Customer Discussions > Christianity forum

Mary was sinless -- so get over it. (Part IV)

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 5251-5275 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 11, 2012 11:15:38 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 11, 2012 11:25:53 PM PDT
Reesey says:
Bruce,

Nothing but straw men in this post, too. You'll forgive me if I ignore them. Again.

You can't find any defense for the clear teaching and belief of the Fathers in Apostolic Succession, so you have to pretend that I just don't understand your "sola Scriptura" doctrine, and then you throw in a bunch of straw men!

No need. Your "tradition" has no Apostolic Succession, who are the ONLY ones who can interpret Scripture as a collective whole, and you can't get around that. And there was no such notion of interpreting Scripture apart from them, as your "tradition" holds.

So stop creating straw men, and forget trying to get Irenaeus to "agree" with your Protestant interpretive principles. He didn't then, and he wouldn't today.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 11, 2012 11:18:36 PM PDT
Raulito says:
Edward,

I know you may not like it, but the worship of idols falls under the category of "you shall not have other gods besides me..." It is an example of violating the 1st commandment, which is a call to worship the one true God.

"the standard RCC Ten commandments deltes the second commandment that forbids one to "make" or "bow down" or "serve" graven images..."

Yes, we know what it means, its the command which prohibits the worship of idols, or the worship of anything which takes the place of God. Since Catholics don't consider Christian art and statues of the Saints as worship, its a dead issue in the Catholic Church.

On the other hand, if you believe Cathoilcs worship idols and graven images, then its obvious your personal bias on the matter concludes that Catholics have a "conspiracy" going on. LoL.

Is that really where you are coming from?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 11, 2012 11:22:55 PM PDT
Edward says:
Dear Faith:

I am quoting from the King James Bible.

The Catholic church claims that veneration of images is not the same as the worship of images prohibited in the Ten Commandments. The Second Commandment is very specific as to what conduct toward graven images is prohibited. "[t]hou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them."

Whether you call it worship or veneration, bowing down to a graven image is prohibited. Knowing this, it was necessary for the Catholic church in their official catechism to change the first commandment and completely removed the second commandment. The traditional Catholic catechism simply states the following in place of the first two commandments: "1. I am the Lord your God: you shall not have strange gods before me." The prohibition against making graven images and bowing to them or serving them is deleted.

In addition, the Romish church allows the worship of other gods as long as they are not strange gods. So it is permissible to have Mary and all the saints as other gods because they are not "strange gods" according to Catholic doctrine. God's first commandment, however, states that "I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me." They have changed the commandments of God in order to set up their own
religion in direct opposition to God's true commands. In the traditional Catholic Catechetical formula, the second commandment is completely deleted.

This leaves the Catholic Church in a quandary, they only have nine commandments in their traditional Catholic Catechetical formula. Not to worry, the Catholic Church simply splits the last commandment into two commandments to make up for the missing commandment in the Catholic Catechism. So the single commandment against coveting is changed into two commandments against coveting thy neighbor's goods and coveting a neighbor's wife.

God clearly states in the second commandment that "[t]hou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth . . .." It is a sin to even make the graven images. The Catholic Church is without excuse. Why does God want to prohibit even the making of graven images? Because behind every idol is a devil. See 1 Corinthians 10:19-20.

This changing of God's commandments is a fulfillment of the prophecy in Daniel 7:24-25 regarding the beast, the antichrist. Daniel prophesied that the beast would seek to change times and laws.

The "Traditional Catechetical Formula" of the Roman Catholic Church for the Ten Commandments is found at the official Vatican website at: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm

God's Ten Commandments can be found at Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21.

God's 1st Commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Catholic 1st Commandment: I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me.

God's 2nd Commandment: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Catholic 2nd Commandment: You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.

God's 3rd Commandment: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Catholic 3rd Commandment: Remember to keep holy the LORD'S Day.

God's 4th Commandment: Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Catholic 4th Commandment: Honor your father and your mother.

God's 5th Commandment: Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
Catholic 5th Commandment: You shall not kill.

God's 6th Commandment: Thou shalt not kill.
Catholic 6th Commandment: You shall not commit adultery.

God's 7th Commandment: Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Catholic 7th Commandment: You shall not steal.

God's 8th Commandment: Thou shalt not steal.
Catholic 8th Commandment: You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

God's 9th Commandment: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Catholic 9th Commandment: Thou shall not covet your neighbor's wife.

God's 10th Commandment: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Catholic 10th Commandment: You shall not covet your neighbor's goods.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 11, 2012 11:24:11 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 11, 2012 11:29:30 PM PDT
Reesey,

RE: "You ARE right - I only know what the Book of Concord teaches regarding 'sola Scriptura.'"

Well, then, you do know what I believe.

Now, if you can get around to understanding "what the Book of Concord teaches."

And, just so you know, the Book of Concord is a collection of books. Just like the Bible is a collection of books.

BTW: If you take time to read the BoC, you will find Ireneaus cited.

Also, the Evangelical Reformers knew, as you should, any presumed "Apostolic Succession" which included the purchase of the Chair in Rome, occupancy by anti-Christs such as Leo X, multiple, simultaneous pretenders to the same seat, clearly is not authoritative.

Apostolic succession is through the Church and maintenance of the marks of the Church, which Rome misplaced during the secular intrusions where clear teaching of the Word was lost, and through the musings of medieval sophists who placed human reason above faith and sacramental principles were lost.

Grace and Peace, Sister,

S.D.G.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 11, 2012 11:25:17 PM PDT
Raulito says:
Edward,

Will you acknowledge that in the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, the following commandment is listed:

Article 1. The First Commandment.

"I am the Lord your God, who brought you of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth, you shall not bow down to them or serve them..."

Pg 505. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Second Edition. 1997.

Do you acknowledge this Edward?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 11, 2012 11:25:40 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 11, 2012 11:29:54 PM PDT
Reesey,

My reading comprehension is not at question, here. It was you who cited a passage which disproves your point as concrete proof of your point. Not me...

Grace and Peace, Sister,

S.D.G.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 11, 2012 11:28:03 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 12, 2012 7:41:13 AM PDT
Ferdinand says:
StevePL says:"Oh, did I put a "LOL" at the end of that sentence? I think you're just having problems understanding an American when he speaks. It's evidently "messed up in the translation". ;)"

Ferdinand: First, I personally believe that you are very Pathertic and Idiotic individual. You not reflect nothing of Spirit in your words. Second, the dove represent the Holy Spirit. The Spirit comes through the water and faith of the Church.

StevePL says:"Oh, so any kind of understanding we have now doesn't count because someone long ago thought of it a different way? Do I not have the Holy Spirit, and the power to understand Jesus's words? Do I HAVE to believe a certain way on a verse because someone long ago thought he had it figured out? Maybe he didn't? Maybe he didn't even have the Holy Spirit to help him understand? I'm sure you agree it's possible, right?"

Ferdinand: 1) Someone long ago means the Apostle that taught their disciples. And, yes, any kind of understanding outside of this is heretical. 2) Nope, you don't have the Holy Spirit or the power to understand Jesus' words. Example: you proposed that the Lamb of God was capable to break the 4th Commandment. 3) Yes if you call yourself a Christian and witness for Christ. You are disciple of the 12 Apostles He sent. 4) Nope, the Apostles defenitely HAD the Spirit. Therefore, it's not open to even debate. Sorry.

StevePL says:"Explain it, Ferdi. John's baptism by water symbolizes the real baptism by the Spirit, and by fire. Are you saying that everyone who undergoes John's baptism also undergoes the baptism with the Spirit, and with fire? Could not someone undergo John's Baptism and walk away from Christ never to have anything to do with Christianity again?"

Ferdinand: Is not John baptism anymore. It is Jesus' because He sanctify it. And as in John 3:22 shows us, Jesus went to Judea and start baptizing.

StevePL says:"Where do you get these ideas? Did anyone in the Bible say that Baptism by water necessarily means the person receives justification and sanctification?"

Ferdinand: yes

StevePL says:"It's either one or the other, Ferdi. Either EVERYONE who is water baptized makes it to heaven, or NOT EVERYONE who is water baptized makes it to heaven., Which is it? I don't see how you could say that everyone who is water baptized makes it to heaven. That would be worse than OSAS, for all you would have to do is to be water baptized and you are automatically given entrance to heaven. And that is ridiculous, no?"

Ferdinand: No sense statement. The Baptism is a command from Jesus. What you think would happen if you do not fulfil one of His commands? And I think that you are walking in circles trying to avoid the obvious.

