Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73 ... 80, 81, 82  Next

Reply to topic
onewithhim
First Post
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 12:25 am  Paradise on Earth Reply with quote

When I learned that the Bible speaks of a restored Garden of Eden and the restoration of mankind to the perfection and endless life that Adam forfeited, I was thrilled. Who doesn't want to keep living on this beautiful earth, with our loved ones, and being able to do all the things we love to do---endlessly?

If God said to you today, "When do you want to die?" would you say "now!!"? I don't think very many people would say that.

We CAN live forever here on Earth. The Bible tells us that we can.

Matthew 5:5
Psalm 37:9-11,29
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 691: Sun Jul 16, 2017 8:39 pm
Reply

Like this post
RightReason wrote:

[Replying to post 685 by onewithhim]

Quote:
"No one has ascended into heaven, but he who descended from heaven: the Son of Man." (John 3:13, NASB)



John 3:13 does not eliminate the possibility of the Assumption of Mary for four reasons.

1. St. John was quoting the actual words our Lord spoke when he wrote, “No one has ascended into heaven, but . . . the Son of man.” Jesus was merely saying that no one had ascended into heaven by the time he made that statement. That was long before the Assumption of Mary.

2. Jesus cannot be saying that no one else will ever be taken to heaven. If that is the case, then what is all this Christianity stuff about? You know, heaven and all.

3. If one interprets John 3:13 as speaking about Christ uniquely ascending to heaven, that would be acceptable. We would then have to ask the question: what is it about Jesus’ ascension that is unique? Well, the fact that he ascended is unique. Mary did not ascend to heaven. She was assumed. There is a big difference. Jesus ascended by his own divine power as he prophesied he would in John 2:19-21: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up . . . he spoke of the temple of his body.” Mary was powerless to raise herself to heaven; she had to be assumed. The same could be said of all Christians. Jesus raised himself from the dead. Christians will be entirely passive when it comes to their collective “resurrection.”

4. St. John is demonstrating the divinity of Christ in John 3:13. Historically, we know St. John was writing against his archenemy, the heretic Cerinthus, who denied the divinity of Christ. St. John quotes these words from Jesus to demonstrate that the Savior “descended” from heaven and was both in heaven and on Earth as the “only begotten Son” (cf. 3:16) sharing his Father’s nature (cf. 5:17-18). Thus, he was truly God. St. John also emphasizes that even while "the Son of Man" walked the Earth with his disciples in Galilee, he possessed the beatific vision in his human nature. In that sense, his human nature (Son of Man) had already "ascended" into heaven inasmuch as it possessed the beatific vision, which is at the core of what heaven is. That is John’s theme in the text, not whether someone years after Christ could be assumed into heaven or not.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-assumption-of-mary

I mentioned that Jesus said that he would resurrect people "on the last day," and that day hadn't come in Mary's lifetime. John was not showing that Jesus was God anywhere in his writings. The fact was simply brought out that no one had gone to heaven before Jesus was on Earth, and nobody would be resurrected until the "last day." All your preaching about Jesus being God and Mary going to heaven in the first century is bogus. It is all assumption, based on some men's traditions.

.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 692: Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:14 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to tam]




Quote:
No, dear RR.

What all of this boils down to is this:

I have tested everything that you have said (as the RCC has taught you) against the Truth (Christ). Held everything up against the Light (Christ). Each thing you have presented has not stood against Him.


But how can that be? As I have tested everything you have said against the Truth (Christ). Held everything up against the Light (Christ). Each thing you have presented has not stood against Him.

Quote:
I am not going to repeat anything; if you (or anyone) is interested, it is all there in the past few pages.


Nor am I. And I agree. It’s all right there.

Quote:
you are claiming that I hate Christ and God


Huh? When did I ever say you hate Christ and God? Far from it. I can totally see your love, passion, and commitment. That however, like I have been trying to say, does not prevent someone from getting it wrong. Many a sincere Christian has felt he was following Christ when in fact he wasn’t. I have no doubt you love our Lord. I just think you get a lot of stuff wrong and therefore do not have the fullness of the faith that Christ desires for everyone.

Quote:
Personal attacks.


I’m not sure why you are taking my comments personal. I am pointing out there is an inherent flaw in your “Light of Christ” system. And I pointed out just what makes it so problematic. I pointed out the necessity of an authoritative earthly Church. That it isn’t the enemy. Religion isn’t the enemy. The Church is a gift to us from God and exactly what He knew we needed.


Quote:
JW's do not have an 'only Jehovah' motto.


You might want to take that up with a Jehovah Witness.

Quote:
you must listen to your religion and its leaders


You keep skipping this important part – BECAUSE Christ told us to. I don’t have to do anything, but I listen to the Church because it doesn’t make sense not to. I have never once found a teaching of the Catholic Church contrary to Scripture or Christ’s words. It is reasonable and logical and thus the perfect extension of my faith. In fact, the same faith I have in believing God sent His son Jesus Christ for us is the exact same faith required in recognizing He also gave us His Church.

Quote:
And it would be a betrayal to listen to any other so called leader, 'chosen one' or 'church' instead of to Christ.


