You wrote:
“I will simply cut and paste the summarized portion of what you wrote because a lot of what you write are simply REPETITIONS (i.e., VARIATIONS ON THE You-are-not-part-of-his-church variety ).”
And you are still not a member of the Catholic Church. You admitted to being in a Protestant sect.
“Actually by your admission, you follow the Pope as your absolute head, therefore you BELONG to the Roman Catholic Sect.”
Incorrect. I am not Roman. My Church is the Catholic Church. And a Church cannot be a sect. You are in a sect. You are a Protestant. You have admitted it.
“Nothing wrong with that in my book, However that does nothing for you unless you have true faith in Jesus Christ and obey His words. Being a Roman Catholic DOES NOT guarantee membership in Christ’s Catholic Church.”
Being a Catholic means you’re in the Catholic Church. I’m in it. You’re not. You belong to a puny, recent sect started by a mere man.
“Do you really believe that someone who claims to be Catholic and yet votes to kill babies in the womb belong to Christ’s church ?”
Your question is irrelevant: 1) you’re not Catholic in any case as you yourself admitted when you said you’re in a Protestant sect; 2) Your question doesn’t apply to me so it seems immaterial; 3) St. Patrick was Catholic.
“Jesus Said : “Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and yet not do the things I say ?”.This implies that all who call Him Lord HAVE to obey Him.”
Yet that’s not what Protestants do.
“I DO. Which means I belong to His Church REGARDLESS of how you define it.”
I don’t think you do obey Him. I think you really believe you do, but don’t actually do it. Take your own previous question about abortion. Jesus says exactly nothing about abortion yet you imply He opposes it. I agree with you on that score: That is the Catholic teaching. It is also a Catholic teaching that birth control is immoral. Jesus says nothing about birth control. Can a Christian practice birth control morally? The Catholic Church has always said no. Protestant sects overwhelmingly teach otherwise. None of them is Catholic. None of them.
“As for you, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you belong to His church to, but seeing how uncharitable you are.... I have to withhold my conclusion.”
I won’t lose any sleep over your views of me. People should not lie to themselves and claim they – as a Protestant – are really Catholic. You probably violate Catholic teachings on any number of points and will use sola scriptura as your defense. Remember, where does Jesus say anything against abortion? Right, no where. That is the Church’s teaching and it is correct. Jesus, however, says exactly NOTHING about it anywhere except through the Church’s constant teaching.
“Yes, You have repeated that ad nausseum and your reason for that is because I don’t join your particular denomination.”
I’ve never been in a denomination. You are in a denomination. You even told us it is Evangelical. That very word used with a sect tells us it is a Protestant sect. A Protestant denomination. I have never been in, and never will be in, a sect or denomination. I’m Catholic.
“Sorry, The Bible does not tell me that I have to join your sect/denomination in order to be saved.”
You must be Catholic to be Catholic. To be Evangelical – as you admitted you are – is to be sectarian.
“Jesus said : “You must be born of the spirit to belong to the Kingdom of God. Whosoever BELIEVES IN ME HAS LIFE.”St. Paul’s letters to the Churches call the members saints by virtue of their faith in Jesus Christ. I QUALIFY BASED ON THAT, not based on what you say. Between Paul and vladimir, I’ll take Paul thank you.”
No, I don’t think you do take St. Paul. St. Paul was writing to my Church, not your sect. He lived in a world where Christ had sent my Church, the Catholic Church, into it to preach, teach and baptize. Your sect was not yet a gleam in Satan’s eye.
“You are ADDING to his requirements.”
No. I simply live as Catholics have. You don’t.
“.Actually you are the one who are. Why ? Because you are the one denying what Jesus EXPLICITLY taught. Not me.”
Nope. Between the two of us only you are Protestant while I am a Catholic. You are a sectarian.
“You are insisting that your particular brand of sectarianism holds the truth when you have not shown one iota of scripture to prove it ( the same scripture you claim to believe ).”
You admitted to be sectarian. The argument is over except for your crying over your loss.
“THE WORD EVANGELICAL is DERIVED from the word -— GOSPEL ( Evangel ). Hence, I accept the Gospel of Jesus’ Apostles.
THAT MEANS I AM INCLUDED IN THE CHURCH notwithstanding what you said.”
No. The use of the word “Evangelical” denotes a particular strain of Protestant sects. It says nothing about truth or Catholicity. It simply denotes sectarianism.
“The gospel ( Evangel ) is the good news that Christ came into the world to die for man’s sins and all who accept Him as Lord and Savior are children of God ( read John’s gospel Chapter 3 ).”
No, actually the word is simply something artificially applied to dozens and dozens of competing bodies of Protestant sects within a general strain of sectarianism.
“So, yes I am proudly evangelical and proudly biblical. That is NOT a sect unless you want to call belief in the gospel and the Bible a sect.”
You are in a sect. You do not believe in the gospel, but in a sectarian twisting of the gospel that dates back to the 16th century.
“Let’s not be caught up with terms here. The important thing is what Christ taught, not what you said.”
The important thing is that you are in a sect. St. Patrick was Catholic. I am Catholic. You are in a sect. Period. You admitted it when you admitted that you were in a Protestant sect.
“Because you HAVE NOT explained it to my satisfaction.”
And yet a Catholic would already know and understand. Once again we see that you are a sectarian and not a Catholic.
“Again with feeling -— you said that Patrick is yours and not mine because both you and him understand and worship in Latin.”
I did not say that. Again, I think you should read the post in question. Read it very closely. You have refined your false accusation, but it is still false. If you had simply been honest from the beginning with what I said you would not now need to refine your false charge (perhaps in hope that it would stick better than the original false charge?).
“I asked you a simple question -— GIVEN that Patrick lived in the Roman era, and given that the ROMAN world spoke Latin — why would he not speak Latin ?”
Your question is not only immaterial but I think you are making up something else. When did you ever make the point that, “GIVEN that Patrick lived in the Roman era, and given that the ROMAN world spoke Latin — why would he not speak Latin ?” I don’t recall you making such a statement or asking such a question before. I just went through all the posts and sure enough this is the very first time you are making this point: ““GIVEN that Patrick lived in the Roman era, and given that the ROMAN world spoke Latin — why would he not speak Latin ?” For some inexplicable reason my very simple point – irrefutably true and undeniably simple – has made you literally invent one phony question after another based upon premises that have nothing to do with what I said.
“And how does your being able to speak Latin prove that Patrick is yours and not for others ?”
Again, I never said it did.
“THAT was my question. So please, do not try to avoid answering the question.”
Sorry, but it is much more amusing just watching you flop around on the deck making stuff up. What I said is clear enough.
“I read that site and I am familiar with the arguments presented there. BTW, you pointed me to a ROMAN CATHOLIC site, which shows you really are ROMAN Catholic. So why not simply admit it ?”
The site is called catholic.com. It is hosted by Catholic Answers. It is a Catholic website run by lay Catholics. They’re in the same Church as St. Patrick. You’re in a sect.
“In each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives, its NORMAL and LITERAL meaning is a physical brother.”
And yet that is not how it was always used – as pointed out in the article.
“There was a Greek word for “cousin,” and it was not used so we can dispense with that idea.”
No, actually we can’t. As I just mentioned – and as the article points out – there were more words and usages involved than you’re pretending.
“Further, if they were Jesus’ brethren in the faith, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother?”
Would you expect Mary to be alone? More than one of them is described as the sons of Cleopas/Alphius and another woman named Mary (not the Virgin Mary). The article discusses that too I believe. I guess you don’t know as much as you think you know. No surprise there.
“There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related, half-brothers.”
Actually there are several things. Did you read the article? In Jesus’ culture would his YOUNGER brothers speak to Him the way they did? No, not likely. Would Mary be given over to the care of John the Apostle by Jesus if there were younger brothers to care for her? No, not likely.
“If I am surprised by a person who heretofore, did not show something extraordinary because I knew his background, I would mention his blood relatives ( people he grew up with, his immediate family ). It is FORCING a foreign idea on a text to say that these people were surprised by asking — aren’t these his brethren in the faith ??”
No. Again you didn’t read the article.
“A second Roman Catholic argument is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. An entire theory of Joseph’s being significantly older than Mary, having been previously married, having multiple children, and then being widowed before marrying Mary is invented without any biblical basis. I have heard priests and nuns expound this to me as well.”
Why are you plagiarizing from here? http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-siblings.html
Here’s what the website said:
“A second Roman Catholic argument is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. An entire theory of Joseph’s being significantly older than Mary, having been previously married, having multiple children, and then being widowed before marrying Mary is invented without any biblical basis. The problem with this is that the Bible does not even hint that Joseph was married or had children before he married Mary. If Joseph had at least six children before he married Mary, why are they not mentioned in Joseph and Mary’s trip to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7) or their trip to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) or their trip back to Nazareth (Matthew 2:20-23)?”
How sad. Not only do you make up stuff about what I posted but you steal things from others and pass it off as your own.
Why respond to the rest when it is simply stuff you stole from elsewhere? Apparently sectarians think nothing of such deeds. How pathetic.
YOU WROTE:
Being a Catholic means you’re in the Catholic Church. I’m in it. You’re not. You belong to a puny, recent sect started by a mere man.
And because you said so it is so ? NAH, I’d rather obey scripture. What you say counts for nothing ( in your words — PUNY ). What scripture says counts for everything.
YOU WROTE:
Incorrect. I am not Roman. My Church is the Catholic Church.
Well, welcome to the club. I am a Catholic as well, even if yo deny it.
YOU WROTE:
And a Church cannot be a sect.
Uh huh, then I am not in one as well.
YOU SAID:
You are in a sect. You are a Protestant. You have admitted it.
I AM BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIAN, THAT IS WHAT I ADMIT.
YOU WROTE:
No. The use of the word “Evangelical” denotes a particular strain of Protestant sects. It says nothing about truth or Catholicity. It simply denotes sectarianism.
That is YOUR DEFINITION, it isn’t in the Bible. Show me first from scripture that your definition applies and I’ll believe you but not until.
YOU SAID:
Actually there are several things. Did you read the article? In Jesus’ culture would his YOUNGER brothers speak to Him the way they did? No, not likely.
Why not ? The Jews tell me all the time that there were younger siblings who quarrel and argue with older siblings. I would not be surprised if his unbelieving brothers did that as well.
YOU SAID:
Would Mary be given over to the care of John the Apostle by Jesus if there were younger brothers to care for her? No, not likely.
Here is the most reasonable explanation — The answer is found in John 7. In verse 5 we read “For even His brothers did not believe in Him.” The gospels make it clear that Jesus’ siblings did not believe in Him until after the resurrection.
We know that Jesus appeared to James, for 1 Corinthians 15:7 says “After that He was seen by James.” It is probable that this event is what finally inspired James to believe in His brother as the Son of God.
At the time Jesus hung on the cross, His siblings did not believe in Him. It stands to reason, then, that He would ask one of His followers to care for His mother. He selected John, his closest friend who is consistently referred to as “the disciple Jesus loved,” to take on this responsibility. We can assume that if James had believed in Jesus at this time, He would have received this responsibility.
Joseph by that time, had already died.
YOU SAID:
No. Again you didn’t read the article.
I did, and the article is not convincing. It is trying to change the plain meaning of the word Bother to make it mean something else.
YOU WROTE:
Why respond to the rest when it is simply stuff you stole from elsewhere? Apparently sectarians think nothing of such deeds. How pathetic.
I am COPYING an argument which I believe to be correct. Nothing wrong with that. If someone can say something better than me, I quote him/her. THE ARGUMENT STILL NEEDS TO BE REFUTED AND YOU HAVE NOT DONE THAT.
And you have not dealt with the text that says Joseph did not have relations ( union ) with Mary UNTIL after the birth of Jesus.
You have to deal with the argument. Have you ? NO.
You simply dismiss it as if the argument ( which is convincing ) is not relevant.
HOW SAD.
“Actually by your admission, you follow the Pope as your absolute head”
Where do you protestants come up with these nutty ideas?
The Pope is not the absolute head of the Church. Any authority he exercises is lent him by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
The Pope may not, for instance, contradict Scripture, nor anything that flows from Scripture. This is why he is powerless to authorize the ordination of women or acceptance of sodomy. He is powerless to contradict any of the things set forth in the Apostles Creed, as they are all Scriptural.
We hope that the Pope will provide the Church with the guidance it needs, himself guided by the Holy Trinity.
If Popes were absolute heads of the Church, we would fear them. Instead, we love them (some more that others, which is to be expected when one reflects that they are just men).