gay christians?

[Mr E]

Not true. You should educate yourself about a subject before you comment on it.

I'm pretty educated on the subject. May I comment?

Did Honorius I ever 'speak from the chair?'

 

[Marymog]

I'm pretty educated on the subject. May I comment?

Did Honorius I ever 'speak from the chair?'

Hey MR. E.

I don't know. I could do some research and find out if you want to wait. OR you could just provide your RELIABLE evidence he did!

I am presuming that you are going to say he did and then reference some horrible pronouncement he made from the chair!

Mary

 

[Behold]

Got it. Change this passage from Scripture And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Peter isn't a Rock.

Jesus is The Rock..

The foundation of the Church is : The REVELATiON that Jesus is the Messiah, that Peter just stated, is the "Rock".

The "Cult of Mary" falsely teaches that Peter is the "first pope"..... and also the "rock that Christ will build his Church upon".


Paul the Apostle teaches you this....


KJ21
and all drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that ROCK was Christ.

ASV
and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the ROCK was Christ.

AMP
and all [of them] drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the ROCK was Christ.

AMPC
And they all drank the same spiritual (supernaturally given) drink. For they drank from a spiritual Rock which followed them [produced by the sole power of God Himself without natural instrumentality], and the ROCK was Christ.

BRG
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that ROCK was Christ.
CSB
and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and that ROCK was Christ

CEB
and all drank the same spiritual drink. They drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, and the ROCK was Christ

 

[Mr E]

Hey MR. E.

I don't know. I could do some research and find out if you want to wait. OR you could just provide your RELIABLE evidence he did!

I am presuming that you are going to say he did and then reference some horrible pronouncement he made from the chair!

Mary

Wait a minute.... You are scolding folks and telling them that they should educate themselves before commenting, while presenting yourself as a subject matter expert.... and now you have to go do some research to respond to the central question of papal infallibility?



I'll wait. Here's your research question-- If popes are infallible, is it even possible to have a heretical pope?

“It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith.”

 

[Taken]

Only men filled by the Holy Spirit can interpret Scripture;

False.

private interpretation is not allowed.

False.


No one can STOP another from privately interpreting Scripture.

Men IN Christ have ACCESS to RECEIVE Gods Interpretation of Gods Word.

Men IN Christ do not INTERPRET…they RECEIVE Gods INTERPRETATION.

 

[Taken]

Peter isn't a Rock.

Jesus is The Rock..

The foundation of the Church is : The REVELATiON that Jesus is the Messiah, that Peter just stated, is the "Rock".

The "Cult of Mary" falsely teaches that Peter is the "first pope"..... and also the "rock that Christ will build his Church upon".


Paul the Apostle teaches you this....


KJ21
and all drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that ROCK was Christ.

ASV
and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the ROCK was Christ.

AMP
and all [of them] drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the ROCK was Christ.

AMPC
And they all drank the same spiritual (supernaturally given) drink. For they drank from a spiritual Rock which followed them [produced by the sole power of God Himself without natural instrumentality], and the ROCK was Christ.

BRG
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that ROCK was Christ.
CSB
and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and that ROCK was Christ

CEB
and all drank the same spiritual drink. They drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, and the ROCK was Christ

Precisely….

The WORD of God (THAT JESUS IS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD:
IS the FOUNDATIONAL ROCK…of God.)

Once THAT ROCK…is “Heartfully BELIEVED and CONFESSED by A MAN”….

THAT….”ROCK”….motto….heartfully believed…heartfully confessed….
“IS” the KEY that opens the DOOR FOR “the ROCK”. Ie. The SPIRIT of God, The TRUTH of God, TO physically ENTER INTO A MANS HEART.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

axiomatic​

Uh that applies to God!

 

[Mr E]

Precisely….

The WORD of God (THAT JESUS IS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD:
IS the FOUNDATIONAL ROCK…of God.)

Once THAT ROCK…is “Heartfully BELIEVED and CONFESSED by A MAN”….

THAT….”ROCK”….motto….heartfully believed…heartfully confessed….
“IS” the KEY that opens the DOOR FOR “the ROCK”. Ie. The SPIRIT of God, The TRUTH of God, TO physically ENTER INTO A MANS HEART.

