False Prophesies

[Dad of 3]

That was not the question I asked. Please go back and re ready my answer and tell me if you agree with that definition of "legalism"

Yeah, I suppose so, as long as you're not trying to outflank or suprise me with a hidden definition, yes.

As for the strictness in the ceremonies, do you think that God allowed the Israelites to make up their own worship because they were "bored?" Do you think they did ceremony the way they wanted to, or did they have a very strict and repetitive pattern of worship?

You're comparing apples and oranges here. What did Jesus say on the cross? Did he say "It's almost finished?" DId he say "Just one more thing?" No, he didn't. He said it is finished and when he died, the temple curtain went rent in twain, symbolic of the passing of the old covenants and the beginning of a new era. Since there are no such strictly defined ceremonies and processes noted in the New Testament as laid out by Christ, the Catholic Church's legalism is worthless in attaining salvation. Our being saved is attained by grace and grace alone. Works most certainly play into it, but we are not judged by them as much as we are by our faith and sincerity. Otherwise, King David would have a really hard time explaining some of the things he did, wouldn't he?

Have you heard the joke about the Pharisees having black eyes? It took the fact that they were so focused on the letter of the law instead of the spirit of it that they were always looking down at their books while walking and would often run into things. While I don't think this is necessarily true, it illustrates the point.

And why did you leave "full of guilt?" The whole purpose of the Liturgy is that we are to be filled with joy. Did you have some sort of priest who failed to tell you of the beauty of God's forgiveness through the Eucharist?

When I was growing up, the church taught that almost everything lead directly to Hell. If you ate meat on Friday during Lent, you went to Hell. If you didn't contribute to the collection plate, you went to Hell. If you swore, you went to Hell. If you had impure thoughts, you went to Hell. If you weren't Catholic, you went to Hell. See the pattern here? This, of course, doesn't take into account that fact that you could simply go to confession and get all of your sins (the ones you confessed to, anyway) expunged. That's not much of a motivation to lead a good life, is it, knowing that you could simply confess, put your penance in the collection plate, say a few Hail Marys, a couple of Our Fathers and all was right with the world. No, that implies that you can buy off God. I don't recall Jesus prostituting himself for money in the Bible, do you?


Oh, one more thing.....in the last decade there has been a large and ever increasing influx of people in to the Catholic Faith (and Orthodoxy also). Many of them are folks such as Scott Hahn, who was a strident anti-Catholic PCA minister and who would never in his life have imagined that he would convert. When people find the Truth, they are at first repelled by it, then find it oddly attractive, and finally run to it for the beauty which it holds within.

Cite your independent, non-Catholic sources, please.

 

[EAHARA]

That was not the question I asked. Please go back and re ready my answer and tell me if you agree with that definition of "legalism"

Yeah, I suppose so, as long as you're not trying to outflank or surprise me with a hidden definition, yes.

No, I just wanted to make sure we were both talking the same language. Having established this, I can say with all assurance that the Church teaches that salvation is by grace alone through faith. I have read this in the catechism and also the teaching of the Church regarding baptism shows this. Let's look at baptism for a second.

Is there anything that an infant child can DO at all? No, of course not. So the child can only submit to the Sacrament and through it receive the grace of God. Since the child can do nothing, yet receives salvation, then it obviously cannot be of "works" that the child was saved, can it?

You're comparing apples and oranges here.

Not at all, sir. The worship which God began in Sinai with Moses under the Old Covenant continues in the New Covenant under a different paradigm. Allow another example.

We see Jesus celebrating the Passover in the Upper Room. Does he tell the disciples that He is ending such "ceremonies" once and for all, or does He change the ceremony by entering into it Himself as He performs the first Eucharist? The Passover continues -- in a new form.

Likewise, the office of the high priesthood continues, which is yet another indication that the rituals of the Old Covenant transfer to the New Covenant. If this was not true, then why continue the office?

What did Jesus say on the cross? Did he say "It's almost finished?" Did he say "Just one more thing?" No, he didn't. He said it is finished and when he died, the temple curtain went rent in twain, symbolic of the passing of the old covenants and the beginning of a new era. Since there are no such strictly defined ceremonies and processes noted in the New Testament as laid out by Christ, the Catholic Church's legalism is worthless in attaining salvation.

I agree. Legalism, that is, offering God our works in order to be saved, has no part in salvation. This is the teaching of the Church since the Council of Orange in the 6th century. Trent reaffirmed it.