Strawman! No one is suggesting listening to Scripture or the Church instead of Christ. Neither Scripture or the Church contradict Christ.






Quote:
Christ did not command that we blindly follow anyone who says they have come from Him.


Strawman! No one is saying Christ said to blindly follow anyone. You have no argument for what I am actually saying which is Christ appointing leaders and expecting us to listen to His leaders does not detract from the Glory of God, so instead you invent strawman arguments because those are the only ones you can knock down. Tsk. Tsk.

Quote:
He told us that there would be false christs and false prophets. How can we know who is who if we do not hold their words up to the Truth (Christ Himself)?


We can’t. And so we do. And when we do we hear, “He who hears you, hears me.”


Quote:
I have merely held your claims up against the Light/Truth (Christ Himself).


And I yours.


Quote:
Yet you have been unable to show that my faith is 'unscriptural' or illogical.


Huh? I pointed out how your belief gets the primacy of Peter all wrong – as I demonstrated from Scripture. I pointed out how your belief gets the true presence in the Holy Eucharist all wrong based on the very clear meaning from the Scriptural text. I pointed out how your belief gets it all wrong in not viewing Christ’s established Church as the pillar and foundation of truth and something we should listen to. I pointed out the illogic of thinking we don’t need Christ’s Church and can figure out everything by simply saying the feeling we have must be “The light of Christ”.

We can talk all the Scripture you want. Scripture supports Catholic teaching.


Quote:
It is hard for me to respond to this. I am not speaking about just a feeling, but also words.


So Our Lord has audibly spoken to you? You have heard the audible voice of God?

Quote:
the examples that I gave are of Him actually speaking to people. His voice; His words.


Could you please give me an example of a time in your prayer life when you say God spoke to you, exactly what He said. This will help me understand what you are referring to – thanks.

In fact, what does Christ say to you if you were to ask Him if when you receive Him in the Holy Eucharist you are actually receiving His actual Body and Blood?


Quote:
A personal relationship simply means that you know someone personally; you know them and they know you.


Ok, and how do you know that Jesus is not Michael the arch angel as the JW’s believe? When you are in prayer with Jesus, did He personally tell you that? Or did you know this via Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (the Church). Thanks.





Quote:
Sure... but what does this have to do with me? I would be testing those 'words' as much as your own.


Testing them against what? More personal insights from “The Light of Christ in your prayer life? You see the problem, right?

Quote:
http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/religion.html


Ha, ha, ha . . . yeah, I think I’ll skip the anti Catholic propaganda. Way too many errors in there to address.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 693: Mon Jul 17, 2017 6:02 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 690 by tam]

I got a chance to take a closer look at your link

http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/religion.html

And realized it isn't even about Christ's Church. It is mainly about Romans and their pagan customs prior to Christianity. It is also very anti religious in general and pretty makes fun of all Christians, which would include you. Maybe you ought to read before you post.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 694: Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:00 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to onewithhim]

Quote:
I mentioned that Jesus said that he would resurrect people "on the last day," and that day hadn't come in Mary's lifetime.



This has already been addressed. Here it is again . . .

Several Bible passages offer implicit evidence that Mary was assumed into heaven. Both Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven (Heb. 11:5, 2 Kgs. 2:11). Also, in Matthew 27:52-53 one can read about saints whose bodies left the grave after the Resurrection of Christ. The early resurrection of these saints anticipated the rising of those who die in faith, all of who will be assumed one day to receive their glorified bodies. Belief in the assumption of Mary is simply the belief that God granted her this gift early, as he appears to have done for others in Matthew 27:52-53.

The Scriptures also promise that those who suffer with Christ will be glorified with him (Rom. 8:17), so it is fitting that she whose heart was pierced through her Son's suffering would receive her glorification in a unique manner. Paul calls Christians "God's co-workers" (1 Cor. 3:9), and there was no co-worker of Christ who was linked so intimately in the work of salvation as was Mary.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/how-to-argue-for-marys-assumptio...


Oh, and if you are still not convinced, as can sometimes be the case with a “Scripture Alone” system, it is a good thing Christ left us His Church to clear up any confusion and it would be good for both you and Tammy to acknowledge this . . .


When this question is posed, the Catholic might be tempted first to offer the scriptural evidence for the Assumption. But the person is not questioning the biblical evidence, he's questioning the authority of the Church. So you must first address the authority of the Church and the role of Sacred Tradition in God's plan of revelation.


If you asked a hundred Evangelical Christians, "What is the sure norm by which Christians know the teachings of Christ?" the unanimous answers would be to look only to the Bible. However, Paul advised Timothy to take as his norm the sound words that Paul spoke to him (1 Tim. 1:13). Timothy knew that even if a particular teaching was not written down, Christians were still expected to abide by it (2 Thess. 2:15) and to defer to the authority of Church leaders (Heb. 13:17). The only way a person could know what these unwritten binding traditions were was to keep their ear to the mouth of the Church. If the Church were merely a collection of saved individuals-none with any real authority over the others-then Scripture would not tout her as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15) whom we must listen to or be cut off (Matt: 18:17).


Nothing in scripture indicates what the canon of the New Testament should be, but this silence in no way hindered the Church from exercising the authority given to her by Christ (Matt. 16:15-19, 18:17-18) to decide the canon. Just as the fourth-century Church had authority to determine that twenty-seven books belonged in the New Testament, the nineteenth-century Church had the authority to dogmatically define Mary's Assumption into heaven.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/how-to-argue-for-marys-assumptio...


And One, this is a good thing – that Christ gave us His mother.

Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. –John 19:27

Just like we will get to see Christ face to face in heaven so it will be with Mary and our whole family! Trust me, getting to be with Our Lady is even better than getting a big house in “Paradise earth” I wish you could understand that.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 695: Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:33 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to tam]

A good little article about the problem of bailing on Christ’s Church. To do so shows a lack of faith and is illogical. And in applying a little more reason, logic, and faith, we can also conclude the Catholic Church is the one true faith established by Christ Himself. Nothing else lines up. Peace . . .

***********************************

the church was not a human invention. Half-reading the New Testament with one eye closed will still lead you to the inescapable conclusion that the church was God’s idea.

In fact, most of the New Testament is not about the teachings of Jesus. It’s about the work of the church that Jesus initiated and ordained.

If you want to get rid of the church, you also need to get rid of Jesus.

You can’t have one without the other.

the fact that Jesus started the church with imperfect people should make us marvel at God’s incredible grace.

That God would use ordinary, broken human beings as vessels of his grace, and delight in it is awe-inspiring.

He could have spoken to the world directly, but instead chose to use broken people to showcase his grace to a world in need of redemption


Most of the New Testament is not a story of an idealized church where everything worked perfectly all the time just read 1 Corinthians.

Most of the New Testament is a story of Jesus using his followers to spread his love in spite of themselves and as they overcome obstacle after obstacle.

And notice that the early church did indeed gather.

Gathering always leads to some form of organizing.

To pretend the church doesn’t need to be organized is as logical arguing that society doesn’t need to be organized.

if you’re reading this article and you have any modicum of faith in Jesus, may I suggest your faith is actually the result of the mission of the church.

Very few people come to know Jesus because he appears to them supernaturally when they are alone and calls them by name.

Does that ever happen? Sure. But not to 99.9% of us.

Almost all of us who follow Jesus have had our lives changed by a flawed body called the church that Jesus so passionately loves and calls his own.

https://careynieuwhof.com/a-response-to-christians-who-are-done-with-church/

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 696: Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:30 pm
Reply

Like this post
Peace again to you RR,

RightReason wrote:

[Replying to tam]




Quote:
No, dear RR.

What all of this boils down to is this:

I have tested everything that you have said (as the RCC has taught you) against the Truth (Christ). Held everything up against the Light (Christ). Each thing you have presented has not stood against Him.


But how can that be? As I have tested everything you have said against the Truth (Christ). Held everything up against the Light (Christ). Each thing you have presented has not stood against Him.


Perhaps you do not understand what I mean. I don't just SAY I have held things up against the LIGHT (Christ). I do it here. In discussion with you. When I post HIS words that contradict your claims.

You keep ignoring those; refusing to discuss them. So, no, you are not doing as I have done.


(Indeed, when you brought Mary into the discussion, and I responded to you, you even stated that you were not going to answer, but rather you were just going to ask Mary to pray for me. That is not a discussion; that is not holding anything up to Christ to see if it is true.)



Quote:
Quote:
you are claiming that I hate Christ and God


Huh? When did I ever say you hate Christ and God?


Here:

Quote:
But that’s ok. Your reaction to the Catholic Church is exactly as God promised.


Then you quoted:

Quote:
“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’[a] If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21 They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.23 Whoever hates me hates my Father as well. 24 If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin.As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25 But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.”


**


Quote:
Far from it. I can totally see your love, passion, and commitment. That however, like I have been trying to say, does not prevent someone from getting it wrong.


True, such things do not prevent someone from getting it wrong. Neither does being in a religion - including the RCC - offer any protection against getting it wrong. As the RCC (and other religions) have proven by their words, or their deeds, or both.

One must keep their eyes upon Christ. Listen to and obey Him. Remain in HIS word. If one wishes to know truth, then one must listen to and remain in THE Truth: Christ.

Quote:

Quote:
Personal attacks.


I’m not sure why you are taking my comments personal.


Only the ones that are personal. Was this not a personal comment:

Quote:
It seems as if you are letting your human jealously prevent you from accepting who God appoints.


Please note that I am not offended or distressed. But you are trying to find (or create) something negative in my character that you can then suggest is preventing me from believing the claims of the RCC.


You also have a tendency to point out what you consider to be a strawman, yes?

Well, your words:

"It seems as if you are letting your human jealousy prevent you from accepting who God appoints..."


... are themselves a strawman. I have no problem accepting the One God appoints. I simply don't accept your belief about who God appointed.



Quote:
I am pointing out there is an inherent flaw in your “Light of Christ” system. And I pointed out just what makes it so problematic. I pointed out the necessity of an authoritative earthly Church.


And I responded to all of that... all of your points... point by point. Taking a quick glance back, post 688 and 684 in particular contained multiple quotes from what is written - from Christ and also from Paul, that refute your claim of Christ appointing any of the apostles over the other; refute also your claim that the first christians all knew about this supposed primacy of Peter. You refused to respond; and you refuse to answer many questions I have asked you.
Quote:
Quote:
JW's do not have an 'only Jehovah' motto.


You might want to take that up with a Jehovah Witness.


I've no need to. What I have said is true. You are the one who is mistaken. I will post my full quote:

JW's do not have an 'only Jehovah' motto. JW's have the exact same model as you have: that their religion is "God's channel on earth; his visible organization on earth; they must remain in her, no matter what, and listen to whatever she says.

Ask any JW. Or just google it. Its not a secret.


Quote:
Quote:
you must listen to your religion and its leaders


You keep skipping this important part – BECAUSE Christ told us to.


I have not skipped it at all. I asked you to show me where Christ said this. You keep referencing 'he who hears you hears me'. But that is simply stating a truth - he who hears someone HE sends (who HE gives words to speak) is also hearing HIM.

It is a statement of truth; it is not giving a command.

(nor does any of that even mean that the RCC is the 'you' in that saying)

Quote:

Quote:
And it would be a betrayal to listen to any other so called leader, 'chosen one' or 'church' instead of to Christ.


Strawman! No one is suggesting listening to Scripture or the Church instead of Christ. Neither Scripture or the Church contradict Christ.


It is not a strawman. It is demonstrably true that the RCC has contradicted Christ in practices and in teaching. Such as at the inquisitions. (just one example)


But your quote that I was responding to was this:

Quote:
You both somehow think it is a kind of betrayal to listen to any other leader, chosen one, or Church.


A - JW's think the same as you in this regard. They must listen to their religion and its leaders (their governing body, the elders, etc).

B - I have stated nothing different than what God and His Son have stated; indeed I have merely repeated them.

"This is my Son, whom I have chosen. Listen to Him."

"If anyone loves ME, they will keep MY word..."

"Go and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to obey everything I have commanded YOU."

Christ taught His apostles to listen to HIM, yes? So would that not be something that they had to teach everyone else to do as well? Since they were to teach everyone to obey the same things that Christ commanded the apostles?



Quote:
I pointed out how your belief gets the true presence in the Holy Eucharist all wrong based on the very clear meaning from the Scriptural text.



I do not recall even giving my belief on that. Perhaps you could quote what I said?


Quote:
We can talk all the Scripture you want. Scripture supports Catholic teaching.


Except for all the verses that I have quoted that are in conflict with your position; and that you, for some reason, refuse to discuss.

Quote:
Quote:
It is hard for me to respond to this. I am not speaking about just a feeling, but also words.


So Our Lord has audibly spoken to you? You have heard the audible voice of God?


Christ is the One who is speaking to us.

On many past occasions and in many different ways, God spoke to our fathers through the prophets. But in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe. Hebrews 1:1,2



Quote:
Quote:
the examples that I gave are of Him actually speaking to people. His voice; His words.


Could you please give me an example of a time in your prayer life when you say God spoke to you, exactly what He said. This will help me understand what you are referring to – thanks.


I did not say that God, Himself, spoke to me, and I also did not say that I heard my Lord while praying.

Have you not read about Christ speaking to people in your 'sacred scriptures? Were those people praying when He spoke to them? Or did He simply speak to them at any time, and they to Him? (Acts 8:29; 9:10, 11; 10:9-20)

And I gave you a personal example in post 675.


Quote:
Quote:
A personal relationship simply means that you know someone personally; you know them and they know you.


Ok, and how do you know that Jesus is not Michael the arch angel as the JW’s believe?


What does that have to do with what I said - refuting the statement in your link that personal simply means 'whatever the person wants'.


I have a personal relationship with my mother. I don't get to invent whatever I want about her. I just know her and she knows me, one on one. I don't have to go through some other mediator who tells me about my mother; I know her, myself.



Quote:
Quote:
Sure... but what does this have to do with me? I would be testing those 'words' as much as your own.


Testing them against what? More personal insights from “The Light of Christ in your prayer life? You see the problem, right?


I see that you do not understand.

Christ IS the Light (and the Truth). If a claim or inspired expression is in conflict with Him (the TRUTH), and so that claim is in conflict with HIS word, then that claim or inspired expression CANNOT be true.

Do you disagree?


Quote:
Quote:
http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/religion.html


Ha, ha, ha . . . yeah, I think I’ll skip the anti Catholic propaganda. Way too many errors in there to address.


Um.... what? It is simply some history of the Roman State religion and its hierarchy and practices (before Christ). You keep suggesting that I look at history, but perhaps you should take your own advice? The link simply provides some of that history.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 697: Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:08 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to tam]



Quote:
perhaps you do not understand what I mean. I don't just SAY I have held things up against the LIGHT (Christ). I do it here. In discussion with you. When I post HIS words that contradict your claims.

You keep ignoring those; refusing to discuss them. So, no, you are not doing as I have done.


Perhaps you do not understand. I have refuted your refutation in the same manner. You think a verse in Scripture saying, “I am the way, the truth and the life” is somehow sufficient in countering the truth that Christ established an authoritative Church. So, again, I am ignoring nothing. It is just that nothing you have posted contradicts anything I have posted regarding Scripture or Christ’s words.


Quote:
(Indeed, when you brought Mary into the discussion, and I responded to you, you even stated that you were not going to answer, but rather you were just going to ask Mary to pray for me. That is not a discussion; that is not holding anything up to Christ to see if it is true.)


What are you talking about? I have discussed Mary in great detail. It’s all here in this thread. I also pray to her. One can do both. Again, Mary is yet one more thing you don’t seem to understand the Church’s position on. Nothing the Church teaches about Mary contradicts Scripture, Christ, or Christ’s words. You for some reason must be the one who has a problem with Mary. The Church is not doing anything that Christ didn’t already beat us to with regard to Mary. If you don’t like it – you ought to take it up with Christ.


Quote:
Huh? When did I ever say you hate Christ and God?


Here:


Quote:
But that’s ok. Your reaction to the Catholic Church is exactly as God promised.


Then you quoted:


Quote:
“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’[a] If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21 They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.23 Whoever hates me hates my Father as well. 24 If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin.As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25 But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.”


Ok, I was quoting Scripture. I am sorry if you take that as a personal attack. Scripture also says this . . .

“And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town”. –Matthew 10:14

This is often what we must do. If the recipient takes it personal, it may be because his/her lack of acknowledgment is also seen as personal and the only thing left to do is move on.

Quote:
Neither does being in a religion - including the RCC - offer any protection against getting it wrong.


Correct if you are speaking about certain teachings or practices from certain priests or clergy. But absolutely incorrect if you are referring to declared Church teachings regarding matters of the faith or morals. In those instances, the Catholic Church is offered protection from Christ Himself to not err. THAT is the difference.

Quote:
One must keep their eyes upon Christ. Listen to and obey Him. Remain in HIS word. If one wishes to know truth, then one must listen to and remain in THE Truth: Christ.


I have no argument with that. This includes humbling oneself to recognize Christ put ordinary, flawed human beings to be our leaders.


Quote:
I have no problem accepting the One God appoints. I simply don't accept your belief about who God appointed.


I don’t think this is fully accurate. I think you have a huge problem with believing and accepting Christ’s Church has error free authority. But hey, correct me if I’m wrong.

Quote:
Taking a quick glance back, post 688 and 684 in particular contained multiple quotes from what is written - from Christ and also from Paul, that refute your claim of Christ appointing any of the apostles over the other; refute also your claim that the first christians all knew about this supposed primacy of Peter. You refused to respond; and you refuse to answer many questions I have asked you.


Go back and read my posts. I responded to your claims showing the verses you posted did not disprove Christ put Peter in charge. In fact, I posted a great deal of Scripture that showed the very opposite of your claim. The Scripture you posted does not contradict putting Peter in charge because first of all and maybe something you don’t get – being a chosen leader by Christ does not mean receiving some kind of tyrannical power position. On the contrary, Christ expected His top appointed ones to be humble servants. Perhaps you are equating a negative human connotation to leader or head.





Quote:
JW's do not have an 'only Jehovah' motto. JW's have the exact same model as you have: that their religion is "God's channel on earth; his visible organization on earth; they must remain in her, no matter what, and listen to whatever she says.

Ask any JW. Or just google it. Its not a secret.


I’m sure JW’s would take offense just as I do that faith in Christ’s Church does not contradict faith and love for God. For some reason you continue to be unable to get that.







Quote:
I have not skipped it at all. I asked you to show me where Christ said this. You keep referencing 'he who hears you hears me'. But that is simply stating a truth - he who hears someone HE sends (who HE gives words to speak) is also hearing HIM.

It is a statement of truth; it is not giving a command.


Huh? I don’t see the difference. If Christ established His Church, says, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I build my church and then he who hears you, hears me . . . “ how does that not mean we should listen to the Church? What am I missing?


Quote:
It is demonstrably true that the RCC has contradicted Christ in practices and in teaching.


Wrong. The Church has not contradicted Christ in her teachings when speaking as Christ’s Church. Unfortunately, some within have gotten involved in sinful practices (do as they say and not as they do), but again that does not mean they were not the faulty individuals Christ chose as His established Church.


Quote:
Such as at the inquisitions. (just one example)


Ha, ha, ha . . . yeah, just one example and the only one that you seem to keep bringing up – LOL! And the only thing that can ever keep being brought up, even though as already mentioned one must really understand history and have a knowledge of the medieval age to put it in context and understand that the practices going on during this period in history were not taught and declared by Christ’s Church as teachings coming from Christ. And like I mentioned, many of these things were actually declared by the state. They were more matters of allegiance, loyalty, and unity to the state.



Quote:
"This is my Son, whom I have chosen. Listen to Him."


And He tells us to listen to His Church!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:
"Go and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to obey everything I have commanded YOU."


Yes, who was told to go and make disciples of all nations? The Church! And how could she do so if she were not One, Holy, Catholic, or Apostolic? The Church could not have spread Christianity throughout the world without a unified message and it could not offer a unified message without authority to do so! Nothing else makes sense and you just can’t acknowledge it!!!!!!



Quote:
We can talk all the Scripture you want. Scripture supports Catholic teaching.


Except for all the verses that I have quoted that are in conflict with your position; and that you, for some reason, refuse to discuss.


Ha, ha, . . . Except that the verses you quoted do NOT conflict with any of the Church’s position. That’s all in your head. I can’t help it if you think , "This is my Son, whom I have chosen. Listen to Him." means Christ did not establish an authoritative Church. Logically speaking your claims fail.






Quote:
Ok, and how do you know that Jesus is not Michael the arch angel as the JW’s believe?


What does that have to do with what I said


I’m making a point on the realization that what we know comes via Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (the Church). Unless, Christ Himself told you about the parable of the prodigal son, you would not know it if it were not thanks to Scripture and the Church.

Quote:
I have a personal relationship with my mother. I don't get to invent whatever I want about her. I just know her and she knows me, one on one. I don't have to go through some other mediator who tells me about my mother; I know her, myself.


Because she is physically here and she speaks to you and you see her. If your Mom were not physically present on this earth in bodily form, you would in fact rely on others to know her. I am very surprised you don’t understand that. And in listening to what other reliable sources have to say about your mother would in no way detract or take away from your mother.



Quote:
I see that you do not understand.

Christ IS the Light (and the Truth). If a claim or inspired expression is in conflict with Him (the TRUTH), and so that claim is in conflict with HIS word, then that claim or inspired expression CANNOT be true.


I see that you do not understand. I agree if a claim or inspired expression is in conflict with Him, then that claim cannot be true. This does not explain then why you don’t believe the Catholic Church is Christ’s established Church, as you have provided no evidence or reason to say the Catholic Church declared teachings regarding matters of the faith or morals that contradict or conflict with Christ. And there is so much evidence showing the Church actually meets all the requirements of the four marks of identifying Christ’s Church that Scripture tells us. We can discuss that further if you like.


Quote:
Um.... what? It is simply some history of the Roman State religion


You know that isn’t the Catholic Church, right?

Quote:
You keep suggesting that I look at history, but perhaps you should take your own advice? The link simply provides some of that history


Again, history of what? Your link is a history of the Roman pagan practices prior to conversion to Christianity. Then the author goes on to make derogatory comments about Christians in general having major influence from pagan cultures and not being able to let go of their superstitious ways and therefore Christianity in general is simply an extension of this barbaric practice of searching for the meaning of life. These are very similar sentiments felt by atheists and agnostics regarding religion. They are always trying to suggest there can be no God because the Christian God has similar attributes as the pagan gods. <sigh> This is simply another logical fallacy. You can do better.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 698: Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:14 pm
Reply

Like this post
Peace to you.

Quote:
[quote="RightReason"]
[Replying to post 690 by tam]

I got a chance to take a closer look at your link

http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/religion.html

And realized it isn't even about Christ's Church. It is mainly about Romans and their pagan customs prior to Christianity.


Yeah, that is exactly what I said:

Quote:
I'm not sure there is much more for me to say, but since you are a fan of links, here is a link to a description of the Roman State religion long before Christ, paying attention in particular to pontifex maximus under the 'high offices of state religion' section. Might shed some light for you on what the RCC was truly built upon, if indeed truth is what you seek. - tam


Maybe you ought to read before you post?


Quote:
It is also very anti religious in general and pretty makes fun of all Christians, which would include you. Maybe you ought to read before you post.



It does nothing of the sort.

Perhaps the history struck a nerve with you? I can think of no other reason why you think that it is "very anti-religious and pretty much makes fun of all Christians."


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 699: Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:16 pm
Reply

Like this post
RightReason wrote:

[Replying to onewithhim]

Quote:
I mentioned that Jesus said that he would resurrect people "on the last day," and that day hadn't come in Mary's lifetime.



This has already been addressed. Here it is again . . .

Yes, I already read that and I have rebutted what you said. If you want to just ignore whatever I post, OK, but why keep asking the same questions and saying the same things over and over?

I already showed you scripturally that no one went to heaven before Christ, and he resurrected nobody, including his mother, before the "last day" that hasn't happened yet.

There is nothing you can say that will change my mind, so drop it. You have chosen to keep your periferal vision blocked and just look straight ahead at untruths that are beckoning and calling, no matter what warnings you are getting from even the Scriptures themselves. That is on you.

Have a pleasant evening.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 700: Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:32 pm
Reply

Like this post
Peace again to you,

Quote:
[quote="RightReason"]
[Replying to tam]



Quote:
perhaps you do not understand what I mean. I don't just SAY I have held things up against the LIGHT (Christ). I do it here. In discussion with you. When I post HIS words that contradict your claims.

You keep ignoring those; refusing to discuss them. So, no, you are not doing as I have done.


Perhaps you do not understand. I have refuted your refutation in the same manner. You think a verse in Scripture saying, “I am the way, the truth and the life” is somehow sufficient in countering the truth that Christ established an authoritative Church.


You don't think your words here are a little dishonest? I have quoted many more verses, most from my Lord, and some from Paul, to refute your claim.


Quote:
Quote:
(Indeed, when you brought Mary into the discussion, and I responded to you, you even stated that you were not going to answer, but rather you were just going to ask Mary to pray for me. That is not a discussion; that is not holding anything up to Christ to see if it is true.)


What are you talking about?



Are these not your words at the bottom of post 681:

Quote:
As for all your comments about our mother Mary, I’ll simply ask Mary for her prayers to open your heart.


**

Quote:
I have discussed Mary in great detail. It’s all here in this thread.


Not with me, you haven't. You have posted things you believe about Mary; but you refused to engage with me when I commented back to you.


Quote:
Quote:
Huh? When did I ever say you hate Christ and God?


Here:


Quote:
But that’s ok. Your reaction to the Catholic Church is exactly as God promised.


Then you quoted:


Quote:
“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’[a] If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21 They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.23 Whoever hates me hates my Father as well. 24 If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin.As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25 But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.”


Ok, I was quoting Scripture. I am sorry if you take that as a personal attack.


You were quoting that scripture to explain my reaction to the RCC. Are you suggesting that the content of that scripture does not apply to me? If so, then please elaborate on why you quoted that particular scripture to me?

Quote:
Scripture also says this . . .

“And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town”. –Matthew 10:14

This is often what we must do. If the recipient takes it personal, it may be because his/her lack of acknowledgment is also seen as personal and the only thing left to do is move on.


I'm sorry, I do not understand your sentence. "His/her lack of acknowledgment" of what?

Quote:
Quote:
Neither does being in a religion - including the RCC - offer any protection against getting it wrong.


Correct if you are speaking about certain teachings or practices from certain priests or clergy. But absolutely incorrect if you are referring to declared Church teachings regarding matters of the faith or morals. In those instances, the Catholic Church is offered protection from Christ Himself to not err. THAT is the difference.


May I ask, upon what do you base this claim?


Quote:
Quote:
One must keep their eyes upon Christ. Listen to and obey Him. Remain in HIS word. If one wishes to know truth, then one must listen to and remain in THE Truth: Christ.


I have no argument with that. This includes humbling oneself to recognize Christ put ordinary, flawed human beings to be our leaders.


You claim you have no argument with it, but then you add TO it. Changing it even.



Quote:
Quote:
I have no problem accepting the One God appoints. I simply don't accept your belief about who God appointed.


I don’t think this is fully accurate. I think you have a huge problem with believing and accepting Christ’s Church has error free authority. But hey, correct me if I’m wrong.


By 'correcting you if you are wrong' ... do you mean repeat myself?

Quote:
Quote:
Taking a quick glance back, post 688 and 684 in particular contained multiple quotes from what is written - from Christ and also from Paul, that refute your claim of Christ appointing any of the apostles over the other; refute also your claim that the first christians all knew about this supposed primacy of Peter. You refused to respond; and you refuse to answer many questions I have asked you.


Go back and read my posts. I responded to your claims showing the verses you posted did not disprove Christ put Peter in charge.


I did go back and read them.

From my post 684:


Quote:
You said:
Quote:
I also pointed out how the first Christians knew and taught Peter as the leader.


I responded:

You CLAIMED this. But when I asked you to provide the scripture to back up your claim, you provided quotes from a few people who lived between 200 and 450 AD.

Such people are not the first Christians. And we can see from the start that men were already being misled (even by their own petty jealousies), and following after men.

Therefore stop boasting in men! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future. All of them belong to you, and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God.…



He chided them because they were boasting about which man they followed. Would that not have been the perfect time for Paul to state clearly that Cephas is the one Christ set up as leader? The one who had authority over the Church? Yet Paul said nothing to that effect.


Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.


Still Paul says nothing about the supposed 'primacy' of Peter.


You said:
Quote:

In fact, the primacy of Peter wasn’t even challenged until those who broke off from Christ’s Church had the need to do so in order to support their own invented theology and “authority”. But you aren’t interested in historical evidence or evidence from Scripture so not much I can do.


I responded:

This (the bold) is untrue. The 'primacy' of Peter was either not known or not accepted by those who had been stating they followed someone else. Such as paul or apollos, over Cephas, some even over Christ Himself.


What I mean is this: Individuals among you are saying, “I follow Paul,” “I follow Apollos,” “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?


(and still Paul did not state that Peter was the one in charge)

**

Post 686 is your response to my post 684, and in post 686 you do not speak at all about the content of these scriptures and you do not answer the questions that I asked. You sidestep this altogether. You posted a link to someone else’s words (which I also responded to – point by point; sentence by sentence).


From my post 688 (initially responding to a claim from your link):

Quote:
A quote from your link read:

Quote:
When our Lord selects a group of three for some special event, such as the Transfiguration, St. Peter is in the first position.


I responded:


What first position? Christ took three with him. How was Peter given the first position? Simply because he was named first, when the writing gives the name of the three Christ took with him?

You understand that all of this is AGAINST everything Christ taught, right?

He who wants to be first must be last.

The greatest among you must be your servant.

And His words to the disciples when two of them asked (well, their mother asked) that one be at this left hand and the other at this right hand, in the Kingdom.

What did my Lord say to the disciples after that?

Jesus said to them, "You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father."

When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers.

Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave-- just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."


Does that sound like a man who raised one apostle up over the others? Does it sound like the apostles (any of the twelve) were thinking that Christ raised one of them over the others?


**

Your response to the content of my post 688, is your post 689, and your responded to none of this. You also did not answer the questions that I asked. And these are just a couple of examples.


Quote:

Quote:
JW's do not have an 'only Jehovah' motto. JW's have the exact same model as you have: that their religion is "God's channel on earth; his visible organization on earth; they must remain in her, no matter what, and listen to whatever she says.

Ask any JW. Or just google it. Its not a secret.


I’m sure JW’s would take offense just as I do that faith in Christ’s Church does not contradict faith and love for God. For some reason you continue to be unable to get that.


Are you trying to take the focus off the fact that you said the JW faith was like mine, when instead it is the same as yours, just with a different body of men as its leaders?

I think you just conceded that point, yes?


Quote:
Quote:
I have not skipped it at all. I asked you to show me where Christ said this. You keep referencing 'he who hears you hears me'. But that is simply stating a truth - he who hears someone HE sends (who HE gives words to speak) is also hearing HIM.

It is a statement of truth; it is not giving a command.


Huh? I don’t see the difference. If Christ established His Church, says, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I build my church and then he who hears you, hears me . . . “


Christ said 'he who hears you, hears me' to all the apostles, including to the 72 that He sent out. (luke 10:16) Certainly not just to Peter.

You put those two statements in one quotation as though it was all part of the same verse, to the same person, but that is not accurate.


Quote:
how does that not mean we should listen to the Church? What am I missing?


You are missing a single actual command from Christ that I keep asking you for. You are missing it because it does not exist. It does not exist because Christ said this:

"If anyone loves ME, they will obey MY teachings."


The Church is the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is to listen to their Head: Christ.

You cannot even show that the RCC IS that Church. Indeed, history has shown at numerous points that if one were to obey Christ, one would have had to disobey the RCC; and if one were to obey the RCC, one would have had to disobey the RCC.

Same as with the WTS.

Quote:
Quote:
It is demonstrably true that the RCC has contradicted Christ in practices and in teaching.


Wrong. The Church has not contradicted Christ in her teachings when speaking as Christ’s Church. Unfortunately, some within have gotten involved in sinful practices (do as they say and not as they do), but again that does not mean they were not the faulty individuals Christ chose as His established Church.


Quote:
Such as at the inquisitions. (just one example)


Ha, ha, ha . . . yeah, just one example and the only one that you seem to keep bringing up – LOL! And the only thing that can ever keep being brought up, even though as already mentioned one must really understand history and have a knowledge of the medieval age to put it in context and understand that the practices going on during this period in history were not taught and declared by Christ’s Church as teachings coming from Christ. And like I mentioned, many of these things were actually declared by the state. They were more matters of allegiance, loyalty, and unity to the state.


Then here is another faulty teaching: that the Body of Christ should have allegiance, loyalty and unity with the State... even at the expense of being loyal to and having union with Christ.


Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than human beings! Acts 5:29

So now you're not even listening to Peter (or the rest of the apostles).


(On top of that... their teaching of hell (an eternal place of torment) is in error; their teaching on purgatory is in error and suggests that Christ is not enough; that a person needs to have further purification after they die. There are other errors as well)

Quote:
Quote:
"Go and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to obey everything I have commanded YOU."


Yes, who was told to go and make disciples of all nations? The Church! And how could she do so if she were not One, Holy, Catholic, or Apostolic? The Church could not have spread Christianity throughout the world without a unified message and it could not offer a unified message without authority to do so! Nothing else makes sense and you just can’t acknowledge it!!!!!!


Red herring.

If the apostles were to teach everyone to obey everything that Christ had commanded them - then included in these teachings would be to listen to CHRIST. Yes?


Quote:
Quote:
Ok, and how do you know that Jesus is not Michael the arch angel as the JW’s believe?


What does that have to do with what I said


I’m making a point on the realization that what we know comes via Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (the Church). Unless, Christ Himself told you about the parable of the prodigal son, you would not know it if it were not thanks to Scripture and the Church.


And what makes you think He cannot tell me (or anyone) about the prodigal son, or anything else that He wishes us to know?

Quote:
Quote:
I have a personal relationship with my mother. I don't get to invent whatever I want about her. I just know her and she knows me, one on one. I don't have to go through some other mediator who tells me about my mother; I know her, myself.


Because she is physically here and she speaks to you and you see her. If your Mom were not physically present on this earth in bodily form, you would in fact rely on others to know her. I am very surprised you don’t understand that. And in listening to what other reliable sources have to say about your mother would in no way detract or take away from your mother.



If my mother were not here, then she would be dead. If I never knew her before she died, then I would have to rely upon what others said about her.

BUT CHRIST IS NOT DEAD.

CHRIST IS ALIVE.


And this is the crux of it. Your religion and many others pay lip service to that truth, but have no actual faith in that truth.

They treat him as if he were dead.

Like those "... having a form of godliness but denying its power..." 2Timothy 3:5


But we CAN know Him. We can know Him because He is alive. Truly alive.

Come to Me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”



May you have peace. May you be given ears to hear, to get a sense of these things from the Truth, Himself. May you (and anyone) who wishes and thirsts, "Come! Take the free gift of the water of life!"


your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73 ... 80, 81, 82  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version