Let's recap, prots think Our Lord misspoke when He said that we could tell EVERY tree by its fruit. That Solomon's Temple was neve razed, and that the jew are celebrating the Feast of the Dedication incorrectly since there was no Second Temple and since that Second Temple was never defiled. Care to say anything else to offend Our Lord?
I get the context. I also get that you think sometimes people do get figs from thistles. Could u give an example and prove me wrong? Tell me which evil produces good and which good produces evil?
Yes it does. For there is no good tree that bringeth forth evil fruit; nor an evil tree that bringeth forth good fruit.
If abortion lead to Salvation then abortion would be a good tree. If Baptism leads to damnation then Baptism would be a bad tree. Typical prot "logic."
Is english ur first language? Seriously? It is called an analogy. I didn't say I was giving u a factual statement, I was giving u an example of how I can speak about a specific thing then apply it to the general.....like OLJC did. I notice that u also did not answer my question. I knew u wouldn't, Can a person get figs from thistles?
you're amazing(in " .." marks),instead of addressing the subject of CONTEXT you go into the "corn fields" repeating the same MANTRA about the word every...i get it,you can NOT have a meaningfull disscusion unless you repeat the same verse ad noseum ad infinitum
this is the reason i keep telling you to stop posting...you have nothing to say !
Red herring? U said Scripture is wrong to say EVERY WORD from the Mouth of god is necessary. So how is it a red herring for me to hold u to what u said?
you keep making the same mistake(you're putting words into my mouth) and you keep switching between topics
answer my argument about Jesus talking about the "false prophets" NOT about infants before and after( at baptism) then we can move into other topics(sola scriptura...etc)
Yah since you don't use any source outside of the Bible, please tell me what is the Feast of the Dedication please? John10:22. U won't find its origin un your "bible." so much for Scripture alone.
The souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in Original Sin only, descend immediately into Hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds. (Council of Florence 1438-1445, Denz. 693) This is also the teaching of the Council of Lyons II, held in 1274.
LOL. Find it yourself. I did my job. Now answer my questions. Do aborted babies go to Heaven? If so then why do you take issue with what I said about prots?
thanks for being honest and admitting that you have NO proofs for your assertion about the protestants...you should be proud about yourself(and ashamed in the same time)..not too many Catholics admit it when they are wrong !
Thanks for being honest and proving u have no retort to the quotes and dates I posted.
AND thanks for being honest and NOT answering my questions.
Speaking of quotes, please show me where I admitted I was wrong? lol. How about it? Oh, and I'm still waiting for u to answer my questions. If you have truth, why are you so afraid?
by directing me " to find it myself" you've shown that you're talking dishonestly and you're making assertions without proving them...as i keep telling you,stop making assertions if you can not prove them...
as for your "question"...i've answer it many times,here it is again: THE BIBLE DOES NOT TALK ABOUT THE SUBJECT ! get it through your head and stop asking...i do not like to speculate!!!!
U asked, I posted. U missed it(perhaps on purpose?). This is YOUR fault, not mine. The Bible DOES talk about the subject and you know it, which is why u REFUSE to answer my questions. U know u will be forced to say it.
This is NOT speculation. Does a bad tree produce good fruit? Yes or no!!!!!!!!!!
The only dishonest person here is YOU. Now answer my question...unless u are too afraid.
No, i posted u, then u accused me of not posting it b/c u "didn't see it"(perhaps on purpose. I did what u asked. If u missed it then go back thru the comments and find it.
That is NOT an answer to my question. I asked can a bad tree produce good fruit. Yes or no? Y do u fear answering this question. Our Lord didn't give us a cowardly spirit.
"No, i posted u, then u accused me of not posting it b/c u "didn't see it"(perhaps on purpose."
stop pretending,you have not provided any proofs for your assertion...that is a FACT!
your only proof was : "LOL Find it yourself."
as for me "fearing" to answer your question...as i keep telling you..my opinion is NOT what i go by when it comes the Bible,so please STOP asking for my opinion or for hypothetical cases ! please
No, my proof is in the post I made. AND in the fact that u refuse to answer my question. I am not asking opinion. I am asking do you agree with Our Lord that Baptism is necessary and that a bad tree does not produce good fruit. U are too afraid to answer which means you have acowardly spirit.
i've read through 8 pages of comments...not a name or a place about the "prots"...
as for my answer to your hypothetical question,i think you have a problem understanding my position,i do not need an excuse to avoid it,your question has no bearing on the subject...stop beating a dead horse !!!
Well then look further b/c i put up 2 quotes from prots.
Let us concentrate on the here and NOW. Is Baptism necessart? Or was Our Lord lying? Can a bad tree produce good fruit? Or was our Lord lying? Are we all concieved sinners? Or was Our Lord lying?
I understand ur position perfectly. U can't answer my questions b/c then u will be admitting that u think abortion is a means to Salvation....an even better means to Salvation than Baptism. silly prot
How is it out of context? Our Lord said if something is good then it will produce goo, if bad then it will produce bad. this applies to EVERYTHING. It is not illogical to useit to judge ANYTHING. Now stop dancing and answer the question.
So we are concieved in sin, u agree. So why would infants be in less need of Baptism than adults? We said they have the stain too, so why would abortion send them to Heaven but Baptism wouldn't?
How is this out of context? Did she believe? Was she saved? If God saves the physical life b/c of the faith of another, why would He let die the Spirit which is much greater than the body?
Well, it's Latin meaning "to the man." U can't argue theology so u call me a liar and attack ME. That is textbook ad hominem. I guess YOU don't know what it means, but u sure know how do use it. lol
Yes really. Are you saying Our Lord was wrong? R u saying HE MEANT to say that typically a good tree will not produce bad fruit? Let me as you what did Our Lord say that He actually meant? U seem to deny everything He said.
Oh and Sola Scripture is bunk. Scripture says we need EVERY Word from the Mouth of God. Now EVERY Word was written. AND Scripture even honors extra Biblical Tradition. Unless u can tell me about the Feast of the Dedication?
in CONTEXT (for example) Matth. 7:15-20(bad tree god fruits bad trees...etc) Jesus is talking about FALSE PROPHETS...you come along and take that (bad tree...good fruit analogy) and apply it to baptism...that's a logical fallacy !
NO, He is talking about everything. good begets good and bad begets bad. He said EVERY good tree. And He even meant it literally about trees and fruit as well. For example, embro. stem researn BAD TREE, BAD FRUIT. Any 'good' that comes from it is followed by monster tumors. lol, He said EVERY TREE, He meant it
Please pray the Rosary for me. And I DO get it. I get that u don't believe Scripture. And that when Our Lord sas EVERYONE must be Baptized, u don't believe Him. And when he says u can judge EVERY tree by its fruit, u don't believe Him. He meant it so explicitly that He even extended it to the literal thistles et al.
again, u think Baptism damns and abortion saves. And u are so ashamed of your own belief that u won't even admit it even after u laid it out.
lol, a pagan tradition to pray to the Mother of God? Can I get some history on that? Unless u are saying repetition is wrong, in which case u are saying God encouraged wrong when He told Moses to have the people recite Moses Canticle often.
too funny, that u think repeating Scripture in prayer is pagan. prots are so silly.
God told the people to repeat Moses Canticle. And one need not use beads to say the Rosary. So if THAT is what is holding u back then just use ur fingers.
Now you tell me where it is forbidden to repeat Scripture as prayer?
the firs prayer to Mary showed up around he 4th century so you have almost 500yrs in which the church had no idea about praying to Mary or any of the saints !
stop commenting about the prots("prots are so silly),it's a fallacy !!!
"Under your mercy we take refuge, O Mother of God. Do not reject our supplications in necessity, but deliver us from danger,[O you] alone pure and alone blessed." Sub Tuum Praesidium, From Rylands Papyrus, Egypt (3rd century).
The believe that Moses body was hidden didn't show up until Paul said it. Doesn't mean it wasn't beleive before that. SS didn't show up till 500 years ago, so if this is your logic then you must reject ss. Silly,
Ok, is it the Word of God that Moses body was hidden?
Is Every Word from the Mouth of God necessary? Scripture says so. Therefore it was believed. If there is no Sacred Tradtion then please explain to me the Feast of the Dedication. lol
"Well then look further b/c i put up 2 quotes from prots. "
i did and found nothing,so you either have a very very short memory or you've made an assertion that you can't prove(other explanations may be true...)
No, I am asking u if Baptism is necessary and if we are concieved in sin. You want to speculate that that stain doesn't have effect until the age of reason. And u want to speculate that Bpatism isn't necessary until then. THAT is speculating. Believing Our Lord isn't.
and i've told you that is an anachronism("reading" into the text of Neh. some concept that RCC come up with from Greek philosophy)...read me replies before making the same mistake ove and over again !
I read ur replies and u didn't address the Scritural verse. Age of reason is talkabout in Neh. Once again u reject what Scripture says....typical prot.
i've told you in Neh. just becouse sounds like "age of reason" does not mean it is...anachronisms tend to work like that,you have to stop using anchronisms !!!
Funny how u accuse me of ad homiems then u slander me. Yes, by "context" u mean that Our Lord did not mean the things He said and did.
Look, the souls in more important than the body, Christ says as much. Yet u believe the faith of another will save the body but no the soul. Is God backwards or are you?
i"ve pointed out the logical fallacy that you made about the "good tree bad fruit" account
your answer...another bad argumentation and refusal on your part to aknowledge that CONTEXT is very important ..."faith of another will save.." i've answer that one too,but somehow you are not paying attention at all to my answers and you keep making the same false arguments over and over!
same mistake again,OUT OF CONTEXT concept that some how is aplied by you to anything (as you said)
read the verses before and after the line with "good tree and bad fruits"...and then you'll see that in CONTEXT the analogy about "good tree" is about FALSE PROPHETS NOT infants at/after baptisms
it seems that no matter how many times i point out that in CONTEXT ,Jesus is addressing the "false prophets", to you it counts as everybody in any context(baptism...infants) ...it is very sad to see you making the same error over and over again by ignoring what i say and
instead of addressing the issue of CONTEXT,you say the same MANTRA
,i have to point out that by simply dismissing an argument it does NOT mean that your point stand...
"No,U keep taking diff. ..ewxposing your foundation"
so far all you've done is to reapeat the same errors...OUT of CONTEST and LOGICALLY IRELEVANT arguments
my advice to you, stop posting...if you can not answer my assertion that in CONTEXT ,Christ was talking about "false prophets" NOT infants at baptism !!!
DOn't tell me to stop posting. This isn't the prot inquisition. I have a right to post. And I post Scripture. If I were you I would stop calling Sacred Scripture a mantra. But if you wish to heap sin upon sin then be my guest.,
applying a verse (taken out of CONTEXT) to match your own (wrong) theology and to make it universal is the reason i told you to stop posting...your arguments are fallacious !stop making them
Tell me how belieing what Our Lord said is taking Him out of context. And prove me wrong using an example. Tell me a good tree that produces bad fruit and vise versa. U can't. lol. Yet u still dig ur feet into that foundation of sand.
Still waiting for u to tell me what the Feast of the Dedication is. AND tell me where it was prophecized that Christ would be from Nazareth? lol
"Tell me a good tree that produces bad fruit and vise versa. U can't. lol. Yet u still dig ur feet into that foundation of sand."
logically irrelevant to baptism of an infant !!!
as for "foundation of sand"...i have to point out you're still making false assertions(me pointing to you that taking a verse OUT of CONTEXT is not proof for infant baptism is NOT an argument that i have my" feet in sand") .
"Still waiting for u to tell me what the Feast of the Dedication is. AND tell me where it was prophecized that Christ would be from Nazareth?"
red herring fallacy!
the Feast of Dedication is in the OT and it had to do with the "rededication" of the ALTAR in the event that the ALTAR was defiled(the "defilement" took place around 200 yrs before Jesus Christ was born..Antiochus Epifanis!)
lol. It's in the OT alright, but not it the prot "ot" u all removed 1 and 2 Macc. So please tell me, how do you justify it being in the NT. U either have to accept Sacred Tradition OR admit that prots were wrong to remove those books.
If you don't need Macc then how do you explain the Feast of the Dedication. If the prophecy about Him being from Nazareth is stated then please show me where in the OT. And don't show me "similar words" I want to prophecy!
No, u said it was in the OT, but it isn't(at least not in yours). Please give me an OT verse that has the Feast of the Dedication. Good luck b/c THAT verse is in Macc. lol
"If you don't need Macc. then how do you explain the Feast of Dedication"
as i posted before the Feast of Dedication has to do with the "dedication" of the Altar (2Chr. 7:9)
so,stop it with the book of Macc.
as for "Him being from Nazareth" Issa. 11:1 ;11:10(Jer. 23:5) is talking about the Messhia being a "Branch"(an offshot that an Olive tree alone will produce even 100s of yrs after the main Olive tree was all dried up)
I am not talking about similar sounding words. I am talking about the SAME word. U sound like silly moslems who try to say Eloi sounds like allah therefore Christ was moslem. Give me a verse that say He would be from Nazareth, not a verse that said He would be a shoot. PERIOD.
i told you about how close the name of the town Nazareth and the agricultural term for an offshot of an Olive tree,but unfortunatelly your brain is not "tuned" to any explanation...sad
Uh, no. The Feast of the Dedication(which the jews call hanakka) is in Macc. and it last 8 days. It has nothing to do with 2Chron. lol. It conincidece w/ Christmas b/c like the Maccabess Christ also cleansed and renewed the Temple.
ANd I am not talking about a branch. The prophecy said a place not a flower.
I know Chron talks about 8 days, but that does not make THAT the Feast. Ask any jew what Hanukka celebrates and the will tell u it is about the victory of the Machabees and the RE-Dedication o fhte Temple.
And again, no verse says He would be from Nazareth. Not one. saying He would be from Jesse is NOT the same thing.
"I know Chr. talks about 8 days,but that does not make THAT the Feast"
the verse in 2 Chr. 7:9 is talking about a FEAST,read it again and stop lying!
aparently you can not be "bothered with facts because you've made up your mind"
you make the same false assumptions and for some reason can't answer my assertions but instead you go on, repeating the same questions over and over again ,sad to see catholics like you(unable to carry a decent disscusion about their "church" teachings)
I didn't say the verse didn't talk about a Feast. I did say that it isn't about THIS Feast. That verse is not about the Feast of the Dedication. Dang, even the jews get this one right.
Funny b/c THIS Catholic knows that the Temple was razed and rebuilt, defiled then rededicated. lol
"Funny b/c this catholic knows that the Temple was razed..."
100s of yrs before and after(the Feast of Dedication) so why even talk about the destruction of the Temple when the Feast of Dedication was put in place?
you're confussing yourself by adding info not pertinent to the subject at hand...
So u think the Feast of the Dedication was a Feast to celebrate a Temple that was raved? ANd u think it is not germane for me to point out that the Temple was destroyed? It IS germane b/c THAT Temple was not around. No, the Feast AND Hannukka celebrate the RE-Dedication of the Machabees. Please learn some history along with learning Scripture.
Uh YES. I know it has to do with the defilement. The SECOND Temple was defiled. It was RE-Dedicated by the Machabees. THAT is the Feast of the Dedication. Show me where the is in your OT? Otherwise u must concede that prots were wrong to remove Machabees.
