dated) Pope, as the title was first used in 610AD and �given by a wicked
>> >Emperor???.
>>
>> You're losing badly, gladys. �Why not get on board with the Church that Christ
>> founded - the Catholic Church?
>The Church was established at places throughout the Mediterranean area
>with Paul being the most important apostle involved in those missionary
>endeavours..
Paul converted and visited and wrote letters to the expanding Church to guide
them and keep then on Christ's message. I wonder what drove lute?
>Rome was just one of those places.
>After 310AD the Church at Rome was corrupted by pagan influences.
The people may have gone bad in some cases, but there was no change in Written
Script, and the bad people died off. Even lute.
>which I have stated to you from sources that I have, but which you do
>not accept because of your RC indoctrinations,
>Do some more study, Duke, instead of relying on those
>indoctrinations.
You do the same, gladys.
gladys swager
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, gladys swager wrote:
> >On Aug 31, 7:59 am, duke wrote:
> >> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, gladys swager wrote:
>
> >> > And that church was not in Rome when it was begun by Jesus Christ.
> >> Right, Peter brought it there. Just like other apostles brought it to other
> >> places in the world.
> >> >Rome only became the centre as Rome was the capital of the Roman
> >> >Empire,
> >> No, because Peter moved there.
> >And no record in the New Testament that Peter was in Rome, except
> >some historical proof that he was martyred there in the time of the
> >Emperor Nero.
> He's buried there.
> >at a time when he could have been just visiting.
> Haahaahaa. Now that's a vain attempt to deny history.
>
that
Peter became the leader of all Christians from Rome.
A thought: Peter was a married man as Jesus healed his mother-in-law.
So Jesus chose a married man to be the leader of His church.
Therefore it should never have been that the Church at Rome imposed
celibacy on its priests, as it did from towards the end of the 11th
century.
Celibacy should be a persomal choice, conscious of the issues that
will be
involved in such an adult orientation. The Church at Rome did a grave
disseervice to many of its priests with sad and even tragic
consequences
for them and others affected by that ruling.
> >Christ was to build his church on what Peter said to Him
> >"You are the Christ , the son of the Living God.' that is on Himself
> >as I Corinthians 3 : 11
> He is the cornerstone, the apostles and prophets are the foundation.
>
v 11 states that Jesus is the foundation. So you are asserting that
Paul was wrong.
when he wrote to the Corinthian Church.
> >The Church was established at places throughout the Mediterranean area
> >with Paul being the most important apostle involved in those missionary
> >endeavours..
> Paul converted and visited and wrote letters to the expanding Church to guide
> them and keep them on Christ's message. I wonder what drove <Luther>?
>
What drove Luther was the conviction that the hierarchy at the Church
at.Rome
had added teachings that were not in the New Testament - as I have
been posting
to you, and which you constantly reject,
> >After 310AD the Church at Rome was corrupted by pagan influences.
> The people may have gone bad in some cases, but there was no change in Written
> Script, and the bad people died off. Even <Luther>
Luther left a wonderful legacy - not perfect .in all that he thought
and did
for there were teachings he did not have the resources to refute at
that time -
anti-semitism was one of them - but the Church had accepted what the
Jews
said at the trial of Jeus to let His blood be on us and on our
children to
include future generations, which I doubt, was the intention of those
who spoke
those words originally,
>
> >which I have stated to you from sources that I have, but which you do
> >not accept because of your RC indoctrinations,
> >Do some more study, Duke, instead of relying on those
> >indoctrinations.
>
> You do the same, gladys.
>
I can assure you, Duke, that I am continung to read on these issues.
I have been interested in the matter of Christian Unity in an active
way
since 1976. I wonder if I was sensing by ESP what was happening
from Rome at that time. One of my first postings when I joined this
newgroup
in 2002 was to post on 'Chrsitianity in Modern Times. Previous to that
I had
written and duplicated/had duplicated a Community newsletter from 1984
to 2000
delivered by letter-box drop and posted to certain other persons.
But I do not believe that unity should come under the Church at Rome.
despite the 'Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity' established by
JohnXXXIII
in 1960 as a preparation for Vatican II.
Gladys Swager
duke
wrote:
>On Aug 31, 10:52�pm, duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, gladys swager wrote:
>> >On Aug 31, 7:59�am, duke wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, gladys swager �wrote:
>>
>> >> >�And that church was not in Rome �when it was begun by Jesus Christ.
>> >> Right, Peter brought it there. �Just like other apostles brought it to other
>> >> places in the world.
>> >> >Rome only became the centre as Rome was the capital of the Roman
>> >> >Empire,
>> >> No, because Peter moved there.
>> >And no record in the New Testament that Peter was in Rome, except
>> >some historical proof that he was martyred there in the time of the
>> >Emperor Nero.
>> He's buried there.
>> >at a time when he could have been just visiting.
>> Haahaahaa. �Now that's a vain attempt to deny history.
>>
>You have not told me what the historical proof there is to confirm
>that Peter became the leader of all Christians from Rome.
Numerous times. Mat 16:13-20. He was given his new job description in
Jerusalem during Jesus's ministry. Cephas then moved to Rome.
>A thought: Peter was a married man as Jesus healed his mother-in-law.
>So Jesus chose a married man to be the leader of His church.
Yep.
>Therefore it should never have been that the Church at Rome imposed
>celibacy on its priests, as it did from towards the end of the 11th
>century.
A doctrine.
>Celibacy should be a persomal choice, conscious of the issues that
>will be involved in such an adult orientation.
It is elective when one loves Jesus.
> The Church at Rome did a grave
>disseervice to many of its priests with sad and even tragic
>consequences for them and others affected by that ruling.
It was their own decision.
>> >Christ was to build his church on what Peter said to Him
>> >"You are the Christ , the son of the Living God.' that is on Himself
>> >as I Corinthians 3 : 11
>> He is the cornerstone, the apostles and prophets are the foundation.
