[Remy Lebeau]

Re: Difference from Catholics?

No, those quotes really do all refer to the Assumption of Mary, even the Pope said so!!! I mean, yes, read in context they obviously refer to other things, but God worded it in such a way that when read out of context we could see the truth!

Hmm?

OK, I'm not even going to waste my time reading through the wall of text you cut and pasted because I'm sure it doesn't prove your point and makes you look like an even bigger idiot. I'm declaring victory. Jesus wins again!!!

Enjoy hell. Stock up on sun screen, drink plenty of liquid nitrogen and remember to bring lubricant.

[James Peter]

Re: Difference from Catholics?

That was a joke, right? You just made a complete and utter fool out of yourself.

Thank you for proving without a doubt that Mary is dead and buried by default seeing that the Bible says absolutely nothing about her ascending alive into heaven.

Did you really think you could just post random scripture and... nevermind, I don't want to know what goes on in that head of yours.

No, those quotes really do all refer to the Assumption of Mary, even the Pope said so!!! I mean, yes, read in context they obviously refer to other things, but God worded it in such a way that when read out of context we could see the truth!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary#Scriptural_sources

“While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.” – Matthew 12:46-50

Above, Jesus distinguishes between blood brothers and brothers in faith.

"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his OWN house." – Matthew 12:55-57

Not his Father's sister's house, but his OWN house.

"Aristarchus my fellow prisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him" - Collosians 4:10

There is an actual greek word for cousin.

"And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren." - Acts 1:13-14

Clearly, Jesus's mother and brothers are counted seperately from those other men.

You have done nothing but spew conjecture. Funny how it says the Mary had other children as plain as day and yet you sit here cut and pasting a wall of text which attempts to rationalize away this most simple truth: that Mary had sex with Joseph, as God intended, and was not a virgin when she died.

You failed. Jesus had "half-brothers". You haven't shown otherwise. All you've shown is how much catholics can't be trusted to convey scripture. You're reaching reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally far and grabbing hold of nothing.

Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning "cousin," speakers of those languages could use either the word for "brother" or a circumlocution, such as "the son of my uncle." But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used "brother."

The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of "brothers" to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English "brother" has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.

You might say they transliterated instead of translated, importing the Jewish idiom into the Greek Bible. They took an exact equivalent of the Hebrew word for "brother" and did not use adelphos in one place (for sons of the same parents), and anepsios in another (for cousins). This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and passed into English translations of the Bible. To determine what "brethren" or "brother" or "sister" means in any one verse, we have to look at the context. When we do that, we see that insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.

When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that she would conceive a son, she asked, "How can this be since I have no relations with a man?" (Luke 1:34). From the Church’s earliest days, as the Fathers interpreted this Bible passage, Mary’s question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of lifelong virginity, even in marriage. (This was not common, but neither was it unheard of.) If she had not taken such a vow, the question would make no sense.

Mary knew how babies are made (otherwise she wouldn’t have asked the question she did). If she had anticipated having children in the normal way and did not intend to maintain a vow of virginity, she would hardly have to ask "how" she was to have a child, since conceiving a child in the "normal" way would be expected by a newlywed wife. Her question makes sense only if there was an apparent (but not a real) conflict between keeping a vow of virginity and acceding to the angel’s request. A careful look at the New Testament shows that Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any children other than Jesus.

When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3), not as "a son of Mary." In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ "brethren." If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

Also, the attitude taken by the "brethren of the Lord" implies they are his elders. In ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies (remember, Palestine is in Asia), older sons gave advice to younger, but younger seldom gave advice to older—it was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus’ "brethren" saying to him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3–4).

Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own benefit: "And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, ‘He is beside himself’" (Mark 3:21). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the "brethren" were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s "first-born" son (Luke 2:7).

Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). The Gospels mention four of his "brethren": James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

Do you WANT me to ban you? You are in OUR house. Show me some respect or get out. This is your first strike.

It may be your house, but it's the Pope's world. He is the supreme global leader.

Riddle me this, papist. How exactly would it be a bad example for a husband to have sex with his wife and have children? Would the survival of the human race be scandalous or a bad example. Spare me your lesbo feminazi propaganda about women not having to submit to their husbands in every way. As a woman, Mary's purpose in life was to function as a baby oven. For what reason would Mary not have relations with her husband? There is no rationale for this homersexural Joseph you are trying to portray other than the fact that you worship Mary as a goddess and don't like the idea of your goddess ever being diddled by a mortal man.

I almost forgot who I was talking to. Your church molests little boy and then protects the molesters from prosecution and pays out hush money AUTHORIZED BY YOUR HYPOCRITE GODLESS POPE!!! What would you know about avoiding scandal? May all your popes burn in Hell for all eternity!!!

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp

"But it’s not a sin for a married couple to have marital relations."

True, ordinarily. But even in the Old Testament God asked married couples to refrain from intercourse for various reasons. For example, the priests of the temple had to refrain from intimacy with their wives during the time of their service. Likewise, Moses had the Israelites abstain from intercourse as he ascended Mount Sinai (Ex. 20:15). There is a theme here of refraining from marital rights because of the presence of something very holy.

The Church Fathers knew that there was something greater than the temple in Mary’s womb, comparing it to the Eastern Gate mentioned in Ezekiel 44: "This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut." Mary had become the dwelling place of the Almighty, like the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament.

Now, if Uzzah was struck dead for touching the Ark (2 Sam. 6:6–8), should it be surprising that Joseph understood that Mary was a vessel consecrated to God alone? The idea that Joseph assumed normal marital relations with Mary after the birth of Christ was an irreverence that even the Protestant reformers rejected.

Interestingly, according to Jewish law, if a man was betrothed to a woman and she became pregnant from another, he could never have relations with her. The man had to put her away privately or condemn her in public and put her to death. Joseph chose the more merciful option.

Then, the angel told him to lead her into the house as a wife (paralambano gunaika), but the language that describes marital relations is not used here. It was used, however, in Luke 1:35: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you." To "overshadow" a woman was a euphemism for having a marital relationship, as was the phrase "to lay one’s power" over a woman. The Holy Spirit had espoused Mary, and she had been consecrated, set apart for God.

Also, it appears that Mary had made a vow of virginity. When the angel said that she would conceive and bear a son, she asked, "How can this be, since I do not know man?" She knew how babies were made, and she was about to be married. "How can this be?" would seem like a pretty silly question unless she had made a prior vow of virginity.

[Remy Lebeau]

Re: Difference from Catholics?

Anyway, she's a lot better than that 'James Peter' guy. What's his nick name? Jimmy Peter? That's just two names for pecker in my book.

Of course she is and she is also much much much much much much much much smater than Jim Pete. I didn't know just how stupid papist were until I engaged him in debate. Sadly, he is a poor opponent. But when you've been trained by Wash, all opponents are weak. Looks like another debating victory is coming up.

[Remy Lebeau]

Re: Difference from Catholics?

there's HORDES of references to the Assumption of Mary in the Bible! You just have to know where to look for it:

*Verses which in no way shape or form say anything about Mary ascending to heaven and/or don't have anything to do with Mary whatsoever removed*

As you can see, all of this verses clearly show that Mary was taken up to heaven bodily while still alive and remains there as Queen of Heaven to this day.

That was a joke, right? You just made a complete and utter fool out of yourself.

Thank you for proving without a doubt that Mary is dead and buried by default seeing that the Bible says absolutely nothing about her ascending alive into heaven.

Did you really think you could just post random scripture and... nevermind, I don't want to know what goes on in that head of yours.

*blah blah blah - cut and paste job*
This identification of the "brethren of the Lord" as Jesus’ first cousins is open to legitimate question—they might even be relatives more distantly removed—but our inability to determine for certain their exact status strictly on the basis of the biblical evidence (or lack of it, in this case) says nothing at all about the main point, which is that the Bible demonstrates that they were not the Blessed Virgin Mary’s children.

“While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.” – Matthew 12:46-50

Above, Jesus distinguishes between blood brothers and brothers in faith.

"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his OWN house." – Matthew 12:55-57

Not his Father's sister's house, but his OWN house.

"Aristarchus my fellow prisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him" - Collosians 4:10

There is an actual greek word for cousin.

"And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren." - Acts 1:13-14

Clearly, Jesus's mother and brothers are counted seperately from those other men.

You have done nothing but spew conjecture. Funny how it says the Mary had other children as plain as day and yet you sit here cut and pasting a wall of text which attempts to rationalize away this most simple truth: that Mary had sex with Joseph, as God intended, and was not a virgin when she died.

You failed. Jesus had "half-brothers". You haven't shown otherwise. All you've shown is how much catholics can't be trusted to convey scripture. You're reaching reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally far and grabbing hold of nothing.

The KJV is the blasphemous Bible. It received no Papal authorization!

Do you WANT me to ban you? You are in OUR house. Show some respect or get out. This is your first strike.

Joseph was needed to provide for Mary and the blessed Babe. He was needed to protect them, and needed to keep Mary from living a life that would look scandalous to others. Can you imagine Mary being left to raise Jesus as a single mother? What kind of example would that set? That women can be indepedent and raise children on their own? Imagine what her neighbors would think.

Riddle me this, papist. How exactly would it be a bad example for a husband to have sex with his wife and have children? Would the survival of the human race be scandalous or a bad example. Spare me your lesbo feminazi propaganda about women not having to submit to their husbands in every way. As a woman, Mary's purpose in life was to function as a baby oven. For what reason would Mary not have relations with her husband? There is no rationale for this homersexural Joseph you are trying to portray other than the fact that you worship Mary as a goddess and don't like the idea of your goddess ever being diddled by a mortal man.

I almost forgot who I was talking to. Your church molests little boy and then protects the molesters from prosecution and pays out hush money AUTHORIZED BY YOUR HYPOCRITE GODLESS POPE!!! What would you know about avoiding scandal? May all your popes burn in Hell for all eternity!!!

[James Peter]

Re: Difference from Catholics?

You dare mock the names of two Apostles?!

[Nobar King]

Re: Difference from Catholics?

Anyway, she's a lot better than that 'James Peter' guy. What's his nick name? Jimmy Peter? That's just two names for pecker in my book.

[Remy Lebeau]

Re: Difference from Catholics?

I didn't understand her post to refer to ME as a nigger, which I certainly ain't.

Well, I see no reason why she'd single me out. We all want to help her and we are all educated so logically she must be referring to all of us. I'm hoping she doesn't give up on Jesus and go back to crack smoking, pie stealing and whatever else she used to do before she found the loving community of Freehold.

[James Peter]

Re: Difference from Catholics?

That's fine and dandy. But you seem to have forgotten to provide the book, chapter and verse for your assumption. I'm patiently waiting, papist. How long have you been here? You should know by now that we demand scripture.

there's HORDES of references to the Assumption of Mary in the Bible! You just have to know where to look for it:

John 14: 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

Isaiah 60: 13The glory of Lebanon shall come unto thee, the fir tree, the pine tree, and the box together, to beautify the place of my sanctuary; and I will make the place of my feet glorious.

Luke 1: 28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Song of Solomon 8: 5Who is this that cometh up from the wilderness, leaning upon her beloved? I raised thee up under the apple tree: there thy mother brought thee forth: there she brought thee forth that bare thee.


1 Corinthians 15: 21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

Psalm 132: 8Arise, O LORD, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy strength.

Psalm 45:9 Kings' daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir.

10Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father's house;
11So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him.
12And the daughter of Tyre shall be there with a gift; even the rich among the people shall intreat thy favour.
13The king's daughter is all glorious within: her clothing is of wrought gold.
14She shall be brought unto the king in raiment of needlework: the virgins her companions that follow her shall be brought unto thee.
15With gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought: they shall enter into the king's palace.
16Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth. 17I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations: therefore shall the people praise thee for ever and ever.

Song of Solomon 3:6Who is this that cometh out of the wilderness like pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh and frankincense, with all powders of the merchant?

Song of Solomon 4: 8Come with me from Lebanon, my spouse, with me from Lebanon: look from the top of Amana, from the top of Shenir and Hermon, from the lions' dens, from the mountains of the leopards.

Song of Solomon 6:9My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her. The daughters saw her, and blessed her; yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her.


Revelation 12: 1And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: 2And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

As you can see, all of this verses clearly show that Mary was taken up to heaven bodily while still alive and remains there as Queen of Heaven to this day.

*sigh* Once again you seem to have forgotten to provide the book, chapter and verse for your assumption. Come on now, ring kisser, you know better.

And for things so "clearly" written you'd think you would "clearly" post them.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

Today, the most commonly accepted view is that they were Jesus’ cousins. Of the four "brethren" who are named in the Gospels, consider, for the sake of argument, only James. Similar reasoning can be used for the other three. We know that James the younger’s mother was named Mary. Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the cross: "among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee" (Matt. 27:56); "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome" (Mark 15:40).

Then look at what John says: "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene" (John 19:25). If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the crucifixion, we see that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Clopas. So far, so good.

An argument against this, though, is that James is elsewhere (Matt. 10:3) described as the son of Alphaeus, which would mean this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Clopas and Alphaeus. But Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas. Another possibility is that Alphaeus took a Greek name similar to his Jewish name, the way that Saul took the name Paul.

So it’s probable that James the younger is the son of Mary and Clopas. The second-century historian Hegesippus explains that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph’s nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph’s putative son.

This identification of the "brethren of the Lord" as Jesus’ first cousins is open to legitimate question—they might even be relatives more distantly removed—but our inability to determine for certain their exact status strictly on the basis of the biblical evidence (or lack of it, in this case) says nothing at all about the main point, which is that the Bible demonstrates that they were not the Blessed Virgin Mary’s children.

No, that says they did not have children up until the day she died (i.e. she died without giving birth). Of course she cannot have children while dead.

Now if it said, ""Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her 16th birthday", then the context has changed.

You failed, boy buggerer. Try again.

You are so naive. Can't you understand that just because the Bible says something in a way it doesn't mean that's what it's really saying?

And don't ever quote any NIV-type crap on these godly forums. The last thing I will tolerate is some secular progressive papal inspired "interpretation" of the Bible scripted to fit their desired meaning. It is blasphemy!!! KJV 1611 only, please. Thank you.

The liberties you catholics pedophiles take with scripture....

The KJV is the blasphemous Bible. It received no Papal authorization!

No, what you propose requires sacrifice by Mary. Joseph has no need to be a part of such an "unusual" marriage. There was no marriage according to you. By your logic I am married to my house cleaning staff by virtue of occupying the same residence. Conchita would be very surprised to hear that.

And do not make the mistake of saying the Jesus needed anything from Joseph other than his "DNA" (Matthew 1:1-16) - which was given miraculously - not sexually.

OK, sooooo as far as we know Mary is dead and buried and she had children with Joseph after she gave birth to Jesus. Patiently waiting for you to clear this up, papst, but until then my statements stand.

Joseph was needed to provide for Mary and the blessed Babe. He was needed to protect them, and needed to keep Mary from living a life that would look scandalous to others. Can you imagine Mary being left to raise Jesus as a single mother? What kind of example would that set? That women can be indepedent and raise children on their own? Imagine what her neighbors would think. They'd think she was a whore who got knocked up out of marriage, and even if they didn't kill her, her presence in the community would inspire the other young women to engage in harlotries, cause the older women to divorce their husbands, and just generally bring evil to the community.

[Nobar King]

Re: Difference from Catholics?

I didn't understand her post to refer to ME as a nigger, which I certainly ain't.

[Remy Lebeau]

Re: Difference from Catholics?

Well dat it, I don't need no uppity nigger to tell me bout myself. I is done wif Landover. Iffen dey want, they kin have all da educated nigras dey want cause I is out of here!

Now, Miss Valvoline, I'm trying my darnest to be nice to you and correct any wrongs I might have done to you. What is with your kind? I give you free food, drink, recreation and even a handout. Isn't that what you people love most: Free stuff? What else do you want? I'm not giving you 40 acres and I don't have any mules. And for all my True Christian kindness you call me, and this entire congregation, "niggers"? Why that's just plain rude, Miss Vasoline. I just hope you don't start slinging poo at us.

I think you owe us all an apology. I'm certainly willing to forgive you because I've got Jesus in my heart.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Difference from Catholics?

Well dat it, I don't need no uppity nigger to tell me bout myself. I is done wif Landover. Iffen dey want, they kin have all da educated nigras dey want cause I is out of here!

Now now Miss Vav, don't get all worked up. Without Landover you wouldn't be able to pick up all that extra work doing White people's laundry. And don't forget, we helped get that whole situation cleared up when your "husband" stuck a shiv in your neighbor lady Miss Lateesha because he thought she's swiped one of his catfish.


You people are so hot blooded, I swear.

[Vavoline Johnson]

Re: Difference from Catholics?

Yes, "honorary".... As in you didn't earn the title. It's like famous people getting honorary degrees from universities when they've never even attended a single class at the college.

You are still very much a nigress, but at least you are trying to better yourself and become normal. We are all very proud of you, Vasoline. I have full confidence that one day far off in the distant distant distant future that you will be purified by Jesus and made white.

I get the impression I've upset you. Let me makes things right. I'll have Conchita fix you up a few buckets of fried chicken for you, get you a couple watermelons, buy you a few cases of malt liquor, a couple packs of menthols, some Red Lobster coupons for when you feel like going somehwere "fancy" and I'll even throw in a 300 dollar "wellfare" check to you for each niglet you've spawned. Are we good now?

Well dat it, I don't need no uppity nigger to tell me bout myself. I is done wif Landover. Iffen dey want, they kin have all da educated nigras dey want cause I is out of here!

[WWJDnow]

Re: Difference from Catholics?

QUOTE=Catholic - Not Christian;398327]I do not believe that any one act on my part, other than martyrdom, will assure a place in heaven.[/QUOTE]Well, with luck, you'll have that opportunity, then you can see for yourself that it doesn't work.

For one can ALWAYS fall from grace.

Actually, it is impossible to fall from Grace. Jesus told us this in John 6:37-39:

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Everyone counts. If God did not love it, why does is exist?

Ridiculous. Does God love Satan? Does God love sin?

we read nearly the entire bible cover to cover

Then why don't you follow its teachings?

We believe in "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins".

You also believe in bowing down in front of carved statues. If you can't follow the Ten Commandments in your own so-called churches, believe me, I don't expect you to follow God's word regarding Baptism, either.

If you want to know more about Catholic Baptism, start a new thread....

I really, really don't.

And apparently Baptists believe to the judges of mankind. Sorry, but Catholics believe that God decides this.

And yet God told us to judge:

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. John 7:24

We don't worship idols.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.... Exodus 20:3-4

Do you think I would try to trick you?

No. I think you are completely honest. However, I think that Satan would try to trick me, just as he tricked you into being a Catholic. Satan is using you to get to me, and he is the father of lies.

Untrue. Period.

True. Without doubt.

Untrue. Period.

True. Without doubt.

Romans 3:10-"None is righteous, no not one." (emphasis added)

Romans 3 is talking about the Jews and whether they can earn salvation through the law, without faith in Jesus. And there he says no, they cannot, and that nobody can: Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Romans 3:28

When your so-called priest gets around to reading this passage within the next three years, ask him to read it slowly so you can understand what it says. (emphasis added)

The Bible says water and spirit, the stream is quite unnecessary... Sigh, all those poor "unsaved" people in the desert with no stream to be baptized in... I guess they're going to hell by your standards.

