Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

[BreadOfLife]

Why do you stoop so low?
What a terrible comment to make.
As I've always said...you're a terrible example of catholicism.

I just hope everyone here is intelligent enough to realize not all
catholics are like you.

There is is nothing "terrible" about it.
If it weren't for Christ's Church - NONE of us would know who Christ is. That is an historical FACT.

The Church was the instrument He used to spread the Gospel.
You REALLY need to study your Bible . . .

 

[Giuliano]

To answer your question in RED - it lines up perfectly with Col. 2 and Acts 15.

First of all - Paul was a JEW. He came from a Jewish background and many of his Jewish customs AFTER coming to Christ were just that - Jewish customs.

In Acts 15, the Apostles- along with the HOLY SPIRIT denounced what the Judaizers were doing with Gentile Christians when they were telling them that they needed to be circumcised as a mater of FAITH and salvation
In Col. 2:16-17 - Paul emphasizes the fact that ALL of the ceremonial and ritual Laws of Moses were nailed to the cross. they they were SHADOW of what was to come and the CHRIST was the reality.

THAT is what the Pope was talking about. If people were being circumcised and observing Jewish ceremonial and ritual Law as a requirement of salvation - then they were violating the Gospel because those things were mere shadows of Christ. It shows a lack of faith for a Christian to feel the need to observe the Mosaic Law for his salvation. It is also outright Scriptural hypocrisy.

But the text says, "whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation." That means a Christian who might choose it for some other reason would lose their eternal salvation.

Now - with that said - the Bull was not "new doctrine". It was DISCIPLINARY. It was a threat of excommunication for those who practiced Jewish ceremony as a matter of salvation. The key phrase above in RED is: "unless they recoil at some time from these errors."

This is a clear-cut case of discipline by excommunication.

It also contains doctrine since says eternal salvation can be lost by circumcision. It is more than a disciplinary order.

Do you have an explanation why Paul said neither circumcision nor non-circumcision mattered? I take that as doctrine myself without any disciplinary order; the Bull issues an order but contradicts the doctrine taught by Paul. I see no reason to be too concerned about circumcision although I admit it seems superstitious for a Christian to believe he needed to be circumcised -- but why make such a big deal about it if Paul didn't and said it didn't matter?

Do you have an explanation for how it could have been right for Paul to circumcise Timothy? I don't think either of them placed their hope in circumcision, but the Bull says that doesn't matter.

 

[epostle]

Do you have an explanation for how it could have been right for Paul to circumcise Timothy? I don't think either of them placed their hope in circumcision, but the Bull says that doesn't matter.

In Timothy’s case, what was at stake was how unbelieving Jews might best be won to Christ. So just as Christian freedom caused Paul to resist Titus’ circumcision, this same freedom allowed him to remove the stumbling block of Timothy’s lack of circumcision. Paul applied his principle from 1 Corinthians 9:20, “To the Jews I became a Jew in order to win the Jews.”

 

[Giuliano]

In Timothy’s case, what was at stake was how unbelieving Jews might best be won to Christ. So just as Christian freedom caused Paul to resist Titus’ circumcision, this same freedom allowed him to remove the stumbling block of Timothy’s lack of circumcision. Paul applied his principle from 1 Corinthians 9:20, “To the Jews I became a Jew in order to win the Jews.”

The accounts in Acts and Galatians are confusing. The controversy started when Paul was in Antioch.

Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

The verdict of the Apostles was:

24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

Notice it doesn't say they forbid it. Then in the next chapter, we find Paul circumcising Timothy because of the Jews.

3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.

Surely those decrees would have included the one saying circumcision was not necessary. This makes Paul look he spoke out of both sides of his mouth. On one hand, he would circumcise Timothy so the Jews would talk to them; but on the other, he would tell them that circumcision didn't matter. Now to address the circumcision of Titus:

Galatians 2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

He says that his message was for Gentiles, so the reason given for circumcising Timothy wouldn't apply.

3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

Who compelled Titus to be circumcised? At any rate, Paul says it was because Judaizers who sought to bring them into bondage.

5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

If they didn't give in, why was Titus compelled to be circumcised?

