[StarrKingGrad]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Here, this is a photo of one of my better saves. In the last Florida hurricanes God pointed out that an entire Baptist congregation was in need of baptism. So in cooperation with His mighty works we had a natural Baptism by deluge and had the whole assembly converted in mass in one mighty deed. Letting them worship in the Catholic Church while they repaired their house stuck. But I secretly believe they converted just because they saw a better deal to be had in only putting the traditional buck in the collection plate over the tithing and special assessments for the new roof. God's economy of salvation does work in mysterious ways brother...

Please give us the name of the old Baptist Church and the Catholic Church in which they now pray. I would love to speak with the priest there, since I am very interested in what motivates people to choose among Christian dominations.

You can supply the names of the two churches, right? I mean, it would be a shame if you were just lying about a matter of the salvation of others to make yourself sound more impressive. I don't think that's the case, but I'll be very disappointed if you prove yourself to be just a braggart and a liar by failing to produce the names of the churches involved.

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

StarrKingGrad – I do not consider you to be a principle member of this forum nor after experiencing your litany of personal taunts and attacks worthy of debate. All you can do is hurtle personal ad-homonyms in a pathetic attempt to get my time and attention. Frankly, you are a distraction and being used by this house-of-mirrors to deflect attention away from the weak arguments of Brother Billy and his legion of cohorts.

But who are you kidding by declaring that “he is winning the debate”? No one appointed you score keeper nor the role of Custos Morum. This man’s soul is on the line and if I can’t get him to see the truth he is facing an eternity of retribution for promoting these heresies he does here. So, nothing personal but I simply do not have time to hold your hand and give you the attention you crave. In any other fair and balanced forum where my posts are not routinely deleted and my screen names changed I would engage you objectively – but not here. This is not about you. So please go find yourself another playmate. I am here to talk to Baptists. I am not here to waste time with a junior member of a new obscure secular cult that ostensibly calls himself “Unitarian”; but who is more than likely just a proxy or sock puppet being used to deflect the attention away from this site’s misguided leader’s as a face saving mechanism.

While it would be quite easy to put down each of the false statements and baiting comments you make I don’t really want to waste time on you. So before I put you on “ignore” let me point out the long list of your hypocrisies so you can go meditate on it and repent. Clearly your hubris blinds you to your own hypocrisy. This is quite common of judgmental “A” personality types and I know you can’t change who you are – but God can bro.

Examples of StarrKingGrad’s hypocrisy and ad-homonym attacks:

• 
  Yes, you do, a girlfriend who is more interested in what you buy for her than she is in you. Discussing the size of your fiancée’s diamond, that's a real imitation of Christ for you. {false witness judgmental ad-homonym – you don’t know my GF nor understand my motive of social banter}
• My sheepskin is the sheet on which the Bible was written. But you cannot BS me about things that I have read that you obviously have not. {sophomoric boasting and one upsmanship – symptomatic of pride indicative of the demon Lucifer}

• but he's not a lout who goes around insulting everyone who disagrees with him, or a bigshot who thinks he needs to tell everyone how much money he has, either.

• {false witness judgmentalisist ad-homonym offered up as parley in exchange for higher status with the host; I never mentioned a word about money; symptomatic of jealousy/envy and the demon Leviathan}
  
• Since you never were in a school of theology, you probably might not want to call attention to the fact that I know what I'm talking about, whereas you simply parrot phrases that others have given to you. {unsubstantiated conjecture and boasting}
  
• I have read both Summa Theologica and Summa Contra Gentiles. They contain many fine ideas, though, of course, I do not agree with all of them. {judgmental arrogance – imagining that you are even in the same intellectual league of such intellectual giants as Aquinas and capable of even judging his merits}
  
• Mary Magdalen stood also at the cross, so John was not the only apostle there.
  Revelation is not a Gospel. {Gnostic tendencies, creating a strawman and creating new apostles. Magdalen was not an apostle. Reading too many pulp fiction novels like Dan Brown? I never claimed The Revelation of Jesus Christ was what we now call a Gospel. Thanks for correcting the plural typos. I have reciprocated by correcting your novel new spelling errors for Apostilic (sp) }
  
• but he [Catholic Priest] thinks you're a horse's ass and said that he'll pray for you. His words, not mine. {another ad-homonym – ostensibly crafted to hide behind a dubious higher authority. Gee if all you want is a good donnybrook why don’t you just say ‘I double dog dare you to knock this chip off my shoulder’? }
  
• you need to think about replacing slogans with thoughts. Nevertheless, it's pretty clear that you know nothing of Origen's theology {ad-homonym and presumptuous}
  
• Your notion that there was just one form of Christianity until the Catholic Church splintered is just laughable. {another strawman – I never asserted that there were not attempts at ealier heresies from the very beginning e.g. Simon the Magician, Nestorians etc.}
  
• Father Ayala thinks I am anything but cavalier, and he, unlike you, (a) knows me and (b) is part of the Apostilic (SP) Succession. {Please ask Father if Apostillic (sp) is a new Southern Catholic dialect and tradition I should be reading up on }
  
• There are a lot more Catholics than there are Unitarians. {I see the analogy of the demonic legion of pluralistic religions attempting to pretend to legitimate Christianity under the corpus of an invisible church went right over your head – not surprising [resisting the temptation to mention anal retentive tendencies]}
  
• I know. That's because you don't really understand the things you are saying, you've never studied the writings of the early church fathers, you haven't read the Bible in the original languages, you haven't read the Vulgate. What you do is grab arguments from books or proselytiztion manuals, and completely ignore any discussion that would actually cause you to debate others who have done their homework. {more judgmental hyperbole and unsubstantiated projection. You admitted yourself that you read other works and “grab” their ideas too. Shall we also add another round of hypocrisy?}
  
• Frankly, you don't understand much more about Catholicism. {self-righteous Judgmentalism – are you trying to bait me into making you say “uncle” or are you just looking for a fight/spanking? }
  
• But my point remains, that calling someone else's faith infantile is the height of being infantile {Criticism – perhaps some deserved. But does it deserve this long list of ad-homonyms in reply or do you believe in repaying 10x to set the example of Charity? }
  
• You really aren't the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, are you? {ho ho ho – I see your hypocritical ad-homonyms are all aglow}
  
• Wow. You just insulted the writers of the Gospels for choosing to write in Greek. I'm speechless. {judgmental projection again – the Greek Orthodox schism had something to do with forcing this decision. }
  
• I have no clue what attributing negative attribution means. {finally a pious admission of fallibility – bravo. Hint: Pessimists, the clinically depressed and gadflies always see “the glass as half empty”. Which are you?}
  
• Your memory isn't much better than your ability to argue logically, is it? {non-value added ad-homonym slur}
  
• You are free of course to speak your own thoughts, just as Balaam's ass did. {another ad-homonym? God can just as easy slay 1,000’s with the jawbone of an ass just like Samson did. Can you please look in a mirror and see who’s foaming at the mouth before you shoot yourself in the foot or are you back to wanting to test jawbones?}
  
• But I don't think you're quite bright enough to understand all of the terms that you toss around. You're more a copy and paste kind of debater than an original thinker. {another ad-homonym. This is getting tedious – are you that starved for attention or just think you are the sole 100W bulb in the universe?}
  
• It is that you argue like a child, insulting everything that you disagree with because you don't have a sufficient understanding of the sources to have an informed opinion. {ad-homonym and presumptuous judgmental assertion of superior understanding that is self-contradictory as well as self-defeating. Are you a closet shadow boxer by chance?}

After stripping away all the ad-homonyms you leave me with very little objectively to respond to. If I have time I will get to these few items but will probably be forced to “iggy you” since you are a low value-added distraction. I am not going to permit you to control the agenda for the discussions I am having with others. Sorry. This is only one of many forums I participate in and its already taking more time than I had planned. Now run along.

ApostolicChristian

[Capt. Aaron Portway]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Are you a college boy Falsie? You sure sound like a college boy to me. You use an awful lot of $5.00 words. You're one of those elitist smarty-pants intellectuals aren't you!

You think you're better than me? Well, I don't care how smart you think you are, you're Hellbound is all I know!

A Hellbound, bead-counting, dress-wearing, art-collecting, nazi-sympathizing, Bible-editing, tax-evading, ring-kissing, Papist Mary Worshipper!

[Nobar King]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

I can't imagine the things you posted here and had deleted. They must have been REALLY bad.

