Did you read the article? Thoughts?
Standing Up To Rome
- Thread starter WeberHome
- Start date
Did you read the article? Thoughts?
Cruciform
New member
Sadly, the article you posted is riddled with errors and inaccuracies concerning Catholic teaching and practice, which is only to be expected, since it was written by a journalist and a businessman who are both Evangelical Protestants. Why, I ask, would you go to Fidel Castro for a fair and accurate explanation of free market capitalism? Far better to get your information about Catholicism straight from the horse's mouth. I recommend beginning with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Back to Post #248 above.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
WeberHome
New member
-
Pagan cults like Roman Catholicism and Jehovah's Witnesses are sort of like
the MATRIX. People in the MATRIX can't see it for what it really is. Only
people outside the MATRIX can see it for what it really is.
IMO: Catholics who read that article, and then claim it's riddled with errors
and inaccuracies, are themselves riddled with errors and inaccuracies and
can't see their religion for what it really is.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Pagan cults like Roman Catholicism and Jehovah's Witnesses are sort of like
the MATRIX. People in the MATRIX can't see it for what it really is. Only
people outside the MATRIX can see it for what it really is.
IMO: Catholics who read that article, and then claim it's riddled with errors
and inaccuracies, are themselves riddled with errors and inaccuracies and
can't see their religion for what it really is.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
WeberHome
New member
Good Friday
Good Friday
-
One of the most humiliating questions that I've ever been asked as a
Christian is: How do you get three days and three nights from Friday
afternoon to Sunday morning?
With a little semantic trickery it's possible to produce three days, but no
amount of trickery will produce three nights.
Somebody once suggested that maybe the hours of darkness on the cross
were one of the nights. But that won't work because Christ lived through
those hours. He predicted he'd be dead.
†. Matt 12:40 . . Just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly
of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights
in the heart of the earth.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Good Friday
-
One of the most humiliating questions that I've ever been asked as a
Christian is: How do you get three days and three nights from Friday
afternoon to Sunday morning?
With a little semantic trickery it's possible to produce three days, but no
amount of trickery will produce three nights.
Somebody once suggested that maybe the hours of darkness on the cross
were one of the nights. But that won't work because Christ lived through
those hours. He predicted he'd be dead.
†. Matt 12:40 . . Just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly
of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights
in the heart of the earth.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ben Masada
New member
The Hoax of the Three Days and Three Nights
On the third day or in three days, simply means after a short period of time. (Hosea 6:2)
Night or day for three days, as we have in the request of Esther to fast for her, means three days or three nights whether one follows the tradition to fast by day or by night. Those terms were used here because it was in the Diaspora where most Persians followed the tradition to fast by night. So, Esther's maids who were not Jewish, would share Esther's pain by showing their solidarity with their night fast. (Esther 4:16)
The case of Jonah dispenses all explanation because it happened during a vision. Therefore metaphorical language. That could be the entire three days and three nights, since everything is possible in a vision or dream. (Jonah 2:1)
Now, for the three days and three nights we are talking about, for Jesus to spend in the tomb, according to Matthew 12:40, the writer must have had a very poor insight about parables or metaphorical language to draw his prophecy in the terms of Jonah's allegory. If he had used the language of Esther or Hosea, he could have saved his prophecy from being a hoax, but now he must account for the whole three days and three nights or parts thereof.
We don't even need another gospel writer to contradict the one of Matthew. This contradicts himself as he declares that the next day, the one following the Day of Preparation, the chief Priests asked Pilate for a guard of soldiers to watch the tomb area for three days. (Mat. 27:62-64) The Jewish Preparation Day is always Friday, and the following day is the Sabbath.
Then, after that Sabbath, as the first day was dawning, the women went to see the sepulcher, there was an earthquake, an "angel" came down from Heaven, removed the stone, and the tomb was empty. Someone had cheated the angel by raising Jesus from there long before the "angel" could at least be an eyewitness to the resurrection.
Based on the Jewish method that a whole day or night can be accounted for any part of the day or night, we can consider the first day for those minutes that took Joseph of Arimathea to get Jesus into the tomb before sunset. The first night from sunset to sun dawn of Saturday, the second day from sun dawn Saturday to sunset that Saturday, and the second night from sunset that Saturday to the sun dawn of the first day. It was still dark when the women arrived at the tomb to find it empty. Therefore we are missing a whole day and a whole night to save Matthew 12:40 from becoming a prophetical hoax and a classical contradiction in the NT.
Any volunteers to solve this puzzle?
genuineoriginal
New member
The infallible and binding authority of the Bible, of course.
You are not very good at this, are you?
:thumb:
Do you agree with indulgences?
Cruciform
New member
Straw Man Fallacy. Try again.
Cruciform
New member
And how are indulgences obtained?
Cruciform
New member
Already answered (Post #270).
Luke 16:13 New King James Version (NKJV)
13 “No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”
Do you believe that indulgences can be obtained by giving monitarily to the church
I would rather you answer the question yes or no rather than send me to some website.
Cruciform
New member
So you not only want to ask the questions, but you also insist on telling us how to answer as well? I provided you with the information needed to actually comprehend the answer, though it appears that perhaps that isn't all that important to you.
In short, my answer is "no."
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
brewmama
New member
Ha! Right back at ya! I'm still waiting for your reply elsewhere.
WeberHome
New member
-
Christianity's so-called Lord's Day is sometimes confused with Judaism's
weekly 7th day Sabbath; which is associated with creation. (Ex 20:8-11)
The Lord's Day is mentioned by name only once in the entire New Testament
at Rev 1:10. The Greek word for "Lord's" is kuriakos (koo-ree-ak-os') which
appears in only one other verse-- 1Cor 11:20 --where it refers to a Christian
ritual associated with Christ; which in turn is associated with the 1st day of
the week rather than the 7th. (Acts 20:7).
So we're probably pretty safe to assume that the Lord's Day should be on
Sunday seeing as how Judaism observes its 7th day Sabbath on Saturday
The Sabbath is mandatory for Yhvh's people because it's incorporated in a
covenant that they agreed upon with God.
†. Ex 31:13 . . Speak to the children of Israel, saying; You shall surely
observe My sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your
generations, that you may know that I am Yhvh who sanctifies you.
Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you.
Yhvh's people are in breech of covenant whenever they fail to honor their
obligation to keep the sabbath; and thus incur severe covenanted penalties.
†. Ex 31:14 . .Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you.
Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any
work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people.
Christ's believing followers are not covenanted with God to keep the
Sabbath; so then, for them, it isn't a mandatory obligation; and the
penalties for breaking the Sabbath don't apply either because where there is
no covenant, there is no breech of covenant.
†. Rom 4:15 . .Where there is no law, neither is there violation.
†. Rom 5:13 . . Sin is not imputed when there is no law.
The exception is when Christ's believing followers are residents in the land of
Israel.
†. Ex 12:49 . .The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who
sojourns among you.
†. Lev 24:22 . .There shall be one standard for you: it shall be for the
stranger as well as the native
The Lord's Day didn't begin as a sort of Sabbath day; but merely a
conveniently designated day for Christ's believing followers to assemble
together for various purposes. Biblically, the Lord's Day is not a mandatory
observance; though according to the RCC it is: at least for Rome's followers
anyway.
CCC 2177 . . .The Sunday celebration of the Lord's Day and his Eucharist is
at the heart of the Church's life. "Sunday is the day on which the paschal
mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be observed
as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Christianity's so-called Lord's Day is sometimes confused with Judaism's
weekly 7th day Sabbath; which is associated with creation. (Ex 20:8-11)
The Lord's Day is mentioned by name only once in the entire New Testament
at Rev 1:10. The Greek word for "Lord's" is kuriakos (koo-ree-ak-os') which
appears in only one other verse-- 1Cor 11:20 --where it refers to a Christian
ritual associated with Christ; which in turn is associated with the 1st day of
the week rather than the 7th. (Acts 20:7).
So we're probably pretty safe to assume that the Lord's Day should be on
Sunday seeing as how Judaism observes its 7th day Sabbath on Saturday
The Sabbath is mandatory for Yhvh's people because it's incorporated in a
covenant that they agreed upon with God.
†. Ex 31:13 . . Speak to the children of Israel, saying; You shall surely
observe My sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your
generations, that you may know that I am Yhvh who sanctifies you.
Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you.
Yhvh's people are in breech of covenant whenever they fail to honor their
obligation to keep the sabbath; and thus incur severe covenanted penalties.
†. Ex 31:14 . .Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you.
Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any
work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people.
Christ's believing followers are not covenanted with God to keep the
Sabbath; so then, for them, it isn't a mandatory obligation; and the
penalties for breaking the Sabbath don't apply either because where there is
no covenant, there is no breech of covenant.
†. Rom 4:15 . .Where there is no law, neither is there violation.
†. Rom 5:13 . . Sin is not imputed when there is no law.
The exception is when Christ's believing followers are residents in the land of
Israel.
†. Ex 12:49 . .The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who
sojourns among you.
†. Lev 24:22 . .There shall be one standard for you: it shall be for the
stranger as well as the native
The Lord's Day didn't begin as a sort of Sabbath day; but merely a
conveniently designated day for Christ's believing followers to assemble
together for various purposes. Biblically, the Lord's Day is not a mandatory
observance; though according to the RCC it is: at least for Rome's followers
anyway.
CCC 2177 . . .The Sunday celebration of the Lord's Day and his Eucharist is
at the heart of the Church's life. "Sunday is the day on which the paschal
mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be observed
as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
WeberHome
New member
-
†. 1Tim 3:15 . . But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou
oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God; which is the church of the
living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
It's a very common error among Catholics to look at that verse and let their
minds see the church of the living God as the pillar and ground of the truth
rather than the God of the church; but that would make no sense at all since
the church of the living God consists of mortal human beings plagued with
human nature and a natural propensity to twist the truth rather than
preserve it.
The New Testament Greek word for "pillar" is stulos (stoo'-los); which
means: a post. The same word is used at Gal 2:9, Rev 3:12, and Rev 10:1.
Pillars (a.k.a. columns) were common structural members in the architecture
of the ancient world; utilized inside buildings as colonnades, and to hold the
roofs of porches in place. It was those kinds of structural members that
Samson tugged to pull down a Philistine temple (Jdg 16:29-30).
The word for "ground" is hedraioma (hed-rah'-yo-mah); which means: a
support. Unfortunately, 1Tim 3:15 is the only place in the entire New
Testament where hedraioma is used so it's difficult to really know precisely
what Paul was trying to convey. One of Webster's definitions of *support is:
to provide a foundation for. That seems reasonable since colonnades don't
usually rest upon soil, but upon some type of solid flooring; which in turn
would rest, ideally, upon bedrock.
A much clearer translation of 1Tim 3:15 would be like this:
"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave
thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, who is the
colonnade and the foundation of the truth."
The "truth" then, is depicted as a building constructed upon bedrock, and
whose roof is supported by colonnades; with God himself being both the
foundation and the colonnades.
You see, without the words "who is" that passage is vague and can trick the
mind into thinking that the building exists without God being an integral part
of the structure; but it doesn't. The building would collapse in an instant
during the very first earthquake without a solid foundation supporting hefty
colonnades. So then, the truth doesn't uphold God, no, just the opposite:
God upholds the truth. (cf. John 14:6)
1Tim 3:15 is saying that if there were no real live God of the Bible out there
somewhere, then Christianity would be a silly myth and Christ's church no
more sacred than the Elk's Club. It's only the reality of a Bible's God that
makes so-called "truth" to be actually true and reliable.
FYI: The Bible is highly recommended by the Church.
"The Scriptures are sacred and canonical because: Having been written by
inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and as such
have been handed down to the Church" (Vatican Council; Sess. III, c. ii)
"In its pages we recognize His voice, we hear a message of deep significance
for every one of us. Through the spiritual dynamism and prophetic force of
the Bible, the Holy Spirit spreads His light and His warmth over all men, in
whatever historical or sociological situation they find themselves." (Paulus PP
VI, from the Vatican, September 18, 1970)
So then; according to that Vatican Council and to Paulus PP VI; when I listen
to the Bible; I'm listening to the voice of God, and I'm also listening to that
which the Holy Spirit utilizes to spread His light and His warmth over all
men.
Ironically, it was by my listening to the voice of God on the pages of
the Bible that the Holy Spirit led me to part company with Rome.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
†. 1Tim 3:15 . . But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou
oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God; which is the church of the
living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
It's a very common error among Catholics to look at that verse and let their
minds see the church of the living God as the pillar and ground of the truth
rather than the God of the church; but that would make no sense at all since
the church of the living God consists of mortal human beings plagued with
human nature and a natural propensity to twist the truth rather than
preserve it.
The New Testament Greek word for "pillar" is stulos (stoo'-los); which
means: a post. The same word is used at Gal 2:9, Rev 3:12, and Rev 10:1.
Pillars (a.k.a. columns) were common structural members in the architecture
of the ancient world; utilized inside buildings as colonnades, and to hold the
roofs of porches in place. It was those kinds of structural members that
Samson tugged to pull down a Philistine temple (Jdg 16:29-30).
The word for "ground" is hedraioma (hed-rah'-yo-mah); which means: a
support. Unfortunately, 1Tim 3:15 is the only place in the entire New
Testament where hedraioma is used so it's difficult to really know precisely
what Paul was trying to convey. One of Webster's definitions of *support is:
to provide a foundation for. That seems reasonable since colonnades don't
usually rest upon soil, but upon some type of solid flooring; which in turn
would rest, ideally, upon bedrock.
A much clearer translation of 1Tim 3:15 would be like this:
"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave
thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, who is the
colonnade and the foundation of the truth."
The "truth" then, is depicted as a building constructed upon bedrock, and
whose roof is supported by colonnades; with God himself being both the
foundation and the colonnades.
You see, without the words "who is" that passage is vague and can trick the
mind into thinking that the building exists without God being an integral part
of the structure; but it doesn't. The building would collapse in an instant
during the very first earthquake without a solid foundation supporting hefty
colonnades. So then, the truth doesn't uphold God, no, just the opposite:
God upholds the truth. (cf. John 14:6)
1Tim 3:15 is saying that if there were no real live God of the Bible out there
somewhere, then Christianity would be a silly myth and Christ's church no
more sacred than the Elk's Club. It's only the reality of a Bible's God that
makes so-called "truth" to be actually true and reliable.
FYI: The Bible is highly recommended by the Church.
"The Scriptures are sacred and canonical because: Having been written by
inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and as such
have been handed down to the Church" (Vatican Council; Sess. III, c. ii)
"In its pages we recognize His voice, we hear a message of deep significance
for every one of us. Through the spiritual dynamism and prophetic force of
the Bible, the Holy Spirit spreads His light and His warmth over all men, in
whatever historical or sociological situation they find themselves." (Paulus PP
VI, from the Vatican, September 18, 1970)
So then; according to that Vatican Council and to Paulus PP VI; when I listen
to the Bible; I'm listening to the voice of God, and I'm also listening to that
which the Holy Spirit utilizes to spread His light and His warmth over all
men.
Ironically, it was by my listening to the voice of God on the pages of
the Bible that the Holy Spirit led me to part company with Rome.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
keypurr
Well-known member
Christ is Lord of the Sabbath, the seventh day.
Sunday is a pagan day. Ever read about the Sun God?
He who breaks any one of the Ten is guilty of breaking them all.
Sin is breaking his Law, are you promoting sin?
This is a commandment, given to all, not something to be agreed upon, just obeyed.