>v 11 states that Jesus is the foundation. So you are asserting that
>Paul was wrong.
>when he wrote to the Corinthian Church.
Ephesians 2:19-20 (New International Version)
19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens
with God's people and members of God's household, 20built on the foundation of
the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
V20 says the foundation are the apostles and prophets. Jesus is the cornerstone
of the foundation.
>> >The Church was established at places throughout the Mediterranean area
>> >with Paul being the most important apostle involved in those missionary
>> >endeavours..
>> Paul converted and visited and wrote letters to the expanding Church to guide
>> them and keep them on Christ's message. �I wonder what drove <Luther>?
>What drove Luther was the conviction that the hierarchy at the Church
>at.Rome had added teachings that were not in the New Testament - as I have
>been posting to you, and which you constantly reject,
Only one that you have identified so far - misuse of indulgences.
>> >After 310AD the Church at Rome was corrupted by pagan influences.
>> The people may have gone bad in some cases, but there was no change in Written
>> Script, and the bad people died off. �Even <Luther>
>Luther left a wonderful legacy
I don't consider it wonderful that lut led thousands of Christians to reject so
much of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
>> >which I have stated to you from sources that I have, but which you do
>> >not accept because of your RC indoctrinations,
>> >Do some more study, Duke, instead of relying on those
>> >indoctrinations.
>> You do the same, gladys.
>I can assure you, Duke, that I am continung to read on these issues.
>I have been interested in the matter of Christian Unity in an active
>way since 1976. I wonder if I was sensing by ESP what was happening
>from Rome at that time. One of my first postings when I joined this
>newgroup in 2002 was to post on 'Chrsitianity in Modern Times. Previous to that
>I had written and duplicated/had duplicated a Community newsletter from 1984
>to 2000 delivered by letter-box drop and posted to certain other persons.
>But I do not believe that unity should come under the Church at Rome.
>despite the 'Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity' established by
>JohnXXXIII in 1960 as a preparation for Vatican II.
>Gladys Swager
Dogma is unchangeable.
gladys swager
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 gladys swager wrote:
> >On Aug 31, 10:52 pm, duke wrote:
>
> >that Peter became the leader of all Christians from Rome.
> Numerous times. Mat 16:13-20. He was given his new job description in
> Jerusalem during Jesus's ministry. Cephas then moved to Rome.
"Upon this rock I will build my church' - does that mean on you
Peter?
or does it mean on what Peter said."You are the Christ the son of the
Living God.
I accept the second meaning.
> >A thought: Peter was a married man as Jesus healed his mother-in-law.
> >So Jesus chose a married man to be the leader of His church.
> Yep.
> >Therefore it should never have been that the Church at Rome imposed
> >celibacy on its priests, as it did from towards the end of the 11th
> >century.
> A doctrine.
>
A man-made doctrine that suited the hierarchy at Rome, unmarried Popes
and
Cardinals - I wonder if some were/became homosexual?
> >Celibacy should be a persomal choice, conscious of the issues that
> >will be involved in such an adult orientation.
> It is elective when one loves Jesus.
> > The Church at Rome did a grave
> >disseervice to many of its priests with sad and even tragic
> >consequences for them and others affected by that ruling.
> It was their own decision.
>
I assume you are one of the priests and that you have a superiority
complex that you have been able to maintain the celibate rule,
You seem to have no compassion,
>
> Ephesians 2:19-20 (New International Version)
> 19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens
> with God's people and members of God's household, 20built on the foundation of
> the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
> V20 says the foundation are the apostles and prophets. Jesus is the cornerstone
> of the foundation.
>
Are you implying that the apostles and prophets are more important
that Jesus Christ, and can even determine contrary to His teachings?
> >What drove Luther was the conviction that the hierarchy at the Church
> >at.Rome had added teachings that were not in the New Testament - as I have
> >been posting to you, and which you constantly reject,
> Only one that you have identified so far - misuse of indulgences.
> >Luther left a wonderful legacy
> I don't consider it wonderful that <Luther> led thousands of Christians to reject so
> much of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
>
Luther rejected the added teachings of the RC Church,
but as yet, you do not understand that
> >But I do not believe that unity should come under the Church at Rome.
> >despite the 'Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity' established by
> >John XXXIII in 1960 as a preparation for Vatican II.
> Dogma is unchangeable.
In your mind, nothing that has been determined by the Church at Rome
is unchangeable,
let's just forget about the times that changes have been made.
The Inquisition! Cremation!
Some married clergy allowed to keep that status on converting
Changes in the New Jerusalem Bible so the word'saints' can be kept as
a reward for selected Roman Catholics without criticisms .
Gladys Swager
duke
wrote:
>On Sep 1, 9:36�pm, duke wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 gladys swager wrote:
>> >On Aug 31, 10:52�pm, duke �wrote:
>>
>> >You have not told me what the historical proof there is to confirm
>> >that Peter became the leader of all Christians from Rome.
>> Numerous times. �Mat 16:13-20. �He was given his new job description in
>> Jerusalem during Jesus's ministry. �Cephas then moved to Rome.
>
>"Upon this rock I will build my church' - does that mean on you
>Peter?
The rock foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus as the primary
cornerstone.
Ephesians 2:19-20 (New International Version)
19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens
with God's people and members of God's household, 20built on the foundation of
the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
What does that mean lute to you, gladys?
>or does it mean on what Peter said."You are the Christ the son of the
>Living God.
>I accept the second meaning.
Cafeteria choice, I see.
>> >A thought: Peter was a married man as Jesus healed his mother-in-law.
>> >So Jesus chose a married man to be the leader of His church.
>> Yep. �
>> >Therefore it should never have been that the Church at Rome imposed
>> >celibacy on its priests, as it did from towards the end of the 11th
>> >century.
>> A doctrine.
