Mary and Joseph

[Benedicta00]

The Holy Spirit is our seal.. The Holy Spirit,God the Father and Christ are all one are they not? The Godhead... Therefore when the Holy Spirit dwells in us is He not sent from our Father? Because we believe in the Son and what He has done for us? Christ in us the hope of Glory?

and I have been sealed too- now why is what you believe right and what i believe wrong?

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

I wipe my feet of this thread. I am sorry, but this very kind of nonsense is why I will NOT be catholic or have any thing more to do with it. Bene, I have enjoyed our conversations. God bless you sweetie ok? I am sorry, but I can't be a part of this kind of stuff anymore.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Christ's very Church on earth.

Fine...

Now prove me wrong objectively?

Now prove to me objectively that such is the Catholic Church. Not with self-claims and self-serving interpretations of self, but with the same criteria you demand from Protestants - objectively.


Otherwise, IMHO, you are simply doing the very thing you are rebuking my full unseparated equal sister in Christ for doing. Old proverb: "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." Might be true the other way around, too?


Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah

 

[repentant]

Okay and this says what.. That I am to run to the Catholic Church? I have a Pastor that shepherds His flock I go to. If He started to preach contrary to the word of God would I stick around.. Heck no.. I would run as fast as my little feet would allow me to.. Back to a place that preaches and teaches scripture alone..

I would run to if they taught contradictary to Scripture..

But the point is you claim that there is no orginization in the Church, and we shouldn't obey people who lead us in it.

 

[repentant]

I DID NOT! WOULD YOU GET OFF MY CASE?? I AM SICK OF YOU HARRASSING ME and if it doesn't stop..you will be reported..is that clear?

Yes you did...or someone did. You requoted me, so I assumed it was you.

Why? Because I said I disagree with your bad theology? HOw is that harrassment? You have done nothing ut disagree with Legend..is that harrassment to?

 

[sunlover1]

Yes you did...or someone did. You requoted me, so I assumed it was you.

Why? Because I said I disagree with your bad theology? HOw is that harrassment? You have done nothing ut disagree with Legend..is that harrassment to?

I think it was IAA.
I've been watching you guys for a short
time just now.
Went to the kitchen to grab a snack, came
back to a few new pages.
Sheesh.

What were we arguing about again?
Oh yeah, everything

 

[Benedicta00]

When I quoted you, you said that you believe (RCC) that the HS was given to one person at a time, and that's the Popes..did you not? After I quoted you, I saw that you changed what you said, or tried to change it in other posts.

I didn't change what i said, I just tried to rephrase it becuase it was way misunderstood.

It was interpreted to mean that i believe no one has the HS but the pope, which that is absurd and farthest from what i was saying.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I would run to if they taught contradictary to Scripture..

But the point is you claim that there is no orginization in the Church, and we shouldn't obey people who lead us in it.

Kinda off topic, but you have a very valid point, my full brother...

On the other hand, we are also warned - repeatedly and sternly - of false teachers, false prophets, many antichrists, those that would lead many astray. We are commanded to "test the spirits" to see if they are true. Jesus commended and praised the Ephesian Christians for testing the apostolic claims of some teachers and finding those claims to be false. I think that's relevant, too.


Just a little thought...


Pax!


- Josiah

 

[IamAdopted]

So you do acknowledge that no one here as no more authority to pick up a bible and tell the other one they are the one who is in error?

Does one have to right to defend what the bible is saying? Without adding or taking away from it? Does one not have the right to question what is being said that does not line up with the scriptures? If one goes around and says that they belong to the only one true church and then brings us things that cannot be clearly seen in scripture do we not have the right quote the scripture in the context of what it is written for.. Not taking only one scripture and making a whole new concept of it.. Now I asked a question. Where do you see in the scriptures where Jesus preached about His mother or any of the Apostles preached about Mary? How did Mary get to be where she is seen today in the Rcc? How does one scripture where Mary magnifies God for blessing her get turned around to where she is thought of as she is today? Jesus taught us about How we have to go through Him to get to the Father.. The Apostles also taught the same.. Where does Mary come into this? I don't see Jesus preach her and I don't see any of the Apostles preach her.. They all preach Christ and Him crucified. Nothing about Mary..

 

[IamAdopted]

If by CC you mean Roman Catholic, I can agree.

But how do you know what he said? It's not that he spoke differently then what he wrote, it's thathe said things he didn't write..

But all we need to know and hear and see He did write..

 

[Benedicta00]

Fine...





Now prove to me objectively that such is the Catholic Church. Not with self-claims and self-serving interpretations of self, but with the same criteria you demand from Protestants - objectively.


Otherwise, IMHO, you are simply doing the very thing you are rebuking my full unseparated equal sister in Christ for doing. Old proverb: "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." Might be true the other way around, too?


Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah

The object proof is history itself that dates back from 33 AD all the way to now. Christs' Church was, is and aways will be Catholic in belief, in practice and in worship. period, CJ.

You of course are under no compulsion to agree with this.

 

[Benedicta00]

Does one have to right to defend what the bible is saying? Without adding or taking away from it? Does one not have the right to question what is being said that does not line up with the scriptures? If one goes around and says that they belong to the only one true church and then brings us things that cannot be clearly seen in scripture do we not have the right quote the scripture in the context of what it is written for.. Not taking only one scripture and making a whole new concept of it.. Now I asked a question. Where do you see in the scriptures where Jesus preached about His mother or any of the Apostles preached about Mary? How did Mary get to be where she is seen today in the Rcc? How does one scripture where Mary magnifies God for blessing her get turned around to where she is thought of as she is today? Jesus taught us about How we have to go through Him to get to the Father.. The Apostles also taught the same.. Where does Mary come into this? I don't see Jesus preach her and I don't see any of the Apostles preach her.. They all preach Christ and Him crucified. Nothing about Mary..

but you only defending your interpretation of it.

Can you prove to me how your interpretation is not subjective but objective?

and we donlt claim half of what you posted here.

 

[IamAdopted]

but you only defending your interpretation of it.

Can you prove to me how your interpretation is not subjective but objective?

and we donlt claim half of what you posted here.

so then here is the question. How does Mary get the titles that you give her today?

 

[Benedicta00]

I wipe my feet of this thread. I am sorry, but this very kind of nonsense is why I will NOT be catholic or have any thing more to do with it. Bene, I have enjoyed our conversations. God bless you sweetie ok? I am sorry, but I can't be a part of this kind of stuff anymore.

I love ya Melody, God bless.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The object proof is history itself that dates back from 33 AD all the way to now. Christs' Church was, is and aways will be Catholic in belief, in practice and in worship. period, CJ.

You of course are under no compulsion to agree with this.

I think what you mean is that your particular singular denomination so interprets it's own history.

No, there is no objective evidence that the Catholic Church even existed in 33 AD (or even 233 AD). Certainly, many beliefs now exposed by the RCC did (pretty much the same ones found in my denomination) but there's ZERO objective evidence that the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Assumption of Mary, Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, Aristotle's "accident" explaination for the bread and wine the in Holy Eucharist, etc. were universally taught in 33 AD, and more to the point, that there was the Catholic Denomination in 33 AD. You can claim that. Anyone can claim anything they want (if their ego so permits) but that's not the standard you presented for my full Protestant sister - what you demanded was objective evidence. That, my equal sister, is a whole other ballgame entirely. All you've presented for me is a claim, and then noted that a Protestant shouldn't present claims. You want us to accept that what you say is true - period (for reasons as yet made unclear) but no other teacher (person, congregation, denomination) can do as you do. At least, that's how I read the conversation here. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

 

[Benedicta00]

so then here is the question. How does Mary get the titles that you give her today?

becuase the bible does not tell us we are forbidden to have a devotion to her and the early father had a devotion to her and they learned from the apostles.

IAA, you have got to finally come to know what the difference is between doctrine, dogma and devotion.

I ca not keep dealing with your ignorance of Catholic teaching. It is not what you have been told it is.

We do not believ half or 75% of what yo calim we do.

 

[Benedicta00]

I think what you mean is that your particular singular denomination so interprets it's own history.

No, there is no objective evidence that the Catholic Church even existed in 33 AD (or even 233 AD). Certainly, many beliefs now exposed by the RCC did (pretty much the same ones found in my denomination) but there's ZERO objective evidence that the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Assumption of Mary, Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, Aristotle's "accident" explaination for the bread and wine the in Holy Eucharist, etc. were universally taught in 33 AD, and more to the point, that there was the Catholic Denomination in 33 AD. You can claim that. Anyone can claim anything they want (if their ego so permits) but that's not the standard you presented for my full Protestant sister - what you demanded was objective evidence. That, my equal sister, is a whole other ballgame entirely. All you've presented for me is a claim, and then noted that a Protestant shouldn't present claims. You want us to accept that what you say is true - period (for reasons as yet made unclear) but no other teacher (person, congregation, denomination) can do as you do. At least, that's how I read the conversation here. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

and so do you... not reading past the first line CJ...

 

[sunlover1]

I love ya Melody, God bless.

Praise God.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

IAA, you have got to finally come to know what the difference is between doctrine, dogma and devotion.

Are you saying that the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and the Assumption of Mary are NOT dogmas in the RCC?

 

[Benedicta00]

Did Jesus not say continue in My word and Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free? Did He lie? I don't think so..

but how do you know you are the one who is reading the bible correctly and we are the one who aren't?