No, i said that u are claiming this feast has to do with the Temple of Solomon. THAT Temple was destroyed. This Feast is about the RE-Dedication of the SECOND Temple. The verse in Chron. is about the FIRST Dedication of the FIRST Temple.
i've given you the verse in 2Chr. to show you that what was done to the Temple in the time of Solomon(a 8 day feast) was the bases for what was done in the time of the DEFILEMENT of the Temple by the Greeks(another 8 days Feast this time or [RE] Dedication)
so your claim that without 1&2Machhabee we can not explain Hannuckha is false
I am not talking about the process I am talking about the actual Feast and the reason for it. Where is the defilement and rededication in your "bible"?
8 days in 2Chr. and for some reason(lol) the Feast of Dedication 8 days
after the defilement done by the Greeks the Jews did not take down and then rebuilt the Temple...they only did a RE dedication...woaw those Jews were smart
Right! Now shouw me where in the Bible this happened. Show me where the Temple was rededicated. U can't so u MUST admit that either there IS Sacred Tradition or Machabees is inspired or BOTH. Which is it? Show me the verse where the Temple is rededicated and the Feast is proclaimed....here's a hint, it's in Machabees.
silly prot. That Temple was long gone. They were not celebrating a dedication of something that was demolished. And again the Feast was a celebration of the RE-Dedication of the Second Temple. THAT was commanded in Scripture. And THAT is what the jews celebrate to this day. Have u ever even read your "bible"
Tsk, tsk. The FIRST Temple, which Solomos built, was destroyed by the Babylonians. Then a SECOND temple was built. THAT Temple was defiled. Then THAT Temple was rededicated. lol
I did. He is talking about how to judge good from bad. Look at the fruit produce then you will know the tree. He is talking specifically about prophets but extends the wisedom to EVERYTHING.
But regardless, even if He is talking about prophets only(which He isn't b/c He gives other examples) prots produce bad fruits, which make prot "prophets" a bad tree.
Now asnwer mine, did OLJC mean EVERY tree, when He said EVERY tree?
It is about EVERYTHING. He even says so. And u even admit that it is about false prophets, hypoctirs and literal trees. Yet by every tree, u think He means SOME.
I have a million times. If a tree produces good fruit then itis a good tree. if it produces bad fruit then it is a bad tree. Good can not beget evil, nor evil beget good. If Baptism isn't necessary for infants then aborted babies go to Heaven, which would make abortion a good tree. This is not and can not be the case. PERIOD.
Ahhhhh? Do u have comprehension problems? Listen carefully, if a good tree can not produce good fruit then infant Baptism must be necessary. Otherwise Baptism doesn't save but infant mortality does. Got it?
Are u saying that it is illogical to think u can't get figs from thistles? Are you, then, saying Our Lord had poor logic? Prots are so quick to through God to the wolves.....the lengths to which u will go to hold heresy.
first,you are assuming that your errors are somehow Christ's as well(bad news for you ,the errors you've been making are yours ALONE)
second, in John 1:1 the Greek word LOGOS("in the begining was the WORD...")
would be better translated as LOGIC,our Lord is LOGIC itself !
take my advice and read a book on Logic it will help (hopefully)you and of course I will pray for you,may the Lord give you wisdom and understanding!nice "talking" with you
Uh, son u have a real comprhension problem, I happen to agree w/ EVERY(funny word huh) Word OLJC spoke. YOU are saying He is wrong. Not I. So again, YOU ARE LYING. Show me where I even ONCE said He had poor logic! No, I said comparied to your poor interperation of His Words either you or He is wrong. Which is it? I say it is you. I mere ask for YOU to affirm that either He is right and u wrong, or He is wrong and u right.
I notice u still have not answered ANY of my questions. SHOCKER!
And you're still not answering my questions. I will certainly do some reading, I can start with where Sacred Scripture establishes the Feast of the Dedication. lol. Could you point me to where that is. haha
Let me get this straight, are u saying that the Temple that Solomon built was not destroyed? Do you understand that during Our Lord's time, it was a different Temple....the SECOND Temple? do urself a favor and read Sacred Scripture.
"Let me get this straight,are u saying the Temple was destroyed"
you're not worthed my time!you're making historical claims(false ones) that tell me you have not read the Bible(or have not got around finishing the whole Bible)
when the Feast of Dedication(Hannuckha) was put in place(around 200 yrs before the birth of Jesus) the Temple was NOT destroyed,just DEFILED by the Greeks(Antiochus Epifanis slaughtered a pig on the Altar and errected a statue of one of the Greek gods in the Temple)
Uh, did u read my post? U are saying the Feast celebrated Solomon's Temple. That Temple was most certainly destroyed. I have said from the beginning that the Feast of the Dedication celebrates the RE-Dedication of the SECOND Temple, which was defiled. Please show me where I have said otherwise or I will be forced to call u a liar since u are bearing false witness against me. YOU brought up Solomon's Temple, NOT ME. That Temple was destroyed.
Uh son, YOU brought Chronicles into the conversation. The Feast of the Dedication is about the Machabees. The SECOND Temple. YOU brought up Solomon's Temple as if 2 say the Feast celebrated that. Can't u even keep up with your own words?
If we don't need Machabees then how do u explain the Feast of the Dedication. U already agreed that it was a REDedication of the Temple and NOT the Dedication of Solomon's Temple since that Temple was long gone. WHERE IS THIS IN YOUR "BIBLE?"
read 2Chrn 7:9...there you'll find what the 8 days of dedication(in our case the DEFILEMENT of the Temple by the Greeks) for the Altar,Temple is all about
so your point that without 1&2Mach.(in your Catholic Bible) we would not have Hannuckha is false
Please reread that verse. That was when the FIRST Temple was first built. It is not a rededication nor is it the Second Temple. People were not celebrating at Our Lord's time a Temple which had been razed.
as for Nazareth,my understanding is that the word for an olive tree offshot(if the main tree trunk dies...it is possible that after 100s of yrs a distance away from the initial trunk and from the same root system an offshot will show up )
the hebrew word for offshot(an agricultural term) is very close to the word Nazareth(name of a town/village)...so the prophecy about Jesus is still good
I know the prophecy is good. But it isn't WRITTEN ANYWAY. And I don't care if the words are similair...they aren't the same. So tell me which prophet and where was it said that Christ would be from Nazareth.
baptism does not regenerate anyone.
roaringwaterbay 1 year ago
really crappy video! Poorly presented and completely useless as an argument in favor of BR!!
FreshDonuts 2 years ago
what are you talking about? I totally refuted all of Matt Slick's points
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
Let's recap, prots think Our Lord misspoke when He said that we could tell EVERY tree by its fruit. That Solomon's Temple was neve razed, and that the jew are celebrating the Feast of the Dedication incorrectly since there was no Second Temple and since that Second Temple was never defiled. Care to say anything else to offend Our Lord?
evi410 2 years ago
"Let's recap,prots think...etc"
as i said, you have a real problem with the word "every",to bad you have no answer about the CONTEXT in which the word "every" appears...
as for the Temple you've made a mess out of it
"offend" our Lord ?you are "amaizing"
martalog121 2 years ago
I get the context. I also get that you think sometimes people do get figs from thistles. Could u give an example and prove me wrong? Tell me which evil produces good and which good produces evil?
evi410 2 years ago
"I get the context..."
so,answer my assertion(that "bad tree good fruits" HAS NOTHING to do with where or who goes where in the case of infants)
martalog121 2 years ago
Yes it does. For there is no good tree that bringeth forth evil fruit; nor an evil tree that bringeth forth good fruit.
If abortion lead to Salvation then abortion would be a good tree. If Baptism leads to damnation then Baptism would be a bad tree. Typical prot "logic."
evi410 2 years ago
"if abortion lead to Salvation...etc"
this jesuitical casuistry is NOT in the Bible so stop making assumptions that you can not prove !
i'm not interested in false dillemas and wishfull thinking !
martalog121 2 years ago
So Our Lord was wrong to say that we can tell EVERY tree by its fruit?
evi410 2 years ago
"So Our Lord was wrong..."
NO,you are wrong in taking a verse and applying that verse to EVERYTHING,
stop using this type of argumentation..it's fallacious
martalog121 2 years ago
How silly of me to apply it to every tree just b/c He said EVERY tree.
Look, if I say, "when fish stinks, it is bad, U can tell something is bad when it stinks." I am not limiting the wisdom jsut to fish.
Now tell me can a bad tree produce good fruit. yes or no. I bet u won't answer.
evi410 2 years ago
"How silly..etc"
a fallacious argument !
just because something stinks it does not mean it is bad!
e.g : gorgonzola( that stinks badly) is the type of cheese that some people enjoy eating (so,for some people that type of cheese is good NOT bad)
martalog121 2 years ago
Is english ur first language? Seriously? It is called an analogy. I didn't say I was giving u a factual statement, I was giving u an example of how I can speak about a specific thing then apply it to the general.....like OLJC did. I notice that u also did not answer my question. I knew u wouldn't, Can a person get figs from thistles?
evi410 2 years ago
Prots think that believing Our Lord is a fallacy. How dare I think that He meant EVERY Tree when He said EVERY tree.
evi410 2 years ago
"Prot think believing Our Lord is a fallacy"
you're amazing(in " .." marks),instead of addressing the subject of CONTEXT you go into the "corn fields" repeating the same MANTRA about the word every...i get it,you can NOT have a meaningfull disscusion unless you repeat the same verse ad noseum ad infinitum
this is the reason i keep telling you to stop posting...you have nothing to say !
martalog121 2 years ago
Matthew 4 Found 3
4 Who answered and said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in EVERY WORD that proceedeth from the mouth of God.
evi410 2 years ago
"Scripture is a fallacy?"
stop with the red herring !
martalog121 2 years ago
Red herring? U said Scripture is wrong to say EVERY WORD from the Mouth of god is necessary. So how is it a red herring for me to hold u to what u said?
evi410 2 years ago
"Red herring...U said Scripture is wrong"
you keep making the same mistake(you're putting words into my mouth) and you keep switching between topics
answer my argument about Jesus talking about the "false prophets" NOT about infants before and after( at baptism) then we can move into other topics(sola scriptura...etc)
martalog121 2 years ago
No, U keep taking different ridiculous stances to hold to error. I am simply ewxposing your foundation of sand.
evi410 2 years ago
Yah since you don't use any source outside of the Bible, please tell me what is the Feast of the Dedication please? John10:22. U won't find its origin un your "bible." so much for Scripture alone.
evi410 2 years ago
stick to baptism,stop running into diff. topics !
martalog121 2 years ago
i can not reply to some here on this channel !
so i'll send you a private mess. ...sorry but that's the only way i can respond to some of you
martalog121 2 years ago
The souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in Original Sin only, descend immediately into Hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds. (Council of Florence 1438-1445, Denz. 693) This is also the teaching of the Council of Lyons II, held in 1274.
evi410 2 years ago
Thanks for referencing the councils; I'm learning a bit here. What's "Denz."?
BaronGrackle 2 years ago
Oh, well then I will try to be more gentle. I am used to arguing with Catholics who try to be difficult. Denz is abbrev for Denzinger.
Read The Dolorous Passion, she talks about the Limbo of the Just. Although that no longer exists, it is a good feel for the Dogma.
evi410 2 years ago
hey evi410,i'm still waiting for some proof for your assertions about the protestants..how about it !!!
martalog121 2 years ago
How about it? I posted it already. I'm waiting for you to answer my questions. How about it!!!!!!!!
evi410 2 years ago
"How about it? I posted it already. "
when did you post them and where?
martalog121 2 years ago
LOL. Find it yourself. I did my job. Now answer my questions. Do aborted babies go to Heaven? If so then why do you take issue with what I said about prots?
If not, why not?
evi410 2 years ago
"LOL. Find it yourself."
thanks for being honest and admitting that you have NO proofs for your assertion about the protestants...you should be proud about yourself(and ashamed in the same time)..not too many Catholics admit it when they are wrong !
martalog121 2 years ago
Thanks for being honest and proving u have no retort to the quotes and dates I posted.
AND thanks for being honest and NOT answering my questions.
Speaking of quotes, please show me where I admitted I was wrong? lol. How about it? Oh, and I'm still waiting for u to answer my questions. If you have truth, why are you so afraid?
evi410 2 years ago
"please show me where I admitted I was wrong?"
by directing me " to find it myself" you've shown that you're talking dishonestly and you're making assertions without proving them...as i keep telling you,stop making assertions if you can not prove them...
as for your "question"...i've answer it many times,here it is again: THE BIBLE DOES NOT TALK ABOUT THE SUBJECT ! get it through your head and stop asking...i do not like to speculate!!!!
martalog121 2 years ago
U asked, I posted. U missed it(perhaps on purpose?). This is YOUR fault, not mine. The Bible DOES talk about the subject and you know it, which is why u REFUSE to answer my questions. U know u will be forced to say it.
This is NOT speculation. Does a bad tree produce good fruit? Yes or no!!!!!!!!!!
The only dishonest person here is YOU. Now answer my question...unless u are too afraid.
evi410 2 years ago
"U asked, I posted. U missed it(perhaps on purpose?). This is YOUR fault, not mine."
i don't know what you're talking about...
you've made an assertion about the "protestants" ,i've asked you to prove that assertion,your answer to my demand was "LOL. Find it yourself."
so,time for you to stop posting! you are accusing the "protestants" without proving your assertion !
as for the "bad tree and good fruit" you've answered yourself...we are ALL SINNERS !!!
martalog121 2 years ago
No, i posted u, then u accused me of not posting it b/c u "didn't see it"(perhaps on purpose. I did what u asked. If u missed it then go back thru the comments and find it.
That is NOT an answer to my question. I asked can a bad tree produce good fruit. Yes or no? Y do u fear answering this question. Our Lord didn't give us a cowardly spirit.
evi410 2 years ago
"No, i posted u, then u accused me of not posting it b/c u "didn't see it"(perhaps on purpose."
stop pretending,you have not provided any proofs for your assertion...that is a FACT!
your only proof was : "LOL Find it yourself."
as for me "fearing" to answer your question...as i keep telling you..my opinion is NOT what i go by when it comes the Bible,so please STOP asking for my opinion or for hypothetical cases ! please
martalog121 2 years ago
No, my proof is in the post I made. AND in the fact that u refuse to answer my question. I am not asking opinion. I am asking do you agree with Our Lord that Baptism is necessary and that a bad tree does not produce good fruit. U are too afraid to answer which means you have acowardly spirit.
evi410 2 years ago
"No, my proof is in the post I made. "
you've made assertions but some how forgot that you have to prove them...
martalog121 2 years ago
I did prove them. I posted the quotes, names and times. If you missed it then than is your problem. Go through the comments and find them.
Till then answer my questions. U are using this as an excuse to avoid the questions.
evi410 2 years ago
i've read through 8 pages of comments...not a name or a place about the "prots"...
as for my answer to your hypothetical question,i think you have a problem understanding my position,i do not need an excuse to avoid it,your question has no bearing on the subject...stop beating a dead horse !!!
martalog121 2 years ago
Well then look further b/c i put up 2 quotes from prots.
Let us concentrate on the here and NOW. Is Baptism necessart? Or was Our Lord lying? Can a bad tree produce good fruit? Or was our Lord lying? Are we all concieved sinners? Or was Our Lord lying?
I understand ur position perfectly. U can't answer my questions b/c then u will be admitting that u think abortion is a means to Salvation....an even better means to Salvation than Baptism. silly prot
evi410 2 years ago
"Can a bad tree produce good fruit?"
stop taking a verse out of context(bad tree...) and adding it to infant baptism...logically irrelevant
"Are we all concieved sinners? Or was Our Lord lying?"
yes we are sinners...Christ lying???
as for my position,again stop beating a dead horse !
martalog121 2 years ago
How is it out of context? Our Lord said if something is good then it will produce goo, if bad then it will produce bad. this applies to EVERYTHING. It is not illogical to useit to judge ANYTHING. Now stop dancing and answer the question.
So we are concieved in sin, u agree. So why would infants be in less need of Baptism than adults? We said they have the stain too, so why would abortion send them to Heaven but Baptism wouldn't?
evi410 2 years ago
"So why would infants be in less need of Baptism than adults? "
someone has to BELIEVE before he/she can be baptized !get it through your head
martalog121 2 years ago
So did the dead girl believe? Or was that a mistake?
evi410 2 years ago
"So did the dead girl..."
her father was asked if he believed that Jesus Christ could actually raise his daughter...read in CONTEXT and stop mixing
martalog121 2 years ago
how does this change it? His faith saved her life, but u think it couldn't save her soul. U think God will save the body and not the soul?
evi410 2 years ago
How is this out of context? Did she believe? Was she saved? If God saves the physical life b/c of the faith of another, why would He let die the Spirit which is much greater than the body?
evi410 2 years ago
anything about your LIES about the "prots"???
i guess not!
martalog121 2 years ago
Ah, the ol' ad hominem. Anything to take the heat off your satanic beliefs. lol
evi410 2 years ago
whaaat?
stop making FALSE assertions !!
martalog121 2 years ago
"Ah,the ol'ad hominem"
do you even know what an ad hominem is?(apparently NOT)
martalog121 2 years ago
Well, it's Latin meaning "to the man." U can't argue theology so u call me a liar and attack ME. That is textbook ad hominem. I guess YOU don't know what it means, but u sure know how do use it. lol
evi410 2 years ago
when did i make the "ad hominem"?
martalog121 2 years ago
Um, very few posts where u ddin't. Calling me a liar instead of sticking with the argument.
evi410 2 years ago
"Our Lord said if something is good then it will produce goo, if bad then it will produce bad. this applies to EVERYTHING. "
really? this type of argumentation can be used to prove almost anything(no wonder RCC/you has so many unbiblical teachings)
martalog121 2 years ago
Yes really. Are you saying Our Lord was wrong? R u saying HE MEANT to say that typically a good tree will not produce bad fruit? Let me as you what did Our Lord say that He actually meant? U seem to deny everything He said.
Oh and Sola Scripture is bunk. Scripture says we need EVERY Word from the Mouth of God. Now EVERY Word was written. AND Scripture even honors extra Biblical Tradition. Unless u can tell me about the Feast of the Dedication?
evi410 2 years ago
"Yes really.Are you saying...etc"
in CONTEXT (for example) Matth. 7:15-20(bad tree god fruits bad trees...etc) Jesus is talking about FALSE PROPHETS...you come along and take that (bad tree...good fruit analogy) and apply it to baptism...that's a logical fallacy !
stop using it !!!
martalog121 2 years ago
NO, He is talking about everything. good begets good and bad begets bad. He said EVERY good tree. And He even meant it literally about trees and fruit as well. For example, embro. stem researn BAD TREE, BAD FRUIT. Any 'good' that comes from it is followed by monster tumors. lol, He said EVERY TREE, He meant it
evi410 2 years ago
you're either very stubborn or just don't get it...i'll pray for you !
martalog121 2 years ago
Please pray the Rosary for me. And I DO get it. I get that u don't believe Scripture. And that when Our Lord sas EVERYONE must be Baptized, u don't believe Him. And when he says u can judge EVERY tree by its fruit, u don't believe Him. He meant it so explicitly that He even extended it to the literal thistles et al.
again, u think Baptism damns and abortion saves. And u are so ashamed of your own belief that u won't even admit it even after u laid it out.
evi410 2 years ago
"Rosary" ?
another PAGAN tradition...stop using it!
again with the "tree"...CONTEXT,watch it
martalog121 2 years ago
lol, a pagan tradition to pray to the Mother of God? Can I get some history on that? Unless u are saying repetition is wrong, in which case u are saying God encouraged wrong when He told Moses to have the people recite Moses Canticle often.
too funny, that u think repeating Scripture in prayer is pagan. prots are so silly.
evi410 2 years ago
"a pagan traditon...Mother of God..."
where in the NT or OT did you read about people praying using beads and repeating the same prayer over and over ?
ohh,NOWHERE !!!
martalog121 2 years ago
God told the people to repeat Moses Canticle. And one need not use beads to say the Rosary. So if THAT is what is holding u back then just use ur fingers.
Now you tell me where it is forbidden to repeat Scripture as prayer?
evi410 2 years ago
Once again u bring up Sola Sciptura. I guess it is ok when YOU "go off topic."
But since we are NOW on the subject, please tell me, what is the Feast of the Dedication.
evi410 2 years ago
"Can I get some history on that? "
the firs prayer to Mary showed up around he 4th century so you have almost 500yrs in which the church had no idea about praying to Mary or any of the saints !
stop commenting about the prots("prots are so silly),it's a fallacy !!!
martalog121 2 years ago
wrong. Here is one from the 3rd century:
"Under your mercy we take refuge, O Mother of God. Do not reject our supplications in necessity, but deliver us from danger,[O you] alone pure and alone blessed." Sub Tuum Praesidium, From Rylands Papyrus, Egypt (3rd century).
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
you still have 400 yrs in which no prayers to <Mary were made ,how is 3rd century any better to your cause???
martalog121 2 years ago
The believe that Moses body was hidden didn't show up until Paul said it. Doesn't mean it wasn't beleive before that. SS didn't show up till 500 years ago, so if this is your logic then you must reject ss. Silly,
evi410 2 years ago
"the believe that Moses body...SS"
you have to prove that the Moses account was believed before Paul wrote about it,keep in mind that
Paul had written based on the revelation that he got from Jesus Christ...not your so called oral tradition !
stop the ad hominems,you're still making them !
who is SS?
martalog121 2 years ago
Ok, is it the Word of God that Moses body was hidden?
Is Every Word from the Mouth of God necessary? Scripture says so. Therefore it was believed. If there is no Sacred Tradtion then please explain to me the Feast of the Dedication. lol
Sola Scriptura.
evi410 2 years ago
"Is Every...etc"
deal with the topic and stop making the red herring fallacy !
as for the so called "sacred tradition" is a dream...wake up !
martalog121 2 years ago
Scripture is a fallacy? ok. lol
Matt4
4 Who answered and said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in EV that proceedeth from the mouth of God.
evi410 2 years ago
"Well then look further b/c i put up 2 quotes from prots. "
i did and found nothing,so you either have a very very short memory or you've made an assertion that you can't prove(other explanations may be true...)
martalog121 2 years ago
OR I made the claim, proved it and u have no choice but 2 pretend u never saw it.
U know what I can't find? any post where u answer my questions.
evi410 2 years ago
"OR I made the claim,proved it......etc"
i've looked at ALL 13 pages of comments (this channel)..NO proofs from you in regards to your (false) assertion about the "prots"
martalog121 2 years ago
Ur refusal to answer is proof enough.
evi410 2 years ago
"Ur refusal...."
stop asking me to SPECULATE !
martalog121 2 years ago
Where am asking u to speculate? Christ said Baptism is necessary. Was He telling the Truth or was He lying? No speculation involve.
evi410 2 years ago
"Where am asking u to speculate?"
when you've asked me to tell you my opinion where dead infants go...
martalog121 2 years ago
No, I am asking u if Baptism is necessary and if we are concieved in sin. You want to speculate that that stain doesn't have effect until the age of reason. And u want to speculate that Bpatism isn't necessary until then. THAT is speculating. Believing Our Lord isn't.
evi410 2 years ago
"age of reason"...i've told you,that's NOT in the Bible is Greek philosophy !
martalog121 2 years ago
It IS in the Bible and I gave the verse in Neh.
I guess it is "off topic" b/c u have no answer. Yet it is not off topic to bring up Sola Scriptura when YOU want to do so?
evi410 2 years ago
"It is in the Bible...Neh..."
and i've told you that is an anachronism("reading" into the text of Neh. some concept that RCC come up with from Greek philosophy)...read me replies before making the same mistake ove and over again !
martalog121 2 years ago
I read ur replies and u didn't address the Scritural verse. Age of reason is talkabout in Neh. Once again u reject what Scripture says....typical prot.
evi410 2 years ago
"Age of reason..."
i've told you in Neh. just becouse sounds like "age of reason" does not mean it is...anachronisms tend to work like that,you have to stop using anchronisms !!!
martalog121 2 years ago
Of course not, according to prots NOTHING in the Bible means what it actually says.
evi410 2 years ago
"Of course not,...."
my friend ,i'm the one pointing out and teling you to watch the CONTEXT of the verses you're quoting...you're very dishonest to say the least!
martalog121 2 years ago
Funny how u accuse me of ad homiems then u slander me. Yes, by "context" u mean that Our Lord did not mean the things He said and did.
Look, the souls in more important than the body, Christ says as much. Yet u believe the faith of another will save the body but no the soul. Is God backwards or are you?
evi410 2 years ago
"by context u mean...etc"
i"ve pointed out the logical fallacy that you made about the "good tree bad fruit" account
your answer...another bad argumentation and refusal on your part to aknowledge that CONTEXT is very important ..."faith of another will save.." i've answer that one too,but somehow you are not paying attention at all to my answers and you keep making the same false arguments over and over!
martalog121 2 years ago
No, what u told me is that when Christ said EVERY TREE, you think He meant SOME TREES. I beleive HIM, not YOU.
evi410 2 years ago
"NO ,what u told me...EVERY TREE..etc"
same mistake again,OUT OF CONTEXT concept that some how is aplied by you to anything (as you said)
read the verses before and after the line with "good tree and bad fruits"...and then you'll see that in CONTEXT the analogy about "good tree" is about FALSE PROPHETS NOT infants at/after baptisms
martalog121 2 years ago
So by EVERY TREE, He mean "some trees"?
prove this, name one evil that begets good. And one good that begets evil.
evi410 2 years ago
"So by EVERY TREE..."
do you even read my replies?
it seems that no matter how many times i point out that in CONTEXT ,Jesus is addressing the "false prophets", to you it counts as everybody in any context(baptism...infants) ...it is very sad to see you making the same error over and over again by ignoring what i say and
instead of addressing the issue of CONTEXT,you say the same MANTRA
,i have to point out that by simply dismissing an argument it does NOT mean that your point stand...
martalog121 2 years ago
So Our Lord was say only SOME trees produce appropriate fruit? Why did He say "EVERY?"
Please tell me one good that begets evil and one evil that begets good.
evi410 2 years ago
"No,U keep taking diff. ..ewxposing your foundation"
so far all you've done is to reapeat the same errors...OUT of CONTEST and LOGICALLY IRELEVANT arguments
my advice to you, stop posting...if you can not answer my assertion that in CONTEXT ,Christ was talking about "false prophets" NOT infants at baptism !!!
martalog121 2 years ago
Christ was talking about EVERYTHING.....even literal trees and fruit.
evi410 2 years ago
"Christ was talking about Everyhing...even literal trees and fruit"
again,my advice to you...STOP posting!
martalog121 2 years ago
Why, b/c I force u to show that you reject just about everything Christ teaches and that abortions is sure Salvation and Baptism is sure damnation?
evi410 2 years ago
"Why,b/c I force u..."
as I said, STOP posting! you have nothing to say except MANTRAS...
martalog121 2 years ago
DOn't tell me to stop posting. This isn't the prot inquisition. I have a right to post. And I post Scripture. If I were you I would stop calling Sacred Scripture a mantra. But if you wish to heap sin upon sin then be my guest.,
evi410 2 years ago
"If i were you I would stop calling...!
applying a verse (taken out of CONTEXT) to match your own (wrong) theology and to make it universal is the reason i told you to stop posting...your arguments are fallacious !stop making them
martalog121 2 years ago
Tell me how belieing what Our Lord said is taking Him out of context. And prove me wrong using an example. Tell me a good tree that produces bad fruit and vise versa. U can't. lol. Yet u still dig ur feet into that foundation of sand.
Still waiting for u to tell me what the Feast of the Dedication is. AND tell me where it was prophecized that Christ would be from Nazareth? lol
evi410 2 years ago
"Tell me a good tree that produces bad fruit and vise versa. U can't. lol. Yet u still dig ur feet into that foundation of sand."
logically irrelevant to baptism of an infant !!!
as for "foundation of sand"...i have to point out you're still making false assertions(me pointing to you that taking a verse OUT of CONTEXT is not proof for infant baptism is NOT an argument that i have my" feet in sand") .
Stop making comments that are fallacious !
martalog121 2 years ago
Stop saying that Christ did not mean what He said. Is that all prots do is deny the very Words of Our Lord?
Please tell me what sin an infant needs to repent? Otherwise Baptism is enough
evi410 2 years ago
"Stop saying that Christ did not mean..."
stop this type of argumentation...it is fallacious,get it through your head !
"Please tellme what sin...etc"
thanks for answering to your own argument...an infant is not able to repent so his/her baptism is just a rite that has nothing to do with the Bible !
martalog121 2 years ago
"Still waiting for u to tell me what the Feast of the Dedication is. AND tell me where it was prophecized that Christ would be from Nazareth?"
red herring fallacy!
the Feast of Dedication is in the OT and it had to do with the "rededication" of the ALTAR in the event that the ALTAR was defiled(the "defilement" took place around 200 yrs before Jesus Christ was born..Antiochus Epifanis!)
martalog121 2 years ago
lol. It's in the OT alright, but not it the prot "ot" u all removed 1 and 2 Macc. So please tell me, how do you justify it being in the NT. U either have to accept Sacred Tradition OR admit that prots were wrong to remove those books.
evi410 2 years ago
" It's in the OT...."
the prophecy is in the major prophets (Issaiah ,Jeremiah)and is about the "root/stem" of Jesse(father of David)
we do not need 1&2 Macc.
as for your so called "sacred tradition" can you think of a piece of writting where one can find these traditons defined and arranged ?
martalog121 2 years ago
If you don't need Macc then how do you explain the Feast of the Dedication. If the prophecy about Him being from Nazareth is stated then please show me where in the OT. And don't show me "similar words" I want to prophecy!
evi410 2 years ago
"..then how do you explain the Feast of Dedication.."
i did,but with you NOTHING register in the "thinking box" !
you keep asking the same questions over and over...very strange way of trying to argue !
martalog121 2 years ago
No, u said it was in the OT, but it isn't(at least not in yours). Please give me an OT verse that has the Feast of the Dedication. Good luck b/c THAT verse is in Macc. lol
evi410 2 years ago
"If you don't need Macc. then how do you explain the Feast of Dedication"
as i posted before the Feast of Dedication has to do with the "dedication" of the Altar (2Chr. 7:9)
so,stop it with the book of Macc.
as for "Him being from Nazareth" Issa. 11:1 ;11:10(Jer. 23:5) is talking about the Messhia being a "Branch"(an offshot that an Olive tree alone will produce even 100s of yrs after the main Olive tree was all dried up)
martalog121 2 years ago
cont.
the Hebrew word for an Olive tree offshot is very close in pronunciation with the word Nazzareth(name of a town) !
martalog121 2 years ago
I am not talking about similar sounding words. I am talking about the SAME word. U sound like silly moslems who try to say Eloi sounds like allah therefore Christ was moslem. Give me a verse that say He would be from Nazareth, not a verse that said He would be a shoot. PERIOD.
evi410 2 years ago
"I am not talking about similar words"
take the time to read my replies!!!
martalog121 2 years ago
"U sound like silly moslems..."
i told you about how close the name of the town Nazareth and the agricultural term for an offshot of an Olive tree,but unfortunatelly your brain is not "tuned" to any explanation...sad
martalog121 2 years ago
I'm not looking for a close term. I am asking you to tell me THE PHRASE. Not similar. Not close. Not almost.
evi410 2 years ago
Uh, no. The Feast of the Dedication(which the jews call hanakka) is in Macc. and it last 8 days. It has nothing to do with 2Chron. lol. It conincidece w/ Christmas b/c like the Maccabess Christ also cleansed and renewed the Temple.
ANd I am not talking about a branch. The prophecy said a place not a flower.
evi410 2 years ago
"Uh,no.The Feast of Dedication..."
2Chr. talks about the feast of dedication of the Altar that lasts 8 days...you said that without Macc. there would not be Hanukka...
i have to point out (again) that by simply dismissing what i say is NOT a "point" for your position !!!
the same goes for the Nazzareth discussion
the prophecy is about what the Messhia is called
martalog121 2 years ago
I know Chron talks about 8 days, but that does not make THAT the Feast. Ask any jew what Hanukka celebrates and the will tell u it is about the victory of the Machabees and the RE-Dedication o fhte Temple.
And again, no verse says He would be from Nazareth. Not one. saying He would be from Jesse is NOT the same thing.
evi410 2 years ago
"I know Chr. talks about 8 days,but that does not make THAT the Feast"
the verse in 2 Chr. 7:9 is talking about a FEAST,read it again and stop lying!
aparently you can not be "bothered with facts because you've made up your mind"
you make the same false assumptions and for some reason can't answer my assertions but instead you go on, repeating the same questions over and over again ,sad to see catholics like you(unable to carry a decent disscusion about their "church" teachings)
martalog121 2 years ago
I didn't say the verse didn't talk about a Feast. I did say that it isn't about THIS Feast. That verse is not about the Feast of the Dedication. Dang, even the jews get this one right.
Funny b/c THIS Catholic knows that the Temple was razed and rebuilt, defiled then rededicated. lol
evi410 2 years ago
"Funny b/c this catholic knows that the Temple was razed..."
100s of yrs before and after(the Feast of Dedication) so why even talk about the destruction of the Temple when the Feast of Dedication was put in place?
you're confussing yourself by adding info not pertinent to the subject at hand...
martalog121 2 years ago
So u think the Feast of the Dedication was a Feast to celebrate a Temple that was raved? ANd u think it is not germane for me to point out that the Temple was destroyed? It IS germane b/c THAT Temple was not around. No, the Feast AND Hannukka celebrate the RE-Dedication of the Machabees. Please learn some history along with learning Scripture.
evi410 2 years ago
"So,u think the Feast..."
the Temple was DEFILED not destroyed(Macchabean revolt about 200 yrs before Christ was borne)
the Temple was DESTROYED by the Babylonians(around 586 BC) and by the Romans(70 AD) these are the only 2 instances when the Temple was DESTROYED !!!
stop confussing yourself !
martalog121 2 years ago
MMmmyeah. I said that the Feast was about the RE-Dedication of the Temple. The SECOND Temple. The 2nd Temple was not destroyed until after Christ.
So now u agree that the Feast has to do with the Machabees? Which then means you agree that this is not found ANYWHERE in your "bible"?
evi410 2 years ago
"MMmmyeah..etc"
stop it with the 2nd or the 1st Temple...
the Feast of Dedicatiopn has NOTHING to do with any of the 2 destructions of the Temple !
it has to do with the DEFILEMENT(what i've been telling you) of the Temple not the DESTRUCTION of it
martalog121 2 years ago
Uh YES. I know it has to do with the defilement. The SECOND Temple was defiled. It was RE-Dedicated by the Machabees. THAT is the Feast of the Dedication. Show me where the is in your OT? Otherwise u must concede that prots were wrong to remove Machabees.
evi410 2 years ago
"Uh yes.I know it has to do with the defilement..."
first you said it had to do with the DESTRUCTION of the Temple,now you've changed your tune...good!
martalog121 2 years ago
No, i said that u are claiming this feast has to do with the Temple of Solomon. THAT Temple was destroyed. This Feast is about the RE-Dedication of the SECOND Temple. The verse in Chron. is about the FIRST Dedication of the FIRST Temple.
evi410 2 years ago
"No,i said u are claiming this feast has to do.."
i've given you the verse in 2Chr. to show you that what was done to the Temple in the time of Solomon(a 8 day feast) was the bases for what was done in the time of the DEFILEMENT of the Temple by the Greeks(another 8 days Feast this time or [RE] Dedication)
so your claim that without 1&2Machhabee we can not explain Hannuckha is false
martalog121 2 years ago
I am not talking about the process I am talking about the actual Feast and the reason for it. Where is the defilement and rededication in your "bible"?
evi410 2 years ago
"I'm not talking about the process..."
8 days in 2Chr. and for some reason(lol) the Feast of Dedication 8 days
after the defilement done by the Greeks the Jews did not take down and then rebuilt the Temple...they only did a RE dedication...woaw those Jews were smart
no need for 1&2 Macchabe
martalog121 2 years ago
Right! Now shouw me where in the Bible this happened. Show me where the Temple was rededicated. U can't so u MUST admit that either there IS Sacred Tradition or Machabees is inspired or BOTH. Which is it? Show me the verse where the Temple is rededicated and the Feast is proclaimed....here's a hint, it's in Machabees.
evi410 2 years ago
silly prot. That Temple was long gone. They were not celebrating a dedication of something that was demolished. And again the Feast was a celebration of the RE-Dedication of the Second Temple. THAT was commanded in Scripture. And THAT is what the jews celebrate to this day. Have u ever even read your "bible"
evi410 2 years ago
"silly prot they were not celebrating a dedicationof something that was demolished"
what are you talking about(the temple being demolished)?
the Altar was defiled by the Greeks...a pig was killed and burnt on the altar,that was the reason the Jews had to rededicate the Altar and the Temple
martalog121 2 years ago
Tsk, tsk. The FIRST Temple, which Solomos built, was destroyed by the Babylonians. Then a SECOND temple was built. THAT Temple was defiled. Then THAT Temple was rededicated. lol
evi410 2 years ago
"The First Temple..then the second.."
you've made another upsie,so just admit that you were wrong again !
martalog121 2 years ago
So U think Solomon's Temple was still around during Our Lord's time?
And nobody, except YOU,is saying Our Lord is wrong. I happen to believe that EVERY tree means EVERY tree.
Stop telling me to stop posting. Again, this isn't the prot inquisition.
evi410 2 years ago
"And nobody,except u,is saying Our Lord is wrong"
how about answering my assertion about the CONTEXT in which "bad trees good fruits" appears
if you have a DIRECT answer,do post ,otherwise don't bother !!!
martalog121 2 years ago
I did. He is talking about how to judge good from bad. Look at the fruit produce then you will know the tree. He is talking specifically about prophets but extends the wisedom to EVERYTHING.
But regardless, even if He is talking about prophets only(which He isn't b/c He gives other examples) prots produce bad fruits, which make prot "prophets" a bad tree.
Now asnwer mine, did OLJC mean EVERY tree, when He said EVERY tree?
evi410 2 years ago
"He is talking specifically about prophets but extends the wisdom to EVERYTHING..."
because you say so,the text does NOT say that(we are to apply that specific verse to everything)
you making that assertion is NOT enough...proofs are needed !so start producing them...
martalog121 2 years ago
Right, it's NOT b/c I say so. It is b/c HE says so. And He does when He says EVERY tree.
Try Luke 6:43. No mention of prophets there. Just that u can tell a tree, ANY TREE, by its fruit.
evi410 2 years ago
"Try Luke 6:43..."
again,in CONTEXT Jesus is talking about hypochritical individuals
this text is not giving you the liberty to apply it to EVERYTHING,so DON'T
make the same false assumption twice !
time for you to STOP using "bad trees good furits" anallogy to infants (with or without baptism and where those infants will go if they die) !!!
martalog121 2 years ago
It is about EVERYTHING. He even says so. And u even admit that it is about false prophets, hypoctirs and literal trees. Yet by every tree, u think He means SOME.
evi410 2 years ago
"Yet by every tree,u think HE means SOME"
whatever,now give me some proofs for you applying the verse about the "trees" to infant baptism
you saying EVERYTHING is not a proof ,it's just an assertion that you need to prove !!!
martalog121 2 years ago
I have a million times. If a tree produces good fruit then itis a good tree. if it produces bad fruit then it is a bad tree. Good can not beget evil, nor evil beget good. If Baptism isn't necessary for infants then aborted babies go to Heaven, which would make abortion a good tree. This is not and can not be the case. PERIOD.
evi410 2 years ago
"I have milion times..."
you still have to come with arguments for your assertion that 'bad trees good fruits'
can be applied to infant baptism
jesuitical casuistry is not an argument
time to read a bit about logic and after that you'll stop making the fallacies that you've been making(hopefully)
martalog121 2 years ago
Ahhhhh? Do u have comprehension problems? Listen carefully, if a good tree can not produce good fruit then infant Baptism must be necessary. Otherwise Baptism doesn't save but infant mortality does. Got it?
evi410 2 years ago
"if a good tree can not...then infant baptism must be necessary"
you need to get hold of a book on LOGIC,then come back and post !
martalog121 2 years ago
Are u saying that it is illogical to think u can't get figs from thistles? Are you, then, saying Our Lord had poor logic? Prots are so quick to through God to the wolves.....the lengths to which u will go to hold heresy.
evi410 2 years ago
"Are u then saying Our Lord had poor logic"
first,you are assuming that your errors are somehow Christ's as well(bad news for you ,the errors you've been making are yours ALONE)
second, in John 1:1 the Greek word LOGOS("in the begining was the WORD...")
would be better translated as LOGIC,our Lord is LOGIC itself !
take my advice and read a book on Logic it will help (hopefully)you and of course I will pray for you,may the Lord give you wisdom and understanding!nice "talking" with you
martalog121 2 years ago
Uh, son u have a real comprhension problem, I happen to agree w/ EVERY(funny word huh) Word OLJC spoke. YOU are saying He is wrong. Not I. So again, YOU ARE LYING. Show me where I even ONCE said He had poor logic! No, I said comparied to your poor interperation of His Words either you or He is wrong. Which is it? I say it is you. I mere ask for YOU to affirm that either He is right and u wrong, or He is wrong and u right.
I notice u still have not answered ANY of my questions. SHOCKER!
evi410 2 years ago
"You are saying He is wrong"
you're still making the same FALLACIES !
stop posting and do some reading !
martalog121 2 years ago
And you're still not answering my questions. I will certainly do some reading, I can start with where Sacred Scripture establishes the Feast of the Dedication. lol. Could you point me to where that is. haha
evi410 2 years ago
"That Temple was long gone..."
hhm?
time for you to start reading the Bible? really think you should !!!
martalog121 2 years ago
Let me get this straight, are u saying that the Temple that Solomon built was not destroyed? Do you understand that during Our Lord's time, it was a different Temple....the SECOND Temple? do urself a favor and read Sacred Scripture.
evi410 2 years ago
"Let me get this straight,are u saying the Temple was destroyed"
you're not worthed my time!you're making historical claims(false ones) that tell me you have not read the Bible(or have not got around finishing the whole Bible)
when the Feast of Dedication(Hannuckha) was put in place(around 200 yrs before the birth of Jesus) the Temple was NOT destroyed,just DEFILED by the Greeks(Antiochus Epifanis slaughtered a pig on the Altar and errected a statue of one of the Greek gods in the Temple)
martalog121 2 years ago
Uh, did u read my post? U are saying the Feast celebrated Solomon's Temple. That Temple was most certainly destroyed. I have said from the beginning that the Feast of the Dedication celebrates the RE-Dedication of the SECOND Temple, which was defiled. Please show me where I have said otherwise or I will be forced to call u a liar since u are bearing false witness against me. YOU brought up Solomon's Temple, NOT ME. That Temple was destroyed.
evi410 2 years ago
"U are saying the Feast celebrated Solomon's Temple"
???
you brought Solomon into discussion...i was talking about the Temple,Altar...take the time to read my replies and stop PUTTING WORDS into my mouth!!!
martalog121 2 years ago
Uh son, YOU brought Chronicles into the conversation. The Feast of the Dedication is about the Machabees. The SECOND Temple. YOU brought up Solomon's Temple as if 2 say the Feast celebrated that. Can't u even keep up with your own words?
evi410 2 years ago
"u brought Chronicles into conversation"
to show you that we do not need 1&2 Macchabe(in your Catholic Bible )
but as i keep saying,your "thinking box" is out of tune !
martalog121 2 years ago
If we don't need Machabees then how do u explain the Feast of the Dedication. U already agreed that it was a REDedication of the Temple and NOT the Dedication of Solomon's Temple since that Temple was long gone. WHERE IS THIS IN YOUR "BIBLE?"
evi410 2 years ago
"If we don't need Machabees.."
read 2Chrn 7:9...there you'll find what the 8 days of dedication(in our case the DEFILEMENT of the Temple by the Greeks) for the Altar,Temple is all about
so your point that without 1&2Mach.(in your Catholic Bible) we would not have Hannuckha is false
martalog121 2 years ago
"WHERE IS THIS IN YOUR BIBLE"?
what is described in 2Chr. 7:9 is what was done when the Temple was DEFILED by the Greeks,
no need for 1&2 Macahh
martalog121 2 years ago
Please reread that verse. That was when the FIRST Temple was first built. It is not a rededication nor is it the Second Temple. People were not celebrating at Our Lord's time a Temple which had been razed.
evi410 2 years ago
as for Nazareth,my understanding is that the word for an olive tree offshot(if the main tree trunk dies...it is possible that after 100s of yrs a distance away from the initial trunk and from the same root system an offshot will show up )
the hebrew word for offshot(an agricultural term) is very close to the word Nazareth(name of a town/village)...so the prophecy about Jesus is still good
martalog121 2 years ago
I know the prophecy is good. But it isn't WRITTEN ANYWAY. And I don't care if the words are similair...they aren't the same. So tell me which prophet and where was it said that Christ would be from Nazareth.
evi410 2 years ago
"This is not prot inqueisition"
funny how you point fingers at "inqusition"...
as for you "posting Scripture"...maybe you should think before you post ?!
you keep posting the same FALSE assertion about "bad tree good fruits"..a MANTRA nothing more !
martalog121 2 years ago
I sure am pointing fingers. U prots like to force others into silence. As shown by ur attitude here.
evi410 2 years ago
"I sure am pointing fingers"
that's about it and NOTHING more!
martalog121 2 years ago