PDA

View Full Version : Forgive women who've had abortions



Barry Morris
09-02-2015, 09:17 AM
God always could.

"Pope Francis says all priests can forgive women who've had abortions"

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/01/europe/pope-francis-abortion/index.html


And what the heck does this mean?? "In the United States, many priests already have that power,.."

Cafeteria style, I guess.

BFLPE
09-02-2015, 11:28 AM
But can they forgive the Doctor's performing the abortions?

Barry Morris
09-02-2015, 01:00 PM
But can they forgive the Doctor's performing the abortions?

God can forgive anything, except denying Him.

BFLPE
09-02-2015, 01:30 PM
How do you know that?

Barry Morris
09-02-2015, 02:03 PM
How do you know that?

I believe what the bible teaches about it.

There is only one unforgivable sin, denying God, not submitting to Him. Even murderers can be forgiven.

RWGR
09-02-2015, 09:41 PM
I believe what the bible teaches about it.

There is only one unforgivable sin, denying God, not submitting to Him. Even murderers can be forgiven.

So there are levels of sin

Thank you :) :) :)

RWGR
09-02-2015, 09:44 PM
God always could.

"Pope Francis says all priests can forgive women who've had abortions"

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/01/europe/pope-francis-abortion/index.html


And what the heck does this mean?? "In the United States, many priests already have that power,.."

Cafeteria style, I guess.

There certainly is something cute about a Protestant claiming Catholicism is "cafeteria" Christianity.

A priest forgives sins in the name of Jesus. See, the RCC can do that, seeing it's the only church that can trace it roots back to Jesus...plus, Jesus had this to say to the first Pope:

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Matthew 16:19

:) :) :)

Bluesky
09-03-2015, 12:03 PM
God can forgive anything, except denying Him.

Actually, every sin is a denial of God.
God forgave my sin of unbelief.

Barry, your un-nuanced proclamations on this board will continue to confuse people and keep them away from the truth.

Show me a reference that says God will not forgive the sin of unbelief or the sin of denying God.

In fact, every single person who comes to God for forgiveness of sin through Jesus Christ MUST first be forgiven of their sin of unbelief.
We were ALL once unbelievers.

Chachinga
09-03-2015, 12:53 PM
Barry, your un-nuanced proclamations on this board will continue to confuse people and keep them away from the truth.

Amen to that.

Barry Morris
09-03-2015, 12:59 PM
Amen to that.

Nuanced means a 5000 page dissertation.

Anyone who uses anyone's input as an excuse not to believe is not thinking. Or just wants to attack. God won't give you much credit for my errors of explanation.

The Voice
09-03-2015, 01:04 PM
Nuanced means a 5000 page dissertation.

Anyone who uses anyone's input as an excuse not to believe is not thinking. Or just wants to attack. God won't give you much credit for my errors of explanation.

In my opinion people that don't believe are thinking.

Barry Morris
09-03-2015, 01:21 PM
In my opinion people that don't believe are thinking.

Yup, they have greater faith than me, that something can come from nothing!!!

The Voice
09-03-2015, 01:41 PM
Yup, they have greater faith than me, that something can come from nothing!!!

The old fall back eh?

Truth is I don't know the answer, but I am smart enough and happy enough to except that.

All you have is faith you can't PROVE any of your theories.

Barry Morris
09-03-2015, 02:23 PM
The old fall back eh?

Truth is I don't know the answer, but I am smart enough and happy enough to except that.

All you have is faith you can't PROVE any of your theories.

Truth is, you don't want to know, and think you are more intelligent for it. Be happy, there are many believers in this world way smarter than either of us, who DO have faith in God. And who do see intelligent design in the universe.

Chachinga
09-03-2015, 05:28 PM
Nuanced means a 5000 page dissertation.

Anyone who uses anyone's input as an excuse not to believe is not thinking. Or just wants to attack. God won't give you much credit for my errors of explanation.

What the hell are you talking about?
WAIT, never mind trying to explain, it will make absolutely zero sense (as usual) anyway!

RWGR
09-03-2015, 06:22 PM
I would venture to say when Barry says God won't forgive a particular sin he is talking about this passage:


"Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"

-Mark 3:28-29

Barry Morris
09-03-2015, 06:36 PM
What the hell are you talking about?
WAIT, never mind trying to explain, it will make absolutely zero sense (as usual) anyway!

No problem.

Nihilistic Heathen
09-03-2015, 07:51 PM
Yup, they have greater faith than me, that something can come from nothing!!!

Barry, he is so presumptuous.

Barry Morris
09-03-2015, 09:02 PM
Barry, he is so presumptuous.

When something comes from nothing, call me.

Till then I will presume its impossibility to be a logical assessment.

Nihilistic Heathen
09-03-2015, 09:07 PM
When something comes from nothing, call me.

Till then I will presume its impossibility to be a logical assessment.

I was talking about your assertion as to what people believe.

Hans
09-03-2015, 10:37 PM
When something comes from nothing, call me.

Till then I will presume its impossibility to be a logical assessment.

But you believe in that yourself, unless you want to proclaim God came from something.
There is nothing you can say to deny your own logic.

Barry Morris
09-04-2015, 12:08 AM
But you believe in that yourself, unless you want to proclaim God came from something.
There is nothing you can say to deny your own logic.

Hans, you say "came from". That implies the passage of time. God is outside of time. He created it. So the statement is illogical.

And even if you see some logic in it, all your question does is back up the problem one step. If God "came from" something, where did that "something" come from???

Hans
09-04-2015, 07:42 AM
And there you go again. The creation of time does not take away the fact that God has to consist of some form of matter, energy or material in order to "exist".
And that form had to originate from somewhere. The existence of time or non existence of time does not change anything to that.

Barry Morris
09-04-2015, 09:18 AM
And there you go again. The creation of time does not take away the fact that God has to consist of some form of matter, energy or material in order to "exist".
And that form had to originate from somewhere. The existence of time or non existence of time does not change anything to that.

You and I live in a finite universe.

It's hard to consider the possibility of something outside that.

Bluesky
09-04-2015, 11:17 AM
Nuanced means a 5000 page dissertation.

Anyone who uses anyone's input as an excuse not to believe is not thinking. Or just wants to attack. God won't give you much credit for my errors of explanation.

Translation please.

Bluesky
09-04-2015, 11:18 AM
In my opinion people that don't believe are thinking.

We're all thinking. The question is, who is thinking fallaciously?

Chachinga
09-04-2015, 11:30 AM
Translation please.

Don't even go there, you could end up with permanent brain damage!! :yy30:

Barry Morris
09-04-2015, 11:41 AM
Don't even go there, you could end up with permanent brain damage!! :yy30:

Do you understand my hilarity at comments like, "You think you're so much better!" ??? :) :) :)

Chachinga
09-04-2015, 12:22 PM
Pretty much impossible to understand anything that you try to say.
If you don't agree, start a poll!!
Now, take your best shot at the translation Blue asked for. :) :) :)

Barry Morris
09-04-2015, 05:17 PM
Pretty much impossible to understand anything that you try to say.
If you don't agree, start a poll!!
Now, take your best shot at the translation Blue asked for. :) :) :)

Sorry, not looking at his offerings.

Hans
09-04-2015, 08:18 PM
You and I life in a finite universe.

It's hard to consider the possibility of something outside that.

While it is hard to consider something outside of our universe, and there are multiple theories about that, it still does not take away the fact matter, energy and "material" need to appear for anything to be considered to exist.
So that still brings back the ever so interesting question on how that is possible. And there are theories about that also.

Barry Morris
09-04-2015, 09:38 PM
While it is hard to consider something outside of our universe, and there are multiple theories about that, it still does not take away the fact matter, energy and "material" need to appear for anything to be considered to exist.
So that still brings back the ever so interesting question on how that is possible. And there are theories about that also.

Your sentence about existance has something missing. It should say, "...matter, energy and "material" need to appear for anything to be considered to exist IN THIS UNIVERSE".

Even the IDEA of God makes it clear that God does not need any of those things to BE.

How, I have no idea.

Theories many. But I trust God for what I don't (can't) understand.

BFLPE
09-05-2015, 01:31 AM
Truth is I don't know the answer, but I am smart enough and happy enough to except that.
Amen to that.

Maybe there's a God, perhaps more than one or maybe none.

All religious writings and organizations are the work of man though. And regardless of what inspired these, all are subject to mans motivations and flaws.

Chachinga
09-05-2015, 10:10 AM
Sorry, not looking at his offerings.

Just proves that you really don't have any idea what you said, again!

RWGR
09-05-2015, 10:52 AM
Translation please.

http://members.toast.net/dougz/hiyoo.png

Barry Morris
09-05-2015, 11:00 AM
Just proves that you really don't have any idea what you said, again!

When your posts begin to concern me, I'll write you a letter.

RWGR
09-05-2015, 11:01 AM
When your posts begin to concern me, I'll write you a letter.

How Christian.

Chachinga
09-05-2015, 12:30 PM
When your posts begin to concern me, I'll write you a letter.

Satan doesn't allow outgoing correspondence, so you're SOL on that! :) :) :)

Barry Morris
09-05-2015, 03:00 PM
Satan doesn't allow outgoing correspondence, so you're SOL on that! :) :) :)

Really?? I didn't know that.

Of course, the bible doesn't say Satan is in charge of hell.

RWGR
09-05-2015, 03:05 PM
Really?? I didn't know that.

Of course, the bible doesn't say Satan is in charge of hell.

Yet you believe it

RWGR
09-05-2015, 03:08 PM
Matthew
25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire that has been prepared for the devil and his angels!

"The devil and his angels"

A clear distinction between a leading figure (the devil), and his subordinates (his angels), whom reside in Hell

Must admit, this Catholic enjoys schooling the 'Bible Christian' :) :) :)

Bluesky
09-05-2015, 04:34 PM
Matthew
25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire that has been prepared for the devil and his angels!

"The devil and his angels"

A clear distinction between a leading figure (the devil), and his subordinates (his angels), whom reside in Hell

Must admit, this Catholic enjoys schooling the 'Bible Christian' :) :) :)

Seriously? If you were a mob boss, and I say to you, I have a special place for you and your boys, and put you in San Quentin, grammatically this does not mean you are in charge of San Quentin.

Hans
09-06-2015, 01:11 AM
Your sentence about existance has something missing. It should say, "...matter, energy and "material" need to appear for anything to be considered to exist IN THIS UNIVERSE".

Even the IDEA of God makes it clear that God does not need any of those things to BE.

How, I have no idea.

Theories many. But I trust God for what I don't (can't) understand.

Seems you have a lot of ideas, but they all really boil down to 1 idea.
You should be more open to other ideas. You might find them interesting.