>A man-made doctrine that suited the hierarchy at Rome, unmarried Popes
>and
>Cardinals - I wonder if some were/became homosexual?
Yep, just like a portion of all humankind.
>> >Celibacy should be a persomal choice, conscious of the issues that
>> >will be involved in such an adult orientation.
>> It is elective when one loves Jesus.
No comment by gladys.
>> > The Church at Rome did a grave
>> >disseervice to many of its priests with sad and even tragic
>> >consequences for them and others affected by that ruling.
>> It was their own decision.
It is given in scripture.
>I assume you are one of the priests and that you have a superiority
>complex that you have been able to maintain the celibate rule,
>You seem to have no compassion,
As I told you before, I am not a priest.
>> Ephesians 2:19-20 (New International Version)
>> �19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens
>> with God's people and members of God's household, 20built on the foundation of
>> the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
>> V20 says the foundation are the apostles and prophets. �Jesus is the cornerstone
>> of the foundation.
>Are you implying that the apostles and prophets are more important
>that Jesus Christ, and can even determine contrary to His teachings?
You see it. I assume you can read it. Jesus taught us to love God and one
another, and the man leadership developed the foundation.
But I don't see you ever getting to the point where you admit to the error of
following lute's foundation, which is not good as he taught you to reject God's
word.
>> >Luther left a wonderful legacy
>> I don't consider it wonderful that <Luther> led thousands of Christians to reject so
>> much of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
>Luther rejected the added teachings of the RC Church,
>but as yet, you do not understand that
You've NEVER made a case for any added scripture, or teachings for that matter.
>> >But I do not believe that unity should come under the Church at Rome.
>> >despite the 'Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity' established by
>> >John XXXIII in 1960 as a preparation for Vatican II.
>> Dogma is unchangeable.
>In your mind, nothing that has been determined by the Church at Rome
>is unchangeable,
Dogma is truth from God, and can never be changed. Doctrine is man made.
>let's just forget about the times that changes have been made.
>The Inquisition! Cremation!
Nope, not changes.
>Some married clergy allowed to keep that status on converting
>Changes in the New Jerusalem Bible so the word'saints' can be kept as
>a reward for selected Roman Catholics without criticisms .
You're sad, gladys.
gladys swager
> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009, gladys swager wrote:
> >or does it mean on what Peter said."You are the Christ the son of the
> >Living God. I accept the second meaning.
> Cafeteria choice, I see.
Cafeteria? Nonsense!,
>
>Are you implying that the apostles and prophets are more important
> >that Jesus Christ, and can even determine contrary to His teachings?
>
> You see it. I assume you can read it. Jesus taught us to love God and one
> another, and the man leadership developed the foundation.
>
No wonder that the Church at Rome led the Christian faith into grave
error.
> But I don't see you ever getting to the point where you admit to the error of
> following <Luther's> foundation, which is not good as he taught you to reject God's
> word.
.
> >Luther rejected the added teachings of the RC Church,
> >but as yet, you do not understand that
>
> You've NEVER made a case for any added scripture, or teachings for that matter.
>
Luther rejected Indulgences, that the Bible should not be be allowed
to the laity,
the celibacy of priests.(which was not voluntary in the 16th
century),
You have rejected all that I have posted on that issue because you are
so
indoctrinated with the teachings of the RC Church hierarchy
so that you call error 'truth'.
But I do not believe that unity should come under the Church at Rome.
despite the 'Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity' established by
John XXXIII in 1960 as a preparation for Vatican II.
>
> Dogma is truth from God, and can never be changed. Doctrine is man made.
>
> >let's just forget about the times that changes have been made.
> >The Inquisition! Cremation!
Is that your thinking.
>
> Nope, not changes.
There are none so blind as they who refuse to see.
> >Changes in the New Jerusalem Bible so the word 'saints' can be kept as
> >a reward for selected Roman Catholics without criticisms .
>
> You're sad, gladys.
No, I am gald.
You will be sad if, as you say, there is Purgatory at the end of this
life.
I believe there is Eternity for those of us who have placed our faith
in Jesus Christ
And a reward as 1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15 for our witness and good
works.
I prefer the Protestant understandings of the teachings of the New
testament.
Gladys Swager.
duke
wrote:
>On Sep 2, 10:23�pm, duke wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009, gladys swager wrote:
>
>> >or does it mean on what Peter said."You are the Christ the son of the
>> >Living God. I accept the second meaning.
>> Cafeteria choice, I see.
>Cafeteria? Nonsense!,
You reject the Holy Mass, and 5 of the 7 sacraments (every one scriptural). Now,
I grant you that not electing Holy Orders or Marriage are not toying with the
eternal fires of hell, but Baptism, Holy Eucharist, Confession, Anointing of the
sick, and Confirmation are shying clear of God's saving grace.
> >Are you implying that the apostles and prophets are more important
>> >that Jesus Christ, and can even determine contrary to His teachings?
>>
>> You see it. �I assume you can read it. �Jesus taught us to love God and one
>> another, and the man leadership developed the foundation.
>No wonder that the Church at Rome led the Christian faith into grave
>error.
That's only what lute and his indoctrinated believe.
>> But I don't see you ever getting to the point where you admit to the error of
>> following <Luther's> foundation, which is not good as he taught you to reject God's
>> word.
>.
>> >Luther rejected the added teachings of the RC Church,
>> >but as yet, you do not understand that
>>
>> You've NEVER made a case for any added scripture, or teachings for that matter.
>Luther rejected Indulgences, that the Bible should not be be allowed
>to the laity, the celibacy of priests.(which was not voluntary in the 16th
>century),
And lute got you to reject the Holy Mass, and 5 of 7 sacraments.
>You have rejected all that I have posted on that issue because you are
>so indoctrinated with the teachings of the RC Church hierarchy
>so that you call error 'truth'.
Lute really has you tied down.
>But I do not believe that unity should come under the Church at Rome.