I didn't say a stream was required. What is required is that you understand what is happening when you are Baptised. Infants don't understand.

Wow, you not only determine the salvation/damnation of others, you get to decide for yourself too! Amazing!

That's not what I said. I don't decide at all. God has already decided who will be Saved, and there's nothing you or I or the Saved or the damned or anyone else can do about it.

Catholics believe in salvation by the grace of God alone.

So you admit that there is no salvation by works! Yaaay, you finally said something true!

Do they pay you to advertise like that?

Freely given, freely received.

But maybe you found your methods of worship somewhere besides the Bible? Because it plainly illustrates the Catholic Mass.

Chapter and verse, please.

You know, I was an altar server for six years under seven priests and two bishops and remain unmolested.

You must be the ugly kid in the Congregation, then.

Please stop making irrational generalizations.

Catholics are going to Hell. See? My generalizations are perfectly rational.

[Remy Lebeau]

Re: Difference from Catholics?

Mr Pepe LaPhew, what you be talkin about? We ain't street colors round here! We don't wash in nobodies blood, not even Jeesuz his-selfs!
An fo a boy dat think he so smart, didn't you see I is an "Honorary Ex Nigress?

Yes, "honorary".... As in you didn't earn the title. It's like famous people getting honorary degrees from universities when they've never even attended a single class at the college.

You are still very much a nigress, but at least you are trying to better yourself and become normal. We are all very proud of you, Vasoline. I have full confidence that one day far off in the distant distant distant future that you will be purified by Jesus and made white.

I get the impression I've upset you. Let me makes things right. I'll have Conchita fix you up a few buckets of fried chicken for you, get you a couple watermelons, buy you a few cases of malt liquor, a couple packs of menthols, some Red Lobster coupons for when you feel like going somehwere "fancy" and I'll even throw in a 300 dollar "wellfare" check to you for each niglet you've spawned. Are we good now?

[Remy Lebeau]

Re: Difference from Catholics?

WRONG! The Virgin Mary ascended bodily into heaven while still alive. It's clearly written in the Bible!

That's fine and dandy. But you seem to have forgotten to provide the book, chapter and verse for your assumption. I'm patiently waiting, papist. How long have you been here? You should know by now that we demand scripture.

Wrong again! Those were Jesus' cousins. It's clearly stated in the Bible.

*sigh* Once again you seem to have forgotten to provide the book, chapter and verse for your assumption. Come on now, ring kisser, you know better.

And for things so "clearly" written you'd think you would "clearly" post them.

Consider this line: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?

No, that says they did not have children up until the day she died (i.e. she died without giving birth). Of course she cannot have children while dead.

Now if it said, ""Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her 16th birthday", then the context has changed.

You failed, boy buggerer. Try again.

And don't ever quote any NIV-type crap on these godly forums. The last thing I will tolerate is some secular progressive papal inspired "interpretation" of the Bible scripted to fit their desired meaning. It is blasphemy!!! KJV 1611 only, please. Thank you.

The liberties you catholics pedophiles take with scripture....

The circumstances demanded sacrifice by Mary and Joseph. This was a special family, set aside for the nurturing of the Son of God. No greater dignity could be given to marriage than that."

No, what you propose requires sacrifice by Mary. Joseph has no need to be a part of such an "unusual" marriage. There was no marriage according to you. By your logic I am married to my house cleaning staff by virtue of occupying the same residence. Conchita would be very surprised to hear that.

And do not make the mistake of saying the Jesus needed anything from Joseph other than his "DNA" (Matthew 1:1-16) - which was given miraculously - not sexually.

OK, sooooo as far as we know Mary is dead and buried and she had children with Joseph after she gave birth to Jesus. Patiently waiting for you to clear this up, papst, but until then my statements stand.