Spotting Heretics

[Wrangler]

Lol....YOU don't you get it! ONCE AGAIN, Scripture proves you wrong: hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

There is that mocking Spirit again. In your world view, how does ‘give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it‘ not end up being perpetual war with fellow Christ followers?

I think you are not dividing the Word of God properly, taking what is meant at the individual level and applying it across congregations and denominations. A self-righteous, self-appointed busy body.

One hint the RCC is off their rocker is that no denomination is asking them to pontificate their supremacy.

 

[Marymog]

There is that mocking Spirit again. In your world view, how does ‘give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it‘ not end up being perpetual war with fellow Christ followers?

I think you are not dividing the Word of God properly, taking what is meant at the individual level and applying it across congregations and denominations. A self-righteous, self-appointed busy body.

One hint the RCC is off their rocker is that no denomination is asking them to pontificate their supremacy.

You are right Wrangler. I have been mocking you. I shouldn't do that. I apologize.

It is not a "world view" Wrangler. It is a direct quote from Scripture. Putting all those passages together (yes, including the ones you didn't quote) and other passages from Scripture together here are the facts of WHY there IS a "doctrinal purity test in Scripture as a condition to be saved":

Jesus told his Apostles "Whoever listens to you listens to Me; whoever rejects you rejects Me; and whoever rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.” That means that anyone who rejects the teachings of the Apostles rejects the teachings of Jesus. Here is the teachings of the Apostles:

Paul told Titus to hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. And to teach what accords with sound doctrine.

And this to the Ephesians church; So that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.

And this in Romans; watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.

Scripture speaks of false prophets and men who bring destruction upon themselves by distorting Scripture, which is hard to read. Jesus prayed that we would all be One with One doctrine. So, yes Wrangler, Scripture is applied "across congregations and denominations"....which is opposite of what you have been taught your men. So do tell me Wrangler; is it your men who are the false prophets and who are distorting Scripture with un-sound doctrine? Or is it Ferris's men? Or is it my men? Which one of those men is teaching "doctrinal purity"?

Now I could give many more passages from Scripture that is opposite of what your men have taught you but I already know it is a waste of my time to repeat Scripture to you.

 

[Marymog]

Catholics are really illiterate when it comes to the matter of Scripture. Of all the denominations, Catholics typically show the least knowledge of the Bible - or even interest in what it says.

You and @Ferris Bueller crack me up.

You both say the same thing about Catholics being illiterate but when the two of you disagree with each other are you not calling each other "really illiterate when it comes to the matter of Scripture"?

Keeping it real....Mary

 

[Marymog]

Or worse yet, Christ eating his own body and blood.

Well, He said it was his body. You are calling him a liar, not us Catholics soooooooo there is that.....

 

[Marymog]

Honestly, it was the same with Catholics being cannibals, in literally eating the body and blood of Christ, crucifying him again and again at every Mass, through the ghastly principle known as transubstantiation.

Us true believers have been called cannibals since the 2nd century. Wanna know why Wrangler? (I know you don't but I'm going to teach you your own Christian history)

Around 1900 years ago The Roman authorities accused us true Christians of being cannibals because the NT Christians believed Jesus when he said this IS my body. And then oddly enough several years later Paul re-affirmed what Jesus said by saying it IS a participation in the body of Christ.

And get this Wrangler...this is really weird. The NT Christians called the Eucharist (you know, that piece of bread that you mock and deride)...wait for it....wait for it...they called it Holy!! Why did they do that wrangler? Maybe, just MAYBE because they truly believed Jesus and Paul? Maybe? Or how about this Wrangler. A student of one of the Apostles, Ignatious, he said I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]). “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).


WHAT!!! A student of the Apostles teaches OPPOSITE of what your men have taught you 2,000 years later. Oh my gosh! Who should I believe to properly interpret Scripture? Your men or a student of an Apostle who had the opportunity to ask them questions and clarify what they meant?

Hmmmmm.....this is a tough one. I should contemplate this and get back with ya'

And there is a Christian history lesson for you and @Ferris Bueller and @Jim B

 

[Wrangler]

You are right Wrangler. I have been mocking you. I shouldn't do that. I apologize.

I hope you pray on what makes you cling to the Spirit of mocking?

 

[Marymog]

I hope you pray on what makes you cling to the Spirit of mocking?

You call it mocking. I was just repeating your words which was in a way….mocking. None the less it seems you can’t just accept an apology for what it is and say ‘thank you’. Why?

Also, will you ever address your pussy cat comment? What does it mean kiddo?

Curious Mary

 

[rockytopva]

I read there are over 45,000 Christian denominations globally. I am afraid we are all heretics in the eyes of some other Christians!

 

[Wrangler]

You call it mocking. I was just repeating your words which was in a way….mocking.

So, you gave an insincere apology, doubling down on your sin.

None the less

it seems you can’t just accept an apology for what it is and say ‘thank you’. Why?

Indeed.

 

[Marymog]

So, you gave an insincere apology, doubling down on your sin.

Lol...no, the apology was sincere. But I did show how you don't like your own words repeated back to you.

And you keep dodging your pussy cat comment. Why? And what does it mean kiddo?

 

[Wrangler]

Lol...no, the apology was sincere.

Yea, right! What are you apolozing for? Mocking. And you admitted you are still mocking me. Not too sincere.

But I did show how you don't like your own words repeated back to you.

?

And you keep dodging your pussy cat comment. Why?

Comments are not dodged. Questions are dodged. My comment is this thread on heresy has changed in your mind to me.

And what does it mean kiddo?

It's so funny that you presume to use a pet name for me, 'kiddo,' but feel owed an explanation is used when a pet name is used for you. Heretical double standards.

Bless your heart.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Around 1900 years ago The Roman authorities accused us true Christians of being cannibals because the NT Christians believed Jesus when he said this IS my body. And then oddly enough several years later Paul re-affirmed what Jesus said by saying it IS a participation in the body of Christ.

We know Paul was not teaching that a participation in the blood and body of Christ in the Communion/Passover observance was actually eating Jesus' literal body because that would mean he's also saying you're literally eating demons when you are participants with demons when you eat meat sacrificed to demons.

The participation he is speaking of is participating together in the worship of whoever's table you are eating at, not participating in literally eating the being of whose altar you are eating at.

"You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons. Are we trying to arouse the Lord's jealousy?" 1 Corinthians 10:21-22​

 

[Ferris Bueller]

you know, that piece of bread that you mock and deride

I know of no non-Catholic group that mocks and derides the Communion/Passover observance. In every non-Catholic church I've been in Communion is a solemn and respected time of worship. What we do not respect is the Catholic assertion that the elements are somehow the literal and actual blood and body of Christ. That's such a ludicrous suggestion that it does provoke a certain level of mockery from us non-Catholics. But the Communion/Passover observance itself is holy among us non-Catholics. You'd be hard pressed to find a group of non-Catholics that does not regard it as holy.

 

[Marymog]

We know Paul was not teaching that a participation in the blood and body of Christ in the Communion/Passover observance was actually eating Jesus' literal body because that would mean he's also saying you're also literally eating demons when you are participants with demons when you eat meat sacrificed to demons.

The participation he is speaking of is participating together in the worship of whoever's table you are eating at, not participating in literally eating the being at whose altar you are eating at.

"You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons. Are we trying to arouse the Lord's jealousy?" 1 Corinthians 10:21-22​

Yup, in those days the pagans had sacrifices in which they were actually eating something (meat) and drinking something (blood). That is why Paul equated the bread (meat) and wine (blood) with the 'cup of demons'.

No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

If communing with demons in pagan sacrifices implies that demons are really present, then communing with the body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist implies that his body and blood are really present.

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord (v.27).

How can you eat/drink in an unworthy manner and be guilty of profaning the body/blood of the Lord if it is just a symbol Ferris?

 

[Marymog]

Comments are not dodged. Questions are dodged. My comment is this thread on heresy has changed in your mind to me.


Bless your heart.

And you are still dodging your pussy cat reference. Why? Was it meant to be derogatory?

 

[Marymog]

I know of no non-Catholic group that mocks and derides the Communion/Passover observance. In every non-Catholic church I've been in Communion is a solemn and respected time of worship. What we do not respect is the Catholic assertion that the elements are somehow the literal and actual blood and body of Christ. That's such a ludicrous suggestion that it does provoke a certain level of mockery from us non-Catholics. But the Communion/Passover observance itself is holy among us non-Catholics. You'd you be hard pressed to find a group of non-Catholics that does not regard it as holy.

Jesus was ludicrous then also: Luke 22:19

 

[amigo de christo]

The ones that weren't destroyed by Islam or Rome, morphed into the reformation churches.

Like Clovis? Philip II of Spain? This pantheism guy...
View attachment 24401

Or this guy...View attachment 24403

That man is the heritic of all heritics . YET even most of the protestant realm now embrace this fellow .
HE is dangeous and a total threat and danger to the true body of Christ . And that IS A FACT .

 

[Ferris Bueller]

A student of one of the Apostles, Ignatious, he said I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]). “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).


WHAT!!! A student of the Apostles teaches OPPOSITE of what your men have taught you 2,000 years later. Oh my gosh! Who should I believe to properly interpret Scripture? Your men or a student of an Apostle who had the opportunity to ask them questions and clarify what they meant?

Hmmmmm.....this is a tough one. I should contemplate this and get back with ya'

And there is a Christian history lesson for you and @Ferris Bueller and @Jim B

Maybe you can start an honest investigation about this here:

Eusebius informs us that Ignatius was the third Bishop of Antioch, following Peter and Evodius, apparently the first Gentile to rise to this status. Ignatius’s episcopate, whose background and affinities were not Jewish, was a triumph for the Paulines. Insistence on unity and hierarchy, an Ignatian maxim, became characteristic of the emerging Pauline pro-to-orthodox strand. 6 Ignatius, free from Paul’s complex relationship with the “Pillars” and from any emotional attachment to Judaism, articulates a more overt and unequivocal negative tone toward the beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers.

The Anti-Jewish Strand in Ignatius​

You see, it's kind of apparent when you look into it that the church sank into corruption as gentiles took leadership positions, polluting and distancing the church from it's very Hebraic roots. They twisted and misunderstood Paul's teachings about the old vs. new covenant, even seemingly forgetting that Jesus himself was Jewish, lol! The Catholic church championed this move away from our Jewish heritage and have brought us to this point where everything "Jewish" about faith in God was corrupted or removed altogether and replaced with the pagan teachings and traditions of these new gentile leaders. The fact Ignatius, for example, existed so close to the time of the original Apostles is simply not a good argument for his beliefs being faithful and free from corruption. Him being a gentile presents the clearer argument for the opposite being true, as we can see in the quoted material I posted above.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Jesus was ludicrous then also: Luke 22:19

He's speaking FIGURATIVELY.

I know you have no capacity to see even a shred of possibility of him speaking figuratively because you are so engrained and indoctrinated in Catholic theology, but it really is true, he is speaking figuratively, just as Paul is being figurative when he says eating a sacrifice made to demons is a participation in the worship of demons and not actually eating demons.

 

[Marymog]

He speaking FIGURATIVELY.

I know you have no capacity to see even a shred of possibility of him speaking figuratively because you are so engrained and indoctrinated in Catholic theology, but it really is true, he is speaking figuratively, just as Paul is being figurative when he says eating a sacrifice made to demons is a participation in the worship of demons and not actually eating demons.

I would believe you, but I choose to believe Him. He TOLD you must eat His body. He equated His body to the bread (actual food, manna) that our ancestors ate. The unbelievers then (and now) asked how can this man give us his flesh to eat? He then SHOWED us how at the last supper when he equated bread to His body. Paul then re-affirmed what He said. You reject what Paul said. The students of the Apostles (the Apostolic Fathers) then re-affirmed what Jesus and Paul said. The men you follow, who were students of the men of the Reformation, reject what Paul and Jesus said. It's pretty simple Ferris...but you have no capacity to see even a shred of possibility that ALL of them were speaking literally. Why do you lack such faith?