[StarrKingGrad]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

After stripping away all the ad-homonyms you leave me with very little objectively to respond to. If I have time I will get to these few items but will probably be forced to “iggy you” since you are a low value-added distraction.

I knew it, you are a liar and a braggart who did not participate in the conversion of an entire church (BTW, I called the Archdiocese, and they said it never happened). You really ought to limit your lies to things that can't be checked.

You have obviously decided that you cannot go toe to toe with me because I'm actually familiar with the Catholic theological works that you have only heard about (I got my masters degree at Georgetown, so I've had many fine Jesuit instructors). Frankly, you're right to back away from addressing my substantive points. I've had intelligent debates with many Catholic scholars, and I can tell you, sir, that you might be a Catholic, but you are no scholar.

You are far worse than the "True Christians" because, misguided as they are, they don't lie to try to impress people the way you do. I really don't care if you ignore me, since you offer no substantive arguments outside what you're reading in Catholicism for Dummies, so I'm not learning anything from you. I plan to limit my posts in this thread to keeping a running tally of your lies, since not every "True Christian" or other reader of this forum has the background in Catholic theology that I do, so they may not understand that you are not representative of Catholicism.

So, to the "True Christians" and other readers, here are the truths behind the principal lies of Apostilic:

(a) Popes were called Pontifex Maximus

(b) Catholicism incorporates the entire Bible, but Apostilic has no answer to 1 Timothy 3:2, which states that a Bishop must have one wife

(c) Apostilic did not cause the conversion of an entire congregation of Baptists to Catholicism

I'll add to the list as Apostilic adds to the lies. If he actually explains one, I'll cross it off the list, but, frankly, that's not very likely.

I hope that everyone reading this understands that Catholicism is a beautiful religion, and the Catholics I know are not given to the insults, lies, weak logic, and braggadocio that mar Apostilic's character. If you want to understand Catholicism, go speak with a Catholic priest, don't listen to this loudmouth.

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Now to work through SKGrads backlog of silly topcs.

So, what exactly do you make of 1 Timothy 3:2, which says that a Bishop must have one wife? People keep asking that question, and you keep ignoring it. Can't you're "whole entire Word of God" accomodate that verse? Are you afraid to answer?

I have already addressed most of the topics on priestly requirements long ago under a prior thread.
Go here: http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showpost.php?p=261949&postcount=92

Must I always rehash things for you and suffer your false charges just because you are unobservant? Go back and read the material.

You of course know that 1 Timothy was generally believed to be written by the Apostle Paul yes? And you also know that the Apostle Paul himself was celibate and believed to be unmarried or at most a widower. You do know that Paul was an Apostle, a bishop and an elder of the Church yes?

1 Corinthians 7:8 (KJV)
I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.

Now let’s look at 1 Timothy 3:2 again.

It is supreme intellectual dishonesty for you to even suggest reading this verse in isolation to all other period knowledge about Paul and strip away the hermeneutical context just so you can make marriage appear as a requirement for being a bishop. This is absurd and you know it if you have studied any Pauline history and have any scholarship at all about the man. This is precisely why it is fatal for Protestants to take a do-it-yourself approach to salvation where you think you can just read it out of a book and “be saved”. Nope, you better get an apostolic teaching to know what scripture means because tif you think that marriage is a requirment for being a bishop this is a gravely wrong teaching.

1 Timothy 3:2 (KJV)
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Do you see that last part – apt to teach? Who taught you this verse means a bishop must be married? The answer is NO ONE DID – you projected a new meaning again.

Any reasonable scholarship and understanding of the original history or even a elementary level of scriptural understanding shows how absurd this is. Paul is simply telling us through implication that no bishop, if electing to marry, should he be divorced have NO more than one legal wife. But he is NOT saying a bishop must marry. Also, note that Paul was talking about bishops that were widowers and was instructing them not to remarry again. In other words you got the meaning of this verse COMPLETELY backwards. This text is NOT imposing a marriage requirement and anyone that reads this text this way needs to get their hermeneutics calibrated and talk to a Catholic who can tell you what the apostles taught here.

Catholics take their policy for celebacy of priests and bishops by emulating John the Baptist and Jesus.
ApostolicChristian

[StarrKingGrad]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Revised list of ApostilicChristian's lies:

(a) Popes were called Pontifex Maximus

(b) 1 Timothy 3:2 includes the statement that a Bishop must have one wife, AC left that out of his post in another deliberate deception. Here's the text in the KJV and the original Greek.

