The Joys of Catholicism

[Right Divider]

Bible doesn't say Saints are "omnipresent," it says they surround us Hebrews 12:1 we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses

That is a Metaphor!

 

[Idolater]

That is a Metaphor!

Don't forget you're on record.

I actually engage in dialog, whereas you simply make unsupported claims.

MAKE A CASE instead of just giving us your useless opinions.

Taste your own medicine and MAKE A CASE instead of just giving us "your useless opinions" RD.

"METAPHOR" poser.

 

[Right Divider]

Don't forget you're on record.


Taste your own medicine and MAKE A CASE instead of just giving us "your useless opinions" RD.

"METAPHOR" poser.

I guess that making a fool of yourself is your main goal in life.

A "cloud of witnesses" can only be a metaphor. There is NO literal way to take that.

 

[Idolater]

I guess that making a fool of yourself is your main goal in life.

Maybe you should be a professional gambler if you're so sure of your guesses.

A "cloud of witnesses" can only be a metaphor. There is NO literal way to take that.

Oh yeah wow good point.

I mean ... except for the way which the Church has always taken it.

 

[Right Divider]

Maybe you should be a professional gambler if you're so sure of your guesses.

Your retarded posts are all the proof that I need.

Oh yeah wow good point.

I mean ... except for the way which the Church has always taken it.

Fallacious arguments are your only "comeback"?
Appeal to authority (especially a fake one) is a FALLACY!

I don't care that your phony "Church" cannot understand obvious figures of speech (or that the book to the HEBREWS is to the .... HEBREWS).

 

[Idolater]

Your retarded posts are all the proof that I need.

Your retarded posts.

Fallacious arguments are your only "comeback"?
Appeal to authority (especially a fake one) is a FALLACY!

Prove it without begging the question, which means, without appealing to authority. Namely, an authority on what constitutes a logical fallacy.

You won't, because you can't.

I don't care that your phony "Church"

There was literally One Church for 1000 years RD. Unless you want to say that Arians and other heretics count as the Church.

cannot understand obvious figures of speech

MAKE A CASE. Poser.

(or that the book to the HEBREWS is to the .... HEBREWS).

Irrelevant. The departed Saints either surround us or they don't, it doesn't matter whom Hebrews was written to.

 

[Right Divider]

Your retarded posts.

Your 6th grade comeback?

Prove it without begging the question, which means, without appealing to authority. Namely, an authority on what constitutes a logical fallacy.

That is retarded, but par for the course with Idolator.

You won't, because you can't.

Try to make an actual argument instead of repeating your fallacies.

There was literally One Church for 1000 years RD. Unless you want to say that Arians and other heretics count as the Church.

Fake news. Paul never submitted to Peter, so that alone disproves the authority of your "Church".

Irrelevant. The departed Saints either surround us or they don't, it doesn't matter whom Hebrews was written to.

"Cloud of witnesses" is a figure of speech called a METAPHOR, despite your silly protestations.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Oh yeah wow good point.

I mean ... except for the way which the Church has always taken it.

Appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy.

Don't base your beliefs on logical fallacies.

Fallacious arguments are your only "comeback"?
Appeal to authority (especially a fake one) is a FALLACY!

As stated above, in this case, it's not an appeal to authority, it's an appeal to tradition.

Appeal to authority is "X is an authority, X said P, therefore P must be correct."

Appeal to tradition is "P has always been done, therefore P is correct."

Your retarded posts.

Quit provoking other members.

Prove it without begging the question, which means, without appealing to authority. Namely, an authority on what constitutes a logical fallacy.

How about the rules of grammar.

"Cloud of witnesses" cannot be anything other than a figure of speech.

You won't, because you can't.

Hypocrite.

There was literally One Church for 1000 years RD.

So what?

Doesn't make them correct.

MAKE A CASE. Poser.

Hypocrite.

 

[Right Divider]

As stated above, in this case, it's not an appeal to authority, it's an appeal to tradition.

Agreed, though in the case of RCC people, it's often both.

 

[Idolater]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1736060664534474978

 

[Derf]

Agreed, though in the case of RCC people, it's often both.

Certainly, since appeal to tradition is a subtype of appeal to authority.
The argument supports a position by appealing to long-standing or traditional opinion, as if the past itself were a kind of authority.

 

[Idolater]

Certainly, since appeal to tradition is a subtype of appeal to authority.
The argument supports a position by appealing to long-standing or traditional opinion, as if the past itself were a kind of authority.

The argument supports a position by appealing to long-standing or traditional opinion, as if the Apostles themselves are a kind of authority.

Fixed it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The argument supports a position by appealing to long-standing or traditional opinion,

Which is fallacious. Traditions can be wrong.

as if the Apostles themselves are a kind of authority.

The Apostles WERE authorities. And they WILL BE authorities... in the coming Kingdom of Israel. Currently, their ministry is NOT authoritative,

Fixed it.

I advise against putting words in other people's mouths that they clearly did not mean or say.

 

[JudgeRightly]

click here for timestamp: https://www.youtube.com/live/2tDPdFlbV9M?si=Hm8b-zEFwVPLYdcO&t=5093
click here for full video:

 

[Idolater]

Which is fallacious. Traditions can be wrong.

Yeah but not traditions originating with the Apostles.

The Apostles WERE authorities. And they WILL BE authorities... in the coming Kingdom of Israel. Currently, their ministry is NOT authoritative,

Yes they are. We don't have any reason to think otherwise. If the Apostles taught it, it's canonical Christianity.

I advise against putting words in other people's mouths that they clearly did not mean or say.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yeah but not traditions originating with the Apostles.

They can be if the tradition is that they originated with the Apostles.

That's what's in dispute.

Yes they are.

Not currently.

We don't have any reason to think otherwise.

Yes, we do. It's called Acts.

If the Apostles taught it, it's canonical Christianity.

The Apostles taught that you must be circumcized on the 8th day after birth.

Paul showed that no, you do not have to be circumcised at any point.

Therefore your claim, "If the Apostles taught it, it's canonical Christianity" is false.

 

[Idolater]

They can be if the tradition is that they originated with the Apostles.

That's what's in dispute.

Only in your mind, because you broke apart the sentence. It was a complete thought, the sentence.

Not currently.

Yes, we do. It's called Acts.

The Apostles taught that you must be circumcized on the 8th day after birth.

Cite?

Paul showed that no, you do not have to be circumcised at any point.

Literally all the Apostles and all the bishops /elders /overseers /presbyters at the Acts 15 Council agreed.

Therefore your claim, "If the Apostles taught it, it's canonical Christianity" is false.

Depends a ton on whether you can demonstrate any Apostle teaching circumcision.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Only in your mind, because you broke apart the sentence. It was a complete thought, the sentence.

One which begged the question that the tradition originated with the Apostles, which you have yet to establish, and have only merely asserted.

Cite?

Genesis 17:9-14; Leviticus 12:3; John 7:22-23; Matthew 28:19-20; Acts 7:8, 10:45, 11:2, 15:1; Romans 2:25; Galatians 2:4, 7, 9, 12 (cf Acts 15:1).

Literally all the Apostles and all the bishops /elders /overseers /presbyters at the Acts 15 Council agreed.

Because Paul had convinced them. (cf Galatians 2)

Depends a ton on whether you can demonstrate any Apostle teaching circumcision.

Done and dusted.

 

[Idolater]

One which begged the question that the tradition originated with the Apostles, which you have yet to establish, and have only merely asserted.

The Church has always taken that verse literally, and not (as RD "merely asserted") as a metaphor. Prima facie, to modern, post-Reformation nondenominational Evangelical Christians, it appears that it at least possibly could be a metaphor, but the ancient Church never took the Scriptures according to their prima facie readings of them, but they always took Apostolic teachings as the prima facie meaning of Scriptures, and the Apostolic teachings on the "cloud of witnesses" is that it is literal.

In contrast to the Apostolic teaching on the verse, RD's view is: "can only be a metaphor. There is NO literal way to take that."

To use your phrase, RD's take is a mere assertion.

Genesis 17:9-14; Leviticus 12:3; John 7:22-23;

22 For this reason Moses has given you circumcision—not that it is from Moses, but it is from the forefathers—and you circumcise a man on a sabbath. 23 If a man receives circumcision on a sabbath so that the Law of Moses may not be broken, are you violently angry at me because I made a man completely well on a sabbath?

This is not an Apostle teaching circumcision, but is Jesus criticizing the Jewish teachers of the Old Covenant law.

Matthew 28:19-20;

19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.”

This is not an Apostle teaching circumcision.

Acts 7:8,

8 “He also gave him a covenant of circumcision, and he became the father of Isaac and circumcised him on the eighth day, and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the 12 family heads.

Stephen is not an Apostle, and Stephen wasn't teaching circumcision either, he was reviewing the history of the Old Covenant /Old Testament.

10:45,

45 And the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were amazed, because the free gift of the holy spirit was being poured out also on people of the nations.

This is not an Apostle teaching circumcision.

11:2,

2 So when Peter came up to Jerusalem, the supporters of circumcision began to criticize him,

Why would they criticize Peter if Peter, an Apostle, was teaching circumcision?

15:1;

Now some men came down from Ju·deʹa and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

Those "some men" are not said to be Apostles.

Romans 2:25;

25 Circumcision is, in fact, of benefit only if you practice law; but if you are a transgressor of law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.

Not an Apostle teaching circumcision.

Galatians 2:4, 7, 9, 12 (cf Acts 15:1).

4 But that matter came up because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we enjoy in union with Christ Jesus, so that they might completely enslave us; ... 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the good news for those who are uncircumcised, just as Peter had been for those who are circumcised— ... 9 and when they recognized the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave Barʹna·bas and men the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the nations but they to those who are circumcised. ... 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class.​

I admit this is the closest you come to substantiating your claim that, “ The Apostles taught that you must be circumcized on the 8th day after birth. ” But it still falls short of proof. Nowhere does it say what any Apostles taught, it says there were men who did teach circumcision, but not that they were Apostles, and it says that Peter was conflicted, which is granted.

Because Paul had convinced them. (cf Galatians 2)

I feel that here, you are merely agreeing with me. Once the Acts 15 council was convened, there just wasn't even any doubt that no Apostles, or even any other teachers /bishops /elders, taught or would ever teach again circumcision (if they did, it would have been against the council's conclusion). btw it wasn't just Paul but also Peter who convinced them (Acts 15:7-11) that circumcision was not a part of the New Covenant.

Done and dusted.

Well, let me know what you think now.

 

[Right Divider]

The Church has always taken that verse literally, and not (as RD "merely asserted") as a metaphor. Prima facie, to modern, post-Reformation nondenominational Evangelical Christians, it appears that it at least possibly could be a metaphor, but the ancient Church never took the Scriptures according to their prima facie readings of them, but they always took Apostolic teachings as the prima facie meaning of Scriptures, and the Apostolic teachings on the "cloud of witnesses" is that it is literal.

A "cloud" is literally:

cloud /kloud/​

noun​

1. A visible body of very fine water droplets or ice particles suspended in the atmosphere at altitudes ranging up to several miles above sea level.
2. A mass of particles or droplets, as of dust, smoke, or steam, suspended in the atmosphere or existing in outer space.
3. A large moving body of things in the air or on the ground; a swarm.
   "a cloud of locusts."

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik​

Since you cannot understand figures of speech, you are entirely confused by that corrupt RCC. You are a sheep for the fleecing.

A "cloud OF WITNESSES" is a FIGURE OF SPEECH, quite obviously. It's not even the only figure of speech in that verse.

Heb 12:1 (AKJV/PCE)​

(12:1) Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset [us], and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,​