Where is the reformation in the Bible?

humanist/atheist site ?

I have no idea what you mean.

In BEL AND THE DRAGON - a "Greek-only" part of Daniel - chapter 14 of it verse31 - Daniel is in the lions den for six days.

An angel carries Habakkuk from Judea to the lions den by the hair of his head

Anyway - there is a puzzle to be solved about the two differing accounts of Daniel's length of time in the lions den - Catholic and Orthodox versions of the Bible have both accounts - Prots only have the one ONE NIGHT STAND of Daniel in the lions den

Let's move on to CHICK TRACTS.

In the Air Force, there is one building - THE CHAPEL. At one base I was at, Catholic service first - then a Protestant service - then another Catholic service.

Certain Protestants filled the pews with Chick tracts for the upcoming Catholic service - very anti-Catholic tracts - certain other of us Protestants collected the CHICK TRACTS and turned them into Father Cordoza, who very gravely accepted them. He had an entire DRAWERFUL of Chick Tracts in his office.

I grew up going to a Methodist Camp twice a year on the Paluxy River in Glen Rose Texas. A CHICK TRACT called BIG DADDY (an anti-evolutionary tract) published that DINOSAUR footprints were found in the same strata of rock as HUMAN footprints. It was later revealed that what was originally called human footprints were simply smaller dinosaurs - it was a total hoax that there were ever any human and dinosaur prints in the same rock strata. Science tells us humans and dinosaurs were about 65-70 million years apart.

In the Air Force, I went to whatever service had the best CHOIR - at Homestead Florida that was the Catholics - I sang in their choir, could not take eucharist, a few of us went to a pancake house in town after the service and sang there. People were coming back to hear us week afterweek.

There are various explanations concerning this paradox - some pretty weak. The lions den incident occurred twice.
The Habakkuk that brings food to Daniel is a different Habakkuk from the one who authored the book by his name and died a century before the lions den incident.
What think ye?

theefaith said:

By what authority did the pretend to reform the church founded by God, and doctrine revealed by God?

Only the apostles have authority from Christ and the so called reformers were not apostles or successors of the apostles

Click to expand...

Revelation 14:8 An 'angel' is a messenger, a sent servant of the Master Jesus. That's what the Reformers were. They were the ones AGAINST the Roman Catholic's claims of apostolic succession.

The Bible was hardly original to the Reformation, of course. The canon of the Christian Bible was fixed by the 3rd century, and the Latin translation of Jerome was in continual use throughout Europe from the beginning of the 5th century until long after the 16th century.

Matt 3:11 -

'I indeed do baptize you with water to reformation, but he who after me is coming is mightier than I, of whom I am not worthy to bear the sandals, he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire

Luke 3:8
make, therefore, fruits worthy of the reformation, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have a father -- Abraham; for I say to you, that God is able out of these stones to raise children to Abraham

Amazed@grace said:

The hatred for Protestants should be noted as well.
Fro BOL, and others here. Especially one who claims to be RRCC and openly called Protestantism Heresy, and all Protestants here Heretics.

Click to expand...

I also said "Protestants are not heretics". Do I have to quote myself? This kind of misquoting by omission is why dialogue with anti-Catholics IMPOSSIBLE.

Which is why he starts threads to personally attack both. And isn't made to stop after his open admission.

Click to expand...

BofL doesn't start threads. And there is no such thing as "RRCC" Please, use the abbreviation "CC"; it's accurate and easier to type.

However, you might consider this as you take after trolling alleged members of the RRCC.
If we meet demonic evil like that which in its darkness purposefully openly trolls Christians, we might consider their ultimate goal is to have us plumb to the depths and join them there, giving verbal abuse for verbal abuse.

Click to expand...

I don't troll. I defend and explain, which I am entitled to do, the same as you.

I know many RRCC's. They would never ever assail Protestants in their own house,board.
Never.
Why?
Because to do so is a grave sin they need repent of.
Once is repentant. A consistent months, even years long repetitive behavior, is pathological. And priests have an issue with constant repetitive sin of the same type bad behavior.

Click to expand...

Is their something wrong with pathological sinners who keep trying?

What I'm saying is, Catholics don't troll Protestants.

Click to expand...

I would estimate that 90% of posts by Catholics in here are defensive.

But Protestants rising to the bait of trolls make trolls day. Because their goal is to challenge us to see how much it takes before we abandon our Christ like demeanor and act like them.

Click to expand...

Protestantism was anti-Catholic from it's beginning. 5 centuries has past, and Catholicism is not formally anti-Protestant. There are no professional Catholic apologists in this membership.
There are no Catholic web sites that flagrantly misrepresent Protestant beliefs. If you can find one, post it. Yet there are billions of various internet media bashing Catholicism, including Hollywood and the government. Our whole culture teaches the public to despise Catholicism. If a smart person was looking for a true church, he might look at the one most persecuted and wonder what is really going on.

I can't find the video however, years ago a man was filmed be a congregant as the man stood during a mass and started shouting that the RRCC were heritics.
What did the congregation do? They sang hymns and drowned out the man's rants.

Click to expand...

Good for them. The congregation should have also called the police and have the man arrested for disrupting a religious service. They would then take the poor man to a hospital to get his psychosis treated. For his own good and the good of the community..

We're to meet hate with love when possible. However, when anonymity on the web imboldens no life bullies to assail Christians in their own net community, paying them attention only feeds the beast. And inspires them to continue their behaviors. They crave the attention. And love that we try to reach them with the truth of the Christ they mock and insult when they troll in his name.

Click to expand...

Look around. It's always open season on Catholics. It's not us that causes a thread to be closed. St. Paul instructs to avoid "fruitless argumentation". That's why I have 30 members in my iggy bin.

We'll never reach that.
And at their end, they'll know ,for as long as we cared to, why we tried.

Click to expand...

We tried too.

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:


818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

Toward unity

820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."

277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.279
Catechism of the Catholic Church

So we offer an olive branch, and the anti-Catholic comes out of nowhere and spits on it.

Hemlock said:

"alleged contradiction"?
I don't know what you mean, Illuminator

I asked how long Daniel was in the lions den because in the Hebrew/Aramaic part of Daniel which is in EVERYONE's Bible - Daniel is just in the den overnight

In my Orthodox Study Bible - in a Greek-only part of Daniel - Daniel is in the den for a whole week, and is brought food by Habakkuk (who in reality was about a century before this event)

The commentary note in the Orthodox Study Bible says Habakkuk was transported through not only space but also TIME (an angel pulled him by the hair)

Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with the Orthodox Study bible, I've done some superficial research, and I have no answer. I think it's a wild goose chase.

Amazed@grace said:

Do yourself the favor. Never ever join a forum where you know Protestants are members, and for the purpose of assaulting our faith and attempting to insult us in the process. Your efforts don't make us look bad.

Lastly, that crack about my homework?
Oops! I guess I shouldn't have used RRCC sources with links.
My bad.

Click to expand...

"Assaulting" Protestants??
I was simply correcting your ignorance. A simple "Thank you" would suffice.

As for your "RRCC" sources - they are nothing of the kind:
- votf.org is NOT an official Catholic source.
- https://bigthink.com/ is NOT a Catholic source.
- a link to a "paganism in the Catholic Church" search on DuckDuckGo is anything BUT a "Catholic" source.

LYING doesn't bolster your case - it simply exposes you as dishonest.

PS - what is "RRCC", anyway??
For that matter - what is "RCC"??

Again - do your HOMEWORK . . .

No wild goose chase.
The Deuterocanonical addition to Daniel has an erroneous account of Daniel spending a week in the lions den and being brought food by Habakkuk. This addition is in both Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, which Bibles also include the REAL account of Daniel spending ONE night in the lions den. IOW, the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles say that Daniel was in the lions den for BOTH one night and a week, they cannot both be true. The spurious inaccurate account is NOT in the canon of 66 books accepted by Protestants.

Catholic and Orthodox Bibles have this GLARING DISCREPANCY in their Bibles.

It is things like this that make it seem like the Protestant canon is the correct one.

The Greek "addition to Daniel" is BOGUS - NOT TRUE.

This is no wild goose chase - this is a case of the deuterocanonical addition being flat out wrong.

bump

Hemlock said:

No wild goose chase.
The Deuterocanonical addition to Daniel has an erroneous account of Daniel spending a week in the lions den and being brought food by Habakkuk. This addition is in both Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, which Bibles also include the REAL account of Daniel spending ONE night in the lions den. IOW, the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles say that Daniel was in the lions den for BOTH one night and a week, they cannot both be true. The spurious inaccurate account is NOT in the canon of 66 books accepted by Protestants.

Catholic and Orthodox Bibles have this GLARING DISCREPANCY in their Bibles.

It is things like this that make it seem like the Protestant canon is the correct one.

The Greek "addition to Daniel" is BOGUS - NOT TRUE.

This is no wild goose chase - this is a case of the deuterocanonical addition being flat out wrong.

Click to expand...

Daniel 6:14 NRSVCE
When the king heard the charge, he was very much distressed. He was determined to save Daniel, and until the sun went down he made every effort to rescue him.* 15 Then the conspirators came to the king and said to him, “Know, O king, that it is a law of the Medes and Persians that no interdict or ordinance that the king establishes can be changed.”
16 Then the king gave the command, and Daniel was brought and thrown into the den of lions. The king said to Daniel, “May your God, whom you faithfully serve, deliver you!” 17 A stone was brought and laid on the mouth of the den, and the king sealed it with his own signet and with the signet of his lords, so that nothing might be changed concerning Daniel. 18 Then the king went to his palace and spent the night fasting; no food was brought to him, and sleep fled from him.

Daniel Saved from the Lions
19 Then, at break of day, the king got up and hurried to the den of lions. 20 When he came near the den where Daniel was, he cried out anxiously to Daniel, “O Daniel, servant of the living God, has your God whom you faithfully serve been able to deliver you from the lions?” 21 Daniel then said to the king, “O king, live forever! 22 My God sent his angel and shut the lions’ mouths so that they would not hurt me, because I was found blameless before him; and also before you, O king, I have done no wrong.” 23 Then the king was exceedingly glad and commanded that Daniel be taken up out of the den. So Daniel was taken up out of the den, and no kind of harm was found on him, because he had trusted in his God. 24 The king gave a command, and those who had accused Daniel were brought and thrown into the den of lions—they, their children, and their wives. Before they reached the bottom of the den the lions overpowered them and broke all their bones in pieces.

25 Then King Darius wrote to all peoples and nations of every language throughout the whole world: “May you have abundant prosperity! 26 I make a decree, that in all my royal dominion people should tremble and fear before the God of Daniel:

For he is the living God,
enduring forever.
His kingdom shall never be destroyed,
and his dominion has no end.
27 He delivers and rescues,
he works signs and wonders in heaven and on earth;
for he has saved Daniel
from the power of the lions.”

28 So this Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.

14 and until the sun went down he made every effort to rescue him.*
19 Then, at break of day, the king got up and hurried to the den of lions.

Neither wording specifies how long Daniel was in the den. Both describe when and what the king did, not the length of Daniel's stay.

Additions to Daniel - Bible Society

According to that source, Chapter 6 was originally written in Aramaic and doesn't list Chapter 6 as an addition.

Hemlock said:

No wild goose chase.
The Deuterocanonical addition to Daniel has an erroneous account of Daniel spending a week in the lions den and being brought food by Habakkuk. This addition is in both Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, which Bibles also include the REAL account of Daniel spending ONE night in the lions den. IOW, the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles say that Daniel was in the lions den for BOTH one night and a week, they cannot both be true. The spurious inaccurate account is NOT in the canon of 66 books accepted by Protestants.

Catholic and Orthodox Bibles have this GLARING DISCREPANCY in their Bibles.

It is things like this that make it seem like the Protestant canon is the correct one.

The Greek "addition to Daniel" is BOGUS - NOT TRUE.

This is no wild goose chase - this is a case of the deuterocanonical addition being flat out wrong.

Click to expand...

First, it would be prudent to speak of the burden of proof. It's a general rule in philosophy that she who proposes must explain and defend. If someone says that "X exists," the burden is on her to provide a case for the existence of X. The burden is not on the one who denies that X exists. For how can one prove a negative?

In this case, it is the critic who proposes. He claims that the Bible is "full of contradictions," and often proposes a lengthy list such as the one we are about to respond to below. Now, as Christians, we cannot prove that something is NOT a contradiction (i.e., one cannot prove that X [contradictions] do not exist). Instead, all that is required of us is to come up with plausible or reasonable, even possible explanations so that what is purported to be a contradiction is not necessarily a contradiction. Whether or not our explanation is the "true one" is not all that relevant in such contexts.

This is important. What is really relevant is whether our explanations show that the point of contention is not necessarily a contradiction. If we succeed, then the critic's assertion that "X and Y are contradictory" is no longer an obvious truth, instead it becomes merely a belief that someone holds.

At this point the critic might cry "foul" and note that it is the Christian who proposes. She is the one who claims the Bible is inerrant, thus she should demonstrate this. But how? How does one demonstrate a document is without error? At this point, the Christian need only learn from the methodology of modern atheism. Many atheists do not argue that God does not exist, because they realize that one cannot demonstrate the nonexistence of something. Instead, they take a more agnostic position, and argue there is no proof for God's existence, thus they don't possess God-belief. In the same way, the believer in inerrancy cannot demonstrate the nonexistence of contradictions in the Bible.

After all, the Bible contains 31,173 verses (even more when the OT deuterocanonicals are included). If we were to compare only couplets, where any one verse is juxtaposed against any other, one could write 971,750,000 couplets. Thus, by considering only couplets, there are almost one billion potential Bible contradictions! Surely, it is not reasonable to demand that a believer in inerrancy plod through one billion potential contradictions to prove negatives in every case. Instead, the believer in inerrancy can argue there is no proof for the existence of contradictions in the Bible, thus they don't believe in Biblical errancy (thus they believe in inerrancy -- being without error).

A popular mistake is to take things out of context. It is easy to "create contradictions" when there are none by violating the context of the passage(s) in question.

More significant, though less mentioned, is violating the context of belief. Christian understanding is a synthesis of many beliefs, and Biblical teachings are often interpreted through this background belief which has been synthesized. Such a synthesis may include other facts, not directly related to the contradiction in question, but nevertheless, relevant. When the critic proposes a contradiction, he ought to do so within the context of this background belief. By failing to do this, he merely imposes alien concepts into the text as if they belong. This error is common when the critic tries to cite contradictions related to doctrine or beliefs about the nature of God. For example, orthodox Christians believe in the Trinity. One could argue about this concept elsewhere, but trying to impose contradictions by ignoring Trinitarian belief violates the context provided by the Christian's background belief.

Or consider a mundane example. Say that Joe is recorded as saying that Sam is not his son. But elsewhere, he is recorded as saying that Sam is his son. An obvious contradiction, right? But what if one's background belief about Joe and Sam includes the belief that Sam is Joe's adopted son? By ignoring the context this belief provides, one perceives contradictions where there are none.

The critic sometimes assumes that the Biblical accounts are exhaustive in all details and intended to be precise. This is rarely the case. As such, the critic builds on a faulty assumption and perceives contradictions where none exist.

Also related to the context problem: Let's say that the only records of Joe speaking about Sam are the two cases where he affirms and denies that Sam is his son. Certainly Joe said many other things in his life, but they were not recorded -- including the fact that he adopted a boy and named him Sam.

Another real-life case concerns a newspaper report which lists the time of birth of twin babies. The first was born at 1:40 AM, and second was born at 1:10 AM. If this account did not have the added detail that the birth occurred the during the night in which Daylight Savings ended, it would appear to be a real contradiction/error. You have to know the whole story, or at least have a plausible explanation.

Since the accounts in the Bible are rarely intended as exhaustive and precise descriptions, it would be prudent to see if differing accounts complement, rather than contradict one another.

The critic seems to assume that the Bible is written in one genre: a literal and descriptive account. While the Bible does indeed contain literal and descriptive accounts (which, of course, are not exhaustive in details), it also contains many other styles of composition: the Proverbs list "rules of thumb," the Psalms communicate through poetry, many teachings/prophecies are in the form of hyperbole and metaphor, parables contain deeper messages, etc. Since the Bible is actually many books of different genres by several different authors, the critic's assumption leads her astray if it is used to create contradictions.

Another point is related to the one above, namely, the alleged contradictions are often a function of a particular interpretation. This is clear when one reads how the author of the list presents the biblical teachings in contrast to the actual verses he/she cites. Thus, the "contradiction" exists only if the correct interpretation is applied by the author, and this is often not the case (or at least, it is often not clear if this is the case).

For example, in many situations, the critic uses particular incidents or rules of thumb and interprets these as absolute principles. Sometimes the critic equivocates. He/she uses the same sense of a word in two sets of verses, when sometimes it is the case that the word has two meanings. For example, peace could mean lack of war or it can mean an internal sense of tranquility.

The critic sometimes reads contradictions into the accounts. This is often a function of all of the points listed above, but it could be due to plain ignorance. In other cases, it is due to the fact that aspects of Hebrew idiom are not always captured in English translations.

The critic assumes that the believer in Biblical inerrancy also believes that copyists could make no mistake. I have found not many believers in inerrancy to hold to this position. It is their belief that the original documents were without error, and were copied as faithfully as humanly possible. Thus, copyist errors are of little concern (and are unlikely to result in significant changes).

Finally, the critic engages in black and white either/or thinking when a both/and approach seems to be called for. This can be tricky, so let me set up my case by using one of the supposed contradictions cited:

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself." [Pr 26:4]

"Answer of fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes." [Pr 26:5]

The first thing to note is that these seemingly contradictory teachings are right next to each other. Could the writer of Proverbs be so stupid as to not notice this? I hardly think so. In fact, I think it is very illuminating that these teachings are closely tied. They highlight the fact that Biblical admonitions need not fall under the "either/or" criteria, but can be more properly understood in terms of "both/and." In fact, I have often found these two teachings from Proverbs quite useful.

BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS ANSWERED -- Biblical Errors Mistakes Difficulties Discrepancies Countered (biblicalcatholic.com)

I have no "burden of proof".
Anyone can look at the DeuteroCanonical account in Daniel of the lions den and easily see how it contradicts the real account (in everyone's Bible) wherein Daniel spends one night in the lions den.

Illuminator said:

I also said "Protestants are not heretics". Do I have to quote myself? This kind of misquoting by omission is why dialogue with anti-Catholics IMPOSSIBLE.
BofL doesn't start threads. And there is no such thing as "RRCC" Please, use the abbreviation "CC"; it's accurate and easier to type.

I don't troll. I defend and explain, which I am entitled to do, the same as you.
Is their something wrong with pathological sinners who keep trying?

I would estimate that 90% of posts by Catholics in here are defensive.
Protestantism was anti-Catholic from it's beginning. 5 centuries has past, and Catholicism is not formally anti-Protestant. There are no professional Catholic apologists in this membership.
There are no Catholic web sites that flagrantly misrepresent Protestant beliefs. If you can find one, post it. Yet there are billions of various internet media bashing Catholicism, including Hollywood and the government. Our whole culture teaches the public to despise Catholicism. If a smart person was looking for a true church, he might look at the one most persecuted and wonder what is really going on.
Good for them. The congregation should have also called the police and have the man arrested for disrupting a religious service. They would then take the poor man to a hospital to get his psychosis treated. For his own good and the good of the community..
Look around. It's always open season on Catholics. It's not us that causes a thread to be closed. St. Paul instructs to avoid "fruitless argumentation". That's why I have 30 members in my iggy bin.

We tried too.

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271​

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

Toward unity

820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."

277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.279
Catechism of the Catholic Church

So we offer an olive branch, and the anti-Catholic comes out of nowhere and spits on it.

Click to expand...

So you're also on the forum as, Hemlock? Or, Bread of Life?
Because my reply that you quoted was directed to Hemlock. Who posted without having quoted another member,at least not one I saw. And in my remarks to Hemlock I never referred to your name.

Furthermore, I'm not anti-Catholic.
I know many Catholics as friends, clients, and even extended family.

What I am opposed to are those who profess Catholicism here , and then troll Protestants. Proving they are anti-Protestant.
That behavior is not a reflection of true RR Catholics. It's instead a profile of board trolls who join a Christian community, claim a denomination or church upon registration, just to troll all Christians present.
That is not an example of a person who is holy spirit sealed.
And when they are found out they shouldn't be surprised Christians on board don't respect their dedication to that sinful behavior that represents a deep vacancy in moral character.
One such person openly admits they are intent on trolling the "heretics" that are Protestants here. A true Catholic does not think like that.
They make discussions impossible because they come from a place of hatred. That's a tragedy in itself.

Amazed - I am Hemlock, a Protestant - I am not Illuminator, BOL or any Catholic.

Peace.

Amazed@grace said:

So you're also on the forum as, Hemlock? Or, Bread of Life?
Because my reply that you quoted was directed to Hemlock. Who posted without having quoted another member,at least not one I saw. And in my remarks to Hemlock I never referred to your name.

Furthermore, I'm not anti-Catholic.
I know many Catholics as friends, clients, and even extended family.

What I am opposed to are those who profess Catholicism here , and then troll Protestants. Proving they are anti-Protestant.
That behavior is not a reflection of true RR Catholics. It's instead a profile of board trolls who join a Christian community, claim a denomination or church upon registration, just to troll all Christians present.
That is not an example of a person who is holy spirit sealed.
And when they are found out they shouldn't be surprised Christians on board don't respect their dedication to that sinful behavior that represents a deep vacancy in moral character.
One such person openly admits they are intent on trolling the "heretics" that are Protestants here. A true Catholic does not think like that.
They make discussions impossible because they come from a place of hatred. That's a tragedy in itself.

Click to expand...

The pope is a communist! Catholics worship Mary! Catholicism has pagan roots! And you don't want us to expose these and many other uncharitable LIES?

Amazed@grace said:

One such person openly admits they are intent on trolling the "heretics" that are Protestants here. A true Catholic does not think like that.

Click to expand...

Who would that be, Amazed?
There is some confusion going on...

1Co 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

1Jo 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Jhn 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

You all can argue what denomination is right or wrong, but ultimately there is only one kingdom
And that my friends is not run by any man here on earth.

Your be best to come out of her... the wordly church and enter into his kingdom where love and peace reigns.

Useless and unfruitful arguing about things that have no bearing on who we are and where we are striving to reach.
Be fruitful... find common ground... leave the dross behind.

God is not the author of confusion.
Man is.

Hugs