The Church The Papacy Says You Should Join

[Taken]

And yet, you cannot refute the overwhelming number of warnings

I have NOT ONCE refuted that men can LOSE their Salvation...!!

to the born-again faithful to REMAIN faithful so as not to LOSE their security

I absolutely DISAGREE with "YOU" that men can LOSE their Salvation....
AFTER HAVING RECEIVED THEIR SALVATION.

His Spirit is only with you as long as YOU allow it.

That IS TRUE..."IF" a man has NOT YET been CONVERTED.

That IS FALSE..."IF" a man HAS BEEN CONVERTED.

The choice is ALWAYS yours.

The CHOICE TO BE CONVERTED OR NOT BE CONVERTED is ALWAYS yours...

(NOT your mommy and daddy as you Teach).

Your Choice to BECOME CONVERTED IS ONCE AND FOREVER....so BE SURE of "YOUR" ELECTION...

2 Pet 1 [10] .... give diligence to make your calling and election sure:

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

And as usual – you rave on like a person who is totally ignorant of Scripture and history.

Early Christians were very big on relics – and that came from JEWISH culture – not from Egypt.

LOL...Early "Catholics" claim to have all kinds of things from nails, pieces of the cross to Jesus' foreskin...

Unproven Catholic claims, much like you have Learned to do.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

BreadOfLife said;

As for logic NOT being of God – this is an asinine proposition. God IS logical and so is His Divine Word.

LOL

Really? For example...

It IS LOGICAL to believe in something you can neither SEE or HEAR or TOUCH or SMELL?

It IS LOGICAL to believe you can be both DEAD and ALIVE?

It IS LOGICAL to believe the WHOLE Earth was covered in Water and ONLY 8 persons survived?

It is LOGICAL to believe a man who is NOT GOOD, "is" Holy?
(Remember, you repeatedly saying "no man is good"....and yet as a Catholic you claim "YOUR HOLY FATHER" is a succession of appointed Human men.)

LOL...LOL

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

BreadOFLife said:

What’s NOT logical is your constant rejection of His truth.

In FACT; your LOGIC is "CATHOLIC" LOGIC, A redefining of the TERM "LOGIC", by your own CATHOLIC leadership that YOU FOLLOW.

In FACT; your CATHOLIC LOGIC, is to MAKE CLAIMS, with NO evidence of your CLAIM.

Here is an EXAMPLE of CATHOLIC LOGIC..

As for there being no mention of Mary’s gravesite – it’s because there wasn’t one.

No mention of Mary's gravesite...uh huh, I ALREADY said that.

Now your ADOPTED CATHOLIC LOGIC from your CATHOLIC leadership;

In fact, the Early Church UNANIMOUSLY agreed that she (MARY) was assumed into Heaven – body and soul.

LOL...
NO exclusive Scriptural mention of Mary's BODY being Risen UP to Heaven.
NO exclusive Scriptural mention of Mary's SOUL being Risen UP to Heaven.
NO exclusive Scriptural mention of Mary's SPIRIT being Risen UP to Heaven.

CATHOLIC LOGIC....
No Scriptural mention of Mary's BODY, SOUL, SPIRIT....must mean her body and soul
Rose UP to Heaven. <--- LOL

LOL...

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

BreadOfLife said:

Finally – the fact that you’re arguing about the idea that Christians are SUPPOSED to intercede for one another by praying for each other (James 6:16) speaks VOLUMES about how clueless you are when it comes to Scripture . . .

Really? LOL....because you ALSO are arguing....thus making yourself according to you...CLUELESS.. LOL

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[BreadOfLife]

I have NOT ONCE refuted that men can LOSE their Salvation...!!

Another LIE.
\You absolutely have stated that men cannot lose their salvation.

You have stated that those who aren't saved were NEVER born again or saved to begin with.
You have stated that a person who is "truly" born again cannot SIN or lose their salvation.

The Bible condemns this kind of arrogance (Matt. 5:13, Matt. 7:21, Rom. 11:22, Heb. 10:26-27, 2 Peter 2:20-22, 2 Peter 3:17, Rev. 3:5, Rev. 22:19)

 

[BreadOfLife]

BreadOfLife said:

Really? LOL....because you ALSO are arguing....thus making yourself according to you...CLUELESS.. LOL

Glory to God,
Taken

WOW - another LIE.

I'm NOT arguing against this fact.
We are SUPPOSED to intercede for one another (James 5:16).

 

[BreadOfLife]

BreadOFLife said:

In FACT; your LOGIC is "CATHOLIC" LOGIC, A redefining of the TERM "LOGIC", by your own CATHOLIC leadership that YOU FOLLOW.
In FACT; your CATHOLIC LOGIC, is to MAKE CLAIMS, with NO evidence of your CLAIM.
Here is an EXAMPLE of CATHOLIC LOGIC..

No mention of Mary's gravesite...uh huh, I ALREADY said that.
Now your ADOPTED CATHOLIC LOGIC from your CATHOLIC leadership;

LOL...
NO exclusive Scriptural mention of Mary's BODY being Risen UP to Heaven.
NO exclusive Scriptural mention of Mary's SOUL being Risen UP to Heaven.
NO exclusive Scriptural mention of Mary's SPIRIT being Risen UP to Heaven.

CATHOLIC LOGIC....
No Scriptural mention of Mary's BODY, SOUL, SPIRIT....must mean her body and soul
Rose UP to Heaven. <--- LOL

LOL...

Glory to God,
Taken

Time for a BIBLE lesson . . .

Rev. 11:19-12:2
Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.
A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.

Mary is the ONLY person in the ENTIRE Book of Revelation who is described as having an entire body - from head to toe.
HOW do you get an entire body into Heaven BEFORE the Resurrection of the Dead?? By being ASSUMED into Heaven like Mary or Elijah or Enoch.

There ends the lesson . . .

 

[epostle]

BreadOFLife said:


In FACT; your LOGIC is "CATHOLIC" LOGIC, A redefining of the TERM "LOGIC", by your own CATHOLIC leadership that YOU FOLLOW.

In FACT; your CATHOLIC LOGIC, is to MAKE CLAIMS, with NO evidence of your CLAIM.

Here is an EXAMPLE of CATHOLIC LOGIC..



No mention of Mary's gravesite...uh huh, I ALREADY said that.

Now your ADOPTED CATHOLIC LOGIC from your CATHOLIC leadership;



LOL...
NO exclusive Scriptural mention of Mary's BODY being Risen UP to Heaven.
NO exclusive Scriptural mention of Mary's SOUL being Risen UP to Heaven.
NO exclusive Scriptural mention of Mary's SPIRIT being Risen UP to Heaven.

CATHOLIC LOGIC....
No Scriptural mention of Mary's BODY, SOUL, SPIRIT....must mean her body and soul
Rose UP to Heaven. <--- LOL

LOL...

Glory to God,
Taken

There is no exclusive Scriptural mention of sola scriptura anywhere in the Bible, but you base all your doctrines on it.

 

[brakelite]

Mary is the ONLY person in the ENTIRE Book of Revelation who is described as having an entire body - from head to toe.
HOW do you get an entire body into Heaven BEFORE the Resurrection of the Dead?? By being ASSUMED into Heaven like Mary or Elijah or Enoch.

KJV Revelation 12
Two Signs
1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered....
....5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Mary was still pregnant in heaven? Clothed with the sun, and standing on the moon?

 

[BreadOfLife]

KJV Revelation 12
Two Signs
1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered....
....5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Mary was still pregnant in heaven? Clothed with the sun, and standing on the moon?

It is prophetic symbolism. - not history.

No matter WHO who attribute the symbol to - it is OUTSIDE of time.
The one who was born of the Woman destined to rule ALL nations with an iron rod is CHRIST. He was already born - so why aren't you trying to refute that, Einstein??

 

[epostle]

BreadOFLife said:
In FACT; your LOGIC is "CATHOLIC" LOGIC, A redefining of the TERM "LOGIC", by your own CATHOLIC leadership that YOU FOLLOW.
In FACT; your CATHOLIC LOGIC, is to MAKE CLAIMS, with NO evidence of your CLAIM.
Here is an EXAMPLE of CATHOLIC LOGIC..
No mention of Mary's gravesite...uh huh, I ALREADY said that.
Now your ADOPTED CATHOLIC LOGIC from your CATHOLIC leadership;
LOL...
NO exclusive Scriptural mention of Mary's BODY being Risen UP to Heaven.
NO exclusive Scriptural mention of Mary's SOUL being Risen UP to Heaven.
NO exclusive Scriptural mention of Mary's SPIRIT being Risen UP to Heaven.
CATHOLIC LOGIC....
No Scriptural mention of Mary's BODY, SOUL, SPIRIT....must mean her body and soul
Rose UP to Heaven. <--- LOL
LOL...
Glory to God,
Taken

This was on a public Facebook discussion thread on a friend’s Facebook page, underneath mention of a review of the above book of mine by Devin Rose. Greg Still describes himself as a “”skeptical Pentecostal” and is a former Catholic. His words will be in blue.

Since you brought up the supposed “Assumption of Mary” let us deal with that. You suggest that because a thing did happen to others (Enoch, Elijah etcetera) that it could have happened to Mary. That’s a poor argument for the idea that Mary was assumed.
Angels came down many times in the OT and a couple of times in the NT. Should we then say that Moroni visited Joseph Smith?

Certainly, if Mary had been assumed, the Bible would have mentioned something about it – for it would have occurred during the apostolic era. And if the Apostles wanted the saints to “venerate” her, they would have mentioned SOMETHING about it? But, no. Catholic apologists take a few words that Jesus spoke to John on the cross, “behold thy mother”, and add to it a dumpster-full of tradition.

Briefly: the Bible does mention the “woman clothed with the sun” in heaven (Rev. 12:1). Her child is clearly Jesus (Rev 12:5). It’s not rocket science to figure out that this is Mary, and that she is portrayed in quite a glorious state in heaven. If you want more Catholic perspectives on this (and Mary as mediatrix and intercessor and spiritual mother), see my Blessed Virgin Mary web page.

‎Certainly, if Mary had been assumed, the Bible would have mentioned something about it.

By Protestant reasoning, “certainly, if sola Scriptura were true, the Bible would have mentioned something about it“. But it never does, which is the topic of my book. That doesn’t stop Protestants from making an entirely non-biblical, anti-biblical concept the very foundation and bedrock and pillar of their authority structure. They do it anyway. Then, having done that, they demand that we adopt the same illogical reasoning with regard to Catholic distinctives like Mary’s Assumption.

We never claimed that absolutely everything has to be explicitly laid out in Scripture, precisely because the Bible never teaches this. That is your game, and thus your burden to defend, not ours.

Your statement above is classic. You believe this firmly, yet the Bible never states such a thing. Thus, you supposedly appeal to the Bible itself with a completely non-biblical idea that can’t be found there. Then you try to bind Catholics to this silly notion: so now you are arbitrarily applying an arbitrary tradition of men to us, as if we have to play by those rules . . . We think logically and biblically, so no dice!...

...
Yes; in past treatments of the topic I have taken the view that Rev. 12:17 has a dual application: to Mary and the Church (and Mary as a figure of the Church). That is quite common in Scripture. I did this in my first book, which was completed 16 years ago this month, so that is nothing new with me.

However, the part specifically about giving birth to the child (who is Christ) must be about Mary, I contend, if it is about Christ, because Jesus was not a product of the Church, since He preceded it and initiated it. Therefore, that part is specifically talking about Mary. The Bible never uses a terminology of Jesus being a “child” (Rev 12:5) of the Church. He is the child of God the Father (His Divine Nature) and of Mary (as a person with both a Divine and human nature). The Church is “of Christ”; Christ is not “of the Church”; let alone its “child.” Those categories are biblically ludicrous and indeed almost blasphemous.

Your interpretation of “male child” is incoherent. “Rule all nations with a rod of iron” is clearly hearkening back to the messianic passage Psalm 2:7-9, which is again reflected in Rev 19:15 (absolutely about Jesus). It’s true that there is a secondary application along your lines in Rev 2:27, but you still have to deal with the phrase “caught up to God and to his throne” (Rev 12:5; RSV). That can’t mean “the twelve thrones” referred to in Matt 19:18 (cf. Lk 22:30; Rev 4:4; 11:16) because it says “his [i.e., God’s] throne.” Only Jesus is connected directly with that, because He is God.

And so we see Jesus (unlike any created men) sitting on God’s throne (Matt 19:28; 25:31; Heb 1:8; Rev 7:17; 22:1, 3).

Therefore, this proves that Rev 12:5 is referring to Jesus alone, and thus, His mother in this particular passage must be Mary, since it cannot be the Church, per the reasoning above. Other parts of the entire passage also have an application to the Church, as the Catholic Church continues to teach today.

Revelation 12:17 is no problem since it can either be an instance of the dual meaning of “Church” or Mary as a spiritual mother in a different sense (tying into the same John at the cross receiving Mary as his “mother”). We accept the dual application. It is you who are denying the Marian application, which doesn’t fly in light of the exegesis and cross-referencing that I have shown you.

And if it is Mary in this passage (as well as the Church), then we have an indication of both her veneration and glorification in heaven, akin to the Assumption (whereas you claimed there was nothing in Scripture at all about it: as if the Assumption were solely an arbitrary tradition of men, like sola Scriptura is .

BUT if there is a MAJOR DOCTRINE of the church, then the scriptures must surely say SOMETHING about it.

Yes, and I showed that it does: by analogy (Enoch, Elijah, and Paul’s experience in the second heaven), and the data of Revelation 12, just discussed. Therefore I have demonstrated “SOMETHING about it.” You just disagree (on inadequate grounds). I showed implicit grounds, which is what you want, since you deny that you require explicit grounds. Therefore, I succeeded in my task, according to your challenge. I provided what you asked for. It continues to be the case, on the other hand, that sola Scriptura is entirely absent from the Bible and massively contradicted in it at every turn. So you hang by your own false premise, whereas we are not harmed at all by it because we reject it as unscriptural in the first place.
Mary: The Blessed Virgin (Index Page)

 

[Taken]

Another LIE.
\You absolutely have stated that men cannot lose their salvation.

You have stated that those who aren't saved were NEVER born again or saved to begin with.
You have stated that a person who is "truly" born again cannot SIN or lose their salvation.

The Bible condemns this kind of arrogance (Matt. 5:13, Matt. 7:21, Rom. 11:22, Heb. 10:26-27, 2 Peter 2:20-22, 2 Peter 3:17, Rev. 3:5, Rev. 22:19)

FALSE ACCUSER.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

WOW - another LIE.

I'm NOT arguing against this fact.
We are SUPPOSED to intercede for one another (James 5:16).

FALSE ACCUSER.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

Time for a BIBLE lesson . . .

Rev. 11:19-12:2
Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.
A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.

Mary is the ONLY person in the ENTIRE Book of Revelation who is described as having an entire body - from head to toe.
HOW do you get an entire body into Heaven BEFORE the Resurrection of the Dead?? By being ASSUMED into Heaven like Mary or Elijah or Enoch.

There ends the lesson . . .

FALSE ACCUSER.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

There is no exclusive Scriptural mention of sola scriptura anywhere in the Bible, but you base all your doctrines on it.

I TRUST all Scripture is True.

I ALSO Trust the Lords Understanding I seek and ask Him for...That is Not Written IN Scripture.

1 Cor 2

[10] But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

This was on a public Facebook discussion thread on a friend’s Facebook page, underneath mention of a review of the above book of mine by Devin Rose. Greg Still describes himself as a “”skeptical Pentecostal” and is a former Catholic. His words will be in blue.

Thanks for sharing, however I do not participate in facebook for a reason...not particularly interested.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[ScottA]

That’s absolute rubbish.

I didn’t refer to anybody as “them”.
I simply quoted Peter and the author of Hebrews who were writing under the inspiration of the HOLY SPIRIT. And having EPIGNOSIS of Christ means that they were born again believers.

If YOU have a problem with Epignosis – take it up with God – HE’S the author . . .

WRONG again, my Scripturally-bankrupt friend.

At least TWO of those passages (Heb. 10:26-27, 2 Peter 2:20-22) speak to born again believers with an EPIGNOSIS of Christ and the danger of them falling back into darkness and losing their security. Epignosis is defined as a FULL and experiential knowledge - not just an intellectual assent.

What again was it that you called those who lie?

...Speaking of name-calling...you don't need to call me "friend."

 

[brakelite]

since you deny that you require explicit grounds.

The gentleman in question may not have required explicit grounds, but in the face of evidence that suggests the woman of Revelation 12 is metaphorical as is the rest of the picture she is part of, I think it is essential we have something reasonably explicit considering the subsequent ramifications that the doctrine has given birth to. Have you considered that God deliberately hid the death of Mary and her grave, for the very reason we are having this discussion? Because Mary worship is a reality. Her exaltation in the minds of Catholics to a position of mediatrix is a reality. Her elevation to a point where she replaces the Son of God as sole Mediator between God and man is a reality. These things despite the complete lack of empirical evidence as to her assumption. What lengths of deviant idolatry would we be witnessing today if Mary was truly exalted to a position of honour equal to her Son...a position she now holds just as an assumed doctrine? (pun intended).
The article above posits the idea that Mary is a figure for the church. But on what grounds? The church, that is the 'ekklesia' which is merely the collective of God's people, (not necessarily a specific church with a name and address), has been around since Abel knelt before his altar and got bopped on the head for his troubles. He at that time, was the church. Later, God's church was in the wilderness after having escaped Egypt. Again, a little later on, the entire church was rowing in a storm while Jesus slept under a canvass. The article's contention that the church didn't start until after the ascension/Pentecost/ etc is wrong. It is also wrong that that the church didn't bring forth the Messiah...even Eve herself had the hope that her Saviour was her next child; as every Jewess and daughter of God had done so since...and in some quarters, still doing. The section that says,

I contend, if it is about Christ, because Jesus was not a product of the Church, since He preceded it and initiated it.

is clever semantics, but takes the vision of Revelation 12 too far, because as in every analogy and metaphor, we cannot expect every single detail to perfectly fit the picture God is revealing to us. The woman of Revelation 12 is the church. Just as the woman of Revelation 17 is also the church. Which church are the two visions applied to is more important question.

 

[BreadOfLife]

What again was it that you called those who lie?

...Speaking of name-calling...you don't need to call me "friend."

Why are you dancing around the issue??

“Them” includes YOU and anybody else who claims to have been born again, having an Epignosis of Christ.
Scripture warns ALL born again Christians not to fall back into darkness and lose it all . . .