RWGR
09-06-2015, 08:25 AM
Seriously? If you were a mob boss, and I say to you, I have a special place for you and your boys, and put you in San Quentin, grammatically this does not mean you are in charge of San Quentin.

Yes, because there is always a pecking order.

The point isn't that Hell is some kind of prison, or whatever. The point is a name was mentioned, then after that name the followers of the entity with that name was mentioned. That denotes a line of leadership.

Barry Morris
09-06-2015, 08:55 AM
Seems you have a lot of ideas, but they all really boil down to 1 idea.
You should be more open to other ideas. You might find them interesting.

Oh, like something from nothing?? A totally logical process I'm sure.

One God. One idea. Ya follow??

Chachinga
09-06-2015, 10:51 AM
Sorry, not looking at his offerings.

What's your problem with Blue's "offerings"?

RWGR
09-06-2015, 01:15 PM
What's your problem with Blue's "offerings"?

They would cause self-evaluation and introspection. He's not into that.

Chachinga
09-06-2015, 01:28 PM
They would cause self-evaluation and introspection. He's not into that.

No doubt there, just wanted to see what excuse he had this time. :)

dancingqueen
09-06-2015, 02:53 PM
Yup, they have greater faith than me, that something can come from nothing!!!

Why do you assume all who do not believe in your God must be non-believers?

dancingqueen
09-06-2015, 03:00 PM
Hans, you say "came from". That implies the passage of time.

The statement may imply a passage of time, but it does not demand the passage of time as a necessity. you choose to interpret this implication as a demand, do not be afraid to explore beyond your comfort zone, there is an interesting world outside of your self constructed intellectual barriers.

Barry Morris
09-06-2015, 03:54 PM
No doubt there, just wanted to see what excuse he had this time. :)

I put him on ignore a few weeks back. The reasons are none of your business.

Barry Morris
09-06-2015, 03:58 PM
Why do you assume all who do not believe in your God must be non-believers?

Because my God is not just my God, He is God of all. By definition, He must be. Omni-present, omniscient, allpowerful, and outside His creation.

You are free to reject that, and do, as noted by your use of the word "your". If you do, then you are a non-believer.

Barry Morris
09-06-2015, 03:59 PM
The statement may imply a passage of time, but it does not demand the passage of time as a necessity. you choose to interpret this implication as a demand, do not be afraid to explore beyond your comfort zone, there is an interesting world outside of your self constructed intellectual barriers.

How odd that 99.9 percent of these discussions end up with the rejection of Christian ideas, but present nothing substantial as an alternative.

Hardly intellectual.

Hans
09-06-2015, 05:17 PM
Because my God is not just my God, He is God of all. By definition, He must be. Omni-present, omniscient, allpowerful, and outside His creation.

You are free to reject that, and do, as noted by your use of the word "your". If you do, then you are a non-believer.

Ah, so Muslims are non believers. I suggest you go tell them that in person, see what they have to say about that.

Barry Morris
09-06-2015, 05:26 PM
Ah, so Muslims are non believers. I suggest you go tell them that in person, see what they have to say about that.

IMO, anyone who seeks the true God IS a believer. And they will eventually realize who God and Christ are.

RWGR
09-06-2015, 06:21 PM
I put him on ignore a few weeks back.

Nope, you didn't :) :) :)

dancingqueen
09-07-2015, 12:03 AM
How odd that 99.9 percent of these discussions end up with the rejection of Christian ideas, but present nothing substantial as an alternative.

Hardly intellectual.

How am I rejecting anything by my statement, you are the only one rejecting anything here...

dancingqueen
09-07-2015, 12:04 AM
Because my God is not just my God, He is God of all. By definition, He must be. Omni-present, omniscient, allpowerful, and outside His creation.

You are free to reject that, and do, as noted by your use of the word "your". If you do, then you are a non-believer.

I am a believer though, I just don't believe what you think I should believe.

Barry Morris
09-07-2015, 12:11 AM
I am a believer though, I just don't believe what you think I should believe.

Believing isn't that important. Submitting to God is.

Lots of Christians believe something wrong.

dancingqueen
09-07-2015, 07:08 AM
Believing isn't that important. Submitting to God is.

Lots of Christians believe something wrong.

You are, of course, exempt from this statement though, correct?

Chachinga
09-07-2015, 08:53 AM
I put him on ignore a few weeks back.

Tired of hearing the same old fables. :pyawn:

Barry Morris
09-07-2015, 09:37 AM
Tired of hearing the same old fables. :pyawn:

Then just go away.

Oh, I get it.

Chachinga
09-07-2015, 10:36 AM
Then just go away.

Oh, I get it.

You are the one that needs to go away, with a one way :plane: ticket!
You don't get anything.

Barry Morris
09-07-2015, 11:28 AM
You are the one that needs to go away, with a one way :plane: ticket!
You don't get anything.

You guys are an interesting study in human nature, I sure get that!! You are real good at condemning people you really don't know, who you happen to disagree with!

So, as I said before, you make it easy!! By all means continue.

RWGR
09-07-2015, 12:15 PM
Off topic

Hans
09-07-2015, 03:28 PM
I think Barry used to be a Grand Inquisitor in a previous life.

RWGR
09-07-2015, 04:22 PM
It was something pretty significant, whatever it was, because in this life he likes to send people to Hell.

You've got to know Somebody to do that.

Bluesky
09-08-2015, 09:55 AM
Yes, because there is always a pecking order.

The point isn't that Hell is some kind of prison, or whatever. The point is a name was mentioned, then after that name the followers of the entity with that name was mentioned. That denotes a line of leadership.

Yeah, I get what you are saying. Grammatically though, that's not what the text is saying. But you want ot to say that because you have made your assertion, and now you need to defend that. I get that too. But that's no way to interpret the Bible.

Bluesky
09-08-2015, 09:58 AM
Believing isn't that important. Submitting to God is.

Lots of Christians believe something wrong.

There you go again, with your OWN assertions instead of the Scriptures. Stop spinning untruths. Belief is ALL important. You cannot submit without FIRST believing. The right thing, of course.

The Berean
09-08-2015, 11:11 AM
There you go again, with your OWN assertions instead of the Scriptures. Stop spinning untruths. Belief is ALL important. You cannot submit without FIRST believing. The right thing, of course.

You don't like my assertions??? Prove 'em wrong!!

Nah, too late for that. Like many Christians, it seems that you only want to spew about the Scriptures you interpret to support your view. NO discussion takes place, or even, it seems is allowed!! God forbid Christians should disagree in public!!!

Re believing. You obviously can't believe that a child can be saved.

Nah forget it.

The Berean
09-08-2015, 11:11 AM
It was something pretty significant, whatever it was, because in this life he likes to send people to Hell.

You've got to know Somebody to do that.

Winger, you're a liar.

RWGR
09-08-2015, 12:47 PM
Told you I'm not on ignore :) :) :)

RWGR
09-08-2015, 12:49 PM
Yeah, I get what you are saying. Grammatically though, that's not what the text is saying. But you want ot to say that because you have made your assertion, and now you need to defend that. I get that too. But that's no way to interpret the Bible.

Well, Sola Scriptura shows that your way is not the way, either. You and Barry subscribe to Sola Scriptura; you believe all you need is the Bible and the Holy Spirit to guide you in reading and interpreting it.... and look at the animosity and disagreement that has come from that.

Does SS mean "Bible alone (if you have a certain theological degree?)". No.

The Bible doesn't say that, and it doesn't even say "Bible alone". Look no further than here to see its fruits.

Meanwhile, I don't think it's a stretch to say Satan is the leading figure in Hell.

If only there were a magesterium ...

RWGR
09-08-2015, 12:50 PM
You don't like my assertions??? Prove 'em wrong!!

Nah, too late for that. Like many Christians, it seems that you only want to spew about the Scriptures you interpret to support your view. NO discussion takes place, or even, it seems is allowed!! God forbid Christians should disagree in public!!!

Re believing. You obviously can't believe that a child can be saved.

Nah forget it.

Ooops...someone forgot to log out of another account before responding!

Bluesky
09-09-2015, 10:24 AM
Well, Sola Scriptura shows that your way is not the way, either. You and Barry subscribe to Sola Scriptura; you believe all you need is the Bible and the Holy Spirit to guide you in reading and interpreting it.... and look at the animosity and disagreement that has come from that.

Does SS mean "Bible alone (if you have a certain theological degree?)". No.

The Bible doesn't say that, and it doesn't even say "Bible alone". Look no further than here to see its fruits.

Meanwhile, I don't think it's a stretch to say Satan is the leading figure in Hell.

If only there were a magesterium ...


Oh my. You always fall back on SS vs the magisterium when you make a mistake in interpretation. So what did the magisterium say about this issue again??

Bluesky
09-09-2015, 10:26 AM
You don't like my assertions??? Prove 'em wrong!!

Nah, too late for that. Like many Christians, it seems that you only want to spew about the Scriptures you interpret to support your view. NO discussion takes place, or even, it seems is allowed!! God forbid Christians should disagree in public!!!

Re believing. You obviously can't believe that a child can be saved.

Nah forget it.

Whoops. I thought I was on ignore.

Prove them wrong? You said, Belief isn't all that important. I have posted tons of scripture before to do that very thing. You have never substantially responded to those rebuttals. This is not the first time you ave said this.

RWGR
09-09-2015, 12:51 PM
Oh my. You always fall back on SS vs the magisterium when you make a mistake in interpretation. So what did the magisterium say about this issue again??

When I make a mistake, or when what I think doesn't mesh with what you think? Big difference.

You know what, I don't know what the Magesterium says on Satan being the leader of Hell. Probably nothing. Why? Because it's kind of self-evident.

By the way, I see you skirted the SS issue, simply went on the attack.

That's telling. White flag accepted. :)

Bluesky
09-10-2015, 03:24 PM
You're very angry.

RWGR
09-10-2015, 05:17 PM
I'd skirt the issue, too, if I were you :)

Barry Morris
09-11-2015, 10:29 AM
OK, here we go again.

RWGR
09-11-2015, 10:31 AM
Your departure from Soonet makes Soc's look downright lengthy!! :) :) :)

Barry Morris
09-11-2015, 10:33 AM
Your departure from Soonet makes Soc's look downright lengthy!! :) :) :)

Your problem, not mine.

RWGR
09-11-2015, 10:34 AM
Actually, a lot of people's problem :) :) :)

Barry Morris
09-11-2015, 10:36 AM
Actually, a lot of people's problem :) :) :)

Good, glad to hear it.

RWGR
09-11-2015, 10:37 AM
Martyr alert!!!

Barry Morris
09-11-2015, 10:39 AM
Martyr alert!!!

Tune it up, you're going to need that!!!

RWGR
09-11-2015, 10:52 AM
Off topic

Barry Morris
09-11-2015, 02:51 PM
Let's talk about the magisterium, and the difference between it and Protestant practice.

RWGR
09-11-2015, 04:29 PM
Okay, lets

RWGR
09-11-2015, 04:33 PM
I do have a question, though: is this going to be an actual conversation between us? Or are you going to post once, maybe twice, then wait for Blue to jump in?

Barry Morris
09-11-2015, 06:27 PM
I do have a question, though: is this going to be an actual conversation between us? Or are you going to post once, maybe twice, then wait for Blue to jump in?

Do you have a problem with my seeking his help or agreeing with his offerings??

RWGR
09-11-2015, 06:52 PM
Advice and all is okay. The problem is how you go about it.

You make one or two accusations against the RCC. I make a counter-accusation or two against Protestantism, then there the conversation lies dormant, because you don't respond, you wait until Blue does the heavy-lifting, or gets you out of a corner you've put yourself in.

Funny, that you feel it's okay for you to lean on Blue, a single man, but when I lean on the Magisterium and it's almost-two-thousand-years of history, and hundreds of doctors and fathers of the Church, it is somehow foolhardy.

Barry Morris
09-11-2015, 08:38 PM
Advice and all is okay. The problem is how you go about it.

You make one or two accusations against the RCC. I make a counter-accusation or two against Protestantism, then there the conversation lies dormant, because you don't respond, you wait until Blue does the heavy-lifting, or gets you out of a corner you've put yourself in.

Funny, that you feel it's okay for you to lean on Blue, a single man, but when I lean on the Magisterium and it's almost-two-thousand-years of history, and hundreds of doctors and fathers of the Church, it is somehow foolhardy.

To answer each point
I would not call most of my posts accusations. They are disagreements. If I don't respond , it's usually because I'm done. I don't feel I'm in a corner.

And "leaning on Blue" is almost exactly what I thought you were thinking. You see, as a group, Protestants don't have a single "magisterium" to tell us what is doctrine. BUT what we do have is agreement on a VERY large percentage of common doctrines that we all agree on. Most of the disagreements are not issues that threaten the soul. Note that I don't include cults in this, especially those who claim "special revelation" or have some man made book that supersedes the bible.

And in fact, there are thousands of doctors, masters, and others who are our guides on many issues, in centres of learning all over the world. THEIR roots are the same as yours, the church fathers and apostles. Of course, we don't take all those extra biblical writings as "tradition" equal to the bible. But then, neither do you, really.

IMO, the RCC is about authority. We reject that.

RWGR
09-12-2015, 08:03 AM
You see, as a group, Protestants don't have a single "magisterium" to tell us what is doctrine. BUT what we do have is agreement on a VERY large percentage of common doctrines that we all agree on. Most of the disagreements are not issues that threaten the soul.

I disagree. One is "born again" through water (re: baptism). One cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven without being born again. Yet Protestants disagree on this very issue; an issue that most certainly does affect the soul.

And if there was such large agreement on most other issues there wouldn't be thousands of Protestant denominations. Protestantism has smashed Christian unity into a thousands pieces, the exact opposite of what Jesus wanted.

And in fact, there are thousands of doctors, masters, and others who are our guides on many issues, in centres of learning all over the world. THEIR roots are the same as yours, the church fathers and apostles.

And those fathers and doctors were Catholic. The are some of the very same Catholics who convened at the First Council of Nicea and sifted through thousands of books to give you the Bible you use today (not counting the *******ized version Luther created, by adding words) . They also came up with the dogma of the Holy Trinity...nowhere in the Bible is the "Holy Trinity" mentioned; it was a dogma created three hundred years after Christ lived. By the Catholic Church. And you accept it.

So your non-acceptance of "authority" by the RCC is hypocritical. You accept certain aspects of the authority of the RCC, and reject others.

And, sadly, that encapsulates Protestantism in a nutshell: Cafeteria Christianity, take what you want, leave out what you don't.

Barry Morris
09-12-2015, 09:34 AM
I disagree. One is "born again" through water (re: baptism). One cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven without being born again. Yet Protestants disagree on this very issue; an issue that most certainly does affect the soul.

And if there was such large agreement on most other issues there wouldn't be thousands of Protestant denominations. Protestantism has smashed Christian unity into a thousands pieces, the exact opposite of what Jesus wanted.

Born again are words used to describe a relationship (which will cause you other problems, later). The Body of Christ exists because of the hearts of man submitted to God, NOT because of agreement on difficult to understand passages of Scripture. Many are "born again" in reality, without using the term. That Body IS the unity Christ spoke of, not the creation of one denomination to claim authority over all Christianity. And how odd it is for the RCC to use the term "separated bretheren". That makes no sense. A brother IS a brother, in a realtionship that even God cannot change.
And the fellowship between the Protestant denominations would not exist at all if we did not recognize that true Body, neither would we accept our children moving from one to another.


And those fathers and doctors were Catholic. The are some of the very same Catholics who convened at the First Council of Nicea and sifted through thousands of books to give you the Bible you use today (not counting the *******ized version Luther created, by adding words) . They also came up with the dogma of the Holy Trinity...nowhere in the Bible is the "Holy Trinity" mentioned; it was a dogma created three hundred years after Christ lived. By the Catholic Church. And you accept it.

Wait a minute. Countless times you have claimed that some dogma went back all the way to Jesus. NOW it was created 300 years later?? I don't think so. I personally prefer the term "Triunity", which more clearly states what we understand of the very nature of God. Did Luter add words?? Or did he merely translate the reality?? Going from one language to another is not always a one to one equality.


So your non-acceptance of "authority" by the RCC is hypocritical. You accept certain aspects of the authority of the RCC, and reject others. And the RCC accepts some of the teachings of the early fathers and rejects others, all the while claiming tradition is equal to the Bible.


And, sadly, that encapsulates Protestantism in a nutshell: Cafeteria Christianity, take what you want, leave out what you don't.

If this was not also true of the RCC, there would never have been ANY schisms in it. But there were.

RWGR
09-12-2015, 11:46 AM
Born again are words used to describe a relationship

That's one understanding of it. But how do you know it's correct? Other Protestants, who believe in SS, and believe the Holy Spirit will guide them in right understanding, have a different interpretation of it. Who's right?

The Body of Christ exists because of the hearts of man submitted to God, NOT because of agreement on difficult to understand passages of Scripture

The Body of Christ is His Church. It is both a spiritual and corporeal reality.

That Body IS the unity Christ spoke of, not the creation of one denomination to claim authority over all Christianity.

But that makes no sense. Christ prayed to the Father for unity, and that we all be one. Just believing in Him does not make us "one". Satan believes in Christ; is he one of us?

When Jesus prayed for unity do you believe he meant unity in disunity?

And how odd it is for the RCC to use the term "separated bretheren". That makes no sense.

You and your brother get into an argument. The fissure between you two is such that you set a firm delineation between what you and him believe. Thus, there is separation (the split of the Reformation). Yet, this split does not take away from the fact you were both conceived in the same womb (ransomed Gentiles through Christ's sacrificial offering).

And the fellowship between the Protestant denominations would not exist at all if we did not recognize that true Body, neither would we accept our children moving from one to another

Sorry, that one makes no sense to me. A further clarification, or different example, may help.

Wait a minute. Countless times you have claimed that some dogma went back all the way to Jesus. NOW it was created 300 years later??

It does go back to Jesus, but it was not codified until three hundred years later.

So how can that be?

Tradition. Oral tradition.

I personally prefer the term "Triunity", which more clearly states what we understand of the very nature of God

So you would argue God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are not holy? And, could you explain the difference between "triunity" and "trinity"?

Did Luter add words?? Or did he merely translate the reality??

He most certainly did. He even knew what he did, and the controversy it would cause. His answer: "If your papist annoys you with that word (i.e. alone), tell him straightaway: Doctor Martin Luther will have it so"

Hmmm... simply because he says it's so, it's so...I guess the Pope can never speak infallibly, but Luther can.

And the RCC accepts some of the teachings of the early fathers and rejects others, all the while claiming tradition is equal to the Bible.


Where does the RCC claim all tradition is equal?

If this was not also true of the RCC, there would never have been ANY schisms in it. But there were.

There are no schisms in the RCC. You are either in it, or out of it. That's not to say there were never controversies, or that there aren't any now. But such is the case when humans are involved. But the RCC remains. RC's come and go, but the RCC remains.

Huge difference to the confusion and sand foundation upon which Protestantism is built.

RWGR
09-12-2015, 06:19 PM
...and now the waiting game for Blue begins ...

Barry Morris
09-12-2015, 07:06 PM
...and now the waiting game for Blue begins ...

Pointless insult.

Barry Morris
09-12-2015, 07:29 PM
Born again are words used to describe a relationship

That's one understanding of it. But how do you know it's correct? Other Protestants, who believe in SS, and believe the Holy Spirit will guide them in right understanding, have a different interpretation of it. Who's right?
Italics are my responses.

Doesn't matter, really. One can have a faulty understanding of a concept and still trust and submit to God. THAT is my main point. The infinite author wrote an infinite book, and finite man will NEVER understand it all!!!

The Body of Christ exists because of the hearts of man submitted to God, NOT because of agreement on difficult to understand passages of Scripture

The Body of Christ is His Church. It is both a spiritual and corporeal reality.

We agree. But both realities transcend the Roman Catholic Church.

That Body IS the unity Christ spoke of, not the creation of one denomination to claim authority over all Christianity.

But that makes no sense. Christ prayed to the Father for unity, and that we all be one. Just believing in Him does not make us "one". Satan believes in Christ; is he one of us?

When Jesus prayed for unity do you believe he meant unity in disunity?

He meant unity in His Body, the Body of Christ, NOT in one denomination. Is Satan part of the Body, submitted to God??? No.

And how odd it is for the RCC to use the term "separated bretheren". That makes no sense.

You and your brother get into an argument. The fissure between you two is such that you set a firm delineation between what you and him believe. Thus, there is separation (the split of the Reformation). Yet, this split does not take away from the fact you were both conceived in the same womb (ransomed Gentiles through Christ's sacrificial offering).

I can agree with that, and not take the side of the RCC

And the fellowship between the Protestant denominations would not exist at all if we did not recognize that true Body, neither would we accept our children moving from one to another

Sorry, that one makes no sense to me. A further clarification, or different example, may help.

Our denominationsagree in so many areas that our children often marry into other denominations, our youth fellowship in larger groups with other denominations and we even accept pastors that have served in other denominations. That is all because we are part of the same Body of Christ

Wait a minute. Countless times you have claimed that some dogma went back all the way to Jesus. NOW it was created 300 years later??

It does go back to Jesus, but it was not codified until three hundred years later.

So how can that be?

Tradition. Oral tradition.

Backed up by scripture?? Or in contradiction to it? There's the difference.

I personally prefer the term "Triunity", which more clearly states what we understand of the very nature of God

So you would argue God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are not holy? And, could you explain the difference between "triunity" and "trinity"?

Of course they are holy. I don't need to add the word to a confusing term. Triunity just seems to me to be more descriptive of God's nature. There are denominations that reject the term and say "God is One" They are right. We say there are three persons in one Godhead and call it Trinity or Triunity. We are right. How arrogant for either of us us to try to define the very nature of God!!!

Did Luter add words?? Or did he merely translate the reality??

He most certainly did. He even knew what he did, and the controversy it would cause. His answer: "If your papist annoys you with that word (i.e. alone), tell him straightaway: Doctor Martin Luther will have it so"

Hmmm... simply because he says it's so, it's so...I guess the Pope can never speak infallibly, but Luther can.

NO man can speak infallibly. Simple as that. In this case, you think Luther was wrong, I think Luther was right.

And the RCC accepts some of the teachings of the early fathers and rejects others, all the while claiming tradition is equal to the Bible.


Where does the RCC claim all tradition is equal?

Where did I claim that all tradition was not equal? and please don't put words in my mouth about this.



If this was not also true of the RCC, there would never have been ANY schisms in it. But there were.

There are no schisms in the RCC. You are either in it, or out of it. That's not to say there were never controversies, or that there aren't any now. But such is the case when humans are involved. But the RCC remains. RC's come and go, but the RCC remains.

Seems to me I heard of an Eastern church, and that some formerly RC churches now belong to them.

Huge difference to the confusion and sand foundation upon which Protestantism is built.

True Christian Protestant denominations are built on one foundation, one rock, Jesus Christ. The differences between them often amount to no more than the differences between an Italian or Croatian catholic church. Except for the question of authority.

RWGR
09-13-2015, 08:33 AM
Pointless insult.

Not at all, merely predicting that what happened so often in the past will happen again. That's called being attentive and smart about a situation.

RWGR
09-13-2015, 08:57 AM
Doesn't matter, really. One can have a faulty understanding of a concept and still trust and submit to God. THAT is my main point. The infinite author wrote an infinite book, and finite man will NEVER understand it all!!!

So the Bible is a crap-shoot: some will get it more than others; just hope for the best.

God works that way?

Why would God write a book for man that man will not understand in its entirety? The Bible is for man, not for God. Why would He make some of it so confusing that man has no way to ever figure it out?

We agree. But both realities transcend the Roman Catholic Church.

No. One reality (spiritual) transcends the Church;; one reality (corporeal) is the Church.

He meant unity in His Body, the Body of Christ, NOT in one denomination.

And His body is His Church; and His Church is not ten thousand different denominations teaching different things. That would be a mangling of His body. His body is One Truth.

Our denominationsagree in so many areas that our children often marry into other denominations, our youth fellowship in larger groups with other denominations and we even accept pastors that have served in other denominations. That is all because we are part of the same Body of Christ

No it's not. It's because you are humans, and humans form bonding relationships. Atheists can do the same things you described above, in a slightly different context. So does that mean they are part of the Body of Christ? No, they are part of a body of humans. We've been doing it since the first hunter-gatherers formed bonds and unions.

Backed up by scripture?? Or in contradiction to it? There's the difference.

Scripture began as oral tradition. Your comment is nonsensical.

How arrogant for either of us us to try to define the very nature of God!!!

I don't think anyone is trying to put a definition on God that He hasn't defined Himself as already. Calling Him holy is hardly an offense, or "confusing".

Revelation tells us Heaven echoes with the praise of the angels, singing "Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God..."

And if we believe the Bible is the word of God, then I doubt He is offended by us calling Him what He tells us He is.

NO man can speak infallibly. Simple as that. In this case, you think Luther was wrong, I think Luther was right.

But, again, the God of all creation can do no better than just making it a crap-shoot. "Here you go, guys, here are My words...good luck, hope you get it right"

Doesn't work that way. And if anything is an offense to God in these last two instances, that is.


Where did I claim that all tradition was not equal? and please don't put words in my mouth about this.

Oh, I see what happened there. I read it as "all the while the RCC says tradition is equal in the Bible"...but you actually said "...all the while the RCC says tradition is equal to the Bible". My mistake. But don't try to turn a simple reading mistake into me trying to put words into your mouth. This is where threads go off the track: over-emotionalism.

Seems to me I heard of an Eastern church, and that some formerly RC churches now belong to them.

And it seems to me I said: "There are no schisms in the RCC. You are either in it, or out of it... RC's come and go, but the RCC remains"

True Christian Protestant denominations are built on one foundation, one rock, Jesus Christ. The differences between them often amount to no more than the differences between an Italian or Croatian catholic church. Except for the question of authority.

But you only want to look at those Protestant churches that do indeed share very similar beliefs. You do not want to discuss those that have quite different beliefs. Some denominations believe baptism is needed to be saved, and it is by water. some do not. That affects the very soul!. And yet each denomination no doubt sincerely believes it is guided in right actions and beliefs by the Holy Spirit. So I ask you: WHO IS WRONG: THE HOLY SPIRIT, OR THE DENOMINATIONS? It has to be one or the other. And if it is the Holy Spirit, then Christ was a liar.

You want to discuss 1/3 of Protestantism. It's like trying to discuss the history of US foreign policy to 2015, and to do so we will discuss 1789-1845, that's it.

As for "The Rock" on which His Church was built, well ...

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Matt16:18

and ...http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=List_of_Popes

Barry Morris
09-13-2015, 01:23 PM
Doesn't matter, really. One can have a faulty understanding of a concept and still trust and submit to God. THAT is my main point. The infinite author wrote an infinite book, and finite man will NEVER understand it all!!!

So the Bible is a crap-shoot: some will get it more than others; just hope for the best.
God works that way?
Why would God write a book for man that man will not understand in its entirety? The Bible is for man, not for God. Why would He make some of it so confusing that man has no way to ever figure it out?

As I said, an infinite book by an infinite author. Crap shoot is hardly the term I'd use. WE can always understand what we need, from the youngest child to the most educated scholar. the men of the magisterium don't understand all of it either.

We agree. But both realities transcend the Roman Catholic Church.

No. One reality (spiritual) transcends the Church;; one reality (corporeal) is the Church.

We agree. But "the church" is not one denomination, it is the entire Body of Christ.

He meant unity in His Body, the Body of Christ, NOT in one denomination.

And His body is His Church; and His Church is not ten thousand different denominations teaching different things. That would be a mangling of His body. His body is One Truth.

Your analysis is faulty.

Our denominationsagree in so many areas that our children often marry into other denominations, our youth fellowship in larger groups with other denominations and we even accept pastors that have served in other denominations. That is all because we are part of the same Body of Christ

No it's not. It's because you are humans, and humans form bonding relationships. Atheists can do the same things you described above, in a slightly different context. So does that mean they are part of the Body of Christ? No, they are part of a body of humans. We've been doing it since the first hunter-gatherers formed bonds and unions.

Your view.

Backed up by scripture?? Or in contradiction to it? There's the difference.

Scripture began as oral tradition. Your comment is nonsensical.

And God put it into the bible, as a complete and sufficient guide.

How arrogant for either of us us to try to define the very nature of God!!!

I don't think anyone is trying to put a definition on God that He hasn't defined Himself as already. Calling Him holy is hardly an offense, or "confusing".

Revelation tells us Heaven echoes with the praise of the angels, singing "Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God..."

And if we believe the Bible is the word of God, then I doubt He is offended by us calling Him what He tells us He is.

You skipped over the point of this, which was the nature of God. Will you insist that I always say "Loving God", and think I'm in error if I don't use the descriptive??

NO man can speak infallibly. Simple as that. In this case, you think Luther was wrong, I think Luther was right.

But, again, the God of all creation can do no better than just making it a crap-shoot. "Here you go, guys, here are My words...good luck, hope you get it right"

Doesn't work that way. And if anything is an offense to God in these last two instances, that is.

[i] Your interpretation. To you, apparently, God makes salvation a crap shoot. I don't.

Where did I claim that all tradition was not equal? and please don't put words in my mouth about this.

Oh, I see what happened there. I read it as "all the while the RCC says tradition is equal in the Bible"...but you actually said "...all the while the RCC says tradition is equal to the Bible". My mistake. But don't try to turn a simple reading mistake into me trying to put words into your mouth. This is where threads go off the track: over-emotionalism.

[i] You must be very emotional, you certainly talk about it a lot.

Seems to me I heard of an Eastern church, and that some formerly RC churches now belong to them.

And it seems to me I said: "There are no schisms in the RCC. You are either in it, or out of it... RC's come and go, but the RCC remains"

Research say different. Also three popes at the same time!!!

True Christian Protestant denominations are built on one foundation, one rock, Jesus Christ. The differences between them often amount to no more than the differences between an Italian or Croatian catholic church. Except for the question of authority.

But you only want to look at those Protestant churches that do indeed share very similar beliefs. You do not want to discuss those that have quite different beliefs. Some denominations believe baptism is needed to be saved, and it is by water. some do not. That affects the very soul!.

Not really, since a person can be baptised, yet not believe.

And yet each denomination no doubt sincerely believes it is guided in right actions and beliefs by the Holy Spirit. So I ask you: WHO IS WRONG: THE HOLY SPIRIT, OR THE DENOMINATIONS? It has to be one or the other. And if it is the Holy Spirit, then Christ was a liar.

Interpretations

You want to discuss 1/3 of Protestantism. It's like trying to discuss the history of US foreign policy to 2015, and to do so we will discuss 1789-1845, that's it.

And you want to lump all Protestantism into one, easy box. Sorry, that would be like saying evry RC is a true believer. We both know that's not treu


As for "The Rock" on which His Church was built, well ...

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Matt16:18

and ...http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=List_of_Popes[/QUOTE]

If this were true, why didn't Jesus say so clearly, AND in more than one place?? What is a rock?? A foundation. Look up who the foundation of the church is

RWGR
09-13-2015, 03:02 PM
As I said, an infinite book by an infinite author.

Yes, an infinite book. Yes, an infinite author. How does that presuppose a book that cannot be fully understood? Just because God's intelligence is infinite doesn't mean He would write a book beyond understanding for His people.

Crap shoot is hardly the term I'd use. WE can always understand what we need, from the youngest child to the most educated scholar.

"What we need"? We are the best judge of what we need, or is God? And if it is God, why wouldn't He make sure a magisterium is in place to rightly guide us?

the men of the magisterium don't understand all of it either.

Really? Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and then see if your view changes.

But "the church" is not one denomination, it is the entire Body of Christ.

Your opinion. Can you back it up in Scripture?

And God put it into the bible, as a complete and sufficient guide.

Where does it say "Bible alone"?

And, how did God put it in the Bible? Did He come down to earth and put it together?

No, the Holy Spirit worked through the Council of Nicea to ensure infallibility.

Again, you accept the concept of infallibility, even if you don't think you do.

Will you insist that I always say "Loving God", and think I'm in error if I don't use the descriptive??

Not at all. It simply shows how petty you were being in the first instance. Looking for anything in which to disagree with the RCC, you took on the "Holy" in "Holy Trinity".

Totally unnecessary, and petty.

To you, apparently, God makes salvation a crap shoot.

Where did I say that?

Research say different. Also three popes at the same time!!!

And how many were popes of the Roman Catholic Church? One.

Not really, since a person can be baptised, yet not believe.

So you do not believe baptism by water is needed for salvation?

Interpretations

Interpretations are wrong.

So, how can that be, when good, God-fearing Protestants truly believe in their hearts the Holy Spirit will guide them and keep them form error in interpretation?

Again, I guess it's juts a crap-shoot.

Holy Spirit: "Hey, guys, I'm here to help. Hope you understand me. If not, well, better luck next time"

And you want to lump all Protestantism into one, easy box. Sorry, that would be like saying evry RC is a true believer. We both know that's not treu

I'm not lumping at all. In fact, I'm saying you can't put all Protestants in one, easy box, because they've distorted so much over the past five hundred years they are all over the place. The exact opposite of unity.

If this were true, why didn't Jesus say so clearly, AND in more than one place??

So now that is a criteria for you to believe something in the Bible? Does everything you believe have multiple passages supporting it int he Bible?

You believe in the the Rapture. But the word is not used in the Bible, even one time.

Yet you believe this proves there will be a Rapture:

Thessalonians 4:17:

“then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord.”

That clearly states there will be a Rapture?

If clarity and multiple references are needed to believe something, can you show me the multiple Bible passages that say all we need is the Bible alone?



Nevertheless ...

"...And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed, even in heaven.”

John 21:15-17

Then, when they had dined, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He said to him again: “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He said to him a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was very grieved that he had asked him a third time, “Do you love me?” And so he said to him: “Lord, you know all things. You know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my sheep."


Acts 1:15-26

In those days, Peter, rising up in the midst of the brothers...

Acts 2:14

But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and he spoke to them: “Men of Judea, and all those who are staying in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and incline your ears to my words."

Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, and Acts 1:13.

"Now the names of the twelve Apostles are these: the First, Simon, who is called Peter..."

Galatians 1:18

"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days"

Why did Paul spend fifteen days with Peter before beginning his ministry? Why not any other apostle?


What is a rock?? A foundation. Look up who the foundation of the church is

Jesus is The Rock. Peter is A Rock, on whom Christ built His Church.

Peter's original name was Simon. Jesus immediately changed it to Peter, which means "Rock"

Abraham and Jacob had their names changed when they became great leaders in the OT. So it was with Peter in the NT.

KDawg
09-13-2015, 06:25 PM
Nevertheless ...

"...And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed, even in heaven.”

John 21:15-17

Then, when they had dined, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He said to him again: “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He said to him a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was very grieved that he had asked him a third time, “Do you love me?” And so he said to him: “Lord, you know all things. You know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my sheep."


Acts 1:15-26

In those days, Peter, rising up in the midst of the brothers...

Acts 2:14

But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and he spoke to them: “Men of Judea, and all those who are staying in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and incline your ears to my words."

Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, and Acts 1:13.

"Now the names of the twelve Apostles are these: the First, Simon, who is called Peter..."

Galatians 1:18

"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days"

Why did Paul spend fifteen days with Peter before beginning his ministry? Why not any other apostle?


What is a rock?? A foundation. Look up who the foundation of the church is

Jesus is The Rock. Peter is A Rock, on whom Christ built His Church.

Peter's original name was Simon. Jesus immediately changed it to Peter, which means "Rock"

Abraham and Jacob had their names changed when they became great leaders in the OT. So it was with Peter in the NT.
Where in any of those verses is the Roman Catholic church referenced?

RWGR
09-14-2015, 04:34 PM
Where in any of those verses is the Roman Catholic church referenced?

Peter, the first pope. It is clear he was above all other apostles. Jesus told him was was the rock on which His Church would be built.

Did you want it to say specifically "Roman Catholic Church"?

Barry Morris
09-14-2015, 05:01 PM
Where in any of those verses is the Roman Catholic church referenced?

The Roman Catholic Church didn't exist for another 300 years.

KDawg
09-14-2015, 07:49 PM
Peter, the first pope. It is clear he was above all other apostles. Jesus told him was was the rock on which His Church would be built.
Where does scripture say Peter was the first pope? Pope is a title and construct of the RC church.

Barry Morris
09-14-2015, 08:36 PM
Matt 23:9
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

The word "pope" derives from a greek word meaning "father".

Barry Morris
09-15-2015, 08:48 AM
As I said, an infinite book by an infinite author.
Yes, an infinite book. Yes, an infinite author. How does that presuppose a book that cannot be fully understood? Just because God's intelligence is infinite doesn't mean He would write a book beyond understanding for His people.
Crap shoot is hardly the term I'd use. WE can always understand what we need, from the youngest child to the most educated scholar.
"What we need"? We are the best judge of what we need, or is God? And if it is God, why wouldn't He make sure a magisterium is in place to rightly guide us?
the men of the magisterium don't understand all of it either.
Really? Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and then see if your view changes.
Didn't, mostly because they are men too, with obvious biases, and because there are educated men outside the RCC who understand as well

But "the church" is not one denomination, it is the entire Body of Christ.
Your opinion. Can you back it up in Scripture?
You use the same verses, citing the authority your church was supposedly given. BUT, the RCC describes "separated bretheren". Therefore, the RCC obviously believes the Body of Christ extends beyond her "authority".

And God put it into the bible, as a complete and sufficient guide.
Where does it say "Bible alone"?
And, how did God put it in the Bible? Did He come down to earth and put it together?
No, the Holy Spirit worked through the Council of Nicea to ensure infallibility.
Again, you accept the concept of infallibility, even if you don't think you do.
"We believe the bible to be inerrant in it's original writings". That is not what you describe.

Will you insist that I always say "Loving God", and think I'm in error if I don't use the descriptive??
Not at all. It simply shows how petty you were being in the first instance. Looking for anything in which to disagree with the RCC, you took on the "Holy" in "Holy Trinity".
Totally unnecessary, and petty.
Your interpretation of my thought process. "Trinity" was the main point of the discussion

To you, apparently, God makes salvation a crap shoot.
Where did I say that?
You didn't say it, but you forever harp on the evils of "Once saved, always saved" without checking what Paul said about eternal security.

Research say different. Also three popes at the same time!!!
And how many were popes of the Roman Catholic Church? One.
Which one?? Prove he was the right one.

Not really, since a person can be baptised, yet not believe.
So you do not believe baptism by water is needed for salvation?
Remember, "All our righteousnesses are as a filthy rag"?? No, baptism is an outward sign of the repentant heart, but not needed for salvation.

Interpretations
Interpretations are wrong.
So, how can that be, when good, God-fearing Protestants truly believe in their hearts the Holy Spirit will guide them and keep them form error in interpretation?
Again, I guess it's juts a crap-shoot.
Holy Spirit: "Hey, guys, I'm here to help. Hope you understand me. If not, well, better luck next time"
The magisterium has no guarantees.

And you want to lump all Protestantism into one, easy box. Sorry, that would be like saying every RC is a true believer. We both know that's not true
I'm not lumping at all. In fact, I'm saying you can't put all Protestants in one, easy box, because they've distorted so much over the past five hundred years they are all over the place. The exact opposite of unity.
I demonstrated the unity before, in fellowship.

If this were true, why didn't Jesus say so clearly, AND in more than one place??
So now that is a criteria for you to believe something in the Bible? Does everything you believe have multiple passages supporting it int he Bible?
As a matter of fact, proper interpretation precludes ANY one verse from forming a doctrine.

You believe in the the Rapture. But the word is not used in the Bible, even one time.
Yet you believe this proves there will be a Rapture:
Thessalonians 4:17:
“then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord.”
That clearly states there will be a Rapture?
[] You are assuming again.[/i]


If clarity and multiple references are needed to believe something, can you show me the multiple Bible passages that say all we need is the Bible alone?
We need to break out some of these topics, for shorter discussions


Nevertheless ...
"...And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed, even in heaven.”
John 21:15-17
Then, when they had dined, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He said to him again: “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He said to him a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was very grieved that he had asked him a third time, “Do you love me?” And so he said to him: “Lord, you know all things. You know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my sheep."
Peter was so weak, the Lord had to soften His words to get through to Peter. Have a look.

Acts 1:15-26
In those days, Peter, rising up in the midst of the brothers...
Acts 2:14
But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and he spoke to them: “Men of Judea, and all those who are staying in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and incline your ears to my words."
Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, and Acts 1:13.
"Now the names of the twelve Apostles are these: the First, Simon, who is called Peter..."
Galatians 1:18
"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days"
Why did Paul spend fifteen days with Peter before beginning his ministry? Why not any other apostle?
Probably because Peter was the leader in Jerusalem

What is a rock?? A foundation. Look up who the foundation of the church is
Jesus is The Rock. Peter is A Rock, on whom Christ built His Church.
Peter's original name was Simon. Jesus immediately changed it to Peter, which means "Rock"
Abraham and Jacob had their names changed when they became great leaders in the OT. So it was with Peter in the NT.
assumptions

Barry Morris
09-15-2015, 09:05 AM
These are excerpts from http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-bible.html

The term “sola Scriptura” or “the Bible alone” is a short phrase that represents the simple truth that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible.

The very phrase “It is written” means exclusively transcribed, and not hearsay.

n the very last commandment in the Bible...“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book”
—Revelation 22:18-19

The Biblical message breathed out by God is revelation in written form. (2 Timothy 3:15-16). The Biblical claim is that what God has inspired was His written word (2 Peter 1:20-21). When the Lord Jesus Christ said, “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), He was speaking of God’s written word.

The Lord Jesus Christ, Himself, identified truth with the written Word. In His great, high priestly prayer, He said, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” ....consistent with the declarations right through the Old Testament in which the Holy Spirit continually proclaims that the revelation from God is truth, as for example Psalm 119:142, “thy law is truth.”

In the New Testament, it is the written word of God, and that alone, to which the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles refer as the final authority. In the temptation, the Lord Jesus three times resisted Satan, saying, “It is written” as for example, in Matthew 4:4, “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.” In stating “It is written,” the Lord used the exact same phrase that is used in the Holy Bible forty six times.