StevePL says:"So you are saying that John's baptism by water saves people? When does the Baptism with the Spirit, and with fire, take place? I was baptized with water, and I was baptized with the Spirit, and with fire. Have you been batpized with the Spriit, and with fire? What was it like? Hmmm."

Ferdinand: Not me, the written Word says it. If you have issues with that, then, discuss it with the Son of Man.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 11, 2012 11:28:16 PM PDT
Reesey,

You are getting a tad bit hysterical.

You draw up the "straw-man" definition of "sola Scriptura." And I concur that you must be correct, citing examples which clearly prove your point.

Either you are confused as to what constitutes a "straw-man" argument, or you've simply been up far past your bed time...

Grace and Peace, Sistre,

S.D.G.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 11, 2012 11:28:25 PM PDT
Raulito says:
Edward,

"Why? Because you have to do is walk into a Catholic Church for the answer"

You mean, the Christian art you find in the Catholic Church qualifies as worshipping idols?

I'm beginning to think that some of your Protestants here have absolutely on sense of Christian art and architecture.

You won't find a single Catholic who worships idols or statues, so its a dead issue within Catholicism. I hope you do realize this Edward.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 11, 2012 11:30:14 PM PDT
Raulito says:
Bruce,

"But it is hardly surprising that you would be largely ignorant of the Three Holy Hierarchs as they are revered to a far greater extend in the Easter Church......"

That is not what surprised me. It was your comment that St. John Chrysostom is not a church Father.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 11, 2012 11:34:28 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 12, 2012 7:43:29 AM PDT
Ferdinand says:
StevePL says:

ferdi: You said, John was giving a Baptism of repentance. Therefore, what sins Jesus needed to repent?

spl: That's what John wanted to know when Jesus asked him to baptize Him.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The actions and words of Jesus have meanings.

First, the Baptism of John was one of repentence. Therefore, you need to ask yourself, what sins Jesus needed to repent? The answer is easy: none. He was born without sin or concupiscency. Therefore, the actions done by Jesus in the Jordan has another purpose just to fulfil a rite or repent sin.

Scripture tells us that after John "washed" Him in the Jordan River, the Holy Spirit came down in the form of a Dove to uncted Him. From this two things can be deducted:

1. That day in the Jordan, it was fulfil by the Father what He promisse, He will anounce the one Messiah, His uncted one. And in fact He did, for at that point the Son of Man was filled by the Holy Spirit and start His public life and the Spirit never abandon Him. It also means the end of the Prophets era, for John was the last of the Prophets and the beggining of the intra-testaments period, the announcement of the Kingdom of God, Jesus and the Church.

2. It also deducted that Jesus, by His actions, has sanctify the Baptism by water, He elevated the Baptism to the ranks of Sacrament. The Baptism by water before Jesus was for cleansing of the dirt (as the Jews did every time they went out and returned to the Holy Land and before they entered to the temple). The Baptism by water after Jesus is not longer for cleansing your exterior, but now, it Justify you and Sanctify you. It cleans you from the original sin and all personal sins you may have commited, that means. restore your friendship with the Creator and make you rightheous in His eyes. Furthermore, Baptism by water is referenced all over the NT. Every time tha Paul refers to we have been washed, he refers to Baptism. However, it was Peter, First Pope, that better describe it: "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him." (1 Pe 3:18-22)

Leia mais em: http://www.bibliacatolica.com.br/08/67/3.php#ixzz20Kqey3Py

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 11, 2012 11:37:46 PM PDT
Ferdinand says:
StevePL says:

ferdi: Answer my question then I answer yours: What sins Jesus needed to repent?

spl: This is what Jesus said when John was trying to deter him from being baptized:

"13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"

15 Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented."

It says nothing about the sins Jesus needed to repent, nor anything from Jesus saying he needed to repent certain sins.

Now answer my question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The actions and words of Jesus have meanings.

First, the Baptism of John was one of repentence. Therefore, you need to ask yourself, what sins Jesus needed to repent? The answer is easy: none. He was born without sin or concupiscency. Therefore, the actions done by Jesus in the Jordan has another purpose just to fulfil a rite or repent sin.

Scripture tells us that after John "washed" Him in the Jordan River, the Holy Spirit came down in the form of a Dove to uncted Him. From this two things can be deducted:

1. That day in the Jordan, it was fulfil by the Father what He promisse, He will anounce the one Messiah, His uncted one. And in fact He did, for at that point the Son of Man was filled for the Holy Spirit and start His public life and the Spirit never abandon Him. It also means the end of the Prophets era, for John was the last of the Prophets and the beggining of the intra-testaments period, the announcement of the Kingdom of God, Jesus and the Church.

2. It also deducted that Jesus, by His actions, has sanctify the Baptism by water, He elevated the Baptism to the ranks of Sacrament. The Baptism by water before Jesus was for cleansing of the dirt (as the Jews did every time they went out and returned to the Holy Land and before they entered to the temple). The Baptism by water after Jesus is not longer for cleansing your exterior, but now, it Justify you and Sanctify you. It cleans you from the original sin and all personal sins you may have commited, that means. restore your friendship with the Creator and make you rightheous in His eyes. Furthermore, Baptism by water is referenced all over the NT. Every time tha Paul refers to we have been washed, he refers to Baptism. However, it was Peter, First Pope, that better describe it: "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him." (1 Pe 3:18-22)

Leia mais em: http://www.bibliacatolica.com.br/08/67/3.php#ixzz20Kqey3Py

And yes, I was re-Born with Jesus.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 11, 2012 11:38:55 PM PDT
Raulito says:
Edward,

You said "it is a sin to even make graven images..."

You are not honest here my friend. Moses and Solomon made statues of cherub, placed them on top of the Ark and inside the temple. Exodus 25:4-5 and 1 Kings 6:23:35.

They made those statues as religious symbols, to be used for the temple and for the religious processions of the Ark. So the prohibition against making symbols is not absolute by God, as long as they are not worshipped. The making of those graven images was not a sin since they were not worshipped.

Do you have anything reasonable to add to God's Word?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 11, 2012 11:45:18 PM PDT
Raulito says:
Edward,

Even the NT recognizes that statues were acceptable to God in the OT as symbols "....Above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the place of expiation..." Hebrews 9:5. The inspired writer of the NT looks back and interprets correctly the proper use of statues and symbols in the OT. Those cherub-idols were used as religious symbols.

It appears God has no problem with the use of religious symbols, as long as they are not worshipped. Your argument that it is a sin to make graven images is dishonest if you look at the OT.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 11, 2012 11:45:44 PM PDT
Reesey says:
Bruce: Apostolic succession is through the Church and maintenance of the marks of the Church, which Rome misplaced during the secular intrusions where clear teaching of the Word was lost, and through the musings of medieval sophists who placed human reason above faith.

Reesey: That certainly was the opinion of the Reformers. But then, when one man - whether Luther or Calvin - wants to take all authority upon himself, and away from those who have valid Apostolic Succession, what else can he do but use such claims to win support from followers.

But it isn't the opinion of every Christian, nor do the Orthodox agree with the Reformers on MOST of what the Reformers taught.

It also isn't MY opinion, and that's what counts to me. There are only two main Churches who have maintained a valid Apostolic Succession. This is something those who lost it can never get back. And in my opinion, no one who hasn't valid Succession has any authority to interpret Scripture, nor any guarantee that their interpretation is the correct one. And I've already explained to you what I think of the Orthodox being unable to deepen, develop and define their beliefs through ecumenical councils anymore. Nor do they have any real unity anymore, and have caved into cultural pressure to accept divorce, remarriage, and contraception.

So, there are many reasons I am not Protestant or Orthodox. I'm Catholic by choice.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 11, 2012 11:55:49 PM PDT
Reesey says:
Bruce: My reading comprehension is not at question, here. It was you who cited a passage which disproves your point as concrete proof of your point. Not me...

Reesey: I challenge you to find a single quote of mine that made the claims you claim I made! Only if you make up stuff, like that I said "let's make it up, on the fly, out of thin air", can you even remotely claim that the quote from Irenaeus that I posted "disproves" me!

I can't even believe you are stooping this low!

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 12:07:38 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 12, 2012 12:18:51 AM PDT
Reesey says:
Bruce: You draw up the "straw-man" definition of "sola Scriptura."

Reesey: Naturally you won't provide proof for this claim, either, since I didn't "draw up" ANY definition of "sola" anything! I posted a selection from Concord for my definition, if only to prove my point that it doesn't agree with Irenaeus on apostolic succession.

I said only that "sola S" does not include any conception of valid Apostolic Succession, OR the RECOURSE needed to settle disputes, to the Ancient Churches which the Apostles had constant intercourse. Those quotes I posted from Irenaeus prove that he believed firmly in the succession of the Apostles in the Bishops of the ancient Churches, and NOT in any "sola Scriptura" as defined by concord.

You really are using tactics that I would have thought, once, are beneath you. And considering you haven't produced a SINGLE quote from Irenaeus that shows him in concurrence with Concord, then you have even less room to talk! The ONLY way you could do THAT is if you quote him out of context from the quotes I've already provided. And I could provide LOTS more that refute your wishful thinking.

Thanks for dispelling any illusions I might have had once that you are at least JUST in your defense of your assertions. I can now consider any further discourse a waste of time, and a guarantee that you will continue to attempt to dazzle and baffle us all with your brilliance by your pontification w/o proof, when all you are really doing is makeing up straw men which you will then "refute" so you can believe you proved your position.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 2:17:11 AM PDT
Kevin Bold says:
An odd thing for an opponent of the Papacy to do...

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 2:23:57 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 12, 2012 4:17:12 AM PDT
Reesey says:
Bruce: Protestants give Mary the proper respect and respect due the Theotokos. And it has absolutely nothing to do with differing "interpretations" of Scripture.

Reesey: Sure..... Most Protestants here argue that Mary is NOT Theotokas. And while YOU claim that you give Mary that honor, you selectively use Irenaeus to support your "sola s" theory, while at the same time, ignoring his clear teaching on Mary as the New Eve ( besides your ignoring his clear teaching on apostolic succession and having recourse to the ancient Churches to settle disputes).

According to Irenaeus, in contrast to Eve's being the cause of death through her disobedience, Mary became "the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race" by "undoing the knot of Eve's disobedience."

I don't hear YOU calling Mary the New Eve! You fail to acknowledge the perfect parallelism between the old creation and the new. Funny how selective you are in your use of Irenaeus!!!

"In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to your word. Luke 1:38 But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise they were both naked, and were not ashamed, Genesis 2:25 inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty. And it has, in fact, happened that the first compact looses from the second tie, but that the second tie takes the position of the first which has been cancelled. For this reason did the Lord declare that the first should in truth be last, and the last first. Matthew 19:30, Matthew 20:16 And the prophet, too, indicates the same, saying, instead of fathers, children have been born unto you. For the Lord, having been born the First-begotten of the dead, Revelation 1:5 and receiving into His bosom the ancient fathers, has regenerated them into the life of God, He having been made Himself the beginning of those that live, as Adam became the beginning of those who die. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22 Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith."

---Irenaeus Book III, Chapter 22

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 2:32:12 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 12, 2012 2:32:29 AM PDT
Reesey says:
Kevin,

Yes, as odd and rare as M&M's!

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 4:41:40 AM PDT
Which one, Bruce? The King James Version?

You know, you and your fellow Protestants really need to stop assuming that Catholics don't own Bibles. We do and we read them too.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 4:45:19 AM PDT
The Gospel isn't complicated, StevePL. We understand it perfectly with the help of the Holy Spirit.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 4:49:41 AM PDT
Me says:
Such Arrogance. Yeah, Pay Attention. Read The Bible. Even your Catholic bible says "brothers" or "sisters". Why didn't your Roman Catholic Cult translate it "cousin"? Hummmmmm ????

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 4:53:07 AM PDT
Loving Mary isn't worshiping her, StevePL. And you know it. Why must you ignore it when the Roman Catholics here, myself included, tell you that Mary is NOT a goddess and that we don't worship her? If you must continue to lie and claim that we worship her, at least, be honest and note in your posts that the Roman Catholics here have told you they don't worship her but that you don't believe them.

Posted on Jul 12, 2012 4:55:40 AM PDT
Me says:
These 2 expressions explain it all for a Roman Catholic. All you need to remember is: "The Catholic church claims" or "Catholics believe". It doesn't matter if it is true. The Roman Catholic Church says it and they believe it.
Discussion locked

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Christianity forum
Participants:  98
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Jun 27, 2012
Latest post:  Jul 23, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions