Truth
Well-Known Member
VERY IMPRESSIVE, Thank You!
You only left out that 3000 souls were saved /NT to replace the 3000 souls that died after the Golden Calf indecent /OT.
I rely Like your Presentation!
CATHOLIC BASHING THREAD TITLES
- Thread starter epostle1
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
VERY IMPRESSIVE, Thank You!
You only left out that 3000 souls were saved /NT to replace the 3000 souls that died after the Golden Calf indecent /OT.
I rely Like your Presentation!
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,953
- 3,398
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Then, instead of simply denying the Scriptural evidence I presented - as is ALWAYS the case with angry anti-Catholics - please ADDRESS them. Debunk them - if you CAN.
Simply calling me "hypocritical" doesn't about to a hill of beans without counter-evidence . . .
Proving everything with scripture is is not in scripture. It's an aspect of "sola scriptura", that cannot be supported by a single verse.
Dialogue with Protestants on the Irrational, Unbiblical Demand for Multiple, Explicit Scriptural Prooftexts for Every Doctrine
And I'm not too interested in the "overwhelming tradition of the church." I'm interested in the Scriptures and what they say and don't say. . . . I prefer several clear NT scriptures for NT doctrine. . . . But for doctrine, I need 3-4 clear NT scriptures. Does Paul or any other NT writer even reference Mary?
Where are your "several clear NT scriptures" for the notion that all doctrines have to be established by "several clear NT scriptures"? Good luck (you'll need it, believe me).
I said that I....me.....prefer 3-4 clear NT scriptures.
Why? Where does that idea come from in the first place? Traditions of men and not Holy Scripture?
Brian Sleeman What are we told scripturally about 'evidence' that it should come from two or three witnesses - why then would God not expect the same 'verification' of His instructions - that the scriptures provide two or three references to support it has a 'prescription' of action and not just a 'description' of events?
Protestants build their entire rule of faith and theology upon sola Scriptura (the notion that the only infallible authority is Scripture, and in practice, that every doctrine needs explicit biblical proof to be believed at all), yet this idea is never found in Scripture anywhere (it was basically invented by Luther out of thin air, under pressure in a debate). So why the irrational double standard? You can base that false tradition of men on nothing whatever in Scripture, yet demand all kinds of explicit biblical proofs for every Marian doctrine, as if that is necessary, when there is plenty about Mary in Scripture: just not enough to your arbitrary taste. And what is there many Protestants don't or can''t see, under the principle of "no man is so blind as he who will not see."
https://web.archive.org/web/2015090...2011/08/dialogue-with-two-protestants-on.html
It takes time and study to understand Marian theology. A grade 1 student learning the times table doesn't DEMAND that advanced calculus be "proven" with 2X3, and Protestants have little or no training on the Biblical Mary.
They are also ignorant of the fact that the early stages of development Marian of doctrine occurred at the same time the canon of Scripture was being developed. What anti-Catholics need to do before using the standard "Assumption" club to beat Catholics with, is understand that the Assumption fits with all the other Marian dogmas, that they reject to begin with. The Immaculate Conception, the Perpetual Virginity, a list of other BIBLICAL doctrines that some Protestants have rejected since the late 19th century. The bottom line is that anti-Catholics demand proof for a doctrine they have no hope of understanding, then claim it's false because it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.
Last edited:
BODILY ASSUMPTION
Reflections on the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary [1994] *
Bodily Assumption of Mary (John Saward: Protestant) [edited in 1994; posted to Facebook on 2-4-17]
Bodily Assumption of Mary (Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman) [edited in 1994; posted to Facebook on 2-4-17]
Bodily Assumption of Mary (Archbishop Fulton Sheen) [edited in 1994; posted to Facebook on 2-4-17]
Assumption & Immaculate Conception: Part of Apostolic Tradition (vs. James White) [June 1996]
Mary’s Assumption: Brief Explanation, with a New (?) Biblical Parallel [3-1-07]
Mary’s Assumption vs. Material Sufficiency of Scripture? [4-22-07]
Mary’s Assumption & “Reformer” Heinrich Bullinger [4-6-08]
Mary’s Assumption & Historic Protestantism [6-30-08]
Immaculate Conception and Assumption: Why Defined So Late? [2-1-09]
11 Bible Passages & Mary’s Assumption [2009]
Defending Mary (Revelation 12 & Her Assumption) [5-28-12]
Is Mary’s Assumption Able to be Inferred from Scripture Alone? [8-14-15]
Bible on Mary’s Assumption [2015]
Mary’s Death Before Her Assumption: Required Belief? [2-27-17]
*
“Armstrong vs. Geisler” #7: Mary’s Assumption[3-1-17]
*
Armstrong vs. Collins & Walls #6: Assumption, Queen Redux [10-19-17]
Reflections on the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary [1994] *
Bodily Assumption of Mary (John Saward: Protestant) [edited in 1994; posted to Facebook on 2-4-17]
Bodily Assumption of Mary (Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman) [edited in 1994; posted to Facebook on 2-4-17]
Bodily Assumption of Mary (Archbishop Fulton Sheen) [edited in 1994; posted to Facebook on 2-4-17]
Assumption & Immaculate Conception: Part of Apostolic Tradition (vs. James White) [June 1996]
Mary’s Assumption: Brief Explanation, with a New (?) Biblical Parallel [3-1-07]
Mary’s Assumption vs. Material Sufficiency of Scripture? [4-22-07]
Mary’s Assumption & “Reformer” Heinrich Bullinger [4-6-08]
Mary’s Assumption & Historic Protestantism [6-30-08]
Immaculate Conception and Assumption: Why Defined So Late? [2-1-09]
11 Bible Passages & Mary’s Assumption [2009]
Defending Mary (Revelation 12 & Her Assumption) [5-28-12]
Is Mary’s Assumption Able to be Inferred from Scripture Alone? [8-14-15]
Bible on Mary’s Assumption [2015]
Mary’s Death Before Her Assumption: Required Belief? [2-27-17]
*
“Armstrong vs. Geisler” #7: Mary’s Assumption[3-1-17]
*
Armstrong vs. Collins & Walls #6: Assumption, Queen Redux [10-19-17]
Direct that to BreadofLife.... it was your fellow Catholic who insisted that a Protestant prove his pov from the words of Scripture (or admit it wrong) but then proved he couldn't do what he required of others. I simply noted the hypocrasy of it.
PS I thought you said I was on your ignore list?
.
CONTEXT is a man-man WORD. It DOES NOT APPEAR IN Scripture. THAT IS THE WORD YOU CHOSE TO USE to EXPLAIN Scripture.
So go to the MAN-MADE dictonary and SEE what man has DECIDED THAT MEANS..
THAT IS WHO HAS DECIDED clarification immediately precedes or follows!
YOU are the one WHO elected to use that word, and specifically said it was for clarification....too bad you didn't know what you were talking about! THat's on you bubs, not me.
SO WHAT?
IT HAS ZERO APPLICATION TO ANYONE.....UNTIL SOMEONE MAKES THAT CLAIM....
WHERE IS THE QUOTE OF ONE PERSON MAKING THAT CLAIM?
WHERE? NOT ONCE have you shown a SINGLE QUOTE of ANYONE making that claim....
WHY NOT?
THAT IS A FACT!
DO NOT SIN...
CAN NOT SIN...
AND WHY...BeCAUSE AS YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD REPEATEDLY...I AM CONVERTED...A NEW CREATURE...BORN OF Gods SEED. The OLD IS PASSED AWAY...
FURTHER YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD repeatedly...
My SINS did not DISAPPEAR...
THEY ARE FORGIVEN...
THEY ARE COVERED...
You TRANSLATE FORGIVEN SIN, COVERED SIN....TO claiming to HAVE NO SIN...
Scripture doesn't .... YOU DO, BY TRYING TO MAKE THAT CLAIM FOR OTHERS "WHO" HAVE FORGIVEN SIN.
COVERED SIN.
HOW IGNORANT....for you to repeatedly teach, a man WITH FORGIVEN SIN, COVERED SIN.....is saying HE HAS NO SIN....
Why not try really hard to LISTEN TO WHAT IS SAID, instead of making up LIES, and speaking YOUR WORDS FOR OTHERS?
It makes you look RIDICULOUS, TO MAKE CLAIMS FOR OTHERS....and NOT ONCE can you QUOTE ANOTHER saying.....WHAT YOU HAVE CLAIMED they said.
COMMON SENSE man...
A man who has ASKED the Lord for forgiveness of his sins....IS NOT A MAN claiming to have no sin...
And IF you had the slightest inkling...of the TRUTH...you WOULD KNOW a CONVERTED man CAN NOT AGAIN SIN "AGAINST" God....BECAUSE a Converted man HAS THE SPIRIT OF GOD IN HIM.
THe Spirit of GOD IS LIGHT...SIN IS DARKNESS!
Common sense, and Spiritual understanding.... LIGHT OVERCOMES DARKNESS.
Spiritual teaching and understanding.....
DARKNESS CAN NOT SNEAK INTO Gods LIGHT AND OVERCOME GODS LIGHT!!!
And ALL the piddly little things, YOU KEEP CHARGING men ...saying "THEY "ARE" commtting SIN.....
ARE SINS of MAN against MAN....ACCORDING TO JEWISH LAW!
A gentiles SIN WAS AGAINST GOD...for DISBELIEF in Him!
A Jews current SIN is .... AGAINST JESUS for not believing HE IS THE CHRIST...!
IF THEY REMAIN UNDER THE LAW....which anyone with a lick of common sense, Knows the majority of JEWS have rejected Jesus as thee Christ...and are NOT IN Christ...and must CONTINUE continuously ASKING FOR Forgiveness ACCORDING TO THEIR LAWS...
AND YOU DO THE SAME, as some half-breed that can not make up his mind if he wants to be IN CHRIST or Pretend he is subject to Jews Laws...and EVERY ACTION BETWEEN MEN that is a TRESPASS...."THEY CALL A SIN" according TO THEIR LAWS!...AND YOU do the same.
IF a JEWISH MAN HAS become "IN" Christ...the SINS LAWS or otherwise the consequences of their curse laws....NO LONGER APPLY TO THEM.
Hello....they never applies to a Gentile!
Apparently you have LITTLE knowledge about HOW A LAW works....
THE LAW sets the parameter
For a behavior...and a PENAL Law is for the punishment Of one who goes out of the bounds of parameter of the Law.
The Punishment IS the EFFECT of the FORCE of the LAW.
WITHOUT THE Force and EFFECT...of the Penal Law....the Positive Law itself IS MOOT!
However YOU have decided....and teach..
(FOR A CONVERTED MAN)
He IS subject TO THE LAW....and YOU have decided WHAT the Punishment IS for violating the LAW....
In contrast...THE Lord has decided...and taught...(A Converted man) IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE Penal Law.
The Lord has decided and DID....REDEEM Every Converted man FROM the Consequences OF the Penal /Curse Laws.
NO Consequence BY THE Lords action...the Law is moot, without force and effect.
No Consequences.....ah ha...sure there is...
Lie, cheat, swindle, sneak, divorce, blah, blah........YOU HAVE NOT BEEN RELIEVED of the Consequences OF MANS LAW!!
And while the Lord teaches, to avoid TRESPASSING AGAINST ANOTHER MAN....
IF YOU DO.....ah ha.....YOU GET TO BEAR THE BURDEN of MANS Consequences!!
It is NOT A SIN AGAINST GOD....a Converted man is FILLED with Gods Spirit, His Light...
That KEEPS the man FROM EVER AGAIN REJECTING BELIEF IN GOD....THUS such a man is forever Incapable of committing sin!
But NOTHING FORCEABLY prevents a man FROM acting stupid and TRESPASSING AGAINST another man.
It simply is NO longer CALLED A SIN....as it was IN JEWISH LAW. It IS a Trespass. And the Lord teaches...HOW TO AVOID trespasses between men....and WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT "IF" it should occur....
IT HAS NOT ONE IOTA TO DO WITH whether or not a man IS CONVERTED, which IS SAVED and BORN AGAIN.....NOT as you teach ...-->
Born again with out the man calling on the Lord...and Kindsof Save "initially" and then saved if he does good works.....
A man WHO IS Converted, shall never again STAND AGAINST GOD...PERIOD!
A man WHO IS Converted....yet continually gets himself into a mess WITH MANS LAW...
Bears that burden....and he shall be called the LEAST in the Kingdom of God.
A man WHO IS Converted...and continually fosters his relationship with the Lord, SERVING Him, with works that Glorify His Name...THAT man shall receive blessing, while still on earth...and called GREAT in the Kingdom of God.
It is a Jew NOT IN CHRIST, with BELIEF in God, who must do works according to the LAW, THEY ELECT TO REMAIN UNDER....
They continually ask for forgiveness...
They must ENDURE and KEEP their own belief until their end...to BECOME SAVED!
You are so hyped on teaching your MIXED doctirne....you have missed the TRUTH....
You are not a Gentile, kind of sort of Subject to Jewish Laws! That merely puts you on a fence post....being on neither ONE SIDE or the other of the LINE the Lord Himself has drawn...
Matt 12:30. He that is NOT with me is Against me...
You can Either BE a Jew, who IS WITH God....but NOT WITH Christ....and continue under the Law enduring and keeping in belief to BE saved like their historical ancestors...
OR
You can BE a Jew, who IS Converted, believes in God and Christ Jesus.
OR
You can BE a Gentile, who believes IN God and His Christ Jesus and Be Converted.
OR
You can BE AGAINST God and NOT believe IN Him or His Christ Jesus and have NO belief sin exists.
You present yourself as trying to fulfill the role of a Jew and a Gentile.... when you are not both.
And then you attempt to APPLY your LACK of understanding...TO OTHER men...who KNOW their standing WITH the Lord is not Kind of Sort with the Lord and Kind of Sort of subject to to Jewish Law!
I expect no more or less from you than to carry on in your MIXED doctirne...making false claims for others....making some snarky comments about my post...and calling me a few of ur pat names.....as if that is all you need for justification to pat your own back. LOL..
Last edited:
Helen
Well-Known Member
- Oct 22, 2011
- 15,476
- 21,157
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Canada
My husband has always said , that when a preacher is well aware that he has no anointing upon his message...they always raise their voice even louder, emphasis and yelling louder ... somehow they believe that the more they yell the more anointed they 'appear.' 
They can fool some of the time, but they cannot fool people all of the time!!
The power and the anointing is just not there!! Zilch. God is not in it or upon it.
Just a lot of noisy arrogant flesh talking...
They can fool some of the time, but they cannot fool people all of the time!!
The power and the anointing is just not there!! Zilch. God is not in it or upon it.
Just a lot of noisy arrogant flesh talking...
"Sola Scripture is a man made phrase, the concept is not even inferred in Scripture, and it's in LATIN.
You are having a tempter tantrum because BoL demolished your screeching with one verse.
1 John 1:8
And it is not that he has NOT been given Scriptures to support my view....He has on more than once occasion. He simply says Scripture does not mean what the words say and then proceeds wth Scriptures that do not apply, and with He's right, He's the teacher, and everyone else is wrong.
God Bless,
Taken
My husband has always said , that when a preacher is well aware that he has no anointing upon his message...they always raise their voice even louder, emphasis and yelling louder ... somehow they believe that the more they yell the more anointed they 'appear.'
They can fool some of the time, but they cannot fool people all of the time!!
The power and the anointing is just not there!! Zilch. God is not in it or upon it.
Just a lot of noisy arrogant flesh talking...
Awesome, your ears can hear the printed word.
So? I am not spouting that and then asking who decided what it mean... lol
Actually I do not like LIARS.....
BOL has repeatedly decided I have made that claim....WHICH is a LIE.
But apparently to him......AND YOU.....LACK of evidence of me EVER having made that claim....His lies tickle your ears....without you bothering to see if his claim is true.
That is to your own shame or ignorance....or perhaps you would rather be called sparky or einstein instead....lol
No matter...I expect my enemies to be yoked together.
First, we don't have to prove everything with scripture, we do it because it is the only language you will accept. We also have the same right as you do to challenge certain things because you are not as scriptural as you think. Here is an example:
Jesus loves His mother.
You have no proof text. Therefore a rigid, hyper-literalist, "Bible Alone", Pharisaical, anal retentive, nit picker must stick the standard: If it's not explicit in the Bible it must be a false doctrine. We are to strive to be like Jesus and you have "biblical proof" that you don't need to love His mother either.
I have authority over my own ignore list, another concept certain self appointed apostles seem to have trouble with.
Last edited:
If Catholics don't, why does a Catholic (BreadofLife) mandate it of non-Catholics? Why the hypocritical double standard?
Ah, you MEANT to say you were placing me on your ignore list for awhile. Too bad.
BOL has multiple times bragged that the Catholic religion is the oldest Christian religion (even making Peter a Catholic, lol) and that THEY "fill in" where Scripture is not explicit.
And I agree they do a LOT of fantacy filling in.
And I agree they do a LOT of fantacy filling in.
You can't read. I said it's the only language you will accept. In order to communicate with "Bible Alone" Christians, we have to speak the same language as you. Look what happens if we quote the Early Church Fathers.
In order to justify your rebellion against the historic Church, you are forced to dismiss Christian history, make up your own version of history, dispense with the ECF, and ignore or deny history all together... Or, you read the ECF the same way you read the Bible. If BoL asks for proof text, it's usually because he knows you don't have any.
You can go back anytime, I only tolerate arrogant know-it-alls for so long.
If and when you quote "a man's own words" click on "REPLY" so everyone can be infallibly assured it's not more lies and gossip.
Stating facts is not necessarily bragging. Not only is the CC the oldest, she is also the largest. The reformers left the historic Church, the historic Church didn't leave anybody.
I'll go a step further and say Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses and all the great Patriarchs are Catholic. They are still in the liturgy and have been since Jesus taught Liturgy before the breaking of the Bread at Emmaus. We believe they are part of our family.
Going further, Jesus made a statement of catholicity at the Great Commission. Count the number of times Jesus says "all". You should know what "all" means since we get lectured on it anytime the "M" word shows up, by one verse theologians.
The origin of the word "Catholic" can be found in Romans 1 and somewhere in Acts. It's been posted 20 times but your blind prejudice makes it impossible for you to learn anything. The Greek is kataholis and the term became an explicit word a mere 10 years after John wrote Revelation. "kataholis", or "Catholic" is not the name of another denomination. It is one of 4 divine qualities that can never be destroyed. One, Holy, Catholic or Universal and Apostolic. These are the four marks of God. Changing the meaning of words is a straw man fallacy. For example.
- infallibility
- tradition
- venerate
- honor
- pope
Never mind oldest. You makes false claims with false histories. You are forced to.
What year did doctrinal fidelity cease? No answer with any intellectual rigor or objective history is ever given. In the story of the prodigal son, did the father brag about his runaway son? No. It breaks the Church's heart to see so many separations. The historic Church never separated from any one. I challenge you to prove otherwise.
Similar threads
