I'm calling on everyone here in this forum EXCEPT Catholics !!!

[Ag_not]

**AG: **Whatever you bind on earth… whatever you lose on earth…

RA: Again, yet ANOTHER verse utterly perverted. This is so tragic. All you need to do is a few word studies and a look at the context to see that such an idea is not supported by the text. This is shocking to me, in a way, to see scripture so misused to support various ideas. And, of course, very sad.

This is showing me repeatedly in the most strongest of terms why I am not a RC, and why I utterly reject the RCC, and will never return to Rome.

BUT, at the same time, I will gladly hang with all of you at a home BBQ, County Fair, or a restaurant (if someone will take me out to an Italian place in honor of the Pope). (that is, if you can even hang around with someone who is Anathema).

And I’ll add that I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT view the RCC as I view the LDS Church or other “cults.”

RA

Richard - YOUR interpretation of these words, in context, doing all sorts of word forensic analysis IS NOT more correct than the Catholic Church who has had the greatest minds in history and a 2000 year head start on YOU.

YOU are in error. YOUR interpretatipon is INCORRECT. The CATHOLIC CHURCH is correct.

Learn to live with it

 

[Richard_Abanes]

**ncGolf: **Well use the Church to create the Canon … then toss the Church out because She doesn’t know what She is talking about? No Church … no Bible so Bible alone Christians can thank the Catholic Church.Your welcome.

RA: The church that created the canon was not the RCC of today, which is NOT traceable, BTW, to Peter (the alleged first *married *Pope). Moreover, the very definition of “church” in the Bible in the Greek has nothing to do with an organization or institution.

Before any RCC, the Bible was already being circulated in letter form and recognized and accepted by believers, but not collated in a formalized version.

No early Christians…no Bible. So RCs can thank early Christians who looked to the Bible alone before there ever was a RCC. We Bible-alone believers are their legacy – your welcome, by proxy.

R.A.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

AG: Richard - YOUR interpretation of these words, in context, doing all sorts of word forensic analysis IS NOT more correct than the Catholic Church

RA: Jesus said:

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your MIND and with all your strength…Mark 12:30

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your MIND …Luke 10:27

Start being obedient in this area…

R.A.

 

[Ag_not]

Before any RCC, the Bible was already being circulated in letter form and recognized and accepted by believers, but not collated in a formalized version.

So, the Bible as we have it today was fully formed, in book order, and available to all, from AD000 None of the books were agreed as inspired under the direction of the Holy Spirit And books werent rejected

Wow. Youre right. You DO know more that 2000 years of continuous unbroken apostolic succession :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

 

[Ag_not]

Start being obedient in this area…

R.A.

I am - to the catholic church. Not to your or any other protestants interpretations and protestations.

 

[ncgolf]

Like a pamphlet … what specific books were in this letter format …no doubt gospels were floating around … we know now what is in the Canon … what was in thse letters? Can you specify these please?

**ncGolf: **Well use the Church to create the Canon … then toss the Church out because She doesn’t know what She is talking about? No Church … no Bible so Bible alone Christians can thank the Catholic Church.Your welcome.

RA: The church that created the canon was not the RCC of today, which is NOT traceable, BTW, to Peter (the alleged first *married *Pope). Moreover, the very definition of “church” in the Bible in the Greek has nothing to do with an organization or institution.

Before any RCC, the Bible was already being circulated in letter form and recognized and accepted by believers, but not collated in a formalized version.

No early Christians…no Bible. So RCs can thank early Christians who looked to the Bible alone before there ever was a RCC. We Bible-alone believers are their legacy – your welcome, by proxy.

R.A.

 

[sandusky]

Like a pamphlet … what specific books were in this letter format …no doubt gospels were floating around … we know now what is in the Canon … what was in thse letters? Can you specify these please?

With respect to the OT and NT, all of them.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

AG: So, the Bible as we have it today was fully formed, in book order, and available to all, from AD000 None of the books were agreed as inspired under the direction of the Holy Spirit And books weren’t rejected

RA: Well, that’s not at all what I said, but a nice strawman argument (the usual approach when what has been said can’t be addressed).

RA

 

[Richard_Abanes]

Sand: With respect to the OT and NT, all of them.

**RA: **Thank you. Sand. Oh, and btw for everyone else, yes the Old Testament was indeed actually formed and accepted by the Jews as early as the time of Christ (and BTW, NOT the Catholic Old Testament, just FYI).

RA

 

[Richard_Abanes]

ncGolf: Like a pamphlet … what specific books were in this letter format …no doubt gospels were floating around … we know now what is in the Canon … what was in thse letters? Can you specify these please?

RA: Just out of curiosity…Do you even know how we got our BIble?

RA

 

[Ag_not]

RA: Well, that’s not at all what I said, but a nice strawman argument (the usual approach when what has been said can’t be addressed).
RA

Oh what you say CAN be addressed. In fact, it’s been addressed for 2000 years by theologians and doctors of the church, men and women with much much greater minds than you will ever have. The arrogance to think you know something that never occured to these saintly minds is simply staggering. It’s also been addressed by all the catholic responders to you here.

I’m personally not getting drawn by you because you are identical to another poster here currently under review. You have exactly the same agenda as he does. You are not here to debate and learn from catholics. You are here to correct their disordered thinking and try and draw them away from the one true church.

You dress it up much nicer than the other bible thumper, with your whimsical oh I’d share a BBQ with you guys, but I saw straight through you in your very first post.

Oh, said with all due christian charity and love, of course

 

[ncgolf]

ncGolf: Like a pamphlet … what specific books were in this letter format …no doubt gospels were floating around … we know now what is in the Canon … what was in thse letters? Can you specify these please?

RA: Just out of curiosity…Do you even know how we got our BIble?

RA

Please enlighten us ignoramus Catholics.

 

[sandusky]

You dress it up much nicer than the other bible thumper…

Would that make you a tradition thumper?

 

[Richard_Abanes]

AG: Oh what you say CAN be addressed. In fact, it’s been addressed for 2000 years by theologians and doctors of the church, men and women with much much greater minds than you will ever have. The arrogance to think you know something that never occurred to these saintly minds is simply staggering. It’s also been addressed by all the catholic responders to you here.

**RA: **Do you ACTUALLY think that what I am saying is something I have just come up with out of thin air in my own private Idaho, shut away in a dark room somewhere with candles, and now I have come out to you in order to give everyone the truth? Or do you think I somehow see myself in this way? How frighteningly absurd. The Reformation took place in in the 1500, thank you very much. Go read Luther. Go read Calvin. Go read Spurgeon. Go read Oswald Chambers. Go read Wesley. Go read C.S. Lewis. Go read Billy Graham. Go read anything in a dozen Protestant Seminaries in America. AG, my friend, you’re being silly and almost, dare I say, deliberately insulting.

AG: I’m personally not getting drawn by you because you are identical to another poster here currently under review. You have exactly the same agenda as he does.

RA: I have already stated my “agenda.” I am NOT Roman Catholic, so when I disagree with something, I am going to state why. That’s called freedom of speech. I have also stated that if someone was going to go into the RCC from being an agnostic, that was praiseworthy to me (please search threads). Moreover, I favorable mentioned, and included his book, FRANK BECKWITH, who left evangelicalism to return to Rome. So, please, stop with the baseless accusations. It helps no one.

**AG:**You are not here to debate and learn from catholics. You are here to correct their disordered thinking and try and draw them away from the one true church.

**RA: **Wait, debate? I can indeed debate here? Well, coo. I thought that’s exactly what we were doing? What do you call what has been transpiring here. Sounds like good, healthy, debate to me.

**AG: **You dress it up much nicer than the other bible thumper, with your whimsical oh I’d share a BBQ with you guys, but I saw straight through you in your very first post.

**RA: **Sad, my friend. I am no Bible Thumper. And I think I have shown that. And the true “Bible Thumpers” hate me, dare I say, more than anyone here possibly could. I challenge, correct, and rebuke them even harsher than you, because they are supposedly of my own Protestant household of faith.

You’ve basically called me a liar. I accept your apology in advance…

R.A.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

NC: Please enlighten us ignoramus Catholics.

RA: I asked you a question.

R.A.

 

[steve_b]

What else can I say, Pal?

You could address the passages that provide the context for the summary statements you like to quote, instead of inserting your own pretext.

sand:

There’s no such place called purgatory; you don’t prove the existence of purgatory by simply plopping some verses onto a page, sans any explanation.

You ignored the verses altogether that were given showing

• a 3rd existance besides heaven and hell where souls are
• that showed punishment after judgement that was NOT hell, but was temporary, BEFORE entry to heaven

sand:

Christ has removed the issue of sin and punishment for those who believe—all of it (Col 2:13ff).

:doh2: That’s NOT what it says at all. Where do you see YOUR punishment for sin is removed???

Let’s look at the context of Col 2:13

9 For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily, 10* and you have come to fulness of life in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 16* Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. 17* These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

the context is canceling circumcision, (entrance into the OT covenant) and the legalities of dietary laws etc which are ALL works of the Mosaic Law in which one was dead to sin vs instituting the new covenant sacrament of baptism where one is made alive through Jesus…
context context context

 

[Richard_Abanes]

Steve: context context context

**RA: ** That’s a good one…Now context suddenly matters. Let’s try that with 11 and going into Hebrews 12, shall we, and apply it to the great cloud of “witnesses.” Oooops!!!

RA

 

[sandusky]

You could address the passages that provide the context for the summary statements you like to quote, instead of inserting your own pretext.

I’m saving myself from repeating myself on this forum for the umpteenth time, as you’ll dismiss what I say anyway.
steve b:

You ignored the verses altogether that were given showing

• a 3rd existance besides heaven and hell where souls are
• that showed punishment after judgement that was NOT hell, but was temporary, BEFORE entry to heaven

The promise was paradise, and I find the three uses of that Greek word in the NT to be referring to heaven, and not to purgatory, as there’s no such place.

:doh2: That’s NOT what it says at all. Where do you see YOUR punishment for sin is removed???

…the context is canceling circumcision, (entrance into the OT covenant) and the legalities of dietary laws etc which are ALL works of the Mosaic Law in which one was dead to sin vs instituting the new covenant sacrament of baptism where one is made alive through Jesus…

context context context I know the context, and I also know that the debt spoken of as having been cancelled is the debt of sin :yup:, and not the “canceling of circumcision.” :nope:

 

[Richard_Abanes]

Sand: I’m saving myself from repeating myself on this forum for the umpteenth time, as you’ll dismiss what I say anyway.

RA: Yeah, that’s kind of a recurring problem for you and me, it seems.

RA

 

[sandusky]

Sand: I’m saving myself from repeating myself on this forum for the umpteenth time, as you’ll dismiss what I say anyway.

RA: Yeah, that’s kind of a recurring problem for you and me, it seems.

RA

Spend 3+ years here. Oy vay…