"It's not biblical"

[PJM]

Satan can not touch those who belong to Christ!

Oh really:shrug:

So you and your christian friends are the only one’s living without sin? Wonder why we have the Commandments?

No sin? How about abortion, killing, slander, gossip, stealing, sexual affiars ect. ect. ect?

No sins, can’t be touched by Satan, tell me where you live I’d like to move there.

You might wish to reconsider your position, it’s not bibical

God bless you,
Pat Miron
Marian Catecheist

 

[onenow1]

HI, Charlye

Is there a verse in the Bible which gives the authority for any person to found his or her own church other than the ONE which Jesus Christ founded?

Can I, or anyone else simply hold up a Bible and declare, “This is my authority”? I haven’t found that verse in the bible yet, maybe you can help us?

Peace, onenow1

 

[foundthelight]

We have given you sound reason, based on the Bible as a whole, as to why we believe in the Assumption as a probable event.

You are asking for a verse which specifically states that she was assumed. When we cannot provide that individual verse you say we are wrong.

Yet when we ask you clear questions relating to scripture which have to be answered to understand us you refuse to answer.

And then you have the gall to say we, who place our faith and trust in Jesus Christ, are unsaved!

When will you defend your version of the Christian faith by answering our questions? We have answered yours.

 

[Church_Militant]

“It’s not biblical” most of the time means “It’s not explicitly in the Bible”. Even though it may be implied in the Bible, or based on something in the Bible, or Not be specifically forbidden by the Bible.
“It’s not biblical” is almost like a “fill in the blank question”

 

[Church_Militant]

What of the woman in verse 6, or in verse 14? I asked this previously but as yet have not had an explanation. You can’t proclaim this woman to be Mary in verse 5 and then discount the events taking place in other verses, speaking about the same “woman”.

p.s. **I am not “brother” Charlye **

6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her a thousand two hundred sixty days.

14 And there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the desert unto her place, where she is nourished for a time and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.The second one is some kind of vision, but the first is clearly a reference to the flight into Egypt which is found in Matthew 2:13-15, one of the many passages in the Bible that so many n-Cs just gloss over or ignore.

The other verse may have multiple applications and fulfillment that we do not yet understand, but most n-Cs have no better explanation than this, and many take it and run off into conjecture that make the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin look like explicit teaching by comparison.:whackadoo:

So I guess this is more like you? :kiss4you: :curtsey:

 

[Church_Militant]

Judas may have been an apostle, but he was not a believer. If he was he never would have handed Jesus over to the Romans.

Fallacious and unscriptural argument. See below…

sigh You said … "Judas. He believed, and was even an Apostle. Can’t get much more of a believer than that"

.

I replied that your assumption that Judas was a believer was in error. He could not have been and still betrayed Jesus. So…by your infallible logic then Peter and the other apostles who fled at Jesus arrest were not believers either then, since they all failed to stand with Him? Peter denied Him three times, and so by your messed logic he was not a believer either, right? http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/emo-loco.gif

Now let’s address the real scriptural problem with your assertion.

Do you believe in OSAS/Eternal Security? It appears that you do, though not all n-Cs do. Without traipsing http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/sign0018.gif, I want to point out that you are in error in what you have professed and why. This is actually evident in many scriptures, but I think the most telling one is from Revelation 3:5 He that shall overcome, shall thus be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, and I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Now, if a name has to be blotted out of the Book of Life, then that tells us plainly that it had to be written there to begin with. The implied teaching is pretty obvious, just as is even more clearly stated in Matthew 25:31-47, 10:22, and 24:13.

So you see Charlye, you are in error according to the Word of God, not to mention the 2,000 years of Catholic teaching. http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/emo-epicfail.png

 

[Church_Militant]

I was in no way being uncharitable, tmac. I even put a smilie face on it!

But as far as being brothers in Christ, yes, I do have a problem with that. I consider myself to be a christian. He is a Roman Catholic.

And you base this upon what? Your personal understanding of the Gospel and your less than complete or accurate knowledge of the Catholic faith? http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/giveup.gif

I suggest that you open your own thread over in apologetics and proceed to enlighten us all as to why you feel that we are not Christians.

I am indeed a faithful Catholic and a faithful Christian because the two are one and the same thing despite all the a-C propaganda to the contrary. Here’s my testimony.

 

[Church_Militant]

Satan can not touch those who belong to Christ!

Really? I suggest you travel back in time to the first 3 centuries of Christianity and even into the New Testament itself and tell that to all those martyrs who paid the price of their lives for their faith. Be sure to stand in the streets of Rome and loudly proclaim it to all the beautiful Catholic Christians hanging there crucified and burning to death under the persecution of Nero.

Be sure to then stop of in Hanoi, Vietnam and tell all the brethren in hospitals and jails there for their Catholic Christian faith right now.

When you have convinced them, then swing over to India where our brethren are being persecuted and murdered every day.

Yeah, and be sure to tell Our Lord Himself, right after you read Matthew 4, Mark 1, and Luke 4 and then Luke 22*:**31.
*Again, an http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/emo-epicfail.png

 

[Church_Militant]

A Christian is a Christ-follower … a Roman Catholic is a papist.

This is just offensive name calling. If you can’t do any better then you’re not very charitable.

I believe totally in the absoluteness of scripture …

I don’t believe you can support that from scripture because it’s not there. Again, open a thread in apologetics and enlighten me if you can, but read this first.

you believe in the “three legged stool” (scripture, tradition and the magisterium).

And rightly so, since it is scriptural.

I’m in no way saying you are damned. You’re still breathing and there’s still time for you to yield to the promptings of the Holy Spirit.

Yeah… the same applies to you of course.

p.s. BTW, all the RC’s that I know (and this includes most of my family) when asked what religion they are will always say “Roman Catholic” … never RC Christian or Christian.

So what! It’s terminology, that’s all. Catholics were (and are) the first Christians and have been for 2,000 years. The doctrines are the very same ones found in the Bible and (Praise Be To God!) have not fallen into the errors of the modern “reformers” and their step children of today. How Is A Catholic Saved?

Who REALLY Preaches “A Different Gospel”?

 

[Church_Militant]

The oral teachings of those holy men and what they penned under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit** are identical**

. One did not, and could not, contradict the other. But when you insert the unwritten, fallible teachings of the RCC, under the guise of “sacred tradition”, what you come up with is a completely different gospel than was preached by Jesus.Not true…see above.

Exactly what do you think the bible is comprised of … it’s the letters written to the different churches, that followed **exactly **

the oral teachings of the apostles. Or are you saying, for example, that these great men preached further cleansing after death but somehow this wasn’t included in scripture?No, I’m saying that you are a follower of errant new winds of doctrines of men that have no roots in the Christian belief system until the last 500 years or so (and most much less still, for instance, The Rapture?) and that you need to obey the mandate of St. Paul when he told Timothy, “Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.”

 

[Church_Militant]

First of all, the bible tells us that Jesus did

many other things … not that He preached many other things … and, secondly, the things which **are recorded ** are written for our edification, so that by believing in His name we will have eternal life.Support all of that explicitly that from scripture Charlye. I don’t think you can. http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/thicon_nahnah.gif

Sure, Jesus “did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples” but whatever they were, they are irrelevant as pertains to our salvation. All God wants us to know to attain eternal life is contained within the pages of the holy bible. All the suppositions, could be’s, should be’s and guess work as to what isn’t written is a complete waste of time.

Then you better abandon n-C protestantism because it’s precisely what you just described, along with a great deal of twisting scripture and ignoring the rest. http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/laugh.gif

 

[Church_Militant]

I am a Catholic sir, of the Roman Rite, - Roman Catholic as you say here, and I can assure you that we are every bit as Christian as any other. In Fact I believe we are more so since we believe in and adhere to Christ’s One Holy and Apostolic Church.
We are members of Christ’s own Church founded upon Peter with Christ’s own words.
The Church that Paul calls the Pillar and foundation of Truth.
When we have disputes we “Tell it to the Church” to find the correct way as commanded by Christ Himself.
We accept the Church’s teaching for it is bound in heaven as it is bound on earth as commanded by Christ Himself.
We Believe in and participate in the Holy Eucharist, Eating the Bread of Life, Christ’s own Body, and Drinking His Blood, as commanded by Christ Himself.

We accept and follow these commands, given by Christ Himself and recorded in Sacred Scripture, while you reject them.
Who is Following Christ’s commands in Scripture more fully, Catholics or “Bible Believers”

I pray soon you will will remove this evil anti-catholic plank from your eye. Then perhaps Christ will be able to lead you to the fullness of faith in His Church.

Peace
James

:clapping: :clapping:

 

[Pwrlftr]

And it’s definitely not a ‘leap of logic’ to think that there are things not included in writing since Scripture actually says this.

2 Thess 2:15

The leap of faith would seem to come from thinking that everything that was taught by oral statement was written down, even though at the time of writing 2 Thess, this obviously wasn’t the case. And the Bible itself never makes that claim, but in fact, as seen above, claims the exact opposite.

Maybe I worded myself poorly.

Scripture doesn’t contain every detail of Jesus’ life. But my question is what does your “tradition” contain that isn’t found in scripture?

What are those “traditions” that the apostle Paul is talking about in the scripture you quoted?

 

[Pwrlftr]

no, you didn’t answer each question. a yes or no is all it requires;

(Answer these questions thoughtfully.)
If so, (and I believe you do believe) do you realize the writings of the Gospel were excerpts from the sacred tradition and teachings taught by the apostles as they in turn were taught by Jesus? I would hope Common sense dictates this understanding considering many many years passed before the words of the Gospel were written.

I already answered this one. Yes, there was a period of time between Jesus’ life and putting the gosples on paper.

And if so, do you accept the teaching of the Gospel that it does not contain anywhere near a sufficient record of the teachings or activities of Jesus and that Sacred Tradition MUST be continued through succession in addition to the Gospel? (The Gospel declares this)

No, I don’t accept this. It is true the scriptures don’t record every detail of what Jesus did but they record enough so that we may believe. I don’t believe that what you call “sacred tradition” exists outside of the scriptures.

Now claiming full belief in the Gospel as the Word of Jesus, you must accept this directive also but where would you be able to find the teaching of this sacred tradition and the apostolic succession to provide it? The Gospel says it must be done.
There is only one place that can possibly provide these three articles and without the three together, you are not getting the fullness of Christianity. Whether you accept it or not, whether you want to agree or not, you can not with good common sense justify accepting and believing in the Gospel but not the additional articles the Gospel itself tells us to follow.

Sacred Tradition backed by the OT and NT teach us of the Assumption of Mary, but you haven’t learned of that yet.

However…
You believe in the Gospel as the written Word, This is part of that word;
There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written. (John CH: 21, v 25)

 11 Therefore, God is sending them a deceiving power so that they may believe the lie, 12 that all who have not believed the truth but have approved wrongdoing may be condemned. 13 But we ought to give thanks to God for you always, brothers loved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in truth. 14 To this end he has (also) called you through our gospel to possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. 16 May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting encouragement and good hope through his grace, 17 encourage your hearts and strengthen them in every good deed and word. (2 Thessalonians CH: 2, v11-17

now again, unless you totally disregard these authentic scripture verses, see if you can answer each of the questions honestly.

What are those traditions that Paul refers to? It’s not like I haven’t read this verse and had it quoted to me a couple hundred times by well meaning Catholics but they never seem to be able to define exactly what it is Paul is calling “tradition” here. Is he (Paul) speaking of the assumption, the treasury of merit, the immaculate conception, papal infallibility, …excatly what is he refering to?

My answer to you is simple. If you believe the Gospel is all there is, and if this were true, we would have lost this tradition forever because what is referred to was not written it was passed on as is written.

What “tradition” would we have lost? Since you haven’t told us/me what exactly Paul meant by “tradition” in the verse you quoted it seems to me your argumentation is flawed.

This format only allows for 6000 charactors but if you really want an answer to your question, to learn what it is that is not in the written Gospel you can let me know and I will refer you to very Reliable RCIA courses.

I am interested but would like a simple summary of your answer.

 

[tmac1956]

A Christian is a Christ-follower … a Roman Catholic is a papist. I believe totally in the absoluteness of scripture … you believe in the “three legged stool” (scripture, tradition and the magisterium). snip…

And you believe in a one-legged stool… Sola Scriptura. Of the two, which has more stability?
tmac1956

 

[savedsinner]

Okay … I’ll bite. Where in scripture do we find the assumption of Mary?

Oh, I know full well what your church teaches but the assumption of Mary isn’t biblical. Your turn.

First of all, what if Mary was assumed after the New Testament was written?

Second of all, what of the women in Rev. 12:
“And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;”

Can you say it is still not biblical because you don’t interpret this passage as being Mary.

Are Catholic teachings unbiblical because you don’t accept the Catholic interpretation of scripture?

Are believes only biblical when they agree with how you personally interpret scripture?

 

[Church_Militant]

Question: Where is it written in the Bible that everything that Christians believe and practice has to be found and supported by scripture?

I believe that this (Sola Scriptura) is an errant modern new wind of doctrine that hasn’t got the scriptural support that it demands of all other doctrines.

 

[savedsinner]

Question: Where is it written in the Bible that everything that Christians believe and practice has to be found and supported by scripture?

2 Timothy 3:18-20
“Remember Tim, don’t teach anything that will not be included in the canon of Scripture which will finally be whittled down to 66 books by Reformers of their day. So forget everything I have personally taught you, and only remember the things that I have included in my letters, even though these letters were written to solve some isolated problems in some of the different churches during our times, you are to use them to resolve other problems which we have not even though of yet.”

 

[Church_Militant]

2 Timothy 3:18-20
“Remember Tim, don’t teach anything that will not be included in the canon of Scripture which will finally be whittled down to 66 books by Reformers of their day. So forget everything I have personally taught you, and only remember the things that I have included in my letters, even though these letters were written to solve some isolated problems in some of the different churches during our times, you are to use them to resolve other problems which we have not even though of yet.”

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/laugh.gif, another http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/emo-epicfail.png http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/explode.gif

 

[Church_Militant]

charlye
Banned

Well darn!:sad_bye: