It was the implementation of the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and with it, the private interpretation of Holy Scripture (forbidden in 2Pet 1:20 and 2Pet 3:16). Now, all of Protestantism can interpret the "Constitution of GOD's Law", the Holy Bible, as they see fit, bringing upon themselves splits, disunity, infighting, and chaos. Yes indeed, it would be a strange thing if GOD had given us an inerrant Book, and had failed to give us an authoritive, infallible interpreter for it.
How sad it is! It's enough to make me sick at my stomach! Baptist against Methodist, The Church of Christ against Pentecostals, SeventhDay Adventist against everyone who attends church on sunday, Protestants against Catholics, and on and on...no wonder the non-christians want nothing to do with us! Do you think this Big Hot Mess is what Jesus had in mind? If we could just pull our heads out of our rectums, maybe we could reach the world with Gods love! Lord Jesus please help us!! Amen.
beware of megazordman2, he has been posting inflamatory comments about christianity on christian friendly videos. Please go to his channel youtube dot com slash megazordman2 and report him 30-40 times a day until youtube bans him. Stop letting these people get away with it.
@Lrock79 --Since the "Orthodox" church is divided among nationalistic lines, is there and Italian Orthodox Church and a Polish Orthodox Church (I also found out I am part Austrian, so I would also need an Austrian Orthodox church to go to; So if there is a Pol-Austrian-Dego Orthodox Church COUNT ME IN !!! (kidding). Rome is my home.
Heard of the Renaissance? Micaehlangelo? Sistine Chapel?
Europe was NEVER as eucated & advanced as when The Church ruled.
Jews call it the dark ages because they were confined to caged ghettos for the safety of mankind
The Inquisition was a Glorious period which indicted the Jew subverts, who financed muslim war parties against Spain, Crusades was Reclaiming Christian land & fighting Islamic Avane into France
@Born2Flesh that is the most stupid thing I have ever read here....read you history books, learn the truth, don't spread your gossip here....The Church did not create Islam.
You're commiting the same sin, lumping us all together as some of us have done to all Catholics. Trading Ad Hominem for Ad Hominem is not a legitamate, Christian way to go about theological debate...
Steve is a good apologist, however we as Orthodox Catholics have much more in common with many of our Evangelical brethren then we do with modernist Catholics. They have more in common with us then they do with liberal Protestants. Not all Protestant Evangelicals are against the Catholic Church. Examples of those would be Chuck Colson, Billy Graham, James Dobson even Norman Geisler did a balance book on Catholicism.
"We are oblidged to yield many things to the Papists- That they possess the Word of God which we recieved from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all"... Martin Luther, sixteenth chapter of his "Commentary on St. John"
Steve in all fairness, there are many Evangelicals who don't believe that. When I was a Protestant I never once believed that and would argue with those who would espouse such nonsense. In fact Billy Graham has always had a dynamic relationship with Catholic and has always assumed that Catholics are brothers and sister in Christ. When he had crusades he always encouraged Catholic to go back to their parishes.
@krrwasser Wait?.... Billy Graham?...THE Billy Graham...I had always heard that he bashed the Catholic church...even calling the Pope the Anti-Christ.
@johnpl286 I defy you to find a quote by Billy Graham saying that. Billy Graham was given an honary degree from the Sisters of Mercy in Colorado. Billy Graham had priests and nuns at his crusades to guide Catholics back to their parishes. Billy Graham personally met Pope John Paul II and both of them became friends. You are thinking of Jimmy Swaggart not Billy Graham. Billy never said that and you will never be able to find a quote from him saying anything negative about the Catholic church.
@johnpl286 It depends on if you Quote him from the 1940s to 1960s or from the 1970s on. Earlier he was a Catholic basher....later he was more open to fellowshipping with him. My mother knew Billy back in the 1940s when she was in Nursing school in Chicago and he was running around doing small tent meetings. Graham has been around a long time and changed a lot. He used to be a conservative political activist...but he no longer is now.
protestants are the biggest hipocrits ever..they don't knoe´w Jesu s, they don't even know the history of their own man-made chruches that distort and KILL christianity.
It comes from their disire to feel that they are right.They forget that with out the catholic and orthodox church they woulf not exist.Without the Catholic church the founders of protestantism would not have had no bible to translate to begin with
Islam is the biggest single religion in the world thanks to their birthrates. Catholicism is no longer the biggest single religion in the world. I am happy that christianly is finely starting to crumble but now we have to worry about Muslim, the new Catholicism. But let’s give credit to the deserving. To the Vegina of the Muslim women, but I want to finish on a good note. More people are become Atheist then all the religious conversions put together. No Muslim Vegina can fix this!
Mary said she was blessed. Luke 1:46-55. Lord God, these Catholics love to fight! Thank you that they no longer have the ability to tie me to a pyre and set me on fire. Hey, that rhymed! Amen.
@Rogueoftroy Catholics love the truth, thats why we speak up, and are unafraid to do so....Scripture says, "be not afraid". 1 Tim 2:1 says "Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men" Paul "exhorts" all Christians to be mediators, because Christ has chosen to share that function with others. Although there is only one mediator, Christ shares that function according to Paul. Don't you think so?
@stevesilvia I notice you have no comment of the quote from Mary saying she was blessed, Mr. Catholics-love-the-truth. As for your most recent comment, I can't figure out what would possess you to totally change the subject to Christ as mediator if not for the fact that I just proved you don't know anything about the previous topic so your only hope to save face is by changing the topic and hoping I don't notice. Perhaps you should go try to pick fights with people that know as little as you do.
@Rogueoftroy nothing to fight about. Luke 1 46-55 "...From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me..." My comment still stands.... however, I can understand how someone might say she is calling herself blessed....two different points of view. I also discovered that some churches only use the word worship, where as Catholics use three different words, worship, venerate and adore...each with different meanings. don't you agree?
@Rogueoftroy I don't think the Gospel is ever done. That is why I put these videos up, to share the Catholic faith with everyone. I discovered that the "Apostles Creed" was said by the early Christians, which contains the words, "I believe in the communion of saints...", which we still repeat and believe today.
@stevesilvia The Roman "Catholic" faith has nothing to do with the Christian faith. Any day now you can stop reciting random verses as if you were saying something. I'd really appreciate it.
@Rogueoftroy, like I said before, I am sharing my faith. What you consider "random verses", are Scripture which we draw our beliefs from. We are Christians, and we worship Jesus the same way as the first Christians did.
@stevesilvia You BELIEVE that you do, because the Catholic Church tells you that you do. However, history and the Bible bear out that that's not true. You choose to put your faith in the institution of the Roman church. I place mine in Jesus alone. You will argue that they are the same. Or that Christ commanded that I trust the Roman church But they are not the same and He did not command that. And inasmuch as you are unwilling to see truth, I am bored of litigating the matter any further.
@Rogueoftroy, like I said before, I have been to many different churches, and shared with you some of the things I found out. Like the issue of the Eucharist, if Jesus had wanted us to believe as the Lutherans, He would have said, "this bread contains my body..." but He didn't. If Jesus had wanted us to believe as the Evangelicals do, He would have said "this bread symbolizes my body..." but He didn't. He said "This is my body.." Don't you agree?
@stevesilvia Because normal people are not cannibals. And at the time you're suggesting they ate His body...it hadn't even been offered yet. Just another point.
@Rogueoftroy seems that those who understood that if they had to eat His body said "This is a hard saying..." as if Jesus wanted them to be cannibals, and walked away. Those who understood that if they had to eat His body, but understood this was what Jesus wanted, stayed.... don't you agree?
@Rogueoftroy If they didn't understand Jesus to be speaking literally, then why did they walk away? The context doesn't allow for anything else other than the people hearing Christ to have taken Him literally. That being the case, does it not make you wonder why Christ doesn't say to them that they have picked Him up the wrong way? Are we to believe that Christ Himself would allow for those who had gathered to walk away because they simply misinterpreted what He said without correcting them?
@TheManGadoosh Jesus also told the rich young ruler who came to Him bragging about all that he had done that all that was left for him to do to earn his salvation was give away all that he owned. Jesus was making the point that you couldn't earn your salvation and even if he had given away everything, that wouldn't have saved him. Jesus knew people's hearts. He didn't waste time correcting people's misinterpretations when He knew their hearts were turned away from Him anyway.
