BG Knocc Out said:

---

The OG churches were more akin to protestant Bible studies than modern Catholic church. In style and substance. There is zero doubt in my mind that Jesus would be much more repulsed by the modern Catholic church than he would be with any government in this world.

---

Jesus created a church hierarchy when he appointed Peter as the head of His church. The Catholic church's teachings stem from this Biblical fact.

The further organization of the early church was largely centered around the problem associated with heresy, which was rampant in the early days principally because too many followers engaged in their own interpretation and teaching in these protestant style 'Bible studies' you refer.

It became necessary to formalize an orthodoxy to maintain consistency less the church fracture into a million beliefs and fail. This was a principle function of church then and remains so today.

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Actually Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion.

He never once tried to force people to follow him; it was always a choice and it still is today.

He would never be in favor of Christianity being like Islam, which is convert or die.

---

Jesus was not and never was a libertarian. The Bible shows God to be a very jealous God and one of the very 10 commandments is "thou shalt put no other gods before me."

God approved of free will but he does not and never will approve of sin. Worshipping anyone other than him is a literal sin.

You are giving human characteristics to God, stop doing that.

---

Jesus gave commandments. Neither he, nor any apostle, advocated for local or state governments to force people to obey them. It's crazy to me that you can have any problem whatsoever with what Rapier is saying in that quote. No one is saying he'd identify as a libertarian. He simply wasn't political...AT ALL...although much of his rhetoric (sell your cloak and buy a sword, worse than a millstone and being drowned at the depths of the sea etc) would p*ss off modern libs, no doubt.

---

People always forget that Jesus is also a king. He is the abject ruler of humanity. His very nature dictates a ruling body with him at the top. Read this thread for more information.

Christian Nationalism has been trending lately with many not understanding what it means.

It’s important for Christians to know what Christian Nationalism is, isn’t, and it’s Biblical case

The Biblical Case for Christian Nationalism a 🧵 pic.twitter.com/UY0HEWK8N5

— Smash Baals (@smashbaals) April 19, 2023

---

I agree with all of that. Just saying,. I do not agree that Jesus would advocate for killing or imprisoning people who don't follow a certain specific brand or sect of Christianity.

---

Totally agree.

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Seriously how does anyone reconcile "Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" with "God desires all men to be saved".

Jesus says he's the Way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through him, and desires that all men will be saved; but he's a fierce proponent of people not believing in him and going to hell?

---

Of course he desires it, but he will not force it on us. It is our choice.

We all know what you think about religion. You want a totalitarian Catholic state where pretty much any sin is a death sentence, and it would be convert or die.

---

How do you square that with my being against the death penalty?

Also, you've gone from Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" to "will not force it upon us". That's quite the walkback. Is that the end of your walkback or do you have more room to go?

---

Give me one piece of evidence that Jesus was against "freedom of religion". Bible only, Catholic writings don't count.

---

Well if I can't use Catholic writings we need to throw the Bible out as well. What time period do you consider the 'Catholic period'

---

I respect you as a poster and person of faith, but I can't have a religious discussion with someone who thinks the Apostles were "catholic". We will never see eye to eye on this topic, but no ill will.

---

Okay, then you have an argument with around 75% of Christianity compromising the oldest Churches of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

In the book of ACTS why did the apostles nominate a replacement for Judas?

---

The OG churches were more akin to protestant Bible studies than modern Catholic church. In style and substance. There is zero doubt in my mind that Jesus would be much more repulsed by the modern Catholic church than he would be with any government in this world.

---

How were they more akin to Protestant Bible studies than the modern Catholic Church. He is a writing from St.Justin the Martyr describing the mass in 135 AD.

Quote:

---

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation.
Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands.
And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to ge'noito [so be it].
And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

---

That is the same format as the Mass I attend several times a week.

The Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom, still used in Eastern Catholic and Orthodox celebrations, was developed in the year 400.

You think Christ would recognize some sleeve tatted barista worker baptizing people in rose petals?

---

His main guy, the one who baptized him, was a rugged man who probably looked like an unclean hippie and wore clothes of camel hair and survived on locusts and wild honey. Modern closeted prissy robe and crown adorned priests would have scoffed at him for certain.

I do agree that the perversion of Christ's church began pretty early on, about a century or so after his death. original churches were gatherings in homes, town squares etc. They studied and discussed only the word, not man made traditions and practices with no biblical basis...like the concept of a pope etc.

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Seriously how does anyone reconcile "Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" with "God desires all men to be saved".

Jesus says he's the Way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through him, and desires that all men will be saved; but he's a fierce proponent of people not believing in him and going to hell?

---

Of course he desires it, but he will not force it on us. It is our choice.

We all know what you think about religion. You want a totalitarian Catholic state where pretty much any sin is a death sentence, and it would be convert or die.

---

How do you square that with my being against the death penalty?

Also, you've gone from Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" to "will not force it upon us". That's quite the walkback. Is that the end of your walkback or do you have more room to go?

---

Give me one piece of evidence that Jesus was against "freedom of religion". Bible only, Catholic writings don't count.

---

Well if I can't use Catholic writings we need to throw the Bible out as well. What time period do you consider the 'Catholic period'

---

I respect you as a poster and person of faith, but I can't have a religious discussion with someone who thinks the Apostles were "catholic". We will never see eye to eye on this topic, but no ill will.

---

Okay, then you have an argument with around 75% of Christianity compromising the oldest Churches of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

In the book of ACTS why did the apostles nominate a replacement for Judas?

---

The OG churches were more akin to protestant Bible studies than modern Catholic church. In style and substance. There is zero doubt in my mind that Jesus would be much more repulsed by the modern Catholic church than he would be with any government in this world.

---

How were they more akin to Protestant Bible studies than the modern Catholic Church. He is a writing from St.Justin the Martyr describing the mass in 135 AD.

Quote:

---

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation.
Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands.
And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to ge'noito [so be it].
And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

---

That is the same format as the Mass I attend several times a week.

The Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom, still used in Eastern Catholic and Orthodox celebrations, was developed in the year 400.

You think Christ would recognize some sleeve tatted barista worker baptizing people in rose petals?

---

His main guy, the one who baptized him, was a rugged man who probably looked like an unclean hippie and wore clothes of camel hair and survived on locusts and wild honey. Modern closeted prissy robe and crown adorned priests would have scoffed at him for certain.

I do agree that the perversion of Christ's church began pretty early on, about a century or so after his death. original churches were gatherings in homes, town squares etc. They studied and discussed only the word, not man made traditions and practices with no biblical basis...like the concept of a pope etc.

---

So in your understanding, the true Church was the one from 33-A.D to the year 133; and then went off the rails for the next 1500 years?

The original churches didn't gather in town squares or homes; for the main reason that they were being hunted down. Also, how did these early churches have a biblical basis when the canon for scripture had not yet been assembled? Some of the books themselves hadn't even been written yet.

Who tells you these things?

American Hardwood said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

The OG churches were more akin to protestant Bible studies than modern Catholic church. In style and substance. There is zero doubt in my mind that Jesus would be much more repulsed by the modern Catholic church than he would be with any government in this world.

---

Jesus created a church hierarchy when he appointed Peter as the head of His church. The Catholic church's teachings stem from this Biblical fact.

The further organization of the early church was largely centered around the problem associated with heresy, which was rampant in the early days principally because too many followers engaged in their own interpretation and teaching in these protestant style 'Bible studies' you refer.

It became necessary to formalize an orthodoxy to maintain consistency less the church fracture into a million beliefs and fail. This was a principle function of church then and remains so today.

---

No doubt there was a need for organization. I just thank God I am not forced to be a Catholic, nor was I influenced by my teachers.

I study the word all the time...modern Baptists, Churches of Christ, and numerous Bible Churches resemble the early churches and mirror the instructions laid out in the NT much more closely than the modern Catholic church. Nothing can change my mind here, so we just have to agree to disagree.

BG Knocc Out said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

The OG churches were more akin to protestant Bible studies than modern Catholic church. In style and substance. There is zero doubt in my mind that Jesus would be much more repulsed by the modern Catholic church than he would be with any government in this world.

---

Jesus created a church hierarchy when he appointed Peter as the head of His church. The Catholic church's teachings stem from this Biblical fact.

The further organization of the early church was largely centered around the problem associated with heresy, which was rampant in the early days principally because too many followers engaged in their own interpretation and teaching in these protestant style 'Bible studies' you refer.

It became necessary to formalize an orthodoxy to maintain consistency less the church fracture into a million beliefs and fail. This was a principle function of church then and remains so today.

---

No doubt there was a need for organization. I just thank God I am not forced to be a Catholic, nor was I influenced by my teachers.

I study the word all the time...modern Baptists, Churches of Christ, and numerous Bible Churches resemble the early churches and mirror the instructions laid out in the NT much more closely than the modern Catholic church. Nothing can change my mind here, so we just have to agree to disagree.

---

But again, you have no clue what you're talking about. Your lack of knowledge on how the faith actually came into being mind-numbingly shallow. You literally talk about the biblical basis of the early Church during a time that preceded the Bible itself and indeed even the books of the Bible.

Take your "L" drink your individual grape juice, and enjoy the youth pastor ripping the phone book in half.

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Seriously how does anyone reconcile "Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" with "God desires all men to be saved".

Jesus says he's the Way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through him, and desires that all men will be saved; but he's a fierce proponent of people not believing in him and going to hell?

---

Of course he desires it, but he will not force it on us. It is our choice.

We all know what you think about religion. You want a totalitarian Catholic state where pretty much any sin is a death sentence, and it would be convert or die.

---

How do you square that with my being against the death penalty?

Also, you've gone from Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" to "will not force it upon us". That's quite the walkback. Is that the end of your walkback or do you have more room to go?

---

Give me one piece of evidence that Jesus was against "freedom of religion". Bible only, Catholic writings don't count.

---

Well if I can't use Catholic writings we need to throw the Bible out as well. What time period do you consider the 'Catholic period'

---

I respect you as a poster and person of faith, but I can't have a religious discussion with someone who thinks the Apostles were "catholic". We will never see eye to eye on this topic, but no ill will.

---

Okay, then you have an argument with around 75% of Christianity compromising the oldest Churches of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

In the book of ACTS why did the apostles nominate a replacement for Judas?

---

The OG churches were more akin to protestant Bible studies than modern Catholic church. In style and substance. There is zero doubt in my mind that Jesus would be much more repulsed by the modern Catholic church than he would be with any government in this world.

---

How were they more akin to Protestant Bible studies than the modern Catholic Church. He is a writing from St.Justin the Martyr describing the mass in 135 AD.

Quote:

---

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation.
Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands.
And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to ge'noito [so be it].
And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

---

That is the same format as the Mass I attend several times a week.

The Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom, still used in Eastern Catholic and Orthodox celebrations, was developed in the year 400.

You think Christ would recognize some sleeve tatted barista worker baptizing people in rose petals?

---

His main guy, the one who baptized him, was a rugged man who probably looked like an unclean hippie and wore clothes of camel hair and survived on locusts and wild honey. Modern closeted prissy robe and crown adorned priests would have scoffed at him for certain.

I do agree that the perversion of Christ's church began pretty early on, about a century or so after his death. original churches were gatherings in homes, town squares etc. They studied and discussed only the word, not man made traditions and practices with no biblical basis...like the concept of a pope etc.

---

So in your understanding, the true Church was the one from 33-A.D to the year 133; and then went off the rails for the next 1500 years?

The original churches didn't gather in town squares or homes; for the main reason that they were being hunted down. Also, how did these early churches have a biblical basis when the canon for scripture had not yet been assembled? Some of the books themselves hadn't even been written yet.

Who tells you these things?

---

The Bible tells me that apostles risked their lives sailing seas and traveling by foot to foreign lands to spread the word of God. Jesus also evangelized. Not surprised a Catholic wouldn't know this since some closeted gay man didn't tell them exactly this in Mass.

And yes, there were underground churches who had to hide from persecution...in homes, diff parts of towns etc. Again, the gay men running the Catholic church (prob 50-60%) apparently don't teach this.

Please don't derail the thread into yet another Catholic vs Protestant debate, we have enough of those. Keep on topic please.

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Seriously how does anyone reconcile "Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" with "God desires all men to be saved".

Jesus says he's the Way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through him, and desires that all men will be saved; but he's a fierce proponent of people not believing in him and going to hell?

---

Of course he desires it, but he will not force it on us. It is our choice.

We all know what you think about religion. You want a totalitarian Catholic state where pretty much any sin is a death sentence, and it would be convert or die.

---

How do you square that with my being against the death penalty?

Also, you've gone from Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" to "will not force it upon us". That's quite the walkback. Is that the end of your walkback or do you have more room to go?

---

Give me one piece of evidence that Jesus was against "freedom of religion". Bible only, Catholic writings don't count.

---

Well if I can't use Catholic writings we need to throw the Bible out as well. What time period do you consider the 'Catholic period'

---

I respect you as a poster and person of faith, but I can't have a religious discussion with someone who thinks the Apostles were "catholic". We will never see eye to eye on this topic, but no ill will.

---

Okay, then you have an argument with around 75% of Christianity compromising the oldest Churches of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

In the book of ACTS why did the apostles nominate a replacement for Judas?

---

The OG churches were more akin to protestant Bible studies than modern Catholic church. In style and substance. There is zero doubt in my mind that Jesus would be much more repulsed by the modern Catholic church than he would be with any government in this world.

---

How were they more akin to Protestant Bible studies than the modern Catholic Church. He is a writing from St.Justin the Martyr describing the mass in 135 AD.

Quote:

---

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation.
Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands.
And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to ge'noito [so be it].
And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

---

That is the same format as the Mass I attend several times a week.

The Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom, still used in Eastern Catholic and Orthodox celebrations, was developed in the year 400.

You think Christ would recognize some sleeve tatted barista worker baptizing people in rose petals?

---

His main guy, the one who baptized him, was a rugged man who probably looked like an unclean hippie and wore clothes of camel hair and survived on locusts and wild honey. Modern closeted prissy robe and crown adorned priests would have scoffed at him for certain.

I do agree that the perversion of Christ's church began pretty early on, about a century or so after his death. original churches were gatherings in homes, town squares etc. They studied and discussed only the word, not man made traditions and practices with no biblical basis...like the concept of a pope etc.

---

So in your understanding, the true Church was the one from 33-A.D to the year 133; and then went off the rails for the next 1500 years?

The original churches didn't gather in town squares or homes; for the main reason that they were being hunted down. Also, how did these early churches have a biblical basis when the canon for scripture had not yet been assembled? Some of the books themselves hadn't even been written yet.

Who tells you these things?

---

The Bible tells me that apostles risked their lives sailing seas and traveling by foot to foreign lands to spread the word of God. Jesus also evangelized. Not surprised a Catholic wouldn't know this since some closeted gay man didn't tell them exactly this in Mass.

---

Why did all of those places that they went become Catholic? Did they somehow manage to take the Bible to these places before it was written?

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Seriously how does anyone reconcile "Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" with "God desires all men to be saved".

Jesus says he's the Way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through him, and desires that all men will be saved; but he's a fierce proponent of people not believing in him and going to hell?

---

Of course he desires it, but he will not force it on us. It is our choice.

We all know what you think about religion. You want a totalitarian Catholic state where pretty much any sin is a death sentence, and it would be convert or die.

---

How do you square that with my being against the death penalty?

Also, you've gone from Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" to "will not force it upon us". That's quite the walkback. Is that the end of your walkback or do you have more room to go?

---

Give me one piece of evidence that Jesus was against "freedom of religion". Bible only, Catholic writings don't count.

---

Well if I can't use Catholic writings we need to throw the Bible out as well. What time period do you consider the 'Catholic period'

---

I respect you as a poster and person of faith, but I can't have a religious discussion with someone who thinks the Apostles were "catholic". We will never see eye to eye on this topic, but no ill will.

---

Okay, then you have an argument with around 75% of Christianity compromising the oldest Churches of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

In the book of ACTS why did the apostles nominate a replacement for Judas?

---

The OG churches were more akin to protestant Bible studies than modern Catholic church. In style and substance. There is zero doubt in my mind that Jesus would be much more repulsed by the modern Catholic church than he would be with any government in this world.

---

How were they more akin to Protestant Bible studies than the modern Catholic Church. He is a writing from St.Justin the Martyr describing the mass in 135 AD.

Quote:

---

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation.
Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands.
And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to ge'noito [so be it].
And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

---

That is the same format as the Mass I attend several times a week.

The Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom, still used in Eastern Catholic and Orthodox celebrations, was developed in the year 400.

You think Christ would recognize some sleeve tatted barista worker baptizing people in rose petals?

---

His main guy, the one who baptized him, was a rugged man who probably looked like an unclean hippie and wore clothes of camel hair and survived on locusts and wild honey. Modern closeted prissy robe and crown adorned priests would have scoffed at him for certain.

I do agree that the perversion of Christ's church began pretty early on, about a century or so after his death. original churches were gatherings in homes, town squares etc. They studied and discussed only the word, not man made traditions and practices with no biblical basis...like the concept of a pope etc.

---

So in your understanding, the true Church was the one from 33-A.D to the year 133; and then went off the rails for the next 1500 years?

The original churches didn't gather in town squares or homes; for the main reason that they were being hunted down. Also, how did these early churches have a biblical basis when the canon for scripture had not yet been assembled? Some of the books themselves hadn't even been written yet.

Who tells you these things?

---

The Bible tells me that apostles risked their lives sailing seas and traveling by foot to foreign lands to spread the word of God. Jesus also evangelized. Not surprised a Catholic wouldn't know this since some closeted gay man didn't tell them exactly this in Mass.

And yes, there were underground churches who had to hide from persecution...in homes, diff parts of towns etc. Again, the gay men running the Catholic church (prob 50-60%) apparently don't teach this.

---

This poor dude has to edit his posts to make himself sound tougher because he has no idea of what should be the most important thing in his life. Dude spends his entire time studying his Sporstman Bible and never gave a thought into how it came into being.

Nanomachines son said:

---

Please don't derail the thread into yet another Catholic vs Protestant debate, we have enough of those. Keep on topic please.

---

Goodness they p*ss me off. Always have since they were telling me I was going to hell for not following their man made non-biblically inspired weird teachings and practices as a youngster.

I can honestly see why Protestants and Catholics have fought to the death in centuries past.

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Please don't derail the thread into yet another Catholic vs Protestant debate, we have enough of those. Keep on topic please.

---

Goodness they p*ss me off. Always have since they were telling me I was going to hell for not following their man made non-biblically inspired weird teachings and practices.

---

You're going to hell because you don't care enough about your belief system to actually study it and know it. That's vincible ignorance. Shame on you.

That one got TWO edits.

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Seriously how does anyone reconcile "Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" with "God desires all men to be saved".

Jesus says he's the Way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through him, and desires that all men will be saved; but he's a fierce proponent of people not believing in him and going to hell?

---

Of course he desires it, but he will not force it on us. It is our choice.

We all know what you think about religion. You want a totalitarian Catholic state where pretty much any sin is a death sentence, and it would be convert or die.

---

How do you square that with my being against the death penalty?

Also, you've gone from Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" to "will not force it upon us". That's quite the walkback. Is that the end of your walkback or do you have more room to go?

---

Give me one piece of evidence that Jesus was against "freedom of religion". Bible only, Catholic writings don't count.

---

Well if I can't use Catholic writings we need to throw the Bible out as well. What time period do you consider the 'Catholic period'

---

I respect you as a poster and person of faith, but I can't have a religious discussion with someone who thinks the Apostles were "catholic". We will never see eye to eye on this topic, but no ill will.

---

Okay, then you have an argument with around 75% of Christianity compromising the oldest Churches of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

In the book of ACTS why did the apostles nominate a replacement for Judas?

---

The OG churches were more akin to protestant Bible studies than modern Catholic church. In style and substance. There is zero doubt in my mind that Jesus would be much more repulsed by the modern Catholic church than he would be with any government in this world.

