Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $24,202
27%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 27% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by daniel1212

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • The Catholic Mass, as described by Justin Martyr in the year 155

    07/23/2016 7:03:17 PM PDT · 46 of 47
    daniel1212 to goodwithagun
    Check out this hot mess that’s not Catholic: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3452237/posts Also, you apparently did’t get the pop cult reference so I’ll post it again: Bye Felicia!

    Which is simply more fallacious vain argumentation, which again attempts to negate conservative Scripture-centric faith by invoking that which is not, but which you equate since both are called "Protestant," the meaning of which one-size-fits-all term that is so broad that you could fly a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian Mormon 747 thru it!

    Your argument would only be valid if I was promoting a particular faith/church as the superior one but it was largely liberal. Which is exactly what RCs do, and once again you ignore the variegated nature of Catholic faith, in which you must count even proabortion, prosodomite proMuslim politicians as brethren, since your church treats such as members in life and in death, and papal teaching states that the one basic duty of RCs is to simply follow the pastors.

  • Pro-LGBT push underscores GOP convention (Barf Alert)

    07/23/2016 6:01:58 PM PDT · 28 of 32
    daniel1212 to Fhios
    Nobody really cares what two consenting adults do in their bedroom.

    Even the financial cost refutes that, seeing as HIV/AIDs has killed over 600,000 Americans, and 79% of new HIV cases are among MSM (CDC), for which much tax money go to treat.

  • Pro-LGBT push underscores GOP convention (Barf Alert)

    07/23/2016 5:59:07 PM PDT · 27 of 32
    daniel1212 to donna; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    We’ve been killing babies since 1973 and now homosexual marriage is legal. People who believe in traditional values have no reason to be loyal to the Republican Party anymore. The elites didn’t keep their part of the deal and now they are paying for it. Our best goal, is to keep our borders and to stop the Islamic invasion for as long as we can - and to pray for revival.

    Indeed. Only a revival of conservative evangelical faith can turn the tide. While if there ever was a time for a 3rd party to have a change, it would have been with Trump. The maxim that the Republicans do what the Democrats do, only slower, remains true.

  • The solution to racial war (The Cross and the Switchblade movie)

    07/23/2016 5:18:45 PM PDT · 19 of 19
    daniel1212 to Elsie
    How DARE you preach to folks who ain’t in the choir!

    In-deed.

  • The Catholic Mass, as described by Justin Martyr in the year 155

    07/23/2016 5:17:56 PM PDT · 44 of 47
    daniel1212 to goodwithagun; Elsie; aMorePerfectUnion
    You’re right. I’ll go ahead and join a homosexual “marriage” endorsing, pro-infanticide Protestant church instead. Bye Felicia!

    That is simply a logical fallacy, a false dichotomy, an either-or argument which ignore another alternative. The fact is that those who most strongly uphold Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God are the most conservative believers, while such is a minority among Caths, and in reality those who are "homosexual “marriage” endorsing, pro-infanticide" souls can feel at home being Catholic (ask Teddy K), while such scorn conservative evangelical churches. Which elitist Rome does not even consider worthy of the propr name "church." To her own damnation.

  • The solution to racial war (The Cross and the Switchblade movie)

    07/23/2016 4:25:53 PM PDT · 16 of 19
    daniel1212 to spintreebob
    The book was a big influence in a bunch of us leaving Wheaton and other colleges to move to the inner city in ‘64. For the current immigration debate, we all need to see the movie FOR GREATER GLORY with Andy Garcia and Eva Longoria. It is prophetic, not just on immigration, but on the entire direction of the USA.

    Glory to God, and to whom it is and will be!

  • The solution to racial war (The Cross and the Switchblade movie)

    07/23/2016 6:44:58 AM PDT · 10 of 19
    daniel1212 to dljordan
    Pathological altruism. He needs to take care of his own people first and then he can get the warm fuzzies by helping the non-producers. Oooh, is that cynical or what?

    "Pathological altruism?!" "His own [white] people" were churched and doing quite well in PA, while the help he gave gang members in NYC was not some welfare check, but the transformative gospel and deliverance whereby they would become producing members of society rather than the burden on it, which would typically be the case had he not stood in the gap. And which is clearly Scriptural. Or do you have a problem with the Lord Jesus acting like as Wilkerson did? And you needed or need salvation just as they did.

  • The Catholic Mass, as described by Justin Martyr in the year 155

    07/23/2016 6:04:13 AM PDT · 42 of 47
    daniel1212 to aMorePerfectUnion
    “nowhere in the life of the NT in Scripture is it taught that “the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”

    +1

    And instead, it is the word of God that man is to live by:

    But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)

    And is what is said to be "milk," and "meat:"

    As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: (1 Peter 2:2)

    For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. (Hebrews 5:12)

    And which is said to "nourish" souls:

    If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. (1 Timothy 4:6)

    And to build them up:

    And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. (Acts 20:32)

  • The Catholic Mass, as described by Justin Martyr in the year 155

    07/23/2016 5:51:59 AM PDT · 41 of 47
    daniel1212 to goodwithagun; Elsie
    Still praying for you every Monday at the Novena. Peace be with you!

    You mean that you are still praying to created beings in Heaven, which is utterly unseen in that which the Holy Spirit inspired, except among pagans, and despite approx. 200 prayers to Heaven being recorded, and with multitudes in Heaven to whom believers could pray to. And you advertise this pagan practice as something you do?

  • The Catholic Mass, as described by Justin Martyr in the year 155

    07/23/2016 5:41:39 AM PDT · 40 of 47
    daniel1212 to cloudmountain
    There is Apostolic Tradition, which, I've been told, is NOT believed by many (not all perhaps) non-Catholics. It ISN'T written in the New Testament, therefore, for them, it isn't true or relevant. Sola scripture seems to be their opinion, nothing else. To them, therefore, the entire Apostolic Tradition isn't true or relevant.

    Which recourse supports what i said, for if 9among other things) the Holy Spirit had described - as He surely would - the NT church as looking to Peter as the first of a line if infallible popes reigning supreme over the church, and praying to created beings in Heaven, and ordaining a class of believers distinctively called "priests," and normatively celibate, and offering the elements of the Lords supper as a sacrifice for sin, and to be consumed in order to obtain spiritual life, this being their primary active function due to the constant centrality of this sacrament, then there would be no need to invoke an external, extraScriptural source for support.

    Yet despite the inexplicable, incongruous absence (including not even one prayer to anyone else in Heaven but God, despite approx. 200 prayers; not even one instance of a NT pastor being called a priest, and with the Lord's supper only being once much described in one epistle to any church) of such primary Catholic distinctives in the life of the NT church, she - as with Mormons and certain other cults - presumes that extraScriptural sources can justify her substantially foreign faith, under her novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults)..

    Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

  • The solution to racial war (The Cross and the Switchblade movie)

    07/23/2016 5:40:22 AM PDT · 2 of 19
    daniel1212 to daniel1212; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...

    ping

  • The solution to racial war (The Cross and the Switchblade movie)

    07/23/2016 5:39:36 AM PDT · 1 of 19
    daniel1212
    Conversion to Christ is not a simplistic solution to racial strife, nor is solving that the primary reason for evangelical preaching. But there is even ground at the foot of the Christ, and where all moral souls need to come to, as damned and destitute sinners who have nothing to offer God whereby they may escape their just punishment in Hell, or obtain eternal life with God. And who thus must cast their faith on the mercy of God in Christ, trusting the risen Lord Jesus to save them on His account, by His sinless shed blood, and which faith therefore is shown by being baptized and following Him.

    By which include forsaking the idea that skin color is deterministic of morality, as well as the insidious "victim-entitlement mentality" of the devil, that the American black culture (if not African) has largely adopted.

    And which seduces souls into thinking they are victims if they do not have what others earned, and that they are entitled to the same without like merit (which is what the devil originally presumed in his "occupy God's throne" movement is Is. 14, and seduced Eve by with his "share the wealth" message).

    And thus, rather than overcoming actual prejudice by patiently continuing in well-doing and economically rising above their circumstances, , as did so many immigrants to America, instead vast multitudes who those who subscribe to the victim-entitlement mentality become enslaved in a culture of crime and relative poverty, with a lack of real purpose, and a chip on the shoulder by which they justify indolence and crime.

    And all the while giving power to self-promoting selfish political proxy servants of the devil, who gain power by presenting themselves saviors of the oppressed, by spending the money of others, and whose policies work to perpetuate the very conditions they promise to alleviate.

    And under which the concept of obtaining benefits by striving lawfully is effectively scorned, and even mercy and grace are replaced by demanding what others earned,.

    The end result is greater and greater dependence upon the supposed "Robin Hood" government, until it is so great that it can demand ideological conformity to its anti-Christ morality, and obeisance to its leaders. Thus the devil obtains worship which he selfishly lusts for.

