1 - 10 Next
In response to:

The Tragedy of Isolation

Scott4616 Wrote: Jul 31, 2013 12:38 AM
Attention TownHall.com: ENOUGH with the "Snuggle" advertisement already. If your intention was to get me to detest a product, it worked, I'll never by anything called "Snuggle" again. Any company that would try to waterboard their product down our throats like this should be burned in effigy. And Townhall too, if they don't correct this soon. Whoever the genius was at Townhall who came up with this, make him (or her) watch this garbage for a few hours, see how he likes it. In the meantime, please get this garbage off the screen.
Attention TownHall.com: ENOUGH with the "Snuggle" advertisement already. If you intention was to get me to detest a product, it worked, I'll never by anything called "Snuggle" again. Any company that would try to waterboard their product down our throats like this should be burned in effigy. And Townhall too, if they don't correct this soon. Whoever the genius was at Townhall who came up with this, make him (or her) watch this garbage for a few hours, see how he likes it. Now either pass out Sunglasses or Acid, otherwise get this garbage off the screen please.
Rammbo: “I think the Church was trying to copy the Levite priesthood that served the Ark of the Covenant and in the Temples.” That may be, or it may have been a need for middle-managers in the ever expanding un-Scriptural centralization of “umbrella authority” over an “empire” of individual congregations. Whatever the reason, a separate “priestly-class” had nothing to do with the Lord’s church in Scripture or in the 1st century church of Christ, it was added later by men. Here’s what the Vatican’s own website says: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_prob_en.html “Already in the sixth century, Emperor Justinian realized the danger of the property of the Church being alienated through the inheritance of priests’ children who were themselves not-priests. Thus he issued decrees which were the first steps towards obligatory celibate priesthood.” So it looks as if they’re attributing the Emperor of Rome for the command to be celibate, but there had been attempts to impose this rule as early as the council of Nice in 325AD. Roman Catholics claim Peter was the first pope, even though no such title or office existed until LONG after Peter. But Peter (a.k.a. Simon Peter, Matt 16:16, a.k.a. Cephas, John 1:42) was married: “But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.” (Mark 1:30) “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and [as] the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” (1 Cor 9:5) “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; [2] Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; [3] Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” (1 Tim 4:1-3) So the Holy Spirit says men will depart from the faith, follow doctrines of devils, including forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meat. You gotta do some fancy tap-dancing to explain all that away, then recast it with some human rationalizations and justifications (excuses), then teach that it’s actually perfectly fine and nothing to worry about… as if Roman Catholics should ignore the Holy Spirit and obey men. Can you imagine? “Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)
Rammbo wrote: “They were celibate.” I don’t know where it says that, do you have book, chapter & verse? Aaron the brother of Moses had sons who attended to the Ark of the Covenant (Num 4:5), two of whom God killed for using fire from an unauthorized source (Lev 10:1-2). We know that Zacharias was a priest (Luke 1:5), his duties included burning incense in the temple of the Lord (Luke 1:9), he was married to Elisabeth the cousin of Mary (Luke 1:36). The angel Gabriel (Luke 1:19) told Zacharias that his child would be named John (Luke 1:13). Elisabeth, who had been barren, became pregnant, gave birth and they said his name is John (Luke 1:59-64), who would later become known as John the Baptist. ~~~~~~~~ Rammbo wrote: “Although...married priests mean divorces, alimony (?), lots of fuzzy areas (yet nothing like the pedophile abomination that they still hide in the shadows, like Frankenstein's monster)” But divorce is only permitted in the case of fornication (Matt 19:9). Whatever other rules the RCC has made up about it, it is of men, not of God. Alimony and the “fuzzy areas” all relate to property law and property, which are worldly, carnal, earthly concerns. Not a concern for the Lord’s church, but it could certainly be a concern for men intent on accumulating power, wealth and property.
(concluded from previous post) We also have the following passage from 1 Timothy on the qualifications necessary to be a bishop in the Lord’s church: “This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. [2] A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; [3] Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; [4] One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; [5] (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) [6] Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. [7] Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” (1 Tim 3:1-7) Once again, in order to qualify as a bishop, one must be: 1) blameless 2) the husband of one wife 3) vigilant, sober, good behavior 4) given to hospitality 5) apt to teach 6) not given to wine, violence, or filthy lucre 7) patient, not a brawler or covetous 8) one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity 9) not a novice 10) have a good reputation among those outside the church Not that God needs to explain himself, but in this case he certainly does, saying that a man who would be bishop must have children, and those children must be faithful and in subjection, going so far as to say that if a man cannot rule his own children, how can he care for the church of God? God’s requirement to be married to a woman and have children presents serious problems for men who claim to be bishops in the RCC, due to various doctrines of men in the RCC, but that has nothing to do with me or what I think about it, their argument is with God and His Word. The inspired Word of God says what it says. Not once, but twice, even explaining Himself.