"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.”

“Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matthew 22:29). Christ Jesus continually castigated and rebuked the Pharisees because they made their traditions on a par with the Word of God—corrupting the very basis of truth by equating their traditions with God’s Word. "

Proverbs 30:5-6:
“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”

One more:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
—2 Timothy 3:16-17

Perfection, possible through scripture alone.

RWGR
09-15-2015, 05:16 PM
Where does scripture say Peter was the first pope? Pope is a title and construct of the RC church.

So "Rapture" must be a title and construct of Protestantism.

RWGR
09-15-2015, 05:21 PM
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
—2 Timothy 3:16-17

Perfection, possible through scripture alone.

and to be perfect Scripture is "profitable". That in no way means Scripture alone. Something that is profitable is not an end all and be all.

And which Protestant denomination is "perfect", then? Which one got it all right? And, what of the ones that didn't get it right? What happened? I thought SS promised guidance form error through the Holy Spirit?


The Bible, in many places, speaks of the importance of oral tradition. I'm not going to waste time copying and pasting them here. It's been done before, countless times.

Barry Morris
09-15-2015, 05:43 PM
and to be perfect Scripture is "profitable". That in no way means Scripture alone. Something that is profitable is not an end all and be all.

And which Protestant denomination is "perfect", then? Which one got it all right? And, what of the ones that didn't get it right? What happened? I thought SS promised guidance form error through the Holy Spirit?


The Bible, in many places, speaks of the importance of oral tradition. I'm not going to waste time copying and pasting them here. It's been done before, countless times.

Profitable enough to make a man perfect, thoroughly furnished?? Sounds right to me. Says nothing about a church.

As to the work of the Holy Spirit, I suggest you do a study of the Word of God, not the ramblings of men, praying over it.

Barry Morris
09-15-2015, 05:46 PM
So "Rapture" must be a title and construct of Protestantism.

Can't answer the question?? Trust you noticed the "father" verses, and that the RCC ignores them.

Whose construct is purgatory?? Bible?? Millenium?? Trinity?? Mary's Immaculate Conception??

Let's actually read what the bible says.

KDawg
09-15-2015, 06:52 PM
So "Rapture" must be a title and construct of Protestantism.
I don't think that word is in the bible either... so yes it would be a construct of Protestantism.

I stay away from extra-biblical teachings, unless supported by the bible.

Barry Morris
09-15-2015, 07:36 PM
I don't think that word is in the bible either... so yes it would be a construct of Protestantism.

I stay away from extra-biblical teachings, unless supported by the bible.

Is it something added to Scripture, which we are forbidden to do, or is it descriptive of something that will happen, as described in the word??

It's pretty clear that the Body of Christ will be taken up. The when is subject to debate. We call it rapture.

RWGR
09-15-2015, 08:09 PM
Profitable enough to make a man perfect, thoroughly furnished?? Sounds right to me. Says nothing about a church.

As to the work of the Holy Spirit, I suggest you do a study of the Word of God, not the ramblings of men, praying over it.

You totally sidestepped my question.

Why?

RWGR
09-15-2015, 08:10 PM
Can't answer the question?? Trust you noticed the "father" verses, and that the RCC ignores them.

Whose construct is purgatory?? Bible?? Millenium?? Trinity?? Mary's Immaculate Conception??

Let's actually read what the bible says.

I have.

It says nothing of Sola Scriptura. It says nothing of a Rapture.

It also never mentions the Trinity, but you believe that.

Cafeteria Christianity.

Barry Morris
09-15-2015, 08:59 PM
You totally sidestepped my question.

Why?

Actually, your response covered ground the original statement didn't come within ten feet of.

If you would like to restate the question, as a separate idea, I'll be glad to answer.

Barry Morris
09-15-2015, 09:02 PM
I have.

It says nothing of Sola Scriptura. It says nothing of a Rapture.

It also never mentions the Trinity, but you believe that.

Cafeteria Christianity.

Cafeteria as in purgatory (look out for plagues), Mary's Immaculate conception (look out for plagues here too)??

Trinity. Poor word. Maybe you'll some day explain to us the very nature of our infinite God.

BTW, will the church be taken up??? What can we call that??

Bluesky
09-16-2015, 09:53 AM
I have.

It says nothing of a Rapture.



1 Thessalonians 4:
16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage each other with these words.

Do you see the words "caught up"?

And the Douay versions says this -
"Then we who are alive, who are left, shall be taken up together with them in the clouds to meet Christ,"

And the Latin Vulgate says this -
17 deinde nos qui vivimus qui relinquimur simul rapiemur cum illis in nubibus obviam Domino in aera et sic semper cum Domino erimus

The word "rapiemur" is derived from the LAtin word rapturo.. we get our English word RAPTOR from this Latin word.

The Latin word is translated from the Greek word, "harpadzo" which means to remove, seize or take away.

I know you will counter this, but perhaps for others this might be instructive.

Barry Morris
09-16-2015, 01:02 PM
1 Thessalonians 4:
16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage each other with these words.

Do you see the words "caught up"?

And the Douay versions says this -

And the Latin Vulgate says this -

The word "rapiemur" is derived from the LAtin word rapturo.. we get our English word RAPTOR from this Latin word.

The Latin word is translated from the Greek word, "harpadzo" which means to remove, seize or take away.

I know you will counter this, but perhaps for others this might be instructive.

I truly enjoy an in depth analysis like this. So it appears the word "rapture" IS in the bible!!! I never knew that.

RWGR
09-16-2015, 04:53 PM
I truly enjoy an in depth analysis like this. So it appears the word "rapture" IS in the bible!!! I never knew that.

Yet you believed it before knowing it was in the Bible.

Yet you don't believe anything if it's not in the Bible.

Interesting.

RWGR
09-16-2015, 05:01 PM
I know you will counter this, but perhaps for others this might be instructive.

I didn't know countering you was an offense. My apologies ahead of time.

caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air

Strange you would take that literally, seeing you don't take a passage literally where Jesus starts by saying "very truly..." before making his pronouncement:

Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
-John 6:53

As for the Rapture, I think all Christians agree we will meet up with Christ. My point of contention is the Rapture as it is portrayed in Lahaye's comic books.

Barry Morris
09-16-2015, 06:25 PM
Yet you believed it before knowing it was in the Bible.

Yet you don't believe anything if it's not in the Bible.

Interesting.

Edited, The words "caught up" are in the bible, even yours, and so you believed it too. So admit it and move on.

Barry Morris
09-17-2015, 10:23 AM
WE COULD look at ALL the passages that where Jesus says "Very Truly". Could be interesting.

Bluesky
09-17-2015, 11:14 AM
I didn't know countering you was an offense. My apologies ahead of time.

caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air

Strange you would take that literally, seeing you don't take a passage literally where Jesus starts by saying "very truly..." before making his pronouncement:

Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
-John 6:53

As for the Rapture, I think all Christians agree we will meet up with Christ. My point of contention is the Rapture as it is portrayed in Lahaye's comic books.

I do not take everything in the Bible literally. I do use the grammatical historical method everywhere though.
Based on the above post, being caught up is the only way that can be understood.

BTW, I am not offended. I rather enjoy a substantial discussion. I am sure you do too.

Oh, and as far as taking John 6 literally, I ahve pointed out once before, JEsus himself corrected his disciples in that same context when they took him literally. And you have another problem - When Paul quotes Jesus in 1 Cor 11, he says "This cup is the new covenant that is in my blood. This do, as often as you drink it.."

Was he referring to the cup or that which was in the cup?
If you take it literally, it means he wants us drink the cup, along with the contents.
Ridiculous, you say? Yes. Everyone KNOWS that "the cup" is a figure of speech, a metonymy - a figure of speech in which a thing or concept is called not by its own name but rather by the name of something associated in meaning with that thing or concept.
Again, I know you aren't convinced. But at least you understand how I arrive at my conclusion on the matter.

RWGR
09-17-2015, 05:00 PM
But why would you let Paul's quote of Jesus override the very words Jesus said?

Jesus was very clear he was not talking metaphorically. In fact, he lost many followers after telling them we must drink his blood and eat his flesh if we want life everlasting.

People don't walk away from metaphors.

RWGR
09-17-2015, 05:01 PM
Edited, The words "caught up" are in the bible, even yours, and so you believed it too. So admit it and move on.

Why won't you answer my simple question?

Bluesky
09-17-2015, 05:49 PM
But why would you let Paul's quote of Jesus override the very words Jesus said?

Judging from that remark, I can see that you didn't understand what I was trying to say. Probably my bad.


Jesus was very clear he was not talking metaphorically. In fact, he lost many followers after telling them we must drink his blood and eat his flesh if we want life everlasting.

People don't walk away from metaphors.

No. But people walk away from radical statements.
What were they really walking away from? Let's look at the text again.


60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.

Did you catch the sequence of sayings there? They did not walk away until AFTER Jesus explained what he meant. They said - "This is a hard saying". In other words, Wow.. that's tough to swallow.
Jesus then said, "What if you see me ascend to where I was before? (i.e. back to heaveen) where I came from?

What did the disciples find hard to swallow? The claim that He was from heaven. It is that to which Jesus is responding - their disbelief that he came from heaven.

Thirdly, he explains -
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life

Did you get that? It is not my (literal) flesh that will give you life. It is the Spirit that will give you the life. The flesh is no help at all.

That is the evidence that I see that settles it once for all. He was using flesh and blood metaphorically.

Indeed, in John 3 he refers to being born from above as a work of the Holy Spirit, not a result of eating his literal flesh and blood. Yet it was the sacrifice of himself (flesh and blood which represents his life) that atones for our sins.

Barry Morris
09-17-2015, 09:48 PM
Why won't you answer my simple question?

You had a simple question??

I'd appreciate it if you would restate it.

RWGR
09-18-2015, 08:29 AM
Blue, they said "this is a hard saying" before Jesus mentions anything about him ascending to Heaven.

As for his flesh comment, he was talking of human flesh, because he knew how his disciples were misunderstanding him. He was basically saying "you are thinking of human flesh, but don't; my flesh and blood are different, because of who I am"

RWGR
09-18-2015, 08:31 AM
You had a simple question??

I'd appreciate it if you would restate it.

Earlier you said you refuse to believe anything unless you find it in the Bible.

You believe in the Rapture.

Yet recently you thanked Blue for showing you that the Rapture was mentioned in the Bible. Therefore, you believed it before seeing it.

Why?

Barry Morris
09-18-2015, 09:37 AM
Blue, they said "this is a hard saying" before Jesus mentions anything about him ascending to Heaven.

As for his flesh comment, he was talking of human flesh, because he knew how his disciples were misunderstanding him. He was basically saying "you are thinking of human flesh, but don't; my flesh and blood are different, because of who I am"

We believe that Christ was fully human AND fully God. His flesh and blood were the same as ours. This should be understood in the way He came to us, through a human woman.

Can you back up what you just stated from official RCC sources?? That IS all you believe, is it not??

Barry Morris
09-18-2015, 09:42 AM
Earlier you said you refuse to believe anything unless you find it in the Bible.

I won't accept a doctrine that has no biblical basis, especially something like Mary's Immaculate Conception, which contradicts the bible teaching, "All have sinned".


You believe in the Rapture.

Yet recently you thanked Blue for showing you that the Rapture was mentioned in the Bible. Therefore, you believed it before seeing it.

Why?

Simply because the concept is clearly taught. I always understood the words "caught up" to mean what the word "Rapture" was referring to. What I did not know was that the original word for "caught up" was the source of the word "Rapture".

RWGR
09-18-2015, 01:02 PM
I won't accept a doctrine that has no biblical basis, especially something like Mary's Immaculate Conception, which contradicts the bible teaching, "All have sinned".

But Mary was also hailed as "full of grace"

Do you believe God would be in a womb stained by sin?



Simply because the concept is clearly taught. I always understood the words "caught up" to mean what the word "Rapture" was referring to. What I did not know was that the original word for "caught up" was the source of the word "Rapture"

Thank you for the clarification

RWGR
09-18-2015, 01:04 PM
We believe that Christ was fully human AND fully God. His flesh and blood were the same as ours. This should be understood in the way He came to us, through a human woman.

So God does not have the power to make his flesh and blood different from ours?

Can you back up what you just stated from official RCC sources?? That IS all you believe, is it not??

I can back it up, though not right away. Have a busy weekend planned.

And, Barry, can you ask a question with simply one question mark? Do you need to always use the multiple questions marks? It shows impatience and immaturity, you know.

Bluesky
09-18-2015, 02:35 PM
Blue, they said "this is a hard saying" before Jesus mentions anything about him ascending to Heaven.

As for his flesh comment, he was talking of human flesh, because he knew how his disciples were misunderstanding him. He was basically saying "you are thinking of human flesh, but don't; my flesh and blood are different, because of who I am"

SO I will post the verses in question

55*For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56*Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57*As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58*This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59*Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.

Notice in v.58 he refers to himself as "the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died" (He is referring to the manna that fed the children of Israel in the wilderness).

Now once again, notice how Jesus responds to their words - "This is a hard saying"


Do you take offense at this? 62*Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?

So JEsus had just finished asserting that he has come down from heaven.
Now He is saying, "SO what if you see me ascending back up to heaven?"

He did not answer their objection by expounding about the eating and drinking his flesh and blood so that they could understand that better. They understood what he meant figuratively - that his death on the cross would be the source of their spiritual nourishment. What they could not swallow (pun intended) was his claim to have come from heaven. They were rejecting the notion that He was the Son of God.

As to your second objection - I have to stick with the context. There is no indication there that the flesh and blood of the disciples were being spoken of, yet the immediate context does indicate that Jesus' flesh and blood were being referred to.

Barry Morris
09-18-2015, 05:06 PM
...Do you believe God would be in a womb stained by sin? ...

Why not?? "All have sinned" even Mary, and He came into a world of sin, walked with sinful men, was killed by them, and rose from the dead to save them.

The idea that Mary was sinless is not biblical.

Barry Morris
09-18-2015, 05:08 PM
...So God does not have the power to make his flesh and blood different from ours?

There is no reason why He should, and no biblical evidence that He did.


Can you back up what you just stated from official RCC sources?? That IS all you believe, is it not??

I can back it up, though not right away. Have a busy weekend planned.

And, Barry, can you ask a question with simply one question mark? Do you need to always use the multiple questions marks? It shows impatience and immaturity, you know.

No problem, have a good weekend!!!

Bluesky
09-18-2015, 07:27 PM
I am not exactly sure, but I think this was the error of gnosticism - the belief that our actual and literal flesh and blood was evil. In fact all matter was evil, spirit was good.

How could Jesus have flesh and blood different from ours and still be 100% human? That just sounds wrong to me to assume that he was different in his human nature than the rest of the human race (yet without sin).

Barry Morris
09-18-2015, 09:45 PM
I am not exactly sure, but I think this was the error of gnosticism - the belief that our actual and literal flesh and blood was evil. In fact all matter was evil, spirit was good.

How could Jesus have flesh and blood different from ours and still be 100% human? That just sounds wrong to me to assume that he was different in his human nature than the rest of the human race (yet without sin).

So being fully human, same flesh and blood, yet without sin is an example to us???

RWGR
09-19-2015, 09:45 AM
Why not?? "All have sinned" even Mary, and He came into a world of sin, walked with sinful men, was killed by them, and rose from the dead to save them.

The idea that Mary was sinless is not biblical.

It is quite biblical, actually.

Can a sinful person be "full of grace"?

Barry Morris
09-19-2015, 10:43 AM
It is quite biblical, actually.

Can a sinful person be "full of grace"?

Yes, in the same way that a murderer can be "a man after God's own heart", King David. Or Paul, another murderer, filled with the Holy Spirit.

RWGR
09-19-2015, 10:59 AM
Yes, in the same way that a murderer can be "a man after God's own heart", King David. Or Paul, another murderer, filled with the Holy Spirit.

But was it ever said Paul was "Full of grace"?

RWGR
09-19-2015, 11:10 AM
The angel Gabriel greeted Mary with a new title: "Mary, Full of Grace".And his greeting started with "hail". Angels don't 'hail' just any person. Angels are of a higher order than man, in that they already see the face of God. It would be an abomination for an angel to greet any normal human with "hail".



It wasn't, "hi, Mary, daughter of Anne, I have some really good news for you..."

"Hail, Mary". The angel was addressing a human who had been kept under the full grace of God, for her divine calling.

Bluesky
09-19-2015, 11:20 AM
So being fully human, same flesh and blood, yet without sin is an example to us???

I am not sure what you are asking? His holiness is certainly an example for us. Can we attain it? No. But it does set the standard for righteousness.

Bluesky
09-19-2015, 11:29 AM
It is quite biblical, actually.

Can a sinful person be "full of grace"?

Yes.
Stephen was a disciple, but nevertheless a sinner and yet "And Stephen, full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people.
Paul prays in fact that we experience the fullness of God - Ephesians 3:19,
Here he commands us to be "full of the Holy Spirit" Eph 5:18
We are to be "filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ," Phil 1:11
For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. John 1:16

Bluesky
09-19-2015, 11:43 AM
The angel Gabriel greeted Mary with a new title: "Mary, Full of Grace".And his greeting started with "hail". Angels don't 'hail' just any person. Angels are of a higher order than man, in that they already see the face of God. It would be an abomination for an angel to greet any normal human with "hail".



It wasn't, "hi, Mary, daughter of Anne, I have some really good news for you..."

"Hail, Mary". The angel was addressing a human who had been kept under the full grace of God, for her divine calling.

I fail to see that this is a valid argument. The old English word "Hail" was a common form of greeting used throughout the New Testament.

Bluesky
09-19-2015, 11:44 AM
But was it ever said Paul was "Full of grace"?

It was said that St Stephen was. See my above post.

Barry Morris
09-19-2015, 11:45 AM
I fail to see that this is a valid argument. The old English word "Hail" was a common form of greeting used throughout the New Testament.

Men are to judge angels, are we not?? Judge a higher order??

Bluesky
09-19-2015, 11:48 AM
In the next world. Not this one.

Barry Morris
09-19-2015, 12:13 PM
In the next world. Not this one.

I would not consider them a "higher order" however.

Bluesky
09-19-2015, 02:14 PM
But what does the Bible say?
“What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him? You made him for a little while lower than the angels;
you have crowned him with glory and honor, putting everything in subjection under his feet.”

Heb 2:6-8

Humans - Lower order.
Angels - higher order.

Barry Morris
09-19-2015, 02:46 PM
But what does the Bible say?
“What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him? You made him for a little while lower than the angels;
you have crowned him with glory and honor, putting everything in subjection under his feet.”

Heb 2:6-8

Humans - Lower order.
Angels - higher order.

Thanks.

RWGR
09-19-2015, 04:29 PM
It was said that St Stephen was. See my above post.

Jesus was also referred to as "full of grace", yet there is no equality between Jesus and Stephen. Just the same, there is no equality between Stephen and the woman chose to carry God in her womb.

RWGR
09-19-2015, 04:33 PM
I fail to see that this is a valid argument. The old English word "Hail" was a common form of greeting used throughout the New Testament.

However, Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of "charitoo." It uses "kecharitomene," while Ephesians 1:6 uses "echaritosen," which is a different form of the verb "charitoo." Echaritosen means "he graced" (bestowed grace). Echaritosen signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass. (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p.166). Whereas, Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p.175).

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=17851

RWGR
09-19-2015, 04:42 PM
"There are 3 people said to be "full of grace" in the NT (in the English). Christ, Mary and Stephen. The Greek word kecharitomene is only applied to Mary and is part of the reason we believe in the Immaculate Conception. It is the only time the word appears in the Bible. Note: Only the Douay Rhiems and RSV-CE translate it "full of grace" in the English (Luke 1:28).

Stephen too was "full of grace" (in a different way - different Greek) at his death. In heaven we will all be immaculate and full of grace. The only difference with Mary is that she started that way.

Remember that Adam and Eve were also immaculately "conceived" (created). So the first Adam and Eve were immaculate. And the second Adam (Christ) and the second Eve (Mary) were also immaculate. None of this robs Christ of anything."

(link above)

RWGR
09-19-2015, 04:50 PM
Thanks.

Wow, if I didn't know that passage was in the Bible this place would have exploded.

Bluesky
09-19-2015, 05:54 PM
However, Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of "charitoo." It uses "kecharitomene," while Ephesians 1:6 uses "echaritosen," which is a different form of the verb "charitoo." Echaritosen means "he graced" (bestowed grace). Echaritosen signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass. (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p.166). Whereas, Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p.175).

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=17851

And then you need to show that the word means one is sinless.

RWGR
09-20-2015, 08:30 AM
How is one "full of grace" also full of sin?

Bluesky
09-20-2015, 09:26 AM
hmm, are you saying St Stephen was full of sin while he was being stoned for preaching the gospel?

As a Christian we ought to be full of the Holy Spirit. In fact, the Bible tells us that Jesus dwells within us. How can that be? Yet we have sinful natures.
If you can answer that question, then you have answered your own question.

RWGR
09-20-2015, 10:54 AM
hmm, are you saying St Stephen was full of sin while he was being stoned for preaching the gospel?

If the Bible states he was full of grace at the time then he was not full of sin.

Can God do that? Of course he can.

As a Christian we ought to be full of the Holy Spirit. In fact, the Bible tells us that Jesus dwells within us. How can that be? Yet we have sinful natures.
If you can answer that question, then you have answered your own question

Does the Bible say that Jesus dwelling in us is the same as being full of grace?

RWGR
09-20-2015, 11:00 AM
"Hail"..."full of grace"..."blessed among women"

The Bible is telling us something there, and it isn't think about the Mother of Jesus every Christmas Eve for a few minutes.

KDawg
09-20-2015, 11:18 AM
"Hail"..."full of grace"..."blessed among women"

The Bible is telling us something there, and it isn't think about the Mother of Jesus every Christmas Eve for a few minutes.
In Luke 11:27-28,


As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.” He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”
When the woman in that crowd specifically mentions Jesus' mother, He had the opportunity to tell us (and did) where Mary stands in relation to the rest of humanity - Mary has no special standing, that she is on the same level as all of humanity when it comes to being sinful and needing salvation.

Barry Morris
09-20-2015, 11:46 AM
How is one "full of grace" also full of sin?

In the same way a murderer can be a "man after Gods own heart"

"All have sinned.." There is none besides Christ who is sinless, in spite of the extra biblical pronouncements of the RCC.

RWGR
09-20-2015, 11:50 AM
In Luke 11:27-28,


When the woman in that crowd specifically mentions Jesus' mother, He had the opportunity to tell us (and did) where Mary stands in relation to the rest of humanity - Mary has no special standing, that she is on the same level as all of humanity when it comes to being sinful and needing salvation.

So the angel Gabriel was lying when he told her she was blessed among women?

You are reading that passage wrong. Jesus is saying his mother is blessed because she said "yes" to God, and obeyed him. She is not blessed because her womb held a child and she nursed that child.

Obeying God makes one blessed, not blood lines, physical qualities, or family lineage. Jesus is confirming his mother is blessed by telling us exactly how she is so.

RWGR
09-20-2015, 11:51 AM
In the same way a murderer can be a "man after Gods own heart"

"All have sinned.." There is none besides Christ who is sinless, in spite of the extra biblical pronouncements of the RCC.

So God was made human in a sinful body.

BFLPE
09-20-2015, 11:55 AM
How is one "full of grace" also full of sin?Anything's possible in fantasy land.

RWGR
09-20-2015, 11:56 AM
Anything's possible in fantasy land.

And the ringleader is Martin Luther.

Barry Morris
09-20-2015, 12:38 PM
So the angel Gabriel was lying when he told her she was blessed among women?

You are reading that passage wrong. Jesus is saying his mother is blessed because she said "yes" to God, and obeyed him. She is not blessed because her womb held a child and she nursed that child.

Obeying God makes one blessed, not blood lines, physical qualities, or family lineage. Jesus is confirming his mother is blessed by telling us exactly how she is so.

"To obey is better than sacrifice.."

Barry Morris
09-20-2015, 12:38 PM
And the ringleader is Martin Luther.

But he left the RCC.

Barry Morris
09-20-2015, 12:39 PM
So God was made human in a sinful body.

We both know that His body was the same as ours. Yet being our example, He lived a sinless life.

RWGR
09-20-2015, 04:59 PM
"To obey is better than sacrifice.."

translation, please

RWGR
09-20-2015, 04:59 PM
But he left the RCC.

To become the ringleader who creates division and strife.

Well done, Marty!

Barry Morris
09-20-2015, 05:47 PM
...Does the Bible say that Jesus dwelling in us is the same as being full of grace?

The Holy Spirit also dwells in believers, and we are born again.

If it's different from being full of grace, please explain.

RWGR
09-20-2015, 06:32 PM
The Holy Spirit also dwells in believers, and we are born again.

If it's different from being full of grace, please explain.

Someone full of grace would be free of sin. Yet the Holy Spirit resides in us, sinners all.

Two different things.

Barry Morris
09-20-2015, 06:41 PM
Someone full of grace would be free of sin. Yet the Holy Spirit resides in us, sinners all.

Two different things.

Circular reasoning, too.

You need to do better than that.

The Voice
09-20-2015, 08:22 PM
and we are born again.



You once claimed you couldn't remember the last time you had heard that phrase at services.


Just goes to prove that you will lie to try and prove a point.


Very telling indeed.


You are liar and I can prove it.

Barry Morris
09-20-2015, 08:52 PM
You once claimed you couldn't remember the last time you had heard that phrase at services.
Just goes to prove that you will lie to try and prove a point.
Very telling indeed.
You are liar and I can prove it.

I'll say it again, 'cause it hasn't happened since I last said that. I can't remember the last time I heard the phrase "born again" at church.

Big deal.

Barry Morris
09-20-2015, 09:12 PM
Someone full of grace would be free of sin. Yet the Holy Spirit resides in us, sinners all.

Two different things.

http://ichthys.com/mail-Mary-full-of-grace.htm

The author wrote this, which I must agree with.

"It really irritates me when people who are used to dealing with others who don't have degrees in Greek use their insufficient knowledge as a sort of sledge hammer to "settle" all arguments."

But then he goes on to a comprehensive analysis of the words used for "full of grace". You might enjoy it.

I appreciate it because it avoids contradiction with scripture, where, "all have sinned", which includes all of us, including Mary.

One more, from that site, "... for the only way to avoid the reception of a sin nature is to be virgin born as the sin nature is passed down through the male side (see Bible Basics 3B: Hamartiology, section I.2, "The Sin Nature"). It was the fact that Jesus was born without human male participation that produces a body free from sin, not any supposed sinlessness on Mary's part."

RWGR
09-21-2015, 05:48 PM
Look at all the mis-interpretations and all just between three Protestants in here. Now consider how it is on a global scale.

Protestantism is cruel, in a sense. It leads many astray.

Barry Morris
09-21-2015, 06:23 PM
Look at all the mis-interpretations and all just between three Protestants in here. Now consider how it is on a global scale.

Protestantism is cruel, in a sense. It leads many astray.

You have no answer, once again.

Thank you.

RWGR
09-21-2015, 06:25 PM
Again, I'm not going to engage you when you're in such an emotional state.

Barry Morris
09-21-2015, 06:26 PM
Again, I'm not going to engage you when you're in such an emotional state.

And he's an expert on people's emotional state.

Telling, very telling.

RWGR
09-21-2015, 06:27 PM
Breathe deep, breathe slow

You're not the first Protestant to be hit with a ton of bricks known as TRUTH

Barry Morris
09-21-2015, 06:30 PM
Breathe deep, breathe slow

You're not the first Protestant to be hit with a ton of bricks known as TRUTH

Todays chuckle!!!

RWGR
09-21-2015, 06:31 PM
I know, to think you're the first one to be hit by a ton of bricks is hilarious!! :) :) :)

Barry Morris
09-21-2015, 06:31 PM
Monday must be attack day. No content from RW at all.

RWGR
09-21-2015, 06:32 PM
I created a thread on Peter Kreeft! :) :) :)

KDawg
09-21-2015, 06:36 PM
So the angel Gabriel was lying when he told her she was blessed among women?

You are reading that passage wrong. Jesus is saying his mother is blessed because she said "yes" to God, and obeyed him. She is not blessed because her womb held a child and she nursed that child.

Obeying God makes one blessed, not blood lines, physical qualities, or family lineage. Jesus is confirming his mother is blessed by telling us exactly how she is so.
Right. Mary has no special standing, and is on the same level as all believers who obey, in God's eyes.

RWGR
09-21-2015, 06:37 PM
Right. Mary has no special standing, and is on the same level as all believers who obey, in God's eyes.

It doesn't say that at all.

Mary's obeying God lead directly to our salvation. Sorry, but that counts for more than going to church on Christmas Eve or not giving in to temptation.

KDawg
09-21-2015, 06:46 PM
It doesn't say that at all.

Mary's obeying God lead directly to our salvation. Sorry, but that counts for more than going to church on Christmas Eve or not giving in to temptation.
You are woefully buying into the lie. Obeying Jesus Christ is what leads to our salvation. Mary has NOTHING to do with it and is not to be worshiped or prayed to. You do know the first commandment, right?

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me..."

RWGR
09-21-2015, 07:10 PM
You are woefully buying into the lie. Obeying Jesus Christ is what leads to our salvation. Mary has NOTHING to do with it and is not to be worshiped or prayed to. You do know the first commandment, right?

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me..."

And now you go to the strawman. Where did I say Mary is a God?

It's funny, you'll ask someone next to you in church to pray for you, but you won't ask the Mother of Jesus to pray for you. Why?

RWGR
09-21-2015, 07:11 PM
And I'd still like to hear your take on why it was Gabriel lied to Mary.

Barry Morris
09-21-2015, 07:13 PM
And I'd still like to hear your take on why it was Gabriel lied to Mary.

You misinterpret the words, just like the magisterium do.

RWGR
09-21-2015, 07:15 PM
You misinterpret the words, just like the magisterium do.

Umm ,that would be "does", not do.

Gabriel told Mary she was "blessed among women"

According to you guys he lied.

Do all angels lie?

Barry Morris
09-21-2015, 07:18 PM
Umm ,that would be "does", not do.

Gabriel told Mary she was "blessed among women"

According to you guys he lied.

Do all angles lie?

Poor interpretation. I put up a link to a response, but you aren't interested.

RWGR
09-21-2015, 07:21 PM
Poor interpretation. I put up a link to a response, but you aren't interested.

But putting up links is bad, according to you...now it's okay?

Again, I ask YOU: why did Gabriel lie to Mary. According to your interpretation, Gabriel lied to Mary. Why?

Barry Morris
09-21-2015, 07:23 PM
Poor interpretation. Sorry you don't/won't understand.

KDawg
09-21-2015, 07:23 PM
And now you go to the strawman. Where did I say Mary is a God?

It's funny, you'll ask someone next to you in church to pray for you, but you won't ask the Mother of Jesus to pray for you. Why?
You said, "Mary's obeying God lead directly to our salvation."

That is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.

That's where.

RWGR
09-21-2015, 07:25 PM
Giving birth to the savior certainly did lead to our salvation.

KDawg
09-21-2015, 08:37 PM
And I'd still like to hear your take on why it was Gabriel lied to Mary.
Why are you saying Gabriel lied?

RWGR
09-22-2015, 09:19 AM
When he greeted Mary he told her she was "blessed among women"

According to you she is no more blessed than anyone else.

Barry Morris
09-22-2015, 10:36 AM
When he greeted Mary he told her she was "blessed among women"

According to you she is no more blessed than anyone else.

She's just a sinner like everyone else. "All have sinned" Lots of folks are blessed by God.

RWGR
09-22-2015, 12:01 PM
But are they "blessed among..."?

No