The Christian Discussion thread IX: Pelagius Rising.

[ThePeacekeepers]

1.Fulfilled meaning completed, finished, its done now. Yes he is a high priest after the Order of Melchisadec who spiritually went up to the alter before the Throne of God and sprinkled is blood as the sacrificial lamb for all mankind's sin. He was the last priest we had, we have bishops, pastors and deacons now it doesn't say we need priests only Yahshua the Christ. Furthermore all the money and the goods given to the church during the time of the Apostles were given to every man as they had need, it never gave any mention of them spending the money on anything other than the people within the church who needed it. And when we look at what Christ and the apostles taught we can clearly see that a simple and modest life is necessary to follow Christ. Nowhere in the New testament does it say we are to have any items of value to serve the lord and Glorify him. We Glorify him by spreading his word and keeping his statutes day in and day out.
2. Show one place in the new testament that says we need ornate robes and churches.

1) If there is a High Priest, there must be a priesthood. Moreover, archeological evidence shows that ancient churches were pretty richly adorned.
2) As I have said before, we aren't restricted to the New Testament. It is the same God in the Old Testament. If He wants his priests an temples to be richly adorned in the Old Testament, if we have no conflicting evidence otherwise, it is reasonable to assume that He still wants that.

The Old Testament is still relevant. The Old Testament is fulfilled by the New Testament, not overwritten. Without the Old Testament, we would be lost, because we would not have known to look for our Christ.

As for your 4: God spoke to the prophets of the Old Testament, and the Holy Spirit continues to speak through the Church, as Christ promised.

1. Yes there is a priesthood after the order of Melchizedek of which Christ was high piriest, but none of your so called priests are after that order. Christ was the last High priest and the last priest. There are no more ceremonial offerings made for sin which was the point of the priests. Christ is our Eternal Priest who offered his Blood once for all mans sins forever. That's it no more need of priests. Now we have bishops pastors and deacons as the heads of the church on earth, no other office is given. As to the archeological evidence about the churches I'm sure there were many ornate churches in the past but many of them were not the churches of Yahweh's people.
2. We are restricted to the new testament law, you haven't given any evidence from the new testament showing the old is anywhere near in effect. Just because it is the same god doesn't mean we are under the old testament, there is no sense in that line of logic neither is there any scripture to back this idea. We are under the new law since the under the old no man could be saved. If even one part of the old law is still in effect as the lord has said then all is still in effect. In which case we are no longer under the dispensation of Grace through Christ but under the old covenant by which we must sacrifice through the Levitical priesthood for our sins.
3. The old testament helps us to understand the new but every law in the old testament is fulfilled and no longer in effect(except for the moral law). The only part of the old testament still in effect is unfulfilled prophecy. We can't have the old without the new, but in order for the new to have any effect is for the old to pass away which is did through Yahshua the Christ's blood.
4. True on the first part. The second is mostly true but the church he is speaking of is most certainty not the Catholic church.

[Tarsonis]

Except that's not a position the Church fathers ever held, as when the Church Fathers were there, there was no new testament Up until the late second century, there was no standardized NT. So to claim that the entirety of Christ's full doctrine and tradition is contained within the NT, is contrary to historical fact. That means for 100 years or so, the Church didn't have access to the full tradition of Christ. Your claim is illogical.

Secondly, and I don't mean to be arrogant, but your verses don't actually help you.



Paul wrote these words, but what context are they in? When did Paul preach the Gospel in Full? In Romans? Why do we have the Gospels then? Paul didn't write them. This text in no way claims that the Epistles are in full, or the Bible is in full. Or even The letter to the Romans is in full. It just claims the Paul has gone from place to place and preached the gospel in full throughout his travels. You're applying that to the Bible, in a way that has no valid argument for application. You're deliberately twisting the meaning of the verse.

Also it's up for debate the nuances of what St. Paul means here. Is he saying that he's preached the full truth? Or is he's saying he's been completely truthful? Those are two different claims and I'm inclined to fall on the latter. Paul has been completely faithful in his preaching of Christ's gospel giving no false claims. But he's not saying he's preached the gospel of Christ in its entirety. After all there were many other teachers teaching other things, and Paul acknowledges their authority to teach such things. He wouldn't limit the vastness of the Gospel to just what he taught, he's not that arrogant.




