Catholics Should Believe Their First Pope

[everready]

So you are the only one that can change denominations and yet still know Christ??

How does one unknow Jesus?

Psalm 139:7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;

10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.

11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.

12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.

13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.

14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.


everready

 

[Dona Bate]

This is how the RCC must be tested: by the word of God in a King James Bible!

It can be shown that they are 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV) as they preach an other gospel than that which Paul preached unto us (Galatians 1:8-12 KJV)....

Any other gospel like heir's MAD proposes St. Paul allegedly taught makes St. Paul a heretic and so would have to have been rejected from the start.*

Since scripture*tells us that NOT even Jesus Christ Himself can be his own witness (John 8:18). It is therefore patently obvious that St. Paul cannot be his own witness to a so called 'secret gospel'. Which begs the question from heir here who supports this new and recent invention of man...


WHO TESTIFIES FOR A 'SECRET' GOSPEL NOT GIVEN TO ANYBODY ELSE BUT ST.PAUL?*


A. St. Paul? (Whoops! Nocando See John 8:18)

B. The Apostles? (Nope!... MAD itself says that they didn't know).

C. Any other witnesses? (Nope! Otherwise it wouldn't be a secret).

D. Scripture (Whoops again! Definitely wouldn't be a secret anymore would it?).

E. Christian Tradition?

(Nope! Absolutely nobody for the best part of 2,000 years even hints at a so called 'secret gospel' taught the apostles or their successors. You would have thought that somebody, or anybody in early Christian history would be bursting to mention at least once the biggest well kept secret EVER ...if anybody knew!?).


Stick a fork in it heir...


I assure you that you will find it's stuffed and well and truly COOKED!


God Bless!

 

[kayaker]

Any other gospel like heir's MAD proposes St. Paul allegedly taught makes St. Paul a heretic and so would have to have been rejected from the start.*

Since scripture*tells us that NOT even Jesus Christ Himself can be his own witness (John 8:18). It is therefore patently obvious that St. Paul cannot be his own witness to a so called 'secret gospel'. Which begs the question from heir here who supports this new and recent invention of man...


WHO TESTIFIES FOR A 'SECRET' GOSPEL NOT GIVEN TO ANYBODY ELSE BUT ST.PAUL?*


A. St. Paul? (Whoops! Nocando See John 8:18)

B. The Apostles? (Nope!... MAD itself says that they didn't know).

C. Any other witnesses? (Nope! Otherwise it wouldn't be a secret).

D. Scripture (Whoops again! Definitely wouldn't be a secret anymore would it?).

E. Christian Tradition?

(Nope! Absolutely nobody for the best part of 2,000 years even hints at a so called 'secret gospel' taught the apostles or their successors. You would have thought that somebody, or anybody in early Christian history would be bursting to mention at least once the biggest well kept secret EVER ...if anybody knew!?).


Stick a fork in it heir...


I assure you that you will find it's stuffed and well and truly COOKED!


God Bless!

Ahh! Donna... the very essence of Jesus' divine Paternity (John 8:12 KJV, John 8:13 KJV, John 8:19 KJV) is captured in BOTH Jesus' testimony, AND His Father's testimony (John 8:18 KJV). Two witnesses, correct? Two testimonies to Jesus' divine Paternity? Exactly where are those two testimonies, Donna? Jesus' testimony to His divine Paternity is found in John 8:38 KJV... I don't suppose a Catholic ANYWHERE can explicitly and succinctly explain that which Jesus SAW WITH His Father that corroborates Jesus' testimony to His divine Paternity, then? Gotta specific and succinct clue, folks?

God' testimony, the SECOND one, to Jesus' divine Paternity is found in John 8:40 KJV being that TRUTH which Jesus heard from God that even Abraham didn't hear. And, what specifically and succinctly DID Jesus hear, being God's testimony, that corroborated Jesus' divine Paternity? Still clueless?

Jesus told His believers in that dialogue (John 8:30 KJV) that IF they continue in His word (keep listening, it's real time), THEN do His believers become "disciples indeed" (John 8:31 KJV). Thereby, upon becoming JESUS' "disciples indeed" "...ye shall know the TRUTH, and the TRUTH will make you free" (John 8:32 KJV). Said TRUTH to Jesus' divine Paternity Donna, is embraced within these two divine, succinct, and explicit testimonies (John 8:38 KJV, John 8:40 KJV) of these two divine witnesses (John 8:18 KJV) that "converted" (Matthew 13:15 KJV) Jesus' believers (John 8:30 KJV) into JESUS' "disciples indeed" (John 8:31 KJV).

So... how about a disciple of Jesus among the Catholic Church stepping forward and rendering up the explicit and specific details of these two testimonies (John 8:38 KJV, John 8:40 KJV)... I won't hold my breath, btw. You folks haven't even figured out John 8:38 KJV and John 8:40 KJV WERE the actual testimonies, yet... neither have ANY of your Pope's, btw. So, you Catholics need to get back in the bleachers, and quit playing in the half-time band... we're already in the third quarter of this ball game!

Paul KNEW who Jesus was from Genesis (Romans 9:6, 7)... Peter didn't (Acts 4:13, 20, KJV). Peter wasn't standing and preaching the Pentecostal Gospel like his drunkard appearing peers (Acts 2:13 KJV, Acts 2:14 KJV). Didn't Peter then deny the Pentecostal Holy Spirit? Peter took it upon himself to preach ANOTHER gospel to those mockers who included those non-Israelites (John 8:33 KJV) who instigated Jesus' crucifixion (John 8:28 KJV, John 8:37 KJV). Those NON-Israelites were among Peter's audience, only Peter didn't have a clue early in his ministry... listen to whom Peter addressed in Acts 2:

Acts 2:22 KJV "Ye men of Israel, hear these words, Jesus of Nazareth..."

Those who instigated Jesus' crucifixion (John 8:28 KJV, John 8:37 KJV) were NOT descendants of Jacob-ISRAEL, Donna (John 8:33 KJV, John 8:37 KJV, John 8:39 KJV).

Paul KNEW who Peter's NON-Israelite mockers were (Romans 9:6, 7), as you mock Paul, "WHO TESTIFIES FOR A 'SECRET' GOSPEL NOT GIVEN TO ANYBODY ELSE BUT ST.PAUL?" Tell you who, DONNA: I TESTIFY THAT PAUL KNEW WHO THEY WERE, and they were among your 'early CATHOLIC church fathers'. Just because you guys are clueless doesn't mean that Paul wasn't spot ON! Quite the contrary, in fact. Paul knew the GENTILES were descendants of Japheth, son of Noah (Genesis 9:27 KJV, Genesis 10:2, 3, 4, Genesis 10:5 KJV). But, you guys already know that, right? Paul KNEW Japheth walked into Noah's tent backwards and covered in rebuke of son-mother incest (Genesis 9:22 KJV), but you guys already know that also, right? Such is corroborated in Deuteronomy 18:8 KJV, Deuteronomy 20:11 KJV, Leviticus 22:30 KJV, Leviticus 27:20 KJV, right? So, maybe you can catch a clue what Paul was saying about the GENTILES in 1Corinthians 5:1 KJV, then? Your Pope's been holding out on you guys then, right?

John the Baptist KNEW who those non-Israelite premeditating murderers were among Peter's 'one historic CATHOLIC church' (Luke 3:2 KJV, Luke 3:7 KJV, Luke 3:8 KJV, Luke 3:9 KJV). And, you don't?

Stephen KNEW who they were (Acts 7:51 KJV, Acts 7:52 KJV) corroborating Jesus' words from Matthew 23:29 KJV, Matthew 23:30 KJV, Matthew 23:31 KJV. You guys connect those dots, yet?

So... you didn't know Jesus' instigating detractors were NOT Israelites, did you? Neither did Peter early in his ministry (Acts 4:13, 20). Then, you really don't know who Peter's 'early CATHOLIC church members' were then, do you, Donna? Neither did Peter early in his ministry... Therefore your Popes have been holding out on you guys, or they're as utterly deluded as the lot of you are... Got any succinct and distinct details to those two divine testimonies (John 8:38 KJV, John 8:40 KJV)? You didn't even know they were even there, did you, Donna? But, you guys want to talk about witnesses and testimonies, TRUTH, and 'knowing' Jesus more than us non-Catholic infidels? You might think you know Jesus... but, you are NOT disciples of Jesus!

Render up, Donna... Sanchodelibro ain't gotta clue either, least of all, Crucifer... swooning and drooling in antiquity? Seriously? Jesus' arrival generation was prophesied by Lamech in Genesis 4:24 KJV, "seventy and sevenfold", Donna... count 'em up with God is generation #1, Adam generation #2, Seth #3, and so forth starting in Luke 3:38 KJV through Luke 3:23 KJV. Whose name appears and the 77th ("seventy and sevenfold", Genesis 4:24 KJV) inclusive generation from Almighty God? PETER??? Where was Peter's arrival generation prophesied in Genesis, hmmm? You folk are deluded BY alleged antiquity, not illuminated FROM antiquity that began in Genesis. So, please put that trumpet down and start singing.

kayaker

 

[rougueone]

Any other gospel like heir's MAD proposes St. Paul allegedly taught makes St. Paul a heretic and so would have to have been rejected from the start.*

Since scripture*tells us that NOT even Jesus Christ Himself can be his own witness (John 8:18). It is therefore patently obvious that St. Paul cannot be his own witness to a so called 'secret gospel'. Which begs the question from heir here who supports this new and recent invention of man...


WHO TESTIFIES FOR A 'SECRET' GOSPEL NOT GIVEN TO ANYBODY ELSE BUT ST.PAUL?*


A. St. Paul? (Whoops! Nocando See John 8:18)

B. The Apostles? (Nope!... MAD itself says that they didn't know).

C. Any other witnesses? (Nope! Otherwise it wouldn't be a secret).

D. Scripture (Whoops again! Definitely wouldn't be a secret anymore would it?).

E. Christian Tradition?

(Nope! Absolutely nobody for the best part of 2,000 years even hints at a so called 'secret gospel' taught the apostles or their successors. You would have thought that somebody, or anybody in early Christian history would be bursting to mention at least once the biggest well kept secret EVER ...if anybody knew!?).


Stick a fork in it heir...


I assure you that you will find it's stuffed and well and truly COOKED!


God Bless!

back your position with Scripture DONA. Your using personal suppositions. our suppositions have no relevance when Gods word is in play or being directed.
So, please back your stance with Scripture. This is your moment to shine or to melt.
Waiting.

 

[rougueone]

So you think a quote from another Protestant who doesn't know the Bible much less Christian history much less the origin of his own church would somehow convince me to believe half-truths???

Where is the logic in that? I embraced Protestantism and what I learned about doctrine was make a lot of claims and hope something sticks. Not exactly the manifestations of the Holy Spirit, to say the least.

I believe Protestants, as demonstrated by yourself and others on this forum daily, will not address any serious challenges because they are afraid of the implications and that is why you guys disappear frequently.

Sancocho, never has a non Catholic ran. Never.
It is 100% the Catholics who run from serious challenges. If need be I will post the vacant threads, ( Many), left by Catholics who by refusal or knowledge, simply abandoned the Thread.

You in this moment have a chance to back up your statement of "Half truths" by presenting the whole truth . You did not do this in the originall reply. I am addressing you now. Hey, make the protestant "Half truth, to a a whole truth. Here is your chance. Now is your time to shine.
========
Let's start with Everready:


Originally Posted by Sancocho View Post
The translation comes from:

Cura denique, ut salutem quam dedisti nobis, & vitam & spiritum non amittamus. Tu enim pastor, tu medicus, tu gubernator, tu cultor, tu denique alter Deus in terris.

which translated correctly is:

Finally, it takes to the salvation which you have given us, the spirit of his life and not to lose. For you are a pastor, you a doctor, you are a pilot, for you to worship, you, in short, no other God on earth.
OK Sancocho, make the half truth a whole truth. if you know this to be a " half truth, then certainly you have the other "Half" to conclude the " whole truth".
Waiting.....

I have to wonder if some Christians hate is stronger than their love of Christ?
[B OK, let's get along. Ball's in your court..[/B]

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4371833&postcount=46


Let's see where this goes.
======
Heir made a distinct post to Cruciform. Cruciform replied by diverting from the post---"Are you kidding". But then left. Leaving no factual , insightful dissent. cruciform simply left.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4372642&postcount=54

=======
Cruciform also left the same diversion to Everready:

Everready:
Its more like this.

“It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the Popery in the Church of Rome, there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name. . .It wounds Christ, because it robs Christ of His glory, because it puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His atonement and lifts a piece of bread into the place of the Savior and a few drops of water into the place of the Holy Spirit and puts a mere fallible man like ourselves up as the Vicar of Christ on earth.

If we pray against it, because it is against Him, we shall love the persons though we hate their errors; we shall love their souls though we loathe and detest their dogmas. And so the breath of our prayers will be sweetened because we turn our faces toward Christ when we pray.”

– Charles H. Spurgeon (1834-1892)

Cruciform:
Yes, I definitely needed a good laugh. I much appreciated heir's help on that score.

Again Cruciform offered nothing to Everready. IE:" OK, if you say so". But where is the Biblical knowledge you and other Catholics always allude to, but never present?
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4372642&postcount=54

======


Sancocho to Everready was another diversion.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4372642&postcount=54

Completley void of any biblical or substantial rhetoric. NOTHING

Worse was Everready had replied back to Sancocho and has of yet, received no response. Thus TWICE.

Now, Who is running ?

There are many more Threads left vacant by Catholics. But let's work on these to validate your stance, " Protestants"
======
Sancocho, by your very words, your own admittance, you claim"
My advice to anyone is do what I did. Accept any challenges to one's faith and take the time to verify them one by one.
After all since I already knew Jesus there was little to be afraid of.

Well Sancocho this is your day to validate your stance. Because as you stated " There is little to be afraid of ". Validate your knowledge of Scripture for all, including Catholics. But specifically to
" I believe Protestants, as demonstrated by yourself and others on this forum daily, will not address any serious challenges because they are afraid of the implications and that is why you guys disappear frequently.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4372898&postcount=57


Show your knowledge Sancocho. Now. WE see this as critically challenging.

=======

To all Catholics, especially Cruciform as he has the graduate degree's in Biblical theologies.

Cruciform can offer help to Dona, or simply respond to Kayaker's question to Dona.
But Cruciform, being your the only one on TOL, who is Catholic, and has co-authored a book, your in a better place to respond. Because no one in this Thread as any Biblical nor Theological graduate degree's in either specific to either.

=======
Kayaker made a very well informed critique to Dona Bate:

Noting the 4th Chapter. Kayaker is also respectfully challenging all Catholics to " step forward" and make your case.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4373991&postcount=63

Kayakers post is just above: # 63

 

[kayaker]

Any other gospel like heir's MAD proposes St. Paul allegedly taught makes St. Paul a heretic and so would have to have been rejected from the start.*

Since scripture*tells us that NOT even Jesus Christ Himself can be his own witness (John 8:18). It is therefore patently obvious that St. Paul cannot be his own witness to a so called 'secret gospel'. Which begs the question from heir here who supports this new and recent invention of man...


WHO TESTIFIES FOR A 'SECRET' GOSPEL NOT GIVEN TO ANYBODY ELSE BUT ST.PAUL?*


A. St. Paul? (Whoops! Nocando See John 8:18)

B. The Apostles? (Nope!... MAD itself says that they didn't know).

C. Any other witnesses? (Nope! Otherwise it wouldn't be a secret).

D. Scripture (Whoops again! Definitely wouldn't be a secret anymore would it?).

E. Christian Tradition?

(Nope! Absolutely nobody for the best part of 2,000 years even hints at a so called 'secret gospel' taught the apostles or their successors. You would have thought that somebody, or anybody in early Christian history would be bursting to mention at least once the biggest well kept secret EVER ...if anybody knew!?).


Stick a fork in it heir...


I assure you that you will find it's stuffed and well and truly COOKED!


God Bless!

Furthermore, Dona... Jesus was NOT saying His testimony was insufficient, Jesus was affirming TWO witnesses testify to the truth according to Mosaic Law. So, are you testifying Jesus' testimony is insufficient for you? Jesus' PERSONAL testimony is utterly conclusive considering His healing miracles... and, my humble background corroborates my knowledge to make a profession of faith in Jesus' divine origin that a non-educated farmer can understand... Jesus' Divinity continued to be interrogated by those NON-Israelites (John 8:33 KJV, John 8:37 KJV, John 8:39 KJV, John 8:43 KJV, Luke 3:2, 7, 8, 9, Acts 7:51, 52, Romans 9:6, 7, Revelation 2:9, 3:9 KJV) challenging His Divine origin:

John 10:32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, KJV "Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father, for which of those works to you stone me? 33) The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makes thyself God. 34) Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35) If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36) Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent unto the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37) If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38) But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may KNOW, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. 39) Therefore they sought again to take him; by he escaped out of their hand."​

Do you think Jesus was a blasphemer being a solitary witness to His Divine origin, Dona? That's what I hear in your highlighted words quoted above. Am I correct?

So, what was particularly unique about Jesus' healing miracles, Dona? Was Jesus just some average physician (respectfully) at the local Urgent Care? There is no record Jesus & Co. ever healed a broken bone. So, they weren't into orthopedics. Jesus was a genetic healer, Dona... no such genetic miracles have been performed since those days... there's not even a title for such healers in the medical community, although progress with gene splicing is advancing.

Jesus healed familial (heritable within families) blindness (John 9:1, 2, 3) saying, "I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work" (John 9:4 KJV). That was the ONLY time Jesus' disciples asked Him about the heritable aspect of those afflictions being healed. And, Jesus responded the second time (first in John 8:12 KJV being discussed in my prior post) that He was the LIGHT OF THE WORLD (John 9:5 KJV). How do you equate Jesus' healing miracles with Jesus being the LIGHT OF THE WORLD?

Jesus healed familial hemophilia in a woman who'd achieved her first menstrual period around age twelve, and she was bleeding to death (Matthew 9:20 KJV). Wish to discuss this further?

Jesus healed familial palsies, seizures, blindness, leprosy, deafness, Poland's syndrome, Fatal Familial Insomnia... I'm quite prepared to professionally discuss these clinical diagnoses (v. empirical) given the scant collective diagnostic clues found in the four Gospels... totally your call. The man with a withered right arm had Poland's syndrome, occurs in the US about 1/50k, have you ever met one?

And, you folks think you "know Jesus" better than us great-unwashed, non-Catholic infidels? Jesus' genetic miracles themselves testify to His divine Paternity, Dona. Jesus didn't need a second witness to convince me He was of Divine origin. I don't particularly hold your feet to the fire on that original professional insight. But, aren't there Catholic physicians? Didn't Peter heal HERITABLE lameness (neurodegenerative disorder) in Acts 3:2 KJV? You folks don't know Peter as well as you should!

kayaker

 

[kayaker]

Well Rougueone... looks like we have the ball field to ourselves. Catholic silence is utterly deafening, isn't it? I like thinking these Catholics are exploring the Scriptures, but, their USCCB Bible, at least, drops subtle diversion bombs in rather strategic places at time. Consider the USCCB translation in John 8

31
Jesus then said to those Jews who believed in him,* “If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples,

32
and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/8​

They replaced "continue in my word" (John 8:31 KJV), as in keep listening, heads-up, this is real time; with "remain in my word"? Seriously? The word 'remain' has a stationary, passive connotation; while the word 'continue' endorses a 'search and discover' mode. The NT wasn't even written. How could Jesus' believers (John 8:30 KJV) 'remain' in His Word that wasn't even written? Hear the subtle diversion? "Remain" is a dead end. So "remain in my word" is a more general statement ASSUMED to be appropriate for Bible readers, today. Jesus was speaking exclusively to His believers on THAT day. Those believers believed Jesus. Don't we all believe Jesus? Rhetorically, of course. What were Jesus' believers about to learn, 'continuing in His word' that made them His "disciples indeed"? The USCCB doesn't bring Catholic readers to the 'event horizon.' Consequently, the quest for the two divine testimonies (John 8:38 KJV, and John 8:40 KJV) of these two divine witnesses (John 8:18 KJV) is never captured in the mind of the Catholic reader.

Furthermore... The USCCB Bible literally spliced a perfectly clear, "IF_____, THEN______" logic, conditional statement (a VERY powerful computer programming command, btw). IF you do this, THEN you get that. On the contrary, IF you DON'T do this, THEN you DON'T get that. IF one doesn't have a clue to the IF condition... Then, that (as in becoming JESUS' disciples) never happens... The conditional IF ain't even on the radar without a THEN.

Also, "you will truly be my disciples" in the USCCB Bible utterly dilutes Jesus' promise, His GUARANTEE of becoming disciples, approaching command, in "Ye ARE my disciples indeed" (John 8:31 KJV) found in the KJV. IF... THEN.... and ARE, nothing futuristic beyond the immediacy of His dialogue. IF... THEN... ARE NOW. And NOT "will truly be my disciples" with a fulfillment in the indefinite future.

Furthermore, "ye SHALL know the truth, and the truth SHALL make you free" evokes a more immediate and defined fulfillment of Jesus' promise; while the USCCB's "will know the truth" meanders off into the ambiguous future to be allegedly fulfilled by the Catholic Church.

I have a very difficult time accepting these subtle Catholic nuances as being benignly translated by highly esteemed Catholic Scholars. Someone's cooked the books, R.O.! No? Said nuances shift the attainment of discipleship AWAY from Jesus' prescribed endeavor, to the Catholic Church. Can you spell 'motive'? Therefore, Catholics are NOT JESUS' disciples... Catholics are someone else's disciples, and I'll leave the obvious on the table.

Thanks for listening, R.O. Hopefully a zealous Catholic will respond to the aforementioned questions on my prior posts, before they arrogantly challenge a blind wild hawg's casual observation, and seek diversion from "ye SHALL know the truth, and the truth SHALL make you free" (John 8:32 KJV)... NOW, REAL TIME... over two millennia ago, speaking of antiquity.

kayaker

 

[rougueone]

Well Rougueone... looks like we have the ball field to ourselves. Catholic silence is utterly deafening, isn't it? I like thinking these Catholics are exploring the Scriptures, but, their USCCB Bible, at least, drops subtle diversion bombs in rather strategic places at time. Consider the USCCB translation in John 8

31
Jesus then said to those Jews who believed in him,* “If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples,

32
and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/8​

They replaced "continue in my word" (John 8:31 KJV), as in keep listening, heads-up, this is real time; with "remain in my word"? Seriously? The word 'remain' has a stationary, passive connotation; while the word 'continue' endorses a 'search and discover' mode. The NT wasn't even written. How could Jesus' believers (John 8:30 KJV) 'remain' in His Word that wasn't even written? Hear the subtle diversion? "Remain" is a dead end. So "remain in my word" is a more general statement ASSUMED to be appropriate for Bible readers, today. Jesus was speaking exclusively to His believers on THAT day. Those believers believed Jesus. Don't we all believe Jesus? Rhetorically, of course. What were Jesus' believers about to learn, 'continuing in His word' that made them His "disciples indeed"? The USCCB doesn't bring Catholic readers to the 'event horizon.' Consequently, the quest for the two divine testimonies (John 8:38 KJV, and John 8:40 KJV) of these two divine witnesses (John 8:18 KJV) is never captured in the mind of the Catholic reader.

Furthermore... The USCCB Bible literally spliced a perfectly clear, "IF_____, THEN______" logic, conditional statement (a VERY powerful computer programming command, btw). IF you do this, THEN you get that. On the contrary, IF you DON'T do this, THEN you DON'T get that. IF one doesn't have a clue to the IF condition... Then, that (as in becoming JESUS' disciples) never happens... The conditional IF ain't even on the radar without a THEN.

Also, "you will truly be my disciples" in the USCCB Bible utterly dilutes Jesus' promise, His GUARANTEE of becoming disciples, approaching command, in "Ye ARE my disciples indeed" (John 8:31 KJV) found in the KJV. IF... THEN.... and ARE, nothing futuristic beyond the immediacy of His dialogue. IF... THEN... ARE NOW. And NOT "will truly be my disciples" with a fulfillment in the indefinite future.

Furthermore, "ye SHALL know the truth, and the truth SHALL make you free" evokes a more immediate and defined fulfillment of Jesus' promise; while the USCCB's "will know the truth" meanders off into the ambiguous future to be allegedly fulfilled by the Catholic Church.

I have a very difficult time accepting these subtle Catholic nuances as being benignly translated by highly esteemed Catholic Scholars. Someone's cooked the books, R.O.! No? Said nuances shift the attainment of discipleship AWAY from Jesus' prescribed endeavor, to the Catholic Church. Can you spell 'motive'? Therefore, Catholics are NOT JESUS' disciples... Catholics are someone else's disciples, and I'll leave the obvious on the table.

Thanks for listening, R.O. Hopefully a zealous Catholic will respond to the aforementioned questions on my prior posts, before they arrogantly challenge a blind wild hawg's casual observation, and seek diversion from "ye SHALL know the truth, and the truth SHALL make you free" (John 8:32 KJV)... NOW, REAL TIME... over two millennia ago, speaking of antiquity.

kayaker

Your correct kayaker. Their deceptive cadence was silenced again by Gods Words. Nothing can trump the word of God.
The truth as you revealed is indeed solely in Scripture. The 66 books of truth. But the Vatican has created a very clever illusion to deceive. And it worked. Hence the mastery of Satan. Twist the words of God just enough to snare the soul of man, into Satan's web of deceit.

 

[Puppet]

Your correct kayaker. Their deceptive cadence was silenced again by Gods Words. Nothing can trump the word of God.
The truth as you revealed is indeed solely in Scripture. The 66 books of truth. But the Vatican has created a very clever illusion to deceive. And it worked. Hence the mastery of Satan. Twist the words of God just enough to snare the soul of man, into Satan's web of deceit.

The real Christians removed the 7 uninspired books and finalize the 66 book bible to be the complete bible. The RCC kept the 7 man made books and still use the 73 book bible. This error made the RCC produce more errors and ended up not being the church Christ founded

 

[Sancocho]

Why is it that some people think if they make multiple quotes of the Bible and attempt to refute sentence for sentence any opinion they disagree with that somehow this imparts validity to their argument?

This is not Jesus' way, that's for sure. His comments are powerful in their simplicity because it speaks to our logic and conscience.

Of course this is going to conflict with those that believe actions have little relevance in this world as sinning is pre-programmed thus for them repeating Scripture is their only connection to Jesus Christ so obviously the more the better.

 

[HisServant]

Why is it that some people think if they make multiple quotes of the Bible and attempt to refute sentence for sentence any opinion they disagree with that somehow this imparts validity to their argument?

This is not Jesus' way, that's for sure. His comments are powerful in their simplicity because it speaks to our logic and conscience.

Of course this is going to conflict with those that believe actions have little relevance in this world as sinning is pre-programmed thus for them repeating Scripture is their only connection to Jesus Christ so obviously the more the better.

Just looks a the actions of your church before you throw stones... its as bloody as the Muslims.

 

[Sancocho]

Just looks a the actions of your church before you throw stones... its as bloody as the Muslims.

The amount of people Muslim terrorists kill every year is statistically insignificant compared to the number of children killed due to Protestant US and Europe.

The Catholic Church leaders have made mistakes, as do all people. Nonetheless, the Catholic Church saves millions of lives every year.

 

[Sancocho]

The Crusades death toll is anywhere from a million to a couple of millions. The Inquisition was responsible for a matter of thousands to tens of thousands of deaths. These are both poor examples of Christian leadership.

Nonetheless, these happened many centuries ago. Currently the Catholic Church probably saves on the order of 15-20 million persons every year mostly because of prohibiting child sacrifice. Since it was generally accepted almost 50 years ago that calculates to almost a billion lives saved.

Interestingly, Protestants would have us believe their leaders never commit grave errors. Of course this is easy to make this claim because whenever a Protestant sees a church leader sin he joins another church. When the inevitable happens again rinse and repeat. Then the Protestant will eventually start his own church until he too realizes he makes poor decisions. The natural progression is then to reject any form of church structure so one does not have to be responsible for anyones sins. Welcome to America.

 

[everready]

The Crusades death toll is anywhere from a million to a couple of millions. The Inquisition was responsible for a matter of thousands to tens of thousands of deaths. These are both poor examples of Christian leadership.

Nonetheless, these happened many centuries ago. Currently the Catholic Church probably saves on the order of 15-20 million persons every year mostly because of prohibiting child sacrifice. Since it was generally accepted almost 50 years ago that calculates to almost a billion lives saved.

Interestingly, Protestants would have us believe their leaders never commit grave errors. Of course this is easy to make this claim because whenever a Protestant sees a church leader sin he joins another church. When the inevitable happens again rinse and repeat. Then the Protestant will eventually start his own church until he too realizes he makes poor decisions. The natural progression is then to reject any form of church structure so one does not have to be responsible for anyones sins. Welcome to America.

You know what they say about people that live in glass houses don't you?


everready

 

[heir]

So in John's letter to the seven churches in the province of Asia, you believe that all those churches that John addressed were entirely Jewish without any Gentiles?

John was in the Spirit on the Lord's day (Revelation 1:10 KJV).

John is not the apostle of the Gentiles, Paul is (Romans 11:13 KJV).

 

[heir]

Yes, I definitely needed a good laugh. I much appreciated heir's help on that score. :thumb:

What you need is the good news that is the power of God to save you. Trust the Lord after hearing and believing what Christ did 2000 years ago was sufficient to save you 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV, Ephesians 1:13-14 KJV). If not, you will perish (2 Thessalonians 2:10 KJV).

 

[heir]

So you think a quote from another Protestant who doesn't know the Bible much less Christian history much less the origin of his own church would somehow convince me to believe half-truths???

What is the gospel of your salvation?

 

[heir]

Salvation is instantaneously without all those made made rituals you mentioned and no masters degree in history from Yale is required. "Instant" is a lot quicker than you have any clue about. Thats why you don't need RCC to ordain you and autorize to to preach and lead. RCC is a denomination like all others. Thay are the same.

And how about you: What is the gospel of your salvation?

 

[heir]

So you are the only one that can change denominations and yet still know Christ??

There is a gospel that is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. Have you trusted the Lord for salvation after hearing and believing it? If so, what is it?

 

[heir]

So you are the only one that can change denominations and yet still know Christ??

There are no denominations in the one Body (1 Corinthians 12:13 KJV, Ephesians 4:4-6 KJV).