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

I can't understand that. If the decision was that Paul was to go to the Gentiles and Peter, James and John to the Jews, what was Paul doing preaching to Jews and circumcising Titus so Jews would associate with him? Would he tell them after converting them that then they had to start associating with uncircumcised Gentiles?

What was Peter doing establishing the Church in Rome if his mission was to the Jews?

While I find all that confusing, one thing I don't find confusing is that the Apostles decided circumcision didn't matter. They didn't forbid it, they didn't command it. It was not to be a burden on anyone either way.

I also am not confused by the Bull which says circumcision is a sin for people "whether or not they place their hope in it."

 

[bbyrd009]

THANK YOU for the persecution.

Matt. 5:11-12
"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

Thank you also for the crystal-clear evidence that Christ is NOT in you . . .

hey, lookit BoL making a post that isnt complete dreck! See all you have to do with someone with no self respect is treat them like crap, and they will kiss your boots, see. Granted they go immediately into victim mode, poor BoL, right, i mean after all he is only here to provide the Roman pov and trash everything even remotely to do with Christ just like they did, but fwiw i'm liking this new relationship much better, with you as the victim, you clueless slimeball, bc a victim is all you are, and i guess all you will ever be, you like being a victim BoL.

And that is why you usually post like such an idiot, see, precisely so someone will come and tell you directly what an idiot you are, bc of course hints dont work with you right. I'm only sorry we arent neighbors, maybe i could come beat you up or turn you on to a Dominatrix as you must be into those too. Bro i am srsly fam with what youre putting down ok, and i didnt just learn this yesterday either, i lived it too. You dont have to seek any of the free help that the courts have ordered for victims like you, if you dont wanna, ok. My mom wouldnt either. She just married a pimp, to insure that she would be treated like crap her whole life, and i'm totally ok with you being a victim too, ok.

So much more palatable than your usual barfing all over the place in every post and treating everyone else like crap, isnt it? Arent you even more...well, fulfilled, now? Now you have a rigteous crusade you can moan about, just like you like see.

 

[bbyrd009]

There is is nothing "terrible" about it.
If it weren't for Christ's Church - NONE of us would know who Christ is. That is an historical FACT.

The Church was the instrument He used to spread the Gospel.
You REALLY need to study your Bible . . .

you really need to shut up and get a clue, and apologize to GG while youre at it, you snivelling little tripe. The Catholic church is straight out of hell, and completely anathema to Christianity as you well know, or would if you were not such an accomplished idiot. We have copious Scripture, that you cannot read and will not hear, to attest to this, and of course even your being here rather than on a Catholic forum is ample testimony, but i pray that you stay so that all might see an example of what religion does to ppl, particularly the Roman Religion, which can only lead to death, which is after all what you prefer.

Christ plainly stated that He came to demolish your satanic temple bro, suck on it

 

[GodsGrace]

Your 'noninvolvement' was endemic throughout the Church in Canada.. The reverence for the Mass all but disappeared.

But I'm happy to report that, to the surprise of some bishops, our youth are insisting on reverence and a resurrgence of Tradition!

Millennials Spur Liturgical Restoration in Western Canada - Crisis Magazine

Father, fill them with fire for Jesus and HIS Church, send forth your Spirit and renew the face of the Earth!

Peace!

I'm not surprised at what the article states....
Kids are either going to be atheists (and some are by the age of 10/11)
OR
they want SUPPORT from their church.
They want to be taught in a NON-SUPERFICIAL way....
They want answers to questions...
They want liturgical celebrations that go beyond the Mass
but also want a Mass that gives importance to the Eucharist and to God's word.

I talk to the priests I know really well about how the Mass should be a LEARNING GROUND...
they tell me it's a MASS and not a schoolroom. They can't seem to get away from this idea.
Fr. Pacwah does this very nicely on EWTN,,,I don't know why they cannot. Maybe it requires too much work? Most priests won't do bible study either.

I'm speaking about HERE...and this saddens me.

The Tabernacle used to be in the center of the church on the altar...
NOW it could be anywhere. I used to look for it when I walked into a new church.
Sometimes it was not even visible. I've stopped looking and this is not good.

In the church where my catechism kids made their communion, the tabernacle was to the left before the altar. I had to train them to stop...turn to their left...sign of the cross...
THEN walk to the altar and repeat.

It may seem like nothing when they're little....but it tends to be remembered as they grow older.

Liturgy is important to children...this is something that is missing in the Protestant churches.
Isn't it a shame that the perfect church does not physically exist?

 

[GodsGrace]

you really need to shut up and get a clue, and apologize to GG while youre at it, you snivelling little tripe. The Catholic church is straight out of hell, and completely anathema to Christianity as you well know, or would if you were not such an accomplished idiot. We have copious Scripture, that you cannot read and will not hear, to attest to this, and of course even your being here rather than on a Catholic forum is ample testimony, but i pray that you stay so that all might see an example of what religion does to ppl, particularly the Roman Religion, which can only lead to death, which is after all what you prefer.

Christ plainly stated that He came to demolish your satanic temple bro, suck on it

You know bb,,,
he's really not worth the bother.
You'd think he's the only person on earth that reads the bible
or knows anything about the catholic church.

It's rather sad TTYTT. Such a terrible example of catholicism.
Do you think it comes from being told that it's the only TRUE RELIGION?
I taught in that church...but I used to teach that we are ONE IN CHRIST.

Apparently, some didn't learn from persons that love Jesus.
John 13:35
By this shall all men know that you are my disciples...
that you love one another.

 

[GodsGrace]

Why do you continue to LIE when you know I'm just going to expose you for it??

Yes. I see the big, bolded LIE word up there. Is this because I said I'd stop speaking to you the moment you called me a liar?
LOL
I've changed my mind.
Because YOU are the one that needs to be exposed.
YOU are the one that needs to go away because no one listens to you anyway.

All you can do is call persons names as you hide in your home and read BOOKS.
ABOUT catholicism,,,without experiencing it.

Remarrying isn't always a mortal sin - and this was NEVER the case.
Being able to remarry when a Declaration of Nullity has been granted has ALWAYS been the norm.

WHO IS TALKING ABOUT ANNULMENT???
You do have a difficult time even understanding WHAT IS BEING DEBATED HERE.

YOU challenged me to an intelligent conversation...remember?
It seems you are UNABLE to actually have one.

WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING ANNULMENT---
which I did explain for those reading along in post 139...to which you NEVER replied.

Pope Francis hasn't changed this. you are STILL not allowed to remarry if you have not had you previous union anulled - and not every union is eligible for anullment. You have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about - but I THANK you for allowing me the opportunity to expose your lies sp that others reading this won't be seduced by them.

WE ARE DISCUSSING WHETHER OR NOT A CHURCH DOCTRINE HAS BEEN CHANGED.
We are NOT discussing annulment. And, in case you haven't noticed, there are many catholics that have been DIVORCED and have remarried civilly because the CC DOES NOT ALLOW remarriage. So they are living in MORTAL SIN.

Answer this please:
Before Amoris Laetitia, which I have posted at least twice, were remarrieds ALLOWED TO RECEIVE THE BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS?

After Amoris Laetitia are remarrieds ALLOWED TO REVEIVE THE BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS?

You might remember the furior when Pope Francis phone a woman in Argentina and PERSONALLY told her she could receive communion even though she had remarried...

Here is the news from about 3 years ago, confirming the above:

Pope Francis 'tells sinner she should be allowed Communion'
In apparent break from Catholic teaching, Pope is said to have phoned remarried Argentine Jacqui Lisbona to say 'nothing wrong' in her taking Holy Communion

source: Pope Francis 'tells sinner she should be allowed Communion'

SO, CAN YOU STILL SAY THAT NOTHING HAS CHANGED???

The answer to my questions is:
NO, before remarrieds could NOT receive communion.
YES, after Amoris Laetitia remarrids CAN receive communion.

THIS IS A BIG CHANGE TO WHICH MANY BISHOPS AND CARDINALS ARE AGAINST.

Finally- no matter HOW many times you regurgitate your feeling about this - you will STILL be wrong about the withholding of communion being a "doctrinal" matter.
As I have educated you on numerous posts now - it it not. It is a matter of Church discipline.

Giving the BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS to one in MORTAL SIN...
is NOT a doctrinal matter?

Maybe you should read CATHOLICISM FOR DUMMIES again....

Fortunately for me,,,I'm a bit beyond that.

Perhaps you should read the following:
It states that Pope Franicis STATED THAT THIS IS A MATTER OF MAGESTERIUM.....

The bishops of Buenos Aires issued guidelines for priests concerning the implementation of Amoris laetitia in September 2016. The Buenos Aires guidelines state, "When the concrete circumstances of a couple make it feasible, especially when both are Christians with a path of faith, the commitment to live in continence can be proposed." The guidelines continue, "In other more complex circumstances, and when a declaration of nullity could not be obtained, the aforementioned option may not be in fact feasible. However, a path of discernment is also possible. If it is recognized that, in a specific case, there are limitations that mitigate liability and guilt (see 301 - 302), particularly when a person considers that he would fall on a further fault damaging the children of the new union, Amoris laetitia opens the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (see notes 336 and 351)."[29]

Pope Francis approved the Buenos Aires guidelines in a letter dated 5 September 2016, stating, "The writing is very good and explicitly the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris laetitia. There are no other interpretations."[29]

In December 2017, both the Buenos Aires guidelines and Pope Francis' letter of approval were published in the October 2016 edition of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, followed by a statement by Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin that Pope Francis had decreed that both documents be promulgated as authentic magisterium.[30]

source: Amoris laetitia - Wikipedia

 

[bbyrd009]

You know bb,,,
he's really not worth the bother.
You'd think he's the only person on earth that reads the bible
or knows anything about the catholic church.

It's rather sad TTYTT. Such a terrible example of catholicism.
Do you think it comes from being told that it's the only TRUE RELIGION?
I taught in that church...but I used to teach that we are ONE IN CHRIST.

Apparently, some didn't learn from persons that love Jesus.
John 13:35
By this shall all men know that you are my disciples...
that you love one another.

oh, its no bother, really, i been raised by wolves too, i'm used to the victim/victimizer loop, and fwiw i'm glad they let BoL post here, so others can see. When you have money, you dont need God yeh. Obv Jesus scares the guy to death, i could just post vv that would burn him like holy water lol. He is a poster boy for Catholic abuse, obv Stockholm Syndrome, and my prayer for him is that he keeps doing the same thing and expecting diff results, like ppl who rely on money deserve. May he rot in the hell he has been convinced of.

 

[GodsGrace]

oh, its no bother, really, i been raised by wolves too, i'm used to the victim/victimizer loop, and fwiw i'm glad they let BoL post here, so others can see. When you have money, you dont need God yeh. Obv Jesus scares the guy to death, i could just post vv that would burn him like holy water lol. He is a poster boy for Catholic abuse, obv Stockholm Syndrome, and my prayer for him is that he keeps doing the same thing and expecting diff results, like ppl who rely on money deserve. May he rot in the hell he has been convinced of.

Yes...well, if one keeps doing the same thing and expects different results....
what can I say? You know the answer to that.

I do find it interesting that catholics tend to speak more about their church than about God and/or Jesus. I'm talking about the laity here.

I just think that if his local bishop knew what he was doing,,,he'd be ex-communicated or something. I mean what is sin anyway if not quenching the Holy Spirit. He does this every time he opens his mouth.

 

[GodsGrace]

The Douay Rheims Bible is still a valid Catholic Bible, just like the Latin Vulgate.

But are you aware that the Jerusalem Bible PERVERTS the Gospel?

ROMANS 3 (KJB IN BLUE, JERUSALEM IN RED)
[Note: bracketed portions not in the actual text, either added or omitted]

20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
20 So then, no human being can be found upright [at the tribunal of God by keeping the Law]; all that the Law does is to tell us what is sinful. [Note: Is there a huge difference between justified and upright?]
*********
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
21 God's saving justice was witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, but now it has been revealed altogether apart from law:
************
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
22 God's saving justice given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.[...and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference omitted]
***********
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
23 [No distinction is made]: all have sinned and lack God's glory,
************
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
24 and all are justified by the free gift of his grace through being set free in Christ Jesus.
**************
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
25 God appointed him as a sacrifice for reconciliation, through faith, by the shedding of his blood, and so showed his justness; first for the past, when sins went unpunished because he held his hand;[for the remission of sins that are past]
***********
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
26 and now again for the present age, to show how he is just and justifies everyone who has faith in Jesus.

DO YOU SEE THAT GOD'S RIGHTEOUSNESS HAS BEEN CHANGED TO GOD'S JUSTICE/JUSTNESS, AND THE MEANING OF JUSTICE IS ALSO HUMAN JUSTICE (AS SHOWN BELOW)?

"Justice is here taken in its ordinary and proper sense to signify the most important of the cardinal virtues. It is a moral quality or habit which perfects the will and inclines it to render to each and to all what belongs to them. Of the other cardinal virtues, prudenc eperfects the intellect and inclines the prudent man to act in all things according to right reason. Fortitude controls the irascible passions ; and temperance moderates the appetites according as reason dictates. While fortitude and temperance are self-regarding virtues, justice has reference to others. Together with charity it regulates man's intercourse with his fellow men. But charity leads us to help our neighbour in his need out of our own stores, while justice teaches us to give to another what belongs to him." (Quoted from their Encyclopedia)

Hi E,
Are you aware that the CC has stated that any bible prior to 2008 should be replaced because of the very reason you state above. The previous bibles were translated from the Latin and now they are translated from the original Greek.

But what is original about the N.T.?
Do we have any ORIGINAL manuscripts in our possession?
No. We do not.

This is why I dislike debating on a word....it's much better to read the N.T. in IDEAS and CONCEPTS instead of word for word.

If you see the writing in Greek, it become very clear why some sentences are so easy to misquote or mistranslate because the sentence could be taken in at least two different way.

Thinking of an example,,,this comes to mind:

Luke 2:14
14“Glory to God in the highest,
And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased.”

NASB

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
14‘Glory in the highest to God, and upon earth peace, among men — good will.’

YLT

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
14Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

KJB

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

We can say that with all the scholarship today, the NASB is the best translation.
We can also safely say that nothing regarding soteriology is affected by any mistake in any version.

We could discuss the difference between righteousness of God and the Justice of God...
but could you tell me what difference it would make?
A person who is seeking God will find Him in any case.

And since we don't have the original...I don't know that any debating would be of any use.

 

[illini1959]

"Universal" is no longer applicable. *Catholic* has long lost that original meaning. And even there, it does not take into account the fact that in every local church there will be both wheat and tares.

To the RCC it sure has, so I like to point out whenever I can that the word catholic (among many other things) doesn't mean what they think it does.

Yes, wheat and tares everywhere - not everyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian.

 

[bbyrd009]

I do find it interesting that catholics tend to speak more about their church than about God and/or Jesus. I'm talking about the laity here.

ah well i know from experience Prots have to find all the come out of here my ppl stuff for themselves, i cant hardly see how that could even be in a DRB, or there would be no Catholics left i guess. But imo catholics are really no diff than prots there, who moan about the world they have manifested, too, just a slightly diff take, nominally diff king (ezack same king) but still a king regardless yeh

1 Samuel 8 is clear enough to me; let them be victims and vet the victimizers all they like imo, they can even call it Christianity if they like, ok with me.

Evabody knows now, see? See the FB reactions to the whatshisname pedophile hi flyer guy? To his fake death i mean? See the diff in reactions today v reactions back in the halt at the Elbe for Hitler, when evabody knew then, too? And fwiw this is like the final page before the now open laughing-stock that runs the US world puts the clamp-down, too, and fwiw its going to make the post-Hitler oppression of the German ppl look like a picnic i guess.

I just think that if his local bishop knew what he was doin

his local bishop is likely the guy who terrorized him, GG, you dont make bishop in that club w/o touching some butts i guess. I know this seems harsh, and i admit it might, possibly, be unfair, at the bishop level anyway. Cardinal though, forget about it.

Yet imo the RCC is the very best religion to send someone to, the very realest and easiest to find at odds with Scripture, for anyone who can read even logically. At least they arent sent on the ego trip that Prots are, yikes what a mess lol.

 

[bbyrd009]

the final page before the now open laughing-stock that runs the US world puts the clamp-down, too,

i mean do you believe that the Trump actually ordered US scientists to stop communicating, and there are still deluded idiots even here who would cover for him? How much more fascist could he even be?

 

[bbyrd009]

Hi E,
Are you aware that the CC has stated that any bible prior to 2008 should be replaced because of the very reason you state above. The previous bibles were translated from the Latin and now they are translated from the original Greek.

But what is original about the N.T.?
Do we have any ORIGINAL manuscripts in our possession?
No. We do not.

This is why I dislike debating on a word....it's much better to read the N.T. in IDEAS and CONCEPTS instead of word for word.

If you see the writing in Greek, it become very clear why some sentences are so easy to misquote or mistranslate because the sentence could be taken in at least two different way.

Thinking of an example,,,this comes to mind:

Luke 2:14
14“Glory to God in the highest,
And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased.”

NASB

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
14‘Glory in the highest to God, and upon earth peace, among men — good will.’

YLT

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
14Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

KJB

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

We can say that with all the scholarship today, the NASB is the best translation.
We can also safely say that nothing regarding soteriology is affected by any mistake in any version.

We could discuss the difference between righteousness of God and the Justice of God...
but could you tell me what difference it would make?
A person who is seeking God will find Him in any case.

And since we don't have the original...I don't know that any debating would be of any use.

i dunno if that denying that the Lex is not from the orig is such a good idea, GG, do what you like there though.

"Stay here for the present" can be taken two ways too, yeh? Any language of words manifests this principle, speaking in tongues rather than letting one's actions speak for them imo?

 

[bbyrd009]

BoL, you definition of "lie" seems to be "have any view on _____ other than the one BoL does".

amen. count the witnesses here BoL, where are yours?

That’s absolutely false.

I actually PROVE when somebody is lying by presenting evidence.

I never consider a difference of opinion a “lie” – so your accusation is nonsense.

you actually think you know where the sun rose this morning bro, and thats about it ok? And then piss off, if you dont mind? Ty

 

[Enoch111]

Do we have any ORIGINAL manuscripts in our possession?

Kindly go to the Debate section and check out my thread on "King James Only".

 

[GodsGrace]

Kindly go to the Debate section and check out my thread on "King James Only".

No can do.
I answer you when we speak....
Even if it's something I've said A THOUSAND TIMES.

If you don't care to answer or don't have the time,,,it's OK.
To me, the KJ is as good as any other version.
And now you know why.

 

[BreadOfLife]

But the text says, "whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation." That means a Christian who might choose it for some other reason would lose their eternal salvation.

It also contains doctrine since says eternal salvation can be lost by circumcision. It is more than a disciplinary order.

Do you have an explanation why Paul said neither circumcision nor non-circumcision mattered? I take that as doctrine myself without any disciplinary order; the Bull issues an order but contradicts the doctrine taught by Paul. I see no reason to be too concerned about circumcision although I admit it seems superstitious for a Christian to believe he needed to be circumcised -- but why make such a big deal about it if Paul didn't and said it didn't matter?

Do you have an explanation for how it could have been right for Paul to circumcise Timothy? I don't think either of them placed their hope in circumcision, but the Bull says that doesn't matter.

Prior to this phrase, however, we read, “Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the [Jewish] sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors.”

This Bull is addressing people who are placing their hope and salvation on circumcision and not in Christ. Hence the term, “legal prescriptions”. As I pointed out before – the key phrase here is “UNLESS they recoil at some time from these errors.” It’s not an anathema to those who were circumcised – but to those who believed that it leads to salvation.

The document is actually called “Decree in Behalf of the Jacobites”. The Jacobites or “Copts” (Egypt) had recently come back to full communion with the Church after the East-West Split.

The decree declares that when we receive the Gospel, it becomes sinful to observe the religious ceremonies of the Old Law - even if we’re doing it without putting any real hope in them. This is because they merely POINT to what has already come – which is Christ.