Jesus isn't Catholic

[BreadOfLife]

Indulgences was one of the major doctrines of the Catholic Church addressed by Martin Luther's 95 theses.

You had better be the one to admit that you are lying.

You have been falsely educated, my friend.

Then you should have NO lroblem showing me the official Church decree that promulgated the selling of indulgenslces.

Take your time - I'll wait right here . . .

 

[justbyfaith]

I showed you the accompanying verses that show the CONDITIONS of that everlasting life – and YOU haven’t been able to “adequately” refute those.

You have been using those verses in order to try to say that Jesus' Verily, verily, in John 6:47, ought not to have been there.

For Jesus said,

Jhn 6:47, Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

But in applying your verses, you change the meaning of this into...

"He that believeth on me hath everlasting life...but this might not actually be the case...if you believe on me your life may in fact be temporal."

That is not what Jesus said.

He stated absolutely that whosoever believeth on Him "has" everlasting life.

And the fact that it is everlasting means that it is not temporal...

The fact that it is everlasting means that it can never come to an end...for if it did, it would be temporal life rather than everlasting life and Jesus would be lying in calling it everlasting life.

It is obvious that you do not have an answer for this contention...so you may as well concede the fight.

Then you should have NO lroblem showing me the official Church decree that promulgated the selling of indulgences <fify>.

Take your time - I'll wait right here . . .

I'm no Catholic and do not have access to official church documents. My inability to produce the evidence therefore in no way precludes that it does not exist. It is also very likely over 400 years old and therefore may be out of circulation.

The fact in church history, therefore, that Martin Luther's 95 theses addressed indulgences as one of many church doctrines that were faulty in his day, is sufficient evidence as far as I'm concerned, that it was indeed practiced by the Catholic Church in Martin Luther's day.

In fact, this was one of the major reasons why Martin Luther's movement gained credibility...because he addressed sometihng in the Catholic Church that was obviously sinful. But today I am certain that the Catholic Church is attempting to cover up its sinful past in order to attempt to gain more converts; since the fact that it does have this sinful past prevents people from coming in as converts.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I'm no Catholic and do not have access to official church documents. My inability to produce the evidence therefore in no way precludes that it does not exist.

The fact in church history, therefore, that Martin Luther's 95 theses addressed indulgences as one of many church doctrines that were faulty in his day, is sufficient evidence as far as I'm concerned, that it was indeed practiced by the Catholic Church in Martin Luther's day.

In fact, this was one of the major reasons why Martin Luther's movement gained credibility...because he addressed sometihng in the Catholic Church that was obviously sinful. But today I am certain that the Catholic Church is attempting to cover up its sinful past in order to attempt to gain more converts; since the fact that it does have this sinful past prevents people from coming in as converts.

HOGWASH.

YOU have as much “access” to Catholic documents as I do as they are ALL online. The Catechism is ALSO online.
The plain fact of the matter is that you WON’T look for the proof because you KNOW I caught you in another LIE.

It is a LIE to say that the selling of Indulgences was ever an official teaching or mandate of the Catholic Church. It is ALSO a lie that Indulgences are a matter of “doctrine” as YOU say they are. Indulgences are and always HAVE been a matter of DISCIPLINE – not doctrine.

So, either ADMIT that you lied – or that you are simply ignorant of history.

 

[justbyfaith]

HOGWASH.

YOU have as much “access” to Catholic documents as I do as they are ALL online. The Catechism is ALSO online.
The plain fact of the matter is that you WON’T look for the proof because you KNOW I caught you in another LIE.

It is a LIE to say that the selling of Indulgences was ever an official teaching or mandate of the Catholic Church. It is ALSO a lie that Indulgences are a matter of “doctrine” as YOU say they are. Indulgences are and always HAVE been a matter of DISCIPLINE – not doctrine.

So, either ADMIT that you lied – or that you are simply ignorant of history.

Nope, you are the one who is lying, lol.

The Catholic Church also has a vested interest in denying its own past; and therefore I don't believe you will find the information coming from Catholic sources.

 

[Behold]

And the fact that I’ve taken you out to the Scriptural woodshed and destroyed your invented doctrines of men - and that this kind of whooping has gone unanswered by YOU and a number of your minions speaks VOLUMES.
ALL in a day’s work.

The reason that you argue and talk like a child, is because the cult of mary only produces these types of heretics.

You feel that if you cut and paste what you dont write, you are proving you have a clue.
But what you proved is that you like to hear yourself talk.
You belong to a cult that started in the same area where the cult of Diana existed.
She was also known as "virginal" and the "queen of heaven".
As a matter of fact, the very temple in Ephesus where Diana was worshiped, later became the "church of Mary".

So, your church is a cult, your idolatry of the cooking and of the "perpetual virgin" is of the devil, and you are lost inside it, and will never come out because you are unable to see.
-

 

[BreadOfLife]

Nope, you are the one who is lying, lol.

The Catholic Church also has a vested interest in denying its own past; and therefore I don't believe you will find the information coming from Catholic sources.

Then SHOW me the teaching about selling Indulgences - from ANY point in history.
Otherwise - just admit that you lied.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The reason that you argue and talk like a child, is because the cult of mary only produces these types of heretics.

You feel that if you cut and paste what you dont write, you are proving you have a clue.
But what you proved is that you like to hear yourself talk.
You belong to a cult that started in the same area where the cult of Diana existed.
She was also known as "virginal" and the "queen of heaven".
As a matter of fact, the very temple in Ephesus where Diana was worshiped, later became the "church of Mary".

So, your church is a cult, your idolatry of the cooking and of the "perpetual virgin" is of the devil, and you are lost inside it, and will never come out because you are unable to see.

Another post of desperate ad hominem - and another dodge.

As I said before - consider yourself Scripturally-spanked . . .

 

[justbyfaith]

Then SHOW me the teaching about selling Indulgences - from ANY point in history.
Otherwise - just admit that you lied.

I don't know how to find that information...

Especially since it has very likely been hidden by the Catholic Church; because the Catholic Church has a vested interest in denying its own past. Therefore it is very likely hidden away in some catacomb somewhere and never divested to the common populace in something like the internet.

 

[justbyfaith]

But the fact that the Catholic Church practiced indulgences is evidenced by the fact that this was one of the major doctrines that was dealt with in Martin Luther's 95 theses. This is a matter of history.

You have been lied to.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I don't know how to find that information...

Especially since it has very likely been hidden by the Catholic Church; because the Catholic Church has a vested interest in denying its own past. Therefore it is very likely hidden away in some catacomb somewhere and never divested to the common populace in something like the internet.

NONSENSE.
Just look it up online.

EVERY document ever decreed by the Catholic Church is readily available online for EVERYONE to see.
EVERY great saint and every criminal - every great deed and every misdeed. It's ALL there.

If you can't find a document that says what YOU claim - it's because you LIED and it doesn't exist.

 

[BreadOfLife]

But the fact that the Catholic Church practiced indulgences is evidenced by the fact that this was one of the major doctrines that was dealt with in Martin Luther's 95 theses. This is a matter of history.

You have been lied to.

The Catholic Church STILL deals with Indulgences - but it is not now nor has it EVER been a matter of doctrine.
It's a matter of discipline.

The matter of "history" that involved Luther was the SELLING of indulgences by men like Johann Tetzel.
You're ignorant of history - and you got CAUGHT in another LIE. . .

 

[justbyfaith]

NONSENSE.
Just look it up online.

EVERY document ever decreed by the Catholic Church is readily available online for EVERYONE to see.
EVERY great saint and every criminal - every great deed and every misdeed. It's ALL there.

If you can't find a document that says what YOU claim - it's because you LIED and it doesn't exist.

I sincerely doubt that.

The Catholic Church STILL deals with Indulgences - but it is not now nor has it EVER been a matter of doctrine.
It's a matter of discipline.

The matter of "history" that involved Luther was the SELLING of indulgences by men like Johann Tetzel.
You're ignorant of history - and you got CAUGHT in another LIE. . .

You've never heard of revisionist history?

Martin Luther would have had no power behind his preaching if the Catholic Church were not actually guilty of selling indulgences in his day....it was the primary thing that fueled the Protestant Reformation.

And, practice is always the result of doctrine...people in the church do not do things unless they are taught to do them.

 

[justbyfaith]

And, as usual, you accuse your opponents in debate of lying...this is par for the course with you.

From Romans 2:1-2 in the Message:

"Those people are on a dark spiral downward. But if you think that leaves you on the high ground where you can point your finger at others, think again. Every time you criticize someone, you condemn yourself. It takes one to know one. Judgmental criticism of others is a well-known way of escaping detection in your own crimes and misdemeanors. But God isn't so easily diverted. He sees right through all such smoke screens and holds you to what you've done."

To @BreadOfLife.

 

[BreadOfLife]

And, as usual, you accuse your opponents in debate of lying...this is par for the course with you.

From Romans 2:1-2 in the Message:

"Those people are on a dark spiral downward. But if you think that leaves you on the high ground where you can point your finger at others, think again. Every time you criticize someone, you condemn yourself. It takes one to know one. Judgmental criticism of others is a well-known way of escaping detection in your own crimes and misdemeanors. But God isn't so easily diverted. He sees right through all such smoke screens and holds you to what you've done."

To @BreadOfLife.

You can throw whichever verses you want at me.
It's ALL a desperate cover-up of YOUR lie that the Catholic Church officially decreed the selling of Indulgences.

Remember - I didn't goad you into this topic. YOU brought this up ALL on your own - and now you can't dig yourself out of this LIE.
Next time - do your homework before you decide to stick your foot in your mouth . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I sincerely doubt that.
You've never heard of revisionist history?

Martin Luther would have had no power behind his preaching if the Catholic Church were not actually guilty of selling indulgences in his day....it was the primary thing that fueled the Protestant Reformation.

And, practice is always the result of doctrine...people in the church do not do things unless they are taught to do them.

I've absolutely heard of revisionist history - and I'm witnessing it right mow.

As I have educated you several times now - the Catholic church NEVER sanctioned the selling of Indulgences. Not only does Luther NOT claim that the Church did this - he doesn't mention ANY document, declaration or decree. His beef was against the PRACTICE of this abomination which was being carried out by certain individuals like Johann Tetzel in his own country of Germany.

You need to do your homework and stop embarrassing yourself with your revisionism.

As to your last comment that practice is ALWAYS the result of doctrine - this is perhaps your most stupid remark.
The fact that there are literally tens of thousands of perpetually-splintering Protestant sects that ALL practice different traditions and discipline while believing in MANY of the same doctrines should have tipped you off . . .

 

[justbyfaith]

You can throw whichever verses you want at me.
It's ALL a desperate cover-up of YOUR lie that the Catholic Church officially decreed the selling of Indulgences.

Remember - I didn't goad you into this topic. YOU brought this up ALL on your own - and now you can't dig yourself out of this LIE.
Next time - do your homework before you decide to stick your foot in your mouth . . .

It's no lie that some in the Catholic Church were guilty of selling indulgences.

Seems to me like you are involving yourself in a giant cover-up to deny the sins of the Catholic Church...by accusing those who bring up its sins of being liars; thus attempting to shame the people of God into submission.

I've absolutely heard of revisionist history - and I'm witnessing it right now.<fify>

As I have educated you several times now - the Catholic church NEVER sanctioned the selling of Indulgences. Not only does Luther NOT claim that the Church did this - he doesn't mention ANY document, declaration or decree. His beef was against the PRACTICE of this abomination which was being carried out by certain individuals like Johann Tetzel in his own country of Germany.

You need to do your homework and stop embarrassing yourself with your revisionism.

As to your last comment that practice is ALWAYS the result of doctrine - this is perhaps your most stupid remark.
The fact that there are literally tens of thousands of perpetually-splintering Protestant sects that ALL practice different traditions and discipline while believing in MANY of the same doctrines should have tipped you off . . .

Johann Tetzel had no authority within the Catholic Church? How then did Luther's calling out of his statements have any credibility with people concerning the guilt of the Catholic Church itself?

From Wikipedia (Indulgence - Wikipedia):

The scandalous conduct of the "pardoners" was an immediate occasion of the Protestant Reformation.[3] In 1517, Pope Leo X offered indulgences for those who gave alms to rebuild St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. The aggressive marketing practices of Johann Tetzel in promoting this cause provoked Martin Luther to write his Ninety-five Theses, condemning what he saw as the purchase and sale of salvation. In Thesis 28 Luther objected to a saying attributed to Tetzel: "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs".[42] The Ninety-five Theses not only denounced such transactions as worldly but denied the Pope's right to grant pardons on God's behalf in the first place: the only thing indulgences guaranteed, Luther said, was an increase in profit and greed, because the pardon of the Church was in God's power alone.[43]

Did Pope Leo X have no authority within the Catholic Church?

Really, the Catholic Church wasn't guilty because it was only individuals within it (like Pope Leo X) who were committing those sins (selling indulgences). _O

 

[justbyfaith]

As to your last comment that practice is ALWAYS the result of doctrine - this is perhaps your most stupid remark.
The fact that there are literally tens of thousands of perpetually-splintering Protestant sects that ALL practice different traditions and discipline while believing in MANY of the same doctrines should have tipped you off . . .

So, the Protestant sects do not differ in doctrine in your opinion? I find that interesting...

If the only differences in Protestant denominations have to do with practice (such as whether the worship style is liturgical or casual)...then I consider that these differences are good in that they cater to people of different types; who are more inclined to go with one worship style rather than another. Because God wants to include all people in His salvation; and therefore He lets His church be all things to all men so that whoever you may be and whatever your disposition, you will find yourself comfortable in one of the denominations that has developed within Protestantism.

And it is not a stupid remark. Practice is indeed, most often, dictated by the teaching given concerning that practice.

 

[BloodBought 1953]

the Thief on the cross got a pass. WHY? Because he didn’t have the opportunity to be baptized because he was NAILED TO A CROSS.

You don’t know if the Thief got a “ Pass”......Jesus “ could” have said, “ Hey , I would like to see you get Saved, but you HAVE to be baptized and you obviously can't get That Done ....sorry, man....you should have thought about getting Saved before you found yourself here......rules are rules after all, and God ain’t giving out “ passes”.......
Of course , Jesus never said those things and there is no record of Him being concerned about whether or not the Thief had been baptized or not.
“ What must I do to be Saved” asked the Philipian Jailer ..... “ Believe in The Lord Jesus” he was told.....NO MENTION of being “ water Baptized” was there? How flat- out Evil it would be to not mention it if it was Mandantory ......
The Bible mentions 10 Baptisms—- most of them Dry. Make sure you are “ Baptized into the Body Of Christ” ......neglect “ THAT” one and you can get baptized by water 50 times a day and you ain’t Saved. Wanna get into that BODY of Christ? Rest in Paul’s Gospel found in 1cor15:1-4 and you are “ in like Flint”—— Fit for Heaven!

 

[justbyfaith]

Of course, the Holy Ghost (salvation) is absolutely promised to every one who receives baptism in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins (Acts of the Apostles 2:38-39, 1 Peter 3:20-21, Acts of the Apostles 4:10-12).

Believer's baptism (Mark 16:16, Colossians 2:12).

 

[BloodBought 1953]

Of course, the Holy Ghost (salvation) is absolutely promised to every one who receives baptism in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins (Acts of the Apostles 2:38-39, 1 Peter 3:20-21, Acts of the Apostles 4:10-12).

Believer's baptism (Mark 16:16, Colossians 2:12).

The Heart must be right though.....and only God knows the Heart.......I believe it was the Great Teacher Of God’s Word, Oliver Greene , That confessed the only reason he got baptized his first time was to impress some girl.....the baptism meant nothing to him.....