Read that underlined again. Either by word which means spoken, and epistle which means written. Paul is literally. saying hold fast to BOTH spoken AND written teachings. Which means even scripture is claiming that there is more valid authority than just what is written. Both spoken and written teachings have authoritative meaning, so there obviously is teaching beyond the Bible that have valid authority, according to the Bible. This verse supports me, not you.



But you'd have to prove that that's the case that we are doing, which you've never been able to with any sort of accumen. Your positions have repeatedly been shown to be false or eccentric, and I've repeatedly proven that many times. The only one who refuses to accept that however, is you.



Really? Cause the Bible says that.

John 21: 24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

The Bible acknowledges that no book could ever contain the full teachings of God. So you claiming the Bible is the full teachings of God, is in fact contrary to the Bible's own teachings. Odd. Maybe you should do a little research (you know, like the rest of us have done) and figure out why the people who decided these books should be in the bible, made that decision. What were the factors, the concerns, the theology, who were they, etc? Find out why for instance, the Gospel John was included, and not the Gospel of Thomas.

I mean you say the Bible is the full tradition. But, even that begs the question of which bible? The Catholic Bible? The Orthodox Bible? The Protestant Bible? Is there even a true bible? I can think of half a dozen Gospels that aren't included in the Bible off the top of my head. Why don't those have authority? Your position is wanting.


Bringing Glory to God is not vain purpose, and to claim it is, is pretty blasphemous.





Except you've never proven demonstrably that the New Testament makes this claim, it's always a stretch in meaning with you. You don't provide the connecting proposition, you just assume the connection. Which is why we've all been able to say no, because the text doesn't overtly say what you're trying to make it say.

However your position is explicitly rebuked: "8 But when the disciples saw it, they were angry and said, “Why this waste? 9 For this ointment could have been sold for a large sum, and the money given to the poor.” 10 But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? She has performed a good service for me. "

Money spent on the Glory of God, is not a waste. If you don't believe the liturgy brings glory to God, that is your opinion, but we are by no means bound to share in that opinion. The vestments, do not bring glory to the one who wears them but to the one who the Liturgy is to, God Almighty. Your position is little more than protestant propaganda rather than acute theological reasoning. No offense intended to protestants.



And yet Men and Women of Christ have been worshiping this way for 2000 years. Your logic fails here, it's an odd "no true scottsman fallacy."

Again, there's no explicit condemnation than the one you've invented. It talks about a specific group of people, and their motivations for doing things. In fact Christ even upholds the office of these people.


Matthew 23:2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach.

Christ upholds the Scribes as valid teachers of the law, he maintains the authenticity of their office, and the Lawful vestments associated with said office. But he rebukes their personal motivations for holding said office. It's not the act of wearing long robes he rebukes, it's their motivation for wishing to do so. They wish to wear them for their own glory, and not for God's.

Now your argument of the potentiality of sin coming from this as a sufficient reason to remove vestments all together isn't ill conceived, but it's also by no means obligatory. As Christ has said, even if the person has become corrupt, the office is still valid.

Again, if you had even the smallest contextual knowledge of the Jewish religious customs and situation of the first century AD, you'd actually be able to understand who these scribes were and why Christ would rebuke them, the problems he would have with them and why he would have them, and how to properly apply them in a broader context. But you clearly don't, which is why you interpret the scripture so poorly, without any contextual basis.


And the worst of this is, you're so ignorant of all this information that people like me and other members of this thread have, yet you consider yourself wiser than us all. And Arrogance like that can be forgiven, but the way you apply it is incredibly asanine. You don't have any vested interest in learning anything. You come here, and espouse your nonsense, and just reject any contradicting argument as wrong without due evidence, or even valid reasoning.

Your position is essentially "I'm right, and all your positions are wrong, because they're not mine. And any evidence that proves me wrong, is just false." You presuppose your conclusion, and reject all other premises. That's not how any sort of logical discovery is conducted.

1. What wasn't written at the time was in spoken word that was written down and put into the bible. Which is the full Gospel and word of God that we are given.

That is an assertion without proof, that doesn't reflect historical account. Do you even know how the NT came to be? Like the actual historical process? Do you know the various textual theories, the possible sources? The interplay of Mark Matthew and Luke? Do you know who gave these gospels their names?

2. Yes they are in full support of what I'm saying because I'm only saying what they say. You are deliberately ignoring what the verse is saying.

Circular logic is circular.

He is saying he has come in the fullness of the Gospel the full gospel, now what we have written in the bible is that Gospel which Paul and the other apostles preached. Because if you heard Paul preach you heard peter, if you heard peter you heard john, if you heard john you heard Thomas, and so on and so forth since they each preached the same Gospel and had all things in common so Paul wasn't arrogant in saying he came in the full gospel because he did and so did each of the apostles.

No no no. You misunderstand. I would not deny the Paul himself was inundated with full gospel and imbued with righteous authority. But that's not what I asked you I asked you how that applies to the Bible? Is it the whole Bible? Just Romans? All his epistles? What about his epistles not included in the bible? Again your position is left wanting. Which Bible? The protestant ones? the Catholic one? the Orthodox one? You sidestep these questions because you have no answer. Why is the bible the full tradition. Why isn't the Gospels of Barnabas and Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, or the Shepherd of Hermas in the Bible?

That's right he acknowledges that many of the things he taught had yet to be written down, but eventually it was and that is what we have today in the form of the bible. So again it is still supporting what I am saying because again I am only saying what the bible says.

No it says it is impossible that it could be written down in entirety, it would be too much. "5 But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." Which means the entire teachings of Christ, if written down would be larger than the world. Now, to be fair to John, he probably didn't conceive of digital books. But still. The Bible literally makes the claim that the bible cannot be the entire teaching of God, it's too small.

3. Now I don't want to point this out again but your claims have repeatedly been shown to be biased in catholic indoctrination and lies which have held no water when put against the truth.

Ironically I wasn't indoctrinated into the Catholic Church as you claim, I joined the Church late in my life. The Holy Spirit led me to the Catholic Church, through extensive study. Also You've not uttered a word of truth in this forum, so I can't exactly take that criticism seriously.

5. The KJV is the most accurate one that we have today. I have limit on having fruitless discussions with someone about the same subject, so I won't elaborate any further.

You won't elaborate because you can't. You don't actually know if its true, you just know your KJV alonist pastor told you it was. You're also clinging to it, even after I literally proved an inaccuracy in the KJV translation, which the NKJV, the next edition of that very same bible, even corrects, because you simply have the inability to make reasoned judgments about the text. And you call me indoctrinated,..

I mean, why is the KJV the most accurate translation, What about it sets it apart from the rest? Also, the KJV was produced by Scholars of the Anglican Tradition, a Protestant Group, which as you say is also not among God's people. So how can you trust it if that's the case?

6. No because as I've said your not bringing glory to God by doing this your in fact knowingly going against his wishes which is actually blasphemous.

You've not proven this by any reasonable standard, you've just repeated it ad nausium and simply rejected all arguments to the contrary without sufficient reason. Again, you call me indoctrinated....

7. This is always the problem with you, you can't just read the word of God and understand.

No, I just don't share your interpretation. That's what you can't seem to understand, you can't possibly conceive any conditions in which you might be wrong.

You don't get how when its repeatedly saying in multiple places the same exact thing over and over again that is what it means. It says to beware those people for what they do is wrong, everything listed is wrong. Why? Because again that is what is says. It is that simple.

But it's not that simple. Anyone with an actual education in linguistics will affirm, that it's never that simple to simply read a written text. Language is only 10% of human communication, the other 90% is nonverbal. You need to prove what you're saying with additional resources and context, which you haven't done. You've simply cried "it's obvious." You've given no supporting context, no blatant commandments where Christ says literally says "Don't where robes." On the contrary we've shown you confounding verses where Christ acknowledges the authority and honors of the offces of the very people he's rebuking. You continually chose to ignore this.

You can try and say its not but it is.

Yeah but it's not, as I've repeatedly shown to you. You translate poorly.

You can try to do like you were trained

professionally trained, and at the Ivy league level in both English and ancient Greek to boot.

and equate it to Christ rebuking Judas but its not because that was a good work he was trying to prevent

So it is the same because you're doing the exact same thing, under very similar conditions. You are in effect sitting in the position of Judas, trying to prevent something that brings glory to God.

and this is doing things Christ specifically warns against doing which is a million times closer to a sin than something that brings any glory to God.

Except you've never reasonably proven Christ actually warns against this. You've repeatedly said it, but we use the same text in our critique, so it's really my interpretation of yours. Mine has the full weight of 2000 years of theological development, your's is based in some cult's ramblings. I'm definitely not going to lean your way on that one.

Also i'm not a protestant as neither I nor my church was part of the catholic church at any time I'm apart of the Church of God that has been around outside of the Catholics and the protestants since the days of the Apostles.

Really? Who were members of this Church of God? Where did they live, what cities? If they were "outside" the Church, why do they use the Bible the Church produced? Why don't you have your own Bible? Who are the pastors of this Church? When exactly did the rest of Christendom separate from this true Church?

Is it this Church? http://www.churchofgod.org Because that was founded in 1886, and is break away from Baptists. Which means everything you said is false. I'm willing to bet you don't have answers to any of these questions.

So no I've not bought into any protestant propaganda since I do not agree with them either. My beliefs are held in doctrine proved by the word of God.

Alright, let's start there. Prove it's the word of God. Prove the 66 books of the KJV Bible, are the truly inspired word of God.

8. First, before Christ's death and resurrection they were under the old law and to disobey those who held the power within the church and break the law under the old covenant was a sin against God. That is why he said that, he was not saying they were a shining beacon to every future Christian, they were a nation of vipers and hypocrites and he said as much.
Matt 12:34-39

34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
38 Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

Matt 23:1-15

23 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Christ's opinion, which is God's opinion of those people is very clear and it is not one of pleasure or happiness. As to the vestments those people wore, again Christ is clear when he says to beware of those people. Be humble, wear modest clothing, live a modest life in service to the lord. That is one of the most basic and simple messages that the bible teaches us, one which even children can understand.

Once again you miss the point. Christ absolutely would rebuke the people yes. We've not disputed that at all. But what you keep failing to grasp is that Christ upheld the integrity of their office. Christ taught that the authority of their office is greater than the sins they commit. They are commanded to respect the office, but not the people.

There are others but I would rather not have to list all the reasons why your wrong in excruciating detail.

Oh but you must. Evertime you try to say why you're not doing something, I'm just going to assume that you can't and are trying to get away with it from now on.

7. The office at the time was indeed still valid but since we are no longer under the old law there is no need to dress like those who were under that law. Now we are to do what the New testament says, what the Lord God Yahweh says which is live a modest life after the lord. Again there is no place in the New testament that disagrees with what I have said. You can throw whatever you want at me but in the end it will all wash away when put against the truth. [/quote]

Excpet you're moving the goalposts. Nobody is saying the old law wasn't fulfilled. What we are saying is that the presence of such offices in the Law, proves the instance of such offices as Holy. Thus God is not opposed to the institution of sacred offices, (unless you're gonna argue God changed.) You've also not shown that these offices are expressly barred in the New Covenant.

8. Now, I'm not here to brag but I have been learning about he history of the Jews and their customs and the bible and its origins since I was old enough to understand. So between you and me you are the lesser qualified in the field of Christian and Jewish history.

You realize we all have right? We all went to Sunday school.

But, and I'm not here to brag, but do You realize I attend a world renowned Ivy League Divinity school? Do you realize that I have gotten personal instruction from the very people who edit scholastic resources that are pretty much universally used? That I have personally conversed with the Senior Editor of the Anchor Bible Dictionary, about various subjects in the Jewish Scriptures? You realize I have actually held the oldest remnant of the book of Acts in my hands, because I have access to those resources? And that I can actually translate Greek scriptures into English? So between you and me, you're full of crap. Where have you studied? What professors did learn from? What schools have you gone to? What degrees have you earned? What papers have you written, and what scholars gave you response?

Now your point about why he had a problem with them, he had a problem with them because they were vain, hypocrites, liars, greedy, lustful, and puffed up in their own knowledge. He hated them for the same reason God hated them, he hated them so much he warns us not to be like them to instead be humble and live poor and modest lives after the Lord.

We agree that they were vain, hypocrits etc. What you can't seem to gather, is that such vestaments are actually outlined in the Law, and prescribed for them to wear.

28 “Have Aaron your brother brought to you from among the Israelites, along with his sons Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, so they may serve me as priests. 2 Make sacred garments for your brother Aaron to give him dignity and honor. 3 Tell all the skilled workers to whom I have given wisdom in such matters that they are to make garments for Aaron, for his consecration, so he may serve me as priest. 4 These are the garments they are to make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a woven tunic, a turban and a sash. They are to make these sacred garments for your brother Aaron and his sons, so they may serve me as priests. 5 Have them use gold, and blue, purple and scarlet yarn, and fine linen.

The Ephod
6 “Make the ephod of gold, and of blue, purple and scarlet yarn, and of finely twisted linen—the work of skilled hands. 7 It is to have two shoulder pieces attached to two of its corners, so it can be fastened. 8 Its skillfully woven waistband is to be like it—of one piece with the ephod and made with gold, and with blue, purple and scarlet yarn, and with finely twisted linen.

9 “Take two onyx stones and engrave on them the names of the sons of Israel 10 in the order of their birth—six names on one stone and the remaining six on the other. 11 Engrave the names of the sons of Israel on the two stones the way a gem cutter engraves a seal. Then mount the stones in gold filigree settings 12 and fasten them on the shoulder pieces of the ephod as memorial stones for the sons of Israel. Aaron is to bear the names on his shoulders as a memorial before the Lord. 13 Make gold filigree settings 14 and two braided chains of pure gold, like a rope, and attach the chains to the settings.

The Breastpiece
15 “Fashion a breastpiece for making decisions—the work of skilled hands. Make it like the ephod: of gold, and of blue, purple and scarlet yarn, and of finely twisted linen. 16 It is to be square—a span[a] long and a span wide—and folded double. 17 Then mount four rows of precious stones on it. The first row shall be carnelian, chrysolite and beryl; 18 the second row shall be turquoise, lapis lazuli and emerald; 19 the third row shall be jacinth, agate and amethyst; 20 the fourth row shall be topaz, onyx and jasper.[b] Mount them in gold filigree settings. 21 There are to be twelve stones, one for each of the names of the sons of Israel, each engraved like a seal with the name of one of the twelve tribes.

22 “For the breastpiece make braided chains of pure gold, like a rope. 23 Make two gold rings for it and fasten them to two corners of the breastpiece. 24 Fasten the two gold chains to the rings at the corners of the breastpiece, 25 and the other ends of the chains to the two settings, attaching them to the shoulder pieces of the ephod at the front. 26 Make two gold rings and attach them to the other two corners of the breastpiece on the inside edge next to the ephod. 27 Make two more gold rings and attach them to the bottom of the shoulder pieces on the front of the ephod, close to the seam just above the waistband of the ephod. 28 The rings of the breastpiece are to be tied to the rings of the ephod with blue cord, connecting it to the waistband, so that the breastpiece will not swing out from the ephod.

29 “Whenever Aaron enters the Holy Place, he will bear the names of the sons of Israel over his heart on the breastpiece of decision as a continuing memorial before the Lord. 30 Also put the Urim and the Thummim in the breastpiece, so they may be over Aaron’s heart whenever he enters the presence of the Lord. Thus Aaron will always bear the means of making decisions for the Israelites over his heart before the Lord.

Other Priestly Garments
31 “Make the robe of the ephod entirely of blue cloth, 32 with an opening for the head in its center. There shall be a woven edge like a collar[c] around this opening, so that it will not tear. 33 Make pomegranates of blue, purple and scarlet yarn around the hem of the robe, with gold bells between them. 34 The gold bells and the pomegranates are to alternate around the hem of the robe. 35 Aaron must wear it when he ministers. The sound of the bells will be heard when he enters the Holy Place before the Lord and when he comes out, so that he will not die.

36 “Make a plate of pure gold and engrave on it as on a seal: holy to the Lord. 37 Fasten a blue cord to it to attach it to the turban; it is to be on the front of the turban. 38 It will be on Aaron’s forehead, and he will bear the guilt involved in the sacred gifts the Israelites consecrate, whatever their gifts may be. It will be on Aaron’s forehead continually so that they will be acceptable to the Lord.

39 “Weave the tunic of fine linen and make the turban of fine linen. The sash is to be the work of an embroiderer. 40 Make tunics, sashes and caps for Aaron’s sons to give them dignity and honor. 41 After you put these clothes on your brother Aaron and his sons, anoint and ordain them. Consecrate them so they may serve me as priests.

42 “Make linen undergarments as a covering for the body, reaching from the waist to the thigh. 43 Aaron and his sons must wear them whenever they enter the tent of meeting or approach the altar to minister in the Holy Place, so that they will not incur guilt and die.

“This is to be a lasting ordinance for Aaron and his descendants.

So if Christ hated their vestments, that means he hated was prescribed by the law. If he did that, then..oh boy...he's not the messiah.