Our being saved is attained by grace and grace alone. Works most certainly play into it, but we are not judged by them as much as we are by our faith and sincerity. Otherwise, King David would have a really hard time explaining some of the things he did, wouldn't he?

Works have NOTHING to do with salvation -- they don't even "play into it" It is all, entirely, and completely by grace through faith.

I'm sorry that you had that experience in the Catholic Faith. From all the older cradle Catholics I have spoken with, this quilt tripping seems to have been fairly common in the Latin Rite. My joy in finding the Pearl of Great Price was that I KNEW that when the priest pronounced the words of absolution over me that I could rest assured in the promise of Christ that I was truly forgiven. And I have found also that unlike the hard nosed Protestantism that I left, the Catholic Faith is very much centered on the love of God as my Father. Perhaps it was not when you were younger.

Gotta problem. I'm debating a Mormon online and he brought up some things I can't answer (the first time that's ever happened). --Did God break his promise to Abraham about the land of Canaan? --What about the events with Jonah and Nineveh? False prophesies? --And when Jesus said (Matthew 24:36)that the end would come in "this" generation, he couldn't have meant that generation alive at that time, could he? I need some help because I'm stuck in a theological quandry!

I'm curious. What point is the Mormon trying to make with the issue of Matthew 24:36? I've never heard that one before from them.

 

[Dad of 3]

No, I just wanted to make sure we were both talking the same language. Having established this, I can say with all assurance that the Church teaches that salvation is by grace alone through faith. I have read this in the catechism and also the teaching of the Church regarding baptism shows this. Let's look at baptism for a second.

Is there anything that an infant child can DO at all? No, of course not. So the child can only submit to the Sacrament and through it receive the grace of God. Since the child can do nothing, yet receives salvation, then it obviously cannot be of "works" that the child was saved, can it?"

You're using Catholicism to prove Catholicism, which will inevitably lead to the same result over and over. Using the catechism to make your point is somewhat less than objective.

On your point here, however, you're making the assumption that baptism is what saves a child from Hell in the event of its death. That makes no sense because a kind, loving God wouldn't damn a baby who dies at birth to Hell before it has the ability to make a choice of its own. Since the baby wouldn't thus be old enough to even have faith in God, it must be something else, right? The reason children don't go to Hell when they die is because they haven't reached an age of accountability, the time at which they can be responsible to make informed choices. The baptism can be symbolic and I have no problem with that, but it in and of itself is nothing but water.

"Not at all, sir. The worship which God began in Sinai with Moses under the Old Covenant continues in the New Covenant under a different paradigm. Allow another example. We see Jesus celebrating the Passover in the Upper Room. Does he tell the disciples that He is ending such "ceremonies" once and for all, or does He change the ceremony by entering into it Himself as He performs the first Eucharist? The Passover continues -- in a new form. Likewise, the office of the high priesthood continues, which is yet another indication that the rituals of the Old Covenant transfer to the New Covenant. If this was not true, then why continue the office?"

Since you brought this up, I'll ask you this: if Jesus celebrated Passover and you want to emulate him, why don't you celebrate Passover? Jesus was Jewish so shouldn't you be Jewish, too? Of course not and thus your point here is moot. He simply observed the law as it was at the time.


You're also making the broad assumption that the office of prophet was continued by the church, and thus the Pope. There's no Biblical evidence of this at all; the admonition of Jesus to Peter that he was the rock upon which he would build the church didn't mean that it would built on top of him, did it? Of course not. It simply meant that he would continue with the ministry after his coming death and resurrection. This, of course, is important to note because so great was Peter's faith and devotion in spite of his human fallibility and shortcomings. And thus it is with human kind; the Pope is the same pile of human fecal matter that you and I are, unworthy in the eyes of God and in dire need of a savior. He has no direct connection to divinity that we personally can achieve through faith and Biblical wisdom. Your Pope doesn't perform miracles, can't raise the dead, heal the sick, or turn Coke into Pepsi. He's just as human as anyone else who's ever lived and therefore not worth worshipping.



"I agree. Legalism, that is, offering God our works in order to be saved, has no part in salvation. This is the teaching of the Church since the Council of Orange in the 6th century. Trent reaffirmed it. Works have NOTHING to do with salvation -- they don't even "play into it" It is all, entirely, and completely by grace through faith."