Paul said, in general, it is best to be celebate (though he did not say that specifically about bishops), but that it is better to marry than to sin because of unmet sexual urges. It is a shame that the Catholic church never took this to heart, since the recent scandals of priests molesting children would not have happened, lives would not have been ruined, and worshippers would not have been driven away from the Church because of the scandal.

(c) Apostilic did not cause the conversion of an entire congregation of Baptists to Catholicism.

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

I don't know what's worse, ApostilicFalseChristian's lies or Starrking's smug sense of superiority. I suppose it doesn't make much difference, since both are Hellbound, but, if I had to pick, I'd go with ApostilicFalseChristian, at least he's willing to take a stand on a moral issue, whereas Starfish has all of the moral backbone of a very wet sponge.

BTW, Starboard, you missed a lie: ApostilicFalseChristian said he wouldn't keep posting if we didn't change his name. Nuts like him never stop posting, of course, because they have no sense of personal honor. If I were him, no way would I take that kind of abuse (though if I were him, I'd seriously think about suicide), but it's fun watching the Landover Pastors screw with his mind like that.

Oh, and while you're correcting everyone else's errors, Storefront, celibate only has two e's. AFC spelled hermeneutical, and you can't even handle celibate.

Ahimaaz

PS, I know you're not really ignoring me, AFC. Your ego is way too big not to read every word I say about you. And I've got plenty left to say.

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Well I have just had another post deleted for exposing a truth about Landover Baptist that they don't want anyone knowing about and told if I say anything more about it I will be banned.

So, I think its time to shake the dust from my sandals so to speak and turn this one over to St. Michael. I want everyone associated with this site to know that everyone of you (and we do know who you are BTW) is going to have to face God very soon - face to face. Just remember one thing - God is not mocked. You have precious little time to make your amends with Him and repent of your ways. It's out of my hands now and you will reap what you have sown here.

Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

ApostolicChristian

[Capt. Aaron Portway]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

BYE-BYE JAMES!
It was a real slice of Heaven having you visit again!

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Well I have just had another post deleted for exposing a truth about Landover Baptist that they don't want anyone knowing about and told if I say anything more about it I will be banned.

It's shocking how this guy just piles lies upon lies--it's the first (and, I really hope, the last) time I've ever agreed with Storkkingfisher. We do not ever remove posts unless they contain threatening, illegal, or intolerant content. That is why we allow posts that take incorrect views of religion such as those that ApoplecticFalseChristian has made in this forum.

It's a real shame that he's gone, since I wanted to quiz him over the selling of indulgences and how that fits into his unbiblical theory of "apostilic succession."

[Nobar King]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

That new WoW game must be too distracting for him.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

I have $10 that says he'll be back. Primadonnas like him can't resist an audience like ours. And I'm sure his masters in Rome won't let him quit trying to poison us with their papist hatred and intolerance.

The fool truly believes that he can convince us to abandon Jesus and join his cult.

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

I'm sorry I've been away. I have been busy with church business.

Is salvation dependent on IQ or just a lucky guess on which of the 33,000 or so non-Catholic denominations might have it right.

Neither, and I have already explained this to you several times. You are just raising the same tired "objections" over and over.

Salvation is dependent upon a willingness to repent from (give up) sin and to accept Jesus as your savior.

You think physical illness is higher up in the taxonomy than sin in the grand plan for salvation? I think Jesus told us that sin is the worst thing of all and to be avoided and repented of when we do sin.

Right, but we have to repent of our own sins. Others can't repent of our sins on our behalf.

1 Timothy 3:2 (KJV)
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Do you see that last part – apt to teach? Who taught you this verse means a bishop must be married? The answer is NO ONE DID – you projected a new meaning again.

Since when do we have to be "taught" when or if the God means what He says? God ALWAYS means what he says.

I'm starting to think you don't want to be saved. You know you aren't saved and you're just out to try to drag a few shallow-rooted "Christians" down with you. Well you won't find any here, devil. We're all saved. God has given us eternal life, we will never perish, and YOU shall not pluck us from His hand. SHOUT GLORY!

Shoo, demon!

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

I think this sums it up: