Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Radio Replies Second Volume - The Idealization of Protestantism
Celledoor.com ^ | 1940 | Fathers Rumble & Carty

Posted on 05/08/2010 9:30:27 PM PDT by GonzoII

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-375 next last
To: Persevero
Do you ever ask anyone to pray for you?

If so, why not ask the saints, too?

"He is not the God of the dead but of the living..."

Cheers!

51 posted on 05/09/2010 8:31:06 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Comment #52 Removed by Moderator

To: grey_whiskers

“If so, why not ask the saints, too?”

Because although they are alive in Christ, they are dead, and the Bible says so, and we are expressly forbidden to contact the dead.

I was just reading the account of Saul praying to the dead Samuel last night as a matter of fact. Sin.


53 posted on 05/09/2010 8:44:12 AM PDT by Persevero (If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: OneVike

I pretty much agree with Pius about the public schools! Other than that, great summary list.


54 posted on 05/09/2010 8:45:20 AM PDT by Persevero (If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: OneVike

Protestants declare that the objective standard for any discussion is an unconditional acceptance of Sola Scripture which the Catholic Church rejects. The Bible, as wonderful as it is, does not contain 100% of the revealed Word. Declaring so is to obsolete the presence ans role of the Holy Spirit in our lives and elevates those 16th century heretics who corrupted the Scripture to the status of Apostles.


55 posted on 05/09/2010 8:45:53 AM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: OneVike

It’s clear you can’t answer the Catholic arguments. Spamming the thread with unsourced material, instead of rational arguments, is a clear indication of ineptitude. Maybe if you take the original post one paragraph at a time, it would help you.


56 posted on 05/09/2010 8:46:37 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
"OF ALL THE HUMAN TRADITIONS taught and practiced by the Roman Catholic Church, which are contrary to the Bible, the most ancient are the prayers for the dead and the sign of the Cross. Both began 300 years after Christ."

I'll refute the first one for you someone else may go for the others later.

About one hundred years before Christ the Jews were already praying for the dead. You will probably reply that this is not Scripture, fine, it's still history four hundred years before this absurd claim:

2 Machabees 12:44 " (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,)"

2 Machabees 12:46 " It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." BTW, the first KJB Bible had 2 Machabees in it.

57 posted on 05/09/2010 8:48:43 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; Arthur McGowan; vladimir998; Judith Anne; roamer_1; c-b 1; ConservativeMind; ...

Mary the subject of preaching and worship

From Vatican Collection Volume 1, Vatican Council II, The Conciliar and Post Conciliar documents.  General Editor Austin Flannery, O.P. New revised edition 1992; Costello publishing company, Northport, New York.  1992 pages 420-421 (par. 65)

65.  But while in the most Blessed Virgin the church has already reached that perfection whereby she exists without spot or wrinkle (cf. Eph. 5:27), the faithful still strive to conquer sin and increase in holiness. And so they turn their eyes to Mary who shines forth to the whole community of the elect as the model of virtues. Devoutly meditating on her and contemplating her in the light of the Word made man, the Church reverently penetrates more deeply into the great mystery of the Incarnation and becomes more and more like her spouse. Having entered deeply into the history of salvation, Mary, in a way, unites in her person and re-echeos the most important doctrines of the Faith: and when she is the subject of preaching and worship she prompts the faithful to come to her son, to his sacrifice and to the love of the Father. Seeking after the glory of Christ, the Church becomes more like her lofty type, and continually progresses in faith, hope and charity, seeking and doing the will of God in all things. The Church, therefore, in her apostolic work too, rightly looks to her who gave birth to Christ, who was thus conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin, in order that through the church he could be born and increase in the hearts of the faithful. In her life the Virgin has been a model of that motherly love with which all who joined in the church's apostolic mission for the regeneration of mankind should be animated.

IV.  THE CULT OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN IN THE CHURCH1

66.  Mary has by grace been exalted above all angels and men to a place second only to her Son, as the most holy Mother of God who was involved in the mysteries of Christ: she is rightly honored by a special cult in the Church. From the earliest times the Blessed Virgin is honored under the title of Mother of God, whose protection the faithful take refuge together in prayer in all their perils and needs. Accordingly, following the Council of Ephesus, there was a remarkable growth in the cult of the people of God towards Mary, in veneration and love, in invocation and imitation, according to her own prophetic words: "all generations shall call me Blessed, because he that is mighty hath done great things to me," (Luke 1:48).