I disagree; we may be required of God to do certain things that exercise our talents and interests to further His goals. Mine, for example, is to work against the cult of Mormon. He uses my strengths in English and comprehension to further this end. Am I doing any lasting good? I don't know, but I've helped at least a few people out of Mormonism thus far and have planted many more seeds since then. My job is not to pick the greeen fruit, however; I have to be content to leave the rest up to God and be ready to respond whenever the evils of Mormonism raise their ugly heads. This isn't always easy and sometimes I have doubts about what I'm doing, but I know it's for the greater good and I have to leave my human failings out of the matter.

Your point, however, is more of using Catholicism to prove itself. If you ask a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness who is right, who do you think they'll tell you to listen to?

"I'm curious. What point is the Mormon trying to make with the issue of Matthew 24:36? I've never heard that one before from them."

Mormonism is an odd animal; I've been studying it for the better part of 13 years or so and I'm still learning about it. It changes and is mercurial because it wants so badly to appear Christian, but its underlying history and doctrine are distinctly not. But basically, the Mormon view is that after the apostles died, the world went into an apostacy. Joseph Smith was alleged to be a prophet of the 'restoration,' reestablishing Christ's church on earth, beginning with the Book of Mormon (an account of ancient Semetic people who travelled from Jerusalem to the New World), Book of Commandments (later renamed Doctrines and Covenants), and Pearl of Great Price.They use the KJV, but with the amendment that it is missing many 'plain and precious things,' and thus giving them a way to slip their own false doctrines and beliefs into the mix. What God was doing those 1,900 years or so of 'apostacy' is still a mystery, but no matter.

Smith made a number of prophesies and one of them was that the temple in Independence, Missiouri (the site of the Garden of Eden, they believe this, no kidding) would be built in that generation's lifetime. This 'revelation' was given in September of 1832 (D&C 84:1-5) and to this date the temple hasn't been built and the church doesn't even own the land. Jesus is said to return to this spot during the Second Coming, but it makes sense that he wouldn't if the church that bears his name, right? I say that in jest, but if it was indeed supposed to be built in that generation's lifetime, we have a problem because the revelation was given 177 years ago and I'm pretty sure all of those people are dead now.

The way this ties into Matthew 24:36 is that when we dissenters point this out as a false prophesy, they often point out Jesus words', hoping that I will equate one with the other and that if Smith's words are false, Jesus' are, too. Since Jesus' words are in a future tense, you're comparing apples to oranges again, but Mormons believe that their god (little g) is the same as the God of the Bible and that their prophets are the same as Biblical prophets.

There's a lot to it, the attempt to connect Mormonsim and Christianity, but the two have nothing in common. Does that makes sense? If I lost you, I apologize; just ask for more specific clarification.

 

[EAHARA]

You're using Catholicism to prove Catholicism, which will inevitably lead to the same result over and over. Using the catechism to make your point is somewhat less than objective.

I was not using Catholicism to prove Catholicism. I was speaking of the act of baptism and how it is administered. When a child is baptized, he/she can do nothing, therefore, the salvation that is derived from baptism is completely free of being "works oriented"

On your point here, however, you're making the assumption that baptism is what saves a child from Hell in the event of its death. That makes no sense because a kind, loving God wouldn't damn a baby who dies at birth to Hell before it has the ability to make a choice of its own. Since the baby wouldn't thus be old enough to even have faith in God, it must be something else, right? The reason children don't go to Hell when they die is because they haven't reached an age of accountability, the time at which they can be responsible to make informed choices. The baptism can be symbolic and I have no problem with that, but it in and of itself is nothing but water.

For 1500 years, all of Christianity taught that baptism is regenerative and salvific. It was only with the introduction of heresies that cropped up in the Reformation that people began to regard baptism as having no efficacy to forgive sins and make one a member of the Kingdom of God.

Since you brought this up, I'll ask you this: if Jesus celebrated Passover and you want to emulate him, why don't you celebrate Passover? Jesus was Jewish so shouldn't you be Jewish, too? Of course not and thus your point here is moot. He simply observed the law as it was at the time.

I do celebrate Passover. The Eucharist is the Passover celebrated in fulfillment.

You're also making the broad assumption that the office of prophet was continued by the church, and thus the Pope.

Sir, the more you speak, the more you are showing me that your understanding of the Catholic Faith is very weak at best. There is no connection whatsoever between the office of the pope and the gift of prophecy. None.

There's no Biblical evidence of this at all; the admonition of Jesus to Peter that he was the rock upon which he would build the church didn't mean that it would built on top of him, did it? Of course not. It simply meant that he would continue with the ministry after his coming death and resurrection.

Jesus gave the Keys to the Kingdom to St. Peter. You Protestants (and the Orthodox) continue to refuse to deal with the meaning behind that act, which is found in Isaiah 22:22. Jesus was making a statement that He is the servant found in Isaiah upon which the key of the Kingdom would be laid. That he would give these keys to Peter is an extremely significant act, and one that the Pharisees would surely not misunderstand.

Your Pope doesn't perform miracles, can't raise the dead, heal the sick, or turn Coke into Pepsi. He's just as human as anyone else who's ever lived and therefore not worth worshipping.

The working of miracles is not a prerequisite for being elected to the office. Once again you show that you were a nominal Catholic at best, since you make the claim that we worship the pope. Even some Protestants at least know that such a statement is not true.

So you point out that Joseph Smith was a false prophet and they go to Matthew 24:36? Is that right? That seems an odd verse for them to refer to, seeing as how no one did indeed know either the hour or the day of Christ's return.

 

[Nomad]

...I agree. Legalism, that is, offering God our works in order to be saved, has no part in salvation. This is the teaching of the Church since the Council of Orange in the 6th century. Trent reaffirmed it...


...Works have NOTHING to do with salvation -- they don't even "play into it" It is all, entirely, and completely by grace through faith...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something about you here, but I was under the impression that you are Roman Catholic, and yet your soteriology appears out of step with Trent.

If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works,[125] but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema. - The Council Of Trent, Session 6, Canon 24

If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema. - The Council Of Trent, Session 6, Canon 32

 

[EAHARA]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something about you here, but I was under the impression that you are Roman Catholic, and yet your soteriology appears out of step with Trent.

Well, I'm definitely not Roman Catholic. Greek Catholic. Same house -- different room!

As for what you said above.....

IrishEddieOHara, on 27 December 2009 - 03:04 PM, said:

...I agree. Legalism, that is, offering God our works in order to be saved, has no part in salvation. This is the teaching of the Church since the Council of Orange in the 6th century. Trent reaffirmed it...


...Works have NOTHING to do with salvation -- they don't even "play into it" It is all, entirely, and completely by grace through faith...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something about you here, but I was under the impression that you are Roman Catholic, and yet your soteriology appears out of step with Trent.

If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works,[125] but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema. - The Council Of Trent, Session 6, Canon 24

Let's take this apart a bit. The term "justice received" has to do with the receiving of salvation through baptism. The heresy of the Reformers was that they began to teach a system whereby they said that one could not fall away from Christ. So they denied that the works we do have anything to do with receiving an increase of grace and justification.

Now, as a Greek Catholic, I really don't like the wording of Trent, and it is for this reason. In the Latin West, the Romans consider grace a thing or object. It is not. In the East, when we speak of grace, we are speaking of a person -- Christ Jesus.

Salvation is a relationship and is defined by the word "covenant" as found in Ezekial 16:8. It is analogized by marriage in this verse. When we are entered into Christ through baptism (Romans 6:3) we become, among other things, the Bride of Christ. We are in a relationship which is analogous to marriage.

Now....in a relationship, can the relationship be improved and get better? Most certainly it can, and any married couple will tell you that. It can also go south and eventually wind up in the trash. With the Protestant Reformation, those who left the Church redefined the relationship and placed it upon a legal basis. This is called "forensic justification" and I guess the best way I have heard it expressed is this: you "accept Jesus" and God declares you legally "not guilty," strikes your name from His book of criminals and enemies, and places your name forever in the "Book of Life" so that you are assured of Heaven. No matter what you do. You are legally forgiven and when God looks towards you, He sees only Jesus because you are hidden in Him.

Trent is simply saying that this is nonsense (even though their own wording caused the problem in the first place). They are stating that which is obvious -- in a relationship, you better the relationship by what good you do for the other, and make it worse with the bad you do to that other.

And then, ultimately, at the end of life, when we are judged by our works (John 5:28-29 & Romans 2: 5-10) it is determined whether we shall receive eternal life. Salvation and eternal life are not the same thing -- another problem Rome has created for itself by its rather imprecise wording of theological terms. I quite frankly hate the phrase "lose one's salvation" because no such thing is possible. Once you are saved you are delivered from the family of Adam, adopted as child of God, and made a member of the family. These things cannot be undone. What can be undone is the relationship. We can turn from Christ or turn to Him. If we turn to Him, we become more holy as we do those things which feed the divine nature in us and starve the flesh. That is what is meant by "increase of justice"

If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema. - The Council Of Trent, Session 6, Canon 32

The same thing applies here, although again, the wording is really confusing. It is a relationship that we are increasing. I know it sounds like we are actually earning salvation, but that is not what is in sight here. We are increasing and bettering that salvation and its relationship by what we do.

This does not make sense to the Protestant mind because you think that once you "accept Jesus" you are as justified as you will ever be because it is a legal declaration and not a living relationship. I do hope you understand the difference between a legal declaration and a relationship.

Ask a couple who has been married for 50 years, and have really worked to please each other and love each other, if they love each other more today than they did when they first got married. The answer is going to be "Of course we do." Why? Because they worked at it -- that is, they did the things that deepened their relationship and drew them closer together.

Eternal life is not a thing either. It is union with Christ Jesus. The closer we get to Him, the deeper we enter into our relationship with Him, the more holy we become and the more we make sure our call to eternal life. Protestant soteriology treats eternal life as if it is a thing that God gives us, and then, because He is not an Indian giver, will never take away from us. That again is not how a relationship works. I can leave Jesus just as the Prodigal Son left his father. And if I do not return in repentance for my preferring sin over Him, I will forfeit the inheritance of eternal life which is laid up in store for us. (1 Peter 1:4).

You have salvation the minute you are baptized into Christ. You do not have the fullness of eternal life until you go through the Judgment spoken of in John 5:28-29 and Romans 2:5-10. All you have is the "earnest of the inheritance" (Ephesians 1: 14). You have the "downpayment" or promise of more to come.

I know this will be hard to understand because you have been erroneously told the legal idea of salvation, which is not found in scripture. Our salvation is a relationship, or covenant, not a legal declaration.

 

[Nomad]

IrishEddieOhara,

You claimed that works have "nothing" to do with salvation and that Trent reaffirmed this. I demonstrated that Rome reaffirms no such thing. Now you want to say Trent is ambiguous. Trent is not ambiguous. There's no need to "take apart" the statements made by Trent. They are painfully clear. According to Trent works not only preserve and increase justification, they also merit "the attainment of eternal life itself." Does that sound like works have "nothing" to do with salvation according to Trent?

If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema. - The Council Of Trent, Session 6, Canon 24

If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema.- The Council Of Trent, Session 6, Canon 32

 

[EAHARA]

IrishEddieOhara,

You claimed that works have "nothing" to do with salvation and that Trent reaffirmed this. I demonstrated that Rome reaffirms no such thing. Now you want to say Trent is ambiguous. Trent is not ambiguous. There's no need to "take apart" the statements made by Trent. They are painfully clear. According to Trent works not only preserve and increase justification, they also merit "the attainment of eternal life itself." Does that sound like works have "nothing" to do with salvation according to Trent?

Salvation and eternal life are not the same thing. Eternal life is described as the inheritance of salvation. The wording of Trent and Roman apologists is sometimes considerably ambiguous rather than as clear as it could be. They know what they are speaking of, but they forget that others don't speak the same language they do.

When you are saved, you are taken out of the condemnation which is in Adam and placed "in Christ". This is a relationship, and like all relationships, it can be either improved or destroyed by what we do. You did not at all address that part of my long reply to you.

Can you destroy your relationship with Christ? Yes or no?

 

[Dad of 3]

I was not using Catholicism to prove Catholicism. I was speaking of the act of baptism and how it is administered. When a child is baptized, he/she can do nothing, therefore, the salvation that is derived from baptism is completely free of being "works oriented"

This is exactly what you're doing: assuming that the Catholic Church is correct and applying that standard here, which will, of course, always lead to the same result, thus providing you with the predetermined answer that you want.

"For 1500 years, all of Christianity taught that baptism is regenerative and salvific. It was only with the introduction of heresies that cropped up in the Reformation that people began to regard baptism as having no efficacy to forgive sins and make one a member of the Kingdom of God."

Baptism, again, is purely symbolic and shows that the baptisee (to coin a new word) is undergoing a willing transformation and thus giving himself to God, becoming new in the process.

I do celebrate Passover. The Eucharist is the Passover celebrated in fulfillment.


I call BS at this point. Your definition of the Eucharist is bread and wine that at some undetermined point, become flesh and blood. Having taken communion for some 14 years, I never had either in my mouth. This is not a matter of faith, but of fact. Catholicism takes the body and blood of Christ literally instead of figuratively and symbolicly. Catholicism's use of communion has far more to do with the Last Supper than Passover; I don't remember smearing the blood of anything anywhere, which was integral in Passover, and was, at the same time, a predicition of the sacrifice of Christ.

"Sir, the more you speak, the more you are showing me that your understanding of the Catholic Faith is very weak at best. There is no connection whatsoever between the office of the pope and the gift of prophecy. None."

If that's so, then what's the point of the Pope at all? He can't prophesy, he can't perform miracles, and he can't speak for God, so he is then, after all, just an old guy with a stupid looking hat. If he walked into the room right now and presented his papal ring, I'd present my Irish ass. I'll kiss yours if you kiss mine. He's no better than you or me. Again, I attended Transfiguration Catholic Church and school in the late 1970s, was confirmed, went to catechism, observed stations of the cross, Lent, Advent, Palm Sunday, etc, etc, etc. I've forgotten more about Catholicism than many current Catholics know right now. I've even reading a book called 'Building on a Solid Foundation,' a book by Catholic apologists, and have considered rejoining the church periodically, but when I hear this sort of garbage coming from the apologists, it shoves me away again, reminding me of the reasons I left in the first place.

"Jesus gave the Keys to the Kingdom to St. Peter. You Protestants (and the Orthodox) continue to refuse to deal with the meaning behind that act, which is found in Isaiah 22:22. Jesus was making a statement that He is the servant found in Isaiah upon which the key of the Kingdom would be laid. That he would give these keys to Peter is an extremely significant act, and one that the Pharisees would surely not misunderstand."

A blatant lie, but here's your chance to show me your version of the facts. Where did he give Peter the keys? You can't find it because it didn't happen; you want to take part of it literally and part of it figuratively in order to support your point of view, one that has no basis in Biblical fact. That's a convenient splitting of hairs.

I am not now, nor have I ever claimed Protestantism as my faith. You make too many assumptions about me, all of which, I'll have you know, will be wrong. Next you're gonna tell me that Mary was a virgin, an old argument that's been undermined and thoroughly disproven long before my time.

"The working of miracles is not a prerequisite for being elected to the office. Once again you show that you were a nominal Catholic at best, since you make the claim that we worship the pope. Even some Protestants at least know that such a statement is not true."

I don't recall having said that Catholics worship the Pope. This is another assumption that you are wrong in making. Catholics, however, worship saints and Mary, none of which are equal to Jesus Christ Almighty and therefore not worthy of praise. To whom did Pope John Paul II thank for his recovery after being shot? It wasn't Jesus, was it? Nope, it was Mary.

And insults don't become you. It's this sort of nonsense that keeps me away from the Catholic Church, the finger pointing and name calling. This reminds me of the aforementioned things that lead you to Hell, which is just about everything.

So you point out that Joseph Smith was a false prophet and they go to Matthew 24:36? Is that right? That seems an odd verse for them to refer to, seeing as how no one did indeed know either the hour or the day of Christ's return.

No, it's not; they use the clause '...in this generation...' as their standard for 'proof' that if one is wrong, both are wrong.

 

[EAHARA]

No, it's not; they use the clause '...in this generation...' as their standard for 'proof' that if one is wrong, both are wrong.

Now I see why I am confused. You have the wrong verse up!!!

Let me see if I can find it......

Oh yeah....you want Matt. 24:34 not 36!!!

LOL!!!

Okay....the next time some Mormon tries to run this on you, you should tell them that Christ was right and that these things all did happen within that generation who were listening to Him. Mathew 24 is a description of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Christ was right and the Mormons are dead wrong.

 

[Dad of 3]

Now I see why I am confused. You have the wrong verse up!!!

Let me see if I can find it......

Oh yeah....you want Matt. 24:34 not 36!!!

LOL!!!

Okay....the next time some Mormon tries to run this on you, you should tell them that Christ was right and that these things all did happen within that generation who were listening to Him. Mathew 24 is a description of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Christ was right and the Mormons are dead wrong.

Sorry, that was a typo. My mind works a lot faster than my hands and I try to correct all of my mistakes, but they creep in on occasion. Thanks for the correction.