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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ag_not
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SAND: Spend 3+ years here. Oy vay…

RA: I’ll be very honest with you. I’d rather spend 3 years *here *than 3 months or even 3 days on a Fundamentalist board (and several extreme/fringe evangelical boards (called Online Discernment Ministries, i.e., ODMs) – It takes only about 3 days for me there to be called a liar, false Christian, New Age deceiver, a money-lover, a persecutor of the faithful, scoundrel, Bible hated, a follower of men …even a Nazi. (And wow, do they really HATE RCs). Seriously, I got a whole list of some really interesting accusations. LoL. I’d much rather hang out here.

RA
 
Richard_Abanes said:
SAND: Spend 3+ years here. Oy vay…

RA: I’ll be very honest with you. I’d rather spend 3 years *here *than 3 months or even 3 days on a Fundamentalist board (and several extreme/fringe evangelical boards (called Online Discernment Ministries, i.e., ODMs) – It takes only about 3 days for me there to be called a liar, false Christian, New Age deceiver, a money-lover, a persecutor of the faithful, scoundrel, Bible hated, a follower of men …even a Nazi. (And wow, do they really HATE RCs). Seriously, I got a whole list of some really interesting accusations. LoL. I’d much rather hang out here.

RA
Click to expand...
I agree, and, I’ve made a few “friends” here. 🙂
 
sandusky said:
I’m saving myself from repeating myself on this forum for the umpteenth time, as you’ll dismiss what I say anyway.

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.

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:
Click to expand...
I directly addressed your post but again you didn’t address my post.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4362540&postcount=555
 
Richard_Abanes said:
You’ve basically called me a liar. I accept your apology in advance…

R.A.
Click to expand...
No apology extended or required.

I did NOT call you a liar. I did NOT incinuate you were lying. I did NOT imply you were lying.

I clearly said I think you have an agenda here. And I do.
I clearly said *I think *you are here to correct catholic so called disordered thinking. And I do.
I clearly said *I think *you are arrogant in the extreme to think that you, having read Luther and Calvin and others and forming your faith around their teachings and your experience of the catholic church, know better than some of the greatest theological minds that ever existed. And I do.
I clearly said I am astounded that you think your arguements have not been considered and addressed by all the doctors and theologians of the Catholic Church and dismissed refuted or addressed. And do.

I am being honest and open with you.

This is what I think. This is my opinion. If I’m wrong about you, so be it. But right now I don’t think I am. But hey, considering the abuse heaped on you by your other protestant brothers, my humble opinion wont bother you in the least 👍
 
AG: I clearly said I think

**RA: **Ahhhhhh, okay. Cool. Well, just fyi, you don’t have to THINK those things anymore, because I am TELLING you why I am here. 😃 I’m glad I could clear up your thoughts. 👍

RA
 
Richard_Abanes said:
Steve: context context context

**RA: **:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: 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!!! :eek:

RA
Click to expand...
I ALWAYS consider context. And what’s your point to Hebrews? I’ve never discussed this with you.
 
Steve,

The Hebrews thing is elsewhere in this thread, or another, I believe. My remark was in reference to what seems to me to be RC who actually tend to NOT take things in context, but rather, allow the Church to simply tell them what something means.

RA
 
graceandglory said:
By your response, I can tell you haven’t looked it up.

When you say you “know” the history of the word, you are going by what you have always thought it to be meant, whether that is right or wrong.

This is where a little bit of understanding in language study comes in handy.

For every word and concept there are basically two meanings:
**
  1. The connotative meaning: ** What the word means to each person, what a person “thinks” it means, whether they ever looked it up or not. It’s like figuring out the meaning of a word in the context of a sentence.
**2. The denotative meaning: **What the word actually means.

I’m telling you, I discovered the Catholic Church through my deep study and love of Scripture. I love my Strong’s concordance.

According to Strongs, if you ever bothered to look up words you didn’t know the actual meaning of but just assumed you knew:

We know as Christians that Christ did not ascend to heaven yet, so the fifth meaning of the Biblical word Paradise, can not be heaven. Which makes the most sense?

These are things a bible studying protestant could figure out on their own.
Click to expand...
There is a very Major problem looking up One Word in Strong’s: The bible was not written in English. And for sure not modern English.

There is One definitive Concordance prepared 100 Years ago: A Textual Concordance of the Holy Scriptures, Fr Thomas Williams, Tan which lists 1900 Topics, and gives 18,000 full Bible Quotes. :bible1:

One word concordances don’t work in modern English. 1900 Topics for Sure do.
God has Blessed you mightily in discovering His Church, the only Full Living Bible, as it was written! :blessyou:
 
First off, again, regarding Richard Abanes, I wouldn’t say he has an “agenda”. He is helping to up the level of debate and God bless him for it. Anyone has the right to come on these forums and debate and even convince Catholics they are wrong. If we are wrong, then they’ll be doing us a favor.

Regarding Purgatory, I actually consider it an application of what Christ did on the cross. The tremendous thing about what Christ has done for us is that His salvation will ultimately make us intrinsically and truly righteous.

What I don’t understand, is if someone reaches the end of this life and is not fully, intrinsically pure, and yet will be in heaven where they will be fully and intrinsically righteous, what happens between the state of not being fully pure at the end of this life and being fully pure in heaven? That transition I would call Purgatory (and someone can call it something else, it’s not so much the name, but what happens to us that is important to me).

Conversely, I really don’t see the glory to Christ and His cross of “forensic” justification where someone is declared righteous and yet really are not instrinsically righteous.
 
Brennan_Doherty said:
First off, again, regarding Richard Abanes, I wouldn’t say he has an “agenda”. He is helping to up the level of debate and God bless him for it. Anyone has the right to come on these forums and debate and even convince Catholics they are wrong. If we are wrong, then they’ll be doing us a favor.

Regarding Purgatory, I actually consider it an application of what Christ did on the cross. The tremendous thing about what Christ has done for us is that His salvation will ultimately make us intrinsically and truly righteous.

What I don’t understand, is if someone reaches the end of this life and is not fully, intrinsically pure, and yet will be in heaven where they will be fully and intrinsically righteous, what happens between the state of not being fully pure at the end of this life and being fully pure in heaven? That transition I would call Purgatory (and someone can call it something else, it’s not so much the name, but what happens to us that is important to me).

Conversely, I really don’t see the glory to Christ and His cross of “forensic” justification where someone is declared righteous and yet really are not instrinsically righteous in the least.
Click to expand...
I think every Christian can agree that when we get to Heaven we are changed, as the Bible says (PD paraphrase here) that corruptible will put on incorruptible, mortal will put on immortality, we will be changed! Why they have such an issue with the Church giving that change a name I’ll never know. They didn’t mind so much when the Church said that Trinity was the word we would use for our One God in Three Persons. They didn’t mind at all when the Church declared the 27 inspired books of the NT. 🤷
 
Richard_Abanes said:
Steve,

The Hebrews thing is elsewhere in this thread, or another, I believe. My remark was in reference to what seems to me to be RC who actually tend to NOT take things in context, but rather, allow the Church to simply tell them what something means.

RA
Click to expand...
:okpeople: Okay Richard,
  • Please give evidence of your global charge.that Catholics & the Catholic Church take things out of context
  • Please show where scripture teaches an individual like yourself can interpret scripture for yourself, apart from the Church? Especially since scripture teaches, the pllar and foundation of truth is the Church, NOT the individual
 
Richard_Abanes said:
Steve,

The Hebrews thing is elsewhere in this thread, or another, I believe. My remark was in reference to what seems to me to be RC who actually tend to NOT take things in context, but rather, allow the Church to simply tell them what something means.

RA
Click to expand...
Richard, Catholic Church Fathers wrote the NT, of God. They, and the Church today Know the Cultures, Meanings, Contexts, Honestly. No one else does. I asked a 50th Anniversary As Priest, 32 years Professor at aq Vatican Seminary (a Real Expert!!!) 2 questions at a Parish retreat a few years ago: Why does the OT speak of God killing all Babies, or Everyone in an area? He explained that was the WAy of teaching in the Pre-Saviiour times sometime,. It Was the Culture of That time, to Teach. And where did the famed "Sign of Peace’ of all Masses since the 1960’s come from, He answered “From the Apostles”. Fr Pacwa on EWTN explained that the Apostles knew the sometimes Jealousy, enmity among Some at early “Last Supper Feasts” (Masses). So they began the Eastern “Kiss of Peace” hug, “Lord be With You”
Good to know Where things came from, and detailed history, knowledge of the times, to understand :bible1:
And know that there is still an Eastern Orthodox Sect that Still speaks Aramaic, the Language of the Lord?
 
sandusky said:
Furthermore, the position of God concerning sin in the New Covenant is that He will not remember the believer’s sin:Jeremiah 31:31, 34**“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,…I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more**.”What your leadership has done in drafting this notion of purgatory, is negate God’s promise not to remember sin—they don’t have the authority to do that.
Click to expand...
God can will not to remember sin after He has forgiven. But He can also will to remember EVERYTHING again when the one HE forgives, does not likewise forgive. [Mt 18:21-35]

And while God can forgive one their debts, and save them, it doesn’t mean there is no punishment or purification of the sinner after death and before entry to heaven, [1 cor 3:10-15]
 
steve_b said:
God can will not to remember sin after He has forgiven. But He can also will to remember EVERYTHING again when the one HE forgives, does not likewise forgive. [Mt 18:21-35]

And while God can forgive one their debts, and save them, it doesn’t mean there is no punishment or purification of the sinner after death and before entry to heaven, [1 cor 3:10-15]
Click to expand...
God Knows all. He doesn’t forget. He spoke figuratively of forgetting the Sins of Isreal, not individual people, who he also ‘forgets’ our sins, Til our Judgement. Only He, not verses, decides His Judgement then.
 
I’m Catholic…but can I post on this thread if I’m here to give a hug?
:hug1:
 
I’m not certain but I think Richard Abanes has left the building. Someone on another thread suggested he was abusing the hospitality here by treating this as a forum for Protestants to fellowship, rather than recognizing that the forum exists to serve an apologetic purpose. Something to that effect anyhow.
 
Richard_Abanes said:
Steve,

The Hebrews thing is elsewhere in this thread, or another, I believe. My remark was in reference to what seems to me to be RC who actually tend to NOT take things in context, but rather, allow the Church to simply tell them what something means.

RA
Click to expand...
well i hope he comes back.

hi richard,

i don’t understand why you keep saying RC. i am not sure if you read my previous posts to you regarding that.

please answer me this?

do you think the Coptic Catholic Church “allow the Church to simply tell them what something means” as well?
 
Justification by faith alone is a problem. Not insurmountable however. Rom 5;9 is no longer a problem for me. I don’t read this as as being counter to the Roman Catholic position.

Marian doctrine as co-redeemer is a mystery to me. Again, though, not insurmountable. It seems quite mystical to me (but then again, I tend to the mystical).

I’d have to say that I am open to the RCC positions, now. I’ve read quite a bit lately (last five years). About the Reformation history, Luther’s history, the positons of ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together). Also bits of the Catechism, where I’ve tried to understand the RCC positions.

Also I’m looking at the early Church Fathers, a negleted fount of learning that the evangelicals seem to discount.

The more I listen to evangelicals the less I want to be a part of there movement. And on that point, Roman Catholics are just as evangelical as the Evangelicals. A silly name, I think–Evangelicals–since the word simply means someone who spreads the Gospel, including Catholics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top