9. Now I can see why you are upset. But again I have said repeatedly that I don't know it all,

No you don't see why I'm upset, if you did you would acknowledge that you don't just "not know it all" you know nothing. You've demonstrated repeatedly, that you know nothing. You've been raised in an eccentric cultic atmosphere, and then have the balls to tell us that we are indoctrinated. Your arguments aren't based in doctrine they're based in ego. They're based in a presupposition that you are right. You presuppose the accuracy of your interpretation, and thus believe what ever interpretation you have is the true one. It's conspiracy theory logic: your theory is right, and any contradicting evidence is dismissed as fraudulent evidence manufactured to protect the conspiracy. You claim to us "you can't just see it" and you're right we can't. Because that's how cognitive bias works. You and I can, clearly, look at the same object and perceive it two very different ways. The only difference here, is my perception has been the standard Christian doctrine for 2000 years, and yours is some eccentric proposition that you claim as being ancient, maintained by a continuous community but undoubtedly, cannot prove it.

that I am still learning the word of God, I am not all knowing I know that I can study my whole life and still only know a fraction of the truth.

That's really not the point. There are some things that are known, and you have clearly not learned them.

And if your offended then that good because its every Christians job to offend many with the Lord's word( he says as much)

Except I'm not. You see it's not your interpretations or beliefs that offend me. Honestly, anti-catholic bigotry is nothing new to me. It's your antics. It's you're conduct, it's your arrogance, it's everything you as a person do. I mean, you're not Claiming yourself as a prophet anymore, so you're making progress, but you clearly still think of yourself as one.

so when you do call me names and hate me I know that I am on the right track.

Of course, it's not that your behavior is pretentious and arrogant, it's that you're a good Christian and we evil sinners reject you.


This is also a nonsensical argument. It precludes the possibility of you being wrong, because it means rejection of your message confirms it's validity. So if I agree with you, you're clearly right because I agree with you. If I say you're wrong, then that also means you're right. It also creates a logical problem. Is that standard universal? Catholics and other Christians to this day are persecuted for their beliefs. According to your standard, that's valid proof that we are correct.


Again, you presuppose the authenticity of your position. You're not here to learn.

Also I don't hate, you. I'm incredibly annoyed by your behavior, but I don't hate you. And also I call everybody names.

Also when I come on here I say the same thing time and time again show me the scripture to back up what you are saying and I will believe it.

Except you don't. We show you scripture and then you object to the scripture because "we don't interpret it correctly." I mean, I'm sure you're going to object to the scripture about vestments. Clearly all that gold is meant to be "humble gold."

Its that simple, you choose to use your own words instead of the word of God which is why I can't accept what you say. Show me using the lord's word and I will accept it. That simple.

Except it's not that simple, because you're doing the same thing. You're offering an interpretation of scripture and calling it "a plain reading," it's not, it's your interpretation of the word. We have an alternative interpretation. They're the same words, but we think the meaning is different. This is why I doubt your education, a person educated in the field of hermeneutics would understand this.

10. I come on here to find answers,

Bull. You have no desire to learn anything from this forum as you've demonstrated. You've never asked a question, you've only proselytized. and then on top of it, on some occasions, declared your privatizations as information revealed to you directly from God. Don't pretend that you have any desire to learn, in an earnest endeavor to discover truth. You only have a desire to preach.
'

perfect the knowledge I have already acquired,

and you assume that knowledge you have is correct. There's not any possibility that you yourself have been indoctrinated by false teachings. It's surely us, right?

and hopefully learn more the true word of God.

If that were true, you wouldn't come on this forum, as has been clearly demonstrated that nobody on this forum has ever agreed with you. Clearly you don't wish to learn what this forum has to offer.

Every position you have taken has never been rooted in the word,

You're right, they're rooted in the Word.

every point you make doesn't come from the scripture and what verses you do put up for an argument

wait wait wait, if it didn't come from scripture, then how am I putting up scriptural verses. Either I'm making arguments from scripture or I'm not. Which is it?

either don't apply or you twist to make it mean something it doesn't.

Hello Pot, meet kettle. I can easily make the same criticisms, against you, because they're banal criticisms that can never be effectively proven. It is literally my opinion vs your opinion.

Out of the two of us, you are the one lacking both reason and a desire to learn the truth of God's word. Whatever it may be.

Out of the two of us, I'm the only one here with a formal education in the subject matter so, you might want to re-evaluate that statement.

[Diopolis]

You should know by now that both our churches believe only the saints are in heaven.

No, we don't.

Or, to be more exact: The Orthodox Church does not believe in Purgatory. We believe that people reach Heaven or Hell relatively quickly after death. Traditionally, it is believed that they get to their final destination 40 days after death. This isn't doctrine, so the number may not be exact, but in any case that is the general order of magnitude we're dealing with. Something on the order of days. Definitely not years.

Therefore, except for the recently-deceased, all the dead who were going to Heaven are already in Heaven.

Now the thing is, the term "saints" in Orthodoxy is not precisely defined. The saints are people in Heaven, but we don't refer to all the people in Heaven as saints. Sainthood is seen as more of a continuum than a binary value. A saint is someone who is not only in Heaven, but has achieved a high degree of union with God.

The vast majority of saints are not canonized, of course. On this matter we agree with you. That is why we use the phrase "all saints, known and unknown" in our prayers on the Sunday of All Saints. Nevertheless, the "unknown saints" are not typically thought to include everyone in Heaven who isn't formally canonized.

Really? For us, the term saint just means "one who is in heaven", which automatically means a high degree of union with God.

[Diopolis]

You should know by now that both our churches believe only the saints are in heaven.
If you mean the attitude among some orthodox Catholics that only the canonized saints have managed to make it through purgatory yet, this is rather an innovation in historical terms. John Paul II chose to emphasize canonizations throughout his reign, with the general idea of canonizing more people so that more of those who are technically saints would be formally declared saints. This lead to an attitude that everyone in heaven was either canonized, or would be soon. Traditionally, Catholics expected that if the made it to heaven, they would only be canonized if there weren't any incidents in their life that would set bad examples(unless they explicitly repented from them) and they were somehow prominent people. Traditional Catholics even today have an attitude that most of the saints we've probably never heard of, because they didn't call enough attention to themselves to be noticed by enough people to have a cause for canonization.
As for the length of purgatory, the general consensus tends to be decades for religious(those under vows) and centuries for everyone else. But still centuries, not millennia. At least a decent chunk of those who've entered purgatory have gotten out again(and most Catholics who emphasize the doctrine of purgatory believe that staying out of Hell has gotten more difficult as time has gone on due to the aftershocks of the fall).

Wow that is depressing.

That was before the depressing part.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Was calling that guy who predicted the end of the world 'crazy' unchristian of me?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Was calling that guy who predicted the end of the world 'crazy' unchristian of me?

I don't think so, because it could be blasphemous for someone to presume to know the date on which the world will end.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Was calling that guy who predicted the end of the world 'crazy' unchristian of me?

I don't think so, because it could be blasphemous for someone to presume to know the date on which the world will end.

Thanks,I was kinda worried when I saw this post on my thread.

[Tarsonis]

I don't think so, because it could be blasphemous for someone to presume to know the date on which the world will end.

Thanks,I was kinda worried when I saw this post on my thread.

It's not a sin to call a spade a spade.

[The Princes of the Universe]

Clerical Fascism right now.

>clerical
>fascism
Pick exactly one.

Thoughts on the Westboro Baptist church?

John Calvin did a meth-crack blend and that's where you get the Phelps family of Topeka. *nod*

[War Gears]

Clerical Fascism right now.

>clerical
>fascism
Pick exactly one.

Codreanu realistically managed to pull it off surprisingly.

[Tarsonis]

Clerical Fascism right now.

>clerical
>fascism
Pick exactly one.

Thoughts on the Westboro Baptist church?

John Calvin did a meth-crack blend and that's where you get the Phelps family of Topeka. *nod*

Probably more Psychadelic

[United Muscovite Nations]

>clerical
>fascism
Pick exactly one.

Codreanu realistically managed to pull it off surprisingly.

Codreanu and the Iron Guard were anathemized by the Romanian Orthodox Church for occult rituals.

[Salus Maior]

Codreanu realistically managed to pull it off surprisingly.

Codreanu and the Iron Guard were anathemized by the Romanian Orthodox Church for occult rituals.

And people want to saint that guy?

Also, what is with Fascists and occult rituals?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Codreanu and the Iron Guard were anathemized by the Romanian Orthodox Church for occult rituals.

And people want to saint that guy?

Also, what is with Fascists and occult rituals?

The Iron Guard's idea was that the Legionaries would sacrifice their own salvation to purge society of anti-Christian influences.

[Fauxia]

Codreanu and the Iron Guard were anathemized by the Romanian Orthodox Church for occult rituals.

And people want to saint that guy?

Also, what is with Fascists and occult rituals?

Bizarre political ideologies necessitate bizarre acts.

[Salus Maior]

And people want to saint that guy?

Also, what is with Fascists and occult rituals?

The Iron Guard's idea was that the Legionaries would sacrifice their own salvation to purge society of anti-Christian influences.

That's pretty dang backwards.

Become un-Christian to make the country more Christian. Oy vey.

[Tarsonis]

The Iron Guard's idea was that the Legionaries would sacrifice their own salvation to purge society of anti-Christian influences.

That's pretty dang backwards.

Become un-Christian to make the country more Christian. Oy vey.

[Salus Maior]

That's pretty dang backwards.

Become un-Christian to make the country more Christian. Oy vey.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA5uEYqpZPw

[War Gears]

Codreanu realistically managed to pull it off surprisingly.

Codreanu and the Iron Guard were anathemized by the Romanian Orthodox Church for occult rituals.

Er, I'm really skeptical about that claim. I'm not well read on Codreanu or the Iron Guard, but I've read enough to be sure I'd have probably heard about this were it the case.

Also, the Church was quite willing to collaborate with the Fascists when it served their interests.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Codreanu and the Iron Guard were anathemized by the Romanian Orthodox Church for occult rituals.

Er, I'm really skeptical about that claim. I'm not well read on Codreanu or the Iron Guard, but I've read enough to be sure I'd have probably heard about this were it the case.

Also, the Church was quite willing to collaborate with the Fascists when it served their interests.

They broke Christian dietary laws in the initiation process in an occult ritual. It's pretty readily available information. It was the Romanian Patriarch's government that killed Codreanu, in fact, after he tried to escape from custody after being declared a traitor.

[Pasong Tirad]

So, um, the Pope's being accused of heresy now. Anybody wanna shed some light on this? I'm yet to read the accusation (or even Amoris laetitia).

[War Gears]

Er, I'm really skeptical about that claim. I'm not well read on Codreanu or the Iron Guard, but I've read enough to be sure I'd have probably heard about this were it the case.

Also, the Church was quite willing to collaborate with the Fascists when it served their interests.

They broke Christian dietary laws in the initiation process in an occult ritual. It's pretty readily available information. It was the Romanian Patriarch's government that killed Codreanu, in fact, after he tried to escape from custody after being declared a traitor.

If it's so readily available information, you should be able to cite it relatively easy. Your interpretation of the death of Codreanu is seriously skewed. There is a lot of doubt and skepticism that he attempted to escape imprisonment, almost all sources agree on that and his actions and words to the Legionnaires also make it sound like he had no intentions of trying to flee, and he was not declared a traitor or imprisoned for that, but because of "slander."

[United Muscovite Nations]

They broke Christian dietary laws in the initiation process in an occult ritual. It's pretty readily available information. It was the Romanian Patriarch's government that killed Codreanu, in fact, after he tried to escape from custody after being declared a traitor.

If it's so readily available information, you should be able to cite it relatively easy. Your interpretation of the death of Codreanu is seriously skewed. There is a lot of doubt and skepticism that he attempted to escape imprisonment, almost all sources agree on that and his actions and words to the Legionnaires also make it sound like he had no intentions of trying to flee, and he was not declared a traitor or imprisoned for that, but because of "slander."

Cristea kept his loyalty to King Carol II throughout his rule. In March 1937, as the King attempted to suppress the influence of the fascist movement known as the Iron Guard, Cristea responded to the request sent by the Tătărescu government on limiting the relationship between the clergy and the Iron Guard. Cristea invoked a Holy Synod which banned clergy from joining the Legion and disallowed political demonstrations and symbols in the churches.[16]

[The Alma Mater]

So, um, the Pope's being accused of heresy now. Anybody wanna shed some light on this? I'm yet to read the accusation (or even Amoris laetitia).

Some people really dislike the idea of divorced/remarried people being allowed to receive communion as implied by Francis.
Of course, those same people had no problem whatsoever with the idea of his prececessor that the Church should protect priests who molest children,

Just to show what it TRULY important to the faithful. DIvorce is obviously a worse sin than molestation.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

I don't know why, but this is a question that has bothered today. I'd first like to say, forgive me for my ignorance on the subject. Do, or rather, can, non-Christians and non-believer get into heaven?

I honestly don't know, I feel kind of embarrassed now.