Discussion:
why would duncan follow the twerps of a ................
Add Reply
duke
2017-11-30 21:08:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
...........youth wearing his cap on backwards as his authority. Like poor old
doc T always wearing his green shirt as seen in his movies and demanding that
scripture ALONE is the Word of God when scripture ITSELF states that not
everything said and did is not written down. John 21:25.

Old doc T, a fallen away Catholic.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-11-30 22:07:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 2:08:31 PM UTC-7, duke wrote:
.> ...........youth wearing his cap on backwards as his authority. Like poor old
.> doc T always wearing his green shirt as seen in his movies and demanding that
.> scripture ALONE is the Word of God when scripture ITSELF states that not
.> everything said and did is not written down. John 21:25.

"Not everything Jesus said and did is not written down" is not equivalent
to "Hey, so make up anything you want to and put God's stamp on it!"
Post by duke
Old doc T, a fallen away Catholic.
the dukester, American-American
*****
.> The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
.> and a good cigar.
.> G.K. Chesterton

G.K. Chesterton, who presciently compared the Church with
three things that can be seriously harmful.

AA
duke
2017-12-02 12:30:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:07:30 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> ...........youth wearing his cap on backwards as his authority. Like poor old
.> doc T always wearing his green shirt as seen in his movies and demanding that
.> scripture ALONE is the Word of God when scripture ITSELF states that not
.> everything said and did is not written down. John 21:25.
"Not everything Jesus said and did is not written down" is not equivalent
to "Hey, so make up anything you want to and put God's stamp on it!"
The Original Catholic Church was there with Jesus. What he told them is just as
valid as partial written records that were canonized by the same people.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-12-02 12:53:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:07:30 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> ...........youth wearing his cap on backwards as his authority. Like poor old
.> doc T always wearing his green shirt as seen in his movies and demanding that
.> scripture ALONE is the Word of God when scripture ITSELF states that not
.> everything said and did is not written down. John 21:25.
.> >"Not everything Jesus said and did is not written down" is not equivalent
.> >to "Hey, so make up anything you want to and put God's stamp on it!"
.> The Original Catholic Church was there with Jesus. What he told them is just as
.> valid as partial written records that were canonized by the same people.

So, there are no records of these things that He told them, of which there
are no records. Is that what you're saying?

But somehow you magically know what these things are which there are no
records of.

Kind of like there is not one thing at all in the Gospels about "the Original Catholic Church"
being there. Kind of an odd omission, don't you think?

Another thing that "Jesus said and did that is not written down" is dropping
by what is now the United States on his way back to heaven. Just ask your
friendly neighborhood LDS if you don't believe it.

After all, if your Church is free to make up those things which allegedly
"Jesus said and that is not written down", then so is theirs.

AA
duke
2017-12-02 17:45:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 04:53:31 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:07:30 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> ...........youth wearing his cap on backwards as his authority. Like poor old
.> doc T always wearing his green shirt as seen in his movies and demanding that
.> scripture ALONE is the Word of God when scripture ITSELF states that not
.> everything said and did is not written down. John 21:25.
.> >"Not everything Jesus said and did is not written down" is not equivalent
.> >to "Hey, so make up anything you want to and put God's stamp on it!"
.> The Original Catholic Church was there with Jesus. What he told them is just as
.> valid as partial written records that were canonized by the same people.
So, there are no records of these things that He told them, of which there
are no records. Is that what you're saying?
Nope. Christian dogmatic faith is based on the canonized written word.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
But somehow you magically know what these things are which there are no
records of.
You have to address John 21:25, not me.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Kind of like there is not one thing at all in the Gospels about "the Original Catholic Church"
being there. Kind of an odd omission, don't you think?
It's not a matter of "the original Catholic Church" being there. It's a matter
of there being only one Church that fully offers the characteristics that Jesus
specified. That's the Catholic Church.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Another thing that "Jesus said and did that is not written down" is dropping
by what is now the United States on his way back to heaven. Just ask your
friendly neighborhood LDS if you don't believe it.
They make up their own.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
After all, if your Church is free to make up those things which allegedly
"Jesus said and that is not written down", then so is theirs.
But nothing dogmatic that's not part of the written record.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
AA
the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-12-02 21:36:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 04:53:31 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:07:30 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> ...........youth wearing his cap on backwards as his authority. Like poor old
.> doc T always wearing his green shirt as seen in his movies and demanding that
.> scripture ALONE is the Word of God when scripture ITSELF states that not
.> everything said and did is not written down. John 21:25.
.> >"Not everything Jesus said and did is not written down" is not equivalent
.> >to "Hey, so make up anything you want to and put God's stamp on it!"
.> The Original Catholic Church was there with Jesus. What he told them is just as
.> valid as partial written records that were canonized by the same people.
So, there are no records of these things that He told them, of which there
are no records. Is that what you're saying?
Nope. Christian dogmatic faith is based on the canonized written word.
.> >But somehow you magically know what these things are which there are no
.> >records of.
.> You have to address John 21:25, not me.

Oh, I am addressing it. Pointing out that just because not all of what Jesus
said got written down, that gives you exactly zero license to use that as an
excuse to invent things.
.> >Kind of like there is not one thing at all in the Gospels about "the Original Catholic Church"
.> >being there. Kind of an odd omission, don't you think?
.> It's not a matter of "the original Catholic Church" being there.

You're the one that brought that up.

.> It's a matter
.> of there being only one Church that fully offers the characteristics that Jesus
.> specified. That's the Catholic Church.

What in the world does that have to do with things that, if Jesus specified them,
we know nothing about it?

In any event, still doesn't let your Church make things up.


,> >Another thing that "Jesus said and did that is not written down" is dropping
,> >by what is now the United States on his way back to heaven. Just ask your
,> >friendly neighborhood LDS if you don't believe it.
,> They make up their own.

Yep -- exactly as your flavor of Christianity did.
.> >After all, if your Church is free to make up those things which allegedly
.> >"Jesus said and that is not written down", then so is theirs.
.> But nothing dogmatic that's not part of the written record.

Then what's the point in blabbering about the fact that there are
things that were "not part of the written record"?


AA
duke
2017-12-03 19:39:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 13:36:23 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 04:53:31 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:07:30 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> ...........youth wearing his cap on backwards as his authority. Like poor old
.> doc T always wearing his green shirt as seen in his movies and demanding that
.> scripture ALONE is the Word of God when scripture ITSELF states that not
.> everything said and did is not written down. John 21:25.
.> >"Not everything Jesus said and did is not written down" is not equivalent
.> >to "Hey, so make up anything you want to and put God's stamp on it!"
.> The Original Catholic Church was there with Jesus. What he told them is just as
.> valid as partial written records that were canonized by the same people.
So, there are no records of these things that He told them, of which there
are no records. Is that what you're saying?
Nope. Christian dogmatic faith is based on the canonized written word.
.> >But somehow you magically know what these things are which there are no
.> >records of.
.> You have to address John 21:25, not me.
Oh, I am addressing it. Pointing out that just because not all of what Jesus
said got written down, that gives you exactly zero license to use that as an
excuse to invent things.
Who's inventing? You fail to understand that everything that Jesus said and
did was "100% man-viewed" to either be put in writing, or not, but still known
as truth.

You protest_ants didn't come around for another 1600 years. But thousands, many
of which knew saw him personally and learned from him, did not get their
observations in writing, which is only a select few books - 4 in all.

You protest_ers biggest failure to launch is "scripture only". John 21:25.

We of the RCC are much more fully aware of things that were said and done. They
are not in scripture and thus can't be offered as dogma. But they are still
true.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> >Kind of like there is not one thing at all in the Gospels about "the Original Catholic Church"
.> >being there. Kind of an odd omission, don't you think?
.> It's not a matter of "the original Catholic Church" being there.
You're the one that brought that up.
Yep, as seen in the Holy Mass and 7 sacraments, et al.

You SB's totally ignored those, which ARE in scripture.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> It's a matter
.> of there being only one Church that fully offers the characteristics that Jesus
.> specified. That's the Catholic Church.
What in the world does that have to do with things that, if Jesus specified them,
we know nothing about it?
Watch:

MASS:
Do this in memory of me - Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).

SACRAMENTS:
1. Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19, Hebrew 2:14-15
2. Holy Eucharist -Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).
3. Confession - John 20:22-23, 2 Cor 5:18-19, Mat 9:2-8
4. Matrimony - Mat 19:4-6, Mark 10:5-9, Ephesians 5:31
5. Confirmation - Ephesians 1:13-14, Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19:5-6,
6. Holy Orders - Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim
7. Anointing of the Sick - Mark 6:12-13, John 5:14

PAPACY:
Mat 16:13-19 (Pope), Mat 28:16-20 (Teaching), Eph 2:19-20 (Base)

PURGATORY:
1 Cor 3:10-15

FAITH (without deeds is dead faith):
Mat 25:31-46, James 2:26
Feed the hungry.
Clothe the naked.
Give drink to the thirsty.
Visit the imprisoned.

Heal the sick.
Cast out demons.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
In any event, still doesn't let your Church make things up.
You protest_ant boys are the ones that ignored Jesus.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
,> >Another thing that "Jesus said and did that is not written down" is dropping
,> >by what is now the United States on his way back to heaven. Just ask your
,> >friendly neighborhood LDS if you don't believe it.
,> They make up their own.
Yep -- exactly as your flavor of Christianity did.
Ours are specifically found in ALL valid bibles.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> >After all, if your Church is free to make up those things which allegedly
.> >"Jesus said and that is not written down", then so is theirs.
.> But nothing dogmatic that's not part of the written record.
Then what's the point in blabbering about the fact that there are
things that were "not part of the written record"?
The RCC as far as dogma is concerned is 100% scripture based.

We can dance the night away about how much Jesus loved his mother, but we can't
claim more than what's in the canonized scripture.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-12-03 20:33:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 13:36:23 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 04:53:31 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:07:30 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> ...........youth wearing his cap on backwards as his authority. Like poor old
.> doc T always wearing his green shirt as seen in his movies and demanding that
.> scripture ALONE is the Word of God when scripture ITSELF states that not
.> everything said and did is not written down. John 21:25.
.> >"Not everything Jesus said and did is not written down" is not equivalent
.> >to "Hey, so make up anything you want to and put God's stamp on it!"
.> The Original Catholic Church was there with Jesus. What he told them is just as
.> valid as partial written records that were canonized by the same people.
So, there are no records of these things that He told them, of which there
are no records. Is that what you're saying?
Nope. Christian dogmatic faith is based on the canonized written word.
.> >But somehow you magically know what these things are which there are no
.> >records of.
.> >.> You have to address John 21:25, not me.
.> >Oh, I am addressing it. Pointing out that just because not all of what Jesus
.> >said got written down, that gives you exactly zero license to use that as an
.> >excuse to invent things.
.> Who's inventing?

Your Church. Do you not know what we're discussing here?

.>You fail to understand that everything that Jesus said and
.> did was "100% man-viewed" to either be put in writing, or not, but still known
.> as truth.

If it's not in writing, then how do you know what was said.

And of course, even if it is in writing that in no way guarantees it was either
said or is true. Doubly so, given that was was set down in writing was
done so over a generation later, by men who neither said it nor heard it
themselves.

.> You protest_ants didn't come around for another 1600 years. But thousands, many
.> of which knew saw him personally and learned from him, did not get their
.> observations in writing, which is only a select few books - 4 in all.

Oh, there were many many many more than four.
Quite a number of which your Church does not at all care for.


.> You protest_ers biggest failure to launch is "scripture only". John 21:25.
.> We of the RCC are much more fully aware of things that were said and done.

How?

.> They
.> are not in scripture and thus can't be offered as dogma. But they are still
.> true.

How do you know?
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> >Kind of like there is not one thing at all in the Gospels about "the Original Catholic Church"
.> >being there. Kind of an odd omission, don't you think?
.> It's not a matter of "the original Catholic Church" being there.
You're the one that brought that up.
.> Yep, as seen in the Holy Mass and 7 sacraments, et al.
.> You SB's totally ignored those, which ARE in scripture.

Good point. That's why Baptists don't get married, never have communion,
or get baptized. In fact that latter, the avoidance of baptism, is why they're
called "Baptists".
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> It's a matter
.> of there being only one Church that fully offers the characteristics that Jesus
.> specified. That's the Catholic Church.
What in the world does that have to do with things that, if Jesus specified them,
we know nothing about it?
Do this in memory of me - Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).
1. Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19, Hebrew 2:14-15
2. Holy Eucharist -Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).
3. Confession - John 20:22-23, 2 Cor 5:18-19, Mat 9:2-8
4. Matrimony - Mat 19:4-6, Mark 10:5-9, Ephesians 5:31
5. Confirmation - Ephesians 1:13-14, Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19:5-6,
6. Holy Orders - Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim
7. Anointing of the Sick - Mark 6:12-13, John 5:14
Mat 16:13-19 (Pope), Mat 28:16-20 (Teaching), Eph 2:19-20 (Base)
1 Cor 3:10-15
Mat 25:31-46, James 2:26
Feed the hungry.
Clothe the naked.
Give drink to the thirsty.
Visit the imprisoned.
.> Heal the sick.
.> Cast out demons.

Heal the sick and cast out demons? Whoo, boy, they do those
things most spectacularly. Turn on your TV any Sunday morning.

So, they cast out demons a lot at your church these days?
You should take some video.


AA
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
In any event, still doesn't let your Church make things up.
You protest_ant boys are the ones that ignored Jesus.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
,> >Another thing that "Jesus said and did that is not written down" is dropping
,> >by what is now the United States on his way back to heaven. Just ask your
,> >friendly neighborhood LDS if you don't believe it.
,> They make up their own.
Yep -- exactly as your flavor of Christianity did.
Ours are specifically found in ALL valid bibles.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> >After all, if your Church is free to make up those things which allegedly
.> >"Jesus said and that is not written down", then so is theirs.
.> But nothing dogmatic that's not part of the written record.
Then what's the point in blabbering about the fact that there are
things that were "not part of the written record"?
The RCC as far as dogma is concerned is 100% scripture based.
We can dance the night away about how much Jesus loved his mother, but we can't
claim more than what's in the canonized scripture.
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.
G.K. Chesterton
*****
Kevrob
2017-12-03 20:38:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
So, they cast out demons a lot at your church these days?
Does laicizing pervert priests count?

Kevin R
duke
2017-12-04 21:51:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
So, they cast out demons a lot at your church these days?
Does laicizing pervert priests count?
A demon is a demon.
Post by Kevrob
Kevin R
the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
duke
2017-12-04 19:38:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 12:33:57 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 13:36:23 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 04:53:31 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:07:30 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> ...........youth wearing his cap on backwards as his authority. Like poor old
.> doc T always wearing his green shirt as seen in his movies and demanding that
.> scripture ALONE is the Word of God when scripture ITSELF states that not
.> everything said and did is not written down. John 21:25.
.> >"Not everything Jesus said and did is not written down" is not equivalent
.> >to "Hey, so make up anything you want to and put God's stamp on it!"
.> The Original Catholic Church was there with Jesus. What he told them is just as
.> valid as partial written records that were canonized by the same people.
So, there are no records of these things that He told them, of which there
are no records. Is that what you're saying?
Nope. Christian dogmatic faith is based on the canonized written word.
.> >But somehow you magically know what these things are which there are no
.> >records of.
.> >.> You have to address John 21:25, not me.
.> >Oh, I am addressing it. Pointing out that just because not all of what Jesus
.> >said got written down, that gives you exactly zero license to use that as an
.> >excuse to invent things.
.> Who's inventing?
Your Church. Do you not know what we're discussing here?
Yes, yes I do. Nothing in Catholic dogmatic statements comes from the
non-written part. It is supportive however.

For 1600 years, there was one Christian/Catholic Church. The heretics invented
untruths. And then the protest_ers came along and flat said "we're not going to
accept these things from written scripture."
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.>You fail to understand that everything that Jesus said and
.> did was "100% man-viewed" to either be put in writing, or not, but still known
.> as truth.
If it's not in writing, then how do you know what was said.
See above.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
And of course, even if it is in writing that in no way guarantees it was either
said or is true.
Jesus offered it, and men accepted it. You sound like a pagan now.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Doubly so, given that was was set down in writing was
done so over a generation later, by men who neither said it nor heard it
themselves.
A generation is 20 years. The certifications of the teachings and actions of
Jesus were real time. And massive changes to Christianity were greatly taking
place all that time.

Your SB boys could only sit back and turn away form what they didn't like. But
that was 1600 years after the fact.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> You protest_ants didn't come around for another 1600 years. But thousands, many
.> of which knew saw him personally and learned from him, did not get their
.> observations in writing, which is only a select few books - 4 in all.
Oh, there were many many many more than four.
Quite a number of which your Church does not at all care for.
Nope. 4 canonized. All the rest rejected because of errors, fabrications, or
offering no new information not already in hand.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> You protest_ers biggest failure to launch is "scripture only". John 21:25.
.> We of the RCC are much more fully aware of things that were said and done.
How?
We were there as the first part of the new Church of Jesus Christ. You guys
came along 1600 years later.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> They
.> are not in scripture and thus can't be offered as dogma. But they are still
.> true.
How do you know?
Jesus confirmed it.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> >Kind of like there is not one thing at all in the Gospels about "the Original Catholic Church"
.> >being there. Kind of an odd omission, don't you think?
.> It's not a matter of "the original Catholic Church" being there.
You're the one that brought that up.
.> Yep, as seen in the Holy Mass and 7 sacraments, et al.
.> You SB's totally ignored those, which ARE in scripture.
Good point. That's why Baptists don't get married, never have communion,
or get baptized. In fact that latter, the avoidance of baptism, is why they're
called "Baptists".
1. Marriage as many times as one desires. Jesus said "let no man put asunder
that which God has joined." By your marriages over and over, God must not have
approved.

2. Your communion is not a consecration of bread and wine into the Body and
Blood of Jesus, but only a remembrance or maybe a fellowship.

3. Baptism, I think, is according to the proper method.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> It's a matter
.> of there being only one Church that fully offers the characteristics that Jesus
.> specified. That's the Catholic Church.
What in the world does that have to do with things that, if Jesus specified them,
we know nothing about it?
Do this in memory of me - Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).
1. Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19, Hebrew 2:14-15
2. Holy Eucharist -Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).
3. Confession - John 20:22-23, 2 Cor 5:18-19, Mat 9:2-8
4. Matrimony - Mat 19:4-6, Mark 10:5-9, Ephesians 5:31
5. Confirmation - Ephesians 1:13-14, Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19:5-6,
6. Holy Orders - Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim
7. Anointing of the Sick - Mark 6:12-13, John 5:14
Mat 16:13-19 (Pope), Mat 28:16-20 (Teaching), Eph 2:19-20 (Base)
1 Cor 3:10-15
Mat 25:31-46, James 2:26
Feed the hungry.
Clothe the naked.
Give drink to the thirsty.
Visit the imprisoned.
.> Heal the sick.
.> Cast out demons.
Heal the sick and cast out demons? Whoo, boy, they do those
things most spectacularly. Turn on your TV any Sunday morning.
I wouldn't think seriously what I see on Sunday tv.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
So, they cast out demons a lot at your church these days?
You should take some video.
Jesus did, and he said "follow me".

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Kevrob
2017-12-04 19:46:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
For 1600 years, there was one Christian/Catholic Church.
You forgot about the Greek Orthodox, and the daughter churches
of Constantinople.

The dumbth is SO strong in this one.

Kevin R
duke
2017-12-05 19:00:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by duke
For 1600 years, there was one Christian/Catholic Church.
You forgot about the Greek Orthodox, and the daughter churches
of Constantinople.
They are Catholic.

Protestantism is popularly considered to have begun in Germany in 1517.
Post by Kevrob
The dumbth is SO strong in this one.
Yes, yes it is.
Post by Kevrob
Kevin R
the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Kevrob
2017-12-05 19:26:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Kevrob
Post by duke
For 1600 years, there was one Christian/Catholic Church.
You forgot about the Greek Orthodox, and the daughter churches
of Constantinople.
They are Catholic.
Either the Greek Patriarch is wrong when he says his church is
catholic, or the Latin Rite Patriarch* is wrong when he makes the same
claim. "Catholic" ( katholikos in Greek) means "universal,"
"Including a wide variety of things; all-embracing." - OED.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/catholic
Post by duke
Protestantism is popularly considered to have begun in Germany in 1517.
The Church of England claims to be catholic, also, just not ROMAN
catholic.

There are smaller churches in union with Rome that are Eastern,
but counted with the Catholics, not the Orthodox.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches

They, and Rome, do consider themselves "orthodox" with a small "o."
Post by duke
Post by Kevrob
The dumbth is SO strong in this one.
Yes, yes it is.
Earl admits his dufossity!

Kevin R

* That'd be the pope, the Bishop of Rome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch#Patriarchs
duke
2017-12-06 23:47:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by duke
Post by Kevrob
Post by duke
For 1600 years, there was one Christian/Catholic Church.
You forgot about the Greek Orthodox, and the daughter churches
of Constantinople.
They are Catholic.
Either the Greek Patriarch is wrong when he says his church is
catholic, or the Latin Rite Patriarch* is wrong when he makes the same
claim.
Both profess the EOC is Catholic.
Post by Kevrob
"Catholic" ( katholikos in Greek) means "universal,"
Yep.
Post by Kevrob
"Including a wide variety of things; all-embracing." - OED.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/catholic
Post by duke
Protestantism is popularly considered to have begun in Germany in 1517.
The Church of England claims to be catholic, also, just not ROMAN
catholic.
It is not quite either. It is not Catholic, or the English wouldn’t celebrate
Guy Fawkes Day, which is a not-so-subtly anti-Catholic holiday, nor would
Parliament have passed laws eliminating Catholics, and anyone married to a
Catholic, from the line of royal succession.

So even if the difference between Catholic and Church of England may seem
trivial to an atheist, the difference has been profound historically… even if
the theological differences are small.

But Church of England is not precisely “Reformed,” either, if by that you mean a
distinctly Calvinist belief system. Both Lutherans and Calvinists believe
strongly that no man, not even a clergyman, can be an intermediary between man
and God; all the clergyman can do is point out the “right” way of interpreting
the Bible. There are other differences as well, but I’m won’t go into them here.
The Church of England was an attempt to create a “big tent” religion—definitely
Christian, but a big enough tent to gather English people from different sides
of the Catholic/Protestant divide.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-12-07 01:48:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Kevrob
Post by duke
Post by Kevrob
Post by duke
For 1600 years, there was one Christian/Catholic Church.
You forgot about the Greek Orthodox, and the daughter churches
of Constantinople.
They are Catholic.
Either the Greek Patriarch is wrong when he says his church is
catholic, or the Latin Rite Patriarch* is wrong when he makes the same
claim.
Both profess the EOC is Catholic.
Post by Kevrob
"Catholic" ( katholikos in Greek) means "universal,"
Yep.
Post by Kevrob
"Including a wide variety of things; all-embracing." - OED.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/catholic
Post by duke
Protestantism is popularly considered to have begun in Germany in 1517.
The Church of England claims to be catholic, also, just not ROMAN
catholic.
It is not quite either. It is not Catholic, or the English wouldn’t celebrate
Guy Fawkes Day, which is a not-so-subtly anti-Catholic holiday, nor would
Parliament have passed laws eliminating Catholics, and anyone married to a
Catholic, from the line of royal succession.
So even if the difference between Catholic and Church of England may seem
trivial to an atheist, the difference has been profound historically… even if
the theological differences are small.
But Church of England is not precisely “Reformed,” either, if by that you mean a
distinctly Calvinist belief system. Both Lutherans and Calvinists believe
strongly that no man, not even a clergyman, can be an intermediary between man
and God; all the clergyman can do is point out the “right” way of interpreting
the Bible. There are other differences as well, but I’m won’t go into them here.
The Church of England was an attempt to create a “big tent” religion—definitely
Christian, but a big enough tent to gather English people from different sides
of the Catholic/Protestant divide.
Welcome all, welcome to alt.atheism, where the theft of other people's
essays never stops!

Well, except when Earl is asleep.

Earl wouldn't know "A penny for the guy" from the ineluctable modality.


AA
duke
2017-12-07 22:28:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 17:48:07 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Kevrob
Post by duke
Post by Kevrob
Post by duke
For 1600 years, there was one Christian/Catholic Church.
You forgot about the Greek Orthodox, and the daughter churches
of Constantinople.
They are Catholic.
Either the Greek Patriarch is wrong when he says his church is
catholic, or the Latin Rite Patriarch* is wrong when he makes the same
claim.
Both profess the EOC is Catholic.
Post by Kevrob
"Catholic" ( katholikos in Greek) means "universal,"
Yep.
Post by Kevrob
"Including a wide variety of things; all-embracing." - OED.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/catholic
Post by duke
Protestantism is popularly considered to have begun in Germany in 1517.
The Church of England claims to be catholic, also, just not ROMAN
catholic.
It is not quite either. It is not Catholic, or the English wouldn’t celebrate
Guy Fawkes Day, which is a not-so-subtly anti-Catholic holiday, nor would
Parliament have passed laws eliminating Catholics, and anyone married to a
Catholic, from the line of royal succession.
So even if the difference between Catholic and Church of England may seem
trivial to an atheist, the difference has been profound historically… even if
the theological differences are small.
But Church of England is not precisely “Reformed,” either, if by that you mean a
distinctly Calvinist belief system. Both Lutherans and Calvinists believe
strongly that no man, not even a clergyman, can be an intermediary between man
and God; all the clergyman can do is point out the “right” way of interpreting
the Bible. There are other differences as well, but I’m won’t go into them here.
The Church of England was an attempt to create a “big tent” religion—definitely
Christian, but a big enough tent to gather English people from different sides
of the Catholic/Protestant divide.
Welcome all, welcome to alt.atheism, where the theft of other people's
essays never stops!
Well, except when Earl is asleep.
Earl wouldn't know "A penny for the guy" from the ineluctable modality.
Yeah, but I know how to drive a car.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Kevrob
2017-12-07 23:39:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
The Church of England claims to be catholic, also, just not ROMAN
catholic.
It is not quite either. <snipped plagiarism>
Earl, you aren't Brian Overland, and this isn't Quora.com

Post a link and attribute your source, you little thief.

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Church-of-England-Catholic-or-Protestant-Reformed

Here's what is wrong about cutting and pasting without attribution:

1.) You ignore copyright, which is to say, you trample on private property.
This from someone who is supposed to follow "Thou Shalt Not Steal."
I quote copyrighted articles all the time, but only in part. That is
legal, and is called "Fair Use."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Quoting too much makes you equivalent to a music pirate.

2.) You represent someone else's work as your own. That is
"bearing false witness." If you are grabbing public domain
information, why wouldn't you attribute it? You could paraphrase,
and, in an academic paper, even on a grammar school level, that
might still be plagiarism, but if you really put it in your own
words and don't just rearrange the clauses, that's "research."
It is still good form to name your sources. On a high school or
college level more rigor is required. USENET isn't a college
course, but it started as an interconnection of computers on
college campuses, and in academically oriented newsgroups your
behavior would be considered very sketchy. Some academic
papers even reference USENET articles nowadays. Have some pride,
man!

3.) You can't be trusted to convey the original authors' intent
accurately, even if you mean to. I make enough typing errors, but
you, Earl, are a champion keyboard-mangler. If you posted a link,
anybody could jump there and read the original, which brings us to

4.) You can't be trusted not to quote-mine. Quoting out of context
is an old debater's trick. [I know. I'm an old debater!]
I've won many a debate point by presenting the opposition with the
entire quote, in context. Sometimes the introductory material, or
the following paragraph, explicitly contradicts what has been
sliced out of a work.

5.) It sticks out like a sore thumb. When I read Mr Overland's
words, unadorned as they were by quotation marks or any other
kind of set-aside, my immediate reaction was, "This is an orderly,
well-thought-out, historically accurate comment.

It CAN"T be Earl's!"

A quick workout of one of the verbal strings on a search engine,
et voila! The essay in question was easily found.

If you want people to believe you wrote it, don't post it without
even trying to "take the price tags off."

Earl Campbell, semi-educated doofus, strikes again!

Kevin R
duke
2017-12-08 20:38:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Kevrob
The Church of England claims to be catholic, also, just not ROMAN
catholic.
It is not quite either. <snipped plagiarism>
Earl, you aren't Brian Overland, and this isn't Quora.com
Post a link and attribute your source, you little thief.
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Church-of-England-Catholic-or-Protestant-Reformed
1.) You ignore copyright, which is to say, you trample on private property.
This from someone who is supposed to follow "Thou Shalt Not Steal."
I quote copyrighted articles all the time, but only in part. That is
legal, and is called "Fair Use."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Public knowledge.
Post by Kevrob
Quoting too much makes you equivalent to a music pirate.
2.) You represent someone else's work as your own.
No, I do not.
Post by Kevrob
3.) You can't be trusted to convey the original authors' intent
accurately, even if you mean to. I make enough typing errors, but
you, Earl, are a champion keyboard-mangler. If you posted a link,
anybody could jump there and read the original, which brings us to
It's just all various opinions.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

Teresita
2017-12-07 22:05:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Either the Greek Patriarch is wrong when he says his church is
catholic, or the Latin Rite Patriarch* is wrong when he makes the same
claim. "Catholic" ( katholikos in Greek) means "universal,"
"Including a wide variety of things; all-embracing."
Both of them are bound for hell, since only the 70 members of Five
Corners Good Book Freewill Baptist Church of Jerkwater, USA are saved.
They said so.
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-12-04 20:07:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 12:33:57 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 13:36:23 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 04:53:31 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:07:30 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> ...........youth wearing his cap on backwards as his authority. Like poor old
.> doc T always wearing his green shirt as seen in his movies and demanding that
.> scripture ALONE is the Word of God when scripture ITSELF states that not
.> everything said and did is not written down. John 21:25.
.> >"Not everything Jesus said and did is not written down" is not equivalent
.> >to "Hey, so make up anything you want to and put God's stamp on it!"
.> The Original Catholic Church was there with Jesus. What he told them is just as
.> valid as partial written records that were canonized by the same people.
So, there are no records of these things that He told them, of which there
are no records. Is that what you're saying?
Nope. Christian dogmatic faith is based on the canonized written word.
.> >But somehow you magically know what these things are which there are no
.> >records of.
.> >.> You have to address John 21:25, not me.
.> >Oh, I am addressing it. Pointing out that just because not all of what Jesus
.> >said got written down, that gives you exactly zero license to use that as an
.> >excuse to invent things.
.> Who's inventing?
Your Church. Do you not know what we're discussing here?
Yes, yes I do. Nothing in Catholic dogmatic statements comes from the
non-written part. It is supportive however.
,> For 1600 years, there was one Christian/Catholic Church. The heretics invented
,> untruths. And then the protest_ers came along and flat said "we're not going to
,> accept these things from written scripture."

Exactly backwards. Did you forget a "not" in there?
.> >.>You fail to understand that everything that Jesus said and
.> >.> did was "100% man-viewed" to either be put in writing, or not, but still known
.> >.> as truth.
.> >If it's not in writing, then how do you know what was said.
.> See above.

I don't see a thing above that answers it. Try again: if it's not in writing, then
how do you know?
.> >And of course, even if it is in writing that in no way guarantees it was either
.> >said or is true.
.> Jesus offered it, and men accepted it. You sound like a pagan now.

My goodness, it's taking you a really really long time to get the idea, isn't it?
.> > Doubly so, given that was was set down in writing was
.> >done so over a generation later, by men who neither said it nor heard it
.> >themselves.
.> A generation is 20 years.

OK, then make that three to four generations.


..> The certifications of the teachings and actions of Jesus were real time.

I have absolutely no idea what that sentence was supposed to mean.
Post by duke
And massive changes to Christianity were greatly taking
place all that time.
.> Your SB boys could only sit back and turn away form what they didn't like. But
.> that was 1600 years after the fact.

<sigh> 1500...
.> >.> You protest_ants didn't come around for another 1600 years.

Protestants did not "come around", they were Catholics who took
a long look at what the Church had become and decided it had
strayed badly from what Jesus taught.
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
But thousands, many
.> of which knew saw him personally and learned from him, did not get their
.> observations in writing, which is only a select few books - 4 in all.
.> >Oh, there were many many many more than four.
.> >Quite a number of which your Church does not at all care for.
.> Nope. 4 canonized. All the rest rejected because of errors, fabrications, or
.> offering no new information not already in hand.

That right? I'm guessing you don't know a single thing about, say,
The Gospel of Thomas, just to pick the most celebrated one.
.> >.> You protest_ers biggest failure to launch is "scripture only". John 21:25.
.> >.> We of the RCC are much more fully aware of things that were said and done.
.> >How?
.> We were there as the first part of the new Church of Jesus Christ. You guys
.> came along 1600 years later.

If it's not written down, how do you know what took place in early church in the
years following Christ's death?
.> >.> They
.> >.> are not in scripture and thus can't be offered as dogma. But they are still
.> >.> true.
.> >How do you know?
.> Jesus confirmed it.

And yet you can give no evidence for that claim.
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> >Kind of like there is not one thing at all in the Gospels about "the Original Catholic Church"
.> >being there. Kind of an odd omission, don't you think?
.> It's not a matter of "the original Catholic Church" being there.
You're the one that brought that up.
.> Yep, as seen in the Holy Mass and 7 sacraments, et al.
.> You SB's totally ignored those, which ARE in scripture.
Good point. That's why Baptists don't get married, never have communion,
or get baptized. In fact that latter, the avoidance of baptism, is why they're
called "Baptists".
.> 1. Marriage as many times as one desires. Jesus said "let no man put asunder
.> that which God has joined." By your marriages over and over, God must not have
.> approved.

Many Protestants do believe that. Certainly not all.

And a ton of Catholics ignore it:

"A quarter of U.S. Catholic adults say they have
experienced a divorce, according to our survey.
That's somewhat fewer than among U.S. adults
overall (30%). Among U.S. Catholics who have ever
been divorced, roughly a quarter (26%) say they or
their former spouse have sought an annulment from
the Catholic Church."

-- https://tinyurl.com/p5wzmml
.> 2. Your communion is not a consecration of bread and wine into the Body and
.> Blood of Jesus, but only a remembrance or maybe a fellowship.

The exact words Jesus spoke are repeated. If it's <POOF!> magically
transmuted, then that must happen when Protestants do it too.
Of course it actually doesn't, and there is no way you can prove that it is.

.> 3. Baptism, I think, is according to the proper method.

There is no "proper method". But if you want to get all Biblical,
we can go down to the river. Some evangelicals do exactly that.
.> >> >.> It's a matter
.> >> >.> of there being only one Church that fully offers the characteristics that Jesus
.> >> >.> specified. That's the Catholic Church.

Actually, it's a matter of making that claim, with no way of backing it up.
I repeat: the earliest Protestants were Catholics. Catholics who took
a look around and decided their Church had too much of man in it
and too little of Jesus.

AA
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
What in the world does that have to do with things that, if Jesus specified them,
we know nothing about it?
Do this in memory of me - Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).
1. Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19, Hebrew 2:14-15
2. Holy Eucharist -Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).
3. Confession - John 20:22-23, 2 Cor 5:18-19, Mat 9:2-8
4. Matrimony - Mat 19:4-6, Mark 10:5-9, Ephesians 5:31
5. Confirmation - Ephesians 1:13-14, Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19:5-6,
6. Holy Orders - Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim
7. Anointing of the Sick - Mark 6:12-13, John 5:14
Mat 16:13-19 (Pope), Mat 28:16-20 (Teaching), Eph 2:19-20 (Base)
1 Cor 3:10-15
Mat 25:31-46, James 2:26
Feed the hungry.
Clothe the naked.
Give drink to the thirsty.
Visit the imprisoned.
.> Heal the sick.
.> Cast out demons.
Heal the sick and cast out demons? Whoo, boy, they do those
things most spectacularly. Turn on your TV any Sunday morning.
I wouldn't think seriously what I see on Sunday tv.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
So, they cast out demons a lot at your church these days?
You should take some video.
Jesus did, and he said "follow me".
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.
G.K. Chesterton
*****
duke
2017-12-05 19:03:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 12:07:58 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 12:33:57 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 13:36:23 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 04:53:31 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:07:30 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> ...........youth wearing his cap on backwards as his authority. Like poor old
.> doc T always wearing his green shirt as seen in his movies and demanding that
.> scripture ALONE is the Word of God when scripture ITSELF states that not
.> everything said and did is not written down. John 21:25.
.> >"Not everything Jesus said and did is not written down" is not equivalent
.> >to "Hey, so make up anything you want to and put God's stamp on it!"
.> The Original Catholic Church was there with Jesus. What he told them is just as
.> valid as partial written records that were canonized by the same people.
So, there are no records of these things that He told them, of which there
are no records. Is that what you're saying?
Nope. Christian dogmatic faith is based on the canonized written word.
.> >But somehow you magically know what these things are which there are no
.> >records of.
.> >.> You have to address John 21:25, not me.
.> >Oh, I am addressing it. Pointing out that just because not all of what Jesus
.> >said got written down, that gives you exactly zero license to use that as an
.> >excuse to invent things.
.> Who's inventing?
Your Church. Do you not know what we're discussing here?
Yes, yes I do. Nothing in Catholic dogmatic statements comes from the
non-written part. It is supportive however.
,> For 1600 years, there was one Christian/Catholic Church. The heretics invented
,> untruths. And then the protest_ers came along and flat said "we're not going to
,> accept these things from written scripture."
Exactly backwards. Did you forget a "not" in there?
No. The protest_ant churches reject the Holy Mass and essentially 5 of 7
sacraments.

MASS:
Do this in memory of me - Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).

SACRAMENTS:
1. Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19, Hebrew 2:14-15
2. Holy Eucharist -Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).
3. Confession - John 20:22-23, 2 Cor 5:18-19, Mat 9:2-8
4. Matrimony - Mat 19:4-6, Mark 10:5-9, Ephesians 5:31
5. Confirmation - Ephesians 1:13-14, Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19:5-6,
6. Holy Orders - Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim
7. Anointing of the Sick - Mark 6:12-13, John 5:14

PAPACY:
Mat 16:13-19 (Pope), Mat 28:16-20 (Teaching), Eph 2:19-20 (Base)

PURGATORY:
1 Cor 3:10-15

FAITH (without deeds is dead faith):
Mat 25:31-46, James 2:26
Feed the hungry.
Clothe the naked.
Give drink to the thirsty.
Visit the imprisoned.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> >.>You fail to understand that everything that Jesus said and
.> >.> did was "100% man-viewed" to either be put in writing, or not, but still known
.> >.> as truth.
.> >If it's not in writing, then how do you know what was said.
.> See above.
I don't see a thing above that answers it. Try again: if it's not in writing, then
how do you know?
Now you do.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> >And of course, even if it is in writing that in no way guarantees it was either
.> >said or is true.
.> Jesus offered it, and men accepted it. You sound like a pagan now.
My goodness, it's taking you a really really long time to get the idea, isn't it?
.> > Doubly so, given that was was set down in writing was
.> >done so over a generation later, by men who neither said it nor heard it
.> >themselves.
.> A generation is 20 years.
OK, then make that three to four generations.
..> The certifications of the teachings and actions of Jesus were real time.
I have absolutely no idea what that sentence was supposed to mean.
Post by duke
And massive changes to Christianity were greatly taking
place all that time.
.> Your SB boys could only sit back and turn away form what they didn't like. But
.> that was 1600 years after the fact.
<sigh> 1500...
.> >.> You protest_ants didn't come around for another 1600 years.
Protestants did not "come around", they were Catholics who took
a long look at what the Church had become and decided it had
strayed badly from what Jesus taught.
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
But thousands, many
.> of which knew saw him personally and learned from him, did not get their
.> observations in writing, which is only a select few books - 4 in all.
.> >Oh, there were many many many more than four.
.> >Quite a number of which your Church does not at all care for.
.> Nope. 4 canonized. All the rest rejected because of errors, fabrications, or
.> offering no new information not already in hand.
That right? I'm guessing you don't know a single thing about, say,
The Gospel of Thomas, just to pick the most celebrated one.
.> >.> You protest_ers biggest failure to launch is "scripture only". John 21:25.
.> >.> We of the RCC are much more fully aware of things that were said and done.
.> >How?
.> We were there as the first part of the new Church of Jesus Christ. You guys
.> came along 1600 years later.
If it's not written down, how do you know what took place in early church in the
years following Christ's death?
.> >.> They
.> >.> are not in scripture and thus can't be offered as dogma. But they are still
.> >.> true.
.> >How do you know?
.> Jesus confirmed it.
And yet you can give no evidence for that claim.
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> >Kind of like there is not one thing at all in the Gospels about "the Original Catholic Church"
.> >being there. Kind of an odd omission, don't you think?
.> It's not a matter of "the original Catholic Church" being there.
You're the one that brought that up.
.> Yep, as seen in the Holy Mass and 7 sacraments, et al.
.> You SB's totally ignored those, which ARE in scripture.
Good point. That's why Baptists don't get married, never have communion,
or get baptized. In fact that latter, the avoidance of baptism, is why they're
called "Baptists".
.> 1. Marriage as many times as one desires. Jesus said "let no man put asunder
.> that which God has joined." By your marriages over and over, God must not have
.> approved.
Many Protestants do believe that. Certainly not all.
"A quarter of U.S. Catholic adults say they have
experienced a divorce, according to our survey.
That's somewhat fewer than among U.S. adults
overall (30%). Among U.S. Catholics who have ever
been divorced, roughly a quarter (26%) say they or
their former spouse have sought an annulment from
the Catholic Church."
-- https://tinyurl.com/p5wzmml
.> 2. Your communion is not a consecration of bread and wine into the Body and
.> Blood of Jesus, but only a remembrance or maybe a fellowship.
The exact words Jesus spoke are repeated. If it's <POOF!> magically
transmuted, then that must happen when Protestants do it too.
Of course it actually doesn't, and there is no way you can prove that it is.
.> 3. Baptism, I think, is according to the proper method.
There is no "proper method". But if you want to get all Biblical,
we can go down to the river. Some evangelicals do exactly that.
.> >> >.> It's a matter
.> >> >.> of there being only one Church that fully offers the characteristics that Jesus
.> >> >.> specified. That's the Catholic Church.
Actually, it's a matter of making that claim, with no way of backing it up.
I repeat: the earliest Protestants were Catholics. Catholics who took
a look around and decided their Church had too much of man in it
and too little of Jesus.
AA
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
What in the world does that have to do with things that, if Jesus specified them,
we know nothing about it?
Do this in memory of me - Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).
1. Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19, Hebrew 2:14-15
2. Holy Eucharist -Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).
3. Confession - John 20:22-23, 2 Cor 5:18-19, Mat 9:2-8
4. Matrimony - Mat 19:4-6, Mark 10:5-9, Ephesians 5:31
5. Confirmation - Ephesians 1:13-14, Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19:5-6,
6. Holy Orders - Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim
7. Anointing of the Sick - Mark 6:12-13, John 5:14
Mat 16:13-19 (Pope), Mat 28:16-20 (Teaching), Eph 2:19-20 (Base)
1 Cor 3:10-15
Mat 25:31-46, James 2:26
Feed the hungry.
Clothe the naked.
Give drink to the thirsty.
Visit the imprisoned.
.> Heal the sick.
.> Cast out demons.
Heal the sick and cast out demons? Whoo, boy, they do those
things most spectacularly. Turn on your TV any Sunday morning.
I wouldn't think seriously what I see on Sunday tv.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
So, they cast out demons a lot at your church these days?
You should take some video.
Jesus did, and he said "follow me".
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.
G.K. Chesterton
*****
the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
duke
2017-12-02 17:40:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:07:30 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> ...........youth wearing his cap on backwards as his authority. Like poor old
.> doc T always wearing his green shirt as seen in his movies and demanding that
.> scripture ALONE is the Word of God when scripture ITSELF states that not
.> everything said and did is not written down. John 21:25.
"Not everything Jesus said and did is not written down" is not equivalent
to "Hey, so make up anything you want to and put God's stamp on it!"
That's right. There are 4 books called Gospels which are certified fully
correct with what Jesus said and did according to those that knew him..

The 3 primary reasons for rejection of other "gospel books" include:
1. Mistakes
2. Fabrications.
3. No new information.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Old doc T, a fallen away Catholic.
the dukester, American-American
*****
.> The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
.> and a good cigar.
.> G.K. Chesterton
G.K. Chesterton, who presciently compared the Church with
three things that can be seriously harmful.
AA
the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Loading...