Mark in CA wrote: "The Catholic Church went off course several centuries back when it abandoned the Biblical directives from 1st Timothy wherein Paul states that pastors and deacons should be in strong, monogamous, heterosexual marriages." Not only married, but elders (a.k.a. bishops) must also be fathers of at least one child, and their child or children must be obedient. God is not obligated to give a logical explanation *why* He requires any such thing, but He does provide His reasoning in this case. “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: [6] If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. [7] For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; [8] But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; [9] Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.” (Titus 1:5-9) So then in order to qualify as a bishop, one must be: 1) blameless 2) the husband of one wife 3) have children who are faithful 4) not self-willed, not easily angered, not given to wine, violence, or filthy lucre 5) lover of hospitality and good men 6) sober, just, holy temperate 7) holding fast the faithful WORD 8) that by sound doctrine he can exhort and convince gainsayers (continued next post)
Tinsldr2 wrote: “Further you say "all of them are referenced and quoted from in writings of 1st and 2nd century Christians." again long after the actual events unfolded.” But I was not and would not reference early Christian writings as Scripturally Authoritative, I referenced them only to prove a point regarding time. You asked “When do you claim the "Bible" was written?” 1st and 2nd century Christian writings quote all 27 books of the NT extensively (not unlike I have done here), and it would not be possible for 1st and 2nd century Christians to quote them unless the 27 NT books had already been written by that point. For the purpose of establishing the “when” of the writing of the books of the NT, the writings of 1st and 2nd century Christians offer clear evidence. By definition, the NT books had to have already been written before they could be quoted.
Tinsldr2 wrote: “Then why does the Roman Catholic Bible have more Books then a traditional Protestant Bible?” It is not really correct to think of them as “Roman Catholic Bible” vs. “Protestant Bible”, that is a false context created by the RCC. There is the accepted canon of Scripture (66 books), and then there are the additional disputed books called the “Apocrypha”, which were added by the RCC. The books of Apocrypha are not cited in the accepted Scriptures, and there are portions of the Apocrypha which contradict the accepted Scriptures, and as we have discussed before, God does not contradict Himself. There are also passages in the Apocrypha which deny that they were inspired by God, making clear that they are the words of men (cf. 2 Maccabees 2:24-32, 12 Maccabees 15:39-40). Members of the RCC never tire of asserting that without the RCC, we wouldn’t have a Bible today, because God just couldn’t have done it without them, apparently. He created the entire universe and everything in it, and maintains it to this day, but He couldn’t manage to preserve some books. The truth is that the writers of the 27 books of the NT were alive when they wrote them down by inspiration of God in the 1st century, and those men were confirmed with signs and miracles (e.g., Mark 16:20). So the Scriptures were known in the 1st century when they were written, authenticated while the writers were alive to do so, and distributed among the churches, even as Paul mentions here: “And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the [epistle] from Laodicea” (Col 4:16) These same Scriptures were in wide circulation from the time they were written, they were not hidden away or buried in some hole until the late 300s AD when men at the councils of Carthage and Hippo decided to debate which books should be included in the canon of Scripture. If those 27 NT books (letters, epistles, some are only 1 page long) had not been in wide and constant circulation, the men circa 390s AD at Hippo and Carthage wouldn’t have known what to consider for the canon in the first place.
The problem, at least in part, appears to be that you are accepting sources which are naturally biased at face value. You don't expect "catholicbible101.com" to say anything at variance with RCC doctrine, do you? You don't expect your Jewish source so say anything that conflicts with their doctrine, do you? You don't expect MSNBC to say anything that contradicts Ozero, do you?
The problem, at least in part, appears to be that you are accepting sources which are naturally biased at face value. You don't expect "catholicbible101.com" to say anything at variance with RCC doctrine, do you? You don't expect your Jewish source so say anything that conflicts with their doctrine, do you? You don't expect MSNBC to say anything that contradicts Ozero, do you?
1 - 10 Next