Comments on this passage

  1. No where in Scripture are we told to put our eyes upon anyone other than the Lord himself.  We are told to fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith (Heb. 12:2).  In addition, it is Jesus who is the model of virtue, not Mary.  Though she was greatly blessed, and undoubtedly a godly woman, she still needed a savior.  Mary said, "And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior," (Luke 1:47).  Contrary to the Roman Catholic teaching that Mary was sinless, Mary herself admitted that God was her savior.  A sinless person does not need a savior.  It is in the person of Jesus that grace and truth (and virtue) are best exemplified.  Our eyes should be kept on him.
  2. "Spouse"?  Still researching to discover what is meant. The Catholic church doesn't seem to be too clear on this.
  3. The only proper object of preaching and worship is God.  Jesus said, "...You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only," (Matt. 4:10).  The incredible danger of making a person other than God, such as Mary, the subject of both preaching and worship is warned about in Exodus 20:4-5, "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me." God clearly warns against creating any idol before which anyone should bow.  It goes without saying that the countless images of Mary strewn throughout Catholic churches all over the world, are most assuredly shrines of idolatry since thousands of times a day Catholics over the world break the commandment of God by bowing before these images in worship.
  4. We should look to Christ alone.  When you take your eyes off of Jesus and put them on anything else, or anyone else, you will be led astray.
  5. Where is this taught in Scripture?  Where does it say that Mary was exalted above angels and men second only to her son?  This would mean that Mary is just under Jesus, the creator of the universe, in position.   Vatican II's comments are not biblical.  This teaching can not be found in Scripture and should be abandoned.
  6. This is a misleading term.  Mary is not the Mother of God in the sense that God, the creator of the universe, had a mom.  The divine nature has no mother since God is eternal and self sufficient. Rather, Mary is the mother of the human nature of Jesus, not the mother of the divine nature.  The human nature took its biological essence from Mary.  The divine nature is from God.  But we have to be careful here.  Mary is, however, the mother of the person of Christ who has two natures:  divine and human.   So, in that sense she can be said to be the mother of God.

 

This article is also available in: Español

  1. 1. "Cult" in this sense means a community of worshippers and not the "non-Christian cult" meaning that is often used of Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.
The above was lifted from CARM apoligetics at Carm.org. He did such a bang up job, why remake the work that he has accomplished so well.

58 posted on 05/09/2010 8:52:42 AM PDT by OneVike (I am Chuck Wolk, a Freeper in Christ since February of 1998)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
"Because although they are alive in Christ, they are dead,"

So they are alive. And we don't "contact the dead" we ask for their prayers; not to get nosy news.

59 posted on 05/09/2010 8:53:44 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
"Wax Candles introduced in church. about 320"

LOL..you can't be serious

I'll say this, the Rev. at least believes the Catholic church existed in the 4th century.

60 posted on 05/09/2010 8:59:12 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

Comment #61 Removed by Moderator

To: GonzoII
"These threads are for Catholics who have an interest in learning more or being more edified about their faith and all others who may be interested in the Catholic faith."

Your article posted above sounds like nothing more than holier-than-thou Protestant bashing. Furthermore, the Lord Jesus Christ himself is the head of my Church ~ and I come to the Father through no one but Him!

62 posted on 05/09/2010 9:15:52 AM PDT by My hearts in London - Everett (So the writer who breeds more words than he needs, is making a chore for the reader who reads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII; Irisshlass; informavoracious; larose; RJR_fan; Prospero; Conservative Vermont Vet; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

63 posted on 05/09/2010 9:16:32 AM PDT by narses ( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor

“Protestants typically deny that the Catholic church — particularly since the Protestant reformation —...”

And before? Or did the Church not exist before the soi disant “Protestant reformation”?

BTW, when was the soi disant “Protestant reformation”?


64 posted on 05/09/2010 9:18:30 AM PDT by narses ( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: OneVike

Why? We are Soldiers of Christ. That is why.


65 posted on 05/09/2010 9:19:21 AM PDT by narses ( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
I state as much because you think so, If we are to go by your dating method, then II will admit that not all the points I offered are ion and of themselves as bad as others, but it is a list just the same of the many traditions the Catholic Church has justified though the years.

Taken in a whole it really makes for a damning charge of heresy.
66 posted on 05/09/2010 9:21:18 AM PDT by OneVike (I am Chuck Wolk, a Freeper in Christ since February of 1998)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: OneVike

Spamming the tthread with huge cut and pastes is not an argument for your side. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, it’s against the rules.


67 posted on 05/09/2010 9:22:17 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII; Natural Law; Arthur McGowan; vladimir998; Judith Anne; roamer_1; c-b 1; ...
Sorry for the double post, I was in error of what i had on my clipboard,

However. As to your claim that 2 Maccabees is proper reason for purgatory to exist is wrong. There is a reason the cannon did not originally have Maccabees in it.

On the basis of the Septuagint, Catholics advocate what is known as the "larger" canon of the Jews in Alexandria; Protestants, on the other hand, deny the existence of an independent canon in Alexandria in view of the "smaller" canon of the Jews in Palestine The actual difference between the Catholic and Protestant Old Testaments is a matter of 7 complete books and portions of two others: namely, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, together with certain additions to Esther (Esth 10:4-16:24) and to Daniel (Dan 3:24-90; Three; Sus verse 13 and Bel verse 14). These Protestants reject as apocryphal because there is no sufficient evidence that they were ever reckoned as canonical by the Jews anywhere. The fact that the present Septuagint includes them is far from conclusive that the original Septuagint did, for the following reasons:

(1) The design of the Septuagint was purely literary; Ptolemy and the Alexandrians were interested in building up a library. (2) All the extant manuscripts of the Septuagint are of Christian not Jewish origin. Between the actual translation of the Septuagint (circa 250-150 BC) and the oldest manuscripts of the Septuagint extant (circa 350 AD) there is a chasm of fully 500 years, during which it is highly possible that the so-called Apocryphal books crept in. (3) In the various extant manuscripts of the Septuagint, the Apocryphal books vary in number and name. For example, the great Vatican MS, which is probably "the truest representative which remains of the Alexandrian Bible," and which comes down to us from the 4 th century AD, contains no Book of Maccabees whatever, but does include 1 Esdras, which Jerome and Catholics generally treat as apocryphal. On the other hand, the Alexandrian MS, another of the great manuscripts of the Septuagint, dating from the 5 th century AD, contains not only the extra-canonical book of 1 Esdras, but 3 and 4 Maccabees, and in the New Testament the 1 st and 2 nd Epistles of Clement, none of which, however, is considered canonical by Rome. Likewise the great Sinaiticus MS, hardly less important than the Vatican as a witness to the Septuagint and like it dating from the 4 th century AD, omits Baruch (which Catholics consider canonical), but includes 4 Macc, and in the New Testament the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas; all of which are excluded from the canon by Catholics. In other MSS, 3 Maccabees, 3 Esdras and Pr Man are occasionally included. The problem as to how many books the original Septuagint version actually included is a very complicated one. The probability is that it included no one of these variants.

(4) Still another reason for thinking that there never existed in Egypt a separate or "larger" canon is the fact that during the 2 nd century AD, the Alexandrian Jews adopted Aquila's Greek version of the Old Testament in lieu of their own, and it is known that Aquila's text excluded all Apocryphal books. Add to all this the fact that Philo, who lived in Alexandria from circa 20 BC till 50 AD, never quotes from One of these Apocryphal books though he often does from the canonical, and that Origen, who also resided in Alexandria (circa 200 AD), never set his imprimatur upon them, and it becomes reasonably convincing that there was no "larger" canon in Alexandria. The value of the evidence derived from the Septuagint, accordingly, is largely negative. It only indicates that when the translation of the Old Testament into Greek was made in Alexandria, the process of canonization was still incomplete. For had it been actually complete, it is reasonable to suppose that the work of translation would have proceeded according to some well-defined plan, and would have been executed with greater accuracy. As it is, the translators seem to have taken all sorts of liberties with the text, adding to the books of Esth and Dan and omitting fully one-eighth of the text of Jer. Such work also indicates that they were not executing a public or ecclesiastical trust, but rather a private enterprise. Our necessary conclusion, therefore, is that the work of canonization was probably going on in Palestine while the work of translation was proceeding in Alexandria.

According to the traditions preserved in the Mishna, two councils of Jewish rabbis were held (90 and 118 AD respectively) at Jabne, or Jamnia, not far South of Joppa, on the Mediterranean coast, at which the books of the Old Testament, notably Ecclesiastes and Canticles, were discussed and their canonicity ratified. Rabbi Gamaliel II probably presided. Rabbi Akiba was the chief spirit of the council. What was actually determined by these synods has not been preserved to us accurately, but by many authorities it is thought that the great controversy which had been going on for over a century between the rival Jewish schools of Hillel and Shammai was now brought to a close, and that the canon was formally restricted to our 39 books. Perhaps it is within reason to say that at Jamnia the limits of the Hebrew canon were officially and finally determined by Jewish authority. Not that official sanction created public opinion, however, but rather confirmed it.



68 posted on 05/09/2010 9:24:10 AM PDT by OneVike (I am Chuck Wolk, a Freeper in Christ since February of 1998)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: OneVike

“The Catholic Church depends upon signs, wonders, and traditions of the Church along with the supposed infallible wisdom from the Pope for the salvation of their members.”

Wrong. A bald faced false to fact ignorant claim.

An excerpt from the Catechism:

... the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door.

Next time you spread the falsehood above, it will be a knowing lie, a sin against God.


69 posted on 05/09/2010 9:25:21 AM PDT by narses ( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
Taken in a whole it really makes for a damning charge of heresy.

Very slender evidence in a mammoth, unsourced cut and pastes. Provides no "damning charge," just empty bloviating.

70 posted on 05/09/2010 9:25:43 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: OneVike

Great post.

Even if one disagrees in the object of their faith by such practice, it is an outstanding reminder that true faithful Catholics would be sure to broadcast loudly, to make sure their brethren don’t slide into blasphemous behavior or thinking when introduced to Catholic traditions.

The absence of such warnings within the Catholic denomination speaks volumes, making them known by their fruits.


71 posted on 05/09/2010 9:26:29 AM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr

Posted from a hate site. Ugly nasty halftruthes designed to draw people away from God. And you praise this?


72 posted on 05/09/2010 9:28:30 AM PDT by narses ( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
Great post.

No it isn't. It's spam. Unsourced, and empty of argument.

73 posted on 05/09/2010 9:28:58 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: narses

Please pm me with a link. Thank you.


74 posted on 05/09/2010 9:29:36 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne; SnakeDoctor

If I was on the fence of whether or not choosing to be Catholic that exchange on an open public forum would definitely turn me off.


75 posted on 05/09/2010 9:31:02 AM PDT by sabe@q.com (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sabe@q.com

Why?


76 posted on 05/09/2010 9:31:46 AM PDT by narses ( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne; OneVike

Say what you will about spamming and bloviating, but, just the list of historical changes makes an interesting commentary to claims or assumptions regarding the unchanging nature of the Church


77 posted on 05/09/2010 9:35:49 AM PDT by Binghamton_native
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Right Constantine, Roman Emperor. Got it! What happened from the day of Penecost and when Constantine sanctioned it? 300 years right?


78 posted on 05/09/2010 9:36:27 AM PDT by sabe@q.com (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: sabe@q.com
If I was on the fence of whether or not choosing to be Catholic that exchange on an open public forum would definitely turn me off.

Great! Thank you for that! But you have already made your anti-Catholicism quite clear in previous posts.

The Catholic Church is about Christ, not somebody's childish assessment of an anonymous internet exchange.

79 posted on 05/09/2010 9:39:01 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: OneVike

Dissenting opinions aren’t allowed on this thread, it appears, even though it’s about Protestants, OneVike. Mine was deleted and it was simply a statement of opinion about the article posted and Who is the head of my Church.


80 posted on 05/09/2010 9:39:34 AM PDT by My hearts in London - Everett (So the writer who breeds more words than he needs, is making a chore for the reader who reads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Binghamton_native
Say what you will about spamming and bloviating, but, just the list of historical changes makes an interesting commentary to claims or assumptions regarding the unchanging nature of the Church

Or might, if it were accurate, and not from a hate site. Don't you wonder why there is no link to that spam?

81 posted on 05/09/2010 9:40:22 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

There’s been enough murdering in the name of Christianity on both sides.


82 posted on 05/09/2010 9:40:47 AM PDT by sabe@q.com (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: narses
Posted from a hate site. Ugly nasty halftruthes designed to draw people away from God. And you praise this?

And the very message that started this whole thread was not built upon hate and lies targeting Protestants?

Give me a break, the site the list came from was not a hate site. Am I now am to believe that anyone who proves a point is full of hate.

Proves my point as to why many Catholics vote Democrat. The MSM and the Democrat party do the same thing to anyone who proves they are wrong.

All of a sudden the truth is claimed to be hate speech and slander.

Yup sounds like Democrats to me.
83 posted on 05/09/2010 9:41:35 AM PDT by OneVike (I am Chuck Wolk, a Freeper in Christ since February of 1998)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

“The Bible, as wonderful as it is, does not contain 100% of the revealed Word.”

And just where did you come up with this opinion?


84 posted on 05/09/2010 9:42:03 AM PDT by sabe@q.com (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: My hearts in London - Everett

Interesting how they are the ones to run to the MODs. Who cannot stand to hear the truth? Remember who started this, it was not us. We are defending ourselves here and we get called names and have our comments pulled.

Yup, sounds like liberals to me.


85 posted on 05/09/2010 9:44:16 AM PDT by OneVike (I am Chuck Wolk, a Freeper in Christ since February of 1998)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

I’m not anti-Catholic.

I just don’t believe they practice what they teach. I hold that same opinion about many other religious organizations.


86 posted on 05/09/2010 9:45:49 AM PDT by sabe@q.com (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: OneVike

Call a waaaaaaaambulance. Alternatively, learn the rules and follow them.


87 posted on 05/09/2010 9:48:28 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: narses; Judith Anne

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=whatever

definition #3


88 posted on 05/09/2010 9:49:48 AM PDT by sabe@q.com (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne; OneVike

My point had to do with the list of changes that have come about in two centuries. Regardless of the source, surely you wouldn’t quarrel with many of the items which are historical events, e.g., the Immaculate Conception was declared on such and such a date, right?


89 posted on 05/09/2010 9:50:40 AM PDT by Binghamton_native
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor

sorry should have pinged you to my last post


90 posted on 05/09/2010 9:50:54 AM PDT by sabe@q.com (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: sabe@q.com
I’m not anti-Catholic.

It is a sin to bear false witness.

91 posted on 05/09/2010 9:51:25 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

Comment #92 Removed by Moderator

To: OneVike; Judith Anne

Yes, OneVike, I’m noticing who exactly is acting Christ-like on this thread. Didn’t He practice love, forgiveness, and the whole thing about removing the plank from your own eye before trying to see clearly the speck in your brother’s eye? What happened to brotherly love? If Catholics believe Protestants are wrong in their theology, what do they gain by attacking instead of trying to convince through love?


93 posted on 05/09/2010 9:55:35 AM PDT by My hearts in London - Everett (So the writer who breeds more words than he needs, is making a chore for the reader who reads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Binghamton_native

My apology, my post was unclear.

Let me rephrase that:

I am not interest in discussing an item from spam. These sidebars are often unproductive.

There. I’ll ask to have the other one deleted.


94 posted on 05/09/2010 9:56:42 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: sabe@q.com
"And just where did you come up with this opinion?"All I needed to prove it was a single piece of non-biblical evidence of the Word. In my 50+ years of study I have encountered many, many.
95 posted on 05/09/2010 9:58:23 AM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: OneVike

More cut and paste? Got a source? Otherwise, feh!


96 posted on 05/09/2010 10:00:27 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

So you don’t believe that John 1:1 is the truth in your nearly 50+ years of study?


97 posted on 05/09/2010 10:00:31 AM PDT by sabe@q.com (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
I was just reading the account of Saul praying to the dead Samuel last night as a matter of fact. Sin.

As far as being forbidden to contact the dead, see Leviticus 19:31:

“Do not turn to mediums or necromancers; do not seek them out, and so make yourselves unclean by them: I am the LORD your God."

This is what Saul was doing.

1 Samuel 28 deals with Saul contacting a witch, who he asked to summon up the spirit of the prophet Samuel (whether this really *was* Samuel, or, witches being witches, a deceiving spirit masquerading as Samuel, I don't know). Saul asked Samuel to give him advice (v. 15):

"And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do."

So Saul was consorting with a witch for the purposes of asking someone for advice: which is not the same as asking a fellow believer (who has gone on to Heaven, presumably) , to pray *to GOD* on your behalf.

Cheers!

98 posted on 05/09/2010 10:03:54 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: sabe@q.com
"So you don’t believe that John 1:1 is the truth in your nearly 50+ years of study?"

How did you get that I don't believe in the Word when I stated that not 100% of the Word is contained in the Bible and where did you get that it was?

99 posted on 05/09/2010 10:07:53 AM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: moder_ator; Judith Anne; Natural Law; Arthur McGowan; vladimir998; roamer_1; c-b 1; ...
Dear religiuous Moderator

One cannot set up a rule that says no one can attack another on a thread who's very article at question is attacking half of the Freepers who claim to be Protestant. However, if that is the case then next Sunday I will post an apologetically laden article about the heretical practices of the Catholic religion and its followers. Also I will demand that no one be able to deny my facts, nor post anything I find objectionable.

To those who deny the truths I have posted as comments which were deleted.

It is a bigger sin to deny the truth. For Christ is the truth and the truth will set you free.
Jesus *said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.John 14:6


If that is an attack, then remove this comment and I will cease to discuss this matter on this thread anymore today.
100 posted on 05/09/2010 10:10:17 AM PDT by OneVike (I am Chuck Wolk, a Freeper in Christ since February of 1998)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-375 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson