Question:
"Interesting how DataRat denounces others for making assertions in other posts, yet makes them himself without the proof that he requires of others." The problem the Reformed Rodent has isn’t with assertions. You’ll notice Bro. Rat cited proof text where appropriate in the article you replied to. In the remainder, he exegeted passages already cited. "Then how do you explain the errors?" We’ve already gone the route of explaining "bible errors". Everytime we demolish one, you God-haters come up with another. It’s obvious the scoffers aren’t sincere. The Genevan Rodent doesn’t waste his time on it, anymore. "Actually the Pope believes that he is guided by the same Holy Spirit that you believe guides you." Correct. But, when catholics and Christians are diametrically opposed on essential doctrines, one of us ain’t. The DataRat
Response:
"Where?" They got lists of these things. You explain where their "error" is in error, and they go to the next one on the list. Never occurs to them that -if the first dozen are wrong- all are probably wrong. Their only motivation is to discredit God through His Word. The DataRat
Response:
<snipped Nothing would make the Reformed Rodent happier than to discover that catholics were Christians, afterall. He eagerly awaits your explanations BASED ON SCRIPTURE. So far, they’ve always fallen back on the traditions of men.
You say traditions of men, We say Traditions of God. There is a difference. Only request: Take one Roman practice at a time so we may sort through it adequately.
<snipped The DataRat
Fair enough. In talking to Protestants and in reading their writings I have found that they believe, or at least the founders of the Reformation believed, that the entire premise of Protestantism stands or falls on only two beliefs. "Scripture Alone" and Salvation by "Faith Alone." I would like to start with "Scripture Alone" because I believe that "Faith Alone" (as Protestant’s define it) is dependent on "Scripture Alone" being correct. I believe that all our real differences lie in this one doctrine. The Catholic Church has claimed for more than 19 centuries now that "Scripture Alone" is incorrect. This doctrine of Scripture Alone is less than 500 years old. So I challenge you to provide a Scripture passage, or a group of passages which implicitly says that the Truth lies in Scripture Alone. In other words, why should I believe that Protestants didn’t leave the Truth and adopt a man made doctrine called "Scripture Alone." — Yours in Christ, Scott Maurer IMPORTANT: Be sure to remove "NOSPAM." from the return address.
Response:
<snipped Nothing would make the Reformed Rodent happier than to discover that catholics were Christians, afterall. He eagerly awaits your explanations BASED ON SCRIPTURE. So far, they’ve always fallen back on the traditions of men. You say traditions of men, We say Traditions of God. There is a difference. Only request: Take one Roman practice at a time so we may sort through it adequately.
Hmm. A comment of the Rodent needs to be noted and quoted here: They got lists of these things. You explain where their "error" is in error, and they go to the next one on the list. Never occurs to them that -if the first dozen are wrong- all are probably wrong. Their only motivation is to discredit God through His Word." Hoist by his own petard, so to speak. Ciao!! Mike, aka Elfish Chimera, in sunny San Diego
Response:
the mystery of life & uttered the following: Then how do you explain the errors? If the Bible is infallable then it would not contain ANY inconsistencies or errors. But yet it does. Where?
Please say you are only joking. I really hate re-postoing basic information repeatedly. You really should know your own writ better than that. — "But grandfather, are the gods not just?" "Oh no, child. What would become of us if they were?" Till We Have Faces_ by C.S. Lewis
A smile is a whisper of a laugh. The politically incorrect walksalone at ala net
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – t… Then how do you explain the errors? If the Bible is infallable then it would not contain ANY inconsistencies or errors. But yet it does. Where? What year did Noah’s flood happen? How do you know? Which Pharaoh did Sara, ah, dance for?
How many pharaohs were in Egypt? <snipped all the irrelevant stuff
You call THAT a contradiction? If God turned the river into blood do you not think he could change it back to water? — "But grandfather, are the gods not just?" "Oh no, child. What would become of us if they were?" Till We Have Faces_ by C.S. Lewis
Response:
"I have found that many of their practices that I had previously believed were ‘pagan’ are in fact Biblical." Nothing would make the Reformed Rodent happier than to discover that catholics were Christians, afterall. He eagerly awaits your explanations BASED ON SCRIPTURE. So far, they’ve always fallen back on the traditions of men. Only request: Take one Roman practice at a time so we may sort through it adequately.
Interesting how DataRat denounces others for making assertions in other posts, yet makes them himself without the proof that he requires of others. <SNIP "Why does you make the Bible infallable when it makes no mention of it at all?" Again, read 2 Timothy 3:16. "Inspired by God" = Infallible. Men may sometimes be inspired by God. Scripture is ALWAYS infallible.
Then how do you explain the errors? If the Bible is infallable then it would not contain ANY inconsistencies or errors. But yet it does. <SNIP "The idea that I can interpret scripture all on my own without benefit of others breeds an arrogance…" Not as arrogant as a pope thinking he can do it for you !
Actually the Pope believes that he is guided by the same Holy Spirit that you believe guides you. Didn’t you say something about the Holy Spirit in other Christians helping others learn the word of God? <SNIP Who cares ? Unity is secondary to truth. Satan has planted weeds among the wheat. They’ll be sorted out in the Last Day. Until then- look to those churches that teach the Bible, avoid churches which teach doctrines of men, and you’ll do ok as a Christian.
All Christian Churches teach the doctrine of men. The Bible itself is the doctrine of men. The DataRat
Response:
The simplest explanation, which using "Occam’s Razor" is likely to be the correct one, is that Mary was a young Jewish girl who married a carpenter named Joseph and gave birth to Jesus as her first born. He became an itinerant preacher, as the Gospels tell us. It is true that Matthew and Luke, years fater Marks (first) Gospel, say she had a virgin birth, but how would they know? The other two Gospels, one written before theirs, one after, don’t mention it even though, if true, it would be one of the most remarkable events since time began. They also say that all generation would calle her "blessed", but all that might mean is that she was lucky that God chose her to be the mother of Jesus. Very simple story, right? Her veneration grew with the centuries, and it continues to grow today. With no logical foundation, just wishful thinking. student
Response:
Then how do you explain the errors? If the Bible is infallable then it would not contain ANY inconsistencies or errors. But yet it does.
Where? —
"But grandfather, are the gods not just?" "Oh no, child. What would become of us if they were?" Till We Have Faces_ by C.S. Lewis
Response:
t… Then how do you explain the errors? If the Bible is infallable then it would not contain ANY inconsistencies or errors. But yet it does. Where?
What year did Noah’s flood happen? How do you know? Which Pharaoh did Sara, ah, dance for? In Exodus, Moses and Aaron turn "all" the water in Egypt to blood. Even if they only turned the Nile, one of the world great rivers and the very foundation of ancient Egyptian civilization, into blood, how did the Pharaoh’s magicians "do likewise with their enchantments" ? This may come as a shock, but there’s only one river (at least of any size) in Egypt. And it is the Nile. What did the Pharaoh’s magicians do that qualifies as "doing likewise" to any body of water the size of the Nile?????? Since this trick necessarily killed all the fish in the river, blood being (the liquid plasma part) salt water, and it would have taken decades for the fish population to recover from stock in Ethiopia and further south, denying the Egyptians one source of protein, and all the livestock were killed (three times, another good trick you might want to explain), there would have been neither draft nor food animals in all of Egypt. And then tens of millions of tons of blood would have been putrefying and choking the river channel such that since all the water in the Nile in Egypt comes from upstream with the channel blocked an out of season flood would have been working its way down from Ethiopia (blood, even before it starts coagulating and rotting has three times the viscosity of water so it would have immediately started acting as a dam), stirring up the salty rotting blood and spreading it over field and village wrecking yet more havoc. Millions of tons of blood would have one way or another also washed into the Mediterranean, causing bacteriological or algae blooms which would have killed off the sea’s fish for many many miles from the river delta, and again decades would have been required for the environment to recover. In short, Egypt would have been the victim of the greatest ecological catastrophe right up to the present bar none since the flood. Egyptian civilization would have collapsed as 90% or so of the population starved. No fish, no livestock for food or draft use, fields polluted by salt and millions of tons of putrefied blood. Could you please date this catastrophe for me? It seems to be missing from all the conventional histories of Egypt I’ve ever seen. Ciao!! Mike, aka Elfish Chimera, in sunny San Diego
Response:
It is true that Matthew and Luke, years fater Marks (first) Gospel, say she had a virgin birth, but how would they know? The other two Gospels, one written before theirs, one after, don’t mention it even though, if true, it would be one of the most remarkable events since time began.
I would point out that ALL of the infancy gospels, both biblical and extrabiblical, attest to the virgin Birth. You have six, not two, writers that you need to disparage. Also, that the other two Biblical gospels do not mention the virgin birth, note that they do not mention other aspects of Jesus’ childhood as well, (The wedding at Cana, the incident in the temple, etc.), instead starting with his preaching 30 years later. They also say that all generation would calle her "blessed", but all that might mean is that she was lucky that God chose her to be the mother of Jesus. Very simple story, right?
Yes, and completely ignorant of the other books taken to be scripture by the early church. Her veneration grew with the centuries, and it continues to grow today. With no logical foundation, just wishful thinking.
Actually, her veneration was far more prevalent amongst the early church Fathers than it is today. You need to read Jerome’s biblical comentary sometime. Ted http://www.teleport.com/~seebert Winner of the Landover Baptist "Excellent Site" award for Religious and Political Satire.
Response:
What amuses me about this is that while fundamentalists refuse to venerate Mary or obey the Pope, each congregation of them practically kisses the ground their pastors walk on. Sheer cult of personality reigns in church after Protestant church. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "Catholics are NOT Christians – they incorporate mysticism, superstition, pagan Roman symbols, Eastern religions guised as Christianity." Agreed. They got almost as many heresies as the Mormons. They’re a false church. "They have even went as far as to call the Pope "our Lord God’…" Do you have a reference for that ? "They’re not encouraged to study the Bible for themselves since Catholicism teaches that it is the priest’s responsibility to interpret Scripture…" The most serious suppression of the Bible has occurred in catholic and/or communist countries. DataRat
Response:
"Catholics are NOT Christians – they incorporate mysticism, superstition, pagan Roman symbols, Eastern religions guised as Christianity." Agreed. They got almost as many heresies as the Mormons. They’re a false church.
Take a look in the Yellow Pages under "churches." Once the Protestants broke away from the Catholic Church, their errors became kaleidoscopic, with churches begetting churches begetting churches . . . "They have even went as far as to call the Pope "our Lord God’…"
Huh? Yer an idjit. Do you have a reference for that ? "They’re not encouraged to study the Bible for themselves since Catholicism teaches that it is the priest’s responsibility to interpret Scripture…"
Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, available in most bookstores. There’s lots in there about reading scripture. And it is not solely the priest’s job to interpret scripture. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The most serious suppression of the Bible has occurred in catholic and/or communist countries. DataRat
Response:
"I have found that many of their practices that I had previously believed were ‘pagan’ are in fact Biblical." Nothing would make the Reformed Rodent happier than to discover that catholics were Christians, afterall. He eagerly awaits your explanations BASED ON SCRIPTURE. So far, they’ve always fallen back on the traditions of men. Only request: Take one Roman practice at a time so we may sort through it adequately. Since you are asserting that these catholic practices are "Biblical", we’ll use Scripture as our final authority on issues. No one will be more glad to learn that catholics follow the Bible -as their final and ultimate authority- than the Genevan Rodent. Scripture is God’s Word revealed. "FACT: Without the Catholic Church, you wouldn’t a Bible to hit Catholics over the head with." The Creator of the Universe is quite capable of preserving His Word without employing cultists and/or heretics. If the Roman church never existed, there always was the Orthodox Church. "FACT: The Bible never states that it and it alone is the rule of faith." Read 2 Timothy 3:16. No other extant source for "teaching, reproof, correction, training" which is always "inspired by God" exists today. So -by default- Scripture teaches that Scripture is our only infallible guide. "Why does you make the Bible infallable when it makes no mention of it at all?" Again, read 2 Timothy 3:16. "Inspired by God" = Infallible. Men may sometimes be inspired by God. Scripture is ALWAYS infallible. "Why do you believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote those books when they make no mention of it at all?" When did the Genevan Rodent say that Matthew, et. al. wrote "those books" ? "Your belief that one must ‘accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior’…" Bro. Rat doesn’t recall stating that. Can you please mention when / where he did ? "There’s a lot of Christian practices of faith and devotion that are not in the Bible." And many of those are heresies and anti-Christian. THAT is what happens when you get away from the Word of God. Everything we do as Christians should have a Biblical foundation. The church which The DataRat attends is very careful about that. Cultists, false religionists, heretics, and apostates, don’t worry about it. "These acts are encompassed in Tradition, and most Protestant ‘high-churches’ recognize, appreciate and revel in that." Exactly ! That’s why the Anglicans and United Methodists end-up condoning what God condemns in the Bible ( e.g., homosexuality ). The liberal "protestants" aren’t Christian anymore, and the Reformed Rodent wishes they’d go back to being catholics. You Romanists can have those degenerate denominations. "…they place tradition with scripture." Rev. Moon and Joseph Smith also mixed man-made doctrines with Scripture. Welcome to the New Age ! "2 Thessalonians 2:15 says…" THAT "tradition" is ~now~ encapsulated in the Bible. If you really follow 2 Thessalonians 2:15, you believe in Sola Scriptura. "John 21:25 says…" Yes. The Mormons like that -and similar- verses. They think it gives them license to fill in the blanks. But they’re only following the example provided them by the Romanists of Invent-Your-Own-Religion. God provided us with what it is important to know in the Bible. What He left out were the non-essentials. "Romans 10:17 says, ‘So then datih cometh by HEARING and hearing by the word of God." This verse tells us to read our Bibles. "Matthew 28:19 says, Go ye therefore and TEACH all nations…." Yes. Teach them the Word of God, i.e. the gospel found in Scripture. "Mark 16:20 says…" Yes, we are to preach God’s Word as found in Scripture. "Mark 16:15…" Ditto. "and here’s the zinger: Acts 8:30 says, ‘And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias…" Yes, Phillip taught from the Bible. We are to use Scripture -as Phillip did- to spread the gospel. Phillip did NOT substitute his doctrine for what the Bible teaches. "…why didn’t Philip say, "Oh you don’t need my help just ask the Holy Spirit to help you. He’ll lead you into all truth." You’re arguing against a position the Genevan Rodent ~never~ took ! Christians have no problem with teachers or teaching -as long as they’re Biblically based. It’s these extraneous teachings with no foundation in Scripture that we reject. The Holy Spirit can help one understand the Bible. AND the Holy Spirit in another Christian can help someone understand the Bible. But -when the teachings do not come from Scripture- you can be sure the Holy Spirit is NOT involved. "…by claiming that your interpretation of scripture is more valid than his or any other Catholics." We’ll let Scripture decide that. So far, you catholics have had to fall back on traditions of men every time. "…the SDA church…" Which is ? "The idea that I can interpret scripture all on my own without benefit of others breeds an arrogance…" Not as arrogant as a pope thinking he can do it for you ! "The ‘bible only’ theory may indeed cater to the self-exaltation of the individual…" Yes, it can. But belief that some priest will has far greater potential for abuse. At least Bro. Rat knows that he is praying to God for guidance. Who knows what’s in the heart of this or that priest ? At least the individual believer knows his own heart, and whether he’s playing games or earnestly seeking God. "That’s why there are 28,000+ denominations in the US alone…" Who cares ? Unity is secondary to truth. Satan has planted weeds among the wheat. They’ll be sorted out in the Last Day. Until then- look to those churches that teach the Bible, avoid churches which teach doctrines of men, and you’ll do ok as a Christian. The DataRat
Response:
Greetings,
<more great things again Thanks, another keeper! BTW: Have you ever read the books I have been quoting on this thread? "Daily Life in the Time of Jesus" and "The Christians as the Romans Saw Them" If so do you have any opinion on them? May God lead us to a fuller understanding of His truth and may His peace go with you. [As a courtesy, this was both posted and emailed.] — "We must love them both — those whose opinions we share and those whose opinions we reject. For both have labored in the search for truth, and both have helped us in the finding of it." St. Thomas Aquinas
Response:
"Catholics are NOT Christians – they incorporate mysticism, superstition, pagan Roman symbols, Eastern religions guised as Christianity." Agreed. They got almost as many heresies as the Mormons. They’re a false church. "They have even went as far as to call the Pope "our Lord God’…" Do you have a reference for that ? "They’re not encouraged to study the Bible for themselves since Catholicism teaches that it is the priest’s responsibility to interpret Scripture…" The most serious suppression of the Bible has occurred in catholic and/or communist countries. DataRat
Response:
"Catholics are NOT Christians – they incorporate mysticism, superstition, pagan Roman symbols, Eastern religions guised as Christianity."
Hey! You forgot rampant captilism, racism, and bear baiting.And we do Black magic. You know, like in horror films. And we deal drugs. And we conspire with blobby aliens to take over your mind.And us Christians? You got to be joking! Every midnight we sacrifice screaming pigs to The Dark Gods of Rakatogayth!!!!! Agreed. They got almost as many heresies as the Mormons. They’re a false church.
Yep. We are heresy central. All those boring old tracts against every sect from gnosticism to present day cults – it’s all a load of gobbledegook. We make a new one up every year. You’re most probably a member of one of our new ones! Come on down and say hello! "They have even went as far as to call the Pope "our Lord God’…"
Yep. Our sign of the Cross is: In the name of the Pope, and of Mary the pagan godess, and of Micky Mouse, Amen Do you have a reference for that ?
Yep. Open up any catholic book. It will be on the first page. "They’re not encouraged to study the Bible for themselves since Catholicism teaches that it is the priest’s responsibility to interpret Scripture…"
Yep. We are not even taught to read. I had to pay somone else to read your message and write this reply. The most serious suppression of the Bible has occurred in catholic and/or communist countries.
We burn them all here. And we drown kittens.And Communism was our idea! Damn those yankees! DataRat
Love Yogi Bear. Abba Theodore said: " If you are friendly with someone who happens to fall into the temptation of fornication, offer him your hand, if you can, and deliver him from it. But if he fails into heresy and you cannot persuade him to turn from it, seperate yourself quickly from him,in case, if you delay, you too may be dragged down with him into the pit."
Response:
Greetings, "Catholics are NOT Christians – they incorporate mysticism, superstition, pagan Roman symbols, Eastern religions guised as Christianity." Agreed. They got almost as many heresies as the Mormons. They’re a false church.
What may appear on the surface as paganism may be just be a lack of knowledge on the observer. The Romans thought some of the things that the Jews and Christians did as being like their pagan practices. For example: Daily Life in the Time of Jesus Part III – "A People and Its God", Chapter 1 – "The Age of God", Section: "The Consecration of the Week by the Sabbath", Pg. 348-349 para. 2 However questionable the formalism of the rules concerning the Sabbath may appear, in some of their aspects, it is nevertheless a fact that this obligatory pause for prayer at the end of the week, this weekly confrontation with God, set a very particular mark upon the Chosen People. "This day of the holy kingdom," as the Book of Jubilees put it, "when there is rest from all the weariness that work lays upon men": and the Jews were proud of being the only nation in the world who had knowledge of it. It was so obvious a fact of Jewish life that even the Romans were obliged to recognize it. They thought it ridiculous, of course, and Tactius makes game of it: he says that this odd race "lost the seventh part of their lives" by doing nothing whatever on one day of the week; and that this was all in honor of Saturn, which was clearly proved by the fact that on that day they ate nothing but cold meals, by reason of the frigidity of the said planet. But if we are to believe Josephus, it was because of the Law of the Sabbath that the Roman empire refrained from recruiting the Jews for the army, lest at the first sound of the hazzan’s trumpet they should throw down both sword and buckler. Daily Life in the Time of Jesus. Part III – "A People and Its God", Chapter 2 – "The Dwellings of God", Section: "The Temple as Christ Knew It", Pg. 365 para. 1 … As soon as one was within the entrance of the Temple the noise outside died away; the dullest mind felt the nearness of the divine. Next came the great door of the sanctuary, a cedar door covered with gold, with that famous golden vine above it which made the Romans laugh and say that Bacchus was the real god of Israel. … The Christians as the Romans Saw Them Chapter V — Celsus: A Conservative Intellectual Section: Begging Priests of Cybele and Soothsayers, Pg. 96-97, para. 3 In contrast to earlier critics who viewed Christianity from a single perspective, Celsus’s portrait of the Christian movement is rich and varied. At times he draws on popular prejudice toward marginal groups in society; in other places he offers well-informed philosophical criticism based on a serious study of Christian writings and beliefs; elsewhere he draws on stock criticism of philosophical positions drawn from handbooks which circulated among intellectuals. One of his strategies was to compare Christianity to unpopular and arcane religious movements that offended the sensibilities of the Romans. Early in the work, for example, he compares the Christians to the "begging priests of Cybele and soothsayers, and to worshippers of Mithras and Sabazius, and whatever else one might meet, apparitions of Hecate or of some other daemon or daemons" (c. Cels. 1.9). In another place he compares Christian worship to the superstitious practices of the Egyptians and to "those in the Bacchic mysteries who introduce phantoms and terrors" (c. Cels. 3.17, 4.10). These comments, which are reminiscent of Pliny’s, indicate that people still viewed the Christian movement as a foreign cult or superstition. Lucian, a Creek satirist writing about the same time, presents a similar portrait in his tract The Passing of Pegrinus. He speaks of the "wondrous lore of the Christians" that Peregrinus, a second-century charlatan and con-man, had learned by associating with their "priests and scribes in Palestine." The Christians, writes Lucian, "worshipped the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world" (Peregrinus 11). Galen’s notion that Christianity was a philosophical school appears to have been a minority view. Surface appearances can be deceiving. May God lead us to a fuller understanding of His truth and may His peace go with you. [As a courtesy, this was both posted and emailed.] Resources: The Christians as the Romans Saw Them Author: Robert L. Wilken Published: Yale University Press – 1984 ISBN 0-300-03627-2 (paperback) ISBN 0-300-03066-5 (hardback) Daily Life in the Time of Jesus Author: Henri Daniel-Rops Published: Servant Books. – 1980 ISBN 0-89283-085-9 Original French version – La Vie Quotidienne en Palestine au Temps de Jesus Published: Librairie Hachette – 1961 DS 112 D233 — "We must love them both — those whose opinions we share and those whose opinions we reject. For both have labored in the search for truth, and both have helped us in the finding of it." St. Thomas Aquinas
Response:
"Catholics are NOT Christians – they incorporate mysticism, superstition, pagan Roman symbols, Eastern religions guised as Christianity."
LOL!!! Another "catholics are pagans" post. Can’t they think of anything original. Well if they can’t think of an original insult, I guess I won’t give them an original reply, that’s not to say that it’s not a good retort or anything, : ). As I see it, so long as it is no longer being used to honor a pagan god, there is nothing wrong with taking something from a non-Christian religion and using it in a Christian context. For example, Paul spent a great deal of time proving to his readers that Christians could eat food (usually meat) that had been offered to idols because "we know that an idol has no real existence, and that there is no God but one" (1 Cor. 8:4b). Thus Christians who were strong in faith could eat such food because they recognized that no pagan gods exist and such food thus brings them no honor (cf. Rom. 14, 1 Cor. 8). God himself even used things that had originally appeared in other religions as part of his own faith. For example, the ceremony of circumcision was found in many Near and Middle Eastern religions, such as among the Egyptians. Practices, on the other hand, are changeable. They are customs or ways of doing things; for instance, rituals, dress, or prayers that may change over the years: the language of the Mass, the style of priestly vestments, the use or non-use of incense during Mass, and making the Sign of the Cross. " And if you object to the conversion of pagan holidays, then why don’t you object to the use of pagan ideas in other parts of your/our lives like: Use of pagan names for the days of the week; and the months of the year: Why are silent on this pagan custom? Where is your condemnation of using pagan names for days and months? What about our money? Do the coins of your country bear an image of deceased presidents or heads of states? This is a pagan custom and technically you are worshipping a dead man when you use money printed by the government to purchas goods and services. Do you have a middle name? This is a defintie a pagan custom. Do you insist on proof-texting your doctrines from a Greek translation of Scripture? Why? Greek is a pagan language. We should all speak Aramaic or Hebrewlike Jesus and His followers. Do you allow funerals within your church? This is a 100% pagan custom. So is post-mortem embalming of the deceased
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.