Glory to God,
Taken

Sorry, but that’s silly. Jesus was speaking to Peter whom he himself nicknamed. That would be one heck of an unfortunate coincidence for him to have expressed himself in terms unintentional.

 

[marks]

I think you are to focused on a single word.....You believe that single word is the nail in the coffin for Marymog. OK. That's fine....I respect your opinion.

Yes, your opinion. You have to deal with your opinion....not me. I have moved on.

You have a very odd idea about me. I've shared with you something, you do as you wish.

Much love!

 

[marks]

The very possibility of progress demands that there should be an unchanging element . . . the positive historical statements made by Christianity have the power . . . of receiving, without intrinsic change, the increasing complexity of meaning which increasing knowledge puts into them.

Development Of Doctrine: A Corruption Of Biblical Teaching?

Doctrines agreed upon by all undergo development, too. The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325; the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381.

www.patheos.com

I've no idea what you mean here, only, you didn't answer my question, so there's that.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Later in 2 Peter it is said that, His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Happens a lot! That's why we need to know for ourselves what God says, and submit ourselves in humilty to Him.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Allow me to present the footnote of 2 Pet 19-21 from my Catholic Bible: " Often cited along with 2 Tim 3:16, on the "inspiration" of scripture or against private interpretation, these verses in context are directed against the false teachers of 2 Pet 2 and clever tales (2 Pt 1:16). The prophetic word in scripture comes admittedly through human beings (2 Pet 1:21), but moved by the holy Spirit, not from their own interpretation, and is a matter of what the author and Spirit intended,

This is essentially what the passage says. ^

The commentary goes on to say (I'm paraphrasing) that while the human authors of the word of God were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, interpretation must also be subject to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

And this is a good application, though not being what the passage says. Considering that God originated the prophecies, we should go to Him for the understanding. And that would apply to the entire Bible. Application, should be recognized as that.

Thing is, that Catholic Church does not take interpretation of the Bible lightly. The footnote and commentary of this passage wasn't some interpreter's flippant idea that wasn't addressed by a whole PANEL of others...over the span of YEARS/DECADES of discussion, additional research, etc.

Does your KJV have the same or similar footnote/commentary of the verse?

No. My KJV is the Holman edition that has very few footnotes, mostly just an occasions alternate translation of a word. But that's not an issue, as I've personally come to the same conclusions. God wrote it, and we go to Him to understand it.

But we should be careful to keep separate what the Bible itself says, what we think about what it says, and what others think about what it says. Also the applications of the Scriptures. I believe we should be real clear about that the Bible says, and doesn't say.

@Marymog , did you see this footnote Mink57 is sharing?

Much love!

 

[marks]

Marks, whether he admits it or not, is indirectly claiming infallibility in his private conclusions,

Putting words into my mouth? Hah! That's going to get you what it always gets people, your own counterfeit echo chamber. Enjoy!

I'll simply note that you've used ad hominem as an avoidance of answering my very simple question.

Much love!

 

[Mr E]

Marks, whether he admits it or not, is indirectly claiming infallibility in his private conclusions

And Illuminator, whether he admits it or not, is pointing out the ridiculousness of anyone being infallible.

 

[marks]

It's not like the poor editing tells viewers that video is a slanderous fabrication.

Dr.Stanley's views on the sin of homosexuality is well known and for years.


Some folk were really mad about that.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

Gay rights supporters march to protest First Baptist Church's Dr. Charles Stanley's remarks concerning AIDS and gays, Atlanta, Georgia, February 9, 1986.

Newspaper assignment sheet attached to print verso identifies photographer Andy Sharp: "Gays march Sunday morning to protest First Baptist Church's Dr. Charles Stanley's recent remarks concerning AIDS and homosexuals---A group of the crowd gathers to listen to speeches by various speakers. This...

dlg.usg.edu

So all these posts about Stanley being tolerant of homosexuality have all been slander? Is that right?

Much love!

 

[BreadOfLife]

When did anyone make that claim besides you in the form of a question

YOU did, by insisting that Mary CAN'T pray for us.

No where in Scripture is an embodied spirit prohibited from praying TO: anything; FOR: anything.
statues, rocks, the moon, money, men, shrines, a slot machine, disembodied spirits….whatever trips your trigger.

Human men who desire to follow Gods teaching; while alive in their flesh, become embodied saints and pray TO God;
FOR their brethren embodied saints,
and
FOR their non-brethren embodied non-saints.

Isa 45:
[11] Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me.

John 16:
[23] And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

Uh hem…Mary is Not the LORD, Not the Father, Not The Holy One, Not the Maker.
Uh hem…Mary is a disembodied human spirit.
Uh hem…No where in Scripture does God approve of embodied human spirits to PRAY TO disembodied human spirits….FOR anything.
Again reminding you, you have FREEWILL to reject Gods Word and do as YOU WILL.

[/QUOTE]
Uh hem . . . by the SAME token, nowhere does the Bible FORBID us to ask those in Heaven to pray FOR us.
As a matter of fact – the Bible shows the saints in Heaven INTERCEDING on our behalf by taking our prayers to God (Rev. 5:8).

NOBODY is claiming that Mary is God. She is a member of the Body of Christ who is perfectly capable of pray for us – YOUR objections notwithstanding.

READ your Bible, son . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Calm down. Type more slowly. Don’t let your emotions run away with your soul.

Baloney is sufficient. Why waste words when one will do?

If I danced for a blind man, would he even appreciate it?

On post #359 – YOU responded to my following statement:
“The Catholic Church has NEVER done an about-face on a SINGLE doctrinal matte in 2000 years - unlike virtually EVERY Protestant faction has.”

YOUR response was “Baloney”.

I asked you to prove your statement by debunking what I said - and in typical form you failed.
I can prove MY statement. Can YOU?
That's what I thought . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Rome changes positions all the time.

Capital Punishment for one.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor

Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed., p. 546). United States Catholic Conference.

2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

Original found here

Gotta say, its kinda weird reading this know that the Pope had his own executioner. Maybe doctrinal deveoplemt? Kinda crappy move for those who were executed by the Papal Government. Wait. I know what you can do Bread, you can slap some Newman on it just like those Flex tape commercials.

WRONG.

Whereas, capital punishment has been revisited by the Church – it does NOT forbid it.
The Church does NOT approve of some of the reasons for the death penalty but does NOT rule out ever using it justly.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
CCC 226:
Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

This is HARDLY a doctrinal "about face".
Try again . . .

 

[amigo de christo]

Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.

Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.

notice it dont say OBEY WOLVES IN WOOL . and that is why i dont heed the vatican and RCC.
just a friendly but dire needful reminder .
JW , mormon , oh yeah they can quoate that same reminder you do . BUT ARE YOU GONNA SIT UNDER THEM .
exactly . HECKNO . so dont expect me to sit under a harlot . Thanks for understanding .

 

[amigo de christo]

Marks.....YOU put the FUN in funny!

GAME OVER(?) because YOU "accept the saying of the Bible" and Marymog won't accept the plain and simple saying of the Bible.

Translation: Marymog doesn't agree with my plain and simple interpretation of Scripture. She accepts what The Church teaches. I know I am right in my interpretation of that passage and The Church is wrong so it's GAME OVER! I win!

Translation , those who dont sit under the RCC doctrine dont agree with their plain and simple interpreation of scriptures .
THIS SONG and dance can go on all day and night . You can see errors in the mormon , jw , etc
BUT YOU CANNOT SEE your own organizations same desire and same approach And deadly errors .
OH YEAH IT BE BIBLE TIME . OH YES . you are every bit decieved as are those who sit under the very men
you accuse to be false . THEY all have two things in common , TWISTED DOCTRINE
for means of FOLLOWERS , for means of power and control . For means whereby the lie in wait to decieve .
BUT I DO have good news , THE SHEEP DONT HEED A ONE OF THEIR VOICES . MEN love to have pre emience
men love to steal the glory from GOD and give it unto themselves
and the lost who sit under them , ENVY THEM and thus they too desire to be as they are and to have what they have .
THAT IS WHY THEY BE DECIEVED . men tickle ears dude . but lambs DONT HEED A ONE OF THEM .
BIBLE TIME .