    In contrast, God does not call for worship of Him because He needs anything, as He does not, (Acts 17:25) and would actually spare Himself much grief without us, but it is simply right and to our benefit that we worship God above all, seeing He alone is perfect, and omniscient, and can never fail us.

    And He both shows mercy and grace, which does not subsidize disobedience, but is to be responded to by obedience, and which He rewards, although man owes everything to God.

    And while the devil presumed he was worthy to be like God in power and glory, (Is. 14;14) under grace the Lord promises,

    To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. (Revelation 3:21)

    To God be the glory.

  • The Catholic Mass, as described by Justin Martyr in the year 155

    07/22/2016 4:26:14 AM PDT · 27 of 47
    daniel1212 to NYer; goodwithagun; cloudmountain; Zuriel; Mrs. Don-o; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    Nowadays, many non-Catholic Christians claim the Mass is not biblical, denying it was the belief and practice of the early Church. However, Justin explained the Mass in its essence

    And just how does what Justin believed prove that this is what is Biblical, while nowhere in the life of the NT in Scripture is it taught that "the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." And which would surely be often described and promoted (not simply as breaking of bread) and be the subject of express teaching given the critical importance and centrality Catholicism ascribes to it, esp. with the offering of the Lord's supper being the primary active function of a class of a class of believers distinctively called "priests,' which are also utterly absent in the NT church.

    Instead of Justin proving what is Biblical, his statement here is no more establishes what is Biblical than does his teaching that (according to Irenaeus), "That before the Lord's appearance Satan never dared to blaspheme God, inasmuch as he did not yet know his own sentence, because it was contained in parables and allegories.." (Against Heresies. Book 5, Chapter XXVI). Yet surely the devil knew that "thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit," (Isaiah 14:15) and, "The wicked shall be turned into Hell," (Psalm 9:17)

    As heretofore shown (see posts 55 and 73 and 117 by the grace of God before you try to respond), the Catholic "Real Presence" (which itself apparently was originally an Anglican term) is not seen in the life of the NT church, and which is interpretive of the gospels.

  • ‘President’ Hillary Clinton: Definition of a Nightmare

    07/21/2016 12:36:11 PM PDT · 90 of 165
    daniel1212 to Zionist Conspirator; boatbums
    According to the "new testament." You say the "new testament" is Divinely inspired and part of the Bible? I have a great and simple idea: prove it.

    Which has the same basis for the warranted conclusion that the Hebrew Scriptures were inspired of God - and faced the like challenges from skeptics. And in fact without the NT the OT is greatly deprived of prophetic fulfillment. Or do you want to argue that Is. 53 (among some other others) refers to Israel?

    and even if you reject that, the fact is that the Christ of the Scripture which Christians are to look to was Jewish, and prioritized the welfare of the Hebrew people

    Not according to chrstianity as it existed for 1600 to 1800 years.

    But which does not support your argument, for in light of the fact that Christianity in Scripture, and that which also most strongly upholds Scripture today is the most pro-Israel and conservative, then instead of faith in the Christ of Scripture not saving anyone, and not enabling America to be great (as if Judaism was the predominate faith that made America worth saving) you should favor this Christianity, esp. i your "ultimate interest is for the survival of Israel."

    First of all, no it isn't. If the "new testament" is an imposture, then it is an imposture, regardless of how pro-Israel some chrstians might be.

    The Scripture which the apostles esteem was the Hebrew Scriptures, the very body you point to, while the fact remains that those who most strongly esteem Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God are the strongest supporters of Israel, and conservative morality. Thus your argument, which trashes Christ and Christianity due to the liberal form of it, is no more valid than one who does the same to Judaism due to Jews being overwhelmingly liberal. Of course, i understand your moral argument as be a pretext to exalt Judaism.

    Second of all, what is there about the article that isn't "pro-G-d?" Judaism was around a thousand years before chrstianity and it was pretty darn pro-G-d.

    Because being "pro-God" means, as in the words of the owner, that "Free Republic is a pro-God site. The one and only true Judeo-Christian God...," versus your god which makes Christians into pagans. With such scornful arrogance, your post can hardly be said to represent the "pro-God" of this site.

    Are you saying that Jewish apologetics should be disqualified from a conservative web forum? What's the difference between Catholic apologetics and Jewish apologetics?

    You are not merely presenting Jewish apologetics, and banning is not up to me (even some Prots get booted for attacking Caths), but my point is that attacking the God this very pro-God forum overwhelming espouses, as does the owner, but which God you turn into a pagan man-God who will not save anyone, while the Christians here refute the premise that faith in Christ does not save, and who support Israel and conservative morality - is exceedingly arrogant.

    What's the difference between Catholic apologetics and Jewish apologetics? Why is the former all right and the latter not? Catholics, after all, are the ones who go around promoting evolution and higher criticism.

    Why is the former all right and the latter not? Catholics, after all, are the ones who go around promoting evolution and higher criticism.

    True, as do many or most Jews, but if this forum was predominately Jewish, and I attacked their faith as pagan and producing liberalism, despite the Orthodox exampling the contrary, then that would be arrogant.

  • Social media explodes with more Trump plagiarism allegations

    07/20/2016 4:01:05 AM PDT · 59 of 92
    daniel1212 to NYRepublican72
    Barack Obama, 2008. Hillary Clinton 2008 campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson said President Barack Obama had "lifted rhetoric" from Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. "If your whole candidacy is about words, then they should be your own words," then-Sen. Clinton said about Obama at the time. "That's what I think." Obama admitted that he used some of Deval's words at a Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Wisconsin.

    "Deval and I do trade ideas all the time, and you know he's occasionally used lines of mine," Obama said. "I would add I've noticed on occasion Sen. Clinton has used words of mine as well," Obama added. "As I said before, I really don't think this is too big of a deal."

    Vice President Joe Biden, 1987: During the 1988 Presidential election, the then-presidential candidate was accused of mimicking a speech that British Labour Party Neil Kinnock delivered just four months prior. - http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/19/politics/politicians-plagiarism/index.html

  • ‘President’ Hillary Clinton: Definition of a Nightmare

    07/20/2016 3:27:02 AM PDT · 40 of 165
    daniel1212 to Zionist Conspirator; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; ...
    It is time for American gentiles to evolve and abandon higher paganism...If Americans fail to heed the call, the country will ultimately fall prey to the monotheistic murderers who worship a blood deity. Jesus will not save anyone.

    Which is wrong, contrary to the facts and blasphemous. Christ is the promised Messiah, and even if you reject that, the fact is that the Christ of the Scripture which Christians are to look to was Jewish, and prioritized the welfare of the Hebrew people, as did His apostles, and those who most strongly esteem Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God are the strongest supporters of Israel, and conservative morality. All of which evidence is contrary to your charge.

    In addition, posting this on this pro-God forum, whose owner and the overwhelming supporters of it i am sure does not hold your view of Christ as a pagan man-God who will not save anyone - and who support Israel and conservative morality - is exceedingly arrogant.

  • Noah's Ark theme park is impressive, but its 'facts' don't hold water

    07/16/2016 9:00:18 PM PDT · 43 of 55
    daniel1212 to BereanBrain
    As for how could 1 man and his family gather all the animals, it’s clear God’s spirit BROUGHT them to the ark. (just read the bible).

    And he had 120 years to do it, and likely most where infants or juveniles.

  • Noah's Ark theme park is impressive, but its 'facts' don't hold water

    07/16/2016 8:58:35 PM PDT · 42 of 55
    daniel1212 to castlegreyskull; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; ...
    Well, their response is something starts out along the lines of “over billions and billions and billions of years . . .” Ask them what is the growth of the human population ever 40 years or so. I would say it is around 25% (probably a bit higher). Then ask them to divide 3600 years by 40. There you get 90 generations since when many think the flood happened. Take 6 people (3 couples that were still having children). Get an excel spreadsheet in row 1 put the number 6. in cell A:2, write =A1*1.25. in A3 write =A2. Go down to row 90 (generations) repeating this. You get the number of about several billion (people). What I am essentially doing is simulating the population growth over the centuries. Now go back to the evolutionist who explain everything slowly changed over millions and billions of years. Now think about this. If we were around for perhaps 50,000 years and we follow the same idea of what the recorded generation growth has been for the last couple thousands of years would there only be a few billion people are well beyond trillions and trillions of people. The number is so high, I would wonder if we even have a name for it. I doubt there would be any standing room left on earth. Try following the same population growth model for several billion years. If nothing else, the current population shows strong evidence that there was at least a massive die off of all life on the planet.

    You just provided far more of an argument for the Flood than the author of the article provided against it, which was basically nothing of substance.

  • Is This Cave in Turkey the Place Where Saint Peter Celebrated Mass?

    07/16/2016 5:15:05 PM PDT · 149 of 208
    daniel1212 to maryz
    Nonsense! I don’t know your background, but your posts seem to exhibit all the earmarks and drawbacks of the autodidact, and it’s too hot here to try untangling them.

    Meaning an excuse for lack of refutation, while others attempt to excuse the same by asserting I am reiterating the arguments of others.

  • Is This Cave in Turkey the Place Where Saint Peter Celebrated Mass?

    07/15/2016 6:46:51 PM PDT · 145 of 208
    daniel1212 to maryz
    Recovered? Actually, they seem to have been more influenced by the "scientific" reductionism that was in the air at the time. And it suffuses much of Protestantism to this day, at least as exemplified in many FR posts.

    Nonsense, as instead it is the testimony of Scripture which rejects the literalistic understanding of Catholicism, which requires Neoplatonic thought and Aristotelian metaphysics to justify, while:

    Scripture abounds with metaphorical language, including regarding eating, with David even clearly saying that drinking water was the blood of those who obtained, it, and thus He poured it out unto the Lord, and would not drink it.

    John itself characteristically uses metaphorical language in contrasting the physical with the spiritual, from the lamb of God (Jn. 1) to the temple of God (Jn. 2) to birth, (Jn. 3) to water, (Jn. 4) to a fountain of water, with spiritual life always being by believing the word, and all of which Jn. 6 is consistent with

    The Lord explained therein that "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me, (John 6:57) and what the Son "lived" by was every word of God, (It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. - Matthew 4:4) and thus doing the Father's will was His "meat," (Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.- John 4:34) and was not by physically consuming the Father. Thus the Lord explained that He would not be around physically, but that His words "are spirit, they are life." (Jn. 6:63)

    The Lord's supper was nowhere preached as the means of of obtaining spiritual life, nor is it manifest as being the central supreme sacrament around which all else revolved, with the only description in the life of the NT church other than breaking of bread (Acts) and a "feast of charity," (Jude 1:12) being 1 Corinthians, which does not teach the Catholic Real Presence as being what they lacked discernment of. Nor is the Lord's supper anywhere manifest as a sacrifice for sin by the hands of a distinctive priesthood, which itself i utterly absent in the NT church.

    No one ever obtained spiritual life by really physically eating anything. See post 55 and 73 and 117 here by the grace of God before you try to respond.

    And for the Lord's supper becoming the Catholic corruption, see here by the grace of God.

    The Lord's Supper: solemn symbolism or real flesh and blood?

    (Note: allow scripts for pop up Bible verses

    Table of Contents

    Preface

    1Cor. 10,11

    Metaphorical versus literal language

    Supper accounts and John 6: Conformity to Scripture, and consequences of the literalistic interpretation.

    The uniqueness of the Catholic interpretation

    The Lord's Supper is not a sacrifice for sins

    Absence of the sacerdotal Eucharistic priesthood

    Metaphorical view of Jn. 6 is not new.

    Endocannibalism

  • Is This Cave in Turkey the Place Where Saint Peter Celebrated Mass?

    07/15/2016 3:30:18 AM PDT · 138 of 208
    daniel1212 to D-fendr; mrobisr; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; ...
    Sure you do. The unaffiliated traditions of the Church of Daniel. You can survey Daniel, and that’s what your church believes. It’s Solo Mio.

    Wrong as usual, for unlike you, I can show from Scripture that the doctrines that I believe my fellowship and of any church I have been part in the last 35 since leaving Rome, and even the core truths we both affirm. And likewise I can show from Scripture that the doctrines I reject of Rome are not of Scripture, and thus do not conform to the most ancient and authorative tradition.

    You objection must then be to individuals ascertaining the veracity of what is taught by examination of the Scriptures, (Acts 17:2; 18:28 etc.) and in its place argue that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.

    And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.

    However, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

    And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

    Your other interpretations and doctrines, the one’s expressed here are not new, although they are - relatively - recent in the Christian faith.

    Wrong again, for I can show from Scripture that they are ancient, while you cannot even find one prayer to Heaven among the approx. 200 in Scripture of anyone but pagans praying to anyone else in Heaven but God, nor of any NT pastor being distinctively called a priest, and offering up the Lord's supper as a sacrifice for sin, or of it being the central supreme sacraments as per Catholicism, nor of pastors being normatively celibate, or of the church looking to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning over the church, nor of the novel premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome. Etc, Etc.

    I’ve seen your argument

    And are unable to refute them.

    And, of course, there is no appeal to authority possible, when you are the sole authority of your doctrine.

    Which is an absurd charge as was made against itinerant preachers of the 1st century who showed from the Scriptures that a certain magisterial - rejected itinerant preacher was the Christ. But the church began because common Jews correctly discerned both men and writings as being of God, while the idea that an ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is essential for this is what is novel. They nor we are not the authority of our doctrine, but point to Scripture as the supreme source and judge.

    We’ve circled around again, said our piece; and, again, I’ll leave you with the last word.

    Since your mere assertions have been refuted time and time again, and would be more so, by the grace of God, if you continue with the like, then thus your retreat would be wise.

  • Is This Cave in Turkey the Place Where Saint Peter Celebrated Mass?

    07/14/2016 6:36:57 PM PDT · 135 of 208
    daniel1212 to D-fendr
    A majority of Christians belong to Churches whose doctrine includes the Real Presence in Holy Eucharist. Better?

    Finally, for sure.

    It is specious to define Church doctrine by whatever survey.

    Which was not what you were doing, but were stating what souls believed, as if that necessarily meant the same thing as what their churches simply professed, contrary to their own statements as found by surveys. Do i need to keep repeating this?

    Corinthians includes “discerning the body of the Lord.” It takes effort here, and elsewhere in Holy Scripture to disappear the Real Presence.

    Meaning, as usually, just the opposite, as showed.

    You would have this “error” in the Church for over 1500 years until the Swiss reformers. Silliness.

    Meaning in reality that how the NT church saw the Lord's supper was manifestly not that of Catholicism, as showed, and which Swiss reformers basically recovered as regards the metaphorical understanding. . Which is the only one that easily conflates with the totality of Scripture. Glory to God.

  • Is This Cave in Turkey the Place Where Saint Peter Celebrated Mass?

    07/14/2016 6:02:20 AM PDT · 126 of 208
    daniel1212 to D-fendr
    I think you understood my point and your rebuttal is specious or illogical at best.

    Which, as obvious an usual, is what applies to you "rebuttal."

    The Church teaches doctrine - which is not determined by poll.

    Dude, the issue was what Catholics believe, as that was what your argument was about, but what Rome teaches simply does not necessarily translate into what RCs personally believe, and which is what polls reveal. Thus your rebuttal is specious or illogical. Do you understand that?

    What is your church's confession? How was it determined?

    Any church confession must be based on the weight of Scriptural warrant, however, unlike you, i am, not defending a particular church, but a common faith shared by many churches.

    St. Paul did not survey those in the Church at Corinth and teach them the results. No, he rebuked their divisions and heretical beliefs. ("For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you..")

    And then he taught them right doctrine, including discerning the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. WRONG, and once again you skew reality! Paul here actually sanctioned divisions (For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. - 1 Corinthians 11:19), for the word for heresies simply means "sects," as in sects of the Pharisees which Paul states he was part of, (Acts 26:5) and the NT church was actually called a sect, (Acts 24:14; 28:22) and which word can be distinguished as being in the negative sense by the context and or the word "damnable." (Gal. 5:20; 2Pt. 2:1)

    And rather than teaching discerning the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, as in "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body," (1 Corinthians 11:29) instead (as heretofore explained) Paul is contextual referring to not recognizing church as being the Lord's body by treating members of it as if they were lepers, which is what he is reproving.

    For proceeding from v. 19 above,

    When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. (1 Corinthians 11:20-22)

    By eating independently and even to the full (the Lord's supper was not that of eating a wafer of bread) while ignoring others then they were despising ye the church of God, which body Paul said Christ purchased with His own sinless shed blood, (Acts 20:28) and was very passionate about, and which theme continues into the next chapter (1Co. 12).

    Paul thus reiterates the Lord's words at the last supper, the interpretation of which is the issue, but Paul does not states that when they consume the elements then they were actually consuming Christ, but that "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew[proclaim] the Lord's death till he come," (1 Corinthians 11:26)

    Thus the purpose was to commemorative, remembering=showing the Lord's death for the church by sharing food with each other in that feast of charity, and since some were not doing so then Paul states that they were not actually coming together to eat the Lord's supper, but instead they were eating this bread and drinking the cup of the Lord unworthily, as by his previous censure, that of eating independently, while ignoring others, even to the "shame of them that have not." It is thus this despising of the Lord's body, the church that Paul refers to as "not discerning the Lord's body," not some failure to discern the nature of the elements, and thus the solution is not that of recognizing the nature of the elements consumed, but to correct this failure of recognizing the church was being the body for which Christ died:

    Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. (1 Corinthians 11:33) And also to eat at home if hungry so that one be not moved by lust for food and eat independently while ignoring others.

    That this is what Paul by the Spirit is censuring is even confirmed by the notes in your own NAB Bible:

    [11:27] It follows that the only proper way to celebrate the Eucharist is one that corresponds to Jesus’ intention, which fits with the meaning of his command to reproduce his action in the proper spirit. If the Corinthians eat and drink unworthily, i.e., without having grasped and internalized the meaning of his death for them, they will have to answer for the body and blood, i.e., will be guilty of a sin against the Lord himself (cf. 1 Cor 8:12).

    * [11:28] Examine himself: the Greek word is similar to that for “approved” in 1 Cor 11:19, which means “having been tested and found true.” The self-testing required for proper eating involves discerning the body (1 Cor 11:29), which, from the context, must mean understanding the sense of Jesus’ death (1 Cor 11:26), perceiving the imperative to unity that follows from the fact that Jesus gives himself to all and requires us to repeat his sacrifice in the same spirit (1 Cor 11:18–25). - http://usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/11

    Regardless, like as homosexuals read homosexuality into any description of close friendships, so Catholics ignore context in order to force Scripture to say what they want.

  • Is This Cave in Turkey the Place Where Saint Peter Celebrated Mass?

    07/13/2016 8:35:54 PM PDT · 124 of 208
    daniel1212 to daniel1212; D-fendr; Elsie
    Regarding my rejection that most Christians belief in it [the RP], as said, that refers to the Catholic RP, and to personal belief, and while even then you could make a case using inflated figures for Catholicism, the vast majority of non-Catholics can hardly be said to believe in the RP, versus symbolic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members
  • Is This Cave in Turkey the Place Where Saint Peter Celebrated Mass?

    07/13/2016 6:21:38 PM PDT · 121 of 208
    daniel1212 to D-fendr; Elsie
    The Church doesn’t decide teaching on the basis of surveys.

    Irrelevant. The Church doesn’t decide what its members truly believe, or what they say they believe when asked. Deciding what to teach and telling the flock what they are to believe is simply not the same.

    The Real Presence couldn’t be more obvious in Holy Scripture

    Repeating such delusional assertions will never make it true. In contrast, as explained and shown, the Catholic Real Presence is obviously absent in the life of the NT church. And it is Scripture and its history that judges extraScriptural history, and not vice versa as with Catholicism.

    You disagree, and have your own opinion. That’s fine for you, I don’t put much credence in your authority; nothing personal.

    Your opinion of my authority is irrelevant, but the veracity of my argument is what matters, which rests upon the degree of warrant from Scripture - which is supremely authoritative - and in contrast to your assertion, only the veracity of my substantiated argument is shown to warrant credence.

    If you do not want to see more, stop posting such outlandish provocative assertions as that belief in the Catholic Real Presence was re-iterated by Paul in his epistles, and that most Christians belief in it today.

  • Is This Cave in Turkey the Place Where Saint Peter Celebrated Mass?

    07/13/2016 7:15:56 AM PDT · 117 of 208
    daniel1212 to D-fendr; Elsie
    Tweren’t Rome that decided to begin with. That would be Christ, c.33-34, re-iterated by St. Paul in his epistles...The belief in the Real Presence is near ubiquitous throughout the history of Christianity

    Which, as already shown, is a blatant fallacy. The absence of which is more proof that Rome did not write or change Scripture. Imagine how easy it would have been to provide just one note of a priest offering the Eucharist as a sacrifice for sin, to be consumed to obtain spiritual life.

    "Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine," (1 Timothy 4:13) "and to your priestly duty of feeding the flock with that sacrificial bread, the body and blood of the Lord, whereby sins may be expiated and the spiritual life obtained."

    Instead of anything even resembling the first part of that addition, in the life of the church pastors are never even shown or charged with feeding the flock by officiating at the Lord's supper, nor are they ever called "priests," let alone that this was a sacrifice for sins. Nor is there any manifestation of the Lord's supper being the supreme exalted sacrament (as in Catholicism) by which the flock obtains spiritual life in them. At best the Lord's supper is only described as breaking of bread (Acts), and a "feast of charity," (Jude) while in the solitary epistle in which there is some actual description besides those, it is not the nature of the elements nor any pastoral function that is the focus, nor consuming such in order to obtain spiritual life, but the nature of the body of Christ as the church, showing the Lord's death for the body by unselfishly, lovingly taking part in that communal feast of charity (versus me and my wafer-god).

    And rather than feeding the flock via the Lord's supper, the constant charge to pastors is that of preaching the word of God, which is what is said to "nourish" souls, (1Tim. 4:6) and build them up, (Acts 20:32) feeding the flock thereby.

    None of which should need to be repeated, except that RCs here continue to provocatively post such bombast that Paul in his epistles (plural no less) taught that ‘the Real Presence’ was in the Holy Eucharist (as per Catholic understanding).

    I believe it is accurate to say most Christians today, including non-Catholics, believe in the Real Presence.

    Nonsense. Close to half of Catholics do not believe in the Catholic RP according to some surveys. If you want to define the RP contrary to that of Catholicism, then you may have a case, esp. since "Real Presence" appears to originally been an Anglican term (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/what-do-we-mean-by-the-real-presence), and is critically different then that of Catholicism.

    When did you or your denomination decide against the Real Presence? Does it go back to Zwingli or is it a latter offshoot?

    Rather, when did you or your denomination decide that "breaking of bread," and "fest of charity" the only manifest description of the Lord's supper in the life of the church was that of NT "priests" transubstantiating bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, and offering it as a sacrifice for sins as their primary active function, and to be consumed in order to obtain spiritual life, with this being the central supreme priestly sacrament of the church around which all else revolved?

    Which is only one of many things not found in the life of the NT church. Truly the church of Rome was the original "invisible" church.

  • Is This Cave in Turkey the Place Where Saint Peter Celebrated Mass?

    07/12/2016 11:16:02 AM PDT · 109 of 208
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981; ealgeone
    In the book of Acts, there was one holy catholic apostolic church.

    In which (or anywhere in the rest of the NT):

    ZERO prayers to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, despite a host of angels and ascended saints in Heaven.

    ZERO mention of Mary after Acts 1.

    ZERO manifestation of the church looking to Peter as the first of a line of exalted supreme infallible heads, and providing the final judgments in major matters (including in Acts 15).

    ZERO NT pastors distinctive called "priests" because their primary distinctive active function was that of offering the elements of the Lords supper as a sacrifice for sin, to be consumed in order to obtain spiritual life.

    ZERO manifestation/description of the church engaging in such. (See post 55) by God's grace.

    ZERO distinction btwn the office of presbuteros (senior/elder) and episkopos (superintendent/overseer). Same office; Titus 1:5-7: Acts 20:17,28)

    ZERO manifestation/description of a normative celibate clergy.

    ZERO examples of apostolic succession (though James was martyred: Acts 12:1,2), except for Judas which was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles (cf. Rv. 21:14) and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots. (cf. Prov. 16:33) Only presbuteros/episkopos - not priests - are shown and taught as supplying leadership by continual ordination of them.

    ZERO description of actual apostolic successors being chosen by means of voting, versus the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots. (cf. Prov. 16:33)

    >ZERO description of pastors being given such grand titles as "Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.), or who made themselves distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7

    ZERO description (not by conjecture) of infant sprinkling or any baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)

    ZERO preaching of a gospel message salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside to be with God (due to removal of "original sin" and "infused" charity) effected by the act of sprinkling (RC "baptism") in recognition of proxy faith. And which thus usually ends with becoming good enough again to enter Heaven via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.

    ZERO separate class of believers distinctively called “saints.”

    ZERO manifestation/description of a normative celibate clergy.

    ZERO restriction of personal reading of Scripture by laity.

    ZERO teaching in which the experience of some/most believers immediately after this life will be in Purgatory in order to atone for sins and become perfect in character, versus all believers forever being with the Lord after death or His return. (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 ["we"]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17

    ZERO teaching that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an "unknown god") is the same as theirs.

    In short, ZERO manifestation/descriptions of the Roman Catholic distinctives. Trying to read them into Acts and the NT examples how RCs abuse Scripture as their servant.

  • Is This Cave in Turkey the Place Where Saint Peter Celebrated Mass?

    07/12/2016 10:32:24 AM PDT · 108 of 208
    daniel1212 to Elsie
    Or the many thousands of Catholic words about what the Bible REALLY means?

    You mean like the latest almost 44,000 word papal encyclical?

  • Is This Cave in Turkey the Place Where Saint Peter Celebrated Mass?

    07/12/2016 4:27:52 AM PDT · 96 of 208
    daniel1212 to ealgeone
    The Mass is the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross because in the Mass the victim is the same, and the principal priest is the same, Jesus Christ.

    The devil is in the (theological) details.

  • Is This Cave in Turkey the Place Where Saint Peter Celebrated Mass?

    07/12/2016 4:25:59 AM PDT · 95 of 208
    daniel1212 to Campion; Elsie
    Learn to express yourself concisely. To 59

    So you would say this if the content was in support of Marian adulation vs. testimony even from Catholics against her historical propaganda?

  • Is This Cave in Turkey the Place Where Saint Peter Celebrated Mass?

    07/12/2016 4:21:55 AM PDT · 94 of 208
    daniel1212 to D-fendr; RegulatorCountry
    Just for openers, Tyndale was 16th century.

    Regardless, the essential distinctives of evangelicalism are that of a shared conversion resulting in profound changes in heart and life, and thus proactive evangelism by all, and holding to Scripture as the supreme standard as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God, not the magisterial office (which yet has authority)and contention for core truths thereby by laity as well as pastors.

    And as is abundantly evidenced, that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims. And that the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

    And instead they followed a officially rejected itinerant Preacher who and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

    And which as laity are exhorted to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints," (Jude 1:3) and "they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word." (Acts 8:4)

    In contrast, few RCs (whom Rome counts and treats as members) have a testimony of profound conversion, and hardly can be said to be characterized by evangelical commitment, and (as shown) Scripture is not the supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims for RCs (though they also engage in interpretation of their supreme authority, the Roman magisterium). And in the past have even been prohibited by papal and conciliar decree from contending in public debate (as here) for basic doctrines.

    Instead, Catholics overall are quite liberal, including significant percentage of pastors, in stark contrast to evangelicals, even though today that term is watered down.

  • Is This Cave in Turkey the Place Where Saint Peter Celebrated Mass?

    07/12/2016 3:49:58 AM PDT · 93 of 208
    daniel1212 to D-fendr
    But if you can make history fit this requirement, no doubt you can erase the Holy Eucharist as well. It takes a lot of effort, but if the motivation is there...

    Rather, trying to make Catholic history (in such things as her wafer god) conform to Scriptural history is an insurmountable effort, though many vainly try. There is a reason why it is asserted,

    "the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906

    in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them [the dogmas of the Church] is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8.

    "Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law," (Providentissimus Deus) under the vain premise that "the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church," (and likewise being the author of both is contradicted by her theologians).

    Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

    Therefore the basis for assurance of the veracity of Catholic teaching (and for the specious claim that it conforms to Scripture) is the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture.

  • Is This Cave in Turkey the Place Where Saint Peter Celebrated Mass?

    07/11/2016 4:22:56 AM PDT · 79 of 208
    daniel1212 to D-fendr; HossB86
    I read your opinion of history and scripture and I think it’s a hard stretch to avoid the Holy Eucharist in both. And you’ve gone off topic in this post.

    In reality, it’s a hard stretch, as shown, to place the Eucharist in the life of the NT church in Scripture, which is the judge of post Scriptural history, the latter of which testifies to the promise of perverse things being taught from within the church. (Acts 20:20)

    I think it a much harder task to frame Holy Scripture and history of the Church into Evangelicalism that began in the 17th Century.

    Rather, it a much harder task to frame Holy Scripture into Catholicism that began in the 2nd century. while evangelicalism began in the 1st, and the partial recovery of its became more manifest in the 17th. Thanks be to God.

    I read Holy Scripture, the early Christian documents, the history of Roman catacombs, etc, etc. and it’s quite plain that the Holy Eucharist is the central worship of Christians from the beginning up to the current day.

    That you see it in the history and teaching of life of the NT church in Scripture testifies to the deception that is Catholicism, as it simply is not there. Nonetheless, as the Lord saves those who are a broken (of pride) and contrite heart (Ps. 34:18) who cast all their faith on the risen Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood, some can be Christian despite holding to the Eucharistic error. I was one.

    It’s there, very plainly, and the basic concept, the Real Presence in Holy Eucharist, was there until Zwingli over 1400 years after Christ.

    No, it was not in the NT church, but it was in paganism from of old. Note also that according to one of your own "Real Presence" was originally an Anglican term for a different concept.

    This history is very plain;

    That the Eucharistic error did develop is indeed plain in post Scriptural history, in contrast to the life of the NT church in Scripture. That God latter corrected this error after Scripture regained its Scriptural primacy and was freely accessed (which Rome much hindered) is a testimony to its power, and God's mercy and grace.

    Anyone can put together proof texts and partial snippets to prove whatever they wish

    As Caths abundantly evidence.

    but the Holy Eucharist is overwhelmingly there from the beginning and forever, whatever effort one makes to try to make it not so.

    That assertion remains absurd, and once again i challenge you to show in the life of the NT church in Scripture, interpretive of the gospels, this central sacrament of sacrifice for sin at the hands of priest prelates whose primary active function is that of changing bread and wine into the "real" body and blood of Christ, to be consumed in order to obtain spiritual life. And that instead of RCs having to do this, that i put together proof texts and partial snippets to prove what is not the reality.

  • WEEKLY GARDEN THREAD JULY 8, 2016

  • Is This Cave in Turkey the Place Where Saint Peter Celebrated Mass?

    07/10/2016 5:28:23 PM PDT · 73 of 208
    daniel1212 to D-fendr
    Holy Euharist is Mass. The apostles and Christians after them celebrated Holy Eucharist. It’s in the Bible, it’s in the writings and history of early Christians as far back as we have and continuous to the present. You believe otherwise; you’re welcome to your opinion.

    So I go thru the life of the NT church showing the absolute absence of that mere assertion, and you simply invoke an error that manifestly developed later? Thank God the NT did not have that for its basis. The very ideas of presbuteros and episkopos being separate offices, and a distinct class of sacerdotal priests due to the Lord's supper coming to be seen as a sacrifice for sins requiring this priesthood, were all later developments in contrast to the NT church.

    The fourth century Roman Catholic scholar Jerome (347-420) himself confirms,

    “The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters....If you doubt that bishop and presbyter are the same, that the first word is one of function, and the second one of age, read the epistle of the Apostle to the Philippians. - (Commentary on Tit. 1.7, quoted. in “Religions of authority and the religion of the spirit," pp. 77,78. 1904, by AUGUSTE SABATIER. A similar translated version of this is provided by "Catholic World," Volume 32, by the Paulist Fathers, 1881, pp. 73,74).

    Catholic writer Greg Dues in "Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide," states

    Beginning in the late 5th century, priests began wearing a long tunic to distinguish them from the laity, who wore a short one...As Christianity swept through the Germanic lands, the church adopted the feudalistic structures of culture and politics that had evolved in Europe. Precise ranking, with exact privileges and responsibilities, was determined for kings, lords, knights, and, on the bottom, the peasants. A parallel ranking made clear distinction among bishops, abbots, priests, monks, and the laity on the bottom.

    "Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions."

    "When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice [after Rome's theology], the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist."

    Soon all presbyters were considered priests because they offered the Eucharistic sacrifice. (http://books.google.com/books?id=ajZ_aR-VXn8C&source=gbs_navlinks_s)

    The "Historical Dictionary of Anglicanism" provides additional confirmation:

    In the New Testament. the Greek word that is usually translated into English as "priest" is the word 'hiereus'. The use of it and of its cognates in the New Testament is threefold: it is used, first, of Old Testament (Levitical) priests (e.g., Luke 1:5; Heb. 7:5); second, of Jesus Christ as "priest after the order of Melchizedek" (e.g., Heb. 7:17); and third, derivatively, of all believers as together holding a "priesthood" (l Pet. 2:5, 2:9; cf. Rev. 1:6. 5:10). It is never used in the New Testament to denote ordained ministers of the church.

    Despite this consistent New Testament usage, from the 2nd century onward the hiereus terminology began to be applied to the ordained ministers - initially only to bishops. but later to presbyters also. The growth in church history of this misapplication of the New Testament usage matched a comparable growth in the understanding of the Eucharist as a distinct ritual offering of a sacrifice to God. (Colin Buchanan, Historical Dictionary of Anglicanism, p. 483)

    And for the Lord's supper becoming the Catholic corruption, see here by the grace of God.

    The Lord's Supper: solemn symbolism or real flesh and blood?

    (Note: allow scripts for pop up Bible verses

    Table of Contents

    Preface

    1Cor. 10,11

    Metaphorical versus literal language

    Supper accounts and John 6: Conformity to Scripture, and consequences of the literalistic interpretation.

    The uniqueness of the Catholic interpretation

    The Lord's Supper is not a sacrifice for sins

    Absence of the sacerdotal Eucharistic priesthood

    Metaphorical view of Jn. 6 is not new.

    Endocannibalism

  • Is This Cave in Turkey the Place Where Saint Peter Celebrated Mass?

    07/10/2016 10:46:14 AM PDT · 59 of 208
    daniel1212 to HossB86
    The Roman Catholic Church did not exist until 200-300 A.D

    Though rather than a definitive or total break, this was a matter of progressive deformation, with a gradual accretion of traditions of men and other errors. Thus placing a date is difficult. Moreover, since the teachings of Catholicism, true or false, are subject to different interpretations to varying degrees, then we not only have deformation from the NT church but even deformation from the deformed medieval Roman Catholic church. Post apostolic, falsely-called church fathers themselves were guilty of such, yet as Ratzinger himself admits, that even "the Fathers were not Roman Catholics as the thirteenth or nineteenth century world would have understood the term," though he believes that they were Catholic nonetheless. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology, trans. Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, Theolgische Prinzipienlehre ]San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987], p. 141.) And he also did for Teddy K. type RCs.

    However, the increasing manifest contrast btwn the propaganda that the RC faith was that "faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all believed always by everyone, everywhere," from the 5th-century exhortation by Vincent of Lérins in his Commonitory, Newman was forced to admit,

    It does not seem possible, then, to avoid the conclusion that, whatever be the proper key for harmonizing the records and documents of the early and later Church, and true as the dictum of Vincentius [what the Church taught was believed always by everyone], must be considered in the abstract, and possible as its application might be in his own age, when he might almost ask the primitive centuries for their testimony, it is hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory result. The solution it offers is as difficult as the original problem. — John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., reprinted 1927), p. 27.

    For in contrast to even RC papal propaganda, even Caths researchers, among others provide testimony against such, including Newman in explaining how the Peter of Scripture, the non-assertive, street-level initial leader among the 11, for whom no successors are promised, and to whom the NT church did not look to as the first of a line of exalted infallible heads reigning supreme in Rome, much less by RC voting, was become the Roman pope:

    While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope; their power had no prominence, as being exercised by Apostles. In course of time, first the power of the Bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope. . . . St. Peter’s prerogative would remain a mere letter, till the complication of ecclesiastical matters became the cause of ascertaining it. . . . When the Church, then, was thrown upon her own resources, first local disturbances gave exercise to Bishops, and next ecumenical disturbances gave exercise to Popes; and whether communion with the Pope was necessary for Catholicity would not and could not be debated till a suspension of that communion had actually occurred… (John Henry Newman, Essay on the Development of Doctrine, Notre Dame edition, pp. 165-67).

    Avery Dulles considers the development of the Papacy to be an historical accident:

    “The strong centralization in modern Catholicism is due to historical accident. It has been shaped in part by the homogeneous culture of medieval Europe and by the dominance of Rome, with its rich heritage of classical culture and legal organization” (Models of the Church by Avery Dulles, p. 200)

    Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-4, finds:

    “New Testament scholars agree..., The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative.

    That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.”

    If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (page 3, top)

    Catholic theologian and a Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study that,

    “the episcopate [development of bishops] is a the fruit of a post New Testament development,” “...the evidence both from the New Testament and from such writings as I Clement, the Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians and The Shepherd of Hennas favors the view that initially the presbyters in each church, as a college, possessed all the powers needed for effective ministry. This would mean that the apostles handed on what was transmissible of their mandate as an undifferentiated whole, in which the powers that would eventually be seen as episcopal were not yet distinguished from the rest. Hence, the development of the episcopate would have meant the differentiation of ministerial powers that had previously existed in an undifferentiated state and the consequent reservation to the bishop of certain of the powers previously held collegially by the presbyters.

    Catholic theologian and a Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study that,

    the episcopate [development of bishops] is a the fruit of a post New Testament development,” and cannot concur with those [interacting with Jones] who see little reason to doubt the notion that there was a single bishop in Rome through the middle of the second century:

    Hence I stand with the majority of scholars who agree that one does not find evidence in the New Testament to support the theory that the apostles or their coworkers left [just] one person as “bishop” in charge of each local church... — Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 221,222,224

    Paul Johnson, educated at the Jesuit independent school Stonyhurst College, and at Magdalen College, Oxford, author of over 40 books and a conservative historian, finds,

    The Church was now a great and numerous force in the empire, attracting men of wealth and high education, inevitably, then, there occurred a change of emphasis from purely practical development in response to need, to the deliberate thinking out of policy. This expressed itself in two ways: the attempt to turn Christianity into a philosophical and political system, and the development of controlling devices to prevent this intellectualization of the faith from destroying it....

    Cyprian [c. 200 – September 14, 258] came from a wealthy family with a tradition of public service to the empire; within two years of his conversion he was made a bishop. He had to face the practical problems of persecution, survival and defence against attack. His solution was to gather together the developing threads of ecclesiastical order and authority and weave them into a tight system of absolute control...the confession of faith, even the Bible itself lost their meaning if used outside the Church...

    With Bishop Cyprian, the analogy with secular government came to seem very close. But of course it lacked one element: the ‘emperor figure’ or supreme priest... [Peter, according to Cyprian, was] the beneficiary of the famous ‘rock and keys’ text in Matthew. There is no evidence that Rome exploited this text to assert its primacy before about 250 - and then...Paul was eliminated from any connection with the Rome episcopate and the office was firmly attached to Peter alone... ...There was in consequence a loss of spirituality or, as Paul would have put it, of freedom... -(A History of Christianity, by Paul Johnson, pp. 51 -61,63. transcribed using OCR software)

    Eamon Duffy (Former president of Magdalene College and member of Pontifical Historical Commission, and current Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge) and provides more on the Roman church becoming more like the empire in which it was found as a result of state adoption of (an already deformed) Christianity:

    The conversion of Constantine had propelled the Bishops of Rome into the heart of the Roman establishment...They [bishops of Rome] set about [creating a Christian Rome] by building churches, converting the modest tituli (community church centres) into something grander, and creating new and more public foundations, though to begin with nothing that rivaled the great basilicas at the Lateran and St. Peter’s...

    These churches were a mark of the upbeat confidence of post-Constantinian Christianity in Rome. The popes were potentates, and began to behave like it. Damasus perfectly embodied this growing grandeur. An urbane career cleric like his predecessor Liberius, at home in the wealthy salons of the city, he was also a ruthless power-broker, and he did not he did not hesitate to mobilize both the city police and [a hired mob of gravediggers with pickaxes] to back up his rule…

    Self-consciously, the popes began to model their actions and their style as Christian leaders on the procedures of the Roman state. — Eamon Duffy “Saints and Sinners”, p. 37,38

    For the so-called successor to Peter, as Damasus 1 (366-384) began his reign by employing a gang of thugs in securing his chair, which carried out a three-day massacre of his rivals supporters. Yet true to form, Rome made him a "saint.
    Damasus is much responsible for the further unscriptural development of the Roman primacy, frequently referring to Rome as ''the apostolic see'' and enjoying a His magnificent lifestyle and the favor of court and aristocracy, and leading to Theodosius 1 (379-95) declaring (February 27, 380) Christianity the state religion.

    Moreover,

    The Bishop of Rome assumed [circa sixth century] the position of Ponlifex Maximus, priest and temporal ruler in one, and the workings of this so-called spiritual kingdom, with bishops as senators, and priests as leaders of the army, followed on much the same lines as the empire. The analogy was more complete when monasteries were founded and provinces were won and governed by the Church. - Welbore St. Clair Baddeley, Lina Duff Gordon, “Rome and its story” p. 176

    Eastern Orthodox scholarship (while maintaining her shared accretion of errors of "tradition" as the "one true church") also adds voice to this,

    Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development. Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman)... "

    All the stages are useful, all are resources; and the theologian may appeal to the Fathers, for example, but they may also be contradicted by something else, something higher or newer. On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. - http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html
    Other unscriptural developments included religious syncretism, as Newman confessed:

    "In the course of the fourth century two movements or developments spread over the face of Christendom, with a rapidity characteristic of the Church; the one ascetic, the other ritual or ceremonial. We are told in various ways by Eusebius [Note 16], that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us."

    "The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church." (John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 8. Application of the Third Note of a True Development—Assimilative Power)

    Falsified history of the Roman church was also instrumental in the development of her unScriptural papacy and power. RC historian Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger:

    In the middle of the ninth century—about 845—there arose the huge fabrication of the Isidorian decretals...About a hundred pretended decrees of the earliest Popes, together with certain spurious writings of other Church dignitaries and acts of Synods, were then fabricated in the west of Gaul, and eagerly seized upon Pope Nicholas I at Rome, to be used as genuine documents in support of the new claims put forward by himself and his successors.

    That the pseudo–Isidorian principles eventually revolutionized the whole constitution of the Church, and introduced a new system in place of the old—on that point there can be no controversy among candid historians. - — Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870) Then you have the unScriptural Development of the distinctive Catholic priesthood More by the grace of God.

  • Is This Cave in Turkey the Place Where Saint Peter Celebrated Mass?

    07/10/2016 10:19:16 AM PDT · 58 of 208
    daniel1212 to choctaw man; D-fendr; GreyFriar; mumblypeg; Campion; Lucas McCain
    Did Peter celebrate mass?

    Certainly not. See post 55. Peter was not even distinctively ordained as a priest and is never said even administer the Lord's supper (nor described or looked to as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning supreme, let alone in Rome), as instead he is descrbed as one who feeds the flock with the word of God, which he calls food.(1Pt. 2:2) And the Holy Spirit characteristically describes notable unique aspects of persons (from the number of toes to sinlessness) as well as basic functions of offices.

    Acts 1: Peter is simply part of the upper room prayer group.

    Acts 2: Peter preaches the prophesied Christ as crucified and risen, and regeneration/salvation by effectual faith in the risen Lord Jesus, with no mention of the Lord's supper as salvific. And he is part of the apostolic teachers, but breaking bread is not described as a formal ritual led by apostles, or as being a sacrificial sin offering.

    Acts 3: Peter preaches healing and salvation by repentant faith in the prophesied and risen Lord Jesus.

    Acts 4: Peter leads the dissent from leadership to preach prophesied and risen Lord Jesus.

    Acts 5: Peter, like Paul, disciplines hypocritical deceivers while being an instrument of grace for healing, and in the face of official censor asserts "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29) and preaches regeneration by obedient faith in the crucified and risen Lord Christ.

    Acts 6: Facing the need of physically feeding the flock, Peter is one of the apostles who states that, "It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. (Acts 6:2-3)

    Acts 7: Peter is not mentioned.

    Acts 8: Peter along with John is sent by the other apostles to Samaria, who convey the Holy Spirit to new baptized believers. And he reproves Simon for unholy motives and heart.

    Acts 9: Peter, like Paul, is an instrument of healing, but never via the Lord's supper.

    Acts 10: Peter, using the keys to the kingdom, preaches justification by faith to the Gentiles, that "To him [the prophesied crucified and risen Lord Jesus] give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins, (Acts 10:43) and baptizes them, and remains with them a few days.

    Acts 11: Peter defends being with Gentiles and preaching to them.

    Acts 12: Peter is imprisoned and is prayed out.

    Acts 13: Peter is not mentioned

    Acts 4: Peter is not mentioned

    Acts 15: Peter gives his testimony of salvation by grace thru faith, "purifying their hearts by faith" before baptism, and exhorts the Gentiles be not placed under the Law, which grace gospel to the Gentiles Paul and Barnabas testify to, while James provides the judgement as to what shall be done, confirmatory of Peter Paul and Barnabas.

    Acts 16-28: Peter is never mentioned again, as the Spirit describes the labor of love for Paul for the church and the lost in the remaining 12 chapters of Acts.

    Romans: Peter is never mentioned to the church RCs assert he founded, even among the over 30 souls Paul greets or mentions in cp. 16.

    1 Corinthians: Peter (Cephas) is mentioned by name as one whom believers are not to follow as unique, (1Co. 1:12; 3:22) and as being married. (1Co. 9:3)

    2 Corinthians: Peter is never mentioned

    Galatians: Peter is specifically mentioned as one whom Paul stayed with for 15 days, 3 years after Paul began preaching. (1:18) And as one of those who appeared to be pillars, these being James, Peter and John in the order Paul gives, whom Paul chose to see as the Lord revealed to him, who affirmation was needed in the light of attacks impugning the validity of Paul's apostleship, while Paul stated that he "was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." (2 Corinthians 11:5) And was the only one to publicly reprove another apostle, that being Peter for his duplicity. (2:1-14)

    2 Corinthians thru Revelation" Peter is never mentioned again, except in his own two pastoral epistles, and in which he simply describes himself as "a servant," "an apostles," and "an elder." But nowhere is he described as administering the Lord's supper, or as part of a distinctive priesthood, for the only priesthood is that which Peter describes, that of all believers. (1Pt. 2:9)

    Nor is either Peter or the Lord's supper mentioned in the Lord's critique of the representative churches in Rv. 2+3, either as regards a commendation for faithfulness or exhortation for their problems. Thus the idea of Peter celebrating Mass is without evidence, in clear contrast to that of feeding the flock by preaching, which is the primary active function of NT pastors, which are called presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos, referring to those in one office, and who are never called "priests. See here on that by the grace of God.

  • Is This Cave in Turkey the Place Where Saint Peter Celebrated Mass?

    07/10/2016 7:04:21 AM PDT · 57 of 208
    daniel1212 to cloudmountain; NYer
    SOMEtimes, things are just historical, even with the Apostles. If anyone wants another example, I have one.

    You mean like the Assumption? SOME things are just not historical, even though Rome makes them so.

  • Is This Cave in Turkey the Place Where Saint Peter Celebrated Mass?

    07/10/2016 5:27:22 AM PDT · 55 of 208
    daniel1212 to Wyrd bið ful aræd; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; ...
    Moreover, this very same tradition claims that it was in the Knisset Mar Semaan Kefa (“Grotto of St. Peter” in Aramaic) where Peter would celebrate the Eucharist for this community.

    Yes he did. The meme about the Catholic Church being “invented” hundreds of years after the fact just doesn’t hold water when held up against reality. The Mass can be traced through Scripture and other documents, and Peter did worship as all early Christians did — through the Mass.

    Absolutely wrong in the light of Scripture!!! There is not even one instance in the life of the NT church of an apostle or pastor being distinctively called a priest, or engaging in a unique sacerdotal function, let alone even officiating at the Lord's supper and offering up the elements as a sacrifice for sins, nor are they ever charged with doing so in the life of the NT church. For instead the primary charge and active function of pastors is that of preaching the word. (Acts 6:4; 2Tim. 4:2; Col. 1:28) And which, unlike the Lord's supper, we are told in Acts and onward (which is interpretive of the gospels), is said to be spiritual "milk," (1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12-14) and to nourish souls, (1Tim. 4:6) and build them up. (Acts 20:32)

    Nor is there is any theological discourse on what Catholicism erroneously believes the gospels teach, that of transubstantiation, which certainly Paul (for one) would have majored on as a salvific doctrine. Instead Paul only reiterates the simply words of Christ, "take eat.." which Catholicism construes into a form of endocannibalism, but Paul explains this meal by which they remember/"show/proclaim" the Lord's death for the church by their charitable inclusive sharing of food in this communal meal, treating each other as blood-bought members of the body of Christ, which some were hypocritically not doing by eating independently, even to the full, while ignoring others. (1Co. 11:17-34)

    Moreover, rather than being the "source and summit of the Christian faith," "in which our redemption is accomplished," as the central sacrament around which all else in church life revolved, the Lord's supper is only manifestly described in just one epistle to the church (besides the "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12), that of 1 Corinthians. And in which it is the church as the body of Christ that is the focus, not the nature of the elements, and thus they are censored for not actually coming together to eat the Lord's supper, as they failed to effectually recognize other believers as members of the blood-bought body of Christ, by eating independently in what was to be a communal feast and ignoring others, even to the full and to the shame of them that have not. As explained here by the grace of God.

    Nowhere is the Lord's supper set forth as a supreme source of spiritual nourishment versus simply communal fellowship with Christ and each others, like as pagans do with their dedicatory feast have fellowship with devils, but which was not by consuming their flesh and blood. (1Co. 10:15-21)

    If the mere mention of breaking of bread in Acts is speaking about the Lord's supper then it is simply "breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart," (Acts 2:46) with no priests or even focus on pastoral ritual. Of course, this is only one aspect of Catholicism that is not seen in the life of the NT church in Scripture.

  • WEEKLY GARDEN THREAD JULY 8, 2016

    07/09/2016 5:48:50 AM PDT · 43 of 98
    daniel1212 to greeneyes; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    Prayers up for all, and especially those whose loved ones work in harm's way, as well as those who have suffered losses this week.

    When you sow a lying victim entitlement mentality and resentment, and plant a root of bitterness, and water and fertilize it with more deception then you reap the fruit thereof of insurrection and anarchy, murder, leading to dictatorship in which the devil reigns thru his lying proxy servants.

    But in the literal world of gardening my tomato and butternut squash plants are growing, thank God, although they both are just beginning to have blossoms (but i only saw one bee), because i started them in April and May from seed inside, and lack the amount of warmth and sun for normal growth.

    However, this month i gave away my last squash that i harvested after ripening on the vine last Sept/Oct, and placed in the back hall, and 9 months later it was still good. Glory to God!

  • 'CHiPs' star Erik Estrada becomes Idaho reserve police officer

    07/08/2016 12:28:33 PM PDT · 53 of 53
    daniel1212 to Mark17

    Today the Cross and the Switchblade would be attacked as racist, sexists, and bigotted (did i leave anything out?). But it remains a powerful testimony.

  • On the Holy Rosary

    07/08/2016 9:42:05 AM PDT · 154 of 167
    daniel1212 to papertyger; Mom MD
    Why are Catholics cut off from the truth for listening to one guy,

    From on of your own: 12 Ways For a Catholic to Stay Calm & Not Freak Out Every Time Pope Francis Speaks Besides the definition of "Protestant" being so broad as to essentially be meaningless, the reality is that, beyond the limited and largely paper unity of Catholicism, it is a amalgamation of variant beliefs, as RCs can and do engage in interpretation of their supreme source, including what magisterial level teachings, or aspects them, fall under, and thus what level of assent is required, as well as the meaning of them to varying degrees.

    Moreover, what one effects and does is what constitutes the evidence of what one believes, (Ja. 2:18) and liberalism predominates where Catholicism does in contrast to evangelicals, which are yet the most unified (in conservative beliefs) significant religious group, much in contrast to those Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death.

  • 'CHiPs' star Erik Estrada becomes Idaho reserve police officer

    07/08/2016 7:19:00 AM PDT · 51 of 53
    daniel1212 to rey; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    Very good acting in The Cross and the Switchblade (his screen debut) as Nicky Cruz, the teen gang member whose life was transformed by Christ, which is a powerful Christian film and free to watch here.
  • On the Holy Rosary

    07/08/2016 3:44:01 AM PDT · 151 of 167
    daniel1212 to Elsie
    claims itself to uniquely be "the Church" claims a unique and authoritative priesthood, thereby denying the royal priesthood of all believers adds to the Holy Bible (with the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price) accepts multiple satanic visions as being from God undermines the power of Jesus' blood by its view of personal suffering for the expiation of sins sings praise songs about Joseph Smith, Jr. has strange doctrines regarding marriage (polygamy accepted in early days) believes in God the mother (who has conceived multitudes of spirit children) claims the head of their group speaks infallibly at times redefines "saint" to mean a living, breathing Mormon, instead of a bible-defined child of God accepts and spreads "another gospel" (Gal. 1:8,9)- good works, water baptism and church membership professes itself as Christian; Jesus as God, Savior, Lord and Son of God; Jesus' atoning death and resurrection doctrines are sending millions to Hell and they need to be openly refuted with Scripture

    Which is part of the "etc." i mentioned before i saw your post. Thanks.

  • On the Holy Rosary

    07/08/2016 3:40:12 AM PDT · 150 of 167
    daniel1212 to CommerceComet
    You should review the rules for the religion forum. This statement could be construed as a violation of several of them. What you have presented is not a refutation of Daniel1212's position but instead a thinly-veiled personal attack.

    I see no violation of any such rules, but what is worse is the premise that a basic common practice can be justified despite the inexplicable utter absence of any record of such in the totality of Scripture, and teaching to the contrary of created beings being the object of prayer to Heaven. Might as well argue that anything can be justified as a common basic practice unless it is explicitly condemned.

  • 10 Things You Should Know about Catholics and the American Founding

    07/08/2016 3:06:59 AM PDT · 57 of 59
    daniel1212 to cloudmountain
    The Pope is only infallible when speaking about morality, nothing else.

    Sorry i missed your response, but which is an argument by mere assertion of propaganda, that of the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and necessary in Scripture. In addition, the Pope is held to be infallible when speaking about faith and morality, and even when not then religious submission is required.

    He speaks from the Word of God...and those are God's words, not the Pope's. But you knew that.

    The assured veracity of which claim rests upon itself, while not even Rome teaches that when the pope speaks infallibly that God is the author as He is of Scripture.

  • On the Holy Rosary

    07/07/2016 7:39:27 PM PDT · 149 of 167
    daniel1212 to GBA
    Fwiw, your battle with the Catholic Church is not interesting to me and I believe that your perspective closes one off to a vast array of data. That's a very limiting approach to learning and trouble shooting and it runs counter to my nature and work experience.

    You mean Scripture, and history, and testimony?

    I can't help but worry about you and others who seem to know so much more than I do, yet make what seems to me to be a fundamental error of going to war believer against believer.

    As your premise is false, so is your conclusion. This is not a matter of going to war believer against believer, but of going to war against false teachers, which believers are called to do.

    Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. (Jude 3)

    And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (Ephesians 5:11)

  • On the Holy Rosary

    07/07/2016 7:31:44 PM PDT · 148 of 167
    daniel1212 to papertyger
    It is in answer to the assertion that Trinitarian theology requires a systematic study of the Scripture to validate.

    Then i would agree with you that not all of what is Scripture is necessary, but your argument is that Trinitarian theology predates the codification of Scripture, which means that codification of Scripture is necessary, which would mean that the major writings (most of the NT) which received general acceptance before 325AD would not be enough, while if a complete infallible canon is essential in order to ascertain the veracity of a doctrine then RCs had to wait until after the death of Luther.

    I don't need to try to make the Bible say things it only alludes to,

    That would be refreshing in the light of Cath attempts to make the Bible say what they can only wish it did. Including prayer to created beings in Heaven.

    because I accept Holy Tradition as authoritative along with the Bible.

    Meaning because you accept Rome as possessing ensured veracity, and thus oral T and Scripture only consist of and assuredly mean what she says they do. Which includes the claim that she uniquely possess ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

  • On the Holy Rosary

    07/07/2016 7:31:10 PM PDT · 147 of 167
    daniel1212 to papertyger
    In other words, you're pulling the definition out of your hat to provide your Pharisaical attacks the patina of legitimacy.

    What manner of absurdity is this? You think prayer is anything less than a "common fundamental practice?" Are you that desperate to argue otherwise?

    And BTW, redoubling those attacks while repeating your casus belli for those attacks does not change the fact those attacks are rooted in Biblical silence.

    Wrong again, as it is not simply the inexplicable silence for what is manifestly held to be a common fundamental practice, but what is said and shown to be Biblical prayer, and the immediate object of it.

    I know you know the Catholic justification, but you have chosen to set that aside, ignore the fact that God did not choose to prohibit what you want prohibited, and declare your thesis authoritative in contravention of the Commandment against taking the Name of the Lord in vain.

    Which is so much bombast, as i have not set Catholic justification for prayer to created beings aside, which I have abundantly refuted before by the grace of God, but which arguments you set aside, never (wisely) attempting to provide any, and instead resorted to construing the argument as prohibiting a practice simply based on lack of any example. And in refutation i never declared my argument as authoritative in the name of the Lord as if i were a pope which presumed ensured infallibility, but instead the veracity of my argument rests upon the weight of evidence for it, both negative and positive.

    The Mormons came out of YOU, not us.

    Yes, as you did, as in apostates, and thus the Mormons basically became like Rome, with their Prophet/popes presuming ensured veracity of office, and requiring belief in another inspired source of Divine revelation, and with a distinctive class of believers distinctively called "priests," and with more than two places in the afterlife, and even a heavenly Mother, etc

    Let me refer you to your first two paragraphs from the post this one answers.

    Unless you are confessing that you responded to what you did not comprehend, then you still are the only lacking coherence. As is fitting.

  • On the Holy Rosary

    07/07/2016 7:30:50 PM PDT · 146 of 167
    daniel1212 to papertyger
    And you have only demonstrated the Protestant penchant for hurling nasty contrived accusations when you get backed into a theological corner.

    The "nasty contrived accusations" are actually accurate warranted rebukes, while instead of dealing with the argument, you resort to asserting i was backed into a theological corner, which you can only imagine to have done!

    For you not only attempted to justify a doctrine construe the argument as prohibiting a practice simply based on lack of any example, the fact is that there is not only zero examples for prayer to created beings in Heaven - despite providing approx. 200 prayers - but Scripture only teaches that God is the addressed in prayer, and only teaches that God has the power and privilege to hear all prayer from Heaven. And sets forth Christ as the only Heavenly intercessor bwtn God and man, by whom believers have direct access into the holy of holies to present their supplications to God. (1Tim. 2:5; Heb. 4:19; 7:25; 10:16) And while prayer to created beings in Heaven is only condemned wherever it occurs, as is the manner of adulation and supplication given to such.

    Thus only God is set forth as the immediate proper object of prayer, and while you to try to justify your doctrine by arguing that lack of any example is no basis for prohibition, the reality is the argument is not simply based on a negative, while what is being really prohibited is doctrine that is essentially based on what is surmised to be possible, despite what is shown to the contrary. Even prohibiting a prohibition if simply on the basis of lack of any support where it should be still will not justify a doctrine that lacks such support. Unless one want to claim to be providing new public revelation as doctrine. But I do not think the Holy Spirit would be negligent so as to not include at least one positive example of what Catholics hold to be a common basic practice.

    And that's the problem with you people. It's one of the reasons I crossed the Tiber after more than twenty years as a fundamentalist/evangelical

    Yes, searching the scriptures to ascertain whether what is taught is so was/is a problem for false teachers and apostates, but not for the apostles and early church.

    They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. (1 John 2:19)