[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Oh cut me a break twerp... I you lack the manliness, the maturity and the intellect...minor league players looking to make a name for themselves by getting bloodied by better men... rude school-boy insolence. I'll pray that some day you grown up and become man enough to make it worthwhile for someone to give you the attention you crave.

If you want intellectual argument, then you need to respond substantively to the points that we raise. For example, I'm still waiting to hear how an unmarried man can be a bishop, in complete contradiction of 1 Timothy 3:2. But you don't have arguments, you just have lists. You need to land at least one punch before you bloody anybody, and you haven't come close.

Now I see that you ran out of irrelevant Bible verses to throw at us, so decided to make ad hominem attacks. That's fine with me, since it demonstrates clearly to the world the intellectual bankruptcy of your pathetic arguments.

[StarrKingGrad]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Apostilic, you have made some interesting points here, but (much as I hate to agree with anything that a Landover Pastor says), as a Unitarian Universlist minister, I've read the Bible in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and the Bible verses that you quote don't, for the most part, lend support to your arguments.

You also seem to be growing more insulting with every post. For example, calling the KJV translators "infantile" doesn't seem to me to advance the arguments here. Given the number of kings that various Popes and Catholic Bishops have coronated throughout history, are you really saying that calling past and current rulers king is paganism and therefore an affront to God and His Church?

When you say that you think Baptists "imagine Jesus and the apostles wandering about the biblical lands in top hats and Johnny Walker-boots" or call Billy-Reuben's arguments "silly" (much as I disagree with the man, he is a real Bible scholar) or categorize the religious faiths of others as "dialectical puralism", you are using ridicule instead of legitimate theological argument to support your position. That sort of thing is beneath someone of your obvious intellectual gifts. Do you really want to sink to the low level of that idiot Ahimaaz Smith?

Perhaps you'll write off my comments as mere "dialectical pluralism" from an admitted Protestant (though I am also a great admirer of many things in the Catholic church, including your strong love for God and your many good charitable works), but you might want to consider these words from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Union of Christendom:

Christendom includes not merely the Catholic Church, but, together with it, the many other religious communions which have either directly or indirectly, separated from it, and yet, although in conflict both with it and among themselves as to various points of doctrine and practice agree with it in this: that they look up to our Lord Jesus Christ as the Founder of their Faith, and claim to make His teaching the rule of their lives. As these separated communities when massed together, indeed in some cases even of themselves, count a vast number of souls, among whom many are conspicuous for their religious earnestness, this extension of the term Christendom to include them all has its solid justification.

Certainly, the Catholic church believes itself to have universal primacy no less than does Landover Baptism (as stated in the declaration Dominus Iesus in 2000, and reiterated by Pope Benedict in 2007), but the Catholic church participates with respect for dissenting views in various ecumenical forums as part of its program to reunite Christendom. Can't you do the same?

I think you stand on much firmer ground when you point out the inconsistencies in Pastor Billy-Reuben's arguments, e.g., by noting that the KJV 1611 was a Protestant Bible, which certainly puts the lie to his assertion that Landover Baptist Church is not a Protestant church. The ridicule you are increasingly expressing, however, just makes Pastor Billy-Reuben appear to be more reasoned participant in this debate.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

James 5:16 - James clearly teaches us that we must “confess our sins to one another,” not just privately to God. James 5:16 must be read in the context of James 5:14-15, which is referring to the healing power (both physical and spiritual) of the priests of the Church. Hence, when James says “therefore” in verse 16, he must be referring to the men he was writing about in verses 14 and 15 – these men are the ordained priests of the Church, to whom we must confess our sins.

I suspect that you are using NIV and now you will see why that so-called "Bible" is in error:
Jas:5:14: Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
Jas:5:15: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.
Jas:5:16: Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

The verses do not support your translation. You will note that 14 & 15 refer to only the healing of the sick by forgiving sins that may have caused the sickness but 15 concedes the possibility that the sick recipient had not committed any sins but will be forgiven for any he has committed. I repeat, this refers to only the healing of the sick and does not include the healthy.

Then there is a period and James:5:16 makes a new statement. The effect of this is to address his audience, who are Jas:1:1: James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. They are not church elders; James addresses the laymen of the tribes; 14 & 15 mention a cure for sickness involving church elders.

What does James:5:16 say? It does not say, “clearly teaches us that we must “confess our sins to one another,” it says confess your faults – therein lies the distinction. The advice is, of course good: by seeing our own faults we become better people.

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Listen, we are going back and forth, and you aren't saying anything new. I have given you the truth, but you are choosing to ignore it.

Really Billy, I can see that logic is not your strong suit

Not MY strong suit? You were the one who said that the proof that Emperor Constantine was never Pope was because he used the title Pontifex Maximus, even though ALL POPES SINCE HIM use the title Pontifex Maximus.

Billy-Reuben, does sound remarkably like "Bilirubin" and the latter is in fact an excretion product whose levels are not controllable in the body.

So now you are stooping to making fun of my name. Are you in junior high school?

Can you level with me Brother Billy? Do you imagine that your private interpretation of scripture is any better than anyone else's on the planet?

I don't have a private interpretation. I just read the Bible and believe it.

You know very well that Catholics don't practice proxied baptism for the dead like Mormons

Same difference. You are baptizing people who have no choice in the matter.

Your "Once Saved Always Saved" doctrine was stolen from Calvin and modified but was never taught by any apostle.

The Bible says that saved Christians CANNOT sin.

1 John 1:8-10 only says that everyone HAS sinned. There is nothing in that passage that says we continue to sin after we are saved.

"Once saved always saved" is wrong. People who believe in OSAS think that they are already forgiven for past and FUTURE sins. They think they have a license to sin. That's heretical and not in the Bible.

What IS Biblical is the fact that once we get saved, we are born again, we become new creatures, the Holy Spirit resides in us, and we CANNOT sin.

I haven't sinned since I got saved, and I won't sin either -- not next week, not 10 years from now, not ever. I KNOW I'm saved. God promised to keep me though faith unto salvation.

It tears me up inside to think that you can't understand the sheer joy and freedom that comes from being saved, REALLY saved. It is just an awesome feeling and I praise God every day. I don't deserve it. I am just a shame filled wretch who deserves to spend eternity in Hell. But Jesus loves me so much that he took my burden of sin away from me, made me white as snow, so that I can be fit to be in the presence of God. Wouldn't you like to know what that's like? You've got a choice to make, friend.

I am praying for you.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[Proud Mary (worshiper)]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

How can you get upset that someone makes fun of your name when you and your "Church" sit around all day making fun of other people and their beliefs to the point of cruelty? How can you get upset that someone makes a comment about your name when you support a "church" that spreads lies in the Lord's name?

[Proud Mary (worshiper)]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Riddle me this if you indeed read the Bible. What do you make of John 6:51-56? You will probably give one of two answers and thet would be an interpretation.

[Deaner]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Riddle me this if you indeed read the Bible. What do you make of John 6:51-56?

It's the part of the Bible that you catholics use to support your weird habit of spiritual cannibalism. Where in the Bible did Jesus say eat me?

[StarrKingGrad]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

The Bible says that saved Christians CANNOT sin.

1 John 1:8-10 only says that everyone HAS sinned. There is nothing in that passage that says we continue to sin after we are saved.

Pastor BR, perhaps you could explain these words of Jesus:

I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

I always thought this referred to persons who were saved but later backslid, but if, as you say, saved Christians cannot sin, then my interpretation must be wrong. If, however, Jesus meant by sinner someone who had sinned before he was saved and then became saved, and if everyone has sinned, then how can there be even a single person "which needs no repentence," much less ninety and nine of them?

[Pastor Al E Pistle]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Pastor BR, perhaps you could explain these words of Jesus:

I always thought this referred to persons who were saved but later backslid, but if, as you say, saved Christians cannot sin, then my interpretation must be wrong. If, however, Jesus meant by sinner someone who had sinned before he was saved and then became saved, and if everyone has sinned, then how can there be even a single person "which needs no repentence," much less ninety and nine of them?

Obviously no TRUE CHRISTIAN(TM) has ever sinned because we were baptized in the blood of the lamb and are therefore impervious to the siren song of sin. Catholicx go the other way. They sin all of their lives and then try to weasel out of it by getting some homer to give them 'last rites', which are no more than a paid pass ON THE EXPRESS TRAIN TO HELL!

[StarrKingGrad]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Obviously no TRUE CHRISTIAN™ has ever sinned because we were baptized in the blood of the lamb and are therefore impervious to the siren song of sin.

Pastor Pistle, perhaps this would be easier if you could help me by addressing (a) which of the following are possible and (b) of those that are possible, who is in the "sinner" category for whom the angels rejoice and who falls in the "no repentance necessary" category:

(1) Never sinned before salvation, was saved, and then never sinned again.
(2) Never sinned before salvation, was saved, then sinned after salvation but repented.
(3) Sinned before salvation, was saved, and then never sinned again.
(4) Sinned before salvation, was saved, and subsequently sinned, then repented.
(5) Was born saved, subsequently sinned but then repented.
(6) Was born saved and never sinned.

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

For some strange reason the forum posting system seems to have stopped forwarding me notifications that there have been new posts made subsequent to mine. I just happened to log in just now and see there have been a few since then that I have not had an opportunity to respond to.

I will respond to these when I get more time. But at this moment I am finding myself severely preoccupied in tending to a fine Christian young lady's insistence that I take the time to consumate our very recent marriage engagement with a diamond engagement ring proportionally expressive of her rarity and chastity. She charmfully advises me too that it be sufficiently impressive to divert her parent's possible objections to the 18 year age difference that separates us. But alas, quality diamonds in the large carat variety having the ideal hearts-and-arrows precision cuts necessary to achieve this quest are hard to find at most any price.

I'll reply more as time permits but I am compelled by "priorities of the heart" to attend to more important matters.

ApostolicChristian

[SayvedByTheLord]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

So you are also a letcher.

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Apostilic, you have made some interesting points here, but (much as I hate to agree with anything that a Landover Pastor says), as a Unitarian Universlist minister, I've read the Bible in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and the Bible verses that you quote don't, for the most part, lend support to your arguments.

I can read in any number of languages using all but the Oriental character sets but what good is that if one does not have the ability to understand what one reads? The same principal is true of the bible. The notion of a self teaching bible is a modern teaching of man that no apostle ever taught. The clear proof of that is that no Apostle ever saw a bible since it was not in existence for hundreds of years after Christ died. The truth is that the bible MUST be paired with its teaching tradition - a tradition that only the apostolic Catholic Church holds. The Church begot the Bible the Bible did not beget the Church. Ever try to put a complex jigsaw puzzle together without a reference picture and not knowing if one even had all the pieces or other wrong pieces were mixed in with it.

You are only making assertions - not cogent arguments. Reading without proper comprehension is a waste of time.

You also seem to be growing more insulting with every post. For example, calling the KJV translators "infantile" doesn't seem to me to advance the arguments here. Given the number of kings that various Popes and Catholic Bishops have coronated throughout history, are you really saying that calling past and current rulers king is paganism and therefore an affront to God and His Church?
...

If you are in touch with historical reality then you have no choice but to admit that the Catholic Bible (the Latin Vulgate Bible) was written by St. Jerome under authority of Pope Damasus in the 382 AD time frame. From here you must then admit that the KJV that comes to us about 1225 years later in 1611 and a tithe light (with the deuterocanonicals tucked away in an appendix that Protestant printers elect later to remove to save publishing costs) is certainly the new kid on the block. In that sense its most certainly accurate to call it infantile. We can equally subscribe other connotations from that but I'd rather go forward since I can work equally well with Latin or anachronistic English just as I can infantile logic.

And no, I am certainly not saying that blessing and recognizing Christian Kings is an endorsement of paganism? I am clueless how you go to that conclusion. Do you think everyone who was ever baptised is in heaven?

Perhaps you'll write off my comments as mere "dialectical pluralism" from an admitted Protestant (though I am also a great admirer of many things in the Catholic church, including your strong love for God and your many good charitable works), but you might want to consider these words from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Union of Christendom:

Catholics while accepting our seperated brothers as Christians see these as tragically denying themselves important channels of grace that God has entrusted to His Church through the sacraments. We acknowledge that God can elect by His own exception to go outside of these channels to save a person who through no fault of their own (e.g. simple ignorance or lack of knowledge) remains seperated if he does not willfully, maliciously and consciously reject The Catholic Church through conscious election. But there are no guarantees by any means that God will do this and we generally believe its an exception and irregular.

Certainly, the Catholic church believes itself to have universal primacy no less than does Landover Baptism (as stated in the declaration Dominus Iesus in 2000, and reiterated by Pope Benedict in 2007), but the Catholic church participates with respect for dissenting views in various ecumenical forums as part of its program to reunite Christendom. Can't you do the same?

Dominus Iesus still holds up the long idea that "outside of The Church there is no salvation" but does it with positive inclusionary language. It warns non-Catholics that "they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation", and that non-Catholic Christian communities have grave "defects." In other words it's extremely risky to be non-Catholic. That is not to be triumphant but rather to be charitable in warning our brothers. We simply want to see more on the other side with us - not that we all will make it either since salvation requires personal responsibility and accountability - not lip service.

What other Christian faith communities mostly don't understand is that their trinitarian baptism (which we mostly recognize except for a few sects) binds them to the Catholic Church and the authority of the pope whether they understand and like it or not. This is good news for Protestants actually. But we want to compel our seperated brethren to come back home since they are in serious risk - especially in this sinful and secular day and age.

I think you stand on much firmer ground when you point out the inconsistencies in Pastor Billy-Reuben's arguments, e.g., by noting that the KJV 1611 was a Protestant Bible, which certainly puts the lie to his assertion that Landover Baptist Church is not a Protestant church. The ridicule you are increasingly expressing, however, just makes Pastor Billy-Reuben appear to be more reasoned participant in this debate.

Is it unreasonable to smile or laugh when somone says something funny or nonsensical? I though I was being charitable by handicapping myself by appearing to be conspicuously human rather than declaring check-mate so we continue the dialog a bit more.

But your point is taken and reasonable.

ApostolicChristian

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

So you are also a letcher.

Brother Sayved, do all Baptist's subscribe such negative connotation to a man's healthy desire to participate in God's ordained union with a fertile, chaste and Godly woman in Holy Matrimony to have a family?

Me thinks you may be jealously bemoaning your own dissatisfaction with old choices made in the careless abandon of youth or else the lack of ability to consumate your current congenial obligations. Shame brother.

Marriage is a blessing brother!

James

[StarrKingGrad]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

I can read in any number of languages using all but the Oriental character sets but what good is that if one does not have the ability to understand what one reads? The same principal is true of the bible. The notion of a self teaching bible is a modern teaching of man that no apostle ever taught.

I spent 4 years in seminary and 2 years getting my master's degree in Biblical Archeology, so I can assure you that I have both had many fine teachers and am well familiar with many interpretations of the Bible, including Catholic works.

The Bible verses you used to support your assertion that only Catholic interpretations are correct only support those assertions if you apply Catholic interpretations to them. This is a circular argument, and I'm not quite sure why you don't see that, because you're a rather logical fellow. I am not saying that the Catholic interpretations are wrong, or that you are wrong to follow them, but I am saying that Pastor Billy-Reuben was right when he pointed out that the plain meaning of the verses you quoted does not support your thesis that only Catholic interpretations are valid.

The clear proof of that is that no Apostle ever saw a bible since it was not in existence for hundreds of years after Christ died.

The Gospels were written around 20 to 30 years after the crucifixion. See, for example, Marcus J. Borg, Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously But Not Literally, (HarperSanFrancisco, 2002) p. 189. Nevertheless, I agree with you that the Apostles had no Bibles. By your theory of Apostilic Succession, however, if the Apostles needed no Bibles, then the Church needs no Bibles today. That is certainly not Catholic doctrine.

The truth is that the bible MUST be paired with its teaching tradition - a tradition that only the apostolic Catholic Church holds.

That's not an argument, it is an ASSERTION in all capital letters. Getting louder because someone does not agree with you is not a great way to convince thoughtful readers.

The Church begot the Bible the Bible did not beget the Church. Ever try to put a complex jigsaw puzzle together without a reference picture and not knowing if one even had all the pieces or other wrong pieces were mixed in with it.

I have read Hillel and Origen and Augustine and Chrysostom and Maimonides and many other learned and more recent commentators on the Bible. As a Unitarian Universalist, I believe that there is something useful to be learned from all points of view, including even Landover's (though I have to admit, it is very hard sometimes to find the good in the Landover Baptist Church). So, yes, I absolutely agree with you, we need the reference picture to piece the puzzle together. That doesn't mean that your reference picture is necessarily the right one or the wrong one.

You are only making assertions - not cogent arguments. Reading without proper comprehension is a waste of time.

OK, here is an argument: Matthew 8:14-15 and Mark 1:30-31 show clearly that Peter had a wife. If your theory of Apostilic Succession is correct, then there is no reason that Popes should be celibate.

If you are in touch with historical reality then you have no choice but to admit that the Catholic Bible (the Latin Vulgate Bible) was written by St. Jerome under authority of Pope Damasus in the 382 AD time frame.

Jerome created two revisions of the Latin Bible, but he was not the original translator. Jerome's versions are hardly the definitive translation according to Catholic doctrine, since Pope Pius X had the Vulgate revised again in the 20th Century.

From here you must then admit that the KJV that comes to us about 1225 years later in 1611 and a tithe light (with the deuterocanonicals tucked away in an appendix that Protestant printers elect later to remove to save publishing costs) is certainly the new kid on the block.

You are incorrect regarding the KJV view of the apocrypha, as a quick perusal of the translator's notes will show. The KVJ translators did not think the apocryphal books were of the same theological authority as the other books or too expensive to print. The first editions of the KJV printed the apocrypha.

That is a very different question, of course, from whether the aprocryphal books should be included; I tend to favor the Catholic position on this. Since I recognize that all decisions regarding the Biblical texts were made by committees of men. It is neither surprising nor disturbing to me that different groups prefer different texts.

Are you really arguing that earlier translations are necessarily better than later translations? If so, then do you claim that the 1908 revision of the Vulgate ordered by Pope Pius X is inferior to the KJV? And why not just go back to the originals as your primary text, instead of using a Latin intermediary?

In that sense its most certainly accurate to call it infantile.

Then Pope Pius's 1908 revision to the Vulgate is even more infantile. Does that answer satisfy you?

We can equally subscribe other connotations from that but I'd rather go forward since I can work equally well with Latin or anachronistic English just as I can infantile logic.

Again, you are using insults instead of facts to support your arguments. That's exactly what you (quite rightly) called Ahimaaz Smith out for.

And no, I am certainly not saying that blessing and recognizing Christian Kings is an endorsement of paganism? I am clueless how you go to that conclusion.

It seemed to me that you attacked Pastor Billy-Reuben for supporting a Bible sponsored by somebody who was a King by claiming that kings are pagans. If I got that wrong, then please explain what your point was exactly regarding kings and paganism, and how that is relevant to the validity of the KJV.

Do you think everyone who was ever baptised is in heaven?

I do not think going to heaven has anything to do with being Baptized. God loves all of His children, and, if there is an eternal life, I do not believe that He would torture any of us in Hell or in the wholly extra-Biblical Purgatory. I also don't think He wants us to torture ourselves or each other on Earth. I seem to be in the minority here at Landover on those points.

Catholics while accepting our seperated brothers as Christians see these as tragically denying themselves important channels of grace that God has entrusted to His Church through the sacraments.

You belittled others as "dialectical pluralists," yet the Church itself embraces ecumenicalism. I do not think Pope Benedict would very much enjoy your snide comments about top hats and Johnny Walker-boots when referring to the beliefs of other Christians. Do you?

We acknowledge that God can elect by His own exception to go outside of these channels to save a person who through no fault of their own...

I did not object to your having a point of view. I objected to your belittling others who do not agree with you. Again, that is exactly the kind of behavior that Ahimaaz Smith engages in (and, without doubt, he is infantile). Pastor Billy-Reuben doesn't attack like that, so, when you do, it makes him look like the only adult in the conversation. Is that what you want?

Is it unreasonable to smile or laugh when somone says something funny or nonsensical? I though I was being charitable by handicapping myself by appearing to be conspicuously human rather than declaring check-mate so we continue the dialog a bit more.

I agree completely. You nailed Billy-Reuben on a clear inconsistency in the Bible, since parts say Christians cannot sin and other parts say that sinning Christians must be brought back into the fold. Instead of explaining himself, Billy-Reuben has simply ignored that point and moved on, as he always does when confronted with a contradiction in Scripture.