Click here if you want Dave Hartline to speak to your group.

Catholic Report Home

Search CatholicReport.org

Links

The Holy See (The Vatican)

Catholic Saints

Mass Times

For Catholic Parishes/Schools, Catholic Dating/Singles, Catholic Marriage/Parenting Click Above News Headlines On Top Of Page

For Catholic Grief/Bereavement Assistance & Addication/Recovery Help Click Above News Headlines On Top Of Page

John Allen

America Magazine Occasional Church Dissenter

Pat Buchanan

Diocese of Columbus Education Office Page

Canticle Magazine

Catechism (Church Teachings)

Cathedral Book Store (Columbus)

Catholic.com (Apologetics & Answers Website)

Catholic Exchange

Catholic League

Catholic Online

Catholic Vote (Ray Flynn's Group)

Catholics For The Common Good

Catholic World News

Christianity Today

Coming Home Network

Crossroads Initiative

Crisis Magazine

Diocese Of Columbus Home Page

Michael Dubruiel

Envoy Magazine

EWTN

First Things

FOCUS Catholic Campus Group

Homefaith (Catholic Parenting Magzine)

Alan Keyes

Matthew Kelly

Knights of Columbus

Patrick Madrid

Military News (Catholics In The Military)

National Catholic Register

National Catholic Reporter (Occasional Church Dissenter)

Father John Neuhaus

New Advent

Father Ron Nuzzi

Our Sunday Visitor

Saints Index

Robert Spencer

Spirit Daily

Bob Stanley's Catholic Apologetics Site

Today's Catholic Teacher

Vatican Home Page

Vocation Links

George Weigel (Link From Ratzinger Fan Club)

Youth Ministry Links

Zenit (News Service)

Catholic Organizations (Click Below)

Catholic League

Catholic Worker Movement

National Catholic Education Association

Opus Dei

Priests For Life

United States Catholic Conference of Bishops

Veterans (Catholic War Veterans)

Catholic Resources and Papal Bios/Writings & Encyclicals (Click Below)

Bible (New American Catholic Bible)

Catechism (Teachings of the Catholic Church)

Canon Law

Pope Benedict XVI

Pope John XXIII

Pope John Paul I

Pope John Paul II

Pope Leo XIII

Pope Paul VI

Pope Pius X

Pope Pius XI

Pope Pius XII

Social Justice Resources

US Army Fallen Heroes (Iraq)

US Navy Fallen Heroes (Iraq)

US Air Force Fallen Heroes (Iraq)

US Marine Fallen Heroes (Iraq)

US Army Fallen Heroes (Afghanistan)

US Navy Fallen Heroes (Afghanistan)

US Air Force Fallen Heroes (Afghanistan)

US Marine Fallen Heroes (Afghanistan)

US/Allied Daily Casualty & Statistical Update (Iraq & Afghanistan)

Blogs (Below)

Jimmy Akin

American Catholic

American Papist (Thomas Peters' Blog)

Anchoress

Apoloblogology Matt Swaim's Blog

Danielle Bean's Blog

Joanna Bogle's Blog

Bonfire of the Vanities Father Martin Fox's Blog

Chocolate Heart (Jennifer Hartline's Blog)

The Corner (National Review Online's Blog)

Creative Minority Report

Cvstos Fidei (Tito From Houston's Blog)

Michael Dubruiel's Annunciation Blog

Dawn Eden

Examine Life

Five Feet of Fury, Kathy Shaidle's Blog

Fructus Ventris

Hermeneutic of Continuity, Father Tim Finigan's Blog

Inside Catholic Blog

Father Dwight Longenecker's Blog

Rich Leonardi's Blog

Mary's Aggies Blog

Aimee Milburn's Blog

Per Christum, David Bennett & Friends Blog

Pro Ecclesia, Jay Anderson's Blog

Paul "The Regular Guy" From Chicago's Blog

Southern Appeal

Splender of Truth/The Curt Jester, Jeff Miller's Blog

Mark Shea's Catholic & Enjoying It Blog

Damian Thompson's Blog At The Telegraph

Total Possibilities (Father Joshua Wagner's Site)

Amy Welborn's Via Media Blog

Whispers In The Loggia, Rocco Palmo's Blog

Father Z (Father John Zuhlsdorf's) Blog

Catholic Blog Has Hundreds of Blogs! Sorry If I missed your favorite, it might be here!

Reader Comments
On Tuesday, August 15, 2006 at 11:47 am, Chris writes:
Well, I will be going to Carey this Sunday. Those people better stay away from this holy place.
On Tuesday, August 15, 2006 at 11:55 am, Julie writes:
When I read about the Assumption of Mary, it sounds like what Fundamentalist groups believe will happen to them -- the Rapture. Do they believe that they are more worthy than Mary? It is not possible for Mary, but it is possible for them? I am not very clear on all of this, however, so I might be confused. That is what it sounds like to me.
On Tuesday, August 15, 2006 at 11:58 am, Julie writes:
I forgot to mention this. Thanks for the update on the Carey, Ohio event, Dave. I have been wondering and actually worrying about what was going to happen there. I also wonder, if this was a Protestant group dancing with monkeys around the altar, would the Fundamentalists care?
On Tuesday, August 15, 2006 at 08:01 pm, Pax Christi writes:
Thanks for splendid account of the event and arguments in support of the doctrine of Mary's assumption, Dave. Glad to hear that cooler heads prevailed this time. I can imagine how hard it must've been for you to resist engaging in a debate with the preachers. If only they'd understand that Mary is only being venerated and not worshipped by us. After all, isn't "Honor your mother and father" among their commandments to follow? And as Fr. John Corapi would say, "If she's good enough for Jesus, then she's good enough for us."
On Tuesday, August 15, 2006 at 08:45 pm, Martel writes:
There are some things i envy about america, i would dearly have loved to be at that Mass today. The beauty of the Catholic church, its universality and richness, the close ties to the first Christians... How could these hecklers spurn something as beautiful as that which was on display today courtesy of the Chaldean community. Well anyway, thanks for another good roundup of events Dave, on the ball yet again i see.
On Tuesday, August 15, 2006 at 09:41 pm, Brent writes:
What exactly were the Street Preachers saying? What was their point? Complaint?
On Tuesday, August 15, 2006 at 10:49 pm, Pastor David Ickes writes:
Greetings Dave, I could not possibly write all that I could in this space. I see that you have made many assumptions concerning your reporting on the street preachers. You have no idea where we go to church or what our backgrounds are yet you know enough about us to place labels on us. Several times you have called us protesters which is not true. We do not protest your event. You are free to have as many events as you wish. We come to Carey to Preach at the event not protest. We are street preachers not street protesters. You call us Fundamentalists as if that is a derogatory term. What is a Fundamentalist Dave? Those you call Funfamentalists do not even agree on the Fendamentals. Therefore how do you know so much about us to label us when you have never talked to us? If you are going to be a reporter, you should have more information than your opinions. These kinds of things add to the misinformation being placed in the minds of your readers. For example, in one of your earlier articles you say that there is a dispute over who started the riot in 2005, yet when the chief of Police says he knows who started it you ignore that and say that there is some dispute. That is strange because none of our men were arrested last year, yet 5-7 Catholics were. I wonder why? We did no violence to anyone even while being assualted we never struck back in defense. If what we were preaching were the catalyst to the violence then why were the police assaulted? They never said anything. Also, to set the record straight, none of our people ever said that Mary was a whore as was reported. I went back and watched our video of the event to verify this. The video doesn't lie. We do not believe that Mary was or is a whore so why would we say such a thing? Also, the police this year didn't seem to be protecting the Chaldeans from us but were protecting us from them. I wonder why? We are not violent people. We know what the Bible says about them that do violence and it is revealing as to who violent people serve. Anyway, I wish you would have engaged in some sort of conversation with us. I would have liked to have met you. I believe that if you were to meet us you would find out that we are not what you may think that we are. Certainly we would disagree, but I think gentleman can still be civil and friendly while doing so. One last thing for now, I would like to comment on your loogic about the assumption of Mary being something that has been believed since the time of the Apostles while using Ohio as an illustration for that logic. Just because something has been believed for a long time does not make it so. If that were the case, then I guess we should worship the sun because that has been believed longer than anything you or I believe today. Maybe the world really is flat since it was believed a long time ago. I think you can see the error of your logic. Anyway, if you have any comments or questions, feel free to get ahold of me anytime you wish. I like apologetics in the street or indoors or anywhere else for that matter because Jesus said that his word would endure forever. It will endure any challenge that man may bring to it. Obviously I cannot give you my contact info in this forum, but we do have a website with contact info on it. Hope to get some feedback so we may have a dialog to help you understand us a little more. You may not agree with me but you may win a friend. You never know until you try.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 12:01 am, Julie writes:
Pastor David Ickes. Open your heart to Christ. You will find that you will no longer want to spew hatred on the streets. :-)
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 12:20 am, Pax Christi writes:
Pastor Ickes, Catholics appreciate your sincerity in your beliefs and desire to bring us to Christ, but it would be fruitless to do so as we already are in Christ and he is in us. The Eucharist, in which his body and blood truly becomes present in the bread and wine, is clear evidence of that when we consume them. Worship of God, or latria, is reserved for God and God alone. Mary and the saints given honor in forms called hyper dulia and dulia, respectively. We ask others to pray for us in times of need. Why can't we ask Mary or the saints to do the same. Perhaps you and your fellow pastors would do well to read the writings of former Protestants who have converted to the faith, particularly those of Scott Hahn, who was a virulent anti-Catholic before he finally saw the light and has since become one of its biggest voices. Here's a long and thorough article that he wrote on the subject of Mary and the Protestants' objections to her: http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0095.html
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 12:33 am, Julie writes:
Pax Christi, I read something that you wrote on a blog just today, in fact. Wow you are very, very knowledgeable as far as Catholic doctrine and Catholic history. I was quite moved and impressed by what I read. I would also suggest that Pastor Ickes seek to learn more about the Catholic faith, and Church history. Perhaps he could check Catholic doctrine against the Bible. REAL Catholic doctrine, not the lies we often see.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 12:37 am, Dave writes:
Pastor Ickes, thank you for your reply. I too wish we could have met. It was a little difficult under the ciurcumstances. Perhaps, we could meet in the future and find some common ground. As for some of the remarks made last year, as I mentioned I was not at the procession last year. However, I did talk to those who were and printed their remarks. I also contacted Pastor Rod McRae of the Street Preachers's Fellowship and he e-mailed his reply which was at the end of the story. I believe you will find it linked in the story above. I linked last year's story in the first paragraph of the article. The question that needs to be asked is why do you feel the need to attend a Catholic event shouting your beliefs? I don't see other groups, even other Evangelical groups do as much. As a matter of fact, I have received correspondence from other Evangelical groups saying they would never show up at another faith's event. This year, I was trying to listen to our Holy Mass, where the Lord Jesus is present, and I was distracted by shouts from outside. However, in a strange way I have found that many Catholics are asking more questions about their faith because of your appearance. However, they don't like your tactics at all. You mentioned that just because people believe something for a long time doesn't believe it is true. Yes, that is correct but God has a way of correcting, sifting and seperating the wheat from the chaff. We have survived 2,000 years and our Church is still growing. We have made some mistakes along the way but our belief in Scripture and Tradition, as instructed by Jesus, has served us well. We have a special place in our faith for Mary because she is the only virgin to give birth in history. Perhaps you might want to revisit the first chapter of Luke. She was called by God to introduce, His Son, the Savior into the world, so we think highly of her. I would recommend a couple of things. First in addition to this site check out the Catholic blogs that appear on the bottom of the left hand column. Closed Cafeteria blog, Mark Shea's Catholic & Enjoying It Blog, as well as Amy Welborn's Open Book Blog have stories everyday about topics that would interest all Christians. Catholic Answers (Catholic.com) is another great site that gives answers about our faith. Finally, Patrick Madrid's "Where's That In The Bible" answers a lot of questions about our beliefs. Take care Pastor Ickes. May God Bless Us All.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 12:50 am, Pax Christi writes:
Thank you for the compliment, Julie, but I really have to pass along the credit to so many others who have taught all that I've learned from the books, Internet, EWTN's television station and so forth. I am always still learning about our faith. It's a never-ending journey as others would say.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 01:00 am, Julie writes:
I am happy to have so much information available to me, including your words, Pax Christi. There are so many lies and half-truths out there. I heard Roz Moss say that those who truly know the Catholic Church do not leave it. I certainly agree with that. It is in fact a self-described "Fundamentalist" trying to convert Catholics away from the Church who awakened a deep interest in the Church that traces back to Christ in me. I find so much wisdom and kindness and love and a deep respect in the Catholic Church. I am home. I would never attack another faith. But I want others to see how happy I am as a Catholic. I want to share the love and the joy that I feel, especially after I have been to Mass. I do this by example, and by being kind to others, no matter what their faith is. This is a gift from Christ, available to all who truly embrace Him.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 01:24 am, Mack writes:
Who put the FUN in FUNdamental? :) A well-written peace. And how wonderful of all those volunteers, many of whom surely weren't even Catholic, to help out. God bless them. We suffer from the same thug street preachers in my little town, preaching hatred on Sunday mornings. We should all certainly work with young people who are confused or who have been taught foolishness, but these foolish old geezers have so embedded themselves into hatred that one probably cannot help them. Someone once wrote that "Catholic means here comes everybody!" What a wonderful witness all of you made in the procession and in the church on this happy Feast of Our Lady!
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 02:38 am, Pax Christi writes:
Thanks once again, Julie, and I'm glad to hear you have found your way home. When the faithful are under attack from others, particularly the Muslim radicals, it gives us the sense that the truth can only be found in Christ and his church. By the way, Rosalind "Roz" Moss is one of my favorite speakers on EWTN. She really knows her stuff.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 03:01 am, George the Preacher writes:
Dave H writes: "While the street preachers returned in force there were no problems as adult volunteers from the Shrine and Chaldean community urged procession members to ignore the annoying fundamentalists." It must be annoying to find a preacher "preaching the gospel" and also "reproving the world of sin, righteousness and judgment" which is what Jesus Christ had in mind when he told us to "go INTO all the world and PREACH the gospel"! So, Jesus Christ was an annoying fundamentalist? Must be annoying that you would think that a Christian would actually OBEY his Master, the Lord Jesus Christ? So when we reprove Catholicism of idolotry by making idols (Mary, angles, apostles, etc) against the 2nd commandment of God, you just decide to reject what the Lord God said and do as YOU please. So you find those that expose sin annoying? They found Jesus Christ more than annoying, they evenually CRUCIFIED HIM because he exposed SIN against his Father ( Jn 8, Mat 23, etc). So, why is it that you continue to disobey the bible and make idols of things on earth by worshipping a Mary the bible calls the "queen of heaven- Jer 44"? What are idols of angels (Of course if the Catholic church actually knew its bible, they would know that angels do not have wings!) doing on the steps of the church? Does not the bible say "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any LIKENESS OF ANY THING THAT IS IN HEAVEN ABOVE, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth"? So what is you excuse now? Still going to continue to support a church that is in direct rebelllion towards the Lord God? Is that what you find annoying about a man of God preaching to you fundamentals? That you can know the truth and the truth will SET YOU FREE! You and all those that attend "the Mass" and worship false idols need to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved. That is why the Lord said, Ye MUST be born again. That is why we preach, to free those in bondage to religion so that can come to know the Saviour of the world, the Lord Jesus Christ. The only thing that is annoying are those who would CONTROL others and let them not make up their own mind about the truth of the word of God. Remember, America was started by those who wanted to leave the bondage of a European church (Rome)-state religion of over 1000 years who tried to control the masses through the power of the SWORD and IGNORANCE! That it is why it was called the DARK ages because Satanic darkness reigned in the nations while the true church of Jesus Christ (called by such names as Waldenesess, Albaganesis, AnaBaptist, Paulicans, etc) continued to preach the gospel and were KILLED by those who "disagreed with them", ie ROME! And you know what happened yesterday? Of course you do IF you are honest! IF you had your choice, you would have done anything you could to shut us up. So what is annoying again is that these rebellious Chaldeans whom you support would have attacked the preachers if they had a chance. Well is said of what actually happened yesterday: The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart: his words were softer than oil, yet were they drawn swords.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 03:15 am, Julie writes:
See, this George the Preacher illustrates what I mean when I say there are so many lies and half truths out there regarding Catholicism.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 04:13 am, Dave writes:
Pastor Ickes, do you see why some folks have problems with the words of the Street Preachers. I don't have hate in my heart for anyone. However, it is clear that Geroge the Preacher is troubling and stereotypical of an angry man who shows none of the attributes of Christ in his heart. Why do no other Evangelical groups support this type of behavior? How did the Catholic Church survive this long if we are wrong? Why do you reject the Eucharist when Jesus specifically said it is to be done (John 6:25-59) How can you proclaim youself "saved." Martin Luther never used those words. The Rapture wasn't even a word until the late 1800's. If the Catholic Church is wrong than why did God allow it to exist for 2,000 years? Why did't God tell us about the rapture and "being saved" during the Protestant Reformation? George the Preacher, God and Jesus are love not some old hateful has been like Ian Paisley. Do you truly have the guts and courage to read Patrick Madrid's Where's That In The Bible? What about reading those Catholic blogs I mentioned that can be found on the bottom left hand portion of this website. Read Mark Shea's Catholic & Enjoying It blog, Closed Cafeteria Blog or Amy Welborn's Open Book blog. You might truly learn about the truth. Perhaps you might even do an internet search for Deacon Alex Jones. He was a Pentacostalist pastor who struggled with why God would allow the Catholic Church to exist if it were false. He now is a deacon in the Catholic Church and brought much of his African-American congregation with him. Preacher George the Catholic Chuch is not only growing in this country but across the world. Your kind of angry rant only serves those who say people of faith are weird. You have no Evangelical allies. I think Pastor Ickes and I could have some interesting dialogue but Preacher George this rant of your's serves no purpose. Jesus told us that we shall know a tree by it's fruit. Your tree is in some serious need of pruning.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 05:54 am, Amy writes:
George the "Preacher": Congratulations on your recycling ministry--recycling old anti-Catholic crap. You should give credit to your sources, though, else it's plagarism. I learned that in English Comp I. You must have gotten this rant from a book--it's clear that from your numerous errors in what Catholics believe that you've never actually done any research on your own. Look for the truth for yourself--don't spew garbage that you've heard from others. Pastor Ickes, since your Street Preacher Fellowship is so courageous and diligent in showing others the errors in their beliefs, I am looking forward to seeing coverage of your group at some of the Muslim street processions in support of Hezbollah and Iran. There are really some souls in need of your salvation there--Heck, they don't even believe in Jesus' divinity! Go shout at them that they're wrong for their beliefs. Be sure and put that encounter on your website--maybe I'll visit then. Or, I'm sure Dave H. would gladly document it here. Thanks to both of you for adding to the ever-increasing joy that I feel in my recent conversion to the Catholic Church--the one true Church established by our Lord Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd, who saved me from so-called "ministries" such as yours.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 08:02 am, Franklin writes:
I believe many of you are misunderstanding. If someone you love is walking out into a street and a truck is coming down the road at 60 mph, are you not going to yell at the top of your lungs for them to come back, even throw yourself into the street and try to save them? We believe that hell is a real place. We believe that if you haven’t repented of your sins and trusted the Lord Jesus Christ for your sin payment, then you will pay for your own sins in hell forever. We see Catholics who believe what Catholicism teaches, heading towards hell, and that troubles our souls. You see we come out there not out of hatred, but out of love. We don’t want you to go to hell, so we preach the Bible in hopes that you will listen, repent and believe the gospel. Catholicism and Biblical Christianity do not match. If some of you would stop trusting in men and start trusting what the Bible says, you would easily see these differences. The Bibles says “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” (Matt 23:9) And yet you call Catholic priests “father,” and the pope “holy father.” I don’t care what the Roman Catholic Church says, if they teach something that the Bible says not to do, then don’t do it! What do you trust in, men or God’s word (Jeremiah 17:5)? The Bible says in Mark 2:7 “who can forgive sins but God only?” And yet you proclaim that priests can forgive sins? Do you know what Judas did before he hanged himself? He confessed his sins to a priest (Matt 27:3-5). Do you not see the difference between the Bible and Catholicism? When the Bible says that all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God, it means it! That includes Mary and the pope. I mean if Mary had no sin then why did she say “my spirit hath rejoiced in God my saviour.” (Luke 1:46-47) Why would she need a saviour if she was sinless? So that is why when the Bible says “For by GRACE are ye saved through FAITH; and that NOT OF YOURSELVES: it is the GIFT of God: NOT of works, lest any man should boast.” (Eph 2:8-9) And the Catholic Church teaches that it’s by faith AND works, we see a RELIGION that is sending people to hell. Also just because the Catholic Church has been around for so long, it doesn’t mean that it’s approved by God. The devil has been around a lot longer than the Catholic Church, and I don’t hear you calling him good. You don’t have to listen to me or any priest about what the Bible says, (1 John 2:27) look it up yourself, I gave you the verses. “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” (Isa. 1:18) Ever have to work for a gift?
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 08:31 am, Martel writes:
Hah, honestly, the only thing ill say to the visiting protestants is if you say the church fell into error so much that it needed to be reformed or that the 'real' church was driven underground in 100AD until your particular association arrived 1700 years or so later, you are assenting to the gates of hell prevailing. This means you say Jesus is wrong in Matthew 16-19, ergo, you deny his divinity. On top of that, *cough*John6*cough*
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 09:32 am, Peter writes:
Franklin: "And the Catholic Church teaches that it’s by faith AND works, we see a RELIGION that is sending people to hell" The only place where the Bible talks about justification by faith alone is when St James says that we are NOT justified by faith alone, and that we need works. Perhaps this is why Luther called St James’ Epistle an “epistle of straw” and omitted it in its entirety from his translation of the Bible in frustration. St Paul also never refers to being justified by faith “alone”, again in was Luther that inserted in the “alone” that would not appear if he was being entirely faithful to the original Scriptures. It seems that Protestants are founded on what they belligerently want the Bible to say, rather than what it really means, and I think some of the views expressed here prove that. I can't be bothered to go through everything you said.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 12:09 pm, Julie writes:
By the way, thank you Pax Christi! And well said, Amy. I can see that the "street preachers" are interested only in their distortions. They're not interested in the truth in any way, shape or form. They are interested only in hating Catholics. That way, they don't have to be real Christians. Being a real Christian is a hard road, and you don't get to spend all your time trying to satisfy your own need for hatred and prejudice. In fact, they would be doing the same thing to Christ. Well, indeed, they are.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 12:14 pm, George the Preacher writes:
Julie writes: "See, this George the Preacher illustrates what I mean when I say there are so many lies and half truths out there regarding Catholicism." Typical response of those who have been shown facts yet respond with nothing more than "blanks" and pretend that it will go away. Did you not read the FACTS about what happened last year? Police chief Mr Yingling spoke the truth and the priest said something completely contrary to truth. Someone is LYING! I wonder who that might be? It is much the same way the Sodomite priests have been handled by Rome here in America. Expose them as the perverts they are taking advantage of CHILDREN and Rome just makes the story "go away". And the last Pope did what about it? And then you have the gull to tell me about "half truths and lies"? You are correct maam, the half truth and lies you have been promoting for more than 1500 years. Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts; Which devour widows' houses, and for a show make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 12:22 pm, Julie writes:
OK. Well, I am not going to waste any more time on these "street preachers." It is obvious they are not geniuses.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 12:27 pm, Julie writes:
One last thing before I sign off. From "The Catholic Treasure Chest": The One true Church, and how to recognize it. Use this guideline as a measure... *It was founded by Jesus Christ Himself in Mt 16:18. *It would be built on Simon Peter, Mt 16:18. *It would be defended by GOD Himself, Mt 16:18-19. *It would have authority given by Jesus Christ, Mt 16:19,18:17-18. *It would be guided by the Holy Spirit who will dwell within it, Jn 14:15-17, Act 15:28,16:6. *It would be one and undivided, Mk 3:24-25. *It would have one fold and one shepherd, Jn 10:16. *It would have Priests, Bishops, and Deacons, 1Tim 3:1-13. *It must have the Holy Eucharist celebration, Jn 6:42-70, Act 2:42. *It must be found in all nations, Mt 28:19. *It must be found in all centuries, Mt 28:20. *Jesus Christ said He would be with His Church every day, in every year, until the end of the world, Mt 28:20. This means no gaps in time.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 12:46 pm, Peter writes:
George, have you got some kind of personality disorder? I'm finding myself wondering what kind of a person would feel the need to be so triumphalist about something like that. You seem to belong to that school of thought that holds that to love God you must be vile and abusive. Oh if only we could be more like you.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 03:11 pm, Mike writes:
George, Franklin, Pastor David - Before you begin throwing stones at Catholics, perhaps you should look into your own congregation, your own beliefs. Upon what traditon are they founded? Both of our churches affirm that the bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God, however your particular set of beliefs and interpretation of the Bible is an offshoot of a movement that began in the last 500 years. You direct your ire at the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, however you fail to acknowledge that the church has always had a strong belief in the sacraments and in an unbroken chain of Apostolic succession - priests and bishops who have continued to teach the Gospel, give us the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, and carry on the faith that Christ gave us. This belief is not just Roman Catholic - Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches that have been broken off from Rome for 1500 years still hold these beliefs. The church communities founded by the apostles still exist today. You criticize a body of theological and philosophical thought that has been studied and developed for thousands of years by people much holier and much smarter than you or me, while embracing many beliefs that have only been held for a short time. One last thing - while faith and works are both extremely important to grow closer to God, it is by God's grace alone that we are saved. You are correct in saying that we do not believe in "Salvation by faith alone." We believe in salvation by Christ alone.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 03:30 pm, Fr. Jim writes:
I have debated anti-Catholics like these for years now. Sometimes I wonder if they have some kind of mental illness. It can be like discussing racism with a Klan member. You can lead them to the truth, but you can't make them think.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 03:41 pm, George the Preacher writes:
Peter writes: "George, have you got some kind of personality disorder? I'm finding myself wondering what kind of a person would feel the need to be so triumphalist about something like that. You seem to belong to that school of thought that holds that to love God you must be vile and abusive. Oh if only we could be more like you." Another individual who tries to hide under lies and protect perverted wickedness when presented with FACTS! Why not rebuttal with your facts? That is why you continue in your emotional tirades by name calling. God's love, give me a break. What do you know about the love of God which is in Christ Jesus, when you as hypocrites begin to call me abusive, misguided, has a personality disorder, not a genius, etc when all I have done is made statements of FACTS that you REFUSE to answer? Talking about "the pot calling the kettle black"! Just answer the accusations about last years event that you can READ about in Mr. Harline's report. Were any of you there this year? Why did they have 30+ officers there? Why did the Chaldeans have 5-6 men in lite green shirts telling those Catholic Chaldeans not to stand there? Who ATTACKED a police officer last year? Who were put in jail because they had WAR in their hearts? The street preachers did NOTHING WRONG!! Who attacked our black preacher, Preacher Anthony last year when he came right at the end of the riot, calling him the 'N' word and beat up on him, breaking his glasses? He PERSONALLY mentioned the incident that occurred last year when he preached this year. Why was the justice department there? Because they SEEN THE VIDEO and where told of the racial slurs toward two black preachers and they knew that the TRUE HATRED was CATHOLIC Chaldeans acting like wild men attacking, calling people names, beating up police officers and 5-6 of them thrown in jail. And after ALL that they are protected by the "precious Catholic church" for the VIOLENCE they created!! Lets "feel love toward them" who from their WICKED hearts know NOTHING about actual freedoms we have as American's to preach in the public forum and NOT be attacked with malice of forethought. Have you forgotten the consitutional privledges granted when you stage a PUBLIC EVENT!! If you stayed within your church doors WITHOUT publically parading down a public street, we would let you worship anyway you want to! We have been preaching for a LONG TIME and preached many different events and this one rates just like the Sodomite parades of this year and previous years! VIOLENCE AND WAR IS IN THEIR HEARTS! Who do you think you are fooling except yourselves. We have the RIGHT in America to preach in the public and if you do not like it, just walk away, but NO, instead you Catholics would have KILLED us given the opportunity!!! You know NOTHING of the love of God to care about anything except your lies and distortion of the truth. You will continue to lie and distort THE TRUTH about Mary, the priesthood of BELIEVERS, the church, the Lord Jesus Christ, grace and faith, and EVERY biblical principal found in the scriptures! Carry on. 2 Cor 11:12 But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. 13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 05:47 pm, John Sheridan writes:
George, You say you want facts. Here are some facts: the Bible, KJV. First Chapter of Luke: And the angel came in unto her [Mary], and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. . . .[And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. . . . when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb . . . And blessed is she that believed . . .And Mary said, . . . "from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." John, Chapter 19: Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. Revelation, ch .12: And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 05:56 pm, George the Preacher writes:
Peter writes: "George, have you got some kind of personality disorder? I'm finding myself wondering what kind of a person would feel the need to be so triumphalist about something like that. You seem to belong to that school of thought that holds that to love God you must be vile and abusive. Oh if only we could be more like you." Another individual who tries to hide under lies and protect perverted wickedness when presented with FACTS! Why not rebuttal with your facts? That is why you continue in your emotional tirades by name calling. God's love, give me a break. What do you know about the love of God which is in Christ Jesus, when you as hypocrites begin to call me abusive, misguided, has a personality disorder, not a genius, etc when all I have done is made statements of FACTS that you REFUSE to answer? Talking about "the pot calling the kettle black"! Just answer the accusations about last years event that you can READ about in Mr. Harline's report. Were any of you there this year? Why did they have 30+ officers there? Why did the Chaldeans have 5-6 men in lite green shirts telling those Catholic Chaldeans not to stand there? Who ATTACKED a police officer last year? Who were put in jail because they had WAR in their hearts? The street preachers did NOTHING WRONG!! Who attacked our black preacher, Preacher Anthony last year when he came right at the end of the riot, calling him the 'N' word and beat up on him, breaking his glasses? He PERSONALLY mentioned the incident that occurred last year when he preached this year. Why was the justice department there? Because they SEEN THE VIDEO and where told of the racial slurs toward two black preachers and they knew that the TRUE HATRED was CATHOLIC Chaldeans acting like wild men attacking, calling people names, beating up police officers and 5-6 of them thrown in jail. And after ALL that they are protected by the "precious Catholic church" for the VIOLENCE they created!! Lets "feel love toward them" who from their WICKED hearts know NOTHING about actual freedoms we have as American's to preach in the public forum and NOT be attacked with malice of forethought. Have you forgotten the consitutional privledges granted when you stage a PUBLIC EVENT!! If you stayed within your church doors WITHOUT publically parading down a public street, we would let you worship anyway you want to! We have been preaching for a LONG TIME and preached many different events and this one rates just like the Sodomite parades of this year and previous years! VIOLENCE AND WAR IS IN THEIR HEARTS! Who do you think you are fooling except yourselves. We have the RIGHT in America to preach in the public and if you do not like it, just walk away, but NO, instead you Catholics would have KILLED us given the opportunity!!! You know NOTHING of the love of God to care about anything except your lies and distortion of the truth. You will continue to lie and distort THE TRUTH about Mary, the priesthood of BELIEVERS, the church, the Lord Jesus Christ, grace and faith, and EVERY biblical principal found in the scriptures! Carry on. 2 Cor 11:12 But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. 13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 06:26 pm, Mike writes:
George, I don't know if such is your intention, but your use of capitalization is very distracting and detracts from whatever points you are trying to make. Sad to say, it makes your comments appear as if they are written by someone with little education and an incapacity to conduct an even and rational discourse. Secondly, if your intention is to convert Catholics, you should recognize that sincere Catholics want to love and serve God. I suggest that you digest the Catechism and Catholic theology so that you may better approach Catholics with a mutual understanding of their beliefs. This does not mean collecting snippets of Catholic teaching and using them out of context to condemn them, but rather to study their views and contrast them to your own. You cannot deny that we do have some common ground. Finally, any Catholic will admit to you that we are all sinners. While none of us know what was truly in the hearts of those involved in the riot, hopefully those involved are sorry and have asked the Lord for forgiveness. Conversion is an ongoing process, and we all fail at times - just as did Peter when he denied Our Lord. It is through friendship and love that our Lord converted tax collectors and prostitutes, not by shouting at them in the street. Do you have any Catholic friends? Or, to you, are Catholics merely caracatures? You really need to consider changing your approach.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 06:43 pm, jeff writes:
George, Peace be with you. I see you are very passionate about saving souls. However, you seem motivated by hate not love. I hope I'm wrong. Please try to exhibit some charity to those you want to save. A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 06:45 pm, Dave writes:
My friends some come to Christ Jesus because of faith, some because of fear of disobeying God and some come because they have a disorder such as hate, addiction etc. It is good those with hate and addictions come to Christ but sometimes they continue their hate even when they hear word of God. We remember what Jesus said would be the penalty for that offense. Perhaps the Street Preachers should ask why no Evangelical leaders supports them, not Billy or Franklin Graham, not Pat Roberton or Jerry Falwell or Chuch Colson. No one supports them. Before I forget about it believe me the last thing the law enforcement folks want to do in any town is come in on their day off to hear people tell others they are not faithful enough. As I said, before in a strange sort of way not only do the Street Preachers help Catholics understand their faith better but police officers as well. No one likes to be lectured to in the street. I noticed earlier someone went on about idol worshippers and swords and it sounded familiar. I did an internet search and found the teachings of radical Islam. Earlier, Amy said something about Islamic militants and now it hit me. Besides satan who is the enemy of the Chaldeans in the Middle East? It is Hezbollah. Jesus is love only radical Islam talks about idol worshippers and a hateful God. Where did this person learn about Jesus in America or at some Islamic madrassa (school?) Perhaps they can teach you the Bible but they can't teach you about the love of Jesus. That is something you have to know in your heart. It is obvious you do not. The wages of sin is death. You mock the Sacraments that the Lord Jesus gave us and also show no respect for His Mother. Have you no fear of the Judgement? The overwhelming majority of Christians respect the words of Jesus about the sacraments, Mary and show love for their fellow brother and sister. You should love the Chaldeans (Iraqi-Christians.) They have been attacked by Saddam and now Islamic miltants. Which side are you on? The Lord Jesus or Islamic militants? Finally, I will say this to our friends in the Street Preacher Fellowship. I have read with interest the words of Pastor Ickes, Franklin and others. However, others have shown they don't seem to be interested in Christian fellowship. They only spew hate. If some atheist happened to be reading this thread what would they think? Would those who used terms that radical Islamicists use like "idol worship" and "swords" be helping that atheist understand faith? Perhaps someday, Pastor Ickes, Franklin and I could sit down and talk and see where we find common ground. In the meantime, I ask my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ in the Street Preachers Fellowship to read the Catholic Answers site (Catholic.com) found on the left hand side of the this page. It explains the teachings of the Church. In addition, you might want to look at the bottom left hand side of the page and find the Closed Cafeteria blog, Mark Shea's Catholic & Enjoying It blog and Amy Welborn's blog. You might find that we can have some common ground. May God Bless Us All.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 06:50 pm, George the Preacher writes:
Comments to John Sheridan: John, I appreciate the tone of your comments. I will attempt to exegete those passages using biblical hermenutical principals according to the word of God. I will preface my comments saying that Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ IS BLESSED. She is HIGHLY FAVOURED, but she IS NOT the "mother of God", "holy mother", "blessed mother", etc. which have taken on there own meanings to the point of breaking the 1st 2nd and 3rd commandments of God by making an idol out of her. Show me ANYWHERE in the epistles of Peter whom the Catholics refer to as the "first pope" that said anything about Mary. If she was so important, why did not the FIRST POPE even MENTION her name? Lk 1:28-48 1> You will see in v28, Hail thou that are HIGHLY FAVOURED, not what is taught in Catholicism with the mantra prayed, "Hail Mary, full of grace... It is only the Lord Jesus Christ that is "full of grace and truth"- Jn 1:14 2> No where in the bible is she ever referred to as Holy Mary, or Mother of God. In EVERY instance that Jesus Christ addressed his mother, it was ALWAYS as "Woman"- Jn 2:4, 19:26, just like he addressed the woman of Samaria (Jn 4:21), the accused woman of adultery (Jn 8:9), and Mary Magdelene (Jn 20:1, 15). The word Woman when used by a man is always in reference to "authority" over her. She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man-Gen 2:23. 3> v46 she proclaims "her soul doeth magnify the Lord" followed by v47 saying that she is rejoicing in God MY Saviour. It says nothing special about "original sin" except that according to Ro 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned". We are all guilty of DEATH, not that any "original sin" passed on anybody except by ONE man, Adam. Now all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, inclding Mary. 4> Now read Lk 2:21-24 where Mary had to offer sacrifice according to the law of the Lord (see Lev 12:6-8). Why did she have to? It was for a SIN offering to make atonement for her. It is impossible to reconcile "original sin" or her "sinlessness" when the law of the Lord God said she had to make a SIN offering! 5> Read Lk 11:27-28 where a certain woman lifted up her voice and said to Jesus Christ "Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked." Now it would certainly be HERE that he would give his mother a boost so that Catholics have something to come to. NO, NO, NO! The Lord Jesus Christ said "Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it." Who is the "word of God" (Jn 1:1-14)? Are you not to keep his commandments? Are you not supposed to glorify him ONLY and him only you shalt serve? Any one that worships Mary and makes idols of her is DESECRATING her blessed name based on this verse (see also Jn 2:4-5)! 6> How about Jn 2:5 where Mary tells the servants "Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it" just before he rebukes her in v4, saying "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come." Again, this shows you that Jesus Christ is the only one to be preached and his glory he gives to NO ONE (Gal 1-3, Col 1-3, Phil 1, Ro 4-5, and 100's more!) John 19: There again, he was a good son who just told John to take care of her. As I said before, he said "Woman, behold thy son!", an authoritative tone to let her know, this is MY TIME as I take the sins of the world upon me and finish the atonment for the sins of the world! Jesus Christ is to be magnified, believed, worshipped, adored and his glory he gives to NO MAN or WOMAN! Rev 12: This has to do with the nation of Israel since it talks about the 12 stars (ie, the 12 sons of Jacob) and the time of tribulation of the Jew after the church has been raptured. John, I do have one question: Why is there an idol of Mary holding the CHILD Jesus Christ? Can you show me anywhere in the writings of Peter where he hints doing anything like that? He is a man NOW and as the God Man is set on the right hand of the Father (Heb 1:3, 8:1, 12:2). He is not supposed to be sitting on the right hand of Mary. This is enough for now.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 07:16 pm, Bystander writes:
I think it's disrespectful toward true Evangelical Protestant brethren to apply that label to those like some of the writers above who use their beliefs as cudgels against others rather than expressing the love of God and His desire to draw those he's created to himself. It's a bit of a waste of breath to argue, since the foundation of their faith is on the rightness of their position rather than the fullness of Scripture and revealed truth. It's often fruitful to have honest exchanges with men and women who seek to understand each others' faith, because each party can become aware in new ways of God's mercy and salvation. But argument with someone who is only seeking acknowledgement of his own rightness can be an endless loop of frustration and temptation to anger and impatience. May God show us all more and more about his love letter that is Scripture. And may he continue to guide us by the Holy Spirit through his gift of himself into all truth.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 07:24 pm, Bystander writes:
By the way, George, try thinking of the Assumption of Mary as an advance sign of what Jesus wants to do for all of us in the fullness of time. He loves us and longs for us to be with him. Who would he have loved more than his mother who suffered so much for love of him? If you could come and get a dearly loved one and bring her to a wonderful place, wouldn't you do it? There are precedents, after all. Look at Elijah. And Enoch. Mary was saved solely by the grace of God through Jesus' atoning death on the cross. (If you don't realize that Catholics believe that through and through, then check your sources.) Anyway, I hope I was less than right in my previous post. Perhaps the most hostile and argumentative-sounding person might be open to facts that don't coincide with pre-existing assumptions. I'm not optimistic, but I'm hopeful. ;-)
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 07:46 pm, Truefaith writes:
I suggest that all street preachers go back into history, and read the writings of the Church Fathers, as well as the early councils of the Church--then you will get a truly authentic understanding of many Catholic beliefs. Street preachers, don't take our word for anything, but have the courage to study with an open mind.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 08:37 pm, Pax Christi writes:
Interesting comments from all. As much as we appreciate the concern of the street preachers for our salavation, it's clear that their arguments won't go anywhere in winning us over to their views of the matter. Not only are they fallacious (I won't even begin to waste my time rebutting their arguments when there are so many resources that already do so), but they are unauthorized interpretations. They obviously rely only on the New Testament, which by the way comes from the Holy Mother Church, which is described as "pillar and bulwark of the truth" in 1 Tim 3. Keep in mind that the church formed by Christ went by Tradition before she put SOME of it into writing. I would strongly advise the street preachers to read a short book on the history of the Bible written by Henry Grey Graham, a former Protestant minister in Scotland who converted to the Catholic faith. "Where We Got the Bible" was written nearly a century ago and can be found in its entirety online. Here is a link: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm#CHAPTER%20I (those who read this, if they open their hearts, should then be able to see how the scriptures often end up being distorted and twisted by others like the street preachers, especially those who think we are free to interpret them however we see fit despite the glaring fact of 30,000 or so Protestant denominations who all claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit -- so much for the "one flock, one shepherd" Christ called for). By the way, Julie, great job on laying out the "big picture" of Christ's plan for us. It's unfortunate that those who are niggling over details of the Bible and twisting them to suit their beliefs don't see that.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 09:28 pm, Amy writes:
Bystander, you are totally right. We should not assume that the street preachers are Evangelicals. They have not identified themselves as anything from what I can tell. I was an Evangelical for years before my conversion and never heard any of this anti-Catholic rhetoric, much less participated in public harrassment such as this. I think these street preachers are really an offshoot of that denomination in Kansas that travels around to soldiers' funerals harrassing their families and spewing hatred. I see that continues to tell us what we believe and why we are wrong, even though others have tried to tell him that's not what we believe. From now on, I will scroll past his posts beause it's evident that he is persistent in his ignorance. He also keeps going on fondly about the incidents that happened at last year's procession. He must really be disappointed that nothing happened this year. I think that's what he and the others are really after--baiting Catholics into violence so that they can feel superior. I don't condone violence, but in defense of the Chaldeans, disrespect to Mary and our beliefs is hard to endure when it's so "in your face". The street preachers may not believe that Jesus loved and respected his mother (if you look at George's posts, you would think he practically despised her), but us Catholics love and honor her (not worship her as they think) just as we know he did. Wasn't it Bishop Fulton Sheen who said (paraphrasing) in his time that there are only about 100 people in world that really hate the Catholic Church; the others hate what they think the Catholic Church is. So true in this case!! I suggest we all pray a rosary for these people. They need the love of Christ in their lives--something they claim to have, but don't show.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 10:43 pm, Pax Christi writes:
One thing I could never understand is why folks like the Street Preachers would not turn to former Protestants who once bought into their ideologies to see what spurred them to convert to Catholicism. They certainly aren't no stooges. Scott Hahn, for one, has several degrees plus a doctorate in biblical theology. Steve Ray is another who comes to mind. Marcus Grodi runs an organization that caters to converts. Read all about them at the following links: http://www.chnetwork.org/ http://www.catholicconvert.com/ http://www.salvationhistory.com/
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 11:14 pm, Pastor Dave Ickes writes:
Wow! 24 hrs later and there is so much commentary. I appreciate the fact that so many people are interested in the things of God. I cannot possibly address everything that has been said since yesterday. I will share with you that I was raised in the Catholic Church in Detroit. I went to Catholic school for 12 years and graduated from Detroit Catholic Central. I was sprinkled with water as a baby (at least they tell me I was :-) ), recieved my first communion, did penance, and was confirmed at 12 years old. This does not make me an expert on Catholic theology but it does make me somewhat more that a novice. I now am a born-again christian as explained in John 1:12-13 and John 3:3-8. Born of the Spirit of God. Now my conversion from Catholicism does not prove Catholicism wrong anymore than a former Protestant converting to Catholicism proves the Protestants wrong. I will say too that I am not a Protestant but an Anabaptist. I am not Amish or Mennonite. The Anabaptists can trace their lineage all the way to Christ just as the Catholics claim they can do. Most Catholics I have come across do not know this and therefore claim their lineage as some sort of proof to their authenticity. Yes indeed, it is true that the gates of hell will not prevail against Christ's church. Christ's church indeed is one fold as has been mentioned in a post or two. The fold in question is the Body of Christ of believers mentioned in 1Corinthians 12:13- "for by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body". Notice it is a spiritual church not a physical one. The local congregations are the physical church while the entire Body of Christ is the invisible universal church. To claim that the Catholic church must be the true church because it is growing and has been around for a long time is tenuous. The Muslims have been around a while and are the fastest growing faith in the world. Do we conclude that they are blessed by God? Of course not. (As a side note to one post, we have preached to the Muslims on several occasions and had a similar reception as we recieved in Carey last year. There must have been a similar spirit in these folks.) Also, as if this is new to most of you, to claim that the Bible teaches cannibalism in John chapter 6 is to ignore the whole chapter. This is what you would call Transubstantiation. Yes Jesus literally says to eat His flesh and drink His blood but do you fail to read on that Jesus says in verse 63 that these words that He spake were spirit and they are life? Notice the fact that Jesus said that His word here literally had a spiritual meaning. You get verification of that in Matthew 26 when at the last Supper Jesus "took bread" and break it and said this is my body. Notice He did not cut off His thumb and say chew on this. It is also clear that the Eucharist is not the actual body of Christ because if you look at it under a microscope it is wheat -not flesh. There is a young girl in California that has Celiac disease which is a physical allergy to wheat products. She has allergic reactions to the Eucharist. Why? It is the flesh of Christ isn't it? Of course not. Now lest you say that its the presence of Christ in the Eucharist you have now rejected the Catholic teaching that it is literally the flesh of Christ. The Protestants believe in Consubstantiation which is the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Do you believe your church or not? The fact is that the wafer is still bread and it can be proven and since when can anyone be allergic to Christ? Besides millions of my forefathers were murdered by Romanists for saying what I have just said. Are you folks familiar with the scripture ( Matt. 7:13:14)which teaches that "wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life. and few there be that find it"? Why do you then appeal to the vast numbers of Catholic followers as evidence of authenticity when Jesus said that there would be few that find it? I ask these things to promote thought. We are not as ignorant as some think we are. We certainly aren't geniuses but God did say that He would confound the wise with the foolish. The scriptures also declared that to the world the apostles were unlearned and ignorant men but they could tell that they had been with Jesus. Also, we know that most Evangelicals do not street preach, but just because most people ignore the plain commands of Jesus in Mk 16:15 doesn't mean we have to as well. The Bible says "that it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." We understand that it seems foolish. I guess it is supposed to. Preaching in the Bible was alway outdoors except one time. What is done in church would be considered sermonizing or admonishing or edification but not preaching according to the Bible definition of the word. Also, to think that bringing up the Rapture somehow proves that we are new kids on the block is silly. First of all Darby didn't invent the Rapture teaching, God did throught the apostle Paul in 1 thess. 4. So that takes care of the antiquity questions regarding that matter. Also, the Rapture would fall under what is known as Eschatology or the study of future things. If a man is wrong here it is not that big of a deal. If a man is off on his Soteriology or the study of salvation, the consequences of error are horrific. In 2Cor. 5:17 the Bible declares that "if any man is in Christ Jesus, he is a new creature: old things are passed away, behold all things are become new." Becoming a new creature or creation by being born again of the Spirit of God is important. Most theologians declare that a man's sin condemns him to hell so therefore if he stops sinning or stays confessed up, he will be ok until he sins again. The Bible teaches no such thing. The Bible teaches that the sins one commits are outward evidence to what he is as a creature- a sinner. Therefore a man must be born again and become something new to be saved and only through the shed blood of Jesus Christ are we made new. Sorry about the lengthy post. I am trying. Hope this has helped someone understand me better.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 11:27 pm, MissJean writes:
The argument is moot anyway. If you accept Christ and are saved through His Sacrifice, it can't HURT your salvation if you follow the Commandments and love your neighbour as yourself.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 11:48 pm, Catholic Ohio Girl writes:
I would love to see pastor Ickes visit Scott Hahn's website "salvationhistory.com". Check it out. It gives the 'truth" of the Catholic Church and would be a great resource for any with questions about Catholicism and the Bible. I am amazed how pastor Ickes is not fully aware of the teaching of the Catholic Church, so this site is great. Also, check out "Church Fathers" and read what the apostles and their disciples believed in the Eucharist. Yes, it is that the Eucharist Is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. What a gift our church has to offer! No other gift is so great and you cannot have a closer, more personal relationship than to receive our Lord at Mass. I will never give this up! It is the source and the summit of our Church and we are, with humility, proud to proclaim it. As far as our Blessed Mother is concerned, we hold her dear as our Queen of Heaven. Statues are not adored, they are simply reminders of her and other saints (just like the pictures of your family in your wallet, for pete's sake! You don't love the picture, you love the people in them). Father Corapi said on EWTN last night, something along these lines: Remember, your heavenly mother "wears army boots". She will fight and intercede for her children and, in the end, her immaculate heart will be victorious. Do not be afraidl of the things in this world......Personally, I think we need to continue to pray for peace among all of God's children and to thank God for the Catholic Church. Amen and peace to all who read this!
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 12:11 am, Accredited writes:
I saw this linked at openbook and find the postings fascinating. I've gone to their website and noticed that there isn't an education requirement to join the street preachers. My question is...what is their education and experience to speak/preach on such matters? Perhaps a training seminar? A non-accredited seminary? Possibly a real University??? I wonder. Check out their website.
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 12:15 am, Franklin writes:
Catholic Ohio Girl wrote “Father Corapi said on EWTN last night, something along these lines: Remember, your heavenly mother "wears army boots". She will fight and intercede for her children and, in the end, her immaculate heart will be victorious.” The Bible says “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” Notice it did not say Mary. Mary is not the mediator, Jesus Christ is, and don’t tell me there is more than one mediator the Bible says that there is only ONE mediator and that is Jesus Christ.
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 12:16 am, David B writes:
Personally, I just ignore the street preacher types. Very few are converted by such loud, bullying tactics anyway. When I talked to "brother" jed schmock about his street preaching (which caused a lot of strife) he told me he hasn't made many converts using street preaching. How many people has he turned away though? Many I suspect. Also, I don't buy the old "if you were going to get hit by a car, you would want someone to shout at you" bit. Of course in that circumstance one would yell. But if you wanted to get across a point to someone in most situations, you would have a conversation, not act like a screaming idiot. We can be glad that no Catholic was converted because of the street preaching at Carey, but many were turned off to the message of the preachers no doubt, because of the tactics.
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 12:16 am, David B writes:
Personally, I just ignore the street preacher types. Very few are converted by such loud, bullying tactics anyway. When I talked to "brother" jed schmock about his street preaching (which caused a lot of strife) he told me he hasn't made many converts using street preaching. How many people has he turned away though? Many I suspect. Also, I don't buy the old "if you were going to get hit by a car, you would want someone to shout at you" bit. Of course in that circumstance one would yell. But if you wanted to get across a point to someone in most situations, you would have a conversation, not act like a screaming idiot. We can be glad that no Catholic was converted because of the street preaching at Carey, but many were turned off to the message of the preachers no doubt, because of the tactics.
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 01:05 am, Pax Christi writes:
Perhaps Franklin may want to read the article regarding the "mediator" question at: http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ349.HTM
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 01:14 am, Pax Christi writes:
Still one more resource for Franklin, which shows the dangers of folks taking the Bible out of context if they are not in communion with the Magesterium of the true church who alone has authority over the interpretation of the Bible that she wrote: ttp://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=61&ch=2&l=5&f=s#x
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 01:15 am, Pax Christi writes:
Oops, that should be: http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=61&ch=2&l=5&f=s#x
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 01:36 am, Pastor Dave Ickes writes:
I have read what THE apostles have said about the Eucharist in the Bible. It is called bread. Simple enough. It is NOT Christ no matter how many times you say it to convince yourself. Get a microscope and check it out for yourself. It really is that simple. As far as Mary is concerned, there is no queen of heaven. It is a Trinity not a Quartet. See what Jeremiah has to say about the pagan worship of the queen of heaven in chapter 44. You shouldn't steal from the pagans if you want to be taken seriously. So statues are only a reminder of Mary as a loved one you say. Thats strange. Why do you then bow down to it in violation of the second commandment as written in Exodus 20. Bowing down is the definition of worship in the bible, so no matter how many times you try to convince yourself that you only honor Mary and do not worship her, the actions of some Catholics by bowing down before a statue of her betray the fact that they do worship her. Remember in Exodus 20 when forbidding idolatry it mentions that God is a Jealous God. You should only bow down before God. Also, it is true that there are no educational requirements for the Street Preachers Fellowship. We have just as much education as Peter and the rest of the Apostles except Paul. Look at the qualifications of a bishop or deacon in 1 Tim. 3 and you will notice no degrees are mentioned. If one thinks that a degree given by men makes one an expert on God, the I guess the Mormons, JW's, Muslims and all other misguided religious people are experts because they have a degree. The Bible states in 2Tim 2: 15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." Notice that what a man must study is the Bible (the word of truth) to be approved of God. If you want to be approved of men, great, go ahead and get your degree in Theology (I have one) but I would much rather be approved of God. Also, if Mr. Corapi says that Mary will fight for her children then I guess it must be true because he said so. You can buy that if you want to but I hate to bring you the sad news that Mary is dead and in heaven and cannot fight for anyone right now and she cannot hear you. That is why you should take the advice of Jesus in what you call the Lord's Prayer. You pray it over and over and over again but you do not learn from it. Jesus tells us to pray in "this manner" not say this prayer over and over, and He said to Pray to the Father ("Our Father") and not to Mary or anyone else for that matter. The pagans always prayed to dead people or thought they could talk to their dead relatives. Why do you continue this tradition of pagans. Dead people cannot hear you. The bible says that the heathen pray with vain repetiotion. Why keep repeating yourself as if God didn't hear you the first time. Paul said in the book of Acts that he commended the Berean church for "searching the scriptures to see if these things were so." He wanted the church to check him out with the Bible. Not opinions. So you can see that when sticking to the Bible, we can be safe from men's opinions or theology and rest in the words of God.
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 02:04 am, Pax Christi writes:
Ahem, Pastor Ickes, where exactly may we obtain the "flesh of the Son of man" and his blood that we are to eat and drink in order that we may have life in us as Christ commanded in John 6: 48-59? Could I find it among the beef jerkys at the neighborhood corner store? Otherwise, do you have something compelling to prove that Christ did not mean what he said? Don't forget that his ways are not our ways. If he is God who can do amazing miracles and come from the supernatural to the natural world via the incarnation, then why would making himself physically present under the appearance of bread and wine not be possible?
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 02:09 am, neume writes:
There's repitition and vain repitition. Think of a musician rehearsing a song over and over to get it right. His audience would probably not enjoy listening to all of that, but rehearsal is still necessary for the musician. Likewise, when we repeat prayers, it is for the purpose of meditation and keeping our hearts and minds focused on God. God doesn't need any of our prayers, repeated or not. So repitition is not bad in itself--we are warned against vain repitition--vain if we assume that God would give in to our requests.
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 02:24 am, Caitlin writes:
I would first like to point out the falsehood in the statement "Catholics Worship Mary". This is completely untrue and utterly false...as mentioned by George the Preacher...this would be idol worship and that is against the 1st three commandments. We do not worship Mary, but we desire to pray to her to lead us to her son, Jesus. If you had the opportunity to pray to someone who would purify your prayers, wouldn't you take every opportunity to do so? I know I sure would and I do in my everyday life by praying to Mary and the Saints, those already united with God in heaven. They have already been here on earth and are in heaven united with us to fight the good fight. They want to help us so let us utilize them so we too can enjoy eternl bliss. Mary is a beautiful role model for all women as she raised and cared for her son our Lord Jesus Christ. She cradled him in her arms and brought him up as a young man. She even walked with Him on his journey towards crucifixion and she suffered with him. All we as Catholics do in honoring her glorious assumption, is just that honor her for her beautiful life and example she has set for us. And we humbly ask her to purify our prayers and draw us closer to her son.
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 02:35 am, Pax Christi writes:
Ahem, Pastor Ickes, where exactly may we obtain the "flesh of the Son of man" and his blood that we are to eat and drink in order that we may have life in us as Christ commanded in John 6: 48-59? Could I find it among the beef jerkys at the neighborhood corner store? Otherwise, do you have something compelling to prove that Christ did not mean what he said? Don't forget that his ways are not our ways. If he is God who can do amazing miracles and come from the supernatural to the natural world via the incarnation, then why would making himself physically present under the appearance of bread and wine not be possible?
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 02:45 am, Pax Christi writes:
Pastor Ickes, I do believe it would be impossible to reconcile the church's interpretations of Exodus 20 and Jeremiah 44 with yours. To wit: http://www.drbo.org/chapter/28044.htm and http://www.drbo.org/chapter/02020.htm
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 02:49 am, Pax Christi writes:
P.S. Would bowing, saluting or showing other signs of reverence to public figures like royalty and military officials also constitute a form of idolatry?
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 02:54 am, George the Preacher writes:
Pax Christi writes: "Ahem, Pastor Ickes, where exactly may we obtain the "flesh of the Son of man" and his blood that we are to eat and drink in order that we may have life in us as Christ commanded in John 6: 48-59?" As always you did not finish reading the context of the passage. Did you bother reading what Pastor Ickes presented to you? Why did you miss going to the end of the chapter and along the way you come to v63 which says that the literal eating of his body and blood is SPIRITUAL! The Lord did mean what he said, but you did not bother to finish what he said. Also, if you question what someone wrote, do not misquote or miss what was said. Go ahead, go back to his post and read it in completeness, then ask your questions.
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 03:07 am, George the Preacher writes:
Pax Christi writes: "Ahem, Pastor Ickes, where exactly may we obtain the "flesh of the Son of man" and his blood that we are to eat and drink in order that we may have life in us as Christ commanded in John 6: 48-59?" As always you did not finish reading the context of the passage. Did you bother reading what Pastor Ickes presented to you? Why did you miss going to the end of the chapter and along the way you come to v63 which says that the literal eating of his body and blood is SPIRITUAL! The Lord did mean what he said, but you did not bother to finish what he said. Also, if you question what someone wrote, do not misquote or miss what was said. Go ahead, go back to his post and read it in completeness, then ask your questions.
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 03:26 am, Dave writes:
Pastor Ickes good to have you back. You mentioned the Eucharist. It was an interesting spin you had on it. You can make assertions but your answer doesn't jibe with scriptures. Also, how do you explain 1 Corinthians 11:27-29. "Therefore whoever eats the bread of drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the bod and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself." Another question you or one of the Street Preachers asked concerned your erroneous views of proclaiming yourself "saved." A Calvinistic misstep I believe. Are you not familiar with Matthew 7: 21-23? "Not everyone who says Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord did we not prohesy in your name. Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name? Then I will decalre to them solemnly, I never knew you. Depart from me you evildoers." It seems your group also erroneously believes in "Sola Scriptora" (the Bibe alone.) Can you tell me where it says that in the Bible? I mean its baseball season and a lot of people are also golfing this time of year. The Major League rule book and Professional Golf Association specifically say this is the only rule book. Yet, the Bible does not say that. As a matterof fact look at 1 Corinthians 11:2 "I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions as I handed on to you." The Bible clearly says traditions are important and nowhere does it say the "Bible alone." Finally, let's go back to the Assumption which you have such a hard time with. Why did the man (Martin Luther) who started the division in the Church never deny the Assumption. As a matter of fact he even preached on the feast of the Assumption for years after he left the Church. Why did he say the Hail Mary the rest of his life? Why did Martin Luther say on Christmas day 1531, "We can never honor her enough" My friends in Christ of the Street Preacher Fellowship, it is never too late to come back home.
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 04:41 am, Pax Christi writes:
I understand Luther also had an image of the Assumption of Mary on his gravestone. So much for idolatry. As for Pastor Ickes' comments regarding the rest of John's verses, I invite you to read what the notes in red have to say about the "spirit" in question at: http://www.drbo.org/chapter/50006.htm
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 08:57 am, Pastor Dave Ickes writes:
Who cares whatLuther did? We are not Protestants. That proves nothing. Jesus did say that man was not to live by bread alone "but by every word of God". See there it is. Peter said to "desire the sincere milk of the word that ye may grow thereby". It is the Bible alone and the scriptures do declare this. Plus, the traditions that were taught and encouraged are explained in the bible so we live by the bible. Also, just because Paul said to follow his tradition, doesn't mean you can make the leap and say that following any tradition is ok. The tradition is explained in the scripture. Also, if the scripture and tradition conflict, which one wins out? The bible of course. And finally, John 6:63 answers the question of the body and blood.
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 12:07 pm, Julie writes:
Pastor Dave, It worries me not a little that you are giving up your spiritual authority to Jack Chick. Not to Christ, or the earliest Church followers, the Apostles, the Scripture that came out of this early Catholic church. But to Jack Chick. Your group is not a religious group; it is a hate group. Jack Chick has sought to make us a cartoon, to caricaturize us, to dehumanize us. But he will never do that. He will only take Christian love and turn it into a vile hatred that mutates Christ's message into something that stokes his ego and makes him a profit. He will never take away our humanity. Because we are human. And we carry Christ's love. And we care about you, Dave. We have chosen to be Catholic because we love Christ above everything else, even ourselves. We are Catholic because we have made the decision to follow Christ completely. Even when people like Jack Chick write terrible, terrible lies about this love and devotion that we carry with us. "Jack Chick" will never understand that type of love. This I say to Satan and Jack Chick, his helper, you will never erase Christ from our hearts. His message will prevail. Christ has assured us of that. Sure, we are persecuted as Christ was. Sure, we have accusers as Christ did. We will still do exactly as the Bible tells us, and do what Christ instructed us to do every time we enter our churches. And we will continue to pray for you, Dave, and carry Christ's love for you in our hearts. Does Jack Chick give you the love and joy that Christ gives us through the Catholic Church? Look for the truth. Don't read his comic books. Please.
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 12:37 pm, Julie writes:
Pastor Dave, I speak to you because you sound reasonable. I can explain it like this, but I am no authority by any means. But I have recently opened my heart up to Christ, and have been paid back in spades. There is something in the Catholic worship, and the Catholic Catechism, that creates a deep and abiding love in Christ. I can't explain why; I have no idea why. It is unusual and strange. And I feel weird when I tell people about it, especially in this secular world. But it is absolutely true and it gives me strength every day. And it is a joyful feeling like no other on this earth that I have experienced. Anyway, my feeble explanation -- Have you ever fallen in love with a girl? And you want to know everything about her, what she likes, etc. Somebody gives you a book, and says here is her diary. OK. But you want to know MORE. Who knew her back when? What did they say about her? What things did they do together? She ate off this spoon! I want to keep it forever! Maybe somebody did something in honor of her one time, and you want to do that too, or know about it. And you want to know more about her mother. Maybe getting to know her mother, and getting in her mother's good graces will bring you closer to that girl. We want it all! We want the instruments that Christ used, we want to know everything about him, his mother, his followers. What is it about Christ that gives us this wonderful life, this life that we did not think was Earthly possible before we opened our hearts. Sure, we get carried away in our enthusiasm. But remember, the earliest church was completely traditional, and had to be. We want to keep true to what came directly from Christ Himself. We love Christ. We want to sing about him, we want to mimick him, we want to worship him, we want to hear the Scripture, we want to honor him; if he says eat his flesh and drink his blood, well, we line up. This is because we have been gifted with something so completely unusual many people on this Earth do not understand it. But a billion do. People often misinterpret what we do. But many people, prominent, studied Evangelicals, who checked into it, and studied it, and tried to refute it, wound up "swimming the Tiber." Look into it, Dave. Perhaps you will prove yourself right. Perhaps you will also learn something about Christ, whom you are obviously eager to dedicate yourself to, and God Bless You for that.
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 02:37 pm, George the Preacher writes:
Pax Christi writes: P.S. Would bowing, saluting or showing other signs of reverence to public figures like royalty and military officials also constitute a form of idolatry? Why are you not able to answer those questions yourself? What you need to do is study the bible, so therefore I will give you some of the passages that you need to study. See what you conclude from the looking at these verses: "Study to show yourself approved unto God..." 1> Gen 37:8-10 and compare with Gen 41:40-43. What do you conclude about that in the context in which it stands? 2> Ex 20:3-5, 23:22-24 What do you conclude about that in the context in which it stands? 3> Dan 3:15-18 What insight have you gained here? 4> Acts 10:22-26 Based on the context and why Peter was there, why did he say what he said? 5> Rev 22:6-9 Again, when John reacted to the presence of the angel, why did the angel say what he said? 1 Cor 3:21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; 22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; 23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's. Are ye in Jesus Christ? Do you have the spirit of God to be able to discern both good and evil? In 1 Jn 4 he said that we can KNOW the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. He has given us the Spirit, not by incorruptable man, but as Peter said "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." You see, you need the new birth, which is by grace through faith, and not of yourself. Then as Peter again said, "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby". You see it is the word of God that God himself magnified above his name (Ps 138:2) and therefore as once again Peter uttered "To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you" The question you must ask, Pax Christi, do you know for sure that TODAY you are a son of God and have the promise of eternal life living in you? That is the ultimate question of true biblical salvation. There is no other kind since Paul said in Gal 1:9 "As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. 10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. 11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man." Will you believe servant of the true Christ or a man pleaser?
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 04:04 pm, Dave writes:
I am sure we can all agree that God is A Sovereign, Almighty God. Yet, according to our Friends in the Street Preacher Fellowship God had no authority on His Church for the first 1,500 years. If the Catholic Church was wrong then God, according to the Street Preacher Fellowship would have to be an impotent God. We know that can't be so. By what authority did you break with God's universal Catholic Church established by Christ and handed over to St Peter? "And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever, you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." (Matthew 16:18-19) Pastor Ickes said "Who cares what Luther did," in my response to Luther believing in the Assumption of Mary, preaching on its Feast day and saying the Hail Mary his whole life. Well if you don't believe in Luther than why are you back back in the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church? After the Protestant Reformation, the protesters couldn't agree on anything. At a summit of protest leaders in 1529 at Marburg, Germany, Luther wrote on a table "This is My Body" in relation to John Calvin's fuzzy view on the Eucharist. When Calvin responded somewhat sheepishly that he should go to the Pope, Luther said, "I would rather drink blood with the Pope than wine with the Swiss." Luther was seeing that this protest was going nowhere. Do you really believe thay Christ likes his Church split off into hundreds of denominations, not speaking with one voice? What do you think that tells others about your respect for authority. Atheists and Muslims must wonder why the division? I will give you an example. Take baseball, let's say that one team in the major leagues decides they think there should be four outs instead of three to end an inning. This team in question then says to jutsify their view that they heard in 1909 one player in a bar said it would be best. Therefore they quote his authority. (By the way, Luther often had many theological discussion in German taverns) Anyway,the rest of the major league says on what authority are you protesting that there should be four outs instead of three? The rest of the teams point out that when the rule book was written in the late 1800's everyone agreed there should be 3 outs. Why do you now say 4? Those that want 4 outs go on to say that's what the rule books says if you loook at it close enough. However, the rest of the teams say why are you saying this now instead of in the 1800's? The same goes with the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. Why would God let the Catholic Church stay in error for 1,500 years if it were wrong? God is not impotent. What fruit has your division brought the Church? Only more division? Where are your sacraments? Deacon Alex Jones, a prominent Pentacostalist pastor kept asking himself the same question. He finally realized the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ established. How many theologians have come our way in the last few years. Craig Blombers and Donald Hagnar are two that just couldn't see why Christ would lie to St Peter. He is the rock and that Apostolic succession has been passed down and currently is held by Pope Benedict. Has the Catholic Church made mistakes? Yes, many. many mistakes. That is even further proof that we are the Church Christ established. How could we have survived that long if we were wrongly established? My friends in the Street Preacher Fellowship, it is not to late ot return to the One, Holy, Catholic,Apostolic Church that Christ established with St Peter as the first leader. I implore my friends in the Street Preacher Fellowship to buy Patrick Madrid's book, "Where's that in the Bible?" I hope you have the courage to buy that great book and not remain in ignorance of the Church that Christ himself established. I know my friends in Christ in the Street Preacher Fellowship probably mean well. Check out that book and read Catholic Answers (Catholic.com) You will see the truth and the truth will set your free.
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 07:03 pm, George the Preacher writes:
Pax Christi writes: P.S. Would bowing, saluting or showing other signs of reverence to public figures like royalty and military officials also constitute a form of idolatry? Why are you not able to answer those questions yourself? What you need to do is study the bible, so therefore I will give you some of the passages that you need to study. See what you conclude from the looking at these verses: "Study to show yourself approved unto God..." 1> Gen 37:8-10 and compare with Gen 41:40-43. What do you conclude about that in the context in which it stands? 2> Ex 20:3-5, 23:22-24 What do you conclude about that in the context in which it stands? 3> Dan 3:15-18 What insight have you gained here? 4> Acts 10:22-26 Based on the context and why Peter was there, why did he say what he said? 5> Rev 22:6-9 Again, when John reacted to the presence of the angel, why did the angel say what he said? 1 Cor 3:21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; 22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; 23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's. Are ye in Jesus Christ? Do you have the spirit of God to be able to discern both good and evil? In 1 Jn 4 he said that we can KNOW the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. He has given us the Spirit, not by incorruptable man, but as Peter said "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." You see, you need the new birth, which is by grace through faith, and not of yourself. Then as Peter again said, "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby". You see it is the word of God that God himself magnified above his name (Ps 138:2) and therefore as once again Peter uttered "To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you" The question you must ask, Pax Christi, do you know for sure that TODAY you are a son of God and have the promise of eternal life living in you? That is the ultimate question of true biblical salvation. There is no other kind since Paul said in Gal 1:9 "As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. 10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. 11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man." Will you believe servant of the true Christ or a man pleaser?
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 08:36 pm, Pax Christi writes:
Pastor Ickes, while I may not be tenth, a hundredth or even a thousandth as well versed in the Scriptures as you are, I have checked on enough of the verses to see if they are what you and your kind think they mean or say. And sadly to say, each and every time they are not. As Dave and I earlier pointed out, those who think the Holy Spirit are leading them into the truth have to awaken to the fact that there are wildly differing interpretations out there as witnessed by the thousands upon thousands of different Christian denominations. That should only further confirm the fact that Christ established a teaching authority through his church. Maybe you think the church has veered away from its mission, but that has not been the case. After all, Christ promised he would not abandon the church and that the gates of hell would not prevail upon it. Each and every Catholic theologian loyal to the Holy See have said there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the Bible to contradict the church's teachings. If you think about it, every institution on Earth has an authority over it. Why would Christ not do the same? Like Dave pointed out, he gave the keys of his earthly kingdom to Peter. Despite all the scandals of the cross that Christ warned were to come, he has remained true to his promises and the church continues to endure and prosper, fulfilling its mission to reach out to every corner of the world. Perhaps you would do well to examine your heart for signs of idolatry that keeps you from fully abiding in the "way, truth and life." A recent article on a former Lutheran minister who converted to Catholicism, Fr. John Neuhaus, written by religion editor Richard Ostling of the Associated Press, summarizes all this well with this part: The Protestant problem, he concluded, was the continual need to develop "reasons, thoughts and ideas from me and others of like mind. It was our idea." Faith is "falsely defined as the autonomous self, as the gloriously independent actualization of me." By contrast, "the Catholic Church is not about me." Neuhaus thinks it's incoherent to array the authority of the Bible against the authority of the church. He says Jesus' promise that the divine Holy Spirit would guide his followers into all truth is a promise to the church. It was the church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that wrote the Scriptures and was guided in deciding which texts were authoritative parts of the Bible. The Nicene Creed recited by Lutherans and Catholics, he remarks, professes faith in the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church," not the "one, holy, catholic and biblical church." "The Bible is entirely the book of, by, and for the church, and should never be pitted against the church." In Christianity's currently divided state, he concludes, "the Catholic Church makes a uniquely believable claim of having maintained the form and logic from the beginning" and is "the church of Jesus Christ most fully and rightly ordered through time."
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 08:40 pm, subUrbanII writes:
George the Preacher, I have two questions for you. 1. How old is the Earth? 2. Does your drivers licence photo count as a "graven image"?
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 09:18 pm, Catholic Ohio Girl writes:
Pax Christi, you are eloquent and to the point as usual. Ditto to Dave, our fearless website leader and other Catholic posters. Many points here will help others understand the "underpinnings" of the Catholic faith and therefore the discussion has been interesting. Nothing is impossible with God. Who knows, maybe our street preacher brothers will join us. After all, they seem to enjoy talking to us on a Catholic website. Jump in and swim the Tiber, brothers!
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 09:19 pm, writes:
By the way, Dave, where is our friend, Catholic Chick? I miiss her comments!
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 09:35 pm, Pax Christi writes:
Speaking of Catholic Chick, I should say, to steal a quote from Lloyd Bentsen in his debate with Dan Quayle, "Street Preacher, you served Jack Chick. You knew Jack Chick. Jack Chick was a friend of yours. Steet Preacher, you're Jack Chick." Now read on to see why some folks know jack chick about Catholicism: http://www.catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p1.asp
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 10:47 pm, Pastor Dave writes:
Again, if you have read one of my earlier posts, you would know that I had stated that I was an Anabaptist and that we could trace our lineage all the way back to Christ. The Roman church is not alone on this claim. Therefore claiming such is false. Also, just because something has been around for a long time doesn't mean it is true. The Hindus have been around longer than Rome. Why would God let that faith exist so long if it weren't true? Thats easy. There is a god of this world and he would love nothing more than to keep people asleep in their religion. Jesus said in John chapter 8 that the devil was a murderer from the beginning. He said that the devils followers would do the works of the devil. Which church has had as its official policy the murder of people who do not agree with them? The Roman church. I am not talking about individuals that belong to that church but the church's official teaching. Have you not read The Trail of Blood by J.M. Carroll? What about an unabridged version of the Foxes Book of Martys? Another posting mentioned that there were no teachings of the Roman church which violate the scripture. This same person had also mentioned that I may know a thousand times (that may be an exaggeration but I am flattered. I am still studying and learning) more scripture than her. Why admit ignorance and then make a claim that there are no conflicts between the Roman church and the Bible when there may be some conflict in the part of the Bible she is not familiar with? I will give you one simple one here that is beyond argument by any unbiased reader. 1 Timothy 3:2 "A bishop must then be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;" ... If one reads the next few verses it will be learned that there are 22 qualifications to be a bishop. One is to be the husband of one wife and it says "must be". An unmarried man is not qualified to be a bishop, yet none of the Catholic bishops is married. They are all unqualified by God's word. The Roman church teaches contrary to this. Speaking of which, it is quite interesting to note that in the next chapter- 1 Timothy 4:1-3 it states " Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats ....... Notice the forbidding to marry part. In chapter 3 it says that a bishop MUST BE married to one wife and the next chapter give us a glimpse into some devilish doctrines one of which is forbidding to marry. Do you know of any church like this? I do and its by the Tiber river. This is just one minor one. There are many conflicts with the roman church and the bible and when did God give anyone permission to change His rules? We know what the bible says about adding to or subtracting from the word of God don't we? Friends, one thing I do not like about posts is that you cannot see my disposition as I write. I have no hatred in my heart for any of you and I know that most of you that reply will not hear anything new from me that they haven't heard before. All I can do is challnge the reader to read their bible and trust it over any man or group of men. I pray that the reader can understand that I have been enjoying the correspondence these last few days. I wish we could sit down and have lunch some time but let me pray over the food :-) P.S. who is Jack Chick?
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 11:20 pm, writes:
"I was an Anabaptist and that we could trace our lineage all the way back to Christ" and scientologists claim lineage back to aliens.
On Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 11:40 pm, Pax Christi writes:
Pastor Dave, now that you forced my hand, pardon me while I once again demonstrate how you have it all wrong in your interpretations. Regarding married bishops in 1 Timothy 3:2, please read the comment in red at http://www.drbo.org/chapter/61003.htm ... Regarding the forbiddance of marriage, please read: http://www.drbo.org/chapter/61004.htm .... That's OK, don't feel bad. I didn't know this either. But it's nice that there are some in the church who do and can spare us the trouble and confusion over what is the authorized interpretation of certain verses like these. If you still disagree on that, why should I or others endanger their salvation by putting their lot on your interpretations that simply do not jibe with the holy mother church's? Now we can see why some church fathers were leery about the Scriptures getting into the wrong hands. Once again I implore you to read former Protestant minister Henry Grey Graham's short book "Where We Got the Bible" at:http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 01:44 am, Pastor Dave writes:
Pax, There is no need for interpretation of a verse which is clear in its meaning to anyone who can read. Do you think God would not speak clearly? There is no mystery to the Bible. It means what it says and says what it means. If it is too confusing to understand "MUST BE the husband of one wife", then how can there be any rational conversation when one party doesn't understand English. 1Tim 3:2 says clearly that a bishop must be the husband of one wife. This is why Peter warned against private interpretations of the Bible. People put too much stock in interpreting the Bible instead of reading it and letting God plainly speak to them. I am not asking anyone to put their lot on my interpretation of the Bible. I simply let the Bible speak for itself. I do not give my interpretation. The Bible says what it says. It is that simple.It sounds as if you do not have any ability to understand plain speech. The Roman church has gotten people so afraid to read the Bible themselves because they have been taught (as I was) that only the priests could interpret the Bible properly and it seems you have fallen lockstep into that teaching. If a person who never had any idea what a Bible was and had no theological beliefs, and read 1 Tim 3:2, what do you think they would say that it means? Obviously, they would say that it means a bishop must be the husband of one wife. That is no interpretation or spin. That is what it says. Seems that you believe that it means something else. Could it be because for you to believe what it says, your church would be wrong and of course we all know that is not possible so there must be some hidden deep dark meaning to it that will allow you to hold onto your beliefs. Do you see how you have brought your beliefs to the bible and tried to make it say what you want it to? Let the Bible speak for itself and as Jesus said in John 8:31-32 "If you continue in my word are ye my disciples indeed and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free."
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 01:51 am, George the Preacher writes:
Pax Christi writes: " Regarding married bishops in 1 Timothy 3:2, please read the comment in red at http://www.drbo.org/chapter/61003.htm" You got to be kidding, right??? Talking about simple english that can be understood by anyone except a "Catholic theologian" who uses "private interpretation" to justify a priesthood!! Only average reading skills is required to exegete that passage. Let us at least be HONEST in what one reads! It says in v2 "A bishop to be blameless, THE husband of ONE wife... And this "thelogian" said "Of one wife"... The meaning is not that every bishop should have a wife (for St. Paul himself had none) but that no one should be admitted to the holy orders of bishop, priest, or deacon, who had been married more than once" 1> It SAID if you desire the office of A bishop you must be THE husband of ONE wife..!! Reading skills 101 says that IF you desire the office of a bishop you MUST BE the HUSBAND of ONE wife. I cannot believe that you would defend the utter foolishness of "The meaning is not that every bishop should have a wife". Have you lost your simple reading comprehension? Do you defend Catholocism to the point of showing complete ignorance to what YOUR OWN BIBLE SAYS? And you want to pray for me? Please do not waste your time, but certainly I will be praying the following: Acts 28:25 Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, 26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: 27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. 2>(for St Paul himself had none) Oh, I see, we will use Paul to try to justify your foolishness, but the FIRST POPE Peter had a wife (Mat 8:14)! And by the way, St Paul was NEVER a bishop. You all really need to spend time actually reading the bible. Paul was an Apostle, a teacher of the Gentiles, a servant, a preacher of the gospel, but one thing he was not, was a bishop. And you actually believe the church of Rome when it cannot even simply read what their OWN BIBLE says??? 3> Why did he ADD the word "holy orders" and "priest"? It says A BISHOP and nothing about any "holy orders" of any kind! The context is an assembly of believers in cities (read the epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Thessolonians, Corinthians, etc), and providences (Galatia, Achaia) to name a few. Anyway, where did he get priest from? You can find that in 1 Pe 2:5-9, which in CONTEXT speaks about EVERY believer being a priest! You know why? Of course you do not, so I will give you some insight to truth. Since the Lord Jesus Christ is after the order of Melchisedec, not the order of Aaron, we follow our HIGH PRIEST, the Lord Jesus Christ as priests, sons of God, ambassadors, etc. You will have to read CHAPTERS, not some obscure verses to understand the obvious (Heb 5-10, Gal 1-3, Col 1-3, Ep 1-3, etc). If that is the best you have to offer, Pax Christi as a rebuttal to Pastor Ickes "wrong interpretation", all I am reminded of is this from the book of Proverbs "A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself." And by the way "holy MOTHER church" is found nowhere in no bible at any time, written in any language, on any continent of the earth! The church is the BRIDE of Jesus Christ (Rev 19). And you insist that the Catholic church is the "pillar and ground of the truth"? Yea right, it cannot even handle SIMPLE passages of truth, cause it DOES NOT know the truth, so that the truth can set YOU free. As for me, "I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day while holding fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 03:42 am, joe writes:
GEORGE & Dave, You're versed in a narrow form of Biblical Sophistry. That's all. The gentlemen at Catholic Answers are well versed in your peculiar form of exegesis. They would probably enjoy talking to you.
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 10:14 am, Nighthaven writes:
Quote from Franklin “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” (Matt 23:9)" You know full well that Jesus spoke about people calling man God. I would post the article that refutes this, but by reading this comment thread I see the Street Preachers rarely even go to the websites people are citing as sources to refute the claims made by the Street Preachers. So I'm going to paste a piece of it here. Then I'm going to list the website it came from. If the snippet doesn't interest you enough to finish reading the article on the website than we will just end the arguement with Catholics being deemed the winners. To understand why the charge does not work, one must first understand the use of the word "father" in reference to our earthly fathers. No one would deny a little girl the opportunity to tell someone that she loves her father. Common sense tells us that Jesus wasn’t forbidding this type of use of the word "father." In fact, to forbid it would rob the address "Father" of its meaning when applied to God, for there would no longer be any earthly counterpart for the analogy of divine Fatherhood. The concept of God’s role as Father would be meaningless if we obliterated the concept of earthly fatherhood. But in the Bible the concept of fatherhood is not restricted to just our earthly fathers and God. It is used to refer to people other than biological or legal fathers, and is used as a sign of respect to those with whom we have a special relationship. For example, Joseph tells his brothers of a special fatherly relationship God had given him with the king of Egypt: "So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt" (Gen. 45:8). Job indicates he played a fatherly role with the less fortunate: "I was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know" (Job 29:16). And God himself declares that he will give a fatherly role to Eliakim, the steward of the house of David: "In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . . and I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah" (Is. 22:20–21). This type of fatherhood not only applies to those who are wise counselors (like Joseph) or benefactors (like Job) or both (like Eliakim), it also applies to those who have a fatherly spiritual relationship with one. For example, Elisha cries, "My father, my father!" to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21). http://www.catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp So really its just a term of respect when Catholics say Father to a priest. - End of Arguement. Quote From Franklin "Why would she need a saviour if she was sinless? So that is why when the Bible says “For by GRACE are ye saved through FAITH; and that NOT OF YOURSELVES: it is the GIFT of God: NOT of works, lest any man should boast.” (Eph 2:8-9)" Because everyone needs a savior. Just being sinless doesn't qualify you for Heaven. Read your bible - End of Arguement. Quote From George the Preacher "mother of God", "holy mother", "blessed mother" She is the mother of God because she gave birth to Jesus who is God. The only way she couldn't be the Mother of God is if Jesus became God after his birth. If you believe in that than welcome to the sin of heresy. Luke 1:43 explains it pretty well also. She is holy because she is sinless and provided an example for all Christians to live by. She is the Blessed Mother because of Luke 1:48. In that verse she said that all generations shall call her blessed. Go and read your bible again. Continued on next post...
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 10:17 am, Nighthaven writes:
Quote From Pastor Dave Ickes "The Anabaptists can trace their lineage all the way to Christ." Actually historical fact doesn't agree with you. Anabaptists can only trace their lineage back to the Radical Sects of 1520. Besides there are no more Anabaptists. Half of them splintered around the year 1535 and became Mennonites. The other half became Baptists under John Smythe in 1609. So the Anabaptists are dead. Your either a Baptist or a Mennonite. Just calling yourself a Anabaptist doesn't make it so. Source: Time Magazine as well as Historical Fact. Quote From Paster Dave Ickes "Also, as if this is new to most of you, to claim that the Bible teaches cannibalism in John chapter 6 is to ignore the whole chapter. This is what you would call Transubstantiation. 63 that these words that He spake were spirit and they are life? Notice the fact that Jesus said that His word here literally had a spiritual meaning. You get verification of that in Matthew 26 when at the last Supper Jesus "took bread" and break it and said this is my body. Notice He did not cut off His thumb and say chew on this. It is also clear that the Eucharist is not the actual body of Christ because if you look at it under a microscope it is wheat -not flesh." John 6:47-65 Sums it up pretty well. I'll quote it for you. Amen, amen I say unto you: he believeth in me, hath everlasting life.47 I am the bread of life.48 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead.49 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.50 I am the living bread which came down from heaven.51 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.52 The Jew therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?53 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you; Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.54 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting lifeL and I will raise him up in the last day.55 Fro my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.56 He that eatheth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.59 These things he sad, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.60 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?61 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmered at this, said to them: Doth this scadalize you?62 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?63 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was that would betray him.65 If Christ meant this as a symbol only than the people wouldn't of departed with him as well as some of his own disciples. If he meant it as a symbol but people were taking it literally he would of corrected them in their error. The bread of life is for the spirit and everlasting life as we see in verse 64. Because the flesh can't go to heaven in this respect, therefore it doesn't profit from the bread of life. This is in the strict sense of the bread of life. It by no means invalidate Marys Assumption. You'd be invalidating Elijahs Assumption if you invalidate Marys. So this is why Catholics partake of the Bread of Life; because Christ commanded us to. Continued on next post... Sorry if this is getting long.
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 10:20 am, Nighthaven writes:
Quote From Paster Dave Ickes "There is a young girl in California that has Celiac disease which is a physical allergy to wheat products. She has allergic reactions to the Eucharist. Why? It is the flesh of Christ isn't it? Of course not. Now lest you say that its the presence of Christ in the Eucharist you have now rejected the Catholic teaching that it is literally the flesh of Christ. Do you even bother studying what Catholics believe in, or do you just thumb through Loraine Boettners book and plagerize? Please go pick up a Cathechism of the Catholic Church, so you can hate us for what we really believe in, not what you think we believe in. Now onto to your quote. The substance of the bread and wine have been changed into the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. It has the appeareance of bread and wheat. It wouldn't be the bread of life if it didn't look like bread. Strip away the bread and it would be the Life of Life, and who knows what that would look like? No rejection here, it is literally the body of Jesus Christ, under the appeareance or accident of bread. Go and read the Early Church Fathers take on this. Your arguement will be moot until you do. Quote From Paster Dave Ickes “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” I guess you better stop praying for other people than. Because thats what your doing, playing a mediator to Christ. Opps that would mean you'd have to discard parts of the bible saying to pray for others. Oh well its all or nothing I suppose. Quote From Paster Dave Ickes "We are not Protestants." If your denomination was born after the year 1517 than you are a Protestant. I've already shown in historical fact where the Anabaptists began. So yes you are a Protestant. Not only is this historically correct but it is based upon the certainity of pure fact. Actually the only place where Baptists can trace their lineage back to the Apostles is only found in revisionist history, not real history. George The Preacher Gal 1:9 "As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. 10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. 11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man." Will you believe servant of the true Christ or a man pleaser? I am not asking anyone to put their lot on my interpretation of the Bible. I simply let the Bible speak for itself. I do not give my interpretation. The Bible says what it says. It is that simple.It sounds as if you do not have any ability to understand plain speech. The Roman church has gotten people so afraid to read the Bible themselves because they have been taught (as I was) that only the priests could interpret the Bible properly and it seems you have fallen lockstep into that teaching. 30,000 Protestant Denominations and they all read the same Bible you do. They all claim to have the truth. Private Interpretation = Error, as you and your associates have already shown us. Though I do give you thanks for writing to us, because my arguement against Private Interpretation wouldn't of been proven without you and the help of your associates. I'm so glad i'm Catholic. "My God My God what have I done? Even Milk Maids now think they can interpret scripture." - Martin Luther at the time of his death. I think this pretty much sums up the error of private interpretation without authority. He is the one who invented the idea of private interpretation. So its only fitting that he found the error of his ways before his death. You guys need to learn from his example. Don't follow his errors that lead to his eternal damnation.
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 10:31 am, Nighthaven writes:
In conclusion, the more you gripe about the Catholic Faith the more the other Catholics and me will educate our fellow Catholics by refuting your claims. So actually you are shooting yourselves in the foot for continuing to argue. Since I'm a Catholic Apologist who mainly deals with Fundamental Darwinian Christians like yourselves you'll find me a hard person to debate with. Judging by the caliber of all the Street Preacher arguements, I'll have no trouble whatsoever. So open up Boettners book and do your worse. eek, I forgot the comment section just crowds everthing together instead of allowing paragraphs. I hope you all can read through that mountain of text. Hopefully you can tell the difference between the people I quoted, and my responses to them.
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 10:53 am, Nighthaven writes:
Quote From George the Preacher. "Any one that worships Mary and makes idols of her is DESECRATING her blessed name based on this verse" Catholics do not worship Mary. Catholics do not worship Mary. Catholics do not worship Mary. Catholics do not worship Mary. Catholics do not worship Mary. Apparently this isn't sinking into as easy as it should. Now look to this article about Graven Images. Also this disproves an earlier post about Angels not having wings. During a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus, God told Moses to "make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live. So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live" (Num. 21:8–9). One had to look at the bronze statue of the serpent to be healed, which shows that statues could be used ritually, not merely as religious decorations. Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one’s mother by looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible pictures in Sunday school for teaching children. Catholics also use statues to commemorate certain people and events, much as Protestant churches have three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas. If one measured Protestants by the same rule, then by using these "graven" images, they would be practicing the "idolatry" of which they accuse Catholics. But there’s no idolatry going on in these situations. God forbids the worship of images as gods, but he doesn’t ban the making of images. If he had, religious movies, videos, photographs, paintings, and all similar things would be banned. But, as the case of the bronze serpent shows, God does not even forbid the ritual use of religious images. It is when people begin to adore a statue as a god that the Lord becomes angry. Thus when people did start to worship the bronze serpent as a snake-god (whom they named "Nehushtan"), the righteous king Hezekiah had it destroyed (2 Kgs. 18:4). http://www.catholic.com/library/do_catholics_worship_statues.asp Be sure to read the rest of the article on the website or give up your arguement. Besides Protestants are ones to talk about graven images. Your own King James Bible began with graven images on the cover and stayed that way for a long time. So yes it's like the pot calling the kettle black. http://www.catholicapologetics.net/graven_image.htm
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 11:03 am, Nighthaven writes:
Quote From George the Preacher. "Any one that worships Mary and makes idols of her is DESECRATING her blessed name based on this verse" Catholics do not worship Mary. Catholics do not worship Mary. Catholics do not worship Mary. Catholics do not worship Mary. Catholics do not worship Mary. Apparently this isn't sinking into as easy as it should. Now look to this article about Graven Images. Also this disproves an earlier post about Angels not having wings. During a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus, God told Moses to "make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live. So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live" (Num. 21:8–9). One had to look at the bronze statue of the serpent to be healed, which shows that statues could be used ritually, not merely as religious decorations. Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one’s mother by looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible pictures in Sunday school for teaching children. Catholics also use statues to commemorate certain people and events, much as Protestant churches have three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas. If one measured Protestants by the same rule, then by using these "graven" images, they would be practicing the "idolatry" of which they accuse Catholics. But there’s no idolatry going on in these situations. God forbids the worship of images as gods, but he doesn’t ban the making of images. If he had, religious movies, videos, photographs, paintings, and all similar things would be banned. But, as the case of the bronze serpent shows, God does not even forbid the ritual use of religious images. It is when people begin to adore a statue as a god that the Lord becomes angry. Thus when people did start to worship the bronze serpent as a snake-god (whom they named "Nehushtan"), the righteous king Hezekiah had it destroyed (2 Kgs. 18:4). http://www.catholic.com/library/do_catholics_worship_statues.asp Be sure to read the rest of the article on the website or give up your arguement. Besides Protestants are ones to talk about graven images. Your own King James Bible began with graven images on the cover and stayed that way for a long time. So yes it's like the pot calling the kettle black. http://www.catholicapologetics.net/graven_image.htm
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 12:36 pm, George the Preacher writes:
To Nighthaven: What a cocaphony of twisted, misunderstood, read this, read that foolishness I have ever seen from anyone! Quote from Nighthaven: "Catholics do not worship Mary. Catholics do not worship Mary. Catholics do not worship Mary. Catholics do not worship Mary. Catholics do not worship Mary." Should have been in Carey to witness 1000's walking as a procession, LIFTING UP a statue with MARY and CHILD Jesus (see MYSTERY Babylon- Rev 17) heading for A STATUE in A GROVE to WORSHIP the "Mary" known as the "queen of heaven" in Jer 44! Why do you have Jesus Christ as a CHILD sitting in Mary's hand? Ever read Heb 12:2 to find out where the Lord Jesus Christ is ACTUALLY sitting? More distortions, slight of hand, and doctrines of devils.
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 12:51 pm, Julie writes:
I read this by Mark Noll on "Still Catholic": "The problem with Protestantism is that there are no historical antecedents for it. That is, it can't be shown to have existed before the 16th century. The question then arises, If Protestantism is true, why did it take the Church 1500 years to find it out? For some strange reason, Protestants seem to have seldom asked themselves this question. Indeed, as recently as 1953 we have the noted Protestant theologian and historian Oscar Cullman writing: "We, on the Protestant side, are beginning to understand the immense wealth that is contained in the writing of the Church Fathers and are beginning to rid ourselves of that strange conception of the Church's history that claims that, with the exception of a few sects, there was a total eclipse of the Gospel between the second and sixteenth centuries." The remarkable thing to me about this quote is that it acknowledges that it took Protestantism 400 years to discover it had no heritage, except the writings of the Catholic Church, which it initially rejected." Oh, and that is right, George. Catholics do not worship Mary. And what you just said does not prove that we do. If the Catholic Church was what you say it is, (and it isn't) I would not like it either.
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 01:02 pm, Peter writes:
Nighthaven, very well written, although apparently just too much for our George who's just thrown all his biblical toys out of the pram.
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 06:55 pm, George the Preacher writes:
Julie writes: "The problem with Protestantism is that there are no historical antecedents for it. " Who said I was a Protestant?? I go back to beginning in Jesus Christ who predestanted me before the foundation of the world when I repented of my sins and called upon the name of the Lord that I might be saved! Then ETERNAL LIFE entered IN ME by the Holy Ghost (Col 2:8-10) and I became a new creature in Christ! This is because the word of God was preached unto me and I received it with all gladness and singleness of heart. You see, I received with meekness the engrafted word, which DID save my soul! Amen and amen! Now that is something to shut and sing about! Amen? O victory in Jesus my SAVIOUR FOREVER, he sought me and bought me with his redeeming love... And ALL MY LOVE IS DUE HIM... Any song in your hearts? You see, I have the SAME faith of Brother Paul, Peter, John, Timothy, Amplias, Narcissus, Patrobas, Mary, Philemon, Pastor Dave Ickes, etc which is the church that Jesus Christ founded. I am part of his bride! All your historical evidence is IRRELAVENT to the discussion. You must "Seek ye the Lord while he may be found and call upon him while he is near..."
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 07:19 pm, Accredited writes:
OK...now it's just getting scary. It appears from the last post from George that they are just making this stuff up. That's why we need the Magisterium. It's pretty scary....someone pls take the cool aid away from George and the rest of our younger brothers and sisters...
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 07:41 pm, Accredited writes:
...with regard to my cool aid reference I wasn't referring to Jim Jones but rather the drink marketed to CHILDREN. If we are to continue to discuss this let's seek our common ground...which I hope is a profound love for Our Lord Jesus Christ.
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 07:59 pm, Catholic Ohio Girl writes:
Oh George, do go on!... Like Nighthaven so sweetly said, the more you rant, the more opportunity we have to address and get rid of all of your ridiculous and incorrect notions of what Catholicism believes and holds as Truth. Nighthaven, you are fantastic and do our Church a TREMENDOUS favor with your apologetic skills! I hope you will add to this website as needed in the future. Personally, I feel sorry for the street preachers. It is as if they cannot grasp anything and simply "steamroll" others.
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 08:08 pm, Fr. Jim writes:
I am a former Protestant minister who is now a Catholic priest. I was once a fundy who believed all kinds of evil things about the Catholic Church. Then I bothered to actually read what the Church really teaches and believes. It led me to question the doctrines of men that I had accepted. I learned the real truth...that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Since then I have been attacked by various street preachers. I had one that cursed me and spit in my face. They seem to have no concept of courtesy nor do they consider that Catholics do not disrupt their worship services. While they question papal infallibility they are sublimely sure of their own. I am so glad that I am now in full communion with the pillar and foundation of truth, the Catholic Church.
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 08:08 pm, Julie writes:
George, You are a Protestant.
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 08:10 pm, Fr. Jim writes:
George, It appears to me that you have fallen into idolatry. You worship the Bible. Repent and keep in mind that the Catholic Church gave you that Bible.
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 08:19 pm, Franklin writes:
I don’t believe that you people are stupid, but I do believe that you’re being willfully ignorant to the truth. Can you not see the simplicity of the scriptures? Dave wrote “Perhaps the Street Preachers should ask why no Evangelical leaders supports them, not Billy or Franklin Graham, not Pat Roberton or Jerry Falwell or Chuch Colson. No one supports them.” Why would that matter? The Bible says that it PLEASED God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. (1 Cor. 1:21) Who cares if Billy of Franklin Graham is behind us? God is behind us! That’s all that matters. And if you think what we do out there is foolishness, then I got some news for you, you’re perishing. (1 Cor. 1:18) On the other hand, when we do give you Bible verses and facts, you give us web links and basically say “Well that IS what the Bible says, but you’re not intelligent enough to understand the TRUE meaning of that verse, so here is a guy who is going to twist the scripture so you can be even more confused.” And that’s what it comes down to. If your going to take a simple verse such as “For there is ONE God, and ONE mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Tim. 2:5) and then tell me “Perhaps Franklin may want to read the article regarding the "mediator" question at: http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ349.HTM” like I am not able to grasp the full meaning of that verse. Pax Christi said “which shows the dangers of folks taking the Bible out of context if they are not in communion with the Magesterium of the true church who alone has authority over the interpretation of the Bible” I know that you can understand what the verse says and are just giving me links to defend the catholic religion, because if what that verse says is true (and it is) then the Catholic Church is lying. Anyone can say “Looking at a verse like this is a common misconception, if you would only understand the true definition and the Greek and… ect.” I mean if you justify things that way then anything could be justified. It’s not reasonable thinking when you take something as plain as 1 Tim. 2:5 and then twist it. Would you argue with the fact that the verse states that there is one God? Of course you wouldn’t. So then why do you argue when it says there is one mediator between God and men? Must be because your church says you can pray to Mary. But that’s enough on that, if you didn’t get the first two times. “A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.” (Titus :310-11) I am also going to say to Nighthaven, it should be common sense not to write six gigantic responses at a time. That’s just hard to follow up and not reasonable conversations to have someone ramble on for an hour. So don’t think because every single one of your questions/”statements” doesn’t get answered that we don’t have the answer for it (we probly actually already gave the answer.) as it is hard to reply to large posts as yours. I will say, at least your using scripture, but don’t forget so does the Devil. Regarding the father statement, Jesus Christ was speaking about calling any man “father” in a spiritual sense, for one is your father, which is in heaven. (Matt 23:9) He wasn’t talking about calling your dad father. Those verses you posted said such as this “I was a father to the poor” “and he has made me a father to Pharaoh.” Notice it doesn’t say “The poor called me father” and “he has made Pharaoh call me father” These verses are saying that they were like a father unto them.
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 08:26 pm, Accredited writes:
Fr Jim: I pray in thanksgiving for your conversion and your priesthood. Thanks too to all my RC brothers and sisters who have posted. Let's keep up the good work of the Lord and help to convert our younger brothers and sisters. Of course we need to seek and recognize our common ground and that seems hard to do with the street preachers. They actually brag about the # of arrests they have had over the years. Their tactics are radical and fringe and aren't winning them any friends or converts. AMDG
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 08:32 pm, Pax Christi writes:
Excellent commentary, Fr. Jim. This is just what it all boils down to, but sometimes pride is just such an obstacle that keeps some from making a sincere effort to learn what the Catholic Church teaches and why. There are so many folks out there like yourself who could calmly answer their misunderstandings. It's just like someone insisting he or she could fly to the moon without the help of others and through their own understanding of the rocket manual, perhaps relying on some misconceptions from some "experts" not in communion with NASA. To that, all we can say is good luck. Or, better yet, do it the right way so that we can be happy that they can make it home safely.
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 08:38 pm, Fr. Jim writes:
Thanks. There are many of us in the Church. I find it amusing how they all appeal to the "it's plain right there in the bible, why can't you see it?" argument. Yet, none of them can agree on what the bible says. Each uses the bible to prooftext what they already believe. They can make it say whatever they want. They don't believe in the bible. They believe in what they say the bible says. A huge difference. They place their own traditions of men in place of the scripture. They are guilty of bibliolatry. I have read the bible many times. My bible tells me that the Catholic Church is true and founded by Jesus. Why don't you believe the bible? Why can't you see it? It's plain and simple right there in the bible.
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 08:47 pm, George the Preacher writes:
Julie writes: "The problem with Protestantism is that there are no historical antecedents for it. " Who said I was a Protestant?? I go back to beginning in Jesus Christ who predestanted me before the foundation of the world when I repented of my sins and called upon the name of the Lord that I might be saved! Then ETERNAL LIFE entered IN ME by the Holy Ghost (Col 2:8-10) and I became a new creature in Christ! This is because the word of God was preached unto me and I received it with all gladness and singleness of heart. You see, I received with meekness the engrafted word, which DID save my soul! Amen and amen! Now that is something to shut and sing about! Amen? O victory in Jesus my SAVIOUR FOREVER, he sought me and bought me with his redeeming love... And ALL MY LOVE IS DUE HIM... Any song in your hearts? You see, I have the SAME faith of Brother Paul, Peter, John, Timothy, Amplias, Narcissus, Patrobas, Mary, Philemon, Pastor Dave Ickes, etc which is the church that Jesus Christ founded. I am part of his bride! All your historical evidence is IRRELAVENT to the discussion. You must "Seek ye the Lord while he may be found and call upon him while he is near..."
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 08:54 pm, Accredited writes:
George: Two questions....Can a devout RC, as such, get to Heaven? Is there any common ground on which we stand?
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 08:57 pm, Accredited writes:
George: Two questions....Can a devout RC, as such, get to Heaven? Is there any common ground on which we stand?
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 09:09 pm, George the Preacher writes:
Accredited writes: "Fr Jim: I pray in thanksgiving for your conversion and your priesthood." That's just to funny! Yes I too pray for his CONVERSION to the Biblical Christ cause his priesthood is the wrong one because it after Aaron's which is made after the law of a carnal commandment which brings forth DEATH: Heb 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. 13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, 16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. 17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. You see priest Jim is not after the order of Melchisedec which is the power of an ENDLESS LIFE! You see priest Jim does not KNOW whether he is going to "make it" to heaven. He is still yet in his sins after a CARNAL "priesthood". And the Catholic church is made up of those also DEAD in trespasses and sins because priest Jim cannot offer up ANYTHING that can help them! He is a total flop because he preachs "another Jesus". Why not read an excellent site of kind, compassionate FORMER priest, Richard Bennett and MANY OTHERS who have been saved, born-again from above and would let you know from their perspective how they were set free from the wrath of God: http://www.bereanbeacon.org/
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 09:21 pm, Accredited writes:
So...no common ground and no, RC's aren't going to Heaven? Ok then. Good luck with your ministry and your yelling and screaming. I believe you are lost and can only find your way home thru an abandonment to the Lord's will. Hint...it's not screaming and yelling and getting arrested. That's what caused this whole conversation. Riots triggered by absurd uneducated people acting like bullies trying to convert thru intimidation...not love. Have you read Deus Caritas Est? Sorry, probably too advanced for you.
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 09:43 pm, George the Preacher writes:
Accredited writes: Two questions....Can a devout RC, as such, get to Heaven? Is there any common ground on which we stand? None, when it comes to the gospel which determines a mans destination to heaven or hell. When it comes being good neighbors, helping one another, showing kindness, working together, etc., we can have much common ground! But, the bible is clear no matter how devout or how much human common ground we have, there is another "common ground" that is part of mankind and it is that "we all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"; "man's best state is altogether vanity"; "we were born in tresspasses in sin and in sin did our mother conceive us", etc. etc. etc. You see, we were ALL born WRONG! Common ground of wretched sinners, vile, no good, filthy and just plain UNWORTHY of heaven! That is why Jesus Christ came to save and seek that which is lost. No "religion" can save anyone by trying to buy off God with your righteouness which the Lord God calls "filthy rags". Catholics believe that if you follow your religion whether Hindu, Muslim, Mormon, JW, etc that "by your good works" you will go to heaven, but in case you missed, you will end up in purgatory to "get cleaned up". That is why purgatory was made up, because you cannot come to your senses that HELL is what a man deserves no matter how hard he tries to please God!! YOU cannot please God (Ro 1-3)! If you could, Jesus Christ would not have to come as the 2nd Adam (Ro 5:14-21). What religion (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim, Hinduism, etc) creates is a one world ecumentical movement called HUMANISM, ie, man is basically good and religion will help him attain unto a universal God that we all have in common! THAT my friend is the religious road to hell. Proud like a Pharisee. The bible teaches NO SUCH THING! Read Ro 1-5, Gal 1-3, Col 1-3 and 100's of other verses that shows "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." and "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." That is why I preach, because it "PLEASED GOD by the FOOLISHNESS of PREACHING to save them that believe." Will you Accredited, please the Lord God and repent of your sins, calling upon the name of the Lord and get born again so that we truly would have common ground as brothers in Christ, and not in vain religion?
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 10:02 pm, George the Preacher writes:
Accredited writes: "That's what caused this whole conversation. Riots triggered by absurd uneducated people acting like bullies trying to convert thru intimidation...not love." Talking about a hypocrite! You do not even know me and yet you call me uneducated?? But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. I say again, Let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little. That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting. Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also. For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise. Well, I have a BSEE with 23 years experience as a Analog and Digital Circuit designer, Embedded S/W design engineer, designed Formula 1 race modules with 18 electronic boards consisting of 17 embedded processors within a box 70mm x 150mm x 230mm, have 5 US patents, speak 2 languages, have read over 1000 books, finishing my 2 year theology degree, and could add much more! We are not yelling but are lifting up our voices so that we can be heard over the cacaphony of foolish nonsense proceeding out of the mouths of typical rebellious religious folks who are afraid of there own shadow! If we wanted to intimidate anyone, we would do as the Roman Catholic church did during the crusades, or acted like the Chaldean wild men in Carey! Listen, I do not care whether you go to hell or not. I am there to lift up the Lord Jesus Christ and he will draw men unto himself. If you want to stay RC, to skin off of my back. It is YOU who will have to face the Lord Jesus Christ at the White Throne Judgment. All I am there to do is to tell you to "flee from the wrath to come"
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 10:17 pm, Pax Christi writes:
Funny Accredited should mention "Deus Caritas Est" as I was just pondering whether the Street Preachers have stopped to think about the chaos that'd result if Christ had not left a teaching authority in the Magesterium. I'm sure the SP would whole-heartedly agree that we'd have moral relativism run amok if not for shepherds to lead the flock. Why, in my bad ol' days as middling cradle Catholic, abortion barely registered on my conscience. Imagine the freedom I now feel after being taught and accepting what a grave moral evil it is. That is but one example that shows I could not be where I am without the Holy Mother Church to teach her children. Another funny thing, I was just approached by some Jehovah's Witnesses and was giving a book titled "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" As I was in a rush, all I could do was be polite, accept the book and go on my way. But the one page I flipped to out of curiosity showed a picture of a teacher and a student with the caption asking, "Is the student more qualified than the teacher?" Something for us to ponder.
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 10:53 pm, Accredited writes:
George: I'm impressed with your Engineering backround and education. However engineering isn't the issue in this conversation. You need to read more about the RCC. There is so much that you just don't know or just don't understand. The Lord is kind and merciful and He will guide you home if you just pray and read and study and converse more and more with and through good Catholic sources. One last thing try not to yell and scream...it makes you and your fellow SP's look like wacky anarchists. No one takes you seriously. Your ministry as it stands is very abrasive and demeaning. Come home and find peace and joy.
On Friday, August 18, 2006 at 11:38 pm, Pax Christi writes:
A Catholic apologist echoes Accredited's point in his latest newsletter (No. 17) at the following link. George and his gang would do well to read that to see that we're not the only ones at loggerheads here: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter.php
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 03:58 am, George the Preacher writes:
Jim the priest writes: "George, It appears to me that you have fallen into idolatry. You worship the Bible. Repent and keep in mind that the Catholic Church gave you that Bible." The bible was around well before the time of Constantine, the Nicean Council and Jerome's Latin Vulgate! There was the Old Syria compiled by the ones "first called Christians in Antioch". So keep in mind that the Greek Arostolian and Platonian philosophies that crept into the Alexandrian manuscripts is the perverted bible the Catholic church gave us, ie the Latin Vulgate and commonly known as the Douay-Rehims. Then makes these addtional comments in another post: "They don't believe in the bible. They believe in what they say the bible says. A huge difference. They place their own traditions of men in place of the scripture. They are guilty of bibliolatry. I have read the bible many times. My bible tells me that the Catholic Church is true and founded by Jesus. Why don't you believe the bible?" Do you Catholics actually take men like this seriously? It only took this man 20 minutes to contradict himself. First comment says I am fallen into idolatry because he says I worship the bible and then he says that They (I) place the traditions of men in place of the scriptures?? Your mixed up, because your sin has found you out! You call be a bibliolator and then insist I do not believe the bible?? It is obvious that you do not understand what thou sayest or writest. If I am a bibliolator, it is CERTAIN that I believe the bible over "traditions" or philosophies and vain deceits of men who follow after the rudiments of this world. Jim then proclaims "I was a Protestant and then I became a Catholic". So Jim you went from a LOST Protestant to a LOST Catholic. Yea, so what is new. We meet many like you on the streets. Your problem is that your are still LOST and in need of salvation, not more religion! Well said Jesus Christ of you: Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 04:09 am, George the Preacher writes:
To Pax Christi: I have given you COUNTLESS of passages to answer all your questions and all you keep feeding me is go read this or that! Do you let everyone else do your thinking for you? What is it that YOU believe? Can you clearly testify and tell me if you die today will you or will you not go to heaven? Why or why not?
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 04:17 am, writes:
Quotes from George the "Preacher"'s last post: "Listen, I do not care whether you go to hell or not..." "If you want to stay RC, to (no??)skin off of my back." Huh? What happened to the former post about "what if you saw someone driving off a cliff, wouldn't you want to save them..." Apparently George has finally been honest and admitted that he doesn't have the pure motives that the other SP's have been claiming to have. Now, I know I'm not an intellectual like George, but I can reason from stated facts. My reason tells me that his views must be at least tolerated by the majority of the SP's or he would not be allowed in the group to "protest". If that is the case and you admit that you don't really care to "save" us from ourselves, what can be the conclusion? The only other one I see is that you just don't want the procession to be down a public street. (In fact, I think I saw a post where we were told that the procession should be kept in the church, not out on the street). If that is the case, let me ask one question--do any of you SP's actually live in Carey, Ohio???? Also, I understand that this procession has been done for many years. Have there been groups protesting it in past years? Please, let's hear from Catholics that are familiar with its history. So, George, if you really don't care if Catholics go to hell (which, by the way, only God knows who goes to hell or not--certainly not you!) and if we remain Roman Catholic it is no skin off your back, you and your back should remain at home with your toy cars and books and let people alone.
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 04:42 am, George the Preacher writes:
Jim the priest (I call NO MAN, father except my heavenly Father) writes: "There are many of us in the Church. I find it amusing how they all appeal to the "it's plain right there in the bible, why can't you see it?" argument. Yet, none of them can agree on what the bible says." Since you know so much, why not give us a BIBLICAL example of what we do not agree on? There is NO WHERE and in NO BIBLE on the face of the earth that you will find, Mariolatry, sacraments, rosaries, nuns, scaplars, Popes, magisterium, cardinals and host of other non-scriptural "traditions of men" that are NOT after Christ. Roman Catholicism can be summed up as 1500 years of lying, swearing, hoarding riches, killing, extortion (EVERY Mafia don and top cohorts were baptized Roman Catholics that were NEVER ex-communicated!) exiling, torturing (Iquistion of the French Huegunots), using armies to get rid of "non-Catholics"(Roman Catholic Hitler,Himmler, Goebels, etc), adultery, fornication, perversion (Sodomite priests who are KNOWN by Rome and continue in Catholic churchs to molest children), pagan nonsense which prospered under the guise of being "religious". The Vatican State denies the scriptural teachings of the local church, conversion, water baptism, the second Advent, the church ordinances and offices, the New Birth, eternal security and many other scriptural truths. Rome has had a long time to refine its lies and distortions of scripture. It is the woman that rides the beast.
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 04:55 am, George the Preacher writes:
Apparently George has finally been honest and admitted that he doesn't have the pure motives that the other SP's have been claiming to have. Wrong! The context of the statement is that if any Catholic does not want to hear the truth and be set free, I DO NOT CARE if he decides he would rather die a Catholic and go to hell! I am there as a Preacher of the gospel, and to bear withness of the truth and my love is due HIM, the Lord Jesus Christ not any man! Do you want life, come to him and be saved, else die in your sins and the lake of fire awaits you.
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 06:36 am, Dave writes:
Well it seems some of our Christian brethern have the habit of repeating the same things over again no matter if they are right or wrong. Nighthaven, who among other, had an excellent series of posts and I am sure still has some of our objectors digging through their Bible's trying to digest his/her brilliance, has pointed out why we call priests father. Check out his/her post again. It will certainly be for your own good since Elijah is the last person you would want to offend. Nighthaven also explained that the Anabaptists only appeared after Luther. If you want to claim relation with heresies like Arianism as a way of showing you go back to the original Church go ahead but you do it at your own peril. You still seem to be under the delusion that you can announce yourself saved and you will be. I can say I am the King of England and that doesn't mean I am. The Lord Jesus rebuked those who proclaimed themselves saved. You might want to refer back to Matthew 7:21-23. You might also want to look at Matthew 18:23-25 because it covers not only the false notion of proclaiming yourself saved but also explains purgatory for you since it would appear you don't believe in that as well. Finally, as far as the salvation topic goes Jesus reminds us that even a worse form of suffering awaits those who proclaim themselves saved and have not measured up in Hebrews 10:26-27. Keep this in mind our fellow Christian brethern who are in disagreement of us. Jesus reminded us that we shall know the tree by its fruit. Yes, the Catholic Church has had evil people come into it like all churches. Yet, this is a powerful testimony that we have because in spite of all of these problems the Catholic Church has flourished. Many liberals and a few fundamentalists are upset with us over certain topics. Yet, we continue to grow in this country and around the world, especially Africa. Our Evangelical Christian friends are growing as well. Only the liberals, the churches that sanctions many things we know not to be of God, and the fundamentalists who don't seem to have much of the joy of the Lord in them are not growing. The Tide Is Turning Towards Catholicism my friends. You can read about it when my book "The Tide Is Turning Towards Catholicism" comes out later this year. May God Bless Us All.
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 06:52 am, Pax Christi writes:
George, I have to tell you that while I am nowhere near being fully versed in all that the church and the Bible teaches, and don't ever expect to (and don't need to for that matter), I have seen enough to know that my hopes for salvation is in good hands with the church. It's been said that one cannot have God for the father if he doesn't have the church for the mother. Is it any wonder that so many brilliant theologians, those in the priesthood and Catholics in general have heard it all and not been swayed the least bit by fallible arguments like yours? Everything that I've read and heard just makes all the pieces of the church fit together. To answer your question, I have been saved, I am working out my salvation, and I hope to not lose my salvation in the future. I simply do not agree with your interpretation of the Bible, especially in regard to salvation by faith alone, which is not even in the Bible (and thus prompting Luther to slip the word "alone" in his version of the Bible to suit his beliefs). The link to the Bible Christian Society newsletter that I mentioned a few posts back goes further into this issue in a debate between a Protestant pastor and a Catholic apologist. By the way, I'd be mighty careful about judging who will go to hell. I wouldn't say that about you. Even if it turns out that we're right and you're wrong, I wouldn't be surprised if God, in his great mercy and love, would judge that your heart was in the right place even if your mind wasn't and still allow you in the joy of his house. The church exists precisely to give us the best chance of salvation.
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 07:12 am, Pax Christi writes:
George, I have to tell you that while I am nowhere near being fully versed in all that the church and the Bible teaches, and don't ever expect to (and don't need to for that matter), I have seen enough to know that my hopes for salvation is in good hands with the church. It's been said that one cannot have God for the father if he doesn't have the church for the mother. Is it any wonder that so many brilliant theologians, those in the priesthood and Catholics in general have heard it all and not been swayed the least bit by fallible arguments like yours? Everything that I've read and heard just makes all the pieces of the church fit together. To answer your question, I have been saved, I am working out my salvation, and I hope to not lose my salvation in the future. I simply do not agree with your interpretation of the Bible, especially in regard to salvation by faith alone, which is not even in the Bible (and thus prompting Luther to slip the word "alone" in his version of the Bible to suit his beliefs). The link to the Bible Christian Society newsletter that I mentioned a few posts back goes further into this issue in a debate between a Protestant pastor and a Catholic apologist. By the way, I'd be mighty careful about judging who will go to hell. I wouldn't say that about you. Even if it turns out that we're right and you're wrong, I wouldn't be surprised if God, in his great mercy and love, would judge that your heart was in the right place even if your mind wasn't and still allow you in the joy of his house. The church exists precisely to give us the best chance of salvation.
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 07:14 am, Dave writes:
P.S. I mentioned Matthew 18:23-25. It should read Matthew 18:23-35. My apologies. By the way Pax Christi, that was an excellent post. We must remember that there are many who have no faith. If they think all we do is judge people and tell them thay are going to hell, it certainly gives the wrong impression of living in the "Joy of the Risen Lord." It seems some of our liberal friends think they can do just about anything and God thinks its OK. On the other hand, some of our fundamentalist friends are telling us we are going to hell because we are continuing to live in accordance with the teachings of the Lord Jesus passed to Peter in Matthew 16:17-19. How could all Catholics go to hell if Jesus said the "gates of hell would not prevail against it?"
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 07:18 am, Pope Fan writes:
Two questions for George: 1.) How can you honestly be annoyed with someone for giving you reading suggestions when your posts are riddled with passages for people to read? 2.) Why are you so angry? Take a deep breath! Conversations like these are supposed to be fun - an exchange of ideas whereby we can all learn from each other....not stressful, forehead wrinkling, blood pressure rising debates!
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 07:31 am, Pax Christi writes:
Thanks to Dave for reminding me to get back to Nighthaven's apologetics, which are to be commended. I especially liked his point that we'd appreciate if the Street Preachers would acknowledge that the Catholic Church's teachings and traditions for what they are and not what they think they are. Once they do that, they are free to believe in them or reject them. Nothing is more maddening than to have them reject what are basically lies and distortions about our faith. John Martignoni made the same point in his 17th newsletter at: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter.php The so-called "worshipping" of Mary is an example. The venerations of Mary as the "saint of saints" and queen of heaven in no way supplants God, which we know would otherwise violate the First Commandment. After all, go to a Mass sometime. Do you see us worshipping Mary there? Here's another excellent site to read all about the blessed virgin: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 07:35 am, Pax Christi writes:
George, I have to tell you that while I am nowhere near being fully versed in all that the church and the Bible teaches, and don't ever expect to (and don't need to for that matter), I have seen enough to know that my hopes for salvation is in good hands with the church. It's been said that one cannot have God for the father if he doesn't have the church for the mother. Is it any wonder that so many brilliant theologians, those in the priesthood and Catholics in general have heard it all and not been swayed the least bit by fallible arguments like yours? Everything that I've read and heard just makes all the pieces of the church fit together. To answer your question, I have been saved, I am working out my salvation, and I hope to not lose my salvation in the future. I simply do not agree with your interpretation of the Bible, especially in regard to salvation by faith alone, which is not even in the Bible (and thus prompting Luther to slip the word "alone" in his version of the Bible to suit his beliefs). The link to the Bible Christian Society newsletter that I mentioned a few posts back goes further into this issue in a debate between a Protestant pastor and a Catholic apologist. By the way, I'd be mighty careful about judging who will go to hell. I wouldn't say that about you. Even if it turns out that we're right and you're wrong, I wouldn't be surprised if God, in his great mercy and love, would judge that your heart was in the right place even if your mind wasn't and still allow you in the joy of his house. The church exists precisely to give us the best chance of salvation.
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 09:28 am, Franklin writes:
Listen I know that many of you will not listen to this because you’re so scared of viewing anything that’s not catholic, or you don’t want something to be scripturally true that’s not taught by the Catholic Church because you’d be scared of people hating you but, this is some good stuff here. This here is a preacher by the name of James Knox. He is preaching on Genesis 3 but he mentions many truths comparing scriptures and catholic teachings. I hope you do listen to these; James Knox is a good teacher and a real blessing. http://www.biblepreachingarchives.org/jameswknox/genesis_chapter_3/genesis_chapter_3_0069_side1.mp3 http://www.biblepreachingarchives.org/jameswknox/genesis_chapter_3/genesis_chapter_3_0069_side2.mp3 Pax Christi wrote “It's been said that one cannot have God for the father if he doesn't have the church for the mother.” Show me that in the Bible. One thing I would like for you to notice is, we are not trying to convince you of what our church teaches, we are trying to convince you of what the Bible teaches because that is our final authority. The guy who has no name (which I don’t understand why) said this “(which, by the way, only God knows who goes to hell or not--certainly not you!)” I found this very interesting. The Bible says “Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him…” (Psalm 37:7) You simply cannot do this if you’re always worried about going to hell or losing your salvation. I declare unto you that you can know wither or not you are saved. I do not believe that you would call God a liar, but just to clarify it “In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began” (Titus 1:2) “yea, let God be true, but every man a liar…” (Rom. 3:4) Which is also why you should trust in God’s word only and not a man or a church because all men are liars, I don’t suppose you have any web links for that one? Pretty simple stuff here. Now back to the knowing if you’re saved or not. Jesus said “I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:3) Then you have the gospel (1 Cor. 15:3-4) and then this “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” (Rom. 10:9) Now if a person hears the gospel repents and believes on the Lord Jesus Christ then he will be saved from the punishment of his sins. Now, look at 1 John 5:13 where it says “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may KNOW that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” So right there states that you can know if your saved or not, if you were unfamiliar with this verse then rejoice for God has told you that you can KNOW that if you put your faith and trust, and that only in his Son the Lord Jesus Christ, then you will be saved. Now I would like to talk about the mass for a moment, because there is something I believe many Catholics don’t realize. I know that Catholics believe that what they drink after the priest says whatever he says in a different language (interesting) is the literal blood of Jesus Christ. Now concerning the Bible and drinking blood, you are going to have multiple problems with that. In Leviticus 17:12, 14 “…No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.” 14 “Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.” Genesis 9:4 “But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.” So here you have God saying don’t drink blood. Also notice in Psalm 16:4 David speaks of those who would go after other gods, making drink offerings of blood. Now you might be thinking “well, that’s the old testament.” Look at this in Acts 15:20 “But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from BLOOD.” So there you have it, before Abraham, after Abraham and the New Testament, all forbidding to drink blood. Even if that hooch was turned into the literal blood of Christ, you would be forbidden to drink it throughout the entire Bible! Hope these verses help you.
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 12:04 pm, Nighthaven writes:
Alright, I'm going to have to roll my sleeves up for this one. Apparently my above posts didn't get the message across as well as I'm going to. Now if this post doesn't work, than I'm going to creat a website full of charts and hand puppets in the hopes that'll make it even more simplier to the SP's. Now onto the Father Topic Franklin raised.--- Catholics don't call priests father in the spiritual sense, meaning we aren't calling him God The Father. We call them Fathers as a term of respect, and because they are the leader of the Church. Not the Church as a whole, but leaders of their individual church's. They are a comforting figure to give us advice in our worst times, and just provide an ear when we just need them to listen. They are our spiritual counselor's that help us understand God and his plan for us in our lives. So for that we pay them respect, and look upon them as father figures. I can already tell this is going to be a two part post already, so please bare with me. I'll try not to make them as long as my previous ones. Now to the Graven Images things yet again--- To forbid Catholics from making images is also to condemn the Jews for making images on the Ark of the Covenant according to God's will(The winged Angels). To discredit my arguement your going to have to prove the Jews were exempt from God's laws. The construction of the Ark took place after the Jews recieved the Ten Commandments so good luck in proving your side of events. God did not forbid the making of images. He did however forbid people to worship these images as God. They were not worshipping Mary during the procession, they were honoring her. Holding up a statue doesn't mean they are worshipping. So what if she held an image of Jesus in her arms? It doesn't matter because the image wasn't being worshipped as God. You really need to go back and read that bible again. Continued on next post.
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 12:05 pm, Nighthaven writes:
Knowledge in Engineering doesn't matter at all in this area, nor how many toy cars you build. This is the arena of Theology; I hope you can tell the difference. I read that your almost finished with your Associates Degree in Theology. Something that leads me to wonder just what kind of Theology is being taught at the school your attending? Apparently its Fundamentalist Theology, or some shade of it. I just can't believe someone with an almost complete degree can make so many errors. I hope a class in Christian History is in your cirriculum. Now onto your specific arguements. --- The Bible was offically canonized by the third Council of Carthage, 397 A.D Oh and be the way they were Catholics. Their was no two bibles floating after this date, there was only one. You view the Latin Vulgate Bible is such narrow respects. It was that very same Latin Vulgate that you depise so much, that was used to create the Old King James Bible; though it was full of errors because Wycliff wasn't an expert on Latin. Not to mention it was written in a language of shalt and thou that didn't even exist at that time(The OKJV was written before England offically decided on a national language. The language they offically announced as the language of England, wasn't the OKJV language). So they used their rough knowledge of Latin to translate the bible into a langague that didn't exist. Looks to me the OKJV Bible is more suspect than the Latin Vulgate. Luckily though later on it was revised into the New King James Bible. At least then alot of the mistakes were corrected, but not all. I can go on and on about this but its distracting from the reason I'm even writing this. Continued on next post...
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 12:06 pm, Nighthaven writes:
I see you enjoy quoting scripture. So do so heres a few on Faith and good works--- What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? James 2:14 --- So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. James 2:17 --- But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. James 2:18 --- But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead James 2:20 --- Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect James 2:22 --- For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead. James 2:26 --- 21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? James 2:21 --- Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only James 2:24 --- I think that pretty much solves the argument of Faith alone will not get you into heaven. Continued on next post...
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 12:07 pm, Nighthaven writes:
Protestants differ on Baptism for one. Some believe in just one, others believe in multiple. Even though this verse is clear on it. --- One Lord, one faith, one baptism. Ephesians 4:13 Some Protestants believe in the Sacraments (Lutherans to an extent, and Anglicans (Episcoplains if they are in America), other Protestants do not. Some mostly the Fundamentalists believe that all alcohol is bad. Some Protestants do not. (In the defense of alcohol, Christ only says getting drunk on it is bad, not actually drinking it. Trust me on this, back then they drank fermented grapes, not grape juice. No way to perserve grapes back then so they naturally fermented. If Jesus forbade the drinking of all alcohol then he wouldn't of turned the water into wine at Cana. If Christ banned alcohol he wouldn't of did the miracle). Some Fundamentalists believe that they are the true Church and all other's not Fundamentalists are heretics. Every non-Fundamentalist believes that is false. Calvinists believe in predistination, meaning God has already pre-selected those who will go to Heaven. Other Protestants believe the choice is there's through their faith and actions where they spend eternity, not predestination. Do you really want me to continue on? Also on the mediator topic --- I'll say this again in case it didn't sink in the first time. If there was only one mediator than we couldn't pray for ourselves or others. Because we would be a mediator to Christ. But since the bible does say to pray for others that disproves your theory. Besides we don't pray to Mary, ask her to pray for us, thats a big difference. We are praying to Christ and ask Mary if she'll pray for us and our situation. You can twist this around however way you like but the facts remain. Just remember the KKK twists scripture also. I believe the Catholic Church who has the most experience with the Bible is the best entity to interpret scripture. Besides it's not like the Church forbids alcohol than twists a bible verse to prove it, oh! wait thats the Fundamentalists. continued on next post...
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 12:08 pm, Nighthaven writes:
In conclusion you shouldn't be mad at the length of my reponses. The SP's make 3 second accusations that require 10 minute answers. So if you are gonna blast my faith, the faith of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, than you will listen to these 10 minute answers or you'll stop typing here. As long as you keep typing i'll keep refuting, and it'll continue on a circle like that till you've exhusted Bottners book of Anti-Catholic errors. The more you all type, the more I want to go to Ohio and refute all of you right in front of your own followers. So keep typing and keep making me want to come to Ohio. Perhaps I can interupt one of your Church services one time, just to let you know how it feels. In my normal Apologetics I seek to convert, but with the SP's I'm on the offensive. Because I do not seek their conversion, I seek only to disprove them, and do so with as many people who can see as possible. When you bring a sword into a fight, don't be surprised if a sword is drawn on you. In other words, if you attack other peoples religion, don't expect a nice warm pillowy response. So keep typing, and keep showing us the errors of private interpretation. Oh and i'm a 'He' just in case.
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 12:32 pm, Nighthaven writes:
Franklin-- Only God knows who is going to Heaven, not any mortal man. So to say you are going to Heaven based solely because Christ rescued the theif from eternal damnation at the cruxifixion, is a big stretch. That was the exception, not the rule. Why? Because God can take whoever into Heaven he wants. Because he is God. So if he wanted the theif in heaven simply because he professed faith in Jesus doesn't mean the same rule applies to everyone. Same reason why Elijah, Enoch, and Mary were assumed body and soul into Heaven, instead of waiting till they die and just take their spirits. God can make exceptions to the rules if he wants for individual people, but that by no means implies that exceptions are made for everyone. So we Catholics believe that only God knows if we are going to Heaven or not, we did not let ego or self assurance overlap the will of God, for we will surely be judged in eternity for matching wills with God.
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 12:37 pm, Carey Pilgrim writes:
Hey Franklin," Forbidden throughout the ENTIRE Bible"? Not sure what Bible you read but try Matthew 26:26-28. Are you sayingl the Apostles(Acts15:20) are denying the command of Jesus at he Last Supper? I don't really want an answer because your opinions of our Catholic faith are meaningless. Before I left for Carey this year I decided to heed the Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi which begins with "Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace". I totally ignored your rantings and did not allow your presence to interfere with my worship. We can sling Bible verses back and forth but it will accomplish nothing. I stand firm in my Catholic faith and nothing you can say or do will change that. You have actually made it stronger! Oh, just a reminder, we live in the United States and last time I looked we still had freedom of worship. You can protest all you want but you will not prevail against us. You are protestors not preachers as you proclaim so no need to sugar coat want you are trying to accomplish. WE ARE NOT LISTENING! I really feel sorry for you and pray that God opens your heart and rids you of your hatred. I know you say your hateful words and actions are from love. What nonsense! And by the way the Sacred Mass is for the most part is said in English today which apparently IS a different language to you.
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 12:39 pm, Nighthaven writes:
Your are not lumping together drinking the blood of Jesus Christ with the pagans who drank the blood of their sacrifices are you? Thats too big of a stretch, even for you. I guess though if you must grasp for straws than grasp for them. Not to mention we are _commanded_ by Jesus Christ to do this. He even throws a Amen, amen at the beginning just to get your attention; to let you know this part is real, not symbollic.
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 12:45 pm, Carey Pilgrim writes:
Nighthaven. WAY TO GO!!
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 12:45 pm, Nighthaven writes:
Your are not lumping together drinking the blood of Jesus Christ with the pagans who drank the blood of their sacrifices are you? Thats too big of a stretch, even for you. I guess though if you must grasp for straws than grasp for them. Not to mention we are _commanded_ by Jesus Christ to do this. He even throws a Amen, amen at the beginning just to get your attention; to let you know this part is real, not symbollic.
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 12:46 pm, Carey Pilgrim writes:
Nighthaven. WAY TO GO!!
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 12:48 pm, Nighthaven writes:
I've noticed this thing double posts when you hit the refresh button. I wonder why it does that? Oh and Father Jim, do not be deterred by these SP's. I pray that you continue in your priesthood. And may your congregation swell to vast numbers, and may you provide wisdom and guidance to those in need. A priest is truely a blessing to Gods people.
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 12:58 pm, Peter writes:
George I think you’re confused about your own beliefs. You say that Christ has “predestanted me before the foundation of the world”. Is that in the Calvinist sense? I’m uncertain as you then go on to suggest that you participated in your own salvation to an extent, in that you “repented of my sins and called upon the name of the Lord that I might be saved! Then ETERNAL LIFE entered IN ME by the Holy Ghost (Col 2:8-10) and I became a new creature in Christ! This is because the word of God was preached unto me and I received it with all gladness and singleness of heart. You see, I received with meekness the engrafted word, which DID save my soul! Amen and amen!” So do you have free will then, because your supposition that “we were ALL born WRONG” would suggest that you think we are incapable of possessing free will (owing to a Protestant view of the enduring ramifications of the Fall), and that God entirely chooses. But your sentiments quoted above seem to contradict this, so please could you clarify your beliefs in this regard?
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 01:10 pm, Carey Pilgrim writes:
Nighthaven. WAY TO GO!!
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 01:11 pm, Nighthaven writes:
If they handed out awards for longest comment thread, I believe this one would recieve a nomination. I really would like to come to Ohio next year for the procession. I think the idea for the procession of the Blessed Mother is just wonderful.
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 01:53 pm, Carey Pilgrim writes:
Nighthaven. I have been traviling to Carey since I was a small child. My Grandfather, who was an immigrant from Italy, took us there each year. The candelight procession on the Eve of the Assumption is beautiful. It's really difficult to have it interruped by protestors. (not preachers in my book) Maybe God sent them to us instead of others who may be swayed by their corrupted ideas.
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 02:05 pm, Nighthaven writes:
Melchisedec wasn't a priest of Aaron. You had to be able to trace your lineage to Aaron in order to be a priest of the order of Leviettes. Jesus Christ wasn't a priest of the order of Leviettes either. So thats why hes a priest of the order of Melchisedec. Father Jim indeed a priest. For Christ, the eternal priest ordained the Apostles as priests, and they in turn ordained others through an unbroken line of Apostalic Succession. Now why do we need priests? We need priests for the Sacraments, for we can not convey them on our own. Also we need them for authority so our beliefs won't be dictated by culture instead of morality and the teachings of Chirst. Protestants without authority have splintered into 30,000+ denominations and have changed their beliefs with each new split. Thats just in the past 500 years. Imagine if they had a full 2,000 years; Christianity would look rather bleak. So yes to answer your question yet again, Father Jim is indeed an offical priest with the authority and powers that come with it. When Protestants finish bible colleges all they'll ever be is just teachers. The authority rests in the priesthood. Don't be jealous though. You can be a priest too. It'll just take B.A. degree in philosophy, and a B.A. degree in Theology. Though of course a Christian Theology degree, not what your studying for now. I do however hope your misrepresenting the school that is teaching you. Surely they can't be teaching such theological errors as the ones you state.
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 02:38 pm, Nighthaven writes:
Carey, Yes I can understand having such a beautiful event interupted like that. But trust the words of Christ when he said we will be persecuted like he was. The more they persecute us the more we know we are in the right faith. So no matter how much they shout, we will soldier on as soldiers of Christ and take their persecution as a badge of honor. For Christ himself was ridiculed for his ways, and so shall we. So continue your procession no matter much they rant and yell, and clothe yourselves in the armor of Christ. The Gates of Hell will not prevail against Christs Church, and neither will the SP's.
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 03:27 pm, Nighthaven writes:
hmmm, rather quiet from the SP's. They must be at church right now, which would make them Seventh Day Adventists. Which would explain their anti-Catholic remarks, for its apart of their doctrine. If you are SDA's than that would certainly explain everything, and would make my job a whole lot easier.
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 05:02 pm, Catholic Ohio Girl writes:
I want to THANK the street preachers for coming onto this site. Because of their incorrect Biblical interpretations and rantings about the Catholic Church, we have enjoyed an outpouring of Catholic Teaching and defense of the True Church like I've never seen! Wonderful job and kudos to Nighthaven and other posters! It's refreshing to see and learn. Long posts, by the way, are certainly not a problem to read, Nighthaven. I must echo the thought that at least the SPs are using the Good Book that the Catholic Church provided the world under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit back in the 400s. Too bad they "gut" the Truth and insert incorrect interpretations. This is why we cherish the Church and the Magisterium to interpret the Scriptures correctly for us! By the way, with 400 years without the Bible, where does Tradition fit into the SPs world? I bet they never considered that most folks couldn't read and that the teachings of Christ were preserved and spread through word of mouth and Tradition via the Apostles and their followers!
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 05:05 pm, Pastor Dave writes:
Wow, I leave for one day and come back to this. Nighthaven, you seem like a very assertive guy. All this tough talk of swords and such is intimidating. So big fella, whille you go and pat yourself on the back, I have a verse for you. It says "Pride cometh before the fall." For all of you big talk, you have only displayed your ignorance. When you say that history teaches that the Anabaptists started in the 1500's you have no idea of what you speak. To quote Time magazine as a source is laughable if I didn't think that you were serious. Who do you think the Catholic church was busy murdering for all of those centuries if they weren't there. The Anabaptists were called such by the Catholic church. It is not a name that they gave themselves. If you knew that, you wouldn't look up the word Anabaptist and think that you would get all the history. You can learn something if you read J.M. Carroll's Trail of Blood. Also, to say that there are no Anabaptists is funny when you are telling this to a Anabaptist. By the way you are almost right, there almost weren't any more Anabaptists because your church tried to kill them all, but that's another story. This is like telling a lion that there are no more lions. You may come to one of our Anabaptist church meetings and tell us that there are no more Anabaptists, but be preapared for the ensuing laughter and sympathy given to you for denying the obvious. You comments on John chapter 6 are lacking at best. To claim that if Jesus were speaking symbolically the people wouldn't have left is only part right. If they had UNDERSTOOD that he was speaking symbolically they wouldn't have left. You say that Jesus would have corrected the people if they started to leave yet who are you to say what Jesus would have done (do you wear one of those bracelets WWJD?) in the face of the fact that he didn't correct them. You cannot make such a claim and be taken seriously. He did not correct them as any 6th grade reader could see by the passage. You say that the bread of life is for the spirit yet that is not what the passage says. It says that Jesus said His "words" were spirit. You use words like "this is the strict sense of the bread of life". Why? Because you say so? I think I will let Jesus tell me what it means. Sorry no disrespect and all, but you know we all get trumped by the authority of Jesus. You claim that " you'd be denying Elijah's Assumption if you deny Mary's". You have a problem with this claim sir, because unfortunately for you, Elijah's Rapture is explained in detail in the Bible while for some strange reason Mary's is not. More in next post.
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 05:12 pm, George the Preacher writes:
Pax Christi writes: "To answer your question, I have been saved, I am working out my salvation, and I hope to not lose my salvation in the future. I simply do not agree with your interpretation of the Bible, especially in regard to salvation by faith alone, which is not even in the Bible (and thus prompting Luther to slip the word "alone" in his version of the Bible to suit his beliefs)." So, by your testimony you are calling Jesus Christ a LIAR! Did he or did he not SAY the following. Just answer Yes or No: 1>That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life? 2>That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life? 3>But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life? 4>Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life? 5>Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life? 6>And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day? There are many more, but this should suffice. Just because you refuse and continue in ignorance and willfull disobeidance to "the gospel of the grace of God", then as Jesus Christ said "If the blind lead the blind, they shall both fall into a ditch". You continue to ignore the clear teaching of scripture and rebel against the biblical difference of Jesus Christ FINISHING the work of salvation so that NO MAN MAY GLORY IN THE FLESH, receiving eternal life as A GIFT through FAITH and that NOT OF YOURSELVES, it is A GIFT OF GOD, NOT of works, lest ANY MAN should BOAST! You say "I hope not to lose my salvation in the future". Jesus, Paul and Peter say YOU CANNOT LOSE IT EVEN IF YOU TRIED!!! The problem is you have NO ASSURANCE of salvation that ALL the Street Preachers have, because you have NEVER been born again, into ETERNAL LIFE, with the LIFE of the Holy Ghost putting you in THE BODY of the Lord Jesus Christ AS A BRIDE. Jesus Christ bought you with a price if you have been saved and because of that NOW the following comes into effect. "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." That is a what happens because you are a new creature and old things pass away, ie your faith is OF Jesus Christ. If he says you are married to him, are you going to divorce him? Pax Christi writes "I have seen enough to know that my hopes for salvation is in good hands with the church" So, again we find that your salvation in WITH THE CHURCH! Well, that is why you are DEAD in trespasses and sins, and you glory in your flesh thinking that the church will save you (sacraments, confession, rosaries, priests, etc), which are of the world (religion, earning salvation by good works) and not after the word of God. You are confused, lost, willfully ignorant and in need of TRUE salvation like many Catholics who have been truly saved out of "religious Phariseeism and doctrines of devils". Thus saith the Lord " Ro11:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 05:28 pm, George the Preacher writes:
Peter writes: 'But your sentiments quoted above seem to contradict this, so please could you clarify your beliefs in this regard?" You all have a hard time understanding biblical truth because you are indoctrinated in CATHOLIC theology not BIBLICAL theology! You see, I study BIBLICAL theology. No, I am NOT a Calvinist! My predestation before the foundation of the world is because of my POSITION which is IN Jesus Christ! Is Jesus Christ the ETERNAL Son of God? Is he God manifest in the flesh? I am fully pursuaded that he is and therefore, I possess his ETERNAL SPIRIT which is the earnest of my inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. That is why I said BIBLICALLY that I NOW possess those things because I put my FAITH in the one who GIVES them to me as a GIFT! Understand?
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 05:33 pm, Pope Fan writes:
George- here's another question. What in the world is Mariolatry? Of course you won't find that in the Bible. You'll find a lot about our Blessed Mother, though (this is called MARIOLOGY) - the study of Mary. I'd give you Scripture references, but it seems to annoy you when people ask you to read.
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 05:34 pm, Pax Christi writes:
I see the torrent of comments continues to flow in. I don't have the time now to go over the latest ones but right off the bat Franklin made a comment that deserves this reply: Show me where in the Bible does it say that we must only follow the Bible. Shall we turn to 2 Peter 20: "Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation." Here's an explainer on that verse: This shows plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one's private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise." So we can see it's apparent that the SP have idolatry in their hearts when they do not submit themselves to the church whom Christ promised would not abandon the church until the end of time and would protect from the "gates of hell." Would the SP doubt his words? Who are they to claim the church has fell into error? Are they the ones the church councils have condemned as being "ananthema?" Well, Dave, it looks like you have created a monster, ha! Maybe you should somehow set this aside as a special link as this seems to have become a never-ending debate!
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 05:40 pm, Pastor Dave writes:
Nighthaven, you say I should get a Catechism. I have had one for years. Why do you keep making assumptions (no pun intended :-)) about what I know, and what I am, and what I have read or not read, what my motives are. You come across as an emotional guy, yet when one gets emotional, sometimes the brain stops working properly. Just stick with what I say and I won't have to defend myself against baseless claims. I hate noone. Take it back. ;-). Anyway, I will show what the Catechism says about the Eucharist. In Part 2: The Celebration of the Christian Mystery, Section 2: The Seven Sacraments of the Church, Article 3: The Sacrament of the Eucharist, V. The Sacramental Sacrifice:Thanksgiving, Memorial, Presence, Paragraph 1357 - "We carry out this command of the Lord by celebrating the memorial of his sacrifice. In so doing, we offer to the Father what he has himself given us: the gifts of his creation, bread and wine which, by the power of the Holy Spirit and by the words of Christ, have BECOME THE BODY AND BLOOD (emphasis mine) of Christ. Christ is thus REALLY (emphasis mine) and mysteriously made present". It says in paragraph 1367 - "The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifece of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: the victim is one and the same:the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself of the cross; only the manner of offering is different. In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner." As you can read, the teaching of the RC is that the gifts of bread and wine are literally the flesh and blood of Christ which denies the reality tht they are still bread and wine. The magic spell cast over them by the priest does not work. This teaching is also a violation of Hebrews 10:10-12 which states that Jesus "had offered one sacrifice for sins". Read the whole passage. He was offered "once for all". Who has any authority to offer Jesus up on a daily basis thus denying these scriptures. Please do not give us any more explaining away of what this says. An unbiased reader already knows. You employ the same tactics as the Christian cults do by telling us what the bible really means to say. Why do you have to explain the obvious if you do not have an agenda? Also, you claim that the King James Bible was derived from the Latin Vulgate. You want to be taken seriously when you do not know the difference between the Latin Vulgate and Jerome's Latin Vulgate? You hae proven your ignorance. There are two families of bibles, one Syrisn the other Egyptian. The Syrian text predates the Egyptian. You have an Egyptian bible and I have a Syrian bible as far as lineage is concerned. If you do not know this, you have some learning to do. This is bible basics 101 and you have not graduated. It will only be easy for you to engage in apologetic arguments with us stupid street preachers if you surround yourself with equally ignorant people in the audience to cheer you on. Anyway Nighthaven, I appreciate your zeal. Maybe someday we can meet, but let us not meet with malice in our hearts. I am not your enemy. We are at odds on doctrine, yet I think we can still be gentleman about it.
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 05:56 pm, Pastor Dave writes:
Nighthaven, you made some comments about faith and works while quoting James. You again miss the obvious. This says here that if a man "says" he has faith. This is speaking of a man that claims to have faith but does not show it by his works. It is easy for a man to "say" that he is saved but saying it does not justify him. Yes it is true. That is why I agree with you that many, many protestants that say they are saved are not. James 2:21 asks "Was not Abraham our father "justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? If you cross reference this with Romans 4:2 we see Paul say "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God." Yes, works are good and justify us before men, but it is God that knows our hearts. That is why James makes his point because there are many a man that "say he have faith". James is no problem. Read the rest of Romans 4 and you will see this spelled out clearly.
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 06:16 pm, Pastor Dave writes:
Pax, you say we have idolatry in our hearts when we do not submit ourselves to the church. This comment shows a lack of understanding of what the church is. The church is the body of Christ which is made up of all believers. We are the church if we are saved. We are to submit to Christ NOT the church. Again, I am a part of the church. The Church is not some sort of corporate body with the leaders having some extra special authority over the scriptures. Also, Paul said in Acts 17: 10-11 that the Berean church was more noble than the Thessolonian church because they "searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." So you can see here that Paul's demeanor was that the people weren't to just take what he says for truth but that they were to look in the Bible to make sure he wasn't lying to them. These were stupid, uneducated (most of them) Gentiles. Why should he trust them to understand the Bible? Because the bible is not hard to understand and anyone can read it and know the truth without having to be told what it really says. It gets tiring to hear all this about my interpretation and his interpretation and her interpretation. We are not to interpret the bible. We are to let it say what it says. There is no interpretation needed. Religious people teach that it needs interpretation so that you will need them. Therefore, they can indoctrinate you away from the plainness of speech found in the scriptures unto there position. Read the bible for yourself, and try to eliminate any preconceived ideas and let God speak to you through His precious Word. Man is different from animals in that we use words. So if God wants to speak to mankind apart from the rest of His creation, He will use words. That is what the Bible is. The Word of God.
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 07:54 pm, Accredited writes:
Pastor Dave: Thanks for the voice of reason in saying that we should be gentlemen. Good point. However it seems to contradict the very nature of your ministry. The yelling and screaming and disruption of services and processions are mean spirited and vile. You and George have stated that we have no common ground and that as such RCs will not get to Heaven. If we have no common ground and disagree so extensively on the interpretation of the Bible then this conversation is done. I really do think you guys are wacky anarchists. After all you aren't Protestants nor Catholic but some form of a heretic movement from the early church. You have no claim on proper authority. Your aim is to disrupt and intimidate the devout and reverent by vile tactics. Apologize and repent...by the way why no education requirement for the SP? You may want to change that 'cause it shows.
On Saturday, August 19, 2006 at 09:32 pm, Franklin writes:
Nighthaven said “So if you are gonna blast my faith, the faith of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, than you will listen to these 10 minute answers or you'll stop typing here.” Hah, now who’s full of hate? Nighthaven said “We call them Fathers as a term of respect, and because they are the leader of the Church.” Really? I thought Jesus Christ was the leader of the church. (Eph. 1:21-22) Nighthaven said “The construction of the Ark took place after the Jews recieved the Ten Commandments so good luck in proving your side of events.” I don’t remember the Jews bowing down and worshiping the Ark. Nighthaven said “If there was only one mediator than we couldn't pray for ourselves or others. Because we would be a mediator to Christ. But since the bible does say to pray for others that disproves your theory.” It’s not a theory, have you lost your mind? Have you become a reprobate? “For there is ONE (1) God and ONE (1) mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus. You are a fool to believe otherwise, it means that you are trusting in MEN and not God’s word! Don’t get mad at me because the Catholic Church doesn’t match the Bible, get mad at the false doctrines of the Catholic Church. Nighthaven said “Perhaps I can interupt one of your Church services one time, just to let you know how it feels.” By all means go for it. Listen I’ve preached at Jehovah’s Witnesses events and Muslim events and it just seems that no one comes out and tries to show me that I am in the “wrong.” If you came and preached at my church, you’d have 3-4 guys (we have a small church) coming out and talking to you, trying to show you the scriptures. So WHY IS IT that no catholic priest would talk to me at Carey, and I addressed them several times in a polite manner and they simply ignored me? Honestly, I would jump at the chance of someone coming to me and asking about biblical issues. Nighthaven said “So to say you are going to Heaven based solely because Christ rescued the theif from eternal damnation at the cruxifixion, is a big stretch. That was the exception, not the rule. Why? Because God can take whoever into Heaven he wants. Because he is God.” I never mentioned the thief, but I would use the thief example to prove that you don’t need to be baptized to be saved, and yes you could also say faith only. Don’t you think that God has set a standard to which people MUST meet? The man Christ Jesus. If you cannot match up to Jesus Christ, then sorry, you’re not getting into heaven. Am I preaching works now? No, because when someone receives the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal saviour, all of their sins are forgiven, so when God looks at a saved person he sees nothing more than Jesus Christ. Nighthaven said “Are you sayingl the Apostles(Acts15:20) are denying the command of Jesus at he Last Supper? I don't really want an answer because your opinions of our Catholic faith are meaningless.” What are you talking about? All I was trying to prove is that the Bible says Don’t Drink Blood and Jesus Christ wouldn’t tell you to drink blood because that would make him a SINNER. He didn’t cut himself like the prophets of Baal and poor out his blood into a cup and rip off a chunk of his skin and said eat and drink this. No, he gave them bread and fruit of the vine. Transubstantiation is found NOWHERE in the Bible. It was created by men, just as purgatory was, as that is not in the Bible either. Don’t mess around with the Bible, it’s a bear trap. If you go into it looking for dilutions, then that is what God is going to give you.
On Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 12:14 am, Carey Pilgrim writes:
Franklin, learn to read. You misqouted Nighthaven about Jesus' words at the Last Supper. That was me. The Priests at Carey ignored you because you were screaming at them that they were going to Hell and were taking all other Catholics with them. And one of you did call the Blessed Mother a whore among other things. Is this your idea of polite? No need to deny. I was there, I heard all of the fire and brimstone remarks. The Bible is a bear trap? Now that's a fantastic way to encourage people to read it! You can continue to quote your corruption of the Scripture but it will not change our beliefs. Peace be with you
On Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 01:46 am, Franklin writes:
Hey Carey Pilgrim, guess what? I didn’t preach at Carey, I passed out gospel flyers. Stop assuming. Is this what Catholics do when they are unable to answer scriptural questions? That’s sad. If you do read the Bible looking for justification of things that are not in it, and don’t care what the book really says, then of course God is going to give it to you. He doesn’t force you to receive Jesus as your personal saviour, why would be force you to accept truth? Some people don’t know the difference between yelling and lifting up your voice. We don’t yell like maniacs, we lift up our voice so multiple people can hear the preaching. You fool you’re going to die and go to hell because you’re trusting in your works. Works can’t save you! “I do not FRUSTRATE the GRACE of God: for if righteousness COME BY THE LAW, then Christ is DEAD IN VAIN.” (Gal. 2:21)
On Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 02:01 am, Accredited writes:
Carey Pilgrim: I'm truly sorry that you had to go thru that. It is disturbing. We can do two things...first is to laugh, why? 'cause their ministry is a joke. Second is to pray because these people need our prayers. Anyone who would call the Blessed Mother a wh@#* is sick and twisted. No wonder they have no support. We know they have no credibility because they have no education and only memorize passages after attending their weekend training sessions wherein they are taught to say this and refute with that. No education needed no education required. It's all about personality. It takes a unique personality to do what they do.....how many have been arrested?????? ........................wacky anarchist heretics.... May the Lord's Blessings be on my RC brothers and sisters.
On Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 02:53 am, Pastor Dave writes:
Carey Pilgrim, I hate to tell you this but either you have gone mad and are hearing things, or you are a liar. I have video of last years event and none of our people called Mary a whore. Yes people who would say such a thing would be wrong at best. We do not believe that anyway. Also, Accredited, you have a point when you say that your services shouldn't be interrupted. I agree with that. We had no intention of doing so, but it was the police who suggested that we preach on that corner by the church. I would have rather gone down the street a few blocks but was discouraged from doing so by the police. Maybe next year we will go down there so your service will not be interrupted next time. Also, I never said we couldn't find common ground. The fact that Christ died on the cross for our sins is held in common I believe. The fact that we will all be judged by God is another. Heaven and hell etc.. Noone goes to hell because of their denomination. People go there for not receiving salvation through Jesus Christ. Accredited, you make assumptions as to our education and who we are. The street preachers fellowship is a fellowship of street preachers but it isn't our church. Their were several different churches represented at Carey. Also, God didn't have any education requirements for his disciples did he? No he did not. This was to confound the wise of this world. I suppose you have never read 1 Corinthians chapter 1. Anyway, some of the men in the fellowship are very successful businessmen or engineers and computer technicians which shows these are intelligent people. Yet they do not lean on their wordly education for ministry but upon their study of the word of God the Bible. You do not know what we are taught and how we are taught. Also, what would you say about Peter and John. They were ignorant fisherman who had gotten arrested several times and Peter was executed. Jesus was arrested. Does this make him an anarchist and a wacko? Just asking. Does getting arrested make someone a great preacher? Of course not, but it shows that a man will do what God has told him to do in the Bible and he won't cower when faced with wordly opposition. Also, every time we have been arrested, we have been exonerated and proven lawfully correct. Anyway, your mentioning these side issues without addressing the biblical refutation provided only shows that you with your education know not how to refute the so called uneducated wackos. Who does that make look stupid? The wacko for being wacko or the smart guy who has no answers?
On Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 03:51 am, Accredited writes:
I'm glad to hear that you guys won't be disrupting any future Masses. That is very good news indeed. These side issues are what brought me to this series of postings - I sincerely doubt that anything I say will convert you to Catholicism. I would like to refer you to the Church Fathers. Mike Aquilina has a great blog, primarily focused on the Church Fathers. Check it out. Good luck. God bless. http://www.fathersofthechurch.com/
On Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 03:53 am, Pope Fan writes:
Pastor Dave, I have a hard time believing that "We had no intention of doing so, but it was the police who suggested that we preach on that corner by the church," as you say. Did the police give you the bullhorns? Perhaps it was they who are then real anarchist wackos. Wow - that explains everything.
On Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 04:04 am, George the Preacher writes:
Pope fan writes: Two questions for George: 1.) How can you honestly be annoyed with someone for giving you reading suggestions when your posts are riddled with passages for people to read? Because all I had to read was the exegsis of 1 passage in 1 Tim 3 and the poor "theologian" was ignorant of PLAIN ENGLISH! It is worthless CATHOLIC theology that I have read many of times. Typical private interpretation of passages that a 7th grader could explain without preconceived ideas that perverts the simple context of what is written. 2.) Why are you so angry? Take a deep breath! Conversations like these are supposed to be fun - an exchange of ideas whereby we can all learn from each other... Actually, I am not interested in "exchange of ideas". You see, I have Moses mind "Who is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me." followed by Paul's mind "follow me as I follow Christ". Why is it when you are caught twisting and perverting truth that you run to EMOTION ( ie Why are you so angry? ) to cover your sin? Just because I EMPHASIZE words? Live with it and just answer the questions posed.
On Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 04:18 am, George the Preacher writes:
George- here's another question. What in the world is Mariolatry? Of course you won't find that in the Bible. You'll find a lot about our Blessed Mother, though (this is called MARIOLOGY) - the study of Mary. I'd give you Scripture references, but it seems to annoy you when people ask you to read. NO, I said it correctly, the idolatrous worship of Mary which as you said is not found in the bible. That is what Catholics do no matter how many times you deny it. You will find nothing in a bible on the Blessed MOTHER! She does not have a title and she is NEVER called Mother, but WOMAN by the Lord Jesus Christ. So all your verses will prove nothing to your claims of perverting the truth about Mary being blessed amoung women.
On Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 04:29 am, Accredited writes:
Before I go...one last thing.......... George: You sound like a terrific engineer...so pls don't quit your day job. You are the worst of the lot. Keep studying and reading and above all praying, maybe the Lord will draw you to himself. Was there something in the Bible about the gate being narrow? Come on George hit me with that verse. Hasta luego
On Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 08:06 am, Nighthaven writes:
Pastor Dave -- Christ isn't being sacrificed over and over at Mass. He was sacrificed once and once only. But since God is without time, meaning he doesn't operate in linear time like we do, we can visit the time of the Passover Supper as many times as we want, as well as the crucifixion without re-sacrificing him. You’re thinking too much in carnal means. Since you really have no idea what the Catholic faith teaches, only what you think it teaches, you can't be convicted of the sin of formal heresy, but you’re still a material heretic. So make sure you live a good life or else you might get disappointed in the afterlife. Also the point James was making is that faith alone won't get you into heaven. You have to walk the walk and talk the talk in order to attain heaven. Just a belief in Jesus while you’re committing serial murder won't get you into heaven. Faith and works are both important, not just faith. Not only must you have faith in God, but you must follow Gods laws and His morality. Faith and works can't be divorced from each other. Satan believes Jesus exists, but that doesn't mean he’s in heaven. So I’ll say it again, faith without good works is dead. Keep typing and I'll continue to educate till you've backed yourself up in a corner. As for the Anabaptists, I've already covered the subject. I can claim I'm a Roman Centurion, but that won't make it so until I prove in historical fact that I am. Anabaptists splintered from the Radical Sects started in 1520. No matter what an author does they can't get around this fact. They can brush over it, hide it or explain it away in revisionist history, but not in historical fact. To claim you existed before the Protestant Rebellion of 1517 would mean your sect would of had to been apart of the heretical sects, thus being deemed formal heretics and suffering under the sin of heresy in the afterlife. So really you’re in better shape just accepting historical fact and allowing yourselves the label of Protestant, born out a rebellion. You'd just be material heretics than, meaning the possibility of heaven is in your grasp. Also about John chapter 6, yes he would have corrected them for he knew their hearts. If they believed in error he would have corrected them. The fact that he didn't correct their understanding of Him literally meaning to eat his body and drink his blood, proves simply they believed exactly what he wanted them to believe. If he was speaking symbolically, and the people around him knew he was speaking symbolically there would be no need for them to leave. It would be just another one of Jesus' parables that provoked quiet thought. No matter how much you weasel around, you can't escape John 6. You can return the chapter back to Coptic Greek and still you can't weasel out of it. The verses say what they say and they mean what they mean. Besides the only time we find Christians second guessing the Lord on this passage is during the Rebellion of 1517, when private interpretation and human reasoning took the place of God. I'll save the final nails in the SP's coffins for my conclusion post. The bread and wine after they are transformed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ still look and taste like wine and bread, but their substance has been changed. Because you think too carnally you won't be able to wrap your mind around this, but that’s okay, you wouldn't be the first one to allow human reasoning to separate them from God. You claim membership of a sect that is in direct rebellion of God with an incomplete bible to prove your new theology.
On Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 08:08 am, Nighthaven writes:
George the Preacher -- Your right, Catholics don't have the self assurance and ego of the SP's. For us Catholics know that only God decides who is to go to heaven and who isn't, not man or his pride. You match wills with God only at your own eternal despair. Like I corrected Pastor Dave, Faith and works gives you the best chance for heaven, but still the ultimate decision rests with God. Pastor Dave -- The non-existent education requirements of the SP's once again betrays it’s self. There was no two Latin Vulgates. For St. Jerome is the author of _the_ Latin Vulgate. He is the only one authorized by the church to translate the ancient scriptures into the Vulgate. It is _the_ Latin Vulgate as translated by St. Jerome that the OKJV gives credit to in its opening pages. The Catholic Church wouldn't sanction two Latin Vulgates, because there wasn't a need for two, only one. Once again you need to stop visiting revisionist history for your facts. There are plenty of them in real history; people might start listening to you if you started stating facts from real history. The exact canonized books in the standard issue incomplete Protestant bible reflects the exact books you have. Martin Luther is the one that created the Protestant Bible by stripping books from the Latin Vulgate that didn't fit with his new belief system. After the Jews changed their canon of the OT at the council of Jubilee to make it a more book based religion, because Roman soldiers pretty much annihilated the priesthood, Luther stripped the Vulgate to reflect the decision of the council of Jubilee, and because 1st and 2nd Maccabees speaks of a place of cleansing fire to burn away sin (Purgatory). We now know why the OT was stripped and we now know why the NT was stripped. If you claim roots prior to the Protestant Rebellion that the books in your bible wouldn't reflect the ones Luther chose. You'd either have the complete bible (Latin Vulgate), or you'd have a bible mixed with un-canonized books and canonized books. But because your bible reflects Luther’s bible proves you are a creation of the Protestant Rebellion. If you existed prior you wouldn't have adopted another sect's bible, you would of held on to your own. Not to mention the Syrian bible was around before the year 150 AD, which means it predates the third council of Carthage in 397 AD, which means the books in its canon weren't canonized. Therefore it can be respected as an ancient document with wisdom contained therein, but after the third council of Carthage an official canon for Christianity was made. Therefore if your canon doesn't match up to the ones deemed canonized by the council, you have an incomplete bible in your hands. The Syrian canon omits the 2nd and 3rd Epistles of St. John, 2nd Epistle of St. Peter, the Epistle of St. Jude, and the book of Revelations.(Which btw Luther removed Revelations also, but it was added back in later on. It’s hard for preachers to scare folks about the end times without Revelation.) So if your canon doesn't match up with the Syrian canon you can't claim its heritage. The Syrian bible was one among many that floated around till an official canon was decided. Like I said, Luther began your bible, look to him for why. If your going to be a member of a bible based religion, it would help if you had a complete bible; without it you’re only getting half of what your supposed to.
On Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 08:08 am, Nighthaven writes:
Franklin -- Priests are the leaders of their individual church's. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the overall head of the entire church, the mystical head, the Papacy is the physical head. The physical is never in conflict with the mystical when teaching on faith and morals. Though this begs the question, why do we need a physical head? We need a physical head because we can't see the mystical. When dealing with the mystical its all about faith, when dealing with the physical its all about your eyes. The physical head keeps Christians in line with the mystical. Since God no longer comes in the form of a burning bush and teaches us directly in the physical world (Unless you discount the Marian Apparitions, which I'm sure you SP's do discount. Seems everything dealing with Mary you hate. Are the SP's anti-woman also? Don't answer that, I'm already tired of your disprove argument that we worship Mary.) Christians have to look to the physical to be taught, and to remind everyone that times may change but the morality of Christ doesn't. I've already explained the divisions in Protestantism because they lack a physical head. I also explained how these divisions happened just in the short time of 500 years. Imagine if you guys had the full 2,000 years of Christian history instead of just 500. We'd all be dropping acid to connect with God and interrupting another faiths church service by yelling and screaming. Without a physical head in authority the Protestant faith will one day be just another page in history, right next to the Arian Heresy. You've already doomed yourselves; it’s all just a matter time. Your children’s children will either follow a more obscure version of Christianity than you do, or they'll become mostly secular. This will continue on till there is only the Catholic Church, Jews, Muslims, and secularists in America and the world. Europe has already proven that Protestantism is doomed to not last. The majority of them are secular and becoming more so by the month. Since the roots of your religion lies in Europe you ought to take that as a sign. Please allow me to give you the definition of a mediator. Main Entry: me•di•a•tor Pronunciation: 'mE-dE-"A-t&r Function: noun 1 : one that mediates; especially : one that mediates between parties at variance 2 : a mediating agent in a physical, chemical, or biological process. So when you pray for others you are mediating their needs to Christ who passes it up to God the Father. But there can't be two mediators, there can only be one. So by your understanding of the Bible that means you can't pray for others or yourself. You can't have it both ways on this one. Either follow your interpretation or don't. But because the bible does say to pray for you and for others we can take that to mean that yes Christ is the only mediator to God Father, but there can be other mediators to Christ himself. This is called subordinate mediation which Paul says in the opening verse of the same chapter you’re quoting. "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way" (1 Tim. 2:1–2). Supplications, prayers, and intercessions are acts of mediation. Paul wouldn't open up with that and then further contradict himself later on. The subordinate mediation is dependant upon Jesus Christ who is the ultimate mediator; subordinate mediation can't exist without Him. For us Catholics and the SP's I submit this article http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0005fea1.asp which goes into further detail about mediation. Though if the SP's don't read it, than they need to surrender their argument. As for your comment on not needing baptism to achieve heaven, than I congratulate you. Finally you’re starting to echo Catholic teachings. The only time when you need to be baptized is when you become a Christian. If you follow God as you understand Him, and lead a good life than you'll go to heaven. Jesus doesn't punish those that are ignorant of his Gospel. He does punish those however who know full well his Gospels but chose to reject them. Your right Franklin Transubstantiation is not in the bible and neither is the word Trinity, neither Purgatory. Those are just names used to describe beliefs not easily understood. Belief in the Trinity existed prior to when the word 'Trinity' was invented, so was Transubstantiation before the word its self 'Transubstantiation' existed. It is also the same for Purgatory. It’s just a name slapped onto an existing place of cleansing fire before you go to heaven. Your view of God is too carnal and to two dimensional. No sin is allowed in Heaven (Rev. 21:27), hence the devils outcast status, so those who die in Gods grace and friendship go to Purgatory If their sins aren't grave enough to warrant hell. Because God loves His creation so much that if you really tried your hardest to follow him, you won't be sent to hell if you failed along the way. As I mentioned earlier, that’s only if don't have mortal sin on your soul before death. Another good article to read on Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead is here http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0511sbs.asp
On Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 08:10 am, Nighthaven writes:
George the Preacher --- This is starting to get a little repetitive with you. She is the blessed mother because she declared that all generations shall call her blessed. She is the Mother because she gave birth to Jesus. So now you get the Blessed Mother. That website with charts and hand puppets is starting to look rather attractive now. Now let’s explore her title Queen of Heaven. To better understand this you’re going to have to understand how Catholics understand this to mean. I'll use the old kings and queens’ hierarchy to explain this. Mary is the Queen Mother, the Mother of Jesus who is of the same substance of God the Father. The Queen Mother only has an elevated status because she is the mother of the current king. If the king were to take a wife than that wife would become a queen and thus would outrank the Queen Mother in authority. The King while he is alive still outranks the Queen Mother in authority. In fact the only way the Queen Mother can have authority is if the King died along with his wife the queen, and had no heirs. Thus the Queen Mother would become Queen. As I stated earlier Mary is the Queen Mother who has no special powers other than just her title. The power and authority rests with God. Just because the title has been shortened from Queen Mother of Heaven to Queen of Heaven doesn't mean the understanding changed. Catholics know what it means; it’s just those who don't really know the Catholic faith that brings objections to the title. I've already explained that images aren't wrong. Only if you worship them as God do you violate the commandment. You’re relying on flawed human reasoning to deduce that Catholics pray to Mary. Just holding up a statue of her doesn't mean anything; neither does one of Jesus. Going by that same reasoning you'd have to forbid all religious imagery, meaning the displays of Jesus' birth during Christmas and many many others. So what if people kneel before a statue or bow. It doesn't matter because they aren't worshipping that statue as God. You can't just snatch one verse out of the bible and make it law. You have to interpret it in the context of the Chapter and the overall bible it’s self. If God forbade religious imagery than he wouldn't of told the Jews to put angels on the Ark of the Covenant. It’s really just that simple, if you can't get past that than that’s your own fault. To really claim that Catholics worship statues is to declare you have the power to read their hearts. Are you God George, can you read the hearts of men? You’re walking on thin ice my brother, repent and offer repentance for your deeds. What’s that verse about judging others? Stick to your own salvation and we'll stick to ours. We'll settle up in the afterlife and see who was right and who wasn't.
On Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 08:11 am, Nighthaven writes:
Now finally the conclusion: I'm starting to get into the habit of repeating myself, which is something I dislike. But until all accusations are refuted, and the cries against Christ’s Church are silenced, I must keep repeating myself. Now for the final nails that I spoke of earlier. Before Protestants can level charges at the Roman Catholic Church they must answer these questions, so that they may prove they are on solid ground to begin with before they can accuse the Church of anything. 1) Prove to me in the Bible where it says 'the Bible is the foundation of Christianity, not the Church.' 2) Prove to me where it says in the Bible 'if it isn't written in the Bible than it didn't happen'. 3) Prove to me in the Bible where it says 'the holy spirit will provide the truth behind scripture'. 4) Prove to me where it says in the bible 'private interpretation of the scriptures without authority is fine'. When you find yourselves lacking in the ability to find these answers than you must convict yourselves by your own belief’s, and declare that you yourselves have beliefs that don't mesh with the Bible. If Jesus died just so he could bring us a book than the answers will be in there. Please don't use the scriptures are inspired verse. That doesn't answer the questions. It just says the scriptures are inspired. Since there are suppose to be 4 of you, looks like I'm doing pretty well against four different brains. I can hold my own in Apologetics, your going to have to come up with allot better stuff than what you’re currently using. The Catholic faith allows for the possibility that those outside the faith can achieve heaven. Its time the favor is returned and we receive the benefit of the doubt. Instead of us being told we are going to hell, or having our processions and Mass interrupted. There are many secularists, Satanists, pagans, and humanists that can benefit better from you, for they know not God or chose not to follow him. We already have God, and we love him. He is our Father and our best friend. We are his number #1 fans. So take the bible to non-believers, there are plenty to choose from. I guess I'm just asking that you quit harassing people at the Assumption Procession and during Mass. Catholics already get enough gruff from people in the pro-death movement, we don't need fellow Christians attacking our flanks while we wage war on the battlefield of morality. Instead of getting at each others throats we need to find common ground and exploit the strengths we both have. If Catholics and Protestants united abortion could be ended, the use of Birth Control pills (Which are really abortion pills) can be curved. United we can curve promiscuity. We can put a final end to embryonic stem cell research. We can return the mass population back to Christ’s morality. But we can't do it if we are always fighting with each other. What’s that saying, "Give Peace a Chance"? Yeah that’s the one. So give peace a chance. Let us see what good we can do once we are united. I'm sure there are some abortion clinics in Ohio that are in some dire need of being prayed in front of. Not to mention women being told there is another way. We can improve our neighborhoods, and feed the homeless and care for the sick. So many good things can happen if we just give peace a chance. Though I do need to offer the SP's my apology. I wasn't very Christ-like and for that I apologize. I'm a man in need of prayers because only through Gods grace can I become better.
On Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 09:04 am, Nighthaven writes:
I think the confusion on two Latin Vulgates stems from the fact that during the time St. Jerome was translating the Latin Vulgate there existed a latin version of the Syrian Bible, which didn't match the regular Syrian Bibles number of books. Or maybe the confusion was the English language version of the Douay-Rheims completed in 1609 versus the Old King James Bible that was completed in 1611. If you didn't know latin it was tough to read the Latin Vulgate. So thus that's why the Douay-Rheims was created in the vernacular. The RCC still has the Latin Vulgate for Latin speakers, but if you don't speak latin the Douay-Rheims or the latest edition of the Douay-Challoner will suffice.
On Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 11:03 am, Carey Pilgrim writes:
Franklin, You said I have either gone mad,am hearing things or am an liar. I just hear a very wise man say that name calling does not define the one being addressed but defines the person calling the names. I don't know what video you were watching but maybe it's like the bible you read. You seem to twist evrything to fit your needs. You're getting boring. I pray that you find peace in our Lord Jesus Christ.
On Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 12:05 pm, George the Preacher writes:
Carey Pilgrim writes: "And one of you did call the Blessed Mother a whore among other things." What would the Lord God call it if you are worshipping someone that violated his commandments? Since you are, she is NOT the Mary of the bible which bore the Lord Jesus Christ. Just like you have "another Jesus", you also have "another Mary" because she is NOT Blessed Mother! You are giving Mary a TITLE that she does not possess according to the scripture. The bible says that "blessed art thou among women". You really need to read the bible and believe it like the noble Bereans did which will cause you to repent of your idolatrous practices of worshipping men instead of God (Ro 1:18-23)
On Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 12:16 pm, George the Preacher writes:
Accredited writes: "Before I go...one last thing.......... George: You sound like a terrific engineer...so pls don't quit your day job."--- Thanks, I will make a note of it--- "You are the worst of the lot. Keep studying and reading and above all praying, maybe the Lord will draw you to himself."--- Since I am the worst of the lot, and I need all the help I can get, then why not help me out with biblical truth USING ONLY A BIBLE about how the Lord draws men unto himself? Since you stated I needed to study and read, therefore meaning you have studied and read, then you personally "lead me to Christ" BIBLICALLY, OK?---Was there something in the Bible about the gate being narrow? Come on George hit me with that verse.--- Yes sir, the gate is narrow and again MR ACCREDITED, you will show me BIBLICALLY how it is that I am to enter in correctly, OK?---
On Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 01:16 pm, interesting writes:
Mary the "mother of God"? Do you guys venerate Mary's ma & pa, the grandpa & grandma of God also?
On Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 01:45 pm, Pope Fan writes:
But what about those beatiful words of Our Lord from the Cross - "Woman behold your son. Behold your mother?" (Jn 19:26-27) It's not a stretch by any means to call her the "Blessed Mother" as we know that she was, indeed, the mother of Jesus...just as we know that she was "blessed among women." I wonder how the Lord feels about all of us throwing around the "wh" word in the same sentence as the name of his beatiful mother.
On Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 01:51 pm, Pope Fan writes:
Oh, and by the way, it's interesting how we've now gotten to the point that even referring you to Scrpture verses is something that you balk at. I wouldn't expect you to read any commentary that the RC's have provided - but to see that you refuse to even open your Bible to see anything else than those verses (and their fundamentalist interpretation) with which you've been indoctrinated sheds even more light on your ability to truly understand the Scirptures.
On Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 01:58 pm, Nighthaven writes:
St. Ann the mother of Mary isn't venerated, other than just the title of a saint. I am unclear as to Marys father. I can't remember if the bible mentions him. George -- I've already established multiple times that Catholics do not worship the Holy Mother. For worship is paid only to God. She is honored/venerated, not worshipped. Those are two different things. I really can't explain it any better than that. I hope this finally sinks in. Besides your going to have to find answers to the questions in my conclusion before you can accuse the Church of anything. Till then all arguements are moot.
On Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 02:54 pm, Peter writes:
George – no you haven’t helped me understand your position at all. In fact nothing you say seems to make sense, and you actually don’t seem to even try to make sense but rather enjoy capitalising random words of scripture that don’t fully relate to what you seem to be talking about. I am left to conclude that your inability to clearly and calmly explain your beliefs (like Nighthaven does) demonstrates that your main interest is just to fight with people, rather trying to help people understand God.
On Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 03:43 pm, Catholic Ohio Girl writes:
My last comment to the SPs....don't bother with any more hollow arguingn at this post. Instead, please go to salvationhistory.com and you will have a site that answers ANY question you could possibly ask of a RC. It has the best explanations with Catholic biblical backup that I have ever seen. If you address topics with knowledge of the Catholic viewpoint, you may not agree, but you may learn WHY we believe as we do. Otherwise, your arguements have no knowledge behind them as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. You will waste precious time here. Good luck and God Bless us All.
On Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 07:37 pm, George the Preacher writes:
Accredited writes: "Before I go...one last thing.......... George: You sound like a terrific engineer...so pls don't quit your day job."--- Thanks, I will make a note of it--- "You are the worst of the lot. Keep studying and reading and above all praying, maybe the Lord will draw you to himself."--- Since I am the worst of the lot, and I need all the help I can get, then why not help me out with biblical truth USING ONLY A BIBLE about how the Lord draws men unto himself? Since you stated I needed to study and read, therefore meaning you have studied and read, then you personally "lead me to Christ" BIBLICALLY, OK?---Was there something in the Bible about the gate being narrow? Come on George hit me with that verse.--- Yes sir, the gate is narrow and again MR ACCREDITED, you will show me BIBLICALLY how it is that I am to enter in correctly, OK?---
On Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 07:53 pm, George the Preacher writes:
Nighthaven writes: "George -- I've already established multiple times that Catholics do not worship the Holy Mother. For worship is paid only to God. She is honored/venerated, not worshipped. Those are two different things. --- As Jesus Christ said "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." Now we move from Blessed Mother, to HOLY Mother which is another TITLE established by false teachings. ONLY the Lord God and his Spirit has the TITLE of HOLY!!! As many times you will whitewash your sin, your words condemns you. Also, anytime you make STATUES in GROVES, according to the bible, you WORSHIP there! Satan has deceived you and you will continue to be sent strong delusions that you will believe a lie. Just keep writing and be sure your sin will continue to find you out!
On Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 08:00 pm, George the Preacher writes:
Catholic Ohio Girl writes: "My last comment to the SPs....don't bother with any more hollow arguingn at this post. Instead, please go to salvationhistory.com and you will have a site that answers ANY question you could possibly ask of a RC."---ie, do not confuse me with Biblical facts and please leave me alone because I enjoy living in lies, worshipping a false Jesus, through a false church.
On Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 08:02 pm, George the Preacher writes:
Peter writes: "George – no you haven’t helped me understand your position at all. "---But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.---
On Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 08:19 pm, Pastor Dave writes:
Well, Nighthaven, concerning the worship of Mary, you have only proven that you say that you do not worship her and that the RC says that they do not worship her. We are not saying thay you believe that you worship her. We are saying that your actions prove that you worship her. If you have the wrong definition of worship, which it seems that you do, then of course you may have a point. Look up the word worship in the bible and you will find out that bowing down to someone or something is worshipping it no matter what you call it. You can call it honoring if you want, but as far as the God of the Bible is concerned it is worship. As far as your point of the Queen of Heaven title the RC has given Mary. The logic you have laid out to make your point sounds convincing and even logical. Only problem is that Jesus is not the King yet. OOOOpps guess you forgot that vital bit of information. If you knew your bible, you would know that Jesus right now is our High Priest. He will be crowned King when he returns. Also, if a person or a church knew what Jeremiah 44 said about the queen of heaven, then why would they call anyone that. Either they are ignorant of the bible or they have called her that on purpose. Either way, the devil is laughing his head off at the foolishness of a church calling Mary the queen of heaven. You also say that you do not pray to Mary. How can you talk to a dead person without praying? Just asking. dead people cannot hear you. You also made comments about the one mediator of 1 Tim 2:4-5. You give the definition of mediator and then you proceed to totally ignore the definition that you gave. "mediator 1. one that mediates; especially, one that mediates between parties at variance." Did you ignore the phrase AT VARIANCE? Apparently in your haste to make your point you missed it and made yourself look foolish. You then said that if you pray for someone, you are mediating. No it isn't. The ones at variance are God and men. The bible says that we are enemies of God before conversion, children of disobedience. Therefore the only mediator between God and men is the man Christ Jesus. When we pray for others it is not that we are at variance with them it is that we are on their side asking that Jesus help this person who is at variance with God not with us. Isn't it great how simple the English language is? Also about the Latin Vulgate. First you said that there was only the one of Jereme and later you said that there was another Latin. Were you wrong the first time or the second. I told you there was another Latin Vulgate. Vulgate mean vulgar or common language. The language of the people. This earliear Latin is what the KJV translators used as I said earlier. As for your final "nails" as you say, let me say that if it makes you feel better to believe that you have put any nails into anything we have said, then I guess its par for the course because you seem to live and die by what you believe instead of the reality of the situation. You have certainly not dealt with the issue of the murder of millions of my Anabaptist forefathers. I quoted John 8 when explaining that murder is a sign of the children of the devil (read John 8:44). So therefore, I will ask you some questions which if you cannot answer will show your lack of meshing with the Bible. 1) Where in the Bible does it say that Mary was sinnless (which would require her to have been born of a virgin herself) and was Assumed alive into heaven? 2)Is there a woman in the Bible that has a greater title than "blessed among women?" 3) Where in the Bible does it say that the new testament church should have priests offering sacrifices which your Catechism teaches? 4) Where in the Bible does it say to charge indulgences to pray the dead out of purgatory? 5) Where in the Bible does it say that the New Testament church should murder heretics? 6)Where in the Bible does it say that the New Testament church should baptize babies to wash away original sin? 7)Where in the Bible does it say that the New Testament church is supposed to have a world-wide bishop with control over the whole of local churches on earth? 8) Where in the Bible does it say to venerate, honor, or ask Mary anything? 9) Where in the Bible does it say to canonize a person to make them a saint? 10)Where in the Bible does it say that Peter ever went to Rome? 11) Where in the Bible are we told to talk to dead people, whether they be saints or Jesus' Mother. 12) Where in the Bible does it say that the New Testament Church should have an armed army to fight wars and impose its will upon the heathen? These questions will suffice for now. So like Jesus did in the scriptures, I will answer your questions if you first answer mine.
On Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 08:54 pm, Pastor Dave writes:
Pope fan, I see you have a hard time believing what I said about the street corner we were on. Go ahead and ask the cheif of police if you don't believe me. He is a good man and I am sure he would answer any questions you have. I thank God for Cheif Yingling, because I know if it weren't for him, and some of the level headed Catholics who persuaded the ones who planned to do us harm to leave us alone, we would have become another in a long line of murdered heretics at the hands of the followers of the RC. Nighthaven, I forgot to address the lineage of the Anabaptists in that last post. You are finally getting it that we are as you said- "To claim you existed before the Protestant Rebellion of 1517 would mean your sect would of had to been apart of the heretical sects, thus being deemed formal heretics and suffering under the sin of heresy in the afterlife." Yes we claim to be a part of what the RC called heretics. Amongst the real heretics were bible believing christians. We would expect nothing else but to be called heretics by heretics. Now you are finally getting it. Again, if you only look up the word Anabaptist you won't get much prior to the 1500's. But if you knew what names they called themselves, you could continue to trace them back to Christ as I have claimed all along. As far as calling this revisionist history, it really is called reclaiming the real history which has been tried to be extinguished by the RC along with the "heretics' that they burned at the stake. Noone could believe or read any other history than the history promoted by the RC because to do otherwise meant death. You remember all the books and heretic burnigs don't you? You don't unless you adhere to the revisionist history of Rome. It is Rome's history that is distorted and onesided. The 66 books of the bible have been around since they were written. The RC canonized what the Christians believed were scripture up to the time Constantine started the Roman Church in the 4th century (see the claim of the Romans that they go back to Christ is false).All the RC did was canonize what all the real christians that had the Holy Spirit living in them already knew. Therefore, the Roman Church didn't invent the canon. All they did was make the obvious official. Remember, God even used Balaam's ass to speak to man. So therefore, with the Providence of God, we would have had His words with or without the RC because He said in Psalm 12 that He would preserve His word forever. One thing I will say about you without having met you Nighthaven is that I appreciate your zeal. You certainly are a fighter for what you believe. Unfortunately, the priests of Baal in the book of 1 Kings fought for their beliefs too. They were just sincerely wrong.
On Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 10:09 pm, Accredited writes:
Mt 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate: for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life, and those that find it are few. The STRAIT GATE and NARROW...WAY is a total commitment to Jesus Christ. It is not just saying, Lord, Lord. It is not just saying you have accepted Jesus as your Savior. Many name the name of Jesus, but they perish. The STRAIT GATE and NARROW...WAY is: Be doers of the word and not hearers only deluding yourselves Ja 1:22. As Jesus tells us, Why do you call me Lord Lord but not do what I command?-Lk 6:46. Now that we established that you guys are heretics and claim that the RC has murdered your forefathers I think the best idea is to say good bye and ask you not to disrupt the procession next year and certainly not the Mass. We have to acknowledge that RC catechisis has been poor that last 30 years or so and as a result the Fundamentalists will no doubt capture a few souls. That's ok because the Coming Home Network has dozens and dozens of Protestant theologians and Pastors coming home. We'll take your best and brightest and you can have our naive. We'll claim Mother Teresa and you can have Pastor George. One last question...on who's authority do you condemn anyone to Hell? That, I think, is taking the broad gate...so is all the screaming and yelling and being so disruptive and unloving. Where's the love? 1Cor 13????
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 03:00 am, Pope Fan writes:
Nighthaven - I would like to thank you for your clear and consistent catechesis in the above posts. It is obvious that, not only do you know your Scriptures, but your Church History as well. Your ability to express these to all of us is remarkable and inspires me to continue in my studies of our Faith and our world. I find it a shame that, for the most part, your words have fallen on deaf ears....the worst kind being those who choose that deafness out of pride. Keep up the good work.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 03:06 am, street preacher writes:
Just so we have the right definitions let's get it from the horses mouth: "VENERATION. The word commonly used to express in English that worship given to saints either directly or through images and relics" "WORSHIP. Adoration and reverence paid to God…also for the honor paid to the saints….veneration." (William E. Addis & Thomas Arnold, Eds., A Catholic Dictionary containing some account of the doctrine, discipline, rites, ceremonies, councils and religious orders of the Catholic Church, Catholic Publication Society:New York (1884); w/Nihil Obstat and Imprimitur)
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 03:16 am, street preacher writes:
From the horses mouth: Roman Catholic Cardinal Hosius 1524 President of the Council of Trent: "Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.) 1524 minus twelve hundred equals what? BEFORE the reformation, before there were Protestants, just who were those folks the Roman Catholics were killing? John Clark Ridpath, historian Methodist, said, "I should not readily admit that there was a Baptist church as far back as 100 A.D., although without doubt there were Baptist churches then, as all Christians were then Baptists." Mosheim, Lutheran historian, said, "Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe, persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of the modem Dutch Baptists... the origin of Baptists is lost in the remote depths of antiquity... the first century was a history of Baptists." Robert Barclay, a Quaker historian, says, "We shall afterward show that the rise of the Anabaptists took place prior to the Reformation of the Church of England, and there are also reasons for believing that on the continent of Europe, small hidden Christian societies, who have held many of the opinions of the Anabaptists, have existed from the times of the apostles. In the sense of the direct transmission of divine truth, and the true nature of spiritual religion, it seems probable that these churches have a lineage or succession more ancient than that of the Roman Church." Methodists, Lutheran Quaker and Roman catholics say Baptists precede catholics!
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 03:54 am, street preacher writes:
Pope Leo XIII, Encycl. Divinum illud, May 9,1897 "You know well the intimate and wonderful relations existing between her and the Holy Spirit, so that SHE IS JUSTLY CALLED HIS SPOUSE" Leo VIII Encyclical Augustissimæ (Sept.12, 1897) God chose her from all eternity to be the Mother of the Incarnate Word, and for that reason so eminently disguised her among all His most beautiful works in the triple order of nature, grace and glory, that the Church justly applies to her these words: - 'I came out of the Mouth of the Most High, the FIRSTBORN BEFORE ALL CREATURES" Pope Pius XII: "And Paradise recognized that she [Mary] WAS REALLY WORTHY OF RECEIVING HONOR, GLORY AND RULE, because she is full of grace, holier, more beautiful, more exalted, incomparably more so than the greatest saints and angels, taken individually or all together; because, as the FIRST-BORN DAUGHTER of the Father, the PERFECT MOTHER of the Word, the BELOVED SPOUSE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, she is related in virtue of the Hypostatic Union to the whole Most Holy Trinity...." Father Son holy Ghost daughter, Mother, Spouse Blessed two TRINITIES!
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 04:09 am, street preacher writes:
Peter did not know he was a pope according to Roman Catholic Bishop Strossmayer"I see here before me a member of the assembly, who says, pointing at me with his finger, "There is a schismatic bishop who has got among us under false colors." No, no, my venerable brethren, I have not entered this august assembly as a thief, by the window, but by the door like yourselves. My title of bishop gives me a right to it, as my Christian conscience forces me to speak and to say that which I believe to be true. What has surprised me most, and what moreover is capable of demonstration, is the silence of St. Peter. If the apostle had been what we proclaim him to be that is, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth he surely would have known it; if he had known it, how is that not once did he act as pope? " I conclude victoriously, with history, with reason, with logic, with good sense, and with a Christian conscience, that Jesus Christ did not confer any supremacy on St. Peter and that the Bishops of Rome did not become sovereigns of the Church... You may protest against it or deny it, as you please, but I will prove it. Pope Victor (192) first approved of Montanism, and then condemned it. Marcellinus (296-303) was an idolator. He entered into the temple of Vesta, and offered incense to the goddess. You will say that it was an act of weakness; but I answer, a vicar of Jesus Christ dies rather than become an apostate. Liberius (358) consented to the condemnation of Athanasius, made a profession of Arianism, that he might be recalled from his exile and reinstated in his see. Honorius (625) adhered to Monothebtism: Father Gratry has proved it to demonstration. Gregory I (785-90) calls anyone Antichrist who takes the name of Universal Bishop, and contrariwise Boniface III (607, 8) made the parricide Emperor Phocas confer that title upon him. Paschal II (1088 99 and Eugenius III (1145-53) authorized duelling; Julius II (1509) and Pius IV (1560) forbade it. Eugenius IV (1431-39) approved of the Council of Basle and the restitution of the chalice to the church of Bohemia; Pius 11 (1458) revoked the concession. Hadrian II (867-872) declared civil marriages to be valid; Pius VII (1800-23) condemned them. Sixtus V (1585-90) published an edition of the Bible, and by a bull recommended it to be read; Pius VII condemned the reading of it. Clement XIV (1700-21) abolished the order of the Jesuits, permitted by Paul III, and Pius VII re-established it. http://s8int.com/strossmayer.html speech given during Vatican I by bishop Strossmayer in opposition to papal infallibility
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 04:18 am, Pope Fan writes:
This is great. They have turned over the postings to a real pro. Right out of the play book of Boettner and Chick and Jones. http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/index.html and of course catholicanswers.com. Given the change from an attempt at dialogue to the defaming lies of Boettner means we win. When your opponent has to lie then you know you have him.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 04:33 am, street preacher writes:
Papal Infallibility??? from the horses mouth: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08426b.htm POPE John XII "took the name of John. The temporal and spiritual authority in Rome were thus again united in ONE PERSON -- a coarse, immoral man, whose life was such that the Lateran was spoken of as a BROTHEL, and the moral corruption in Rome became the subject of general odium." "a synod composed of fifty Italian and German bishops was convened in St. Peter's; John was accused of sacrilege, simony, perjury, murder, adultery, and incest, and was summoned in writing to defend himself" "John died on 14 May, 964, eight days after he had been, according to rumour, stricken by paralysis in the act of adultery." SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY united AGAIN in one person of this immoral character???????
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 04:46 am, George the Preacher writes:
Accredited writes: "We'll take your best and brightest and you can have our naive."***Comment: The more this guy opens his mouth, the more he shows his true colors, ie, a well spoken resemblance of a true Pharisee that he is. And what you need to do is visit Mat 24 to see what the Lord Jesus Christ thought of "taking the best and brightest". Well did Jesus Christ speak of someone such as you who is proud knowing nothing and speaking DOWN of others who are naive about the truth. Lk 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. (End of Comment)*** We'll claim Mother Teresa and you can have Pastor George. ***(Comment) I am not a Pastor (End of comment)***One last question...on who's authority do you condemn anyone to Hell? That, I think, is taking the broad gate...so is all the screaming and yelling and being so disruptive and unloving. Where's the love? 1Cor 13????***(Comment) By the authority of the Holy Bible. If you die in your sins, because you did not repented of them before the Lord God (not some false priest!) and have not received the love of the truth by calling upon the Lord Jesus Christ to save you, you will go to Hell! It is simple as that, but oh how difficult for those who hold unto Pharisitical religious lies (Ro 9:30-10:18). What you actually need to do is READ the bible and find out that Jesus Christ spoke more about hell than he did about heaven. The book of Acts is the acts of the Apostles and the word love does NOT appear ONCE. Why not actually read the sermons preached by those anointed by the Holy Ghost, ie Peter, Stephen and Paul. We do not scream or yell, but instead we "cry out loud and spare not, lifting up our voices (Is 58:1) " so that we can be heard. You see we follow our Saviour Jesus Christ as he CRIED aloud to be heard [what you call yelling and screaming] in Jn 7:28, 11:43, 12:44, Lk 8:8, Mat 27:46, etc. That also included John the BAPTIST (Jn 1:15), Stephen (Acts 7:60) and Paul (Acts 16:28) . So, where is the love? It is in our preaching to call idolators and religious sinners unto repentance toward God and faith toward OUR Lord Jesus Christ! Accredited, you really need to actually know what is in the bible before you continue to make a fool out of yourself.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 05:11 am, George the Preacher writes:
Just watched the TWOL-11 news clip once again. The very last words captured as a procession of worshippers took an idolatous image of Mary, held high above all their heads (reminds me of Pharaohs who were gods, and therefore when carried they were lifted above the people!), and known biblically as the queen of heaven was , quote "It is ALL about Mary"!! Well said the Lord Jesus Christ about you: "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 05:41 am, Dave writes:
My friends in the Street Preacher Fellowship. We have all passionately argued our views. However, I think you need to take a step and ask yourself something. Do you believe God is A Sovereign and Almighty God? Well I am sure you will say yes. However, it doesn't seem you worship that God. If Catholics are wrong and you, a very small band of men are right, than God would have to be impotent. We know that not to be so. Deism is the only other explanation one can find to support your views. The belief that God just died or went away. For example, there are 1 Billion Catholics in the world and maybe a couple of hundred million Protestants, with maybe half being Evangelical. Fundamentalist Anabaptists which you claim to be, might number in the thousands or maybe a few million out of the planet's 5-7 billion. Do you mean to tell me God is too weak and meek for Him to tell us we are all wrong and your small band of men are right? It is evident that Catholics are the "pillar & foundation" described in 1 Timothy 3:15. Have we made mistakes, oh yeah and many of them which is even further proof of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church being the Church that Christ established in Matthew 16:18-19. This has lead many to come our way. Another problem with your logic stems from your "Sola Scrptora" view. Where's that in the Bible? Nowhere. You have a problem with the Catholic Church's view of Scripture & Tradition. Yet, what does 2 Thessolonians verse 15 tell you? Hold fast to the traditions and oral statements. Someone asserted earlier that St Peter wasn't in Rome. This is a belief that Catholics, Protestants ( Evangelicals included) have. Only a few band of fundamentalists don't believe this. Yet Clement talks about St Peter being in Rome in 80 AD. St Ignatius mentions in 110 AD and St Iraneaus mentions it in 180 AD. The same goes with the Assumption of Mary which was very special in the Ancient world. You just look plain silly when you tell people who speak the language of Jesus (Aramaic) that they are wrong and you, whose belief system only came on the scene in the last few centuries, are right. Gentleman when you make silly statements like that as well as saying that Anabaptists have been around since the Apostolic Age you have no evidence to support yourself. You sound like those conspiracy theorists who say the Moon landing and the Pentagon attack were staged. You also make no sense when you say disparaging remarks against the Chaldean Catholics, one of Christianity's oldest churches. Today the Chaldeans are attacked by Al Qaeda in Iraq and their Maronite Catholic brothers and sisters are attacked by Hezbollah in Lebanon. Whose side are you on Christiantity or Radical Islam? Someone said those who worshipped Baal were sincere too but wrong too. If you want to compare us to those that worshipped Baal, they worshipped a powerful God. You claim we are so wrong yet if we listen to you, God is powerless to make us stop or change our ways. I was taught that God is a Mighty & Powerful God not an impotent God. Take for example God telling Peter in a dream (Acts 10:9-16) that Christians could change the Jewish dietary laws. God intervened to change what was wrong in their belief system. If we were suppose to be "Saved" according to your definition, believe in the Rapture and Sola Scriptora why did God wait 1,500 or 1,800 years to reveal that when it only took him a few years to tell Peter it was OK to eat something other than Kosher foods? Gentleman, I wish you would ponder why your version of God &the Lord Jesus doesn't jibe with that view of almost all of Christianity's churches.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 11:27 am, Nighthaven writes:
George --- Consider yourself cut off. I won't continue with you any further. Pastor Dave --- Just because you had a Rebellion in the year 1517 doesn't mean you can hijack Christianity and redefine it, then hold all Christians to your new definition. Prior to the Rebellion Christians believed sacrifice was worship. After the Rebellion Protestants believed prayer was worship. Now with your new definition of worship you can't hold Catholics to it. Because we aren't in rebellion, so it doesn't apply to us. So hold you own people according to your own rules and stop trying to hold us to them. I really can't explain this any better. So yes our definitions of worship are different, ours has 2,000 years of history behind it. Yours only has 500 and was born out of Rebellion. As with Jesus being only the High Priest; the only way you can arrive to that logic is if Jesus wasn't of the same substance as God the Father. Let me school you on the Trinity because apparently you lack in that respect also. God is Jesus, Jesus is God, God and Jesus both are the Holy Spirit., all one God but just 3 aspects of him. None of them are separated. So yes Mary being the mother of one aspect of God makes her the Queen Mother. Please don't drag this out any further. If you believe Jesus and God are separated than welcome to the sin of heresy. The Catholic Church has had the Bible far longer than you, so they know what’s in it. They aren’t going to contradict the NT that was written by the bishops of their very own church. Since the NT was written by the apostles who were also bishops we are gifted with oral Tradition on how they understood what they were writing. Instead of just guessing at what the verses in the Bible mean, we actually know what they mean. We got the meanings straight from the horse’s mouth so to speak. When I said Catholics don’t pray to Mary they only pray to Jesus and ask Mary to pray to them I was in error. Being an apologist requires constant study. So yes Catholics do pray to Mary, and ask for her prayers. As I stated earlier prayer isn’t worship, sacrifice to the Lord is. So by praying we aren’t worshipping. Just because you see prayer as worship doesn’t make it so. Like I said, convict others by Protestant rules, not Catholics. For we don’t acknowledge your rules for your in Rebellion to us. Continued on next post…
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 11:28 am, Nighthaven writes:
Now you mention the Bible saying that bowing or kneeling is worship, which indeed you are right. Let me take you through the Bible right quick so that you can best understand the word worship its self. 1And the two angels came to Sodom ii in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of the city. And seeing them, he rose up and went to meet them: and worshipped prostrate to the ground. (Gen 19:1) --- Why exactly was Lot worshipping the two angels? 29And let peoples serve thee, and tribes worship thee: be thou lord of thy brethren, and let they mother's children bow down before thee. Cursed be he that curseth thee: and let him that blesseth thee be filled with blessings. (Gen 27:29) --- Now we arrive at the passage where Isaac is tricked into thinking Jacob is Esau and giving him a blessing. If worship is paid only to God than why should the tribes worship Jacob? Don’t worry there is a method to my madness so please bare with me. 9He dreamed also another dream, which he told his brethren, saying: I saw in a dream, as it were the sun, and the moon, and eleven stars worshipping me. 10And when he had told this to his father and brethren, his father rebuked him, and said: What meaneth this dream that thou hast dreamed? shall I and thy mother, and thy brethren worship thee upon the earth? (Gen 37:9-10) --- Once again we see worship as referred to as worshipping a man. The reason why his father rejects this is what I’ll explain after I’m done quoting scripture. 18And his brethren came to him: and worshipping prostrate on the ground they said: We are thy servants. (Gen 50:18) --- We see again worship being paid to a man; or more specifically, Josephs’ brothers worshipping before Joseph for selling him into slavery when Joseph was young. They seek his forgiveness for their trespass against him. 7And he went out to meet his kinsman, and worshipped and kissed him: and they saluted one another with words of peace. And when he was come into the tent. (Ex 18:7) --- Once again worship paid to a man. We see worship throughout the OT being paid to God and to man. Now let me explain why I’m quoting scripture to you. The word worship means simply to honor as the OT understood the word to mean. So yes when you bow or kneel you are worshipping in the sense of honoring. Over the years after the Apostles and much later on the word worship became more constricted to mean that only honor is paid to God. So worshipping is only for God. Not even the Apostles contradicted the OT understanding of worship unless worship is paid to false Gods or the laws of the Pharisees or worshipping idols as God. Catholics can’t be held to the strict sense as Protestants see worship as, because we existed far before the word took on the meaning ‘honor paid only to God’. So yes yours and ours definition of worship are two different things. Yours is born out of private interpretation, ours is born out of oral Tradition as was spoken by the Apostles. To Catholics prayer isn’t worship, sacrifice is as stated here: 5And he said to his young men: Stay you here with the ass: I and the boy will go with speed as far as yonder, and after we have worshipped, will return to you. Gen 22:5 --- Here you see Abraham getting ready to sacrifice his son according to the will of God. His act of sacrifice will be worship. This is what Catholics believe worship to be, a sacrifice, though not of blood but of our personal wills to sin. We sacrifice that will to sin, as worship to God. As mentioned your definition of worship doesn’t mesh with ours so we do bow and kneel before statues as honor paid them in heaven, not of the restricted sense of honor paid only to God as you see worship to be. Now when the Protestants developed their understanding of what worship is; they convicted the church under their new understanding. As a result we dropped the word worship paid to Mary, to honor paid to Mary or venerate. Because it’s much easier to just change a word than to tell a Protestant their understanding of the word worship is flawed. We already were at each others throats during that time. No need to toss gasoline on a burning fire. So yes the word worship used to mean to honor. I’ve already explained the mediator topic which Catholics understand it to mean. Our understanding is of oral Tradition passed down from the Apostles, yours is private interpretation. I think we see which one is superior.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 11:29 am, Nighthaven writes:
Pastor Dave, as with your questions you asked of the church. Your first gonna have to prove in the bible the verse that says if it isn’t in the bible it didn’t happen. Catholics don’t believe the bible to be the final authority, so the fact that some of the stuff that we believe isn’t written in the bible doesn’t mean it’s false. It just means it isn’t in the bible. You’re the one that makes the bible the final authority, not us. So you can’t convict us according to your own rules; because we aren’t Protestants and we were in existence far longer. Convict yourselves by your own rules, not us. They don’t apply to us. You made the accusations against the church so the burden of proof lies with you. Your going to have to answer the questions I listed in my previous conclusion to prove your on a solid foundation with the bible, before you can try to convict us of it. In this respect, let the first man without sin cast the first stone. So until you answer those questions all your arguments are moot. Because you can’t level charges at Christ’s Church until you prove yourself to be on a solid foundation with your final authority. I look forward to your answers though. Till you answer those questions your just wasting space here posing straw man arguments. So yes those were the final nails in your coffin. I posed my questions first, so your going to have to answer mine first before I’ll answer yours. So I hope you answer mine soon, because when I answer yours I get to educate the Catholics reading this thread on Church History, which you seem to be lacking in, or have only read a bias view of. You won’t be able to answer those questions because there is no biblical support for your beliefs. The bible being the final authority is a Tradition my friend, a man made Tradition similar to the Pharisees. The Holy Spirit providing the truth behind scripture is also a Tradition, a man made one. You can’t convict the RCC of Tradition until you convict yourselves of your own Traditions. Private interpretation is also a Tradition started by man, Martin Luther to be more exact which he repented for on his death bed; if you remember one of my earlier posts. So don’t convict Catholics of your rules, convict yourselves for they are only binding to you. Christianity as in the name of the religion doesn’t belong to Protestants my friend; it belongs to us, which we have extended to Protestants in hopes of the rift between us being healed. Which it will eventually, or the Protestant faith will wither and die off under secularism or under the Catholic faith. The Gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church is a promise made to Catholics, not to Protestants. Which we’ve already seen with nowadays Protestants not even following everything the leaders of the Rebellion taught, and thus dividing into new splinters with just Baptist and Lutherans ect. in name only. As for the Latin Vulgate thing, the Latin Vulgate is the name of the Bible St. Jerome translated. He is the author of its translation; therefore the Latin Vulgate is his creation. The Latin version of the Syrian bible and the Latin Vulgate are two different bibles, with two different people that translated them into Latin. Their four gospels are the same, but are translations by two different authors. The fact that the Latin version of the Syrian bible was floating around during the time the Latin Vulgate was being translated, lead me to think you were mistaking the Latin version of the Syrian Bible to be the Latin Vulgate, which it wasn’t. It’s older than the Latin Vulgate. So there wasn’t two Latin Vulgates floating around. As with the Anabaptist thing, it’s born from the radical sects of 1520. You’re going to have to supply documented evidence to prove that you were linked to the heretical sects prior to the Rebellion. Just because you say so doesn’t make it so. Quoting me an author who also doesn’t have any documented evidence that Anabaptists were linked to the heretical sects, doesn’t make it so either. Until your able to produce these documents the only facts you’ll be able to find is in revisionist history. The church has the power to bind and loose so if you do link yourselves to the sects deemed as heretical, you also link yourselves with the sin of formal heresy. If I were you I’d just stick to the historically accurate version of you being a creation of the Rebellion, not trying to prove you’re even more heretical than the Protestants are. That’s sorta like shooting yourselves in the foot. Though like I said the proof of your beginnings lies in the number of books in your bible, and what books are in your bible. If your bible reflects the Protestant bible than you’re a Protestant creation, sorry if that disappoints you but facts are facts. As for reclaiming real history; whatever, secular history doesn’t agree with you either. They are the ones that kept better tabs on you than Christ’s Church did. Also reciting names of past heretical groups doesn’t prove you were apart of them. You need documented proof. I can claim that Pagan Rome didn’t actually die, but I’ll have to prove it with evidence in order to make it a fact. I’ve already satisfied my burden proof that you are a creation of the Rebellion, now your gonna have to provide your own that I’m wrong. Constantine didn’t create the Roman Catholic Church. Revisionist history yet again. It was under Constantine the Christians were finally able to stop holding services in the catacombs underneath Rome. It was under him that we didn’t have to suffer under roman persecution. Constantine didn’t create the RCC, it was in existence long before he was even born. Somehow you mistake someone being nice to us, for being the one that created us. That’s a grave error my friend. You need to stop visiting revisionist history for your facts. Or better yet just close Loriane Bottners book and toss it in the trash. It was disproved the moment it hit the shelves. You need to stop plagiarizing him. As for the canon, your lack of history betrays you. There were Gnostic Gospels floating around then too, as well as many books written by people trying to fill in the gaps the bible doesn’t explain. One such book has a young Jesus casting blindness on a man because he disrespected Joseph. Another painted Eve a victim of the snake in the garden; that the snake made her eat the apple. One book has Jesus pushing a boy off a roof and killing him, then after the people accused Jesus of murder he resurrected the boy so he could tell them it wasn’t Jesus who pushed him. A lot of people were creating gospels back then, so it was tough to decide which ones were divinely inspired and which ones weren’t. The Third Council of Carthage in 397 AD finally provided the answer and published the list of the official canon. Not to mention the eastern church was battling the west over books like Revelation, which they only included after the council decreed it. An official ruling was needed and it was made. If you’ve read the history of the Catholic Church, councils aren’t brought together because they enjoyed seeing each others faces. They were brought together to address serious issues that needed to be addressed. We wouldn’t have all the published works we have if there wasn’t a need for them to be there. The Church doesn’t show its authority unless there is a need to, IE a heresy is born and winning over many Christians or things like that. Or the canon needs to be decided. The word Trinity was born because folks were getting confused about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. A heresy was born from their wrong idea of the Trinity, so the word Trinity needed to be created and oral Tradition about the Trinity be defined in more simpler terms so the people would understand. Even the dumbed down definition of the Trinity is still confusing so it’s left just as a mystery. So yes the influx of uninspired books and conflicts over the inspired books lead there to be a need for an official decree on the canon. That canon is official and is binding to all Christians. That canon is the Catholic bible, if you’re lacking some of the books the Catholic bible has than your bible is incomplete. Our bible has the full OT before the Jewish Council of Jubilee started removing books from the Jewish canon, due to the lack of a large priesthood. We have the full NT before Martin Luther started shaving off scripture and adding the word ‘alone’, and removing books from the OT. So yes we have the complete OT and the NT as deemed for Christians to follow. The Vatican is the physical head of Christians not the Jews, so the Council of Carthage isn’t binding to Jews.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 11:32 am, Nighthaven writes:
Street Preacher --- You need to abandon the book Trail of Blood. The author did a horrible job in relating what really happened. Cardinal Hosius was a papal legate, meaning he was an emissary from the Vatican. The three presiding legates, or presidents as you like to say; where Cardinals Giovanni del Monte, Marcello Cervini, and Reginald Pole, not Cardinal Hosius. The fact that the author can’t be bothered long enough to do a search of the Catholic Encyclopedia proves he can’t be bothered to state historical fact. But facts get in the way when you’re trying to prove Baptists existed since Jesus; or the famous line, “John the Baptist founded us,” whatever. I submit an article by Sean from his faith website that addresses your argument. http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/forgeries/hosius.html The council of Trent held in the Cathedral of Trent was brought together to denounce the Protestant heresy, not defend it. You quote the year 1524 as the year Cardinal Hosius said this at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent began its opening session in December 13th, 1545. So I suppose Cardinal Hosius must of fell into a time vortex and traveled 21 years into the past, and made this statement to an empty church, then snapped back to the year 1545. Like I said don’t rely on revisionist history for your facts. Normal history will suffice. I’m glad I hit refresh on the website. It seems there are new arguments. Street Preacher --- I’ve already addressed the topic of worship in my earlier post. Refer back to that one. Taking the two Popes words out of context with the rest of their encyclical’s doesn’t help your case. Trying to use Catholic words to dispute Catholics is like trying stab someone with a rubber knife. Go back and read them again. Though it’s doubtful you even read them to begin with. You just snatched quotes and interpreted them out of context with the body of encyclical and then tried to prove your side of the argument using them. It’s fine though, you treat the bible the same way. Go with what you know I suppose. In regards on your comment about John XII your confusing infallibility with impeccability. I believe this subject was already addressed earlier on in the thread. If your going to participate in this debate than please don’t drag up old arguments that were answered. Infallibility and impeccability are two different things. A pope need not to have the cleanest background to be infallible. The Pope is only infallible when he is speaking from the Chair of St. Peter (In other words an official sense) and only talking about faith and morals. Giving the score of next week’s Cubs game doesn’t fall under infallibility, only faith and morals. The Holy Spirit won’t let him lead the church into error by making official decrees wrapped in error. I can cite an example of a Pope trying to lead the church in error, but the Holy Spirit not allowing him to. That is of course if people want to hear it.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 11:34 am, Nighthaven writes:
Now the conclusion, I would like to thank everyone for your kind words. Pope Fan, Dave and Accredited: Keep on defending the faith, you all are doing a good job. May your wit serve as Gods weapons to refute those who attack His church. It is always good to study the faith and the bible. For there will come a time when you are challenged, and you need to be able to respond to that challenge. A good book for you to read about the first 2,000 years of Catholic history is a book called Triumph by H.W. Crocker III. Loosing yourself in Catholic Answers at www.catholic.com is good also. Karl Keating’s book Catholicism and Fundamentalism is a must read. It has a Nihil Obstat and a Imprimatur, so you know it’s totally in line with catholic teaching. Oreo cookies are needed also, why? Because they taste so good that God must have had a hand in making them. You can’t be a serious apologist without Oreo cookie crumbs on your shirt. Priests have their outfit, we have our cookie crumbs. We all must wear uniforms to work. Also participating in forum boards that deal in apologetics is good also. Forum boards are what got me into reading the Early Church Fathers. Talking with your priest doesn’t hurt either. These guys went through 8 years of school to become priests. As to the SP’s, all arguments are moot till you answer the questions in my previous conclusion; if you can’t answer them than I appreciate you taking the time to debate me, we can finally draw this debate to a close. I seem to be neglecting your other articles Dave, in favor of this one, for that I apologize. There is a lot of good stuff on your website. Keep up the good work. Will you be at the next year’s procession?
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 12:04 pm, Nighthaven writes:
Oh and credit goes to Pax Christi too. Sorry this thread is getting so long it's hard to keep track.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 01:40 pm, George the Preacher writes:
George --- Consider yourself cut off.--- Sure, don't confuse me with BIBLICAL facts, but let me (Nighthaven) continue RAMBLING on and on and on with foolishness and distortions of truth! I went and checked out some of the "blogs" and read what they had to say. Here is one example "http://michaeldubruiel.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_michaeldubruiel_archive.html" who shows the Archbishop of Krakow KISSING an IMAGE of OUR Lady of Czestochowa! Blasphemous worship of idols from a Catholic Archbishop! Also it says he is surrounded by 100's of priests , bishops, nuns and city officials! So Mr Nighthaven, I do not want a response from you who continue to hide from FACTS out of your own sister sites!! If you want to believe your lies, I will NOT KILL YOU, like you did our forefathers! That is the difference in a true child of God. We will let the Lord God handle that in due time. We are just to warn the people that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of a living God without you getting things right before you die. We will preach to you and by the grace of God we will take whatever comes from it. On the other hand, you have proven your KILLING of INNOCENT individuals through your inquitions and crusades of our forefathers because they actally believed their bibles instead of DARK AGE religion (Hugonuts, Paulicans, Lollards, Anabaptist, etc). Just like he had a remant of Israel, he also had his remant of born-again, saved blood-bought sons of God who believed the bible and PREACHED IT (Mk 16:15) to a lost and dying world! That is why they were willing to die and not put together forces to fight back! They were/are just pilgrims who desire a better country, that is, the heavenly, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection. So continue to hide under the shadow of your lies! YOU are the killing machine and are NO DIFFERENT than Fanatic Muslims. Those Catholic Chaldeans would have broken the law like they did last year and would have done us bodly harm if it was not for the grace of God! You might fool others, but I certainly am not "ignorant of Satans devices". So, how can a billion Catholics be wrong? YOU do not know the God of the bible!! You are a biblical fool. The Lord God saved ONLY EIGHT individuals, out of BILLIONS who inhabited the earth before the flood (Gen 6) and he destroyed them all!! He killed 70,000 men of ISRAEL because of David's sin (2 Sam 25), and he killed MILLIONS of men, women, children when he sent in Joshua to "cleanse the land" and he will have NO PROBLEM killing BILLIONS more of unrepentant sinners who commit blasphemous idolatry and whoredoms (Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, Muslims, Humanists, Episcopalians, Anglicans, etc etc etc) while PRETENDING that they are not! You see, in the book of Revelations, 2/3 of the earth will be DEAD before the Lord Jesus Christ arrives to finish off a REBELLION of an army and come to rule with a rod of iron (Rev 19). He will be with his faithful saints, not some catonized foolishness inferred upon by a Pope, but the true saints of God as found in A BIBLE (Acts 9:32, Ro 1:7, 1 Cor 1:2, Ep 1:1, Phil 1:1, Col 1:2, etc)! Your alleged 2,000 years of "Christianity" is really since the time of Constantine and is nothing more than a Satanic smokescreen to hide the SUBTILITY of the Devil. The Lord God does not need ANY OF US!! We need HIM, according to his terms, not ours. He was fine without 1 human being, angel, seraphim, and cherbuim from eternity past. He would send EVERY HUMAN BEING to Hell if he has to. It is no skin off his back. BUT, I am sooo greatful that his mercy, kindness toward us appeared while we where yet sinners, CHRIST died for us! If we receive him ALONE, by faith and believe that HE ALONE can save us from our sin because we called upon THE NAME of the Lord, we will spend eternity with him! You can not do ANYTHING to save yourselves. That is why you have NO ASSURANCE like the SP's have and that we KNOW we WILL be in heaven because of Jesus Christ, not us!! That is why we preach and you do not. You have NOTHING to offer except RELIGION and the world is nothing more than a liquor store full of religion and everyone is drunk on something (READ Rev 18!!!).
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 02:34 pm, street preacher writes:
Who was it that the RCC killed before the Protestant reformation? Why did they burn them with their books? "At the END of the FIFTH CENTURY the Roman Church was completely organized" Catholic Encyclopedia IX, 61 That is a little too late for full Apostolic succesion, the apostles were dead by then. The RCC did not even have A archbishop UNTIL the END of the fourth century CATH. ENCY. IV, 44 It was several centuries later before she had Popes and Cardinals! Read your own stuff!
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 02:38 pm, Julie writes:
Certain people like George are always going to twist the facts and Bible quotes and history to pursue their agenda of hate. They are unable to grasp the love aspect of Christianity. They have no conscience, no empathy, they are narcissists who don't hesitate to lie. He feels entitled to attack others, but thinks others have no rights at all. It is called antisocial personality disorder.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 02:40 pm, Julie writes:
I mightily suspect these Street Preachers are a group of sociopaths who enjoy what they are doing.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 02:51 pm, street preacher writes:
FROM the HORSES MOUTH: Innocent VIII had illegitimate children from different womem Cath Ency VIII, 19 A Catholic Priest is AUTHORIZED after commiting adultery with a catholic woman to immediately thereafter forgive her sin. Legis Sacraments, 208 Thom Aquinas Summa Pat III 4th Number 274-276 Julius II had 3 illegitimate daughters, bribed cardinals for the office Cath Ency VIII, 562 Gregory XIII was an Adulterer who rejoiced over the brutaql MASSacre
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 02:56 pm, Julie writes:
Notice how these gentlemen don't want to talk about love one another. They want to talk about blood, about murder. They know they can't legally go out and physically hurt people. But they do know that if they say outrageous lies about the Catholic Church, they will shock and violate us. That is what they want. They want to hurt people. These men are criminals. They've found that they can attack Catholics with impunity. So they do that. What they say reveals more about them than it does about Catholicism or even Christianity. What they do has nothing to do with Christianity. These are antisocial personalities that have latched onto a great way to hurt people and get away with it without censure from society. They like to take the sacred and kick dirt in its face. They know, and we know, that Baptists don't trace their history back to Christ. They don't care.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 03:18 pm, street preacher writes:
Gregory XIII was an Adulterer who rejoiced over the brutal MASSacre of St. Bartholomew: CE(cath ency) VII, 2-3 XIII, 337 Concubinage NOT Immoral (CE IV, 207) No mention of celibacy until 4th century (CE III, 420) 1st mention of Crucifix SIXTH century (CE VI, 667) Baptism was by immersion in ancient times: New Interpretation of the Mass, 120 In an attempt to prove false doctrine, appeals are made to forgeries such as Canons of Hippolytus (CE I, 636) The papacy & canon law, accepted FALSE DECRETALS! http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05773a.htm Bishop Noll "if it be not identical in belief, in government etc., with the primitive Church, then it is not the Church of Christ"
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 03:19 pm, Nighthaven writes:
Your so full of hate I don't even know where to begin. Seriously George your hurting the SP's by your comments, you aren't helping them. Condemning us to hell by your private interpretation won't make us so. For you have no authority over us. But i'll entertain your arguement just long enough to disprove you. In the letter St. Ignatius wrote to the Smyrnaeans around 110 AD he coins the words The Catholic Church (he katholike ekklesia) in his letter, talking about the christians. Before his letter we were just Christians, after that we were Catholics. He gave us the title Catholics because the word catholic means unity. The christians were in unity. Emperor Constantine the Great was born between the years 274-288 AD and died in 337 AD. So once again historical fact refutes you. Constantine was born more than a 100 years later than the letter St. Ignatius wrote, calling christians catholics. One more interesting factoid is that prior to the year 1517 we were just catholics. During the Rebellion we were labeled Roman Catholics because the seat of St. Peter was in Rome, and thats where the Vatican is. So thanks for the name Roman, George. I like it and it adds a certain flair to the name. The Roman Catholic Church, ah what a great name.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 03:25 pm, street preacher writes:
How can you talk about love and respect? Don't you know your own churches history? Millions of people slaughtered in the name of Christ? By Christians? C'MON that strains credulity! Acts 3:4 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you Acts 7:52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers WHO IS IT OUTSIDE of HEAVEN? Rev 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. JN 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer FROM THE BEGINNING, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 03:32 pm, Cath writes:
Hang on a sec Protestant street propagandists. All the religious bloodshed of previous centuries isn’t a simple picture of Catholic persecution and Protestant martyrdom, although you would obviously like it to have been. Protestants massacred thousands of Catholics in Ireland and executed hundreds of innocent Catholic priests in Britain using the most denigrating and humiliating forms of torture. Besides, Nighthaven has commented how Protestantism was a religious revolution rather than true reformation – well it also became tied up in social and economic revolt too. This was especially true for the more radical and disruptive forms of Protestantism, such as the anabaptists that you would like to think are your predecessors. They were incredibly socially dangerous and threatening, as seen by their bizarre behaviour in Munster in the 1530s that they tainted all Protestantism with the same stigma of dangerous social fundamentalism rather than true spiritual reformation. The true Reformation came with the Council of Trent, which strove to achieve the more difficult (yet truthful) end of reforming the abuses of Catholic theology that had crept into medieval practice, rather than the easier Protestant strategy of getting rid of abused teachings by jettisoning the teachings altogether.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 03:35 pm, Mark B. writes:
This thread is perhaps the longest in the history of "The Catholic Report." I do have to say congratulations to Dave, obviously his reporting touched on something on the hearts and minds of a lot of people. I hope some of the comments are considered for inclusion in the sequel to “The Tide is Turning Toward Catholicism.” I would like to offer some of my thoughts. I have seen this conversation happen many times, sometimes in my own family. The same “facts”, the same Bible verses, the same passion. (Yes, even the same CAPS LOCK for emphasis.) I have a Masters Degree in Church History, earned at a Protestant seminary. I was raised Catholic and my own journey home to the Catholic Church happened during my studies. (It is my hypothesis that anyone who seriously studies history will become Catholic.) You might say that I would be an ideal person to enter into this debate. But I will not. The fact is that there are some whose faith makes them blind to reason. Debates with these people only accomplish one thing: raising your blood pressure. These individuals (the very nature of Protestantism makes it difficult to lump them all under one label) view history differently than Catholics do. They view the past two thousand years as one big conspiracy by the Catholic Church to destroy the Christian faith. Every major event for the past two thousand years: Islam, the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, the Holocaust, even the attacks of September 11; are simply part of the Vatican’s plan for world domination. It is almost like a comic book, where no matter what the calamity or crisis, the same villain is always responsible. Trying to counteract this line of thinking with historical facts, Sacred Scripture, or common sense has very little impact. If you were to prove, with research or even artifacts, that the Catholic Church was not responsible for…. the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, the Street Preachers’ response would be that the Catholic Church manipulated the evidence and controls the historians to keep their involvement a secret. Their belief in this conspiracy is self sustaining! Anytime you can prove them wrong, it is just the Vatican up to its old tricks. There are plenty of theological differences between us, but a real conversation can only take place when the facts of these differences can be discussed in a logical manner. It’s obvious that this is not going to happen. I think that it is this made up history that offends so many Catholics. People have been making things up about us from the very beginning, so we should be used to it by now. I remember at one family gathering, my Baptist nephew was trying to tell his Catholic cousins that they were going to Hell for worshiping Mary. Everyone was looking to me for a response. Should I quote the Church Fathers? Maybe do a little Bible verse ping-pong with him? My response was simple. “Baptists eat babies.” He looked horrified. He said this was not true, but I assured him that it was. He was simply too young, and once he reached adulthood; they would reveal the truth to him. Maybe if he was lucky, he could even eat one of his younger siblings. I told him that the proof was there, but the Baptists had successfully suppressed this information; there are many Baptist legislators after all. He turned red. He got angry. He felt embarrassed. Then I let him off the hook. I told him that it does not feel good when people make up things about your faith. Then I told him to go online and read the Catechism and “if you are going to hate my faith, at least hate it for what we really believe, not what someone made up.” Sadly, this bizarre version of history is not just aimed at Catholics. The conspiracy even betrays the teachings of the early Anabaptists. If you take the time to read Blaurock, Müntzer, or Simons, you will see men who believed in a spiritual connection with the Apostolic faith as expressed in the New Testament. Although I disagree with their theology, I respect the fact that they did not have to manufacture history to justify their beliefs. These movements suffered from persecution of their Protestant brethren, who did not need an inquisition to justify actions against “radical reformers.” Most historians believe that modern Baptists do not have their roots in first century Israel, but in the religious melting pot of 17th century northwestern Europe, where Anabaptist beliefs mixed with Puritan sensibilities. Modern Baptists cannot even agree on this, some are “separatist” (part of the Reformation) and some are “Landmarkist” (pre-dating the Catholic Church.) The true descendents of the real Anabaptist movement are the Amish and Mennonites, who never feel the need to yell and shout at others to spread their faith. There are many great Catholic apologists out there, and I applaud their actions and pray for them daily. I also pray for our friends on the other side of this thread with whom we probably share many concerns facing our modern culture. Only God can break through the anger, hate, and fiction clouding their judgment. It is my sincere hope that this entire thread has helped, if only a little.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 03:35 pm, Nighthaven writes:
Street Preacher --- Your still confusing infallibility with impeccability. Engage brain before typing. Infallibility doesn't depend on impeccability. George --- As for the Inqusitions, the unrepentant was handed over to the state. So it was the secular state that chose to kill these people, not the church. Learn your history please, quit looking for history in poorly researched books or Hollywood movies. Its there in the library, go and read it. I'm still waiting for those nails in coffin questions to be answered. Once all the other SP's send in a post without those questions being answered we'll close this debate with Catholics being the winner. Till those questions are answered the SP's stand upon no foundation to accuse the Catholics of anything.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 03:37 pm, street preacher writes:
"So that a FALSE STATEMENT knowingly made to one who has not a right to the truth will not be a lie" (CE IX, 471) "the easiest way of fulfilling that DUTY is to say what is false, or to tell a LIE" (CE X, 195) MENTAL RESERVATION RCC under an obligation to keep secrets faithfullyhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10195b.htm So how can we trust anything you say? May I remind you....... Proverbs 14:5 A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies. Prov 19:9 A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall perish.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 03:42 pm, Nighthaven writes:
Thanks for your post Mark B
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 03:48 pm, Nighthaven writes:
Your latest post from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10195b.htm starts with this statement: According to the common Catholic teaching it is never allowable to tell a lie, not even to save human life. A lie is something intrinsically evil, and as evil may not be done that good may come of it, we are never allowed to tell a lie. However, we are also under an obligation to keep secrets faithfully, and sometimes the easiest way of fulfilling that duty is to say what is false, or to tell a lie. Writers of all creeds and of none, both ancient and modern, have frankly accepted this position. They admit the doctrine of the lie of necessity, and maintain that when there is a conflict between justice and veracity it is justice that should prevail. The common Catholic teaching has formulated the theory of mental reservation as a means by which the claims of both justice and veracity can be satisfied.--- So please stop snatching sentences out of bodies of works and interpreting them differently. This only hurts your case and futhers my argument that you treat the bible the same way.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 03:52 pm, Nighthaven writes:
Your really hurting yourself when you give web addresses to the errors you state. Any Catholic with the ability to copy and paste can go to those websites and see how bad your mis-interpreting them.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 03:54 pm, street preacher writes:
Excuse me what baptists or Anabaptists murdered Catholics? What Baptist rejoiced over the deaths like some of the popes did? MT 15 warns that Blind follow the Blind BOTH fall in the ditch! "OBEY BLINDLY, that is,without asking reasons. Be careful then, never to examine the directions of your confessor...But you say, if i am damned in consequence of obeying my confessor, who will rescue me from hell? What you say is impossible" (Liguori's Spouse of Christ 554) "There is only one remedy for this evil and that remedy is ABSOLUTE and BLIND OBEDIENCE to a prudent director" (Explanation of catholic Morals, 24) Is it any wonder that murderers called themselves christians? Decide to ENTER the RCC and leave reason at the door! "once he does so, he has no further use for his reason. He enters the church, an ediface illumined by the superior light of revelation and faith. He can LEAVE REASON, like a lantern, AT THE DOOR" (Explanation of catholic Morals, 76) So we see, as a RC it is OK to lie, and you can leave reason at the door, just follow BLINDLY. It is no wonder then that so many RC responses say "here read this link". Who will rescue you from HELL? The blind?
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 03:56 pm, Nighthaven writes:
On second thought I probably shouldn't of written that. So yes please keep listing those web addresses. If a simple copy and paste job into the web address box can refute your argument I won't have to waste time typing to you.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 03:59 pm, Julie writes:
Dave, thank you. I have learned so much from this thread from the many very patient, kind and knowledgeable Catholics who have taken the time to post their comments. It makes me proud and happy to be Catholic. In fact, I am a bit blown away by their knowledge and skill. Thanks to them also for sharing.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 04:05 pm, street preacher writes:
Catechism of the Catholic Church 2488 "The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it." http://www.newadvent.org/summa/311003.htm "Therefore a lie is not a sin" Why such convoluted discussion on whether lying is a mortal sin or not? http://www.newadvent.org/summa/311000.htm SOMEONE ONCE SAID ""Truth, for its own sake, had never been a virtue with the Roman clergy!"
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 04:05 pm, Nighthaven writes:
Baptists eat babies, oh thats classic Mark B. I'll have to remember that one. hehe
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 04:08 pm, Nighthaven writes:
My earlier post already dealt with lying. Please read before you continue.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 04:12 pm, Nighthaven writes:
And thank you too Julie for reading. I know this thread is pretty long, but there is a wealth of information in it. Mark B comment about history reminds me of the quote "To dwell in history is to cease to be Protestant." I can't remember the gentlemans name who said it, but he was a Protestant turned Catholic after he tried to research history to disprove us. Maybe if I can get the SP's off the book Trail of Blood and into real history we can win some converts.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 04:21 pm, street preacher writes:
Ignatius Loyola said "We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides." MT 23;24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 04:28 pm, Nighthaven writes:
He was stressing the authority of the church. jeeze man, your really grasping at straws now.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 05:16 pm, Mark B. writes:
Thanks Nighthaven. My neice actually wanted me to consider having "Baptists Eat Babies" t-shirts printed up for the next family reunion. Of course, that wouldn't be charitable... and there are plenty of good Catholic t-shirts out there. I actually stole the whole baby eating idea from Minucius Felix, a Roman lawyer writing around the year 200 AD. That's what he accused Catholics of doing. (Poor Minucius didn't understand the Eucharist any better than some of our contemporary critics do.)
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 05:28 pm, Mark B. writes:
The sufferings of the Anabaptists and other "radical reformers" at the hands of other Protetants is well documented and available in any book on Reformation history. Luther even wrote a little book called "Agianst the False Brethren" against them. (This of course joins Luther's works against Catholics and Jewis.) Since Baptists have never really been in any kind of political power since their foundation in the 17th century, I'm not aware of any systematic persecution of Catholics at the hands of Baptists. There are many well documented attacks against Catholics in the USA that were organized by nativist organizations too.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 06:36 pm, George the Preacher writes:
Accredited writes: "That's what caused this whole conversation. Riots triggered by absurd uneducated people acting like bullies trying to convert thru intimidation...not love." Talking about a hypocrite! You do not even know me and yet you call me uneducated?? But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. I say again, Let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little. That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting. Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also. For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise. Well, I have a BSEE with 23 years experience as a Analog and Digital Circuit designer, Embedded S/W design engineer, designed Formula 1 race modules with 18 electronic boards consisting of 17 embedded processors within a box 70mm x 150mm x 230mm, have 5 US patents, speak 2 languages, have read over 1000 books, finishing my 2 year theology degree, and could add much more! We are not yelling but are lifting up our voices so that we can be heard over the cacaphony of foolish nonsense proceeding out of the mouths of typical rebellious religious folks who are afraid of there own shadow! If we wanted to intimidate anyone, we would do as the Roman Catholic church did during the crusades, or acted like the Chaldean wild men in Carey! Listen, I do not care whether you go to hell or not. I am there to lift up the Lord Jesus Christ and he will draw men unto himself. If you want to stay RC, to skin off of my back. It is YOU who will have to face the Lord Jesus Christ at the White Throne Judgment. All I am there to do is to tell you to "flee from the wrath to come"
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 06:47 pm, street preacher writes:
Anabaptists/Baptists existed before the reformation and thus are not contemporaneous with the "protestants" who were nothing more than the illigitimate children of their mother rome. Thusly protestants may be called "Reformed catholics"! It is not just the Baptists that testify to the antiquity of the Baptists! Histories by non-Baptists such as Mishiem (Lutheran), Gibbons, Erasmus (Catholic), Schaff (Lutheran), Ridpath (Methodist), Beza (Presbyterian), Peter Allix (church of England), Robert Barclay (Quaker), Doctors A. Ypeij and J. J. Dermout, Chaplain to the King of Holland, and others prove that the 1st century Christians were Baptist. Edinburgh Encyclopedia, a Presbyterian publication, speaking of Tertullian born just 50 years after the death of the Apostle John: "It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time." Sir Isaac Newton, wrote, "The modern Baptists formerly called Anabaptists are the only people that never symbolized with the Papacy." Dr. W. P. Harvey says: "History points to the origin of the various denominations, and in regard to their respective founders there is no controversy, but strange there is no recognized historic account of the origin of Baptists this side of the apostolic age."
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 07:07 pm, street preacher writes:
Zwingli, the great Swiss Reformer (NOT A BAPTIST): "The institution of Anabaptism is NO NOVELTY, but for 1300 years has caused great disturbance in the church, and has acquired such a strength that the attempt in this age to contend with it appeared futile for a time." Alexander Campbell said: "From the apostolic age to the present time the sentiment of Baptists and their practice of baptism have had a continued chain of advocates, and public monuments of their existence in every century can be produced." King Henry VIII, who had banished Baptists, giving them twelve days to leave his kingdom on pain of death if they disobeyed: "There are no rulers in Germany, whether they be papists or Protestants, that do suffer these men. If they come into their hands all men punish them quickly.' " Despite the persecution by the roman church, the protestant churches and the civil government they continued & they flourished. Even under threat of death! They suffered cruel mockings, bloody stripes, imprisonment, and martyrdoms down thru the centuries. Roman Catholic Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius, President of the Council of Trent in 1524, said, "Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." This Roman Catholic Cardinal in charge of anathematizing Bible believers acknowledged that the Baptists had existed as far back as 324 A.D. Lu 11:48Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them Like PaPa like son, so too the "reformed catholics" are the product of the whores fornication. They have a history of performing the same murderous deeds as their father. Gal 4:9 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. (See modern day - Chaldeans)
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 08:39 pm, Fr. Jim writes:
George, I already accepted Jesus when I was baptized as a child, more importantly he accepted me. The bible was canonized by the Catholic Church. that is a historical fact. It is our book. No 2 of you agree on what it says. Is God the author of such chaos? There is no verse in the bible that teaches the bible alone fallacy. As a former fundamentalist I can assure you that there are plenty of scandals involving your clergy. Your ignorance and hatred remind me of what I left behind and I thank God that I am now home in the Church founded by Christ.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 08:49 pm, Fr. Jim writes:
Oh and George, I have several degrees and graduated from both Protestant and Catholic seminaries. I have studied 6 languages. A 2 year bible college "degree" is not that impressive. As for persecution you might look into the way that Irish Catholics were treated by your ancestors. I myself have had to wipe spit from my face, courtesy of a street preacher.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 09:18 pm, Fr. Jim writes:
SP, there were no fundamentalist protestants or baptists etc. in the early Church. In 107 AD Ignatius of Antioch said "where Jesus Christ is there is the Catholic Church." It was true then and true now. Your tradition of men started not so long ago. In the US most fundamentalist groups didn't start until the 19th century. We have been here since day one. In Maryland, the only Catholic colony, there was freedom of religion. UNTIL the protestants took over, repeal the act of toleration, and immediately persecuted the Catholics. Even today Catholics are discriminated against by protestants such as yourself. Ask any Catholic who lives in the bible belt what it's like.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 09:53 pm, Pope Fan writes:
Good point Fr Jim. I wonder if Pastors George and Dave really agree with each other? Might they split apart and start yet another church? Pastor George might start, I mean claim, that really old group The AnaAnaAnabaptists. This group I think started just after the Resurrection. I think I read in an letter written by a catholic cardinal that the the Lord was handing out AnaAnaAnabaptist business cards. So will George split from Dave? It's so intriguing. Can't wait. The split might come at any time. I'm sure Pastor Dave can't wait to distance himself from George....so maybe he'll be the one to split.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 10:11 pm, George the Preacher writes:
Jim a former Lost Presberterian now a lost Cathloic priest writes: "George, I already accepted Jesus when I was baptized as a child, more importantly he accepted me." ***Do you have any scripture to support this?*** "The bible was canonized by the Catholic Church."*** That is a lie. This has already been covered in a previous post*** "There is no verse in the bible that teaches the bible alone fallacy."*** I would be ASHAMED to call yourself nothing other than a fool! There are 50-100 CLEAR verses that teach that. You are absolutely ignorant of what the bible says. You even disobey the simple command of being born-again by the Spirit. Your water just got you wet, and it will not be found in hell if you do not repent of your idolatries and Catholic heresies and believe in the FINISHED work of Jesus Christ. Repent or perish. You want to die and go to hell as a Catholic, the Lord Jesus Christ will judge you according TO YOUR WORKS (Rev 20:11-15). Open up the bible and read it. The question you must ask is, How does my name get written in the book of life? Yours is not at this time because you refuse to OBEY the gospel of the grace of God and since you preach "another gospel", Paul the Apostle calls you ACCURSED! I am sure you can find that in the bible?
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 10:18 pm, Julie writes:
I wouldn't blame Pastor Dave if he wanted to split from George the Preacher. George is certainly hurting Pastor Dave's case.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 10:30 pm, Pope Fan writes:
I find it hard to take seriously any Christian (or one who calls himself such) who can make a statement such as "I don't care whether or not you go to Heaven." Is this not our common goal, despite our many differences? Are we not called to long for the best for each other and to work toward leading each other toward the Truth? Dear George, you say that this is your aim as you "lift your voice," yet in the same statement you declare again that you do not care for the rest of us to achieve Heaven. Yes, as you have pointed out, you seem to be quite educated. Good for you. But you're grasping at straws if you think that degrees in engineering, etc., make you more qualified to comment in these areas than any of the rest of us. It is my hope and prayer that we will ALL see each other in Heaven - where all our questions will be answered, all our differences forgotten. We walk on very thin ice when we say that we do not care that God's plans for our brothers and sisters mean nothing. Just some food for thought...
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 10:41 pm, street preacher writes:
I reject the catholic confusion for the certainty of God's word. Alexadnder III issued 3939 decrees and Innocent III over 5,000 and "not a few ordinances appear to be contradictory (General Legislation in the New Code canon law 70) The "BULLs" of the popes from 450 to 1857 fill 41 volumes! Blind now follow this babel of confusion. "we are buried beneath the laws. Hence it is that the study of Canon Law is beset with almost inextricable difficulties, the door is open to disputes and litigations, consciences are troubled with a thousand anxieties and people are driven to despise the law" (CE I 645 IX 64) Jesus said for they bind heavy burdens and grievious to be borne, and lay them on mens shoulders History shows us that the UNITY of the RCC has been a trip thru Alices looking glass that grows "curiouser & curiouser" While in belief & practice history shows us that saint goes against saint, popes against popes, councils against councils. There has not been a century for over fifteen hundred years when Catholics were not killing Catholics and you have the Gall to boast of catholic "unity"
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 10:44 pm, Accredited writes:
Pope Fan. Good point. This is where their claims of Christianity breakdown. Love is most important. The desire for Heaven, for all, is paramount. Dues Caritas Est. What happened to the narrow gate? George et al most certainly can't fit thru that gate. Pls, SP repent and be saved....come home to Rome, your Mother. We would all embrace you as brother...yes that means we all love you in spite of everything you have said. 1Cor13.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 10:51 pm, street preacher writes:
My name is not George
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 10:53 pm, street preacher writes:
I am sure you would just love us to death as your fathers did. My forefathers never came out of the RCC Abomination, they were always out of it. So it would not be a homecoming.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 11:00 pm, Accredited writes:
Faith Hope Love abide these three but the greatest of these is LOVE. We do love you and would accept you as brothers. Come home. Pls stop screaming through your bullhorns and look us in the eyes and see Christ living in us. We want to share that love with you.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 11:23 pm, Julie writes:
Hm. Who are the real Christians here? The ones offering love or the ones who spit in faces ... It is crystal clear to me which ones know what they are talking about, and the ones who just keep falling back on lies and abuse (street preachers). Still, I am praying for you SP. Despite your twisted theology, you are children of God.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 11:24 pm, street preacher writes:
Cardinal Hosius, (CATHOLIC) president of the Council of Trent In the year 1560: "If the truth of religion were judged by the readiness and boldness of which a man of any sect shows in suffering, then the opinion and persuasion of no sect can be truer and surer than that of the Anabaptists since there have been none for these TWELVE HUNDRED YEARS PAST, that have been more generally punished or that have more cheerfully and steadfastly undergone, and even offered themselves to the most cruel punishment than these people" (Hosius, Letters Apud Opera 112-113) AGAIN SOMEONE DO THE MATH! 1560 -1200 EQUALS WHAT? "Of the Baptists it may be said that they are not reformers. These people, comprising bodies of Christian believers known under various names in different countries, are entirely distinct and independent of the Roman and Greek churches, and have an unbroken continuity of existence from apostolic days down through the centuries. Throughout this long period, they were bitterly persecuted for heresy, driven from country to country, disfranchised, deprived of their property, imprisoned, —tortured and slain by the thousands; yet they swerved not from their New Testament faith; doctrine and adherence." (Quoted in The New Testament Church by Martin, page 26).
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 11:29 pm, Accredited writes:
My dear RCC brothers and sisters.............Lk627 But to You WHO HEAR I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 11:32 pm, Accredited writes:
Is there any doubt we are being cursed and mistreated. Remember how this whole thing got started. It is a very Narrow Gate.
On Monday, August 21, 2006 at 11:40 pm, street preacher writes:
Now wait a minute, there were many in the crowd at Carey who used the most vile language. None of whom were SP's!
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 12:29 am, Julie writes:
Street preacher, you are so envious of the Catholic Church's unbroken history that traces back to Christ directly, that you are trying to give that same distinction to the Baptists. And you have not convinced me with any kind of solid proof. You are failing miserably in this. Perhaps you should try another falsehood.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 01:23 am, Accredited writes:
I've looked up Hosius. Your original quote is a fiction. It was never written. See the posts above. I'm not sure who you are but it is clear that you are just typing out what you see in a tract or book by an un/noncredible author...like Boettner. Let's get back to LOVE. That seems to make you all uncomfortable. It doesn't appear to be a pillar of your ministry. Again, I believe your ministry is predicated upon personality not education or love. If you'd like to continue let's focus on the origin and theology of LOVE...John 316. Do you get it? That's how you get thru the Gate.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 02:46 am, street preacher writes:
Sorry error is in your link "sean" does not know that Hosius wrote Opera, Venice, (in 1573) or Confutatio prolegomenon Brentii (Lyons, 1564), "They are far readier than followers of Luther and Zwingli to meet death, and bear the harshest tortures for their faith. For they run to suffer punishments, no matter how horrible, as if to a banquet; so that if you take that as a test either of the truth of doctrine or of their certitude of grace, you would easily conclude that in no other sect is to be found a faith so true or grace so certain. But as Paul wrote: "Even if I give my body to be burned and have not charity, it avails me naught. But he has not charity who divides the unity… He cannot be a martyr who is not in the Church". Opera Venice pg 202
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 03:30 am, Accredited writes:
The foremost Western champion of orthodoxy in the early anti-Arian struggle; born about 256; died about 358, either at Sirmium or in Spain. In early life he was a confessor of the Faith in the persecution of Maximian (Morse) or of Diocletian (Hefele), and became Bishop of Cordova in Southern Spain about 295. His name is mentioned amongst the nineteen bishops present at the provincial Council of Elvira (c. 300). What are yo talking about???? Anyone can copy and paste. It's the age of Google.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 03:45 am, street preacher writes:
WRONG Hosius! You lost your accreditation, next time try Stanislaus in your favorite search engine
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 03:46 am, Accredited writes:
The fame of Hosius had meanwhile spread throughout Europe, and Paul IV wished to enlist the pious and learned bishop among his advisers during those troublous times of the Church. In May, 1558, he was called to Rome, and at once became one of the most influential members of the Curia. During his absence from Ermland he left the administration of his diocese in the hands of the cathedral chapter. Paul IV died on 18 August, 1559, and his successor, Pius IV, sent Hosius as legate to the imperial court of Vienna, with instructions to make arrangements with Emperor Ferdinand I for the reopening of the Council of Trent, and, if possible, to bring back to the Church the emperor's son, Prince Maximilian of Bohemia, who had become an open adherent of Protestantism. Hosius easily gained the co-operation of the emperor for the council, but the conversion of Maximilian was more difficult. John Sebastian Pfauser, a reformer at the imperial court, had trained the prince in the doctrines of Luther and Melanchthon, and had put him in correspondence with the apostate Vergerio, who had engendered in him a deep hatred for the papacy and everything Catholic. For two months Hosius tried in vain to have a conference with Maximilian. When, finally, in the early part of June (1560) he procured an audience, the prince remained obdurate in his heresy, but the clear reasoning of Hosius made a deep impression upon him. He began to read the writings of Hosius and willingly listened to him until finally the logical reasoning and the edifying example of Hosius won him back to the Church. In recognition of these services Pius IV created Hosius cardinal on 26 February, 1561. The cardinalate had been offered him before but he persistently refused the dignity, and would have refused it again had not the emperor as well as the pope insisted on his accepting it. The pope, moreover, on 10 March, 1561, appointed him one of the five papal legates who were to preside over the Council of Trent, which was to reopen in April. At the council he was a strenuous defender of papal authority, and used his great influence to bring the council to a successful close.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 03:48 am, Accredited writes:
Not only am I losing my interest but my focus as well. Google came thru for me though....and so it was that Google became their downfall.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 04:14 am, Accredited writes:
The era of the 16th-century Protestant Reformation in Europe spawned a number of radical reform groups, among them the Anabaptists. These Christians regarded the Bible as their only rule for faith and life. They denied the merit of infant baptism, however. Some Anabaptists were revolutionaries. Others, like Menno Simons (1496-1561), were more moderate. Because of their radical beliefs, the Anabaptists were persecuted by other Protestants as well as by Roman Catholics. The above was cut and pasted from www.anabaptists.org
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 04:16 am, Accredited writes:
Here's the link...http://www.anabaptists.org/history/what.html
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 06:50 am, Nighthaven writes:
Well due to the SP's being unable to answer the nails in coffin questions in my earlier conclusion post, we can go ahead and close this debate. I'd like to thank all the Catholics that took the time to read this thread, and the Catholics that lended their wit to this thread. I'd like to thank the SP's for starting this debate; for in these debates us Catholics become even more grounded in our faith. You guys might not like us because of what we believe in, but know if we were heretics the Gates of Hell would of destroyed us long ago. We can go ahead and close this debate. It's been fun, but circular arguments accomplish nothing.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 07:51 am, Nighthaven writes:
I submit this article to the fellow Catholics here http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp This is a great reference tool when confronted with the Sola Scriptura or Bible Alone argument. It also shows a bit on Apostalic Succession, the proof that a church needs to show its valid.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 11:46 am, Peter writes:
George, just because there is a long tradition of heresy, a means by which the Word of God was warped even in the earliest times of the Church, doesn’t mean that such errors are truthful, or for that matter mean that all heresies are coherent with one another. There have been weird distortions of ORTHODOX Christianity for centuries basically because its not difficult for ignorant ill-informed people like yourself to become indoctrinated with some elitist conspiracy theory that sends them on some kind of power trip.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 01:26 pm, George the Preacher writes:
Jim a former Lost Presberterian now a lost Cathloic priest writes: "George, I already accepted Jesus when I was baptized as a child, more importantly he accepted me." ***Do you have any scripture to support this?*** "The bible was canonized by the Catholic Church."*** That is a lie. This has already been covered in a previous post*** "There is no verse in the bible that teaches the bible alone fallacy."*** I would be ASHAMED to call yourself nothing other than a fool! There are 50-100 CLEAR verses that teach that. You are absolutely ignorant of what the bible says. You even disobey the simple command of being born-again by the Spirit. Your water just got you wet, and it will not be found in hell if you do not repent of your idolatries and Catholic heresies and believe in the FINISHED work of Jesus Christ. Repent or perish. You want to die and go to hell as a Catholic, the Lord Jesus Christ will judge you according TO YOUR WORKS (Rev 20:11-15). Open up the bible and read it. The question you must ask is, How does my name get written in the book of life? Yours is not at this time because you refuse to OBEY the gospel of the grace of God and since you preach "another gospel", Paul the Apostle calls you ACCURSED! I am sure you can find that in the bible?
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 01:32 pm, Nighthaven writes:
Street Preacher --- There is a little hiccup with the quote, "Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers," in which you dated 1524 AD. During the year 1524 Hosius was still studying at the universities Padua and Bologna. He finished his studies in the year 1534. He wasn't even a Cardinal yet. Not to mention the Council of Trent didn't start opening sessions till the year 1545. So that quote from Cardinal Hosius is a falsehood, and you are being dishonest for even posting it. Thats straight from the Catholic Encyclopedia too. In the 3rd period of Trent in 1561, Cardinal Hosius was just an assistant to the presiding legate Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga, Cardinal Hosius wasn't the presiding legate, or president as you say. Now onto your second quote from Hosius which you date the year 1560, "If the truth of religion were judged by the readiness and boldness of which a man of any sect shows in suffering, then the opinion and persuasion of no sect can be truer and surer than that of the Anabaptists since there have been none for these TWELVE HUNDRED YEARS PAST, that have been more generally punished or that have more cheerfully and steadfastly undergone, and even offered themselves to the most cruel punishment than these people".--- Hosius wasn't even made a Cardinal till 26 February, 1561, not 1560. In the year 1560 cardinal Hosius was trying to convert Emperor Ferdinand 1's son Prince Maximilian of Bohemia back to the Catholic Faith. The seventeenth session of Trent didn't even begin till the year 1562, The sixteenth session was suspended back in the year 1552. Thats a 10 year gap that the Council of Trent didn't even meet. With the evidence I've submitted it is clear the second quote from Cardinal Hosius is a falsehood also. Niether was the council of Trent even in session during the dates of the quotes, but Cardinal Hosius wasn't even a Cardinal on those dates either. You place your quotes as being the words that Cardinal Hosius uttered at the Council of Trent, which I've disproven. The Catholic Encyclopedia is a very useful tool for pointing out falsehoods, I suggest next time you do your research before you start writing falsehoods. Though the debate is already over, I still felt the need to disprove this one last argument, simply because I couldn't believe that a Cardinal of Rome would ever say such things. Once again real history wins against revisionist history. Actually the only place were I could find reference to the Hosius, Letters Apud Opera 112-113 is at Landmark Baptist websites, and they all just point to the book Trail of Blood. I've already disproven this theory with just 10 minutes worth of research, which is probably more time than what the author of Trail of Blood put into the book. With this vital piece of evidence disproven, the book Trail of Blood falls all to pieces, and thats just after researching just two quotes. I suppose the unchristian thing to do is go on the record in the media and disprove the book along with all baptist claims of existing prior to the Rebellion; but me being a follower of Christ requires me to take the higher path, and let the baptists across the world continue in their fantasy. Once baptists start doing their own research they'll arrive at the same conclusions I've reached.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 01:34 pm, B writes:
Ok, this is just getting funny - "Paul the Apostle calls you ACCURSED!" lol. Does anyone else think that George might just be winding everyone up? Even in America people like this can't really exist.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 01:34 pm, B writes:
Ok, this is just getting funny - "Paul the Apostle calls you ACCURSED!" lol. Does anyone else think that George might just be winding everyone up? Even in America people like this can't really exist.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 01:45 pm, George the Preacher writes:
To all: My ONLY reason for posting "my degree" was to answer a fool who calls himself Accredited making assumptions about the SP's. He said, quote "That's what caused this whole conversation. Riots triggered by ###absurd uneducated people### acting like bullies trying to convert thru intimidation...not love". He said we were ABSURED UNEDUCATED people. All of you are so "stuck on yourselves" that you used "my eduction as an engineer" for dubious purposes. All I did was giving an answer to ONE fool who I QUOTED what he said above in a previous post! So enough already with bringing up my education as though that actullaly meant anything to me!! I count ALL THINGS but DUNG, that I may win Christ. It told him I can READ and THINK just like any of you and STILL stand in front of all of you to OBEY the Master, the Lord Jesus Christ and PREACH to your faces "You are dead in tresspasses and sins, repent, believe the gospel or hell awaits you"! We have not been "Catholitized" by satanic powers (Ep 6) but have been given FREEDOM by the power of the HOLY Ghost to believe our bibles just as it is written! Repent or perish that is your only choice.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 02:24 pm, B writes:
George, it's time to put down the vodka! Them cars ain't gonna fix themselves. Take with you all them extra personailities in your head to whose imaginary faces you think you're preaching and let the computer alone!! How do you ever get any work done when you seem to spend your days posting rants on the internet?
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 02:58 pm, street preacher writes:
White is white no matter what the church calls it!The There is no "unity" as you pretend. By the way what rite do you all belong to? Are you Traditional or or new mass? What support do you have, either biblical or tradition for the Assumption of Mary? Are you Traditional or charasmatic catholic? Is the new mass really of protestant origin? Is Quo Primum still binding? Is the Pope always Infallible and therefore owed blind obedience? OR Is the pope only infallible in his Extraordinary Magisterium? Please help me see thru all this confusion and controversy raging in the "one true church"
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 03:03 pm, street preacher writes:
UNITY???? One only needs a simple look at the "mass" schedule at the Carey event to see that there is no real unity : ) 1CO1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 1CO3:4 1For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? WELL???
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 03:27 pm, street preacher writes:
St. Athanasius had to disobey Pope Liberius, who was the heretic?
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 05:11 pm, Nighthaven writes:
Now that I've disproven your Cardinal Hosius quotes you result to attacking the unity of the church? Oh man this is getting lame. I'm not even going to start research to disprove your lastest posts; because once I do you will just go onto attacking the church because the bible doesn't say priests should buy their shoes at Payless. Or that the bible doesn't say that wood should be used in the construction of church's. It will always be something with you. Though, I'll be waiting when you post a real argument.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 05:46 pm, street preacher writes:
OK now that we have established that there is only a PRETENDED "unity" in the church. The most obvious on its face, being the Carey "mass" schedule. We can move on to other issues. There is a difference between unity & uniformity. There are only two states in which no differences are expressed - the state of the DEAD and the Fascist state. BTW which "right" do you belong too? Who was the founder? What is the language of that rite? No one wants to take a shot at: Is Quo Primum still binding?
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 05:51 pm, street preacher writes:
Nighthaven writes: Now that I've disproven your Cardinal Hosius quotes you result to attacking the unity of the church? Oh man this is getting lame. I'm not even going to start research to disprove your lastest posts. WHY DO YOU NEED TO DO RESEARCH? Translation: I have not even considered these questions> What support do you have, either biblical or tradition for the Assumption of Mary? Are you Traditional or charismatic catholic? Is the new mass really of protestant origin? Is Quo Primum still binding? Is the Pope always Infallible and therefore owed blind obedience? OR Is the pope only infallible in his Extraordinary Magisterium? Please help me see thru all this confusion and controversy raging in the "one true church"
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 07:13 pm, Accredited writes:
George: We don't care about your engineering degree and experience. Actually that's great and impressive. Our concern is your education in theology and biblical scholrship. This is at the heart of the matter. How can some guy by his own shallow and superficial review of a complex text know the mind of God and the condition of another man's soul. That same guy who is by his own admission a sinner and as such not perfect. How can anyone who is not perfect know the perfect mind of God? Someone whose ministry has no love in it and hasn't recognized the Narrow Gate??? Where in the Bible does it say you can condemn anyone? The core of the Gospel is Love. Secure your own way thru the Gate and let God do the rest. Repent of your wicked and evil ways....disrupting the honest and pure of heart at their Liturgy. Shame on you for that.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 07:29 pm, Accredited writes:
SP: Keep the focus on Biblical Scholarship. This conversation isn't about the Novus Ordo Missae. But wait scholarship isn't your thing is it? The Bible really isn't your thing either...if it were you would keep trying to make your point about sola fide/scriptura. So flail around like a spolied child and try to confuse the issue with lots of different things. That works as a tactic on the street, not on boards with solid RCs. What happened to your claims about the Anabaptists? Their own site says something else. That's not your site though right? ZERO credibility...ZERO intellectual capacity. Once again...anyone can scream and yell but very few get thru the Gate. Mater Dei...Ora Pro Nobis.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 07:53 pm, Nighthaven writes:
I'm a traditional Catholic. What does being a Charismatic have to do with this? The church has put no limitations on Charismatic Catholics. They aren't a seperate division of the church. Quit looking for holes when their aren't none. Tradition is the oral teachings of the Apostles, meaning they weren't written down by the Apostles, but spoken by them instead. A greek apocryphal treatise called De Obitu S. Dominae dating from the 4th or 5th century mentions the Assumption of Mary. Whether St. John really wrote it or not doesn't matter. What does matter is that it mentions the Assumption of Mary, which the earliest document we have proving the Assumption is Tradition. Not only that, but the church has deemed the Assumption to be valid, therefore it is. What do you mean 'New Mass'? Are you talking about the Pauline Mass? According to my research its okay for the Pauline Mass as long as the Bishop is fine with it along with the laity of the parish territory. Like I said, the order in which Mass is conducted isn't a dogmatic teaching, its just a church law, so it can change as the Pope sees fit. As for the Quo Primum, you need to be clear on this. Do you mean A Quo Primum or just Quo Primum? Sometimes encylicals use the same names with just a tiny change in the title. Quo Primum deals with the Pauline Mass, which I've already stated the Pope can do it if he so wishes, for it is a Church Law. No the Pauline Mass is not of Protestant origin, Dom Prosper Guéranger founder of the Abbey of Solesmes proposed the idea. The Pope is only infallible when he is speaking in an offical sense on faith and morals and is in league with all the bishops. Meaning the Pope and the bishops are all on the same page and all agree to what he says. If he speaks the infallible truth than all will agree. Infallible teaching is given obedience, for he is the physical head of the church, and is protected by the Holy Spirit by infallibility. For if he tried to speak error on faith and morals his tongue would grow silent before the words even came out. If he were to speak error when talking in an offical sense on faith and morals than the Holy Spirit failed in its task, and would show that God is capable of failure. For the church is the pillar of truth as guided by the Holy Spirit. If your talking about the Pope flexing his muscles and giving out orders to people, that isn't faith and morals and thus aren't subject to infallibility. His orders can be issued, but since he doesn't outrank other Bishops he can't _force_ them to follow his orders if they don't agree with them. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, thus that makes him Pope because he succeeded St. Peter who was the foundation that Christ built his church on. But still as in matters of rank, he is still a bishop. So therefore he can't forcefully order other bishops around. Within his own diocese of Rome, and the Vatican his word is law for that is his territory, much like any other bishops who are the authority over their territories. You know Street Preacher, you show that your able to do research, though I wish you weren't just researching ammunition against the church. You know, you could answer all of your own questions if you spent a little time at: http://www.newadvent.com it houses a Catholic Encyclopedia and is very good in providing answers. If you have an objection against the church, go to www.catholic.com and see what Catholics believe on a certain topic you raise objections to. It helps to get a better view of Catholics when you understand where they are coming from on certain issues. As for me I'm a Latin Rite Catholic, I celebrate a Trinitine Mass, and my mass is said in the vernacular of English. Within the Latin Rite there are still church's that hold mass in the Latin language just like in the old days, but if you can't understand Latin than you can just appreciate the beauty of it. It is way past my bedtime. So I'm gonna head to bed.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 08:05 pm, Nighthaven writes:
Oh and one more thing about the Assumption. Catholics don't believe she was assumed into heaven under her own power, for she isn't God. Jesus took her up into heaven by his own power, seeing as how he is the of the same substance as God. Yes she is the Queen of Heaven, but she isn't God. You gotta be the supreme being in order to work miracles like that.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 08:09 pm, Nighthaven writes:
Jesus Christ was the founder of my church, so thats who my founder is. For Christ founded the church and put St. Peter as its foundation. St. Peter being the first Pope of the RCC shows that we trace our beginnings to Christ.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 09:02 pm, Pope Fan writes:
George - It's certainly fair to label one as "uneducated" who makes slanderous statements and judgments based not on what is true, but on one's on perception of the truth. You are not educated in the Catholic Faith, but continue to make judgments (as has already been stated so clearly by just about everyone on this board) based on what you THINK Catholics believe. Not only has this damaged your case, but also your credibility. By choosing ignorance through your own pride, you have chosen for yourself the label "uneducated."
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 09:07 pm, Pope Fan writes:
Street Preacher asks "why do you even have to do research?" Oh my dear friend - this shows more ignorance than you may have been willing to portray. It is quite clear who on this board has done (and continues to do) their research and who is making broad assumptions based on ignorance. Anyone who doesn't need to do research and doesn't need to continue learning and understanding the Scriptures and the Faith must be dead - for it is only in Heaven that we will know all the answers.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 09:08 pm, writes:
SP, well your false quote is exposed. Creating false quotes is a growth industry among anti-catholics. The fact is I studied Church history. As Newman said, and this is a real quote, "to be deep in history is to cease to be protestant."
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 09:12 pm, Fr. Jim writes:
George, You provide a fine example of the confusion of protestantism. You can't agree with anyone. You place your own interpretation over the scripture and are blind to it. I have challenged fundamentalists to find a verse that says the bible alone is all we need. Never have they found it and 2 Tim. 3:16 does NOT say it either. The words "only" and "alone" do NOT appear in that or any such verse. The bible alone heresy is itself unscriptural! In the end all you have is name calling. Two years of study to learn that?
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 09:30 pm, street preacher writes:
AFA the Hosius quotes. You should not trust your eternal soul to a google search where you dug up a page by the "scholar" sean He makes some disastrous ERRORS. ERROR One he searches an wrong/irrelevant volume and announces EX CATHEDRA - nope not in there. LOL that is pretty funny! The correct volume would be a collection of his letters published Poland in 1800's! Some other vol's our expert CONVIENENTLY COULD NOT FIND:> Paris (1562), Lyons (1564), Antwerp (1566 and 1571), Venice (1573), and Cologne (1584). ERROR #2 from the scholar sean who says "There is no section titled "Apud Opera" among Hosius‘ complete works. Now that is really funny! why would there be a section titled "printed at" ?????? ROTFL! http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07473a.htm In the following quotes fron CE, you will find evidence of the existance of the "unknown to sean" volumes, Opera venice 1573 & works pub Lyons 1564 (previously cited by sp) quote from CE >"The publication of his numerous letters has been begun by Hipler and Zakrzewski, vols. I and II (Cracow, 1879 and 1888). The letters in these two volumes cover a period of 33 years (1525-1558). Other letters are found among those of Peter Canisius, edited by Braunsberger (Freiburg, 1897-1905)." PLEASE notify sean to search the right books!
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 09:37 pm, street preacher writes:
Quote "De Obitu S. Dominae dating from the 4th or 5th century mentions the Assumption of Mary. Whether St. John really wrote it or not doesn't matter." Are you saying forgery does not matter?
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 09:38 pm, street preacher writes:
OR is it I will accept anything at all PRO and will burn anything CON?
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 09:40 pm, Fr. Jim writes:
A Cardinal doesn't speak ex cathedra. A Cardinal can even be in error. Even if a Cardinal said there were baptists in the early church he would be wrong. And why if there were and they were the real church would he not join them? It doesn't make any sense, like most fundy arguments. No historian of note accepts the idea that the early church was some sort of proto-american fundamentalist protestant group. What website did you get your quote from?
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 09:57 pm, Accredited writes:
Once again he is trying to force confusion upon us to divert the real argument....sola scriptura and sola fide. OK SPs? Don't be afraid. Stand by what you believe. How 'bout that Anabaptist website I cited a few posts back? Is the SP really an expert on Hosius? Is/was that the topic of his Doctoral dissertation? Ya right. Cutting and pasting that's all. Helloooo,,,Sola scriptura???? Anabaptists...you out there???
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 11:41 pm, Pator Dave writes:
I have learned some things on this site. I admit it. I have found out that everything from an RC perspective comes from its claims on history. The logic is that since they have been here the longest, they are right and everyone else is wrong. I finally get that. Thus all of the historal banter. This is why you all cannot refute anything with scripture. You are history experts and not biblical experts. You have cleary demonstrated that. Nighthaven, your comments on worship show a complete ignorance of the scripture and prove that you "use" scripture like other cults do. Yes, your definition of worship is different than "ours", but keep in mind that ours came from the scripture. As street preacher exposed your folly by showing your misleading words like "venerate" and "honor" really meaning "worship" and then you continue to have us believe that you don't worship Mary because you said so. My friend words have meanings and cultists manipulate words to control people. So either you and your church are ignorant or manipulative and neither one is good. The verses you used to show the worship of men in the bible certainly do so, but unfortunately for you you did not prove that this was approved of God in the Bible. That is the issue. I could show you men telling lies, men fornicating with their sisters, men murdering other men, in the bible. Does this mean that God approves of such things because they are in the Bible? Of course not. It only shows the truth of the recorded account of those men's sins.You would have us believe that it is ok to worship men? Because its in the Bble? Then according to that logic its ok to fornicate and murder. This is why God wrote 2 Tim 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly (note: not wrongly) dividing the word of truth. Notice, God wants you to know your Bible, not your history and genealogies (see Titus 3:9). You seem to have some fans on this post and you certainly have earned them with your historical knowledge, but that does not impress God one bit. As George showed in an earlier post (if you would have looked up the verses), you would have learned about Peter refusing to accept worship unlike your modern day popes who receive much praise and worship of men. Since you have proven to any reader of these posts, that you have intelligence, you are either wilfully ignorant of the scriptures, or you are one of those described by Paul in 2 Tim 3:7 "ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." As for you famous "final nails", who says you get to make the rules? I can play that game too. If you refuse to answer my questions that were asked, then we win. See thats easy. 2 can play that game. You have played a masterful game here by trying to make everything a historical argument. I do not have to prove my historical roots to you any more than I have to prove who my mother is. The main issue is not history, but God's TRUTH. Jesus said in John 17:17 that God's word is truth. He says in this chapter that his disciples would be santified (set apart for God's use) by God's word. Not by tradition, but by God's word. Jesus said in John 14:6 that He is the Truth. He is also called the Word of God in John 1:1. Do you see the pattern developing here? The word of God (Bible) is truth. Jesus said in John 8:31-32 that " if ye continue in my word are ye my disciples indeed and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." So let's stick to the topic and not go off on your history trip. You fail to look at anything these other men have posted and dismiss it out of hand just because you said so. You had earlier stated that Ignatius called you catholics in 110AD. Sorry, Nighthaven, he called somebody catholic but it wasn't those that practice the Roman religion. Besides the word catholic means "universal" not "unity" as you say. Ignatius was using the word as an adjective not a noun. He was talking the universal church. You know, the Body of Christ. The whole of all the born again christians. Those that had been given the Holy Spirit as an earnest of their inheritance (see Eph 1:4; Eph 4:30). These were the christians found in the churches that Paul founded in say Colossae, Phillipi, and the rest and all other born again people up to the date of Ignatius' statement. That same "universal" church is the one I was baptized into (see 1Cor 12:13) when I received the Holy Ghost upon my conversion. See these people knew they were going to heaven ( see 1 John 5:13) not hoping so as your church teaches. None of these people that Ignatius was speaking of took part in any sacraments, worshipped Mary, prayed to canonized saints (dead people), payed indulgences, or earned their salvation. These were not, and are not of what is now the modern Roman church. As far as your spin on 2 Thess. 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." You say this means that your church may create any tradition you want to through Rome. This is wishful thinking and vain imagination on your part. Read it again. It says plainly that they should hold on to the traditions which they HAVE BEEN taught. Notice that have been is past tense. Nighthaven, an eigth grade english student can figure that out. How did you miss this unless you wanted to. This does not say to hald fast to the traditions that you have been andwill be taught. So by what authority does your church create new traditions? Not by God. It also says by word (verbal) , or by our epistle. The our is THE apostles at most and Paul at least. Notice the book of Acts is called "The Acts of THE Apostles". As if there were to more future apostles. What a joke. THE apostles died out around 100 AD. Therefore, there were no more apostles afterward to make up new rules. The verse is talking about the verbal teachings and writings of these men of which we have the written accounts of in the scriptures. What verbal traditions does your church adhere to that are not in the bible but predate the death of the apostles? You do not have any. Therefore, your church is as Jesus spoke of in Mark 7:5-13 when speaking to the religious men of His day the Pharisees "5Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? 6He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 11But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 12And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." The RC and its doctrines are late comers to the scene my friend. How can a man have eternal life? Can you answer that? If so, did anyone in the bible that the bible says got saved and had eternal life get saved that way? If they did not, then how come they could get saved without the RC and we cannot. Has God changed his way of salvation? The RC soteriology is later than the soteriology of the bible. Therefore you are the new kids on the block. More in next post
On Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 11:53 pm, Accredited writes:
Although it was not the Reformers' original intention to radically reject the teaching authority of the Church, there was not unity of scriptural interpretation among the various Protestant movements. Because their early attempts to establish a consensus based on the Scriptures failed, the Reformation proceeded in three general directions: the Lutheran exclusivists, the Reformed, and the Anabaptists. The Lutherans aimed at establishing an evangelical consensus immediately, but the Reformed brought diverse groups into international association with one another on more liberal principles, which damaged hopes of union with the Lutherans. Meanwhile, the Anabaptists espoused an alternative view of history in which the true Church became hidden or lost through a Great Apostasy dating from Constantine. From that time forward fragmentation based on sola scriptura has predominated within Protestantism, although rare movements toward union have achieved success. (Like the Methodists and Lutherans signing on with the RCC about Slavation) Wikipedia: Sola Scriptura. From the above it sounds like the Reformation failed. Thank God for the true Church.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 12:00 am, Accredited writes:
As far as I know wikipedia isn't an entity of the RCC. Is it folks? So the Anabaptist very own website states essentially the same as the above....that Anabaptists are a product of the Reformation...make that the Revolution. Interesting.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 12:11 am, Fr. Jim writes:
The Church predates the New Testament. You would not even have the NT without the Church which gave it to you. Quoting the Bible apart from the Church takes it out of its context. It would be like studying the OT without any reference to Israel. The Catholic Church is THE Biblical Church as it produced and canonized the Bible. Every heretical group says, "you've gotten it wrong, the bible says..." Yet none of them agree. We end up with 30,000 churches all of which claim to follow the bible alone, but no two of which can agree on what the bible means. You simply give us your personal interpretation and say it's best. Not too convincing. I am afraid you cannot escape this fact. We quote the Bible extensively, see our catechism. For example my bible says "hold fast to tradition whether by letter or by word of mouth." I never heard that preached on in a fundamentalist church. The Reformation led to Deformation. You can't even agree on what salvation means. Believe it or not the Catholic Church teaches we are saved by grace, but not by faith alone. The only place faith alone is mentioned is in James where it is explicitly denied. Your soteriology is saying the sinners prayer at an altar call. I never saw in the NT where Jesus said to do that nor will you ever find the phrase, "accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior and nothing else is required." This is 19th century theology, such as it is, and was foreign to the early Church.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 12:15 am, Fr. Jim writes:
For the complete article and refutation of the purported statements by Cardinal Hosius go to: http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/forgeries/hosius.html
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 12:15 am, Julie writes:
More fairy tales from Pastor Dave. Pastor Dave, have you NOT been reading? I can tell you haven't. The truth will just never sink in, because you prefer lies. You are not interested in the truth. You are interested in hate. You have been brainwashed and led astray by some Fundamentalist cult. I guess we can't help that if you never open your heart to Christ. I have never seen anyone so determined to call black white and white black. This is pathological.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 12:36 am, Pastor Dave writes:
Nighthaven, you mention that popes only speak for the church when speaking from the throne "ex cathedra". Therefore, you claim, it matters not how the pope lives, whether or not he was a fornicator, muderer, liar, drunk, etc. it matters not. Are you out of your mind? We already mentioned the qualifications of a bishop from 1 Tim 3:2 of which you have not addressed. He "must be" the husband of one wife, thus disqualifying all of the bishops of your church including the bishop of Rome.If that plain English doesn't suffice, you forget that there are other qualifications of a bishop in that chapter. Here they are in their entirety. 1Tim 3:1-5 "This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. As any unbiased and wide eyed reader can see, it dows matter how your popes live. They were all unqualified by God and yet you think they speak as God on Earth and you want us to take you seriously? You live and apparently will die by their decrees and yet they were not a one of them qualified to even be a bishop let alone the pope. Lets go over the qualifications one at a time shall we. Just in case you didn't get it yet. 1Blameless- you mean an adulterous pope is blameless. No he is disqualified. 2. Husband of one wife. There may be a few exceptions, Peter being one of them (see Matt 8:14),but the overwhelming majority are disqualified. 3.Vigilant Hey they may meet one qualification after all. But remember, a bishop "must be" qualified in every point. 4:Sober- I'll let you figure this one out, but some of the fake history I have read disqualifies more than a couple popes here. 5. of good behaviour- I do not think murdering heretics and competing bishops is good behaviour. Another one bites the dust. 6. Given to hospitality- I suppose requiring that mortal bow before them is hospitable. I'll give you this one. 7. Apt to teach- They certainly were teaching something; that'll teach those heretics to write books and preach the gospel on the street. 8. Not given to wine- oops they are disqualified every week. Oh yeah, that's right, its not wine its blood no matter what my microscope shows me. My mistake. 9. No striker- I suppose they never laid a hand upon one another as they were fighting for control of the throne. Oh thats right, thats the fake history again. Besides, they probably had someone else do the striking for them 10. not greedy of filthy lucre- They will certainly be disqualified here even in the real history you get to read. They only control billions of dollars and invented indulgences to extort millions of peasants out of their life savings. 11. patient- I am sure some of the bishops of Rome were patient enough to let some poor heretic say goodbye to his family before he had them murdered. 12. not a brawler- I am sure all the popes had control over their tempers so they may make it on the good side on this one. 13. not covetous- They didn't all want to take over Jerusalem and willing to wage war to do it. 14. One that ruleth well his own house having his children in subjection with all gravity; (for if a man know not how to rule his house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) - I get confused here, how does a bishop of Rome have children when he is not married. According to God he cannot know how to care for the church of God. DISQUALIFIED ALL. 15. Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.- looks to me like being a novice has something to do with being proud. You know, like, "we are the one true church and I am Christ on earth so listen up". Looks like pride to me when one is carried aroud on a throne. 16. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. - I wonder what the report of the pope was to the outsiders he was killing and taxing? Just asking. So as you can see, you and your history are full of unqualified by God bishops and it is these unqualified men and their decrees and edicts that you follow. Friend it is obvious that you have been sold a bill of goods and now you have been convinced to defend it. Its sort of like that "emporors new clothes" kind of thing. This is why we preach on the street. To help people be free from the bondage of religion and come unto the One who can make them free by His word, Jesus Christ and Him alone.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 12:46 am, Julie writes:
Pastor Dave, Do you see how these people all still care about you? Are open and willing to give you answers and to listen to you? This is what Christianity does to people who truly open their hearts to it. This is Christ. If these learned Catholic gentlemen decided to turn their backs on Christ and follow a baser human desire, they would go on the streets and scream at people they don't agree with.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 12:47 am, Pastor Dave writes:
Priest Jim, I have heard it said many times that we wouldn't have the bible if it weren't for the RC. Although this is not entirely true, to difuse the argument lets say that it is 100 percent true. Now, did God not use Balaam's ass to speak to men? God could have used the devil to do His bidding if he wants to. Therefore, using the RC does not mean that God endorses the disobedience the RC has to that Bible. Isn't it ironic that the RC claims to have igven us the Bible yet ignores the Bibles teachings and does not obey it. Didn't God use a murderer and adulterer to write Psalms? Didn't Jesus have a devil amongst his twelve? What does where the bible come from have anything to do with whether one obeys it or not. As a matter of fact, you will have even more to answer for because you cannot say you didn't know what God said.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 12:51 am, Pastor Dave writes:
Nighthaven, you said in an earlier post that the RC and her popes didn't murder anyone because it was the state that did its bidding. Since you know history, you know that the states were controlled by the RC and anyways, you think I am dumb enough to not know that someone who hires a hit man is also guilty of murder whether or not he lites the fire? Shame on you for thinking this excuses the RC for its crimes against God's laws. (Thou shalt not kill).
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 01:01 am, Pastor Dave writes:
Julie, I appreciate your kindness, and that of the others. I can only say that we do not scream at people. I know its a different kind of ministry, but it shouldn't be. It is commanded by the Lord Jesus in Mark 16:15. Can we be a little more refined in our preaching. If we can, we pray that God will lead us and teach us that. We see in the bible that none of the apostles preached love. They preached judgment. Read the book of Acts. The word love does not appear in the whole book. Now, if you were able to meet us when we aren't preaching, I think you may be surprised to know that we are just men. We cry like others, laugh and love our wives and children. I would have no problem sitting down and having a cup of coffee with anyone on this post. I do not hate any of you. I know that your motive is love for me but know that is mine for you as well. I am with the Lord when he says that "God is not willing that any should perish... but that all should come to repentance." Nighthaven and Accredited have said some pretty hard things themselves. I do not take it personally because I know that is how the game is played when contending for the faith. I am sure they are nice people as you seem to be also.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 01:06 am, Pastor Dave writes:
Priest Jim, you made a comment on 2 Thess 2:15 about traditions I wrote a comment on that just before you made yours. You were probably typing that as I was typing mine. So rather than re-post it just go up a little and read it. Thanks.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 01:13 am, Pastor Dave writes:
Oh I forgot to mention the comments of Jesus when he said that you shall know a tree by its fruit when addressing the issue of false prophets. It is found in Matt 78:15-20 "15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Now if you look st the fruit of the RC over the course of the millenia, you see wars (crusades), the murder of heretics, political subterfuge, the purposeful hiding of the bible from its people in a dead language for centuries (I wonder what they were trying to hide?) etc. If the bible says that a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, how is it that Rome has produced evil fruit if it is a good tree? This tells me that I can know that Rome is false by its fruit.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 01:16 am, Pope Fan writes:
Pastor Dave - Take notice of the fact that if the RC's didn't fall back on our knowledge of history, then you would (and have - just read over the board again) slam us for not knowing our history! Aside from that, you then state that "your comments on worship show a complete ignorance of the scripture and prove that you "use" scripture like other cults do." I find this ridiculously humorous as you (and George and the rest of your buddies) very obviously "use" Scripture in the stereotypical fundamentalist fashion: that is, you know the formula....."when a catholic says this, respond with this." That's not knowledge - that's rote memorization. To truly know and understand the Scriptures is to know and understand history. Once that happens, as stated by more than one of my RC brothers and sisters, it's impossible to deny the Truth that lies within.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 02:16 am, Julie writes:
The fruit of the "RC" church is social programs, programs for the poor, food pantries, Catholic Charities, homes for Katrina victims, education, etc., and also myself and my family, who were all taught to put others' needs above their own. And I try very hard every day to be kind to others. And every morning I ask Christ to be with me through the day so that I may do His will and not mine. This is fruit of the RC. I had two Baptist evangelists come to my door tonight, and tell me a couple of pretty lame lies about my church while they stood there grinning like idiots. I thought, oh my Gosh. How does Christianity breed such hatred and intolerance? There are wrong paths that we can take. All of us. People have in history veered from Catholicism and delved into the base human need for control, or greed, etc. These things are attacks UPON the Church, not anything that is the fruit of it. The fruit of it is me. And my family. And Dave, you are a passionate person who seeks the truth. Don't listen to people like those guys who were at my door tonight. Yuck. The truth is there. How easy it is to twist it. Nobody will take me away from Christ. But there are things out there that do violence to Christ and His message. But His message is there in the Catholic Church. Does that mean there are no Catholics who will screw it up? No. Dave, God be with you. Wherever you go.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 02:27 am, street preacher writes:
The Pope has NO Authority to invent new doctrine, he is not the author of revelation, but only interpreter & expounder. God has promised to preserve His word He never promised to preserve tradition! RCC says Q. How do we know the scriptures are Authoratative? A. Only by virtue of the Church's assent thru it's authority conferred on it by Christ as recorded in the NT Q. How do we know the church is Authorative? A. The scriptures record the authority conferred by Christ to the Church. Isn't that a little bit circular?
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 02:33 am, Accredited writes:
Good post Julie. You shall indeed know a tree by its fruit. Pastor Dave: I can't believe you actually posted the false prophets verse. The false prophet is you and the SP. The SP are new to the scene claiming some unprovable link to the early church. That is why history is so important. We've always been there thru thick and thin doing the Lord's work. As I've shown you are a creation of the Revolution. Your fruits are discord and hatred. What you do at these processions and Liturgies is wrong (clearly bad fruit). You pray on the naive and poorly educated with wicked snares and falsehoods. How devious is your ministry. Your lies about your heritage is just an example. Sola fide, where is that in the bible? What are your sources for sola scriptura/fide? If the police told you that you could only yell and scream at that corner then why yell and scream at all? Shouldn't you have stopped until after the Liturgy? Gentleman? Loving christian neighbors? Get thee behind me...false prophet.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 02:33 am, Pastor Dave writes:
Pope Fan, you say that " To truly know and understand the Scriptures is to know and understand history." Really. Lets see. Then if I go and learn history I can understand scripture. You do not really believe that do you? If thats true then I guess the devil understands the scripture because he knows history better than you ever will because he was there. This means that any atheistic history professor is a bible scholar. The bible says in 1 Cor. 2:12-14 - 12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.- As you can see Pope Fan, history is not a requirement to know the words of God. The prerequisite is the Holy Spirit not history. You need to born again to have the Holy Spirit not have a history degree.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 02:34 am, street preacher writes:
Jim says "For the complete article and refutation of the purported statements by Cardinal Hosius go to: http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/forgeries/hosius.html" BE SURE TO LOCATE THE SECTION CALLED "Printed by" LOL
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 02:40 am, street preacher writes:
Jim says "A Cardinal doesn't speak ex cathedra" If the Pope is NOT Innerrant concerning TRUTH and NOT Impeccible concerning MORALS, What protects you personally from ERROR?????
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 02:42 am, Pastor Dave writes:
Julie,Looks like the same fruit as Hezbollah to me. Are they christians now too? The point is that no sane person knowing the Jesus of the Bible can fathom that his "representative" on earth ie the pope, vicar of Christ, could misrepresent Jesus to the world any worse than be responsible for the murder of millions of people and then claiming that since he and his church feeds some poor people that it just makes the fact of murder go away, and oh by the way I am Christ on earth, just forget that murder part. Could you see Jesus doing this?
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 02:47 am, street preacher writes:
Nighthaven says "Not only that, but the church has deemed the Assumption to be valid, therefore it is." Impeccible FLAWless LOGIC there. POTUIT, DECUIT, FECIT. (1) God can do all things. (2)It is proper that it should be so(Mary should be assumed) (3)THEREfore God did it!
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 02:50 am, Julie writes:
Pastor Dave, I don't see my Pope murdering anybody? Do you see my Pope murdering anybody?
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 02:52 am, Julie writes:
Pastor Dave, when you tell us that our church is a murderer, etc. You lose all credibility with us up front. And the Pope does not misrepresent Jesus. Your group does, however.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 02:58 am, Julie writes:
How on earth could you take what I said and twist it into Hezbollah? You guys are masters at twisting. I am still scratching my head on that one. I mean, what you said MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL. Doesn't that matter to you? This is just bizarre.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 03:00 am, Accredited writes:
SP...he was speaking of authority. Ya know that thing which everyone of you claim to have just 'cause you said "I accept Jesus as my personal Lord and Saviour". Ya know that thing that ultimately has given the world thousounds of different Protestant churchs....personally I love the Episcopal and Unitarian church's. That is such good FRUIT. Just perfect examples of the Holy Spirit working for a clear understanding and beautiful application of the the Word of God. I think they have interpreted the Narrow Gate to mean the super broad and wide Gate but that's the fruit of the Holy Spirit working thru their own persoanl interpretation.....LOLOLOLOLOLOL
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 03:05 am, Julie writes:
Right you are. LOL. Good examples.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 03:06 am, Pastor Dave writes:
Accredited, Jesus told the devil in Matt 4 and Luke 4 that man shall not live by bread alone but by the word of God. Not tradition. I Peter 2:2 Peter tells us to desire the sincere milk of the word that ye may grow thereby. Not by tradition but the word. Paul commended the Bereans in Acts 17 for searching the scritptures not looking to tradition. Peter said in 1 Peter 1:23 that we are born-again not by corruptible seed but of incorruptible, by the word of God that liveth and abideth forever. The word abides forever not traditions of men, those change. Paul said in Romans 10:17 that faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Not by hearing tradition. You cannot even ave faith without the scripture. Jesus said in John 8 that if we continue in his word you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. You know the truth by the word NOT by tradition. Jesus said in John 5 to search the scriptures. Paul said in 2 Tim 3:16-17 that the scripture is for a man that he may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good works. You say I am not throughly furnished by scripture because I wouldn't know what works to do until the traditions of the RC come along. I'll believe Paul as inspired by the Holy Ghost. You don't have to if you do not want to. Peter said in 2 Peter 1:16-20 that he was an eyewitness of Jesus' majesty, and that he heard the Father's voice on the Mount of Transfiguration,and then says that we ahve a MORE SURE word of prophecy in the scriptures. He says that the scriptures were more sure than anything he ever saw of heard and that includes the time he spent with Christ. Yet you say that the word is not sure because we need more than that. You should listen to your first pope more often. Paul said in 2Tim 3:15 that Timothy had from a child "known the holy scriptures which are able to make the wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." You say he needed more than the scriptures to know how to be saved because the traditions of the RC hadn't been invented yet. I guess Paul lied then. Like Peter said about the scripture that ye do well that ye take heed. You see it is the scripture my friend unless you call these men liars under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost or explain the plainness of the meaning of these passages to hold onto your traditions, and they are your traditions and not God's.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 03:08 am, George the Preacher writes:
Pope fan writes:George - "It's certainly fair to label one as "uneducated" who makes slanderous statements and judgments based not on what is true, but on one's on perception of the truth." What is amazing that you NEVER list any of these slanderous statements. Let me list a few FACTS for you. 1> Is it true or false that you continue by "guilt of association" to support Catholocism who has Sodomites in parishes that have MOLESTED young boys? 2> Is it true or false that you support a LYING priests in Carey who was contradicted by the Chief of Police of Carey that the SP's were at fault for the attack of a police officer and a fellow preacher? 3> Is it true or false that you do not know whether you have everlasting life dwelling in you today? 4> Is it true or false that you KILLED Christians who did not agree with you? 5> Is it true or false that you use idols in your worship (Mary, statues in groves, saints, scaplars, rosaries, water, mass, pictures, etc)? 6> Is is true or false that you have titles of Popes, Magisterium, Cardinals, nuns which have no biblical basis? Well these are enough facts for now as you have become blind leaders of the blind. May the Lord God free you of your religious blindness! You have spiritual death living in you, that is why you all refer to "tradition" and "history" to try to cover your sin. But, your sin has found you out TODAY.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 03:09 am, Pastor Dave writes:
Julie, you said the fruit of the RC was "is social programs, programs for the poor, food pantries, Catholic Charities, homes for Katrina victims, education, etc., and also myself and my family, who were all taught to put others' needs above their own." Your words not mine. Do you not know that Hezbollah does the same things for their people, or do you only know history and nothing of what goes on around you today? Therefore according to your logic, their fruit proves them to be of God.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 03:13 am, Pope Fan writes:
Pastor Dave - Please don't tell me you're one of those poor misled souls who actually believes that the Devil doesn't believe in God. You BET the Devil knows the Scriptures (how else can you explain how easily you and your cohorts have twisted it into total falsehood?!) And regarding the relationship between an understanding of Scripture and an understanding of history -think outside your box for about a milisecond and you'll get it. Having a knowledge of the history that predates the Scriptures as well as the history that took place during the writing of the New Testament helps you understand what you're reading. (It would be futile to try to read these books outside of the context in which the events they record took place.) By the same token, having a knowledge of the Scriptures can help us to understand and interpret the past 2000 years of history that has been lived since the writing of the NT. Thankfully, the guidance of the Holy Spirit IS our key to understanding all of this - but it takes two to tango my friend. The Holy Spirit to guide and us to follow where the Spirit TRULY leads. You may be able to twist and misinterpret the words of the people on this board - but it's generally bad business to try to do that with the words of God. Just a thought.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 03:17 am, Pope Fan writes:
Oh that's right. You got me. I'd forgotten about all those Christians I've been killing who don't agree with me. I stand corrected.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 03:19 am, Pope Fan writes:
Street Preacher - Since when (and please don't give me historical references because, as you've already pointed out, that's what Catholics do and that's not good enough...) is the Pope making up new doctrines? Since never - we know this (as would anyone educated in the Scriptures....sorry George...) that public revelation ended with the death of John, the last apostle. Therefore all doctrines were set in stone by the end of the first century. It's not the Pope you have a problem with - it's the Lord and His Word, expressed to us through Sacred Scripture.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 03:34 am, George the Preacher writes:
Pope fan writes:George - "It's certainly fair to label one as "uneducated" who makes slanderous statements and judgments based not on what is true, but on one's on perception of the truth." What is amazing that you NEVER list any of these slanderous statements. Let me list a few FACTS for you. 1> Is it true or false that you continue by "guilt of association" to support Catholocism who has Sodomites in parishes that have MOLESTED young boys? 2> Is it true or false that you support a LYING priests in Carey who was contradicted by the Chief of Police of Carey that the SP's were at fault for the attack of a police officer and a fellow preacher? 3> Is it true or false that you do not know whether you have everlasting life dwelling in you today? 4> Is it true or false that you KILLED Christians who did not agree with you? 5> Is it true or false that you use idols in your worship (Mary, statues in groves, saints, scaplars, rosaries, water, mass, pictures, etc)? 6> Is is true or false that you have titles of Popes, Magisterium, Cardinals, nuns which have no biblical basis? Well these are enough facts for now as you have become blind leaders of the blind. May the Lord God free you of your religious blindness! You have spiritual death living in you, that is why you all refer to "tradition" and "history" to try to cover your sin. But, your sin has found you out TODAY.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 03:49 am, Accredited writes:
Pastor Dave...Matthew 4 and Luke 4???? Do either of those say NOT TRADITION?????? Nope not in my bible. Our lord was talking to the devil thru the "temptation"...why did you use this for sola scriptura???? Again where does it say NOT TRADITION? or ONLY Scripture. What were the Bereans doing? Were they RCs????? Hummm????? Episcopalians and Unitarians......;-)
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 04:04 am, street preacher writes:
In the past Rome denied suppressing the Bible while at the same time giviving reasons why it should be suppressed. Reminds me of the man who pleads not guilty to the charge of murder and in the same breath tells the court WHY he murdered his victim! Pope Sixtus V published the 1590 version of the Latin Vulgate acompanied by a bull declaring it as "official and unalterable", forever valid. Unfortunately it was riddled with errors and had to be quickly reprinted by Clement VIII with Sixtus name on the title page, in order to save face & cover up. The preface inserted into the new version, made the printers the scape goats.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 04:09 am, Accredited writes:
SP: How's the doctoral thesis coming on Hosius? Are you also doing concurrent work on Sixtus and Clement? Your last post means nothing...if it's true, then hey...stuff happens. That's life. Especially in 1590 all that technology they had. Yah. Ya know the same tech you are using to write and research your doctoral thesis.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 04:17 am, Accredited writes:
George: What do you mean by your sin has found you today? I really don't get that. Now George pls remember the Narrow Gate oh and the plank in your own eye. I'm sorry I forgot...you're SAVED. No plank in your eye right? Nothing but good fruit. Episcopalians and Unitarians. LOLOLOL
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 04:19 am, street preacher writes:
ACC says "...if it's true, then hey...stuff happens" TRANSLATION If the Pope says any changes brings anathema and the next pope changes it, OH WELL...then hey stuff happens!
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 04:21 am, George the Preacher writes:
Some more facts. The bible declares that Jesus Christ said "I will make you fishers of men", ie one who preaches the gospel (Mk 16:15) so that Jesus Christ can draw men unto himself, NOT a church. It is obvious from church history, that only the "first pope" ever truly followed Jesus. There is not one case in history where a Catholic pope personally preached to sinners on the streets like their "first pope"- Acts 4, unless he threatened them with death, arrest, imprisonment, exile, taxing or torture. Just read the biographies ANY pope and compare them to Dwight Moody, Billy Sunday, John Wesley, George Whitefield, Tyndale, Wycliff, Jonathan Goforth, Adoniram Judson, etc. ANY pope, including this current one would be silenced by men of God such as these. Roman Catholocism's main goal is no different than any Islamic ruler, a one world geo-political fascist, religious dictatorship with the Pope in charge. Someone once called the Roman Church "four riddles wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma". I would say that they are "a hoax wrapped up in religious hypocracy, covered by subterfuge and historically a bunch of covetuous killers"! They are a perfect example of the Pharisees during the time Jesus Christ appearance and who John the BAPTIST said of them "Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance". But what certainly is one of the most egregious statements that certainly would be the "riddle of all riddles wrapped up in ten mysteries inside an inscrutable enigma" is calling one of these paranoid egomanics "HOLY FATHER"! You cannot imagine any SANE creature on the earth in a CIVILIZED society believing in such a thing as even being DECENT, let alone "pious". These "pious" ones and there followers will continue to blaspheme God the Father, ie HOLY FATHER (Jn 17:11) whom Jesus Christ referred to in his holy prayer to HIS Father! I cannot imagine a man standing in front of one who created the heaven and the earth, the Lord Jesus Christ, who himself is never called Holy Father, allowing himself to be called that and then men bowing down and even kissing his hand!! This will go down in history as the GREATEST FOOL who ever lived! Hell will be HOT for all these who have made themselves blind leaders of the blind while there converts are made "twofold more the child of hell than themselves". Repent or perish.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 04:23 am, street preacher writes:
Thanks guys, I am starting to understand Popes are only infallible when it is convienient!
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 04:25 am, Accredited writes:
SP: Brilliant. Really. Brilliant. At which University are you doing your doctoral work?
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 04:34 am, street preacher writes:
CMON George can't you see the similarities between the Pope & Christ? They both wear crowns! One of thorns and one a triple decker worth over $1mill, they both are heads of kingdoms One "not of this world" JN 18:36 and the other the head of this world's kingdoms. One dressed as a lowly peasent the other in ornate & expensive garments. One came to serve and to suffer; had “no place to lay his head” Mt. 8:20 the other waited on by servants in the lap of luxury beyond your wildest dreams. One lived a sinless life & perfection Hb 4:15 the other in gross immorality!
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 04:48 am, George the Preacher writes:
Accredited writes:"George: What do you mean by your sin has found you today? I really don't get that." In other words, you do NOT have to go back to ANY history to prove the FACTS as presented in my post except for Q4. These previous stated facts only prove that the historical interpretation of the bible by RC is riddled with lies and distortions of truth. We believe what the bible says TODAY without ANY reason to prove it with historical evidence. The bible itself HAS THE HISTORY necessary to understand TRUTH and requires only the Spirit of truth, the Holy Ghost to lead you into ALL truth. Just as Pastor Dave pointed out a man must "Study to show himself approved UNTO God (not man!), rightly DIVIDING the word of truth". In your cases we do not have to deal with "meat", but milk instead. You have such a terrible time believing what IT SAYS without all your hocus-pocus, slight of hand, historical drival you use to confuse yourselves. Pastor Dave SYSTEMATICALLY provided many answers to questions without ONE of you actually quoting what he said and commenting on it. I know why, because he used THE BIBLE to disprove all your "historical tomfoolery". As a surgeon, he used biblical historical evidence shown by his many biblical quotes using the word of God "as a two-edged sword" to "piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart". Your pejorative attitude toward him is the hypocracy anyone who is HONEST can see. He has been a gentlemen, with arguments against all that was written, while you continue to ignore most of them. A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 05:07 am, Accredited writes:
Good one:-) JN1836...not of this world....ah, 'cause it's Heaven. Where he sits at the right hand of God. Resplendent in Glory. The other the head of this world's Kingdoms...ah, 'cause he is the Vicar of Christ. Hb4:15 sinless life and perfection...ah, 'cause he is GOD.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 06:46 am, Pope Fan writes:
George - wow! Right again - John Paul II neither served nor suffered during his time as Pope You're really unbelievable - and I mean that literally. Oh, and as for your facts (which I believe you posted twice? That doesn't give you double the "facts" you know.) Those aren't facts, my friend. Those are questions phrased in the form of accusations. And, of course, they're all false....except, of course, that you can't honestly expect me to agree to "fact" #2 as it would require me to take your word for the supposed actions of this priest in Carey. Sorry, but I simply don't find enough credibility within you to do that. And, of course, #3...well, that would be a bit prideful, wouldn't it? I believe I've stated before that our friend St. Paul had some things to say about pride - and none of them are good. It won't get us anywhere - most especially heaven. Accredited mentions the "plank" - I assume you're familiar with that citation, as would the rest of your pals on here who are Scripture Scholars. The people who get to Heaven are those who actually acknowledge the presence of said plank. It's all part of that narrow Gate thing that you keep avoiding.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 12:01 pm, Julie writes:
Pastor Dave, I am STILL shaking my head over your ability to twist. I believe strongly that there is something in your character that does not allow you to grasp real Christianity, but that compels you to obsess over murder, blood, sex, violence and how much you can try and hurt people. I don't know what ever happened to you to create this deep hurt inside of you, but there is peace to be found. I hope that you find it. You could pick ANY church, not just the Catholic church, and find ways to twist their theology and their practices to make them appear to be the worst thing that ever hit the earth. Especially when you throw in a barrage of lies, like you are doing.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 12:01 pm, George the Preacher writes:
Accredited writes: "Good one:-) JN1836...not of this world....ah, 'cause it's Heaven. Where he sits at the right hand of God. Resplendent in Glory. The other the head of this world's Kingdoms...ah, 'cause he is the Vicar of Christ. Hb4:15 sinless life and perfection...ah, 'cause he is GOD." What a you mumbling about? Jn 18:36 speaks of Jesus Christ kingdom being NOT of this world. The Jews were expecting otherwise, that is why Pastor Dave told you that he is NOT a King today on the earth, but instead a High Priest in heaven for us. He will be crowned "King of King and Lord of Lords" when during the 2nd advent when he reigns 1000 years on earth. Why not quote what I said an ANSWER the question. What is this mumbling about, quote "cause he is the Vicar of Christ. Hb4:15 sinless life and perfection...ah, 'cause he is GOD." Is this about YOUR god, the Pope? Explain your jibberish in plainess of speech.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 12:03 pm, Julie writes:
Imagine, just imagine, what you could do if you used the Bible and your passion for goodwill toward your fellow men. I think that we would see amazing Christians doing amazing work. You have chosen another path.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 12:07 pm, George the Preacher writes:
False Pope fan writes: "And, of course, they're all false....except, of course, that you can't honestly expect me to agree to "fact" #2 as it would require me to take your word for the supposed actions of this priest in Carey." Did you read the accounts written by Mr Hartline showing you both sides of the story? YOU are dishonest without you even reading what happened and commenting on those FACTS! Typical Catholic deception and distortion of what was actually written on this website. OK, since you made a fool of yourself, go and ACTUALLY READ what was written, quote any part of it, and then we can actually talk about the DETAILS of that event! I was smack dab in the MIDDLE of the riot from those Catholic wild men! So put up or shut up and repent of your foolishness. It will not do what I said, because you will be found the liar that you are.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 12:19 pm, street preacher writes:
QUESTION: St. Athanasius had to disobey Pope Liberius, who was the heretic?
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 12:29 pm, George the Preacher writes:
Julie writes: "Imagine, just imagine, what you could do if you used the Bible and your passion for goodwill toward your fellow men. I think that we would see amazing Christians doing amazing work. You have chosen another path." Though Julie you will continue to blind yourself of the truth, I would like you as a person. You remind me of my wifes long time friend Joy, who also happens to be Catholic, but has a heart for God. My wife and I have witnessed to her, but she will stay as a "good person". We continue to visit her and her husband and children and I would consider them friends. You do have a sweet spirit about you and just maybe you might be saved, but are to timid or fearful (Joseph of Armethia) to truly stand in the freedom of Jesus Christ and the bible alone. Pastor Dave, who you should consider as a gentlemen has systematically answered most of the questions posed from Nighthaven. Nighthaven to this time NEVER quoted any of his answers directly and rebutted. I would suggest you take any of your presuppostions, open a bible and with a HUMBLE and CONTRITE heart ask the Lord to fully open your heart to Him. We do as you say have a passion to OBEY the Lord Jesus Christ. Our goodwill to fellow men is to PREACH to them (read the whole book of ACTS of the APOSTLES, including Peter). We actually do feed the homeless in Ann Arbor and during the winter we open our church to the homeless for a week to feed and house them. You see, you brand us without knowing anything about us. Last week I visited a nursing home, with a Brother and his "ministry dog" Copper. We go to hand out tracks, and speak to individuals about their souls, pray for some, and just listen to may LONELY people. It is amazing how many Catholics we meet who have NO HOPE of eternal life! They are DEAD in a religious trap, destined for an eternity in hell. How truly sad. We asked if their priest or any official from the church visits them. What is there response? You know what it is. And many have been their for years. Julie, may you truly find the Lord Jesus Christ from the bible and leave a perverted Catholocism laden with sins. And as for my path, I will continue to follow HIM, live for Him, preach for Him, and if I have to, by the grace of God, die for Him, that is, the Lord Jesus Christ. I leave you with some of my life verses: Phil 3:7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. 8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, 9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: 10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 01:14 pm, Julie writes:
It is precisely through the Catholic Church that I have found Christ. We are the body of Christ, as he said that we are. We will always have false accusers. Christ had false accusers. I can't believe they let you go into nursing homes and hand out tracts with lies in them to these poor old Catholics. Shame on you. Keep doing the great work and ditch the lies. You will feel a peace like no other. From where I stand, the Catholics ran circles around you here, no small trick, since you keep twisting and turning. Ditch this mutant form of Christianity that compels you to harass good people who are following Christ. There are lonely Catholics, there are also lonely Protestants. And Catholicism is not a religious trap. You are in one. I hope that you someday realize that. I used to question Catholicism. But the more I learned ON MY OWN not from the church, the more I realized that the more you seek, the more truth you find only in the Catholic Church. It is what it says it is. It is what Christ said it is. We will be here in another 2,000 years. Your church will be gone, don't you see that? It just keeps dividing. If you see flaws in the Catholic Church, hop aboard then. We welcome people who seek the truth. We are quite open really. We have nothing to hide, nothing to be ashamed of. We welcome people who question us. If we were what you say we are, we really would, no doubt, not be open to any kind of discourse. But you saw here that is not the case. God bless you all for letting all of us explain our 2,000 year old faith to you and to share that with you. I saw some of your kindness and humanity come through the hatred that somebody has been cultivating in you for their own means. Now, I let go and let God. And He has taken me to a place in life where I can truly find happiness and love. That is Christianity. That is Catholicism. Love us or hate us, but we are not going away. And if you were dying of thirst, we would give you our last drop of water.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 01:37 pm, Julie writes:
Preacher George, I apologize. I probably sounded harsh.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 02:06 pm, Nighthaven writes:
After I just finished this long post my computer switched off due to it being too hot. Thank God Microsoft Word has a recovery feature or less I would of just given up rewriting the whole thing. Now onto the posts. --- Street Preacher --- I disproved your Hosius quotes using the dates in his biography as well as the biography of the Council of Trent. I didn't use Seans website to disprove you, because Hosius and the History of the Council of Trent would refute your quotes beyond a shadow of a doubt. So no matter what you claim or the author of the book Trail of Blood claims, you can’t get around these facts. As for the De Obitu S. Dominae thing, I already said it doesn’t matter if St. John wrote it or not. What does matter is that it mentions the Assumption of Mary which is a Catholic Teaching and it dates back from the 4th or 5th century. If your going to participate in a grown up debate than don’t result to childish reasoning. You hurt the SP’s every time you click that submit button. Yes God said he would preserve his word. What do you think Tradition is? It’s the words of the Apostles as taught to them by Jesus.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 02:07 pm, Nighthaven writes:
Pastor Dave --- How many times must I disprove you before you'll give up your argument? I'm not going anywhere, and you’re not wearing me down. As long as you keep writing I'll keep refuting you, along with all the other SP's. Though by continuing to post, you and all the other SP's are writing yourselves into a corner. When that happens all of you will resort to George's type of comments, which some of you already have. You aren’t convincing any Catholics here, the only thing you are doing however is making Catholics learn about their faith from other Catholics, which is a good thing and for that I thank you. Now let me get onto your specific arguments. With my comments on worship, I established that the people of the OT understood it to mean just to honor. Lot who found favor with God worshipped the two angels sent to destroy the city. If Lot had did wrong than surely God would have let him perish for his sin, because sinfulness was the reason the city was going to be destroyed for in the first place. It is when the Protestants began their private interpretations of bible did the word worship become constricted to mean “only honor paid to God” thus worship being only for God. Since Christianity predates the Protestant Rebellion of 1517, we aren’t subject to your rule changes. Christianity doesn’t belong to the Protestants. So yes in the real sense that worship means simply to honor, we worship Mary and pray to her. Like I said, due to the Protestant rule changes the church changed the words Worship Paid to Mary, to honor or venerate Mary, which honor and venerate still is the same thing as the real definition of worship means. We worship Mary in the real sense of the word worship. No we do not worship Mary according to your definition of worship, because Mary isn’t God. I believe I already covered this in a previous post. Stop making me repeat myself. Now we’ve already covered that there is no verse in the bible that says, “If it isn’t written in the Bible it didn’t happen.” So if a Tradition of the church isn’t mentioned in the bible than you can’t blast that Tradition. You claim the bible is your authority, well start paying attention to that authority. Since the bible doesn’t say, “The bible is the foundation of Christianity, thus the foundation of religion.” Than you can’t just blast the church and then refer to a bible that says it isn’t the foundation, because what the bible does say is that the church was built upon St. Peter, and that the church is the pillar of truth. Since St. Peter was the RCC’s first Pope that shows that we are the true church, for our first leader was the man that served as the foundation of the church Christ founded. The Apostles were also bishops in the church Christ founded. So that is why Catholics can claim that Catholics were the ones that wrote the bible and gave us the Oral Traditions. Now on your theory of bishops must be married to be bishops. Let me give you some bible verses from Matt 19 9-12: 9And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be fore fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. 10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry. 11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are _eunuchs_, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are _eunuchs_, who were made so by men: and there are _eunuchs_, who have made themselves _eunuchs_ for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. I own a King James bible along with the New Living Translation Catholic bible, to compliment my Douay-Rheims bible printed in 1937. But since you don’t care about Catholic translations let me show you what the King James Bible has on the matter. Matt 19 10-12, 10 His disciples say unto him, if the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11 But he said unto them, all men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. --- Eunuchs are people who live a single and chaste life. As we can see from the verses the Lord Jesus Christ did not forbid this kind of life. He just said that not everyone must marry, and not everyone must be Eunuchs. Now let me quote you St. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians 1 Cor 7 6-10 from the King James Bible: 6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. See Matt 19: 12. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. 10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, let not the wife depart from her husband. --- St. Paul was a celibate Apostle. As we see from Matt chapter 19 Jesus gives us the option of being married or living a celibate life. Everyone has their own calling in life, if yours is marriage than so be it, if yours is the celibate life than so be it. Priestly celibacy is a church law, and not a Dogmatic Teaching, thus it can change if the Pope feels like it. One interesting factoid is that the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church allows married priests and married bishops. Even the Latin Rite allows it for Protestant preachers who were married before they converted to the Catholic Faith and became priests. If they made those preachers divorce they’d be in violation of 1 Cor 7:10. Continued on next post...
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 02:08 pm, Nighthaven writes:
Now to your 1 Tim 3: 1-5 the second verse says: 2 It behoveth there a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behavior, _CHASTE_, given to hospitality, a teacher. After looking the verse up in the King James Bible, I see it doesn’t say Chaste, so I can’t hold it against you for not including it in your argument. Though I’d invest in a more modern bible if I were you, or a better translated one. As for the not given to wine thing, surely I don’t have to point out to you that means not getting drunk. Besides he was just laying down guidelines for the role of Bishop, not disqualifications. Because no one is perfect my friend, everyone sins. As for the riches part, the Vatican runs with a constant financial deficit, so it’s always in the negative. Whatever gold it had was given to the Nazi’s to pay the ransom for the Jews in Rome. Stop calling us the “Roman Religion” for our religion wasn’t born out of Pagan Rome. I’ve already established that Constantine The Great didn’t found us. St. Ignatius called the universal church Catholic. Who do you think is running around with the name Catholic? He didn’t say the Anabaptists were the universal church, he said the word _Catholic_ C-a-t-h-o-l-i-c. That’s us, the Catholics. Do you understand now? Before St. Ignatius wrote that letter we just called ourselves Christians. After he deemed us Catholic we became Catholics. We became the Roman Catholic Church after the Rebellion leaders of 1517 called us Roman, because the Vatican is in Rome, not because we were born out of Pagan Rome. Universal is used to mean its teachings are universal to everyone no matter what their background is, whether they are a Jew or Gentile. Not to mean the church _is_ universal, meaning anyone who claims to believe in Christ is a member. Attacking the Catholic Church is really attacking Christianity its self. From the Catholic Church is where the religion began under the leadership of Christ and St. Peter. You who are a splinter from us dare not attack the church for if we fall Christianity falls with us. The Rebellious sects born from the Rebellion of 1517 couldn’t hold the religion together by themselves if they tried, for they can’t even agree on the bible, which is suppose to be the foundation or authority of their sects. Though, Christ promised that not even the Gates of Hell will prevail against us, so you don’t have to worry about the church falling. We were here long before your great great great grand father was born, and we’ll still be here after your children’s children’s children are born. The arguments you pose here will be nothing but the barest blink of an eye, and probably won’t even make it into the history books. So after you’re long and forgotten by your descendants, the church will still be here, perhaps even evangelizing a few of your descendants if not all of them. Whether you believe in the Catholic Faith or not doesn’t matter, in the afterlife you’ll be Catholic for you’ll be aware of the truth when God reveals it to you. May you be remorseful to the people in which you’ve attacked their faith. Though judging from you, if God really did reveal the truth of the Catholic Church to you, you’d still reject it for your private interpretations of the scriptures is far superior. You say that the people St. Ignatius was talking about didn’t believe in the sacraments ect. Now prove it. Show me where it says they didn’t practice such things or didn’t rely on Tradition. This is crucial to your argument. If you can’t prove this, than that automatically voids out the theory of the Universal Church not being the Catholic Church. Well Matt 16:18 disputes your theory alone, but I want you to use your own evidence to disprove yourself. To know the real church one only has to look to Peter, Peter being the first Pope of the Catholic Church shows where the true church lies. Continued on next post…
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 02:09 pm, Nighthaven writes:
Now to understand where Catholics are coming from on Matt 16:18 we must first understand how we got the name Peter to begin with. Peter is the name that was derived after Matt began to be translated into different languages, from Aramaic, to Greek, from Greek to Latin, from Latin to English. Once we return to the original Aramaic language in which Matthew was written in, we see Peter’s name is really Kepha or Kephas, the Aramaic word for rock. The word usually reserved for God only. So with the original Aramaic name we can see this verse as it was truly written: 18 And I say also unto thee, that thou art Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. --- To render this verse into a more modern sense it would read: 18 And I say also unto thee, that thou art Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. --- Now you can understand why Catholics look to Peter to know where Christ’s Church truly began. Now your understanding of a bishop or a member of the clergy must be of impeccable character in order to be a member of the clergy, is an impossible standard to achieve. For if you join the clergy you don’t suddenly become divine and lose your temptation to sin. As long as you were born of original sin you will have a temptation to sin. This of course excludes the Holy Mother because she was born without original sin, in order to prepare the way for Christ so his flesh couldn’t be born of original sin. God is sinless and thus can’t be born of original sin, for original sin is an inheritance given to us by Adam and Eve. So the chain had to be broken in order to prepare the way for Christ. Now back to the clergy. Clergy can sin for they are human and weren’t of an Immaculate Conception. All men have sinned and have come short of the glory of God. Just because they become members of the clergy doesn’t mean they are excluded from this. By your own logic George couldn’t become a preacher because he’s prideful. And if you’re a preacher, you’d have to dismiss yourself from being a preacher simply because you committed one tiny sin. We are human. If we fall we pick ourselves back up and try again. Really the bad Popes are a blessing in disguise, from them we learn what not to do. As long as the church is guided by humans there will always be times when members of the church make bad choices, so sue them they are human. But the church its self is not capable of error for it is guided by the Holy Spirit; the spirit of truth. Members of the church its self can be wrong, but the infallible teaching of the church its self is not wrong. Ex Cathedra isn’t something the church just flaunts around whenever it wishes. It is to be respected; for during Ex Cathedra God is actively intervening making sure only truth comes out of the Popes mouth. Only the Pope is protected by infallibility when speaking Ex Cathedra, that gift isn’t extended to anyone else, because the Pope is the successor to Peter who was the Bishop of Rome.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 02:10 pm, Nighthaven writes:
Now let us explore the bible versus that backs up the infallibility of the church. Matt 28:18-20, 18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world. --- Jesus saying he’ll be with the Apostles till the end of time, so when they teach they won’t be alone. It’s the Holy Spirit’s job to make that promise hold, and the promise it has been keeping as it guided the Apostles and their successors. Matt 16:18, which we already discussed earlier. Mark 16: 15-16 expands upon Matt 28:18-20 and adds in salvation to the mix. 15 And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned. --- So those who don’t believe the teachings of the Apostles are condemned. Since the Holy Spirit is with them throughout the end of the world, there is no way they can say error. So those who hear the truth but reject it are condemned to hell. Now through Apostolic Succession the Apostles successors have the same promise and the powers to bind and loose just like the Apostles had. Now in response to the Apostles having no successors: that is simply not true. For without successors to the Apostles the Christian religion would have died out shortly after their death, then Jesus’ death on the cross would of meant nothing for the people would not of known of his death. Without the church to preserve the Gospels and to fight off heresy Christianity would have been doomed. So successors are needed to continue Christ’s Church with the powers to bind and loose just like the Apostles. If you think Christianity would have survived without the church than you are sorely mistaken. If it could survive there would have been no need for a church to be created in the first place. Everyone would of just been handed the Gospels and said go and read and that’s it. But because the bible wasn’t meant to be the foundation of Christianity, a church was created so that the Gospels could be taught as well as the things not mentioned in the bible. I think John 21:25 say’s it well when it says: 25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world its self, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written. --- Not everything is in the bible. Not everything you’re supposed to follow is in the bible. Under its own admission it doesn’t contain everything. So you base yourself on something that doesn’t contain all of what you’re supposed to know. If you’re content with only having half of the message, than don’t blast Catholics for having the full message. We have the half you’re lacking, Tradition. Without the Bible and Tradition Christianity isn’t complete. Well you don’t even have a complete bible either, so you like have only a quarter of the message. A quarter my friend won’t even buy you a piece of gum nowadays, much less heaven. As for your gripe about the Crusades, they were fought against Muslims who were taking over Christian territories, and forcefully converting Christians to Islam or killing them, or taxing them, and killing Christian pilgrims on their pilgrimage to Jerusalem. So be glad those crusades were fought and won, or else you’d be praying to Mecca 5 times a day and yelling the name Allah.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 02:10 pm, Nighthaven writes:
Now my conclusion, normally I wouldn’t respond to you George; for you invalidated yourself in this debate long ago. But I did notice you trying to convert a Catholic. I suggest you stop, or less you will bare that sin on your soul if you do convert her away from the truth, O Ye False Prophet. Not to mention she’ll have the sin of formal heresy on her soul for rejecting the truth, which you will also share by guilt by association. Right now you’re just a material heretic because you just don’t know any better, so heaven is a possibility for you; but if you cross the line into formal heresy than that’s it for you. Hell will be your destination unless you repent and offer penance for your transgression against God. Pastor Dave, I do enjoy our debate because your making me do a ton of research to refute your claims, which is something I do enjoy doing: Research. I do ask though if you have any sway over George and Street Preacher, please ask them to cease in this debate. They are preventing it from remaining a civil debate, as well as posting arguments that I keep shutting down with ease. Well except for George of course, I barely read what he types nowadays and thus don’t respond to him. They are hurting your case and thus are condemning the Street Preachers in the eyes of the people who read this thread. I don’t want to be your enemy, and I would look forward to sharing a cup of coffee with you, and I wouldn’t even try to evangelize you. If we are to continue, this debate is going to have to remain civil. Or else I won’t continue it. As for you Street Preacher, you can answer your own questions if you’ll just do the research. Ripping things out of bodies of works and interpreting them out of context isn’t going to win you any favors, especially mine. So you go sit in the penalty box along with George and let me and Pastor Dave continue this debate.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 03:03 pm, street preacher writes:
Question was Where does the idea that God preserves TRADITION come from? The CE says "The word tradition ... refers sometimes to the thing (doctrine, account, or custom) transmitted from one generation to another " Nighthaven says "Yes God said he would preserve his word. What do you think Tradition is?" So How does God preserve Tradition "passed from one generation to another" AND where is this promise given????? Impeccible FLAWless LOGIC again. POTUIT, DECUIT, FECIT. (1) God can do all things. (2)It is proper that it should be so(God preserves TRADITION) (3)THEREfore God did it!
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 03:33 pm, street preacher writes:
Is it true that the See of Peter is currently & for some time "sede vacante" as many "catholics" believe. How can the Church continue to exist without a visible head? How did it continue in the past periods of "sede vacante"?
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 05:09 pm, Accredited writes:
Good job Nighthaven. Keep it up. They will in the end get tired of running in circles. I can't believe George goes to nursing homes and passes out these vile falsehoods. I wonder if they are "chick" tracts. Their ministry is a joke. I think SP is just some guy typing out what he sees in these lame tracts. Not only are they going after the naive and undereducted but they are going after the sick and dying. No matter how much you learn about these vile false heretics the more you get disgusted. Notice how they won't actually take on our questions about sola fide and scriptura? and heritage? They are in the second phase of their tactics...when they lose the facts they attack the institutional church. Let's just focus on authority, sola fide/scriptura and heritage. They have nothing. Episicopalians and Unitarians......
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 05:43 pm, Accredited writes:
I'm really bothered by these going into nursing homes. Can you imagine a 90 yr old grandmother slowly dying being harrassed by George and some conversion dog? I can just see them at their weekend seminars...."bring the dog to lull the old and dying into a false sense of security and comfort...then hit them with Mary is a %$#@*&" That is sick and vile. Oh wait....what am I saying...that is GOOD FRUIT. I'll make sure I contact all the nursing homes in my area. Thanks for the heads up George.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 06:46 pm, street preacher writes:
TRADITION: "The living magisterium, therefore, makes extensive use of documents of the past, but it does so while judging and interpreting, gladly finding in them its present thought, but likewise, when needful, distinguishing its present thought from what is traditional only in appearance. It is revealed truth always living in the mind of the Church, or, if it is preferred, the present thought of the Church in continuity with her traditional thought, which is for it the final criterion, according to which the living magisterium adopts as true or rejects as false the often obscure and confused formulas which occur in the monuments of the past. Thus are explained both her respect for the writings of the Fathers of the Church and her supreme independence towards those writings--she judges them more than she is judged by them....There is, therefore in the Church progress of dogma, progress of theology, progress to a certain extent of faith itself, but this progress does not consist in the addition of fresh information nor the change of ideas. What is believed has always been believed, but in time it is more commonly and thoroughly understood and explicitly expressed."--- Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912, Tradition and Living Magisterium HAH????? Traditional only in appearance? When pope Pius X was on a crusade against Modernism was it only "appearance" so that todays popes could change course and become Ecumenical? Was the Ecumenism of Pius X hidden in his denouncements and anathemas of it? AFA his motto "Instaurare Omnia in Christo" what would need to be restored? The difference between the Ecumenical popes & pius was not a change of ideas? How does one rectify Pius X OATH? "hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously." with todays "There is, therefore in the Church progress of dogma, progress of theology, progress to a certain extent of faith itself"? Nothing changed equals progress? Tradition IS "INDEPENDENCE from the fathers"? Catholic speech has become the party line, quite "Orwellian"! One must be taught (indoctrinated) such NON SENSE. Party slogan "white is Black" if the church says so. Where was the Ecumenism of Pius X? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Modernist_oath Your definition of words must be fast and free to buy all this! TRADITION? UNITY? ORTHODOXY? Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! OR 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' 'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone. 'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.' In a word or two - “Rex vestimenta non habet”
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 07:07 pm, Pope Fan writes:
Street Preacher - you make no sense...though this is nothing new. Thanks for doing the research for us on this one, despite the fact that this is what the RC's in this discussion have been trying to explain to you for some time. You quote the Catholic Encyclopedia "There is, therefore in the Church progress of dogma, progress of theology, progress to a certain extent of faith itself, but this progress does not consist in the addition of fresh information nor the change of ideas..." and then try to take those words and twist them into something they're not, yet again. I think we're dealing with a reading comprehension problem here - it follows all logic to say that as an entity (person, organization, Church) grows over time, that entity comes to a fuller understanding of itself and the world around it. Saint Paul understood it "when I was a child I thought like a child, I spoke like a child." Jesus understood it "...and Jesus advanced in wisdom and age" (Lk 2:52) As I've already stated, with the end of public revelation coming upon the death of John, all of the doctrines (whether you like them or not) were already put in place. Already set in stone. Over time, now, we've come to understand them ("What is believed has always been believed, but in time it is more commonly and thoroughly understood and explicitly expressed."---once again from your quote of the Cath. Encyc.) This once again proves to all of us that your rote memorization of Scripture is nothing more than a formula - I applaud you for your memorization skills - but citing a scripture quote because someone, somewhere taught you "when a catholic says this, get 'em back with this one!" shows no knowledge or comprehension - just a good memory. We should get together and play that kids' game with the picture cards - you'd give me a run for my money. But, SP, kids' games are one thing...intelligent dialogue is completely different. Pick which one you want to do - just make sure you're up for it.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 08:21 pm, Fr. Jim writes:
Dave, So you admit it was the Catholic Church that canonized scripture. The Catholic Church also gave you the doctrines of the Trinity, Incarnation, Redemption...You tacitly admit the early Church was Catholic and you would not have your faith without us. You even accept that God used the Church despite the flaws of some of her members. Congratulations, you are almost Catholic! Just go with that logic. You might as well since you have already given away the farm. Sola scriptura is not in the Bible that you borrowed from us. The only way you can find it is to put it in there yourself.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 08:21 pm, street preacher writes:
There is Schism in the "1 true" church because of these issues we talk about. Lets face it your own "UNIFIED" Cardinals have called the pope a ANTICHRIST.One would suppose that honesty would make it difficult for you to keep a straight face, excepting that you may believe that we are not entitled to the truth. So we must endure a endless set of claims to twisting, attacks on our intelligence, attacks on our mental state, attacks on our honesty, all manner of name calling, smoke screens, NON Answers, avoidance of the any semblance of the issues, all characteristics of a good party member! ATST maintaining the party line of "we are winning the battle". But then again words do mean whatever Rome of late says they mean.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 08:24 pm, Fr. Jim writes:
A historical note. I challenge the fundy's here to look up the burning of Catholic Churches here in the US by 19th century fundamentalists. Start with the notorious burning of the convent in Boston. If you are really brave go back and see what Cromwell did to the Catholic Irish. Then maybe see how Catholics were treated in Elizabethan England. Look up the "English Martyrs". Oh, and take a gander at what Calvin did to Servetus, a hint...it involves a stake and fire. You have much to be ashamed of and apologize for.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 08:30 pm, Fr. Jim writes:
SP, I never can find 2 protestants who agree on what they believe. You can't even show me where the Bible says "sola scriptura." You are the ones who attack us. When have Catholics come to your churches and conferences to disrupt, insult, and vilify? We don't. We are decent human beings who respect other peoples rights, unlike you. I still remember the sp who spat in my face. He was gibbering with hatred. That is the face you present to the world.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 08:58 pm, George the Preacher writes:
Accredited writes: "I can just see them at their weekend seminars...."bring the dog to lull the old and dying into a false sense of security and comfort...then hit them with Mary is a %$#@*&" That is sick and vile. " What do YOU do BIG MOUTH! We never mentioned anything about Mary to anyone of them. Your a liar and a false accuser. I am sick and tired of your ravenous stupidity and lack of care for anyone except yourself! Your a classic FOOL and Proverbs has much to say about you. When we visited the nursing home, 8 out of 10 times we did not even mention anything about the gospel! We just handed out tracks, let them pet the dog, and seen smiles on peoples face who had not seen family for a while. We let some speak to us and we JUST LISTENED. No gospel presentation unless they desired to speak to us about the Lord. So you and your STUPID accusations and lies belittling those who would comfort the feeble is more than I can say for you! This is my last reply to this JERK who refuses to answer questions and makes false accusations about what I and someone else did. Hell friend will be HOT for one such as yourself. Repent or perish.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 09:06 pm, Accredited writes:
SP: Pls address the Anabaptist website? That website says something different than you claim on this series of postings. So we caught you in a lie. You are not linked in any real sense to the early church. It is a fiction. Your personal interpretation has lead to chaos and anarchy....i.e, Episcopalians and Unitarians and thousands more. So.... the Narrow Gate hasn't been addressed why 'cause you can't speak to it neither can you fit thru it..especially with your bullhorns and spitting and yelling and cursing. Why make up your heritage? you had to lie about it 'cause it is a fiction used to lend credibility to a cult of personality. So...the false prophet verses have been used against you even as you thought it would make your point. So...the concept of the fruit of the good tree has been used against you because of your current ministry...How many have been arrested? "We were arrested for doing the Lord's work"...Says your Pastors after you have interpreted the Bible to mean just exactly what you want it to mean. That is why God gave us the ONE True Church. To avoid this nonsense which leads to thousands of different church's like the Unitarians. Your ministry is predicated upon a FALSE interpretation of the Bible. That is why it is an ugly ministry that provokes that which it provokes. Your fruits are obvious. Your superstar Pastor dave used two odd verses to prove sola scriptura....that was pretty lame. You used some lame reference to Hosius to prove something, not sure what....I've had fun emabarrasing you but the whole nursing home thing has made me sick so I think I will get some distance from this board and work on contacting those homes in my area to ask if they are allowing such access. The Gate is Narrow.....
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 09:07 pm, street preacher writes:
Calvin and his MURDEROUS crowd were just REFORMED CATHOLICS Again who were the RC killing before there were "Protestants"?
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 09:11 pm, street preacher writes:
While we have been assaulted, insulted, and spit upon. None of the hundreds of SP's I know have EVER spat on anyone.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 09:14 pm, street preacher writes:
UNITY? What kind of Unity is it that calls the pope a HERETIC? or worse an ANTI CHRIST:? I am starting to think you guys are avoiding this one : )
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 09:23 pm, Accredited writes:
Last post...George: You went to the home to hand out tracks. What tracks? What did they say? Were they the famous Chick Tracks? You didn't talk about religion unless they asked about it????? What the heck. You went there to give these people something. Next time don't bring the tracks. Just the dog and a smile. That's called love. YOU WENT with an AGENDA. We only talked to them if they asked? Gee do ya think they wouldn't ask about the very thing you were handing out to them? That is how you have operated on this board and how your ministry operates....cheap trickery. You keep saying the Bible is about the ActS of the Apostles and how that doesn't reference LOVE. Maybe you shuld read the Gospels. They are about LOVE. Not Chick tracts. The Narrow Gate and Authority and Sola Scriptura etc..we have proven our point. Your whole religious experience is made up and weak. Come home to a place of LOVE and Peace. May God Bless you on your journey to LOVE..which is GOD Himself. Jn 316 or a million more references. Good luck. Keep praying. The Lord will enlighten you.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 09:26 pm, Fr. Jim writes:
Calvin was one of yours. He would be shocked that you consider him Catholic. Maybe I will visit nursing homes and find elderly relatives of fundamentalists and baptize them Catholic. You won't mind surely? I be if you found them with a rosary in their hands you would be displeased. If someone calls the Pope the anti-Christ then he is not a Catholic. He has joined yourside. Granted he may not agree with you on anything else, but no two protestants agree on much. I WAS spat upon by a sp. He was carrying a big cross down the street. He was foaming at the mouth, literally, with hate. That is how we see you. Stop disrupting our worship. We don't do it to you.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 09:26 pm, street preacher writes:
It is evident that baptists existed before the protestants, else who were the RC's killing before the Protestants? Why do so many church history scholars from almost every denomination place the Baptists all the way back to the first century? While every denomination we could name can be easily identified with a founder, who was the founder of the baptists? Dr. W. P. Harvey says: "History points to the origin of the various denominations, and in regard to their respective founders there is no controversy, but strange there is no recognized historic account of the origin of Baptists this side of the apostolic age." WHO WAS IT'S FOUNDER??????
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 09:31 pm, Fr. Jim writes:
I will testify again. I am a former fundamentalist. I am a former minister. Now I am a Catholic priest, praise God. I once believed as these poor men do. God has forgiven my ignorance and enlightened me. Now I understand the fullness of truth found in scripture and tradition. By God's grace I know Jesus as my Lord and Savior far better then I did before. If you believe "once saved always saved" then you will have to believe I am saved or that there is no eternal security. If you really want to know Jesus then come to the Church he founded, his body on earth, the Catholic Church. Amen.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 09:34 pm, Fr. Jim writes:
For who founded the baptist church visit: http://www.biblicalheritage.org/Religions/Christian/baptist.htm They began in Holland and were founded by John Smyth in 1610.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 09:46 pm, street preacher writes:
LOL he would be shocked to be considered CATholic? Was he NOT a MONK? Was he a REFORMER? He merely reformed the Catholicism that he believed. AFA the "Reformers" You can take the man out of Rome but it is much harder to take Rome out of the man! He was a Reformed catholic to the core as you have posted showing his continued use of the Eucharist and Baby Sprinkling. (The wicked crime of belief in regeneration rather than Baby sprinkling got millions of ANA(RE) Baptizers killed) The puritans tried to PURIFY the Church of England. They were purifiers, just a kinder gentler Church of England. Just like their murderous forefathers the Puritans Murdered who? Whilst the Congregationalists basically said no chance in purifying the CoE they separated & formed a new denom. But they ALL were REFORMED CATHOLICS, you could trace their heritage back to ROME. You could find their common beliefs being Baby sprinkling, Eucharist. You could trace their actions back to a belief in wielding a physical sword to ENFORCE belief in their faith. Which just produced more hypocrits who never really believed. Baptists believe in wielding the sword of the spirit, always have. Baptists never "CONFORMED" to the beliefs of these unregenerate masses. Therein lies the problem, so they had to be cut off.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 11:07 pm, Pastor Dave writes:
Nighthaven, glad to see your response. Unfortunately, for you much writing does not make you correct. As far as who is refuting whom, it seems that we are refuting you. We are in your arena so it is easy for you to be adored by your cheering fans here, but we both know the real deal here is that your arguments are shallow no matter how many words you use to make them. The worship thing again. You said "As for the De Obitu S. Dominae thing, I already said it doesn’t matter if St. John wrote it or not. What does matter is that it mentions the Assumption of Mary which is a Catholic Teaching and it dates back from the 4th or 5th century. If your going to participate in a grown up debate than don’t result to childish reasoning. You hurt the SP’s every time you click that submit button. Yes God said he would preserve his word. What do you think Tradition is? It’s the words of the Apostles as taught to them by Jesus." You talk about childish reasoning. You are redefining that term for the worst. C'mon Night, Just because the De Obitu S. Dominae says that Mary was Assumed into heaven does not make it so. I know some writings that say aliens have come to earth. Does this mean that in 1500 years someone can dig them up and prove that it is true because it is written? Shame. You said "yes God said He would preserve His word, what do you think tradition is? Its the words of the Apostles taught to them by Jesus." I think tradition is tradition. Thats why word and tradition are spelled differently so even you could get it. Tradition is the word of God because you said? What a joke. Remember, I addressed 2Thess 2:15. I'll add this to that. Thessalonians was one of the earliest writings of Paul. By the time he is done with all his epistles, do you not think that all the traditions were written? And if you do not, who says that the traditions mentioned in this verse were not identical in word and epistle? You gonna make that leap and hope you got it right? Take your chances if you wish but you have done so at your own peril. How arrogant to assume that what Apostles wrote and spoke were not the same thing. Like you said, the Assumption is found in the 4th or 5th century, and like I said, you and your church teachings are the new kids on the block when compared with scripture. You also said "With my comments on worship, I established that the people of the OT understood it to mean just to honor. Lot who found favor with God worshipped the two angels sent to destroy the city. If Lot had did wrong than surely God would have let him perish for his sin, because sinfulness was the reason the city was going to be destroyed for in the first place." You established nothing but that these events occured. Worship means honor because why? Because you said so? If it meant honor then why does it say worship? Also, God would have punished Lot because you say so? Obviously he didn't immediately. Do we read about the great Lot much after this? No. Why? Could it be because God would not bless Lot anymore because he worshipped angels? Also, God was destroying Sodom for Sodomy not for false worship. By what authority do you add to the scripture what isn't there "God surely would punish Lot?", as if He didn't. Did God punish David for murder? You bet he did, but he didn't do it immediately. See, God is a longsuffering God. Stop adding to the Bible. Only cults do this. You also said "It is when the Protestants began their private interpretations of bible did the word worship become constricted to mean “only honor paid to God” thus worship being only for God. Since Christianity predates the Protestant Rebellion of 1517, we aren’t subject to your rule changes. Christianity doesn’t belong to the Protestants. So yes in the real sense that worship means simply to honor, we worship Mary and pray to her." The Protestants changed the meaning of the word worship? Says who? And if so, why doesn't your post protestant Bible say honor in it in the place of worship. Give us a break. You only help us help you with such lame exegesis of scripture. You truly need to stay with history Nighthaven because you are choking on the Bible. You are in over your head and this is good because maybe God can reach your heart and show you your erring way. More to come.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 11:28 pm, Pastor Dave writes:
Noghthaven, you say "“If it isn’t written in the Bible it didn’t happen.” You say we assume this. We do not. You say if it isn't in the bible we will make it as authoritative as the bible, and we will pick and choose what we want that to be? Please. We do not deny that pyramids were built in Egypt even though its not in the Bible. We just don't use this info to make it as something important to God. David tells us in Psalms that the Bible is our guide. You add to the map and scream this way guys follow us. Sorry but I will stick with God. You open the door for all kinds of heresy by taking the attitude that you can take writings and make them as authoritative as scripture. If you knew your bible, you would know of the three warnings in scripture against adding to the Bible. You also say "Since the bible doesn’t say, “The bible is the foundation of Christianity, thus the foundation of religion.” Than you can’t just blast the church and then refer to a bible that says it isn’t the foundation, because what the bible does say is that the church was built upon St. Peter, and that the church is the pillar of truth. Since St. Peter was the RCC’s first Pope that shows that we are the true church, for our first leader was the man that served as the foundation of the church Christ founded." Yeah, Yeah, Yeah. And Peter was the first pope why? That's right because you said so. I see a pattern developing. You can try to claim Peter all you want but Peter was an apostle of Jesus Christ and Peter spoke plenty about the importance of the bible but ironically never spoke about being the pope or being an RC or of future traditions. Later men hijacked Peter's name to start a religion and the rest is history (pun intended). What you say or some man many years later saic about peter is irrelevant. Just listen to Peter and you hear about the word of God. If Peter was the first pope, how come Paul got to do all the writing and issuing decrees in the bible?Strange. Peter was a founding father of Christianity. Did you know he mentions the priesthood of the believer, yet never mentioned a special priesthood for a select few? All believers are priests. Who doesn't listen to Peter? Looks like you claim him but igmore him. Seems we just listen to what he said and believe it. You are truly confused. You also said, "The Apostles were also bishops in the church Christ founded." Are you sure? Paul wasn't a bishop. James was but was not an apostle. Thats strange. What you say doesn't mesh with the bible, but we already knew that didn't we? I guess then the Apostles were bishops, why? You got it, because you said so. That makes me laugh but I will pray for you instead.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 11:42 pm, Pastor Dave writes:
Nighthaven, you also tried, and I give you a gold star for trying, to address the bishop being the husband of one wife by going to Matthew 19 and 1Cor 7. You seem to keep making the same errors by not reading what you have quoted. In Matt 19 it says "save they to whom it is given". This says clearly that this saying is for those to whom it is given and as any child that can read may figure out by reading 1Tim 3:2 that it is not given to bishops. That was easy enough. See how plain understanding of words makes it so easy to understand. I do not blame you for trying although it is sad that you must ignore the obvious to hold onto your church teaching regardless of how foolish the argument is. Will you reject clear thought to hold onto false teaching? If you will, then do you not think that is satanic in origin? God is not the Author of confusion. You actually said " As we see from Matt chapter 19 Jesus gives us the option of being married or living a celibate life" when we are addressing bishops and not just "us". Yes we can choose to be celibate if we want to and if God would have you do that then great. Only problem for such a person is that they are not qualified to be bishops. Very simple isn't it. A bishop clearly must be the husband of one wife, and all those bishop's of Rome who invented your traditions were not even qualified to be bishop let alone speak in Christs stead. If you want to follow imposters my friend, its a free country.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 11:48 pm, Julie writes:
Baptists existed before the Protestants????? The Baptists are truly more dysfunctional than I thought, if they won't even accept their own beginnings. There must be something quite embarrassing about their beginnings, since they won't admit to their Holland-based birth in the 1600s. They must envy Catholicism's beginnings, since they try to insinuate themselves into it. Wouldn't it be easier to join the true church? Geesh. C'mon. It must be tiring to hold on to try and support these lies and fiction all the time. My husband is a former Baptist by the way. And no, I never cut down Baptists to him. Or his family. But Baptist is one religion I would never join for sure. Though I would not be a Protestant if they paid me. And yes, Baptists are Protestants. Might as well accept it. Otherwise you have to expend energy rewriting history. What if you ARE lying about Christ's Church (and you are). You guys need a dose of real theology. Throw away those idiotic Jack Chick tracts. They've addled your brain.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 11:49 pm, Fr. Jim writes:
SP, Calvin was a lawyer. He was never a monk. Another example of why you need to actually study history. I notice you don't take my challenge to look up the history of violence within fundamentalism. I can't blame you. It is pretty horrible. You would be ashamed.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 11:54 pm, Pastor Dave writes:
Nighthaven, I can see why the Catholics want to call Peter their first Pope. Of course if one wants to pass itself off as authentic, then appeal to one of the founders of the religion. Does this make it the case that he ever was a pope or ever had any idea he would be kidnapped post humously and made one? No it doesn't. But again I guess it is true because you say it is. Peter never preached any gospel that resembles the RC soteriology. When addressing the standards for a bishop you call God a liar by saying it is impossible to acheive. If it were impossible then why did God give us this checklist? Just so you can throw it out 2000 years later? Who are you to call God a liar. Why is it impossible? Oh yeah, because you said so. How arrogant to think you can claim that what God says is impossible. You say that it is impossible for a man to sin. This is true but not sinning is not on the list. You are adding to the bible again what isn't there.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 11:56 pm, Fr. Jim writes:
Folks, what we have here are a group of protestants who must justify their protest. They appeal to the Bible, but it irks them that they got it from the Catholic Church. They can't agree on what the Bible says. The only thing they agree on is that they hate Catholics. Augustine said that when someone visits a town and asks where the Catholic Church is that even a heretic can tell them. There are many heretical groups, but only one Catholic Church. Take bishops for example. Dave arguing with another protestant would not agree on what they are, what they do, or even if they should have them. Each would say they follow only the Bible. Let's say you have a Bishop who has only one wife and she dies. Ooops, guess he would have to be removed since he no longer has a wife. See how absurd fundamentalism becomes? I am so glad I left and obtained the complete truth. The imposters are the self-appointed popes who call themselves street preachers.
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 12:03 am, Pastor Dave writes:
Nighthaven, you said about the bishop's "Members of the church its self can be wrong, but the infallible teaching of the church its self is not wrong. Ex Cathedra isn’t something the church just flaunts around whenever it wishes. It is to be respected; for during Ex Cathedra God is actively intervening making sure only truth comes out of the Popes mouth. Only the Pope is protected by infallibility when speaking Ex Cathedra, that gift isn’t extended to anyone else, because the Pope is the successor to Peter who was the Bishop of Rome." Again, is this ex cathedra thing so because you said so? Lets see if I understand this correctly. A sinful man makes decrees for the church but he knows that people will question this because they know he is a sinner. So this sinner invents ex cathedra to fool the people into thinking that he only speaks for God when on the throne. That way he can go back to sinning when he is done. How convenient. And this is true because one of the unqualified bishops said so? Man, and you think we drink kool-aid? That is nice. And by the way the guy that made up that ex catherdra thing was not qualified to make it up. Nice try. And you wonder why some people think that the RC is the largest cult on earth.
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 12:03 am, Fr. Jim writes:
Adding to the Bible what isn't there? That is what sola scriptura is and does. Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church founded on Peter. Fundamentalists say Jesus lied. If you go to Rome today and visit underneath the main altar you will find the tomb of Peter. No fundamentalist denomination can claim that. They have a massive inferiority complex. They will do or say anything to justify following their own whims rather then God's will. The Catholic Church has existed since the time of Christ. When the sp's denominations are long forgotten the Catholic Church will still be proclaiming the complete and true gospel. If anything this has shown us the ignorance and bigotry that continue to fester in the minds of anti-Catholics. May God bring them back home to Rome. Please pray for these poor souls and don't lose hope. I was one of them once and now I am happily Catholic. Praise God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Pax
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 12:07 am, Fr. Jim writes:
Kool-aid? Wasn't that the good Bible alone believing fundamentalist Rev. Jim Jones? I haven't seen Catholic groups drinking poison kool-aid. Pastor Jones shows us where fundamentalism ultimately leads. Thanks Pastor Dave for bringing it up. Notice how the cults always seem to be protestant? Pastor means shepherd doesn't it? Isn't Jesus the true shepherd? Dave is putting himself in Jesus place, for shame! How many pastors like Jones do that and answer to no one? And you wonder why some people think that fundamentalism is a cult.
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 12:12 am, Fr. Jim writes:
Well, enough of this. This will be my last post. There are other boards to debate on. We can see the fallacies of the sp's. Also we can see that Catholicism has answers for any lie they spew out. Feel free to visit www.catholic.com for the real truth about Catholicism.
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 12:15 am, Pope Fan writes:
Fr Jim: Thanks for the recent posts. Good stuff. It IS clear that these poor souls are just trying to justify their protest. What were the readings from Sunday's Mass? I think they were beautiful and shed light on this discussion.
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 12:21 am, Pastor Dave writes:
Nighthaven, you said about Mary "As long as you were born of original sin you will have a temptation to sin. This of course excludes the Holy Mother because she was born without original sin, in order to prepare the way for Christ so his flesh couldn’t be born of original sin. God is sinless and thus can’t be born of original sin, for original sin is an inheritance given to us by Adam and Eve. So the chain had to be broken in order to prepare the way for Christ." - So let me guess. Mary was born without original sin because you said so. Why do you guys feel the need to lie and fabricate stuff. If Mary was born without original sin, then her parents were and theres were and so on. Original sin is passed on to us from Adam. You know, like we read in Romans 4. Your claim is just pie in the sky friend. The chain as you say was broken with Jesus not having a human father. The bible teaches in Leviticus that the life of the flesh is in the blood. A fathers blood determines a babies blood. The blood on a fetus is not the blood of the mother. Therefore, there need be only a virgin girl impregnated by God for this baby to have sinnless blood or blood not tainted by Adam's race. There is no need for a sinnless mother. If you and your church knew this, then they wouldn't invent hilariouly ridiculous doctrines to help God's cause. God doesn't need your help. Of course, when that doctrine was invented the scientists didn't know this info about blood. Of course the RC can never make a mistake, therefore, no need for scientific evidence to ruin a good doctrine. Are you gonna tell me that Mary comes from a race a sinnless people? You are not, but you are going to say she was sinnless just because you want to. Her father was from Adam and therefore she had Adam's blood and had a sin nature herself. This does nothing to take away from Jesus Christ's Divinty. You gotta stop taking peoples words for it Nighthaven. If you want to continue to that is fine, but those of us who know our bible are going to continue to help you be free from the bondage of man made religion. We don't have to buy you fool's gold just because you say so. This is precisely the stuff that caused me to leave the RC and search for Christ without all the man made hocus pocus. I refused to check my brain at the door of the church building like so many of my fellow born again bible believing Christian brothers and sisters in Christ did as well. Can you not see the blind allegiance you have placed in men?
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 12:40 am, Pastor Dave writes:
Nighthaven, when discussing the infallibility of the church you quote Matt 28 and the say this - "Jesus saying he’ll be with the Apostles till the end of time, so when they teach they won’t be alone. It’s the Holy Spirit’s job to make that promise hold, and the promise it has been keeping as it guided the Apostles and their successors. Matt 16:18, which we already discussed earlier. Mark 16: 15-16 expands upon Matt 28:18-20 and adds in salvation to the mix. 15 And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned. --- So those who don’t believe the teachings of the Apostles are condemned. Since the Holy Spirit is with them throughout the end of the world, there is no way they can say error." -You are adding to the words again and at the same time missing important words and you are too smart to miss them by accident so you must be trying to deceive folks. Thats not nice. In Matt 28 You miss the fact that Jesus told them to teach all things "whatsoever I have commanded you". Notice "have commanded is past tense. It doesn't say what you want it to say which is that they may teach some new commandment that Jesus hadn't taught up to that point. You said that the Holy Spirit guided the apostles and their successors. Who said they would have any successors? You did. Jesus and THE apostles never said any such thing. In fact we see Paul commanding Titus and Timothy to appoint elders but never Apostles. You and your church made that up. Of course the Holy Spirit is with them to the end of the world. Do you not think that Peter is still alive in heaven now? Of course he is. God is not the God of the dead but of the living as the bible tells us. The teachings Jesus told them to teach had already been taught and then we let ACTS and the Epistles show us what it is they taught. You have invented this idea of Apostolic succession. There is no biblical authority for this and therefore your church is perpetrating a fraud upon 1 billion people. You are right to say that the Apostles could not say error. That is why I study my bible to know what they said. You study men and their teaching with no root in the scriptures who weren't qualified to be bishop's let alone Apostles as if there ever was intended to be future apostles. Remember that the fifth book of the NT is THE Acts of THE Apostles. We know who they are and it is an exclusive group according even to the title of the book and we know what their acts were. We do not need to know any more about some imposters posing as apostles. Get it? I believe in you Night and I know you can do it.
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 12:47 am, Pastor Dave writes:
Nighthaven, you said -"For without successors to the Apostles the Christian religion would have died out shortly after their death, then Jesus’ death on the cross would of meant nothing for the people would not of known of his death. Without the church to preserve the Gospels and to fight off heresy Christianity would have been doomed. So successors are needed to continue Christ’s Church with the powers to bind and loose just like the Apostles. If you think Christianity would have survived without the church than you are sorely mistaken." - Do you miss the forest for the trees? You just quoted the verses that said that the Holy Spirit would be with them and then you say this? You say christianity would be doomed. You cheapen the protecting power of the Holy Spirit. It is in spite of the RC that the truth has survived unto this day through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in every believer. That is proof of what Jesus said. You think God needs his church when we believe we need God!! That is the difference between you and I my friend. All of your hope is in your church while mine is in Christ.
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 12:58 am, Pastor Dave writes:
Nighthaven, You said -"I think John 21:25 say’s it well when it says: 25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world its self, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written. --- Not everything is in the bible. Not everything you’re supposed to follow is in the bible. Under its own admission it doesn’t contain everything." You need to stick to history because you cannot read. Your own words betray you and you do not know it. Notice it says that not everything that Jesus DID is written. It doesn't say not everything that he taught is not written. Its correct to say that not everything that he did is written because we do not need to know how he built furniture or cooked fish. That is obvious. There is no problem for us with this verse. We can read. You say not everything we are supposed to follow is in the bible. 2Tim 3:15-17 says that scripture is all we need to be "perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. It also says that the scriptures were able to make one wise unto salvation in verse 15. Lets see, -perfect - saved- and furnished for ALL good works. You are incorrect again my friend. You can't get more than perfect, saved, and furnished for all good works through scripture. Should I listen to you or God. I have everything I need in the bible that God wants me to have. That bible will make a fool out of every man that tries to correct it, ridicule it , mock it, or forsake it. The bible stands.
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 01:10 am, Pastor Dave writes:
Nighthaven, about the Crusades. It doesn't matter what the Muslims were doing to Christians. The bible gives the church no authority to take up arms. The bible says on the contrary (as if that is a surprise to anyone now), that (2 Cor 10:4) "the weapons of our warfare are not carnal". Do you get that? Romans 13 makes the state our defenders if they obey God. The church is not a state, country, or nation. It is the Body of Christ and our allegiance is to heaven. If Jesus could suffer his death on the cross, what makes you think that you deserve more than him. The bible says "the servant is not greater than his master". As for me being thankful that I am not praying to mecca today because of the crusades, you assume God would not have altered or changed things between then and now. I thank noone but Christ. God used a prostitute to deliver the 12 spies out of the land of Canaan. I owe Rome nothing. And if you think I am against self defense think again. I will defend my family against harm, but I will do it as a father and husband and individual, and not have my church army out helping me because if I have time for that I can call the Romans 13 police for help.
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 01:36 am, Pastor Dave writes:
Priest Jim, you have said "Let's say you have a Bishop who has only one wife and she dies. Ooops, guess he would have to be removed since he no longer has a wife." This still makes the man qualified when he became bishop. What to do at this point of death of his spouse is a good question but it does not address the fact that none of Romes bishops are qualified at all. Nice smoke screen but appealling to the exception only proves the rule.
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 01:48 am, Pastor Dave writes:
Priest Jim, I suppose I could get a coffin and put it in my basement and say that its Peters grave but that wouldn't make it so would it? We do not say that Jesus lied because the church (me and all other born again believers) are still here and the gates of hell have not prevailed against it. You must think that the church is a corporate thing. Sorry, but christians make the church, the church does not make the christians. You must have us confused with someone else because we aren't a denomination. Thats not in the bible. We are the church and we will never be gone. Oh, and by the way what is the gospel you preach? I am not asking you what the word means (good news), I am asking what the gospel is. Do you know? Also, about the Kool-aid. That is not a reference to Jim Jones, it is a modern phrase meaning that you believe the party line if you will. Yes pastor means shepherd and its not my fauld that is what I am called. You know this though because you are familiar with Ephesians 4 I am sure.
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 01:52 am, Pastor Dave writes:
Hate to see you go Priest Jim, but I will say that you have had no answers but have been found wanting and in need of rethinking your whole belief system. That is if you have ears to hear and eyes to see with. You have actually helped me see that sticking with the bible will really make one free as Jesus said it would. That bible bows to noone and no theological system. This is why the bible says that God magnifies His word above His name. Praise the Lord for His word.
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 02:04 am, Pastor Dave writes:
Hate to see you go Priest Jim, but I will say that you have had no answers but have been found wanting and in need of rethinking your whole belief system. That is if you have ears to hear and eyes to see with. You have actually helped me see that sticking with the bible will really make one free as Jesus said it would. That bible bows to noone and no theological system. This is why the bible says that God magnifies His word above His name. Praise the Lord for His word.
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 03:07 am, street preacher writes:
Baptists are PROTESTANTS? Q what was the origin of the term PROTESTANT? A 1529 at the Diet of Speyer. What Baptists were recognized as part of that "Protestant" group????? (The anabaptists were still under order of death from the order of Toleration at the 1st diet of speyer 1526 and thus not part of the New term Protestant) Q. Of the 95 Thesis how many were critical of the Catholic Church? (remember Luther was a Catholic REFORMER.) A. NUN Luther was a Augustinian. (and a Monk) Q. Who was in favor of the use of Force & the sword for heretics? A. Augustine & catholics plus REFORMED Catholics such as Luther, Calvin, Puritans, etc. (please provide a quote of a baptist in favor of the sword hint: there are none) REFORMED Catholics & Roman Catholics persecuted with the law & sword all Baptists. The scholar Phillip Schaff said "The Reformers refused to others the right of PROTEST which they claimed and exercised for themselves, and the civil magistracy visited the poor Anabaptists with capital punishment" (Hist. of the Christian church Vol VIII p67) Another word for this crowd could be Augustinians. Since Calvin quoted Augustine so often B B Warfield said "It is Augustine who gave us the Reformation." Numerous occurences of Calvin praising Augustine with references & quotaions could be cited. The REFORMED Boettner said "The Reformation was essentially a revival of Augustinianism" (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination p 370) Calvinism is just Augustinianism. Reformation scholar David Steinmetz of Duke Divinity School said "ALL the REFORMERS loved Augustine (Luther, remember, was an Augustinian friar). Calvin, though he loved Augustine for doctrine, preferred Chrysostom's approach to biblical interpretation." Throughout his life Calvin cited his BABY SPRINKLING as the basis of his regeneration, just like the good Reformed Catholic that he was. Augustine & his followers were in favor of a state run church. Baptists have never held to this doctrine. Augustinians Baby Sprinkle - Baptists practice Believers Baptism by Immersion as in the Apostolic Church. Stop trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Baptists are not Reformed catholics or Augustinians.
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 03:38 am, street preacher writes:
We know the Baptists are ancient because we see the WANTED POSTERS put up thruout history: Council held at Carthage AD 398 under Aurelius against those that DENIED original sin, Baby sprinkling, and Predestination (sounds Augustinian/Calvinistic to me:) AD 413 against the so called Anti-Baptists by 2 Eastern Emperors Theodosius and Honorius: "If any minister of the Christian church is found guilty of having REbaptised he together with the person thus REbaptised provided the latter is proved to be such an age as to understand the crime shall be put to death" AD421 ANAbaptism condemned by edict of constantius AD535 an Emperial edict condemned the Donatists AD1139 Arnold of Brescia condemned by Lateran Council for rejecting Baby sprinkling AD1176 Alexander the Third condemns Waldensians for errors and Impieties(anabaptism) AD1183 Albigensians condemned by Pope Lucius AD1229 Council of Toulouse condemn both Albigensians and Waldensians Nov 19 1926 Council of Zurich declares Anabaptism should be punished by drowning, Zwingli concurs AD1535 Edict issued by Emperor Charles V against the anabaptists On Sept 9 1527 the Council of Saint Gall; an edict under direction of Zwingli declared "In order that the dangerous and wicked turbulent and seditious sect of the Baptists may be eradicated we have thus decreed: If anyone is suspected of rebaptism, he is to be warned by the Magistracy to leave the territory under penalty of the designated punishment foreign Baptist are to be driven out; if they return they shall be drowned" Thus Zwingli scientifically identified the Anabaptists as Baptists
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 03:48 am, Pope Fan writes:
This is interesting...no planks and tons of good fruit. http://landoverbaptist.org/
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 03:59 am, street preacher writes:
PRIESTS? priestCRAFT is an invention of the Roman church.The Apostolic church knows nothing of such, as it was a later invention to corral the LAITY & pass of the priestCRAFT mumbo-jumbo. RV 2:15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the NicoLAITanes, which thing I hate. In the Cath. Dic. 692 "The Apostolic Fathers also abstain from ANY mention of a Christian priesthood". C.D. 692 "the word priest, priesthood are never applied in the new testament to the office of the Christian ministry. ALL Christians are said to be priests". In the C.E. XII 406, 415 "the priesthood evolved" So we see that the informed RC cited herein agree with Pastor Dave and better yet the bible.
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 04:00 am, street preacher writes:
Pope Fan you ate the ONION!
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 04:01 am, street preacher writes:
FRIAR Jim, had to leave too hot in the kitchen : )
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 04:34 am, street preacher writes:
HEADLINES: "Rebels Defy Church over Mass" Roman ARCHBishop claims, Rome has lost the Faith. Rome is in apostasy. The see has been vacant since 1958. "The Chair of St. Peter and the positions of authority in Rome are occupied by Antichrists" John Paul II was "not Catholic" Novus Ordo rite is invalid. The Archbishop described the Pope and the Roman Curia as 'disciples of the Father of lies' and 'more than ever an instrument for destroying the faith' OH yeah check out the UNITY of the FAITH page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dictionary_of_the_Catholic_Resistance Various orders show jealousy and border on hate. How about the rivalries between the Dominicans & Fransciscans, the hated of the jesuits by other orders. PROPAGANDA should be reserved for yUSE by official PARTY members. Somebody has been lying about the UNITY of the "ONE TRUE FAITH"! (¿patent pending¿)
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 05:07 am, street preacher writes:
PRIESTS? priestCRAFT is an invention of the Roman church.The Apostolic church knows nothing of such, as it was a later invention to corral the LAITY & pass of the priestCRAFT mumbo-jumbo. RV 2:15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the NicoLAITanes, which thing I hate. In the Cath. Dic. 692 "The Apostolic Fathers also abstain from ANY mention of a Christian priesthood". C.D. 692 "the word priest, priesthood are never applied in the new testament to the office of the Christian ministry. ALL Christians are said to be priests". In the C.E. XII 406, 415 "the priesthood evolved" So we see that the informed RC cited herein agree with Pastor Dave and better yet the bible.
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 05:16 am, street preacher writes:
PRIESTS? priestCRAFT is an invention of the Roman church.The Apostolic church knows nothing of such, as it was a later invention to corral the LAITY & pass of the priestCRAFT mumbo-jumbo. RV 2:15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the NicoLAITanes, which thing I hate. In the Cath. Dic. 692 "The Apostolic Fathers also abstain from ANY mention of a Christian priesthood". C.D. 692 "the word priest, priesthood are never applied in the new testament to the office of the Christian ministry. ALL Christians are said to be priests". In the C.E. XII 406, 415 "the priesthood evolved" So we see that the informed RC cited herein agree with Pastor Dave and better yet the bible.
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 05:38 am, street preacher writes:
PRIESTS? priestCRAFT is an invention of the Roman church.The Apostolic church knows nothing of such, as it was a later invention to corral the LAITY & pass of the priestCRAFT mumbo-jumbo. RV 2:15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the NicoLAITanes, which thing I hate. In the Cath. Dic. 692 "The Apostolic Fathers also abstain from ANY mention of a Christian priesthood". C.D. 692 "the word priest, priesthood are never applied in the new testament to the office of the Christian ministry. ALL Christians are said to be priests". In the C.E. XII 406, 415 "the priesthood evolved" So we see that the informed RC cited herein agree with Pastor Dave and better yet the bible.
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 05:54 am, street preacher writes:
PRIESTS? priestCRAFT is an invention of the Roman church.The Apostolic church knows nothing of such, as it was a later invention to corral the LAITY & pass of the priestCRAFT mumbo-jumbo. RV 2:15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the NicoLAITanes, which thing I hate. In the Cath. Dic. 692 "The Apostolic Fathers also abstain from ANY mention of a Christian priesthood". C.D. 692 "the word priest, priesthood are never applied in the new testament to the office of the Christian ministry. ALL Christians are said to be priests". In the C.E. XII 406, 415 "the priesthood evolved" So we see that the informed RC cited herein agree with Pastor Dave and better yet the bible.
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 06:17 am, Pope Fan writes:
Priests are an invention of the RCC? Ok, it's starting to make sense now - So Jesus was too....and Melchizedek as well?
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 08:37 am, Nighthaven writes:
I can see this debate is going nowhere. Already answered arguments are dragged back up and twisted. This isn't a good platform for a debate, for simply we are running in circular arguments, accomplishing nothing, well except the SP's alienating themselves. Priests are the Presbyter's ordained in the Order of Melchisedech just as Jesus was. When Jesus made Apostles, they became Bishops of the Order of Melchisedech. All Catholic priest's hail from this order, because the only other priesthood in existance at the time was the Levi priesthood; but had to be a descendant of Aaron in order to qualify. If you aren't a Jew, than the only priesthood you can look to is the priests of the Order of Melchisedech. Since these priests serve God through the attachment of the Catholic Church, we can see where the true Church is. Not only does the Catholic Church have the fullness of truth, but they also have the legal priesthood. All roads lead to the Catholic Church. You can take detours on such said roads, but eventually you'll have to link back up with the main roads. Whether you link back up to the main roads in your life here, or your afterlife, it doesn't matter. Eventually you'll link back up to them roads. Once you reach the end of the path it forks. One fork is the low path descending into the depths of Abyss, the other is the higher path that leads to Eternal Paradise. The choices you make while on this roadtrip determines which fork you take. So make sure you make good choices in life, and not allow pride to make you it's slave. There is forgiveness and redemption during this roadtrip, but if your heart shows no real seriousness about changing sinful ways, than your destination has already been decided before the trip is even half over. Something to ponder when you yell and scream at Catholics and deem the Holy Mother as simply a whore. Something to ponder when you scream outside Catholic Church's during Mass. Something to ponder when you pass out falsehood tract's to elderly Catholics. Remember this above anything else I have written to you: The ends do not justify the means. First you must clean up your own sinful ways before you can tell Catholic's about your opinion of the Gospels.
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 08:51 am, Nighthaven writes:
We can go ahead and place this debate at a close. I thank all the SP's for their contribution to this thread. But I think it would be mutually benefincial to close this debate; before Catholics decide next year to give you a dose of your own medicine. Christ told us we'd be persecuted just like he was, so we need to wear that persecution as a badge of honor and offer it up to the Lord. I ask all Catholic's that are reading this thread to not employ the same tactics as these SP's. For if we stoop to their level, we become just like them. I know the method's the SP's use aren't fair, and sometimes you just get tired of just grinning and baring it; but we as Christians follow a higher path that Christ laid out for us. No matter what conditions we bare here on earth, know that eternal paradise waits for you at the end. Our mortal lives will be nothing but a blink of an eye compared to eternity. So take up your crosses Christian Soldiers and bare them for the Lord. As with this debate, I ask that all Catholic's refrain from futher posting here as will I. Our parents used to tell us to ignore bullies, now it's time to put that into action. Or if you prefer a biblical teaching, than just turn the other cheek.
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 12:42 pm, George the Preacher writes:
Jim writes:"Maybe I will visit nursing homes and find elderly relatives of fundamentalists and baptize them Catholic. You won't mind surely? I be if you found them with a rosary in their hands you would be displeased." Listen, friend, I am not like Catholocism who KILLS people and FORCES them to believe! I just preach the gospel, in OBEDIEANCE to the one who loved me and gave himself for me! Two college degrees, eh? With comments like "find elderly relatives...baptize them Catholic" shows your ignorance of the scripture. Do you actually believe you must be baptized to be saved? That is HERESY according to the scripture. Listen, I will say this again, I DO NOT CARE IF a man goes to hell or not. You see, that is why you had to "shut the bible believers" up, because they set men FREE! That takes away YOUR CONTROL, which of course takes away MONEY FROM YOUR POCKET! See what I mean, jealy bean? I have a job and make my own money. I do not need to STEAL it from others, by pulling a scam that you (a priest) are their mediator between God and that in order for your sins to be forgiven, you must perform a MASS to clean them up! You continue your "subtilty and craftiness" through IDOLATROUS worship of saints, novinas, rosaries, etc. and through good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. I know your SCAM, just like the Greek Orthodox church I grew up in! Same DEAD bunch.
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 02:45 pm, Dave writes:
This thread is dangerously close to running out of space. This may be the last post. Thank you all for participating. May God Bless Us All.
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 03:28 pm, street preacher writes:
PARTY LINE PROPAGANDA↕ Friar Jim (how's that for turning a baseless claim on its head¿¿¿) claims the "Catholic Church gave you that Bible" And what proof does he offer¿ NUN! Sorry your claim is NUNsense, else you would try to LOGICally prove your point not just spout the party line in your standard MANTRIC repitition. (this of course was right after he accused us of being mentally ill) Maybe he learned these awesome PERSUASION techniques in Seminary¿ When the Friar meets someone that can converse on the subject at hand & not just fall prostrate at his feet; as he utters his EXCAThedra staements, he runs screaming from the arena. "OH MY I have better places to debate! Of course if all else fails, you can always resort back to that old faithful Romish standard of persuasion and sure road to UNITY - Kill them, to maintain the "PURITY" of the Church. When chasing heretics isn't it easist to just¿ "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset"¿ "Kill them all. God will know His own." Quouted is The great Albegensian HUNTER & Papal Legate Arnaud-Armaury 22nd July 1209 at the siege of Beziers. Of course there was no worry about being a murderer of men, women and CHILDREN because Pope Innocent III issued a "BULL" offering indulgences for combatants against that "sinister RACE"!



Sorry, commenting has been disabled.
The Catholic Tide Continues to Turn


You can buy "The Catholic Tide Continues to Turn" from the link above or directly call the publisher (Aquinas and More) toll free at 1-866-428-2820.


Contact Dave Hartline for any inquiries, questions or to speak to your group by clicking the "speaking links" on the left side of the page directly opposite and above this entry.


Upcoming Appearances
by Dave Hartline


4/12/2009
Saint Gabriel Catholic Radio. My Interview With Father Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life


March 7, 2009
Saint Gabriel Catholic Radio, I Will Be Hosting The Post Game Show Following The Columbus Catholic Men's Conference


February 27, 2009
Brian Patrick's Sonrise Morning Show, Sacred Heart Radio EWTN


1/9/2009
Brian Patrick Sonrise Morning Show Sacred Heart/EWTN Radio


9/17/2008
Paul Clemens Show WLCR AM 1040 Louisville


July 7, 2008
Catholic Answers Live With Jerry Usher


June 26, 2008
Brian Patrick Show On Sacred Heart Catholic Radio, Cincinnati


March 4, 2008
St. Peter-Chillicothe, Ohio


February 11, 2008
St Mary's-Marion, Ohio


12/15-16/07
Signing Books After Mass-St Michael Parish-Worthington, Ohio


12/8-9/07
Signing Books After Mass-St Joan Of Arc Parish-Powell, Ohio


11/13/07
Relevant Radio The Drew Mariani Show


11/5/07
Relevant Radio The Drew Mariani Show


10/26-28/07
Marian Center Conference XVI Boyne Mountain, MI


9/14/07
Michigan Catholic Radio


9/27/07
Theology & A Pub Columbus, OH (Columbus Maennerchor) 966 S High Street


9/11/07
Michigan Catholic Radio


8/03/07
Relevant Radio's Searching The Word Program 12-1 CST


8/15/07
In His Service Catholic Radio, Philadelphia


7/30/07
Radio Maria & Affiliates (Louisiana)


7/26/07
Catholic Marketing Network (Cleveland)


5/24/07
St Gerald Church Farmington, MI (Speaking & Signing Books) Event Begins At The Conclusion Of The 7PM Mass


6/06/07
Paul Clemens Show WLCR AM 1040 Louisville 5PM


5/23/07
Al Kresta Radio Show Ave Maria Radio 5PM EST


5/22/07
St Jane Frances DeChantel Church Sterling Heights, MI (Speaking & Signing Books) Event Begins At 7PM


5/15/07
Teresa Tomeo Show Ave Maria Radio 8AM


4/28-4/29
St Mary Parish-Marion, Ohio (Briefly Speaking After Masses & Signing Books)


3/25/07
Saint Peter Church-Chillicothe, OH (signing books)


3/23/07
Lino Rulli Show-Sirius Satellite Catholic Radio


3/03/07
Cincinnati Catholic Men's Gathering-Cincinnati, OH (signing books but not speaking)


3/02/07
Maronite Catholic Youth Gathering-New Castle-PA


2/21/07
Catholic Family Theater Productions-Hollywood, CA (Pasta & Prayer Series)


2/20/07
GodSpace Catholic Bookstore-Thousand Oaks, CA


2/07/07
Al Kresta Show-Ave Maria Radio


1/31/2007
EWTN Bookmark Program-Birmingham, AL (Taped At The Catholic Marketing Network)


1/18/2007
Catholic Marketing Network Gathering-Birmingham, AL


1/16/2007
Relevant Radio-The Drew Mariani Show


1/08/2007
KVSS Catholic Radio-Omaha, NE (Bruce & Kris McGregor)



The Great Debate
Catholics versus Fundamentalists


Design and dynamIt content copyright 2014 The Hartline Report.
All rights reserved.