>despite the 'Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity' established by
>John XXXIII in 1960 as a preparation for Vatican II.
Then come back.
>> Dogma is truth from God, and can never be changed. �Doctrine is man made.
No comment from gladys.
>> >let's just forget about the times that changes have been made.
>> >The Inquisition! � � Cremation!
>Is that your thinking.
>> Nope, not changes.
>There are none so blind as they who refuse to see.
You see very wrongly.
>> >Changes in the New Jerusalem Bible so the word 'saints' can be kept as
>> >a reward for selected Roman Catholics without criticisms .
>>
>> You're sad, gladys.
>No, I am gald.
>You will be sad if, as you say, there is Purgatory at the end of this
>life.
>I believe there is Eternity for those of us who have placed our faith
>in Jesus Christ
But why you see taking a bath before the eternal sleep is beyond me.
Purgatory is for the saved in accordance with scripture. It's the cafeteria
approach of the protest_er that keeps you from seeing this.
gladys swager
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2009, gladys swager wrote:
> >On Sep 2, 10:23 pm, duke wrote:
> >> You see it. I assume you can read it. Jesus taught us to love God and one
> >> another, and the man leadership developed the foundation.
> >No wonder that the Church at Rome led the Christian faith into grave
> >error.
>
> That's only what <Luther> and his indoctrinated believe.
You still haven't learnt to be respectful.
>
> >> But I don't see you ever getting to the point where you admit to the error of
> >> following <Luther's> foundation, which is not good as he taught you to reject God's
> >> word.
> >.
> >Luther rejected Indulgences, that the Bible should not be be allowed
> >to the laity, the celibacy of priests.(which was not voluntary in the 16th
> >century),
Luther saw the truth in Ephesains 2 : 8 - 9 which the RC Church has
still
hot acknowledged as teh start of the walk with Jesus Christ.
For by grace are we saved through faith, and that not of ourselves,
it is the gift of God. Not of works.lest anyone should boast.
> >But I do not believe that unity should come under the Church at Rome.
> >despite the 'Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity' established by
> >John XXXIII in 1960 as a preparation for Vatican II.
> >> Dogma is truth from God, and can never be changed. Doctrine is man made.
>
And if doctrine is contrary to the New Testament then man-made is
falsely made.
>
> >> >Changes in the New Jerusalem Bible so the word 'saints' can be kept as
> >> >a reward for selected Roman Catholics without criticisms .
>
> >> You're sad, gladys.
> >No, I am gald.
> >You will be sad if, as you say, there is Purgatory at the end of this
> >life.
> >I believe there is Eternity for those of us who have placed our faith
> >in Jesus Christ
>
> But why you see taking a bath before the eternal sleep is beyond me.
>
I do not see Eternity as 'eternal sleep', I see Eternity as a
wonderful never-ending
praising in the presence of God for ever and ever Amen.
Gladys Swager
duke
wrote:
>On Sep 3, 8:52嚙緘m, duke wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Sep 2009, gladys swager wrote:
>> >On Sep 2, 10:23嚙緘m, duke 嚙緩rote:
>
>> >> You see it. 嚙瘢 assume you can read it. 嚙皚esus taught us to love God and one
>> >> another, and the man leadership developed the foundation.
>> >No wonder that the Church at Rome led the Christian faith into grave
>> >error.
>>
>> That's only what <Luther> and his indoctrinated believe.
>You still haven't learnt to be respectful.
Lute has led my friend, gladys, down the path to destruction, if she isn't very,
very careful. For he has her believing that all his teachings in the NT are not
true as stated.
>> >> But I don't see you ever getting to the point where you admit to the error of
>> >> following <Luther's> foundation, which is not good as he taught you to reject God's
>> >> word.
>> >Luther rejected Indulgences, that the Bible should not be be allowed
>> >to the laity, the celibacy of priests.(which was not voluntary in the 16th
>> >century),
>Luther saw the truth in Ephesains 2 : 8 - 9 which the RC Church has
>still hot acknowledged as teh start of the walk with Jesus Christ.
>For by grace are we saved through faith, and that not of ourselves,
>it is the gift of God. Not of works.lest anyone should boast.
Yet you STILL can't explain why we are called to live in the spirit of Christ
for salvation is there is nothing we must do on our own behalf..
>> >But I do not believe that unity should come under the Church at Rome.
>> >despite the 'Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity' established by
>> >John XXXIII in 1960 as a preparation for Vatican II.
>> >> Dogma is truth from God, and can never be changed. 嚙瘩octrine is man made.
>And if doctrine is contrary to the New Testament then man-made is
>falsely made.
Yet doctrine as defined by the RCC is a changeable thing, not so dogma.
Celibacy is a doctrine, not a dogma. My priest was questioned re celibacy, and
it's possible demise. He said it will happen when the people demand it. It
came about as an election by the priests in accordance with Mat 19:12.
But it is not dogma.
>> But why you see taking a bath before the eternal sleep is beyond me.
>I do not see Eternity as 'eternal sleep', I see Eternity as a
>wonderful never-ending praising in the presence of God for ever and ever Amen.
>Gladys Swager
You well know what I mean. Scripture says we cannot stand face to face with God
until we are purified of the effects of sin and the propensity to sin.
A&E quickly revealed their desire to tell God "no". That's the sin nature
inherent in mankind.
gladys swager
> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009, gladys swager wrote:
> >Luther saw the truth in Ephesains 2 : 8 - 9 which the RC Church has
> >still not acknowledged as the start of the walk with Jesus Christ.
> >For by grace are we saved through faith, and that not of ourselves,
> >it is the gift of God. Not of works.lest anyone should boast.
>
> Yet you STILL can't explain why we are called to live in the spirit of Christ
> for salvation is there is nothing we must do on our own behalf..
>
Yes, Keep on tusting Jesus every step of the way,
Gladys Swager
duke
wrote:
>On Sep 4, 9:41�pm, duke wrote:
As long as you are following his NT teachings, and offering yourself to God and
to the needs of your fellow human beings, then we are doing what he called us to
do on behalf of our own salvation.
But rejecting his teachings is not trusting in Jesus every step of the way.
bam
See why I ask you to limit your responses? - I get an emotional flood when I
ask a simple question. You're guilty, and you're trying to rationalize your
obstinacy.
BAM
gladys swager
> On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, gladys swager wrote:
> >On Sep 4, 9:41 pm, duke wrote:
> >> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009, gladys swager wrote:
>
> >> >Luther saw the truth in Ephesains 2 : 8 - 9 which the RC Church has
> >> >still not acknowledged as the start of the walk with Jesus Christ.
> >> >For by grace are we saved through faith, and that not of ourselves,
> >> >it is the gift of God. Not of works.lest anyone should boast.
>
> >> Yet you STILL can't explain why we are called to live in the spirit of Christ
> >> for salvation is there is nothing we must do on our own behalf..
1. Accept the wonderful gift of salvation that Jesus is offering you
through
faith in Him, in His death and resurrection for you, by which He,
being perfect,
with no sin, conquered death and offers us Eternal life on His terms,
as Paul wrote, throuigh faith in Him.
2. Then go on in good works. That is when James in his Epistle 'chips
in'.
Then we live 'in the spirit of salvation' for which there is a reward
in Eternity
as 1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15.
Gladys Swager
gladys swager
> "gladys swager" wrote .
> >the meaning of that word.
> >And that church was not in Rome when it was begun by Jesus Christ.
> >Rome only became the centre as Rome was the capital of the Roman
> >Empire,
> >And Paul had more of his writings preserved in the New Testament than
> > Peter had. How do you account for that if Peter was the first (back->dated) Pope,
> > as the title was first used in 610AD and given by a wicked Emperor???.
> ask a simple question. You're guilty, and you're trying to rationalize your
> obstinacy.
BAM. I do not claim to know all that there is to know. I do not accept
your claim
that I am guilty and rationalize my obstinacy. It is not easy to give
an answer
in a few words as you ask.
I do not know whether Peter was the first leader of the Christian
Church when it
was established at Rome. I am surprised that Luke in writing Acts did
not mention
Peter being with Paul. The tradition is that Peter and Paul were both
martyred in
Rome within two years of each other.
The Christian Chuurch was built on the foundation of Jesus Christ
1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15, on what Peter had said to Jesus, 'You are
the Christ
the son of the Living God'. I see no evidence that Jesus said He would
build
His church on Peter. In fact Paul came to be the predominant apostle
of
the Christian .faith thoughout the Mediterranean area.
Gladys Swager
duke
wrote:
>On Sep 5, 10:34�pm, duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, gladys swager wrote:
>> >On Sep 4, 9:41�pm, duke �wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009, gladys swager �wrote:
>>
>> >> >Luther saw the truth in Ephesains 2 : 8 - 9 which the RC Church has
>> >> >still not acknowledged as the start of the walk with Jesus Christ.
>> >> >For by grace are we saved through faith, and that not of ourselves,
>> >> >it is the gift of God. Not of works.lest anyone should boast.
>>
>> >> Yet you STILL can't explain why we are called to live in the spirit of Christ
>> >> for salvation is there is nothing we must do on our own behalf..
>
>1. Accept the wonderful gift of salvation that Jesus is offering you
>through faith in Him, in His death and resurrection for you, by which He,
>being perfect, with no sin, conquered death and offers us Eternal life on His terms,
>as Paul wrote, throuigh faith in Him.
Yet faith in him is dead if we don't listen to him. We Catholics use every
opportunity to say "yes" to him, but not you cafeteria Christians.
Remember, it was not a perfect man Jesus that died on the cross, but the perfect
obedience to his Father than kept him from sin.
>2. Then go on in good works. That is when James in his Epistle 'chips
>in'.
Nope. You can't say this OR that, but both. If Jesus wanted you to do this OR
that, he would have said it.
John 13:34 is all encompassing, and leaves out this OR that.
>Then we live 'in the spirit of salvation' for which there is a reward
>in Eternity as 1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15.
Personally, I have full faith that Jesus and only Jesus will decide our
Christian finality.
duke
wrote:
> In fact Paul came to be the predominant apostle
>of the Christian .faith thoughout the Mediterranean area.
No, Paul never became Pope.
gladys swager
> On Sat, 5 Sep 2009, gladys swager wrote:
>
> > In fact Paul came to be the predominant apostle
> >of the Christian .faith thoughout the Mediterranean area.
> No, Paul never became Pope.
>
Peter's so-called Papacy was a back-dating that was made
after 610AD when Boniface III assumed the title of Pope.
If you haven't already done it ypu should enter 'Heresies and
Traditions
of the Roman Catholic Church in the 'Search' of your Internet.
For by grace are we saved through faith, and that not of ourselves;
it is the gift of God. Not of works lest anyone should boast,
Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
Then go on in good works. 1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>1. Accept the wonderful gift of salvation that Jesus is offering you
>through faith in Him,
Step 1 should be to accept the wonderful gift of suffering that God
forced on us without having his son murdered.
>in His death and resurrection for you, by which He, being perfect,
>with no sin, conquered death and offers us Eternal life on His terms,
>as Paul wrote, throuigh faith in Him.
Since God introduced death into creation when Jesus conquered death
he effectively conquered God.
>2. Then go on in good works. That is when James in his Epistle 'chips
>in'. Then we live 'in the spirit of salvation' for which there is a reward
>in Eternity as 1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15.
So there will be different levels of society in heaven with the well
to do snubbing those below them.
>Gladys Swager
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Barry OGrady
Trust Jesus and you too can live a short nasty life.
Barry OGrady
>On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:00:56 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager <swa...@ozemail.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sep 4, 9:41�pm, duke wrote:
>>> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009, gladys swager wrote:
>>
>>> >Luther saw the truth in Ephesains 2 : 8 - 9 which the RC Church has
>>> >still not acknowledged as the start of the walk with Jesus Christ.
>>> >For by grace are we saved through faith, and that not of ourselves,
>>> >it is the gift of God. Not of works.lest anyone should boast.
>>>
>>> Yet you STILL can't explain why we are called to live in the spirit of Christ
>>> for salvation is there is nothing we must do on our own behalf..
>>>
>>Yes, Keep on tusting Jesus every step of the way,
>>Gladys Swager
>
>As long as you are following his NT teachings, and offering yourself to God and
>to the needs of your fellow human beings, then we are doing what he called us to
>do on behalf of our own salvation.
You know that good works is what makes life better.
>But rejecting his teachings is not trusting in Jesus every step of the way.
Do you hate your family and bring a sword rather than peace?
>The Dukester, American-American
duke
wrote:
We all believe in God as Christians.
duke
wrote:
>On Sep 6, 10:27�pm, duke wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Sep 2009, gladys swager wrote:
>>
>> > In fact Paul came to be the predominant apostle
>> >of the Christian .faith thoughout the Mediterranean area.
>> No, Paul never became Pope.
>Peter was never named Pope in his lifetime.
He was given his job assignment/description is Mat 16:13-20
>Peter's so-called Papacy was a back-dating that was made
>after 610AD when Boniface III assumed the title of Pope.
The List of Popes
See also POPE, PAPAL ELECTIONS, ELECTION OF THE POPE.
1.St. Peter (32-67)
2.St. Linus (67-76)
3.St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4.St. Clement I (88-97)
5.St. Evaristus (97-105)
6.St. Alexander I (105-115)
7.St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
8.St. Telesphorus (125-136)
9.St. Hyginus (136-140)
10.St. Pius I (140-155)
11.St. Anicetus (155-166)
12.St. Soter (166-175)
13.St. Eleutherius (175-189)
14.St. Victor I (189-199)
15.St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
16.St. Callistus I (217-22) Callistus and the following three popes were opposed
by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236)
17.St. Urban I (222-30)
18.St. Pontain (230-35)
19.St. Anterus (235-36)
20.St. Fabian (236-50)
21.St. Cornelius (251-53) Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251)
22.St. Lucius I (253-54)
23.St. Stephen I (254-257)
24.St. Sixtus II (257-258)
25.St. Dionysius (260-268)
26.St. Felix I (269-274)
27.St. Eutychian (275-283)
28.St. Caius (283-296) Also called Gaius
29.St. Marcellinus (296-304)
30.St. Marcellus I (308-309)
31.St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
32.St. Miltiades (311-14)
33.St. Sylvester I (314-35)
34.St. Marcus (336)
35.St. Julius I (337-52)
36.Liberius (352-66) Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365)
37.St. Damasus I (366-83) Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367)
38.St. Siricius (384-99)
39.St. Anastasius I (399-401)
40.St. Innocent I (401-17)
41.St. Zosimus (417-18)
42.St. Boniface I (418-22) Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419)
43.St. Celestine I (422-32)
44.St. Sixtus III (432-40)
45.St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
46.St. Hilarius (461-68)
47.St. Simplicius (468-83)
48.St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
49.St. Gelasius I (492-96)
50.Anastasius II (496-98)
51.St. Symmachus (498-514) Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501)
52.St. Hormisdas (514-23)
53.St. John I (523-26)
54.St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
55.Boniface II (530-32) Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530)
56.John II (533-35)
57.St. Agapetus I (535-36) Also called Agapitus I
58.St. Silverius (536-37)
59.Vigilius (537-55)
60.Pelagius I (556-61)
61.John III (561-74)
62.Benedict I (575-79)
63.Pelagius II (579-90)
64.St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
65.Sabinian (604-606)
66.Boniface III (607)
67.St. Boniface IV (608-15)
>If you haven't already done it ypu should enter 'Heresies and
>Traditions of the Roman Catholic Church in the 'Search' of your Internet.
You've already quoted some big ones to me, and none are true.
�R. L. Measures
god_fre...@yahoo.com wrote:
� better watch out Duke, this guy is dangerously crafty.
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
duke
Bad odor?????
�R. L. Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
� crafty has nothing to do with anything olfactory.
duke
Crafty, he isn't. I don't know if he stinks because I don't have smellovision
on my web browser.
�R. L. Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
� He for damn sure knows about the teachings of the itinerant rabbi who
called himself the Son of man.
> on my web browser.
>
> The Dukester, American-American
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
duke
BO???? Nah, I don't see one thing that he got right. He's just playing around
with his ignorance.
�R. L. Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
� He sure as hell got the hating part and the sword thing right Duke.
>He's just playing around
> with his ignorance.
>
� who was ignorant?
Barry OGrady
I hope you don't "love" anyone I know.
bam
On Aug 31, 7:59 am, duke wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, gladys swager wrote:
> > And that church was not in Rome when it was begun by Jesus Christ.
> Right, Peter brought it there. Just like other apostles brought it to
> other
> places in the world.
> >Rome only became the centre as Rome was the capital of the Roman
> >Empire,
> No, because Peter moved there.
>
>And no record in the New Testament that Peter was in Rome, except
>some historical proof that he was martyred there in the time of the
>Emperor Nero.
Gee Whiz! Is that all? What else do you want? Movies?
>at a time when he could have been just visiting.
Surely you're joking.
Or is it that you've never met a heresy you didn't like? If you can find
fault with the Catholic Church, then maybe your sins aren't as bad as the
Church says they are. That's your quest. On the other hand you could merely,
repent, confess, and leave your silliness behind.
BAM
duke
wrote:
I don't see you loving anyone.
duke
No, no he didn't.
>>He's just playing around
>> with his ignorance.
>� who was ignorant?
It's "is" ignorant, and it is bad odor.
gladys swager
> On Sun, 6 Sep 2009, gladys swager wrote:
> >On Sep 6, 10:27 pm, duke wrote:
> >> On Sat, 5 Sep 2009, gladys swager wrote:
>
> >> > In fact Paul came to be the predominant apostle
> >> >of the Christian .faith thoughout the Mediterranean area.
> >> No, Paul never became Pope.
> >Peter was never named Pope in his lifetime.
>
I do not read the word 'Pope' in that passage.
v 18. Jesus said, 'You are Peter, and upon ***this rock***
I will build My church.'
Was 'the rock' Peter OR was 'the rock' what Peter had said
that is, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God,'
Compare 1 Corinthians 3 : 11 For other foundation can no man lay
than that is laid. which is Jesus Christ.
> >Peter's so-called Papacy was a back-dating that was made
> >after 610AD when Boniface III assumed the title of Pope.
>
The use ofthe term 'Pope' did not begin until 610AD so
Peter was never named Pope.
In NSW Primary schools the head of the school was the Headmaster,
but probably sometime in the late 1970's the name was changed
to 'Principal'. There were no Principals of Primary schools before
that
date, (which I need to check). See the correlation.
> The List of Popes
<snip> Waste of Archive space.
> 67.St. Boniface IV (608-15)
> >If you haven't already done it you should enter 'Heresies and
> >Traditions of the Roman Catholic Church in the 'Search' of your Internet.
> You've already quoted some big ones to me, and none are true.
>
You can't accept the truth now, because of your indoctrinations.
Luther was right in some of the actions he took.
Indulgences were wrong, Enforced celebacy of priests was wrong.
Denial of the Bible to the laity was wrong,
And since the publication of the New Jerusalem Bible
the word previously translated 'saints' is now translated 'God's holy
people'
so that leaves the word 'saint' for those canonised by the RC church
as if certain of its members are more holy than members of Protestant
denominations who have laboured in many parts of the world for
others to come to know salvation through faith in Jesus Christ
by God's grace (mercy) and that not of themselves as it is a gift of
God.
Ephesians 2 : 8
- 9
Gladys Swager
�R. L. Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
� Matthew 10:34 - "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"
> ...
duke
Yep. Put away the old and take on the new.
duke
wrote:
>On Sep 7, 10:38�pm, duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Sep 2009, gladys swager wrote:
>> >On Sep 6, 10:27�pm, duke �wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 5 Sep 2009, gladys swager �wrote:
>>
>> >> > In fact Paul came to be the predominant apostle
>> >> >of the Christian .faith thoughout the Mediterranean area.
>> >> No, Paul never became Pope.
>> >Peter was never named Pope in his lifetime.
>> He was given his job assignment/description in Mat 16:13-20
>I do not read the word 'Pope' in that passage.
Why, gladys, why do you persist in word silliness? The job description given by
Christ to Peter is in Mat 16:13-20. It's not hard to find even in the kjv.
>v 18. Jesus said, 'You are Peter, and upon ***this rock***
>I will build My church.'
>Was 'the rock' Peter OR was 'the rock' what Peter had said
>that is, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God,'
Peter.
I will give you, Peter, the keys to the kingdom of God. For you have been given
truth not from any man (Christ) but directly by my Father in heaven. And so the
story goes - the Holy Spirit will continue to guide you as the foundation, the
man leadership to my Church on earth.
Whatever you, Peter, bind/loose on earth will be likewise held in heaven. Go
forth and baptize all nations, teaching them TO OBEY all that I commanded you.
Remember, we are fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's
household built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ
Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
>Compare 1 Corinthians 3 : 11 For other foundation can no man lay
>than that is laid. which is Jesus Christ.
No, you compare your words with Matthew and Ephesans.
>> >Peter's so-called Papacy was a back-dating that was made
>> >after 610AD when Boniface III assumed the title of Pope.
>The use ofthe term 'Pope' did not begin until 610AD so
>Peter was never named Pope.
He was given his job description in 33AD. You silliness is starting to cost you
respect, gladys. I hope you don't continue.
>> The List of Popes
><snip> Waste of Archive space.
Then be responsible enough to save this url.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
>You can't accept the truth now, because of your indoctrinations.
The devil has your tongue.
Barry OGrady
The old was the peace we had in the garden prior to God's hissy fit.
The new is the sword we have since God took his immaturity out on us.
>The Dukester, American-American
==============
Barry
�R. L. Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
� the only thing a sword is good for is making new cuts in others.
Barry OGrady
>On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:49:22 +1000, Barry OGrady <god_fre...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>>>>>But rejecting his teachings is not trusting in Jesus every step of the way.
>>>>
>>>>Do you hate your family and bring a sword rather than peace?
>>>
>>>We all believe in God as Christians.
>>
>>I hope you don't "love" anyone I know.
>
>I don't see you loving anyone.
If you did you would see them benefit.
Do you hate your family and bring a sword rather than peace?
>The Dukester, American-American
duke
wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 06:51:56 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:49:22 +1000, Barry OGrady <god_fre...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>>>>>But rejecting his teachings is not trusting in Jesus every step of the way.
>>>>>
>>>>>Do you hate your family and bring a sword rather than peace?
>>>>
>>>>We all believe in God as Christians.
>>>
>>>I hope you don't "love" anyone I know.
>>
>>I don't see you loving anyone.
>
>If you did you would see them benefit.
What do they say?
>Do you hate your family and bring a sword rather than peace?
Nope, we all agree.
duke
wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 06:33:23 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:51:25 -0700, r...@somis.org (�R. L. Measures) wrote:
>
>>>� Matthew 10:34 - "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"
>>
>>Yep. Put away the old and take on the new.
>
>The old was the peace we had in the garden prior to God's hissy fit.
That's because your parents failed.
duke
Or the jews chasing away God's new people.
�R. L. Measures
Barry OGrady
>On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 23:37:34 +1000, Barry OGrady <god_fre...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 06:33:23 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:51:25 -0700, r...@somis.org (�R. L. Measures) wrote:
>>
>>>>� Matthew 10:34 - "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"
>>>
>>>Yep. Put away the old and take on the new.
>>
>>The old was the peace we had in the garden prior to God's hissy fit.
>
>That's because your parents failed.
In what way did they fail, and why did God's finest creation fail so quickly?
Did God change his design when he discovered he had made faulty merchandise?
Barry OGrady
>On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 02:33:02 +1000, Barry OGrady <god_fre...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 06:51:56 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:49:22 +1000, Barry OGrady <god_fre...@yahoo.com>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>But rejecting his teachings is not trusting in Jesus every step of the way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Do you hate your family and bring a sword rather than peace?
>>>>>
>>>>>We all believe in God as Christians.
>>>>
>>>>I hope you don't "love" anyone I know.
>>>
>>>I don't see you loving anyone.
>>
>>If you did you would see them benefit.
>
>What do they say?
In what context?
>>Do you hate your family and bring a sword rather than peace?
>
>Nope, we all agree.
Then you don't trust Jesus every step of the way.
duke
wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:29:37 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 23:37:34 +1000, Barry OGrady <god_fre...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 06:33:23 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:51:25 -0700, r...@somis.org (�R. L. Measures) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>� Matthew 10:34 - "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"
>>>>
>>>>Yep. Put away the old and take on the new.
>>>
>>>The old was the peace we had in the garden prior to God's hissy fit.
>>
>>That's because your parents failed.
>
>In what way did they fail, and why did God's finest creation fail so quickly?
Their nature as human beings.
Barry OGrady
>On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 01:15:58 +1000, Barry OGrady <god_fre...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:29:37 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 23:37:34 +1000, Barry OGrady <god_fre...@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 06:33:23 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:51:25 -0700, r...@somis.org (�R. L. Measures) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>� Matthew 10:34 - "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"
>>>>>
>>>>>Yep. Put away the old and take on the new.
>>>>
>>>>The old was the peace we had in the garden prior to God's hissy fit.
>>>
>>>That's because your parents failed.
>>
>>In what way did they fail, and why did God's finest creation fail so quickly?
>
>Their nature as human beings.
Why did they fail so quickly?
Did God use the failure as a means to improve his design?
duke
wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 07:15:27 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 01:15:58 +1000, Barry OGrady <god_fre...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:29:37 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 23:37:34 +1000, Barry OGrady <god_fre...@hotmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 06:33:23 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:51:25 -0700, r...@somis.org (�R. L. Measures) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>� Matthew 10:34 - "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yep. Put away the old and take on the new.
>>>>>
>>>>>The old was the peace we had in the garden prior to God's hissy fit.
>>>>
>>>>That's because your parents failed.
>>>
>>>In what way did they fail, and why did God's finest creation fail so quickly?
>>
>>Their nature as human beings.
>
>Why did they fail so quickly?
Natural.
>Did God use the failure as a means to improve his design?
He wanted our decision. I say yes to God, you say no.
gladys swager
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, gladys swager wrote:
> >On Sep 7, 10:38 pm, duke wrote:
>
> >I will build My church.'
> >Was 'the rock' Peter OR was 'the rock' what Peter had said
> >that is, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God,'
> Peter.
>
> I will give you, Peter, the keys to the kingdom of God.
> For you have been given
> truth not from any man (Christ) but directly by my Father in heaven. And so the
> story goes - the Holy Spirit will continue to guide you as the foundation, the
> man leadership to my Church on earth.
>
Jesus did not say 'the man leadership of my church my church on
earth."
You have made that up to suit your indoctrinations.
> Whatever you, Peter, bind/loose on earth will be likewise held in heaven.
It was not to be whatever peter chose to teach. Peter and the other
apostles
were to teach the teachings of Jesus Christ.
> Go forth and baptize all nations, teaching them TO OBEY all that I commanded you.
> Remember, we are fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's
> household built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ
> Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
>
But the teachings of the apostles were not to be different from or
added to
by any of the disciples. And further Peter left so little in the way
of records.
Paul became the leader of the Christian Church through the
Mediterranean area.
And Paul wrote to the Ephesians
For by grace are (we) saved through faith, and that not of (our)
selves;
it is the gift of God, Not of works, lest anyone should boast.
> >Compare 1 Corinthians 3 : 11 For other foundation can no man lay
> >than that is laid. which is Jesus Christ.
>
Works (deeds) follow salvation. We do not do works to earn our
salvation.
That is the difference that you will not accept, Duke,
And also the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church and certain
cults.
>You can't accept the truth now, because of your indoctrinations.
> The devil has your tongue.
>
The devil has not my tongue, nor my fingers as I type.
The leaders of the RC Church have used many means to try to silence
the true gospel of Jesus Christ through the centuries and is still
trying to do that in today's world.
Gladys Swager
Abe Froman
>Works (deeds) follow salvation. We do not do works to earn our
>salvation.
"So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead."
James 2:17
Faith AND works.
Barry OGrady
>On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:39:20 +1000, Barry OGrady <god_fre...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>>>>>That's because your parents failed.
>>>>
>>>>In what way did they fail, and why did God's finest creation fail so quickly?
>>>
>>>Their nature as human beings.
>>
>>Why did they fail so quickly?
>
>Natural.
Poor design?
>>Did God use the failure as a means to improve his design?
>
>He wanted our decision.
On what are we to base that decision?
If God made our brain properly and provided all the information we
needed to make the right choice we will always make the right choice.
>I say yes to God, you say no.
Adam and Eve supposedly said no for all of us, so you did say no.
Did God use the failure as a means to improve his design?
>The Dukester, American-American