@Rogueoftroy "Jesus also told the rich young ruler who came to Him bragging about all that he had done that all that was left for him to do to earn his salvation was give away all that he owned. Jesus was making the point that you couldn't earn your salvation and even if he had given away everything, that wouldn't have saved him."
@TheManGadoosh Not straw man. Actually another example of Jesus leaving people who wanted to earn their own salvation and couldn't receive the truth to their own devices. Why waste words on people who just don't get it?
Yes, straw man, as you and your cronies use this argument against Catholics, which is a misrepresentation of Catholic beliefs. We don't believe you can earn your own salvation. I have debated Protestants of all denominations for long enough to know that this was indirectly aimed at Catholics. Therefore, its a straw man.
Neither of us believes that you can earn your salvation so why mention it? Therefore its a straw man. Cont. . .
@TheManGadoosh I think your ability to infer is off. I cited the Scripture in question to prove that Christ didn't correct people who didn't have their hearts in the right place. The rich young ruler was trying to earn it and Jesus knew he would never accept anything free. And since you bring it up, I am aware that Catholics do not believe they earn their salvation in the first place. They just think they have to work to keep it.
@Rogueoftroy "I cited the Scripture in question to prove that Christ didn't correct people who didn't have their hearts in the right place."
Christ told him what to do as the man's heart was already in the wrong place. Thus Christ corrected him. Whether the the man followed the advice is neither here nor there because that is not the argument. Cart before horse.
"They just think they have to work to keep it."
Faith working through love is a very biblical concept :)
@TheManGadoosh Christ told him to do something He knew he would not do to show him that he could never earn it. The man might have responded "But Lord I cannot do that. I am a weak and sinful man and can never hope to satisfy God on my own or be good enough to enter His presence of my own merits. What hope is there for a man like me?" If his heart had been in the place to say THIS, he would have left that day forgiven.
@Rogueoftroy "Christ told him to do something He knew he would not do to show him that he could never earn it"
Christ in telling him was Him showing that the man's love of money was his downfall. Therefore the man didn't go away with the wrong impression. He knew what he had to do but wasn't prepared to do it. So you are wrong. Secondly, Christ saying that if he gave his riches to the poor he would have riches in heaven; meaning that charity counts. Thats my point.
@TheManGadoosh You make a random statement about money being this man's downfall and then say that proves I'm wrong. How precisely? "The sky is blue. So you're wrong." Um, ok?
@Rogueoftroy (1) In fact, when you wrote that it is Christ in you that allows you to do good, that is precisely what the Catholic Church teaches. The Second Council of Orange said, "As often as we do good God operates in us and with us, so that we may operate" (canon 9) That is what we mean by faith and good works. The good works that we do comes from God. God's grace is always prior to our good works. But since we are not robots and have free will, we can choose to not co-operate or not.
@TheManGadoosh The Catholic Church also teaches that if you do bad that you lose salvation until such time as you can get to a priest for forgiveness and you know it.
@Rogueoftroy "The Catholic Church also teaches that if you do bad that you lose salvation until such time as you can get to a priest for forgiveness and you know it."
Oh I know it. Once saved always saved is an invention of the reformers. It isn't biblical. But here is were I will hit the nail on the head. It boils down to authority and who has it. You base everything on a false premise i.e. Sola Scriptura and therefore don't have a leg to stand on.
Says who? Oh wait, I like this bit. . . . . . Drum roll. . . . Your going to say the Bible. And yet, ameba on Mars could tell you that inanimate objects cannot, do not and never will interpret themselves. In fact, I will get my 17month old to come and tell you that fact. "And don't pretend that you care about what the Bible says, anyway."
Regardless of what you think I do care. I love the Bible.
@TheManGadoosh Which explains why your church forbade the laity from even reading it and up until the present day, many diocese continue to discourage reading of the Bible.
@Rogueoftroy "Jesus knew people's hearts. He didn't waste time correcting people's misinterpretations when He knew their hearts were turned away from Him anyway."
This is a first. Jesus is the one who preaches, and the people pick Him up wrong and then He let's them walk away knowing all the while that He is the one who was at fault. Not the people themselves. Your saying that Christ knew He was at fault. Therefore, Christ Himself was to blame not the people who walked away from Him.
@TheManGadoosh I didn't say Jesus did anything wrong. I said Jesus let them continue in their stupidity because there was nothing He could do to change it. I never said Christ was at fault. The people could not receive the truth because they would not receive the truth and Jesus couldn't (more accurately WOULDN'T) beat them up with words they weren't going to understand anyway to try and force them.
@TheManGadoosh The man was trying to earn his salvation. Hence why he approached Jesus not as a sinner in humility, but telling Him all the good he had done. He was trying to earn it so Jesus proved to him that he could not. "Christ work is finished but ours is not." There is no work left undone. Jesus paid it all. Jesus accomplished it all. To say anything else is blasphemy.
@Rogueoftroy "The man was trying to earn his salvation"
No he wasn't. He approached Jesus and asked what he needed to do to be saved. This isn't someone trying to earn salvation. Its a genuine question that a lot of people ask. If I asked you do you keep to the gospel of Christ, and you say you do, are you then not a sinner in humility? It's absurd to presume this when the text doesn't say that. He kept the commandments like Jews were supposed to.
@TheManGadoosh He came to Jesus and bragged about keeping the commandments and asked what else HE COULD DO to be saved. It's all about him and what he can contribute. And God can't work with that. Or save a person like that. Which sounds like it should be pretty concerning to you as well, given the things you're trying to DO, also. Salvation is free to mankind. You can't add to it. And if you try to add to it, you can't get it at all.
@Rogueoftroy He didn't brag. Christ asked him if he kept them. Big difference. And he asked about his salvation BEFORE that. Go read the passage before typing.
Salvation is free and You can't add to it. No-one is arguing that it isn't free or that you can add to Christ's work. Every good work done is performed by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he the Christian is.
@TheManGadoosh He did brag. He called Jesus good and Jesus asked Him if he was calling Him God because only God is good. He called Him teacher again so Jesus asked him if he kept the commandments (he hadn't but believed he had). So that's why he got the answer he got. He DID come to Jesus bragging and how dare you tell me to go read it again. I've had WAY more that enough of your condescension. Go die in whatever way suits you best. Hope you've been good enough.
@Rogueoftroy "Go die in whatever way suits you best."
Oh gee thanks. The problem is that you said that the rich man was left confused. How could he be if Jesus told him to give away his goods and come follow Him. Where is the confusion in that? Yeah, go give away what you have and come follow me. What? Oh I am so confused. Whatever could He possibly mean?
I asked this Jesus fellow what was I to do. He told me but I am so confused I don't really what I was to do. LOL
What? Does mommy and daddy know your using the PC?
"Because if the wafer was what you say, it could not rot."
We aren't saying that about the wafer. Your confusing apples and oranges. Take a bit more time studying what we teach and then come back. That way you won't set up so many straw men. Chop chop.
@TheManGadoosh That once the words "the body of Christ" are uttered by the priest, the wafer is transformed into the actual substance of Christ's body and that by eating it, the Catholic receives a special infusion of sacramental grace.
@Rogueoftroy (2) When St Paul says to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose" do you not agree that the fruit borne by the believer is real fruit that is really given by God and therefore really a part of the believer's life?
@TheManGadoosh Work it out does not mean add works to it. It means figure it out for yourself and don't let anyone else get in your way. You seem to think that I'm throwing off on good works or saying that Christians shouldn't do them. I'm not. But you're making them into something they are NOT.
@Rogueoftroy (2) "But you're making them into something they are NOT."
I'm not. When I say good works, you then take it to mean that they complete the work of Christ or something. Or add to that work of His. They don't. Everything comes from God including the good deeds we do. But we have a choice whether to except it or not.
@TheManGadoosh Yeah. They gathered together. So what? That was just human curiosity. Not them running to Jesus for salvation. And got news for you, it's just as hard for people to accept that they have to identify with Christ's death, a death that they are personally responsible for.
@Rogueoftroy "Not them running to Jesus for salvation"
Non sequitur. The argument was that Jesus told them that He was the bread of life. And that they MUST eat His flesh and drink His blood. And yet they walked away.
"And got news for you, it's just as hard for people to accept that they have to identify with Christ's death, a death that they are personally responsible for."
Straw man of your making and proves my point. Please keep abreast of things. Thanks.
@TheManGadoosh Jesus was still using his flesh at the time. I don't remember Peter chewing a hunk out of him. But maybe I'm remembering it wrong. LOL. Catholics have never been big on metaphor. Hence the whole transubstantiation thing. And I think you desperately need to look up the definition of a straw man.
@Rogueoftroy (2) "Actually another example of Jesus leaving people who wanted to earn their own salvation and couldn't receive the truth to their own devices."
And yet Jesus NEVER left this guy in his own stupidity as you suggest. Far from it. He leaves the guy in no doubt as to what he should do. And therefore proves "The people could not receive the truth because they would not receive the truth" is a non sequitur.
@TheManGadoosh Uh, actually he left him in plenty of doubt. Because selling all of one's possessions is not a requirement for salvation and if the man had done exactly that, he would still have had to rely entirely on Christ's completed work for salvation, not his own works.
@Rogueoftroy (1) "Uh, actually he left him in plenty of doubt"
There was no doubt as Christ said to the man who asked him "What must I do to be saved" and Christ said "Sell all your possessions, give them to the poor and you will have riches in heaven" Meaning that his good work of giving his riches to the poor would have been in a sense salvific because the God-man Jesus Christ told him that this work would bring him riches in heaven. Thus good works do do something.
@TheManGadoosh Good deeds are done in thanks. Not to earn anything. Christ keeps me. Not me myself. Any good I do, I do out of genuine love and thanksgiving, not because I get set on fire if I don't.
@Rogueoftroy "No. Jesus paid it all. Period. If you have a problem with that, you have serious problems."
I don't have a problem with it and shows this to be another straw man. You better stay away from naked flames because if you keep creating as many straw men as you do, you are liable to set yourself on fire.
@TheManGadoosh It's not a straw man. Me: "Jesus paid it all. Period." You: "Jesus paid it all. BUT ______." You say one thing and then undo it with another and in that way avoid confronting your blasphemy. "Yeah, I'm technically saying Jesus paid it all so even though I undo it with everything else I say, it's still ok cause I said it and I can do enough mental acrobatics that I don't feel like I'm actually DENYING it." But you are. And nothing you can fill in that blank changes that.
@Rogueoftroy Let me say this once again so as there is no misunderstanding and so you don't create anymore straw men. Jesus paid it all. Period!!!!!!!!
He paid it all regardless of whether one responds to God's grace or not. How is that, is that clear enough Mr Scarecrow?
@Rogueoftroy (1) "There is no work left undone. Jesus paid it all. Jesus accomplished it all. To say anything else is blasphemy."
Jesus did pay it and is a straw man. But we sin, so there is everything to work for on our part. [Addition] If we do not willingly respond to God's grace and accept it [As we are saved through grace alone] then we lose everything. Cont . . .
@Rogueoftroy It is a straw man because you AGAIN misrepresent the Catholic position and then create an argument against it. I wasn't arguing that Jesus didn't pay it that's why it is a straw man. Nuff said about you Mr Scarecrow.
Get a grip of the straw men. Go learn what we believe first rather than conjuring things up in your head of what we believe and then arguing against that. It's becoming rather tiresome to say the least watching you go to war against them over and over again.
@TheManGadoosh I know perfect well what transubstantiation is. I just don't put the spin on it you guys do. You believe it is the body of Christ. That is an accurate statement. Whatever spinning and maneuvering you do to make that sound a little less crazy than it clearly is is really rather irrelevant.
@Rogueoftroy "I just don't put the spin on it you guys do"
Oh of course you don't. 2000yrs of believing that the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ which conveys immortality and all of a sudden because you disagree isn't you putting a spin on it. Why don't you believe that the Eucharist is that? Oh that's right, your intepretation of the Bible says so i.e. Mr spinny spin Dr. If anyone is twisting anything it is you Chubby Checker.
@TheManGadoosh I like how you buy into Catholic propaganda that everyone believed what you say uniformly until we came along. Augustine, Justin Martyr, Iranaeus, and Tertullian all agree with me on the matter. Further, it wasn't until about the 9th century that the Catholic Church adopted an official line and started persecuting those who disagreed. Pathetic brainwashing.
@Rogueoftroy "Augustine, Justin Martyr, Iranaeus, and Tertullian all agree with me on the matter"
Oh yeah? These men didn't believe that Eucharist wasn't the flesh of Christ and that it didn't convey immortality? The floor is yours. (This should be good)
@TheManGadoosh No, actually it won't be good. I'm sitting here looking at their full explanations of the matter and don't particularly care to debate the matter with you further. It must suck being a Catholic full of so much hate and disdain for everyone who doesn't agree with you but living in a country where it's no longer legal to burn people at the stake for it. Reduced to trying to argue untenable things. You have my pity.
@Rogueoftroy "No, actually it won't be good. I'm sitting here looking at their full explanations of the matter and don't particularly care to debate the matter with you further."
Because you can't.
I don't hate you and your using that as an excuse because your arguments don't work here.
@Rogueoftroy "9th century that the Catholic Church adopted an official line"
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (110 A.D.)
110 A.D. is hardly the 9th century. But what's 900 yrs between friends? LOL
@TheManGadoosh The "they" in this quote is key. Ignatius was dealing with the gnostics who did not believe that Jesus had actual flesh while he was on earth. If you knew anything more than snippets, his full explanation is much more instructive on the matter. Also, you seem to not care to accurately characterize what I said about the 9th century. The lie of transubstantiation existed before then, but it was not the church's official line. A great many people and writings demonstrate this.
@Rogueoftroy I know who 'they' are. They were 'Docetist's' and Ignatius specifically says that they refuse to acknowledge the EUCHARIST as the flesh of Christ. And they refused to do this as they believed Christ didn't have real flesh. But Ignatius is specifically speaking of the Eucharist as the flesh of Christ. Nothing else. Give me anything from Ignatius that would state anything to the contrary. You can't.
"A great many people and writings demonstrate this."
@Rogueoftroy Tertullion "The flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, so that the soul too may fatten on God." (Resurrection of the Dead 8:3)
Augustine "What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST." (Sermons 272)
@Rogueoftroy Eh, no. He isn't speaking metaphorically The bread is the body. His faith obliges him to believe it."What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST."
@TheManGadoosh Yeah. And where exactly does that contradict me? My faith does oblige me to accept that I must partake in the sacrifice of Christ. That's why I do it as a memorialization. He actually literally died for me.
@TheManGadoosh Um...are you retarded. No. The mass is not. And there's nothing that I just said that makes that jump into a sane leap at all on your part. You're just splatter-footing around trying to land a point on someone who is not even interested in talking to you. But you just looooove to try and fight, anyway.
@TheManGadoosh I didn't say I agreed with Augustine on everything. I cited him as being on my side in the transubstantiation debate because you and all Catholics have such a boner for appeals to authority.
@Rogueoftroy "He took flesh from the flesh of Mary . . . and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation"
(Explanations of the Psalms, 98, 9)
WHAT???? Flesh to be eaten unto salvation. Surely not!!!!!!! LOL
"The Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice bringing about remission of sins and the conferring of supernatural gifts" (De cura pro mortuis fier. 1, 3; 18, 22.
NO WAY! The mass is a sacrifice that brings about the remission of sins. How can that be if he is in agreement Rogue????
@TheManGadoosh I like how you're laughing about cannibalism. Even if Augustine did agree with you, which he didn't, that still wouldn't make anything you're saying less carnal. Eat flesh in the carnal sense and live? I think not.
@TheManGadoosh Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, "This is my body," that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body." (Tertullian - Against Marcion, Bk 4).
@Rogueoftroy LOL You forgot to add the rest of the Letter against Marcion. Watch this:
But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, . . . He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ. . . He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body." Marcion denied the 'veritable body' LOL.
@Rogueoftroy "You continue to ignore that Tertullian plainly ascribed it as a "figure."
Eh no, I don't because Terullian is correct. If you read what he writes to Marcion you will see that it is a figure. Context. Prefigurement!!!!!!!!!! is what he is writing about
@Rogueoftroy Oh yes he is e.g. He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: 'I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,' which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough . . . "
@Rogueoftroy Oh I understand ok. I have read the books on Sola Scriptura e.g. Keith Mathison's 'the shape of sola scriptura' And R.C. Sproul's and co 'Sola Scriptura, the Protestant position on the Bible' I know fine well what Sola Scriptura is and is not.
@TheManGadoosh In a discussion of baptism and the Lord's Supper, Augustine had this to say: "To take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage." (On Christian Doctrine 3,9).
@TheManGadoosh Yes, I accept the Scriptures. And not the legitimacy of the Popes of Rome who have SO FREQUENTLY contradicted one another and murdered the innocent. A minute ago you were talking about how much you LOOOOOOVED the Bible, and here you are, proving you're full of crap and willing to accept 1500 years of manmade hooey over the writings of the Apostles.
@TheManGadoosh I accept the Scriptures and nothing in any of the individual works tells me that accepting them as truth is an error on my part. Your condescension is clear. Give it a rest any day now.
@TheManGadoosh And you seem to think that because I showed you an instance of where you and Augustine are in disagreement that that means that I should be concerned when he and I are not? Sorry. It doesn't work that way. Appeals to authority do not impress me. I just played ball in your court for a minute to show you that you don't even agree with Augustine yourself on transubstantiation. Augustine lived 400 years after Jesus. Paganism in the Church was already rampant. Good guy. Not infallible.
@Rogueoftroy "And you seem to think that because I showed you an instance of where you and Augustine are in disagreement that that means that I should be concerned when he and I are not?"
You didn't because the Eucharist is a sign. Therefore there is no disagreement
@TheManGadoosh Most importantly, Jesus said "This do in remembrance of me." Jesus: a remembrance. Augustine: a sign. Tertullian: a figure. You: That's some mighty tasty literal Jesus flesh! ...LOL.
@Rogueoftroy Yeah, then Augustine was high because he said "The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY." (Sermons 234:2)
@TheManGadoosh Christ's body WAS broken as the bread is broken. That's what symbols and metaphor are about. Yes, Christ is seen in the breaking of the bread. Which is why the disciples had a hard time accepting what Jesus was saying. He was predicting that like the bread, he would be broken and distributed to many so that by His sacrifice, those who believe may receive spiritual life and nourishment. Not from bread, but from the bread of life, which is Jesus.
@Rogueoftroy "Jesus was still using his flesh at the time. I don't remember Peter chewing a hunk out of him"
Straw man.
You are guilty of presenting a misrepresentation of our position and then you try to refute that. You are guilty of this. Go educate yourself in what we believe first so as you stop creating whole armies of straw men that you can easily knock down.
@TheManGadoosh The specter of Peter gnawing on Jesus is no more ridiculous than the notion of transubstantiation. Jesus said "I am the vine and you are the branches." Jesus said "Herod is a fox." Jesus said "this is my body." I should like to see a piece of Catholic art depicting the infant grape vine fleeing to Egypt to avoid the wicked (bushy tailed!) ruler. Since we don't do metaphors, you understand.
@Rogueoftroy Another straw man of your own choosing as for the first half of John 6 Christ is using metophor.
If according to you Jesus was only speaking symbolically then He would be saying to us, "He who reviles or assaults me has eternal life." This, of course, is absurd.
Did anyone understand Him literally when He said He was the vine? Did anyone leave Him when He said He was the door? No, because He was speaking metaphorically. They left Him in John 6 because He was being literal.
@TheManGadoosh It's not a straw man to point out that the wafer rots and God will not let his son suffer corruption. It just proves that it's not actually Jesus' flesh. Ridiculous.
@Rogueoftroy "It's not a straw man to point out that the wafer rots and God will not let his son suffer corruption. It just proves that it's not actually Jesus' flesh. Ridiculous."
It would suit you best if you did some research on what we teach on this. That way you wouldn't make silly comments like this one. It is a straw man because this is a misrepresentation. Go see what we teach first and then comment.
@stevesilvia And I used the phrase "random verses" in the sense that you pull verses from their context and use them to back up things that the verses themselves do not say in context. Context is key.
@stevesilvia Verses that you make say the things you would like them to in order to back up what the Catholic Church says they do. "Judas went out and hanged himself." "Go and do thou likewise." There is the classic example. Two verses that mean something different when jammed together than where they appear in their natural habitat. CONTEXT.
@Rogueoftroy, context.....thats why I gave you bible verses as I share my faith with you... I didn't do anything but share and then ask if you agreed or not....
@stevesilvia Those verses are not context. The verses that surround the verses you cite contain the context. Raining snippets does not sound theology make.
@stevesilvia And you wanted to Scripture to say things it doesn't say in context. And why do you ask if I agree with Catholicism? It's clear that I don't.
@Rogueoftroy The communion of saints is part of our beliefs We are one body through the Eucharist..."Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf." 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 Don't you agree?
@325nicaea I neither blocked you nor would I know how to. Clearly you're telling lies on me because you can't respond to my last messages. And you lie and say I blocked you. Pathetic.
@325nicaea "Once Saved, Always Saved" is a bumper sticker slogan that I refuse to see placed on me by a Roman Catholic blasphemer, idolater, and heretic. It is also associated with the Calvinists, and I am not to be included amongst their ranks, either. The verses cited are a small collection from a much larger body of Scripture. The same God that saved me is the God that keeps me. Though I make errors, still he keeps me. I pity you trying to continually save yourself. You won't succeed.
@Rogueoftroy No one can know for certain in this life that they will be saved: "When a virtuous man turns away from what is right and does wrong, he shall die for it. "
@stevesilvia You make a bald assertion that contradicts the Bible and then cite an unrelated Scripture as a "proof" text. There's really nothing to respond to here.
@Rogueoftroy I am not making any assertion, I quoted scripture. Either you believe or you don't. Since it came from the bible, how can it contradict Scripture? Maybe because it doesn't fit your interpretations...
It was the implementation of the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and with it, the private interpretation of Holy Scripture (forbidden in 2Pet 1:20 and 2Pet 3:16). Now, all of Protestantism can interpret the "Constitution of GOD's Law", the Holy Bible, as they see fit, bringing upon themselves splits, disunity, infighting, and chaos. Yes indeed, it would be a strange thing if GOD had given us an inerrant Book, and had failed to give us an authoritive, infallible interpreter for it.
truthfulreply 5 days ago
Roman Catholic Church -first Christian Church-33AD-to present
Protestantism came into being 1551AD-w/Martin Luther
RC Church compiled bible 397AD [under Pope Damascus]
winter1936 3 weeks ago
How sad it is! It's enough to make me sick at my stomach! Baptist against Methodist, The Church of Christ against Pentecostals, SeventhDay Adventist against everyone who attends church on sunday, Protestants against Catholics, and on and on...no wonder the non-christians want nothing to do with us! Do you think this Big Hot Mess is what Jesus had in mind? If we could just pull our heads out of our rectums, maybe we could reach the world with Gods love! Lord Jesus please help us!! Amen.
garyrt57 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
beware of megazordman2, he has been posting inflamatory comments about christianity on christian friendly videos. Please go to his channel youtube dot com slash megazordman2 and report him 30-40 times a day until youtube bans him. Stop letting these people get away with it.
RethinkingAmerica 1 month ago
Eastern Orthodox Church is the one true Church...Catholics come home, we await with open arms!
Lrock79 2 months ago
@Lrock79 I went to an Eastern Orthodox Church a couple of times, it's a beautiful church but I'll stick with Baptist.
bodom71 1 month ago
@Lrock79 --Since the "Orthodox" church is divided among nationalistic lines, is there and Italian Orthodox Church and a Polish Orthodox Church (I also found out I am part Austrian, so I would also need an Austrian Orthodox church to go to; So if there is a Pol-Austrian-Dego Orthodox Church COUNT ME IN !!! (kidding). Rome is my home.
GoldenHarvest454 3 weeks ago
Heard of the Renaissance? Micaehlangelo? Sistine Chapel?
Europe was NEVER as eucated & advanced as when The Church ruled.
Jews call it the dark ages because they were confined to caged ghettos for the safety of mankind
The Inquisition was a Glorious period which indicted the Jew subverts, who financed muslim war parties against Spain, Crusades was Reclaiming Christian land & fighting Islamic Avane into France
WW1, WW2 were Jew wars, financed BY Jewry
Protest-ants Molest at rate of 40:1
StSimonMartyr 2 months ago
The Church created Islam. Can you tell me the relationship of the church and Islam?
Born2Flesh 2 months ago
@Born2Flesh that is the most stupid thing I have ever read here....read you history books, learn the truth, don't spread your gossip here....The Church did not create Islam.
stevesilvia 2 months ago
You're commiting the same sin, lumping us all together as some of us have done to all Catholics. Trading Ad Hominem for Ad Hominem is not a legitamate, Christian way to go about theological debate...
nicodemous52 2 months ago
Steve is a good apologist, however we as Orthodox Catholics have much more in common with many of our Evangelical brethren then we do with modernist Catholics. They have more in common with us then they do with liberal Protestants. Not all Protestant Evangelicals are against the Catholic Church. Examples of those would be Chuck Colson, Billy Graham, James Dobson even Norman Geisler did a balance book on Catholicism.
krrwasser 3 months ago
"We are oblidged to yield many things to the Papists- That they possess the Word of God which we recieved from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all"... Martin Luther, sixteenth chapter of his "Commentary on St. John"
Kind of says something.
kingsmen711 3 months ago
Steve in all fairness, there are many Evangelicals who don't believe that. When I was a Protestant I never once believed that and would argue with those who would espouse such nonsense. In fact Billy Graham has always had a dynamic relationship with Catholic and has always assumed that Catholics are brothers and sister in Christ. When he had crusades he always encouraged Catholic to go back to their parishes.
krrwasser 4 months ago
@krrwasser Wait?.... Billy Graham?...THE Billy Graham...I had always heard that he bashed the Catholic church...even calling the Pope the Anti-Christ.
johnpl286 3 months ago
@johnpl286 I defy you to find a quote by Billy Graham saying that. Billy Graham was given an honary degree from the Sisters of Mercy in Colorado. Billy Graham had priests and nuns at his crusades to guide Catholics back to their parishes. Billy Graham personally met Pope John Paul II and both of them became friends. You are thinking of Jimmy Swaggart not Billy Graham. Billy never said that and you will never be able to find a quote from him saying anything negative about the Catholic church.
krrwasser 3 months ago
Billy Graham was a Freemason and a Heretic, who led many souls to Hell.
Sorry Vatican 2 was an apostate Council which defeies 2000 years of Church orthodoxy, a hijacking by Freemasons and Jews.
The Vatican calling for a Wold central bank last week should be reason enough for you to see this.
Im part of a Traditional Catholic movement, the SPPX who resist the vatican and her errors..
StSimonMartyr 2 months ago
@johnpl286 It depends on if you Quote him from the 1940s to 1960s or from the 1970s on. Earlier he was a Catholic basher....later he was more open to fellowshipping with him. My mother knew Billy back in the 1940s when she was in Nursing school in Chicago and he was running around doing small tent meetings. Graham has been around a long time and changed a lot. He used to be a conservative political activist...but he no longer is now.
prairiemark 2 months ago
GOD BLESS YOU STEVE SILVIA!!!!!!
anrmenchaca47 4 months ago
protestants are the biggest hipocrits ever..they don't knoe´w Jesu s, they don't even know the history of their own man-made chruches that distort and KILL christianity.
carjollingo 5 months ago
It comes from their disire to feel that they are right.They forget that with out the catholic and orthodox church they woulf not exist.Without the Catholic church the founders of protestantism would not have had no bible to translate to begin with
umaara100 5 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Islam is the biggest single religion in the world thanks to their birthrates. Catholicism is no longer the biggest single religion in the world. I am happy that christianly is finely starting to crumble but now we have to worry about Muslim, the new Catholicism. But let’s give credit to the deserving. To the Vegina of the Muslim women, but I want to finish on a good note. More people are become Atheist then all the religious conversions put together. No Muslim Vegina can fix this!
KussVomTod 7 months ago
Mary said she was blessed. Luke 1:46-55. Lord God, these Catholics love to fight! Thank you that they no longer have the ability to tie me to a pyre and set me on fire. Hey, that rhymed! Amen.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy Catholics love the truth, thats why we speak up, and are unafraid to do so....Scripture says, "be not afraid". 1 Tim 2:1 says "Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men" Paul "exhorts" all Christians to be mediators, because Christ has chosen to share that function with others. Although there is only one mediator, Christ shares that function according to Paul. Don't you think so?
stevesilvia 7 months ago
@stevesilvia I notice you have no comment of the quote from Mary saying she was blessed, Mr. Catholics-love-the-truth. As for your most recent comment, I can't figure out what would possess you to totally change the subject to Christ as mediator if not for the fact that I just proved you don't know anything about the previous topic so your only hope to save face is by changing the topic and hoping I don't notice. Perhaps you should go try to pick fights with people that know as little as you do.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy nothing to fight about. Luke 1 46-55 "...From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me..." My comment still stands.... however, I can understand how someone might say she is calling herself blessed....two different points of view. I also discovered that some churches only use the word worship, where as Catholics use three different words, worship, venerate and adore...each with different meanings. don't you agree?
stevesilvia 7 months ago
@stevesilvia Pencils down. You're just done. lol.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy I don't think the Gospel is ever done. That is why I put these videos up, to share the Catholic faith with everyone. I discovered that the "Apostles Creed" was said by the early Christians, which contains the words, "I believe in the communion of saints...", which we still repeat and believe today.
stevesilvia 7 months ago
@stevesilvia The Roman "Catholic" faith has nothing to do with the Christian faith. Any day now you can stop reciting random verses as if you were saying something. I'd really appreciate it.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy, like I said before, I am sharing my faith. What you consider "random verses", are Scripture which we draw our beliefs from. We are Christians, and we worship Jesus the same way as the first Christians did.
stevesilvia 7 months ago
@stevesilvia You BELIEVE that you do, because the Catholic Church tells you that you do. However, history and the Bible bear out that that's not true. You choose to put your faith in the institution of the Roman church. I place mine in Jesus alone. You will argue that they are the same. Or that Christ commanded that I trust the Roman church But they are not the same and He did not command that. And inasmuch as you are unwilling to see truth, I am bored of litigating the matter any further.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy, like I said before, I have been to many different churches, and shared with you some of the things I found out. Like the issue of the Eucharist, if Jesus had wanted us to believe as the Lutherans, He would have said, "this bread contains my body..." but He didn't. If Jesus had wanted us to believe as the Evangelicals do, He would have said "this bread symbolizes my body..." but He didn't. He said "This is my body.." Don't you agree?
stevesilvia 7 months ago
@stevesilvia Yes, He did. And because the disciples were neither imbecile nor cannibalistic, He knew He was understood.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy understood what?
stevesilvia 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy how did he know He know He was understood?
stevesilvia 7 months ago
@stevesilvia Because normal people are not cannibals. And at the time you're suggesting they ate His body...it hadn't even been offered yet. Just another point.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy seems that those who understood that if they had to eat His body said "This is a hard saying..." as if Jesus wanted them to be cannibals, and walked away. Those who understood that if they had to eat His body, but understood this was what Jesus wanted, stayed.... don't you agree?
stevesilvia 7 months ago
@stevesilvia Not even close.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy If they didn't understand Jesus to be speaking literally, then why did they walk away? The context doesn't allow for anything else other than the people hearing Christ to have taken Him literally. That being the case, does it not make you wonder why Christ doesn't say to them that they have picked Him up the wrong way? Are we to believe that Christ Himself would allow for those who had gathered to walk away because they simply misinterpreted what He said without correcting them?
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh Jesus also told the rich young ruler who came to Him bragging about all that he had done that all that was left for him to do to earn his salvation was give away all that he owned. Jesus was making the point that you couldn't earn your salvation and even if he had given away everything, that wouldn't have saved him. Jesus knew people's hearts. He didn't waste time correcting people's misinterpretations when He knew their hearts were turned away from Him anyway.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rogueoftroy "Jesus also told the rich young ruler who came to Him bragging about all that he had done that all that was left for him to do to earn his salvation was give away all that he owned. Jesus was making the point that you couldn't earn your salvation and even if he had given away everything, that wouldn't have saved him."
Straw man!
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh Not straw man. Actually another example of Jesus leaving people who wanted to earn their own salvation and couldn't receive the truth to their own devices. Why waste words on people who just don't get it?
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy (1) "Not straw man"
Yes, straw man, as you and your cronies use this argument against Catholics, which is a misrepresentation of Catholic beliefs. We don't believe you can earn your own salvation. I have debated Protestants of all denominations for long enough to know that this was indirectly aimed at Catholics. Therefore, its a straw man.
Neither of us believes that you can earn your salvation so why mention it? Therefore its a straw man. Cont. . .
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh I think your ability to infer is off. I cited the Scripture in question to prove that Christ didn't correct people who didn't have their hearts in the right place. The rich young ruler was trying to earn it and Jesus knew he would never accept anything free. And since you bring it up, I am aware that Catholics do not believe they earn their salvation in the first place. They just think they have to work to keep it.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy "I cited the Scripture in question to prove that Christ didn't correct people who didn't have their hearts in the right place."
Christ told him what to do as the man's heart was already in the wrong place. Thus Christ corrected him. Whether the the man followed the advice is neither here nor there because that is not the argument. Cart before horse.
"They just think they have to work to keep it."
Faith working through love is a very biblical concept :)
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh Christ told him to do something He knew he would not do to show him that he could never earn it. The man might have responded "But Lord I cannot do that. I am a weak and sinful man and can never hope to satisfy God on my own or be good enough to enter His presence of my own merits. What hope is there for a man like me?" If his heart had been in the place to say THIS, he would have left that day forgiven.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy "Christ told him to do something He knew he would not do to show him that he could never earn it"
Christ in telling him was Him showing that the man's love of money was his downfall. Therefore the man didn't go away with the wrong impression. He knew what he had to do but wasn't prepared to do it. So you are wrong. Secondly, Christ saying that if he gave his riches to the poor he would have riches in heaven; meaning that charity counts. Thats my point.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh You make a random statement about money being this man's downfall and then say that proves I'm wrong. How precisely? "The sky is blue. So you're wrong." Um, ok?
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy (1) In fact, when you wrote that it is Christ in you that allows you to do good, that is precisely what the Catholic Church teaches. The Second Council of Orange said, "As often as we do good God operates in us and with us, so that we may operate" (canon 9) That is what we mean by faith and good works. The good works that we do comes from God. God's grace is always prior to our good works. But since we are not robots and have free will, we can choose to not co-operate or not.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh The Catholic Church also teaches that if you do bad that you lose salvation until such time as you can get to a priest for forgiveness and you know it.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rogueoftroy "The Catholic Church also teaches that if you do bad that you lose salvation until such time as you can get to a priest for forgiveness and you know it."
Oh I know it. Once saved always saved is an invention of the reformers. It isn't biblical. But here is were I will hit the nail on the head. It boils down to authority and who has it. You base everything on a false premise i.e. Sola Scriptura and therefore don't have a leg to stand on.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh Actually it is biblical. And don't pretend that you care about what the Bible says, anyway.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy "Actually it is biblical."
Says who? Oh wait, I like this bit. . . . . . Drum roll. . . . Your going to say the Bible. And yet, ameba on Mars could tell you that inanimate objects cannot, do not and never will interpret themselves. In fact, I will get my 17month old to come and tell you that fact. "And don't pretend that you care about what the Bible says, anyway."
Regardless of what you think I do care. I love the Bible.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh Which explains why your church forbade the laity from even reading it and up until the present day, many diocese continue to discourage reading of the Bible.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy "Jesus knew people's hearts. He didn't waste time correcting people's misinterpretations when He knew their hearts were turned away from Him anyway."
This is a first. Jesus is the one who preaches, and the people pick Him up wrong and then He let's them walk away knowing all the while that He is the one who was at fault. Not the people themselves. Your saying that Christ knew He was at fault. Therefore, Christ Himself was to blame not the people who walked away from Him.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh I didn't say Jesus did anything wrong. I said Jesus let them continue in their stupidity because there was nothing He could do to change it. I never said Christ was at fault. The people could not receive the truth because they would not receive the truth and Jesus couldn't (more accurately WOULDN'T) beat them up with words they weren't going to understand anyway to try and force them.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy (2) "Because selling all of one's possessions is not a requirement for salvation"
In that particular case it was because the man was attached to them far more so than he was to God. That was his down fall.
"and if the man had done exactly that, he would still have had to rely entirely on Christ's completed work for salvation, not his own works."
He would still have needed a saviour, and he spoke to the man, so no argument here. Christ work is finished but ours is not.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh The man was trying to earn his salvation. Hence why he approached Jesus not as a sinner in humility, but telling Him all the good he had done. He was trying to earn it so Jesus proved to him that he could not. "Christ work is finished but ours is not." There is no work left undone. Jesus paid it all. Jesus accomplished it all. To say anything else is blasphemy.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy "The man was trying to earn his salvation"
No he wasn't. He approached Jesus and asked what he needed to do to be saved. This isn't someone trying to earn salvation. Its a genuine question that a lot of people ask. If I asked you do you keep to the gospel of Christ, and you say you do, are you then not a sinner in humility? It's absurd to presume this when the text doesn't say that. He kept the commandments like Jews were supposed to.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh He came to Jesus and bragged about keeping the commandments and asked what else HE COULD DO to be saved. It's all about him and what he can contribute. And God can't work with that. Or save a person like that. Which sounds like it should be pretty concerning to you as well, given the things you're trying to DO, also. Salvation is free to mankind. You can't add to it. And if you try to add to it, you can't get it at all.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy He didn't brag. Christ asked him if he kept them. Big difference. And he asked about his salvation BEFORE that. Go read the passage before typing.
Salvation is free and You can't add to it. No-one is arguing that it isn't free or that you can add to Christ's work. Every good work done is performed by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he the Christian is.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh He did brag. He called Jesus good and Jesus asked Him if he was calling Him God because only God is good. He called Him teacher again so Jesus asked him if he kept the commandments (he hadn't but believed he had). So that's why he got the answer he got. He DID come to Jesus bragging and how dare you tell me to go read it again. I've had WAY more that enough of your condescension. Go die in whatever way suits you best. Hope you've been good enough.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy "Go die in whatever way suits you best."
Oh gee thanks. The problem is that you said that the rich man was left confused. How could he be if Jesus told him to give away his goods and come follow Him. Where is the confusion in that? Yeah, go give away what you have and come follow me. What? Oh I am so confused. Whatever could He possibly mean?
I asked this Jesus fellow what was I to do. He told me but I am so confused I don't really what I was to do. LOL
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh You are so stupid.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rogueoftroy "You are so stupid."
What? Does mommy and daddy know your using the PC?
"Because if the wafer was what you say, it could not rot."
We aren't saying that about the wafer. Your confusing apples and oranges. Take a bit more time studying what we teach and then come back. That way you won't set up so many straw men. Chop chop.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh I know what your church teaches. You seem unaware, however.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rogueoftroy "I know what your church teaches. You seem unaware, however"
Then tell me what the Church teaches about what happens to the body and blood of Christ after it is eaten? As the Church teaches, not your opinion.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh That once the words "the body of Christ" are uttered by the priest, the wafer is transformed into the actual substance of Christ's body and that by eating it, the Catholic receives a special infusion of sacramental grace.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy (2) When St Paul says to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose" do you not agree that the fruit borne by the believer is real fruit that is really given by God and therefore really a part of the believer's life?
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh Work it out does not mean add works to it. It means figure it out for yourself and don't let anyone else get in your way. You seem to think that I'm throwing off on good works or saying that Christians shouldn't do them. I'm not. But you're making them into something they are NOT.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy (2) "But you're making them into something they are NOT."
I'm not. When I say good works, you then take it to mean that they complete the work of Christ or something. Or add to that work of His. They don't. Everything comes from God including the good deeds we do. But we have a choice whether to except it or not.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh Yeah. They gathered together. So what? That was just human curiosity. Not them running to Jesus for salvation. And got news for you, it's just as hard for people to accept that they have to identify with Christ's death, a death that they are personally responsible for.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy "Not them running to Jesus for salvation"
Non sequitur. The argument was that Jesus told them that He was the bread of life. And that they MUST eat His flesh and drink His blood. And yet they walked away.
"And got news for you, it's just as hard for people to accept that they have to identify with Christ's death, a death that they are personally responsible for."
Straw man of your making and proves my point. Please keep abreast of things. Thanks.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh Jesus was still using his flesh at the time. I don't remember Peter chewing a hunk out of him. But maybe I'm remembering it wrong. LOL. Catholics have never been big on metaphor. Hence the whole transubstantiation thing. And I think you desperately need to look up the definition of a straw man.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rogueoftroy (2) "Actually another example of Jesus leaving people who wanted to earn their own salvation and couldn't receive the truth to their own devices."
And yet Jesus NEVER left this guy in his own stupidity as you suggest. Far from it. He leaves the guy in no doubt as to what he should do. And therefore proves "The people could not receive the truth because they would not receive the truth" is a non sequitur.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh Uh, actually he left him in plenty of doubt. Because selling all of one's possessions is not a requirement for salvation and if the man had done exactly that, he would still have had to rely entirely on Christ's completed work for salvation, not his own works.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy (1) "Uh, actually he left him in plenty of doubt"
There was no doubt as Christ said to the man who asked him "What must I do to be saved" and Christ said "Sell all your possessions, give them to the poor and you will have riches in heaven" Meaning that his good work of giving his riches to the poor would have been in a sense salvific because the God-man Jesus Christ told him that this work would bring him riches in heaven. Thus good works do do something.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh Good deeds are done in thanks. Not to earn anything. Christ keeps me. Not me myself. Any good I do, I do out of genuine love and thanksgiving, not because I get set on fire if I don't.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rogueoftroy "Good deeds are done in thanks. Not to earn anything"
Then it seems absurd to be judged on them if they don't earn you anything, don't you think?
"There is no work left undone. Jesus paid it all. Jesus accomplished it all. To say anything else is blasphemy."
Jesus did pay it and is a straw man. But we sin, so there is everything to work for on our part.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh No. Jesus paid it all. Period. If you have a problem with that, you have serious problems.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rogueoftroy "No. Jesus paid it all. Period. If you have a problem with that, you have serious problems."
I don't have a problem with it and shows this to be another straw man. You better stay away from naked flames because if you keep creating as many straw men as you do, you are liable to set yourself on fire.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh It's not a straw man. Me: "Jesus paid it all. Period." You: "Jesus paid it all. BUT ______." You say one thing and then undo it with another and in that way avoid confronting your blasphemy. "Yeah, I'm technically saying Jesus paid it all so even though I undo it with everything else I say, it's still ok cause I said it and I can do enough mental acrobatics that I don't feel like I'm actually DENYING it." But you are. And nothing you can fill in that blank changes that.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy Let me say this once again so as there is no misunderstanding and so you don't create anymore straw men. Jesus paid it all. Period!!!!!!!!
He paid it all regardless of whether one responds to God's grace or not. How is that, is that clear enough Mr Scarecrow?
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh It would have been, but in your next comment after this one, you went back to negating it.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy (1) "There is no work left undone. Jesus paid it all. Jesus accomplished it all. To say anything else is blasphemy."
Jesus did pay it and is a straw man. But we sin, so there is everything to work for on our part. [Addition] If we do not willingly respond to God's grace and accept it [As we are saved through grace alone] then we lose everything. Cont . . .
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh "Jesus did pay it and is a straw man." Nuff said about you.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy It is a straw man because you AGAIN misrepresent the Catholic position and then create an argument against it. I wasn't arguing that Jesus didn't pay it that's why it is a straw man. Nuff said about you Mr Scarecrow.
Get a grip of the straw men. Go learn what we believe first rather than conjuring things up in your head of what we believe and then arguing against that. It's becoming rather tiresome to say the least watching you go to war against them over and over again.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh I know perfect well what transubstantiation is. I just don't put the spin on it you guys do. You believe it is the body of Christ. That is an accurate statement. Whatever spinning and maneuvering you do to make that sound a little less crazy than it clearly is is really rather irrelevant.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rogueoftroy "I know perfect well what transubstantiation is"
The why set up the straw man with the bread and corruption line? It's obvious that you don't.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh Because if the wafer was what you say, it could not rot.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy "I just don't put the spin on it you guys do"
Oh of course you don't. 2000yrs of believing that the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ which conveys immortality and all of a sudden because you disagree isn't you putting a spin on it. Why don't you believe that the Eucharist is that? Oh that's right, your intepretation of the Bible says so i.e. Mr spinny spin Dr. If anyone is twisting anything it is you Chubby Checker.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh I like how you buy into Catholic propaganda that everyone believed what you say uniformly until we came along. Augustine, Justin Martyr, Iranaeus, and Tertullian all agree with me on the matter. Further, it wasn't until about the 9th century that the Catholic Church adopted an official line and started persecuting those who disagreed. Pathetic brainwashing.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rogueoftroy "Augustine, Justin Martyr, Iranaeus, and Tertullian all agree with me on the matter"
Oh yeah? These men didn't believe that Eucharist wasn't the flesh of Christ and that it didn't convey immortality? The floor is yours. (This should be good)
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh No, actually it won't be good. I'm sitting here looking at their full explanations of the matter and don't particularly care to debate the matter with you further. It must suck being a Catholic full of so much hate and disdain for everyone who doesn't agree with you but living in a country where it's no longer legal to burn people at the stake for it. Reduced to trying to argue untenable things. You have my pity.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy "No, actually it won't be good. I'm sitting here looking at their full explanations of the matter and don't particularly care to debate the matter with you further."
Because you can't.
I don't hate you and your using that as an excuse because your arguments don't work here.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh I can. But it's pointless. Eat me.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rogueoftroy "I can. But it's pointless. Eat me."
LOL.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy "9th century that the Catholic Church adopted an official line"
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (110 A.D.)
110 A.D. is hardly the 9th century. But what's 900 yrs between friends? LOL
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh The "they" in this quote is key. Ignatius was dealing with the gnostics who did not believe that Jesus had actual flesh while he was on earth. If you knew anything more than snippets, his full explanation is much more instructive on the matter. Also, you seem to not care to accurately characterize what I said about the 9th century. The lie of transubstantiation existed before then, but it was not the church's official line. A great many people and writings demonstrate this.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy I know who 'they' are. They were 'Docetist's' and Ignatius specifically says that they refuse to acknowledge the EUCHARIST as the flesh of Christ. And they refused to do this as they believed Christ didn't have real flesh. But Ignatius is specifically speaking of the Eucharist as the flesh of Christ. Nothing else. Give me anything from Ignatius that would state anything to the contrary. You can't.
"A great many people and writings demonstrate this."
Give ONE Church father.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh Tertullian and Augustine.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy Tertullion "The flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, so that the soul too may fatten on God." (Resurrection of the Dead 8:3)
Augustine "What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST." (Sermons 272)
Anymore?
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh In a metaphorical way. It's not that the actual flesh of Christ is consumed. That's why Augustine talks about it in terms of FAITH.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy Eh, no. He isn't speaking metaphorically The bread is the body. His faith obliges him to believe it."What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST."
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh Yeah. And where exactly does that contradict me? My faith does oblige me to accept that I must partake in the sacrifice of Christ. That's why I do it as a memorialization. He actually literally died for me.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy "That's why I do it as a memorialization. He actually literally died for me."
So the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice?
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh Um...are you retarded. No. The mass is not. And there's nothing that I just said that makes that jump into a sane leap at all on your part. You're just splatter-footing around trying to land a point on someone who is not even interested in talking to you. But you just looooove to try and fight, anyway.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy "The mass is not"
Then you disagree with Augustine as he is in line with the rest of the Catholic teaching on this.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh I didn't say I agreed with Augustine on everything. I cited him as being on my side in the transubstantiation debate because you and all Catholics have such a boner for appeals to authority.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy He isn't on your side. How could he if the bread becomes Christ's body. Explain that one?
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy "He took flesh from the flesh of Mary . . . and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation"
(Explanations of the Psalms, 98, 9)
WHAT???? Flesh to be eaten unto salvation. Surely not!!!!!!! LOL
"The Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice bringing about remission of sins and the conferring of supernatural gifts" (De cura pro mortuis fier. 1, 3; 18, 22.
NO WAY! The mass is a sacrifice that brings about the remission of sins. How can that be if he is in agreement Rogue????
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh I like how you're laughing about cannibalism. Even if Augustine did agree with you, which he didn't, that still wouldn't make anything you're saying less carnal. Eat flesh in the carnal sense and live? I think not.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, "This is my body," that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body." (Tertullian - Against Marcion, Bk 4).
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy LOL You forgot to add the rest of the Letter against Marcion. Watch this:
But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, . . . He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ. . . He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body." Marcion denied the 'veritable body' LOL.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh You continue to ignore that Tertullian plainly ascribed it as a "figure."
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rogueoftroy "You continue to ignore that Tertullian plainly ascribed it as a "figure."
Eh no, I don't because Terullian is correct. If you read what he writes to Marcion you will see that it is a figure. Context. Prefigurement!!!!!!!!!! is what he is writing about
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh No. He's not. ::Laughs at you::
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy Oh yes he is e.g. He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: 'I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,' which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough . . . "
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh Yup, another example of metaphor. Unless you are contending that Jesus' body was made out of bakery rolls.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rogueoftroy "Yup, another example of metaphor. Unless you are contending that Jesus' body was made out of bakery rolls."
What was another metaphor? LOL You don't even know what he is writing about.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh Actually I do. And actually my post makes perfect sense if you had an IQ above that of a lima bean.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy "Actually I do"
Well from what you have written, it seems that you don't. Unless your trying to fool me.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh Maybe you just don't have the capacity to understand...
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy Oh I understand ok. I have read the books on Sola Scriptura e.g. Keith Mathison's 'the shape of sola scriptura' And R.C. Sproul's and co 'Sola Scriptura, the Protestant position on the Bible' I know fine well what Sola Scriptura is and is not.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh Good for you!
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy Ps, that quote was from Augustine's (Explanation of the Psalms 99) This is really my last post. Honest.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh In a discussion of baptism and the Lord's Supper, Augustine had this to say: "To take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage." (On Christian Doctrine 3,9).
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy (On Christian Doctrine 3,9).
LOL The Eucharist is a sign since it is a sacrament.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh There is no such thing as a sacrament.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy "There is no such thing as a sacrament"
Yeah well, you base everything on a false premise i.e. Sola Scriptura. So it doesn't surprise me you don't believe it.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh Yes, I accept the Scriptures. And not the legitimacy of the Popes of Rome who have SO FREQUENTLY contradicted one another and murdered the innocent. A minute ago you were talking about how much you LOOOOOOVED the Bible, and here you are, proving you're full of crap and willing to accept 1500 years of manmade hooey over the writings of the Apostles.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy Sola Scriptura isn't excepting the Scriptures. LOL
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh I think "accepting" is the word you were looking for. Which Pope brainwashed you into that one?
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy Accepting the Scriptures isn't sola scriptura. You don't know what you are writing about. LOL
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh I accept the Scriptures and nothing in any of the individual works tells me that accepting them as truth is an error on my part. Your condescension is clear. Give it a rest any day now.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy Accepting the Scriptures isn't sola scriptura. You don't know what we believe in and it seems that you don't know what you believe in.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh The bread does not. Quite simply.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy Well that's were you and Augustine part terms again.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh And you seem to think that because I showed you an instance of where you and Augustine are in disagreement that that means that I should be concerned when he and I are not? Sorry. It doesn't work that way. Appeals to authority do not impress me. I just played ball in your court for a minute to show you that you don't even agree with Augustine yourself on transubstantiation. Augustine lived 400 years after Jesus. Paganism in the Church was already rampant. Good guy. Not infallible.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rogueoftroy "And you seem to think that because I showed you an instance of where you and Augustine are in disagreement that that means that I should be concerned when he and I are not?"
You didn't because the Eucharist is a sign. Therefore there is no disagreement
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh A sign is not literal. Good holy grief.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rogueoftroy "A sign is not literal. Good holy grief."
The Eucharist is a sign, a sign of unity. I forgot who I was dealing with so I take full responsibility for this one.
A sign of unity does not discount the Real Presence e.g "Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it"
Last post, I'm away to bed, honest.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy Bed time for me. Catch up with any comments you have tomorrow.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh Most importantly, Jesus said "This do in remembrance of me." Jesus: a remembrance. Augustine: a sign. Tertullian: a figure. You: That's some mighty tasty literal Jesus flesh! ...LOL.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy Yeah, then Augustine was high because he said "The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY." (Sermons 234:2)
Bread becomes Christ's body? No really? LOL
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh Christ's body WAS broken as the bread is broken. That's what symbols and metaphor are about. Yes, Christ is seen in the breaking of the bread. Which is why the disciples had a hard time accepting what Jesus was saying. He was predicting that like the bread, he would be broken and distributed to many so that by His sacrifice, those who believe may receive spiritual life and nourishment. Not from bread, but from the bread of life, which is Jesus.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rogueoftroy "Jesus was still using his flesh at the time. I don't remember Peter chewing a hunk out of him"
Straw man.
You are guilty of presenting a misrepresentation of our position and then you try to refute that. You are guilty of this. Go educate yourself in what we believe first so as you stop creating whole armies of straw men that you can easily knock down.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh The specter of Peter gnawing on Jesus is no more ridiculous than the notion of transubstantiation. Jesus said "I am the vine and you are the branches." Jesus said "Herod is a fox." Jesus said "this is my body." I should like to see a piece of Catholic art depicting the infant grape vine fleeing to Egypt to avoid the wicked (bushy tailed!) ruler. Since we don't do metaphors, you understand.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy Another straw man of your own choosing as for the first half of John 6 Christ is using metophor.
If according to you Jesus was only speaking symbolically then He would be saying to us, "He who reviles or assaults me has eternal life." This, of course, is absurd.
Did anyone understand Him literally when He said He was the vine? Did anyone leave Him when He said He was the door? No, because He was speaking metaphorically. They left Him in John 6 because He was being literal.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh If you leave the loaf after it has been blessed by your priest, what happens to it? Does it not rot as other bread would?
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rogueoftroy "If you leave the loaf after it has been blessed by your priest, what happens to it? Does it not rot as other bread would?"
Of course it does. But I warn you, I know were your going with this and its another straw man. So don't do it.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@TheManGadoosh It's not a straw man to point out that the wafer rots and God will not let his son suffer corruption. It just proves that it's not actually Jesus' flesh. Ridiculous.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rogueoftroy "It's not a straw man to point out that the wafer rots and God will not let his son suffer corruption. It just proves that it's not actually Jesus' flesh. Ridiculous."
It would suit you best if you did some research on what we teach on this. That way you wouldn't make silly comments like this one. It is a straw man because this is a misrepresentation. Go see what we teach first and then comment.
TheManGadoosh 7 months ago
@stevesilvia And I used the phrase "random verses" in the sense that you pull verses from their context and use them to back up things that the verses themselves do not say in context. Context is key.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy, I disagree, my faith is based on the verses....
stevesilvia 7 months ago
@stevesilvia Verses that you make say the things you would like them to in order to back up what the Catholic Church says they do. "Judas went out and hanged himself." "Go and do thou likewise." There is the classic example. Two verses that mean something different when jammed together than where they appear in their natural habitat. CONTEXT.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy, context.....thats why I gave you bible verses as I share my faith with you... I didn't do anything but share and then ask if you agreed or not....
stevesilvia 7 months ago
@stevesilvia Those verses are not context. The verses that surround the verses you cite contain the context. Raining snippets does not sound theology make.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy I never said the verses are context...I shared with you Scripture, I shared with you my beliefs, then I asked if you agreed or not....
stevesilvia 7 months ago
@stevesilvia And you wanted to Scripture to say things it doesn't say in context. And why do you ask if I agree with Catholicism? It's clear that I don't.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy The communion of saints is part of our beliefs We are one body through the Eucharist..."Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf." 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 Don't you agree?
stevesilvia 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@325nicaea I neither blocked you nor would I know how to. Clearly you're telling lies on me because you can't respond to my last messages. And you lie and say I blocked you. Pathetic.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@325nicaea "Once Saved, Always Saved" is a bumper sticker slogan that I refuse to see placed on me by a Roman Catholic blasphemer, idolater, and heretic. It is also associated with the Calvinists, and I am not to be included amongst their ranks, either. The verses cited are a small collection from a much larger body of Scripture. The same God that saved me is the God that keeps me. Though I make errors, still he keeps me. I pity you trying to continually save yourself. You won't succeed.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy No one can know for certain in this life that they will be saved: "When a virtuous man turns away from what is right and does wrong, he shall die for it. "
Ezekiel 33:18
stevesilvia 7 months ago
@stevesilvia You make a bald assertion that contradicts the Bible and then cite an unrelated Scripture as a "proof" text. There's really nothing to respond to here.
Rogueoftroy 7 months ago
@Rogueoftroy I am not making any assertion, I quoted scripture. Either you believe or you don't. Since it came from the bible, how can it contradict Scripture? Maybe because it doesn't fit your interpretations...
stevesilvia 7 months ago