John's Gospel & Epistles

Curtis, I will ask again. Is there any particular reason you continue to use the word "ascension" rather than "assumption"?

Is it deliberate?

You know that it is a misrepresentation.

 

Kind of like when you said it "doesn't stand up to Scripture," when you really meant "it's not in Scripture." Could you please show me "sole liberty" and "seperation of church and state," in the Bible? You believe these "stand up to Scripture." Fine and dandy. I believe that the Assumption of Mary "stands up to Scripture."

God bless,

Grant

 

Well, since the Catholic Church has never taught Mary's ascension, why don't you stop saying it. Like, right now.

God bless,

Grant

P.S. Thanks for avoiding the meat and potatoes of my post and instead focusing on the EXAMPLES I provided, pretending those examples were my intent. How about addressing what you mean when you say "standing up to Scriptures," since I devoted two posts to that.

 

"ascension, or assumption, whichever one suits you"

Avoiding deliberate misrepresentation of the beliefs of others suits me.

Your continued use of "ascension" smacks me as pridefull and sinfull. As a fellow Christian, I encourage you to repent of this sin.

Not a personal attack but merely my obedience to Scripture to correct the sinner.

 

You assume incorrectly. I am not Baptist, SDA, or JW. Nice try, though.

I do not believe in soul sleep, nor do I see any instance in Scripture where humans were assisted in any way from individuals beyond the grave.

All I can offer you is the complete absence in Scripture of prayers to any being whatsoever aside from the Father. In fact, only once in the Old Testament is someone contacted from beyond the grave.

Saul contacted Samuel, through the use of a medium, a practice clearly prohibited by Scripture.

I noticed this moringing that EWTN was offewring a prayer of consecration to the blessed heart of Mary. Complete devotion to her... but of course, this is far from an idolatrous practice... right?

 

tragic, I copied the following form the PC USA website.

"Presbyterians understand that God alone is lord of the conscience, and it is up to each individual to understand what these principles mean in his or her life."

Do you agree with this statement of your church?

If so, does it not apply to Catholics as well?

Also, I didn't catch your answer to my repeated question on the other thread about Scripture being a blessing to the individual.

How do you know that your interpretation, or should I say Calvin's interpretation, of Scripture is right and another's is wrong?

 

It depends upon the context of the quote, but at face value, no I don't agree.

And what question? What thread?

 

Actually, Curtis, the topic of the thread was, "What is the RCC's position on when these books were written ?" before you changed it to the Assumption.

Having strayed from the topic yourself, I don't believe that you are in any position to chide me.

I would still like a verse that speciifically states that all revelation must be written in Scripture.

I notice that you haven't offered much in that regard. Or is that off topic too?

 

"In fact, only once in the Old Testament is someone contacted from beyond the grave."


Why the limitation of the OT. Didn't Moses and Elijah appear at the transfiguration. Didn't the souls of many of the dead appear after the resurection. What is your interprutatoin of Heb 12:1 and you ignor revaltatoins 5:8 where the prayers of the saints are presented in heaven by the angels and the elders bow down in prayer before the throne.

Rev 5:8
And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty­four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

It says the prayers of all the saints were offered in rev 8:3

Revelation 8:3
Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all the saints, on the golden altar before the throne.

Now is there any indication that ALL does not include the saints in heaven. Now what would the saints in heaven be praying about? There is nothing they need, they are completely happy, they don't need to pray for things except for what could be happening on this earth. So you are wrong.

PC USA hey? I just heard a thing on the radio where this guys mom is a pastor at PC USA (something the Southern Baptists recently rejected) and she said that when she went to conferences she was roomed with lesbian ministers. Now why on earth do you have lesbian ministers. I should also look up your teaching on abortion. It is, well let's say rather liberal. Pre-marital sex, seems it's on the liberal order also. So you think we have problems with the Bible. Fornication condoned would be a problem.

 

You interpret "saints" incorrectly, in my estimation. It means living Christians, not dead, venerated individuals. This is a position clearly supported in the New Testament.

Some scholars interpret the Transfiguration as an instance of heaven being opened to earth. Note, in any case, that Moses and Elijah didn't exactly appear to any old human being. They appeared to God. Interesting difference, imho.

And do not make the error of assuming that I adhere to the gibberings of the liberal faction of the PC(USA). Visit some sites like Layman.org for an understanding of what conservatives in the PC(USA) are like.

Obfuscation in no way enhances the discussion.

 

PC USA and the Episcopal Church are both ordaining just about anything and anybody these days.

 

Bro Curtis,

"Angry, non-answering post. Can't change the fact, so make the Baptist look uneducated. "

How on earth can you tell I am angry. I am not in the least. You guys just don't like it when we become direct and challenge what you believe. It is non-answering of what? What this thread is about? I have long since provided you with answers which you rejected even before you read them and so I see no need to beat a dead horse. I will say what I please in this thread. I suppose if you like, being a monitor, you can delete them. The topic is dead, you have proven nothing from scripture so let's move on.

 

You interpret "saints" incorrectly, in my estimation. It means living Christians, not dead, venerated individuals. This is a position clearly supported in the New Testament.

Na na boo boo you are wrong is about the sum of it. Those in heaven aren't saints? or do you deny that there is anyone in heaven? Who are the 24 elders?


"Some scholars interpret the Transfiguration as an instance of heaven being opened to earth. Note, in any case, that Moses and Elijah didn't exactly appear to any old human being. They appeared to God. Interesting difference, imho."

They also appeared to Peter, James, and John so what is your point.

"And do not make the error of assuming that I adhere to the gibberings of the liberal faction of the PC(USA). Visit some sites like Layman.org for an understanding of what conservatives in the PC(USA) are like."

I never called you a liberal. What are you doing in a Church that condones fornication is my question. You love throwing stones at Catholicism, perhaps you should be trying to clean up the sespool in your own religion.

 

But those liberals are a part of your church are they not?

Some of those liberals even hold positions of authority in your church do they not?

Therefore, I may in truth say that your church indeed teaches those liberal doctrines which you claim to reject. Your continued association with that church must then mean that you are actually in agreement with them.

That does seem to be the standard applied to Catholics. Some Catholic in the past sinned, so all Catholics today agee with, sanctioned, and hold as doctrine those sins.

 

But those liberals are a part of your church are they not?

Some of those liberals even hold positions of authority in your church do they not?

Therefore, I may in truth say that your church indeed teaches those liberal doctrines which you claim to reject. Your continued association with that church must then mean that you are actually in agreement with them.

That does seem to be the standard applied to Catholics. Some Catholic in the past sinned, so all Catholics today agee with, sanctioned, and hold as doctrine those sins. </font>[/QUOTE]And you are putting words in my mouth. Please re-read my posts and tell me wherein I have made such a statement. Rather, I am speaking not of "past sins" but of active, current doctrine.

By the way, since you insist on continuing to obfuscate the actual discussion at hand, you are welcome to point out, in the PC(USA) Book of Confessions and Book of Order, where these liberal positions are upheld in our bylaws and stated doctrines.

 

Your response to another thread:

"I know that if a person agrees with me on the One by whom we are saved, the rest is material for an interesting discussion, but as far as who is neccesarily right about a given interpretation upon Scripture, I will leave it to interpretation of original languages, the doctrine and teaching of the person's church, and above all the guidance of the Holy Spirit."

So you say.

The Catholic Church teaches that salvation is only through Christ.

Why then do you so stridently reject Tradition of the Church which Catholics believe to be supported by Scripture?

Also, if you sincerely mean the above, why are you so upset with the liberals in your church? Don't they agree with you on the One by whom we are saved? Ordained women lesbians in your church should then be for you merely material for an interesting discussion.

 

Curtis said "return to Biblical Christianity.

That is really the difference here, Our Traditions are consistent with scripture some of your traditions (ie no Traditions) are doubly inconsistent with scripture. First that teaching is directly contrary to scripture second that teaching itself is a man made tradition

God Bless