---

How were they more akin to Protestant Bible studies than the modern Catholic Church. He is a writing from St.Justin the Martyr describing the mass in 135 AD.

Quote:

---

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation.
Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands.
And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to ge'noito [so be it].
And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

---

That is the same format as the Mass I attend several times a week.

The Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom, still used in Eastern Catholic and Orthodox celebrations, was developed in the year 400.

You think Christ would recognize some sleeve tatted barista worker baptizing people in rose petals?

---

His main guy, the one who baptized him, was a rugged man who probably looked like an unclean hippie and wore clothes of camel hair and survived on locusts and wild honey. Modern closeted prissy robe and crown adorned priests would have scoffed at him for certain.

I do agree that the perversion of Christ's church began pretty early on, about a century or so after his death. original churches were gatherings in homes, town squares etc. They studied and discussed only the word, not man made traditions and practices with no biblical basis...like the concept of a pope etc.

---

So in your understanding, the true Church was the one from 33-A.D to the year 133; and then went off the rails for the next 1500 years?

The original churches didn't gather in town squares or homes; for the main reason that they were being hunted down. Also, how did these early churches have a biblical basis when the canon for scripture had not yet been assembled? Some of the books themselves hadn't even been written yet.

Who tells you these things?

---

The Bible tells me that apostles risked their lives sailing seas and traveling by foot to foreign lands to spread the word of God. Jesus also evangelized. Not surprised a Catholic wouldn't know this since some closeted gay man didn't tell them exactly this in Mass.

---

Why did all of those places that they went become Catholic? Did they somehow manage to take the Bible to these places before it was written?

---

The early churches had almost ZERO resemblance to the modern Catholic church.

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Seriously how does anyone reconcile "Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" with "God desires all men to be saved".

Jesus says he's the Way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through him, and desires that all men will be saved; but he's a fierce proponent of people not believing in him and going to hell?

---

Of course he desires it, but he will not force it on us. It is our choice.

We all know what you think about religion. You want a totalitarian Catholic state where pretty much any sin is a death sentence, and it would be convert or die.

---

How do you square that with my being against the death penalty?

Also, you've gone from Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" to "will not force it upon us". That's quite the walkback. Is that the end of your walkback or do you have more room to go?

---

Give me one piece of evidence that Jesus was against "freedom of religion". Bible only, Catholic writings don't count.

---

Well if I can't use Catholic writings we need to throw the Bible out as well. What time period do you consider the 'Catholic period'

---

I respect you as a poster and person of faith, but I can't have a religious discussion with someone who thinks the Apostles were "catholic". We will never see eye to eye on this topic, but no ill will.

---

Okay, then you have an argument with around 75% of Christianity compromising the oldest Churches of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

In the book of ACTS why did the apostles nominate a replacement for Judas?

---

The OG churches were more akin to protestant Bible studies than modern Catholic church. In style and substance. There is zero doubt in my mind that Jesus would be much more repulsed by the modern Catholic church than he would be with any government in this world.

---

How were they more akin to Protestant Bible studies than the modern Catholic Church. He is a writing from St.Justin the Martyr describing the mass in 135 AD.

Quote:

---

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation.
Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands.
And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to ge'noito [so be it].
And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

---

That is the same format as the Mass I attend several times a week.

The Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom, still used in Eastern Catholic and Orthodox celebrations, was developed in the year 400.

You think Christ would recognize some sleeve tatted barista worker baptizing people in rose petals?

---

His main guy, the one who baptized him, was a rugged man who probably looked like an unclean hippie and wore clothes of camel hair and survived on locusts and wild honey. Modern closeted prissy robe and crown adorned priests would have scoffed at him for certain.

I do agree that the perversion of Christ's church began pretty early on, about a century or so after his death. original churches were gatherings in homes, town squares etc. They studied and discussed only the word, not man made traditions and practices with no biblical basis...like the concept of a pope etc.

---

So in your understanding, the true Church was the one from 33-A.D to the year 133; and then went off the rails for the next 1500 years?

The original churches didn't gather in town squares or homes; for the main reason that they were being hunted down. Also, how did these early churches have a biblical basis when the canon for scripture had not yet been assembled? Some of the books themselves hadn't even been written yet.

Who tells you these things?

---

The Bible tells me that apostles risked their lives sailing seas and traveling by foot to foreign lands to spread the word of God. Jesus also evangelized. Not surprised a Catholic wouldn't know this since some closeted gay man didn't tell them exactly this in Mass.

---

Why did all of those places that they went become Catholic? Did they somehow manage to take the Bible to these places before it was written?

---

The early churches had almost ZERO resemblance to the modern Catholic church.

---

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. You just say things bereft of any back-up. I'll ask you again, why did all of the places that the Apostles travel to become Catholic? Can you tell me which ones became Protestant?

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Please don't derail the thread into yet another Catholic vs Protestant debate, we have enough of those. Keep on topic please.

---

Goodness they p*ss me off. Always have since they were telling me I was going to hell for not following their man made non-biblically inspired weird teachings and practices.

---

You're going to hell because you don't care enough about your belief system to actually study it and know it. That's vincible ignorance. Shame on you.

That one got TWO edits.

---

LOL, you're a blasphemous psycho that I would fold with stunning ease.

Your church is led largely by closeted gay men.

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Please don't derail the thread into yet another Catholic vs Protestant debate, we have enough of those. Keep on topic please.

---

Goodness they p*ss me off. Always have since they were telling me I was going to hell for not following their man made non-biblically inspired weird teachings and practices.

---

You're going to hell because you don't care enough about your belief system to actually study it and know it. That's vincible ignorance. Shame on you.

That one got TWO edits.

---

LOL, you're a blasphemous psycho that I would fold with stunning ease.

Your church is led largely by closeted gay men.

---

You're in Houston, reach out to Mr.McGibblets, he's a mutual friend. I box 4 times a week at Katy Boxing Club. Show up one time if you're a man. Ask for Greg.

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Seriously how does anyone reconcile "Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" with "God desires all men to be saved".

Jesus says he's the Way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through him, and desires that all men will be saved; but he's a fierce proponent of people not believing in him and going to hell?

---

Of course he desires it, but he will not force it on us. It is our choice.

We all know what you think about religion. You want a totalitarian Catholic state where pretty much any sin is a death sentence, and it would be convert or die.

---

How do you square that with my being against the death penalty?

Also, you've gone from Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" to "will not force it upon us". That's quite the walkback. Is that the end of your walkback or do you have more room to go?

---

Give me one piece of evidence that Jesus was against "freedom of religion". Bible only, Catholic writings don't count.

---

Well if I can't use Catholic writings we need to throw the Bible out as well. What time period do you consider the 'Catholic period'

---

I respect you as a poster and person of faith, but I can't have a religious discussion with someone who thinks the Apostles were "catholic". We will never see eye to eye on this topic, but no ill will.

---

Okay, then you have an argument with around 75% of Christianity compromising the oldest Churches of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

In the book of ACTS why did the apostles nominate a replacement for Judas?

---

The OG churches were more akin to protestant Bible studies than modern Catholic church. In style and substance. There is zero doubt in my mind that Jesus would be much more repulsed by the modern Catholic church than he would be with any government in this world.

---

How were they more akin to Protestant Bible studies than the modern Catholic Church. He is a writing from St.Justin the Martyr describing the mass in 135 AD.

Quote:

---

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation.
Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands.
And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to ge'noito [so be it].
And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

---

That is the same format as the Mass I attend several times a week.

The Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom, still used in Eastern Catholic and Orthodox celebrations, was developed in the year 400.

You think Christ would recognize some sleeve tatted barista worker baptizing people in rose petals?

---

His main guy, the one who baptized him, was a rugged man who probably looked like an unclean hippie and wore clothes of camel hair and survived on locusts and wild honey. Modern closeted prissy robe and crown adorned priests would have scoffed at him for certain.

I do agree that the perversion of Christ's church began pretty early on, about a century or so after his death. original churches were gatherings in homes, town squares etc. They studied and discussed only the word, not man made traditions and practices with no biblical basis...like the concept of a pope etc.

---

So in your understanding, the true Church was the one from 33-A.D to the year 133; and then went off the rails for the next 1500 years?

The original churches didn't gather in town squares or homes; for the main reason that they were being hunted down. Also, how did these early churches have a biblical basis when the canon for scripture had not yet been assembled? Some of the books themselves hadn't even been written yet.

Who tells you these things?

---

The Bible tells me that apostles risked their lives sailing seas and traveling by foot to foreign lands to spread the word of God. Jesus also evangelized. Not surprised a Catholic wouldn't know this since some closeted gay man didn't tell them exactly this in Mass.

And yes, there were underground churches who had to hide from persecution...in homes, diff parts of towns etc. Again, the gay men running the Catholic church (prob 50-60%) apparently don't teach this.

---

This poor dude has to edit his posts to make himself sound tougher because he has no idea of what should be the most important thing in his life. Dude spends his entire time studying his Sporstman Bible and never gave a thought into how it came into being.

---

You aren't quite all there with your take as well. Might take a look in the mirror before spouting off.

Ag-Yoakum95 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Seriously how does anyone reconcile "Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" with "God desires all men to be saved".

Jesus says he's the Way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through him, and desires that all men will be saved; but he's a fierce proponent of people not believing in him and going to hell?

---

Of course he desires it, but he will not force it on us. It is our choice.

We all know what you think about religion. You want a totalitarian Catholic state where pretty much any sin is a death sentence, and it would be convert or die.

---

How do you square that with my being against the death penalty?

Also, you've gone from Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" to "will not force it upon us". That's quite the walkback. Is that the end of your walkback or do you have more room to go?

---

Give me one piece of evidence that Jesus was against "freedom of religion". Bible only, Catholic writings don't count.

---

Well if I can't use Catholic writings we need to throw the Bible out as well. What time period do you consider the 'Catholic period'

---

I respect you as a poster and person of faith, but I can't have a religious discussion with someone who thinks the Apostles were "catholic". We will never see eye to eye on this topic, but no ill will.

---

Okay, then you have an argument with around 75% of Christianity compromising the oldest Churches of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

In the book of ACTS why did the apostles nominate a replacement for Judas?

---

The OG churches were more akin to protestant Bible studies than modern Catholic church. In style and substance. There is zero doubt in my mind that Jesus would be much more repulsed by the modern Catholic church than he would be with any government in this world.

---

How were they more akin to Protestant Bible studies than the modern Catholic Church. He is a writing from St.Justin the Martyr describing the mass in 135 AD.

Quote:

---

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation.
Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands.
And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to ge'noito [so be it].
And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

---

That is the same format as the Mass I attend several times a week.

The Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom, still used in Eastern Catholic and Orthodox celebrations, was developed in the year 400.

You think Christ would recognize some sleeve tatted barista worker baptizing people in rose petals?

---

His main guy, the one who baptized him, was a rugged man who probably looked like an unclean hippie and wore clothes of camel hair and survived on locusts and wild honey. Modern closeted prissy robe and crown adorned priests would have scoffed at him for certain.

I do agree that the perversion of Christ's church began pretty early on, about a century or so after his death. original churches were gatherings in homes, town squares etc. They studied and discussed only the word, not man made traditions and practices with no biblical basis...like the concept of a pope etc.

---

So in your understanding, the true Church was the one from 33-A.D to the year 133; and then went off the rails for the next 1500 years?

The original churches didn't gather in town squares or homes; for the main reason that they were being hunted down. Also, how did these early churches have a biblical basis when the canon for scripture had not yet been assembled? Some of the books themselves hadn't even been written yet.

Who tells you these things?

---

The Bible tells me that apostles risked their lives sailing seas and traveling by foot to foreign lands to spread the word of God. Jesus also evangelized. Not surprised a Catholic wouldn't know this since some closeted gay man didn't tell them exactly this in Mass.

And yes, there were underground churches who had to hide from persecution...in homes, diff parts of towns etc. Again, the gay men running the Catholic church (prob 50-60%) apparently don't teach this.

---

This poor dude has to edit his posts to make himself sound tougher because he has no idea of what should be the most important thing in his life. Dude spends his entire time studying his Sporstman Bible and never gave a thought into how it came into being.

---

You aren't quite all there with your take as well. Might take a look in the mirror before spouting off.

---

Please tell me where. Thank you.

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Please don't derail the thread into yet another Catholic vs Protestant debate, we have enough of those. Keep on topic please.

---

Goodness they p*ss me off. Always have since they were telling me I was going to hell for not following their man made non-biblically inspired weird teachings and practices.

---

You're going to hell because you don't care enough about your belief system to actually study it and know it. That's vincible ignorance. Shame on you.

That one got TWO edits.

---

LOL, you're a blasphemous psycho that I would fold with stunning ease.

Your church is led largely by closeted gay men.

---

You're in Houston, reach out to Mr.McGibblets, he's a mutual friend. I box 4 times a week at Katy Boxing Club. Show up one time if you're a man. Ask for Greg.

---

I don't box.

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Please don't derail the thread into yet another Catholic vs Protestant debate, we have enough of those. Keep on topic please.

---

Goodness they p*ss me off. Always have since they were telling me I was going to hell for not following their man made non-biblically inspired weird teachings and practices.

---

You're going to hell because you don't care enough about your belief system to actually study it and know it. That's vincible ignorance. Shame on you.

That one got TWO edits.

---

LOL, you're a blasphemous psycho that I would fold with stunning ease.

Your church is led largely by closeted gay men.

---

You're in Houston, reach out to Mr.McGibblets, he's a mutual friend. I box 4 times a week at Katy Boxing Club. Show up one time if you're a man. Ask for Greg.

---

I don't box.

---

Well then send your husband.

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag-Yoakum95 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Seriously how does anyone reconcile "Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" with "God desires all men to be saved".

Jesus says he's the Way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through him, and desires that all men will be saved; but he's a fierce proponent of people not believing in him and going to hell?

---

Of course he desires it, but he will not force it on us. It is our choice.

We all know what you think about religion. You want a totalitarian Catholic state where pretty much any sin is a death sentence, and it would be convert or die.

---

How do you square that with my being against the death penalty?

Also, you've gone from Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" to "will not force it upon us". That's quite the walkback. Is that the end of your walkback or do you have more room to go?

---

Give me one piece of evidence that Jesus was against "freedom of religion". Bible only, Catholic writings don't count.

---

Well if I can't use Catholic writings we need to throw the Bible out as well. What time period do you consider the 'Catholic period'

---

I respect you as a poster and person of faith, but I can't have a religious discussion with someone who thinks the Apostles were "catholic". We will never see eye to eye on this topic, but no ill will.

---

Okay, then you have an argument with around 75% of Christianity compromising the oldest Churches of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

In the book of ACTS why did the apostles nominate a replacement for Judas?

---

The OG churches were more akin to protestant Bible studies than modern Catholic church. In style and substance. There is zero doubt in my mind that Jesus would be much more repulsed by the modern Catholic church than he would be with any government in this world.

---

How were they more akin to Protestant Bible studies than the modern Catholic Church. He is a writing from St.Justin the Martyr describing the mass in 135 AD.

Quote:

---

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation.
Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands.
And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to ge'noito [so be it].
And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

---

That is the same format as the Mass I attend several times a week.

The Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom, still used in Eastern Catholic and Orthodox celebrations, was developed in the year 400.

You think Christ would recognize some sleeve tatted barista worker baptizing people in rose petals?

---

His main guy, the one who baptized him, was a rugged man who probably looked like an unclean hippie and wore clothes of camel hair and survived on locusts and wild honey. Modern closeted prissy robe and crown adorned priests would have scoffed at him for certain.

I do agree that the perversion of Christ's church began pretty early on, about a century or so after his death. original churches were gatherings in homes, town squares etc. They studied and discussed only the word, not man made traditions and practices with no biblical basis...like the concept of a pope etc.

---

So in your understanding, the true Church was the one from 33-A.D to the year 133; and then went off the rails for the next 1500 years?

The original churches didn't gather in town squares or homes; for the main reason that they were being hunted down. Also, how did these early churches have a biblical basis when the canon for scripture had not yet been assembled? Some of the books themselves hadn't even been written yet.

Who tells you these things?

---

The Bible tells me that apostles risked their lives sailing seas and traveling by foot to foreign lands to spread the word of God. Jesus also evangelized. Not surprised a Catholic wouldn't know this since some closeted gay man didn't tell them exactly this in Mass.

And yes, there were underground churches who had to hide from persecution...in homes, diff parts of towns etc. Again, the gay men running the Catholic church (prob 50-60%) apparently don't teach this.

---

This poor dude has to edit his posts to make himself sound tougher because he has no idea of what should be the most important thing in his life. Dude spends his entire time studying his Sporstman Bible and never gave a thought into how it came into being.

---

You aren't quite all there with your take as well. Might take a look in the mirror before spouting off.

---

Please tell me where. Thank you.

---

Maybe go read 1,2, and 3 John. That will enlighten you somewhat. Add the Book of Hebrews to the list as well.

Ag-Yoakum95 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag-Yoakum95 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Seriously how does anyone reconcile "Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" with "God desires all men to be saved".

Jesus says he's the Way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through him, and desires that all men will be saved; but he's a fierce proponent of people not believing in him and going to hell?

---

Of course he desires it, but he will not force it on us. It is our choice.

We all know what you think about religion. You want a totalitarian Catholic state where pretty much any sin is a death sentence, and it would be convert or die.

---

How do you square that with my being against the death penalty?

Also, you've gone from Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" to "will not force it upon us". That's quite the walkback. Is that the end of your walkback or do you have more room to go?

---

Give me one piece of evidence that Jesus was against "freedom of religion". Bible only, Catholic writings don't count.

---

Well if I can't use Catholic writings we need to throw the Bible out as well. What time period do you consider the 'Catholic period'

---

I respect you as a poster and person of faith, but I can't have a religious discussion with someone who thinks the Apostles were "catholic". We will never see eye to eye on this topic, but no ill will.

---

Okay, then you have an argument with around 75% of Christianity compromising the oldest Churches of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

In the book of ACTS why did the apostles nominate a replacement for Judas?

---

The OG churches were more akin to protestant Bible studies than modern Catholic church. In style and substance. There is zero doubt in my mind that Jesus would be much more repulsed by the modern Catholic church than he would be with any government in this world.

---

How were they more akin to Protestant Bible studies than the modern Catholic Church. He is a writing from St.Justin the Martyr describing the mass in 135 AD.

Quote:

---

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation.
Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands.
And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to ge'noito [so be it].
And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

---

That is the same format as the Mass I attend several times a week.

The Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom, still used in Eastern Catholic and Orthodox celebrations, was developed in the year 400.

You think Christ would recognize some sleeve tatted barista worker baptizing people in rose petals?

---

His main guy, the one who baptized him, was a rugged man who probably looked like an unclean hippie and wore clothes of camel hair and survived on locusts and wild honey. Modern closeted prissy robe and crown adorned priests would have scoffed at him for certain.

I do agree that the perversion of Christ's church began pretty early on, about a century or so after his death. original churches were gatherings in homes, town squares etc. They studied and discussed only the word, not man made traditions and practices with no biblical basis...like the concept of a pope etc.

---

So in your understanding, the true Church was the one from 33-A.D to the year 133; and then went off the rails for the next 1500 years?

The original churches didn't gather in town squares or homes; for the main reason that they were being hunted down. Also, how did these early churches have a biblical basis when the canon for scripture had not yet been assembled? Some of the books themselves hadn't even been written yet.

Who tells you these things?

---

The Bible tells me that apostles risked their lives sailing seas and traveling by foot to foreign lands to spread the word of God. Jesus also evangelized. Not surprised a Catholic wouldn't know this since some closeted gay man didn't tell them exactly this in Mass.

And yes, there were underground churches who had to hide from persecution...in homes, diff parts of towns etc. Again, the gay men running the Catholic church (prob 50-60%) apparently don't teach this.

---

This poor dude has to edit his posts to make himself sound tougher because he has no idea of what should be the most important thing in his life. Dude spends his entire time studying his Sporstman Bible and never gave a thought into how it came into being.

---

You aren't quite all there with your take as well. Might take a look in the mirror before spouting off.

---

Please tell me where. Thank you.

---

Maybe go read 1,2, and 3 John. That will enlighten you somewhat. Add the Book of Hebrews to the list as well.

---

Why don't you just tell me. In your own words. Just linking to the Bible isn't an argument.

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag-Yoakum95 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag-Yoakum95 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Seriously how does anyone reconcile "Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" with "God desires all men to be saved".

Jesus says he's the Way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through him, and desires that all men will be saved; but he's a fierce proponent of people not believing in him and going to hell?

---

Of course he desires it, but he will not force it on us. It is our choice.

We all know what you think about religion. You want a totalitarian Catholic state where pretty much any sin is a death sentence, and it would be convert or die.

---

How do you square that with my being against the death penalty?

Also, you've gone from Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" to "will not force it upon us". That's quite the walkback. Is that the end of your walkback or do you have more room to go?

---

Give me one piece of evidence that Jesus was against "freedom of religion". Bible only, Catholic writings don't count.

---

Well if I can't use Catholic writings we need to throw the Bible out as well. What time period do you consider the 'Catholic period'

---

I respect you as a poster and person of faith, but I can't have a religious discussion with someone who thinks the Apostles were "catholic". We will never see eye to eye on this topic, but no ill will.

---

Okay, then you have an argument with around 75% of Christianity compromising the oldest Churches of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

In the book of ACTS why did the apostles nominate a replacement for Judas?

---

The OG churches were more akin to protestant Bible studies than modern Catholic church. In style and substance. There is zero doubt in my mind that Jesus would be much more repulsed by the modern Catholic church than he would be with any government in this world.

---

How were they more akin to Protestant Bible studies than the modern Catholic Church. He is a writing from St.Justin the Martyr describing the mass in 135 AD.

Quote:

---

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation.
Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands.
And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to ge'noito [so be it].
And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

---

That is the same format as the Mass I attend several times a week.

The Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom, still used in Eastern Catholic and Orthodox celebrations, was developed in the year 400.

You think Christ would recognize some sleeve tatted barista worker baptizing people in rose petals?

---

His main guy, the one who baptized him, was a rugged man who probably looked like an unclean hippie and wore clothes of camel hair and survived on locusts and wild honey. Modern closeted prissy robe and crown adorned priests would have scoffed at him for certain.

I do agree that the perversion of Christ's church began pretty early on, about a century or so after his death. original churches were gatherings in homes, town squares etc. They studied and discussed only the word, not man made traditions and practices with no biblical basis...like the concept of a pope etc.

---

So in your understanding, the true Church was the one from 33-A.D to the year 133; and then went off the rails for the next 1500 years?

The original churches didn't gather in town squares or homes; for the main reason that they were being hunted down. Also, how did these early churches have a biblical basis when the canon for scripture had not yet been assembled? Some of the books themselves hadn't even been written yet.

Who tells you these things?

---

The Bible tells me that apostles risked their lives sailing seas and traveling by foot to foreign lands to spread the word of God. Jesus also evangelized. Not surprised a Catholic wouldn't know this since some closeted gay man didn't tell them exactly this in Mass.

And yes, there were underground churches who had to hide from persecution...in homes, diff parts of towns etc. Again, the gay men running the Catholic church (prob 50-60%) apparently don't teach this.

---

This poor dude has to edit his posts to make himself sound tougher because he has no idea of what should be the most important thing in his life. Dude spends his entire time studying his Sporstman Bible and never gave a thought into how it came into being.

---

You aren't quite all there with your take as well. Might take a look in the mirror before spouting off.

---

Please tell me where. Thank you.

---

Maybe go read 1,2, and 3 John. That will enlighten you somewhat. Add the Book of Hebrews to the list as well.

---

Why don't you just tell me. In your own words. Just linking to the Bible isn't an argument.

---

Why can't you go read for yourself? I think you will figure it out.

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag-Yoakum95 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag-Yoakum95 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Seriously how does anyone reconcile "Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" with "God desires all men to be saved".

Jesus says he's the Way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through him, and desires that all men will be saved; but he's a fierce proponent of people not believing in him and going to hell?

---

Of course he desires it, but he will not force it on us. It is our choice.

We all know what you think about religion. You want a totalitarian Catholic state where pretty much any sin is a death sentence, and it would be convert or die.

---

How do you square that with my being against the death penalty?

Also, you've gone from Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" to "will not force it upon us". That's quite the walkback. Is that the end of your walkback or do you have more room to go?

---

Give me one piece of evidence that Jesus was against "freedom of religion". Bible only, Catholic writings don't count.

---

Well if I can't use Catholic writings we need to throw the Bible out as well. What time period do you consider the 'Catholic period'

---

I respect you as a poster and person of faith, but I can't have a religious discussion with someone who thinks the Apostles were "catholic". We will never see eye to eye on this topic, but no ill will.

---

Okay, then you have an argument with around 75% of Christianity compromising the oldest Churches of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

In the book of ACTS why did the apostles nominate a replacement for Judas?

---

The OG churches were more akin to protestant Bible studies than modern Catholic church. In style and substance. There is zero doubt in my mind that Jesus would be much more repulsed by the modern Catholic church than he would be with any government in this world.

---

How were they more akin to Protestant Bible studies than the modern Catholic Church. He is a writing from St.Justin the Martyr describing the mass in 135 AD.

Quote:

---

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation.
Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands.
And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to ge'noito [so be it].
And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

---

That is the same format as the Mass I attend several times a week.

The Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom, still used in Eastern Catholic and Orthodox celebrations, was developed in the year 400.

You think Christ would recognize some sleeve tatted barista worker baptizing people in rose petals?

---

His main guy, the one who baptized him, was a rugged man who probably looked like an unclean hippie and wore clothes of camel hair and survived on locusts and wild honey. Modern closeted prissy robe and crown adorned priests would have scoffed at him for certain.

I do agree that the perversion of Christ's church began pretty early on, about a century or so after his death. original churches were gatherings in homes, town squares etc. They studied and discussed only the word, not man made traditions and practices with no biblical basis...like the concept of a pope etc.

---

So in your understanding, the true Church was the one from 33-A.D to the year 133; and then went off the rails for the next 1500 years?

The original churches didn't gather in town squares or homes; for the main reason that they were being hunted down. Also, how did these early churches have a biblical basis when the canon for scripture had not yet been assembled? Some of the books themselves hadn't even been written yet.

Who tells you these things?

---

The Bible tells me that apostles risked their lives sailing seas and traveling by foot to foreign lands to spread the word of God. Jesus also evangelized. Not surprised a Catholic wouldn't know this since some closeted gay man didn't tell them exactly this in Mass.

And yes, there were underground churches who had to hide from persecution...in homes, diff parts of towns etc. Again, the gay men running the Catholic church (prob 50-60%) apparently don't teach this.

---

This poor dude has to edit his posts to make himself sound tougher because he has no idea of what should be the most important thing in his life. Dude spends his entire time studying his Sporstman Bible and never gave a thought into how it came into being.

---

You aren't quite all there with your take as well. Might take a look in the mirror before spouting off.

---

Please tell me where. Thank you.

---

Maybe go read 1,2, and 3 John. That will enlighten you somewhat. Add the Book of Hebrews to the list as well.

---

Why don't you just tell me. In your own words. Just linking to the Bible isn't an argument.

---

Bible simply says that a church should have structure and "elders"...a few centuries later...



It's no wonder it attracts so many "totally celibate" homosexuals into leadership positions. Fancy duds.

BG Knocc Out said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

The OG churches were more akin to protestant Bible studies than modern Catholic church. In style and substance. There is zero doubt in my mind that Jesus would be much more repulsed by the modern Catholic church than he would be with any government in this world.

---

Jesus created a church hierarchy when he appointed Peter as the head of His church. The Catholic church's teachings stem from this Biblical fact.

The further organization of the early church was largely centered around the problem associated with heresy, which was rampant in the early days principally because too many followers engaged in their own interpretation and teaching in these protestant style 'Bible studies' you refer.

It became necessary to formalize an orthodoxy to maintain consistency less the church fracture into a million beliefs and fail. This was a principle function of church then and remains so today.

---

No doubt there was a need for organization. I just thank God I am not forced to be a Catholic, nor was I influenced by my teachers.

I study the word all the time...modern Baptists, Churches of Christ, and numerous Bible Churches resemble the early churches and mirror the instructions laid out in the NT much more closely than the modern Catholic church. Nothing can change my mind here, so we just have to agree to disagree.

---

Catholics thank God you weren't forced to be Catholic either. That would be antithetical to Catholicism. But we would welcome you to choose the faith with open arms.

We will disagree about Catholicism vs. other Christian faiths. However, I think we would both agree that freedom of religion as modernly expressed (theoretically if not in practice) in America is wholly consistent with Christian teaching in whole which gets to the point of the OP. Max Miller and Weinstein are idiots and have no idea what they are talking about regarding religious freedom.

Ag-Yoakum95 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag-Yoakum95 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag-Yoakum95 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Seriously how does anyone reconcile "Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" with "God desires all men to be saved".

Jesus says he's the Way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through him, and desires that all men will be saved; but he's a fierce proponent of people not believing in him and going to hell?

---

Of course he desires it, but he will not force it on us. It is our choice.

We all know what you think about religion. You want a totalitarian Catholic state where pretty much any sin is a death sentence, and it would be convert or die.

---

How do you square that with my being against the death penalty?

Also, you've gone from Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" to "will not force it upon us". That's quite the walkback. Is that the end of your walkback or do you have more room to go?

---

Give me one piece of evidence that Jesus was against "freedom of religion". Bible only, Catholic writings don't count.

---

Well if I can't use Catholic writings we need to throw the Bible out as well. What time period do you consider the 'Catholic period'

---

I respect you as a poster and person of faith, but I can't have a religious discussion with someone who thinks the Apostles were "catholic". We will never see eye to eye on this topic, but no ill will.

---

Okay, then you have an argument with around 75% of Christianity compromising the oldest Churches of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

In the book of ACTS why did the apostles nominate a replacement for Judas?

---

The OG churches were more akin to protestant Bible studies than modern Catholic church. In style and substance. There is zero doubt in my mind that Jesus would be much more repulsed by the modern Catholic church than he would be with any government in this world.

---

How were they more akin to Protestant Bible studies than the modern Catholic Church. He is a writing from St.Justin the Martyr describing the mass in 135 AD.

Quote:

---

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation.
Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands.
And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to ge'noito [so be it].
And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

---

That is the same format as the Mass I attend several times a week.

The Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom, still used in Eastern Catholic and Orthodox celebrations, was developed in the year 400.

You think Christ would recognize some sleeve tatted barista worker baptizing people in rose petals?

---

His main guy, the one who baptized him, was a rugged man who probably looked like an unclean hippie and wore clothes of camel hair and survived on locusts and wild honey. Modern closeted prissy robe and crown adorned priests would have scoffed at him for certain.

I do agree that the perversion of Christ's church began pretty early on, about a century or so after his death. original churches were gatherings in homes, town squares etc. They studied and discussed only the word, not man made traditions and practices with no biblical basis...like the concept of a pope etc.

---

So in your understanding, the true Church was the one from 33-A.D to the year 133; and then went off the rails for the next 1500 years?

The original churches didn't gather in town squares or homes; for the main reason that they were being hunted down. Also, how did these early churches have a biblical basis when the canon for scripture had not yet been assembled? Some of the books themselves hadn't even been written yet.

Who tells you these things?

---

The Bible tells me that apostles risked their lives sailing seas and traveling by foot to foreign lands to spread the word of God. Jesus also evangelized. Not surprised a Catholic wouldn't know this since some closeted gay man didn't tell them exactly this in Mass.

And yes, there were underground churches who had to hide from persecution...in homes, diff parts of towns etc. Again, the gay men running the Catholic church (prob 50-60%) apparently don't teach this.

---

This poor dude has to edit his posts to make himself sound tougher because he has no idea of what should be the most important thing in his life. Dude spends his entire time studying his Sporstman Bible and never gave a thought into how it came into being.

---

You aren't quite all there with your take as well. Might take a look in the mirror before spouting off.

---

Please tell me where. Thank you.

---

Maybe go read 1,2, and 3 John. That will enlighten you somewhat. Add the Book of Hebrews to the list as well.

---

Why don't you just tell me. In your own words. Just linking to the Bible isn't an argument.

---

Why can't you go read for yourself? I think you will figure it out.

---

They need men, who are almost mystical beings, in between them and God, to tell them what/how to think and interpret scripture.

These are emotional responses by you. It does a disservice to your more rational arguments.

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag-Yoakum95 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag-Yoakum95 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Seriously how does anyone reconcile "Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" with "God desires all men to be saved".

Jesus says he's the Way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through him, and desires that all men will be saved; but he's a fierce proponent of people not believing in him and going to hell?

---

Of course he desires it, but he will not force it on us. It is our choice.

We all know what you think about religion. You want a totalitarian Catholic state where pretty much any sin is a death sentence, and it would be convert or die.

---

How do you square that with my being against the death penalty?

Also, you've gone from Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" to "will not force it upon us". That's quite the walkback. Is that the end of your walkback or do you have more room to go?

---

Give me one piece of evidence that Jesus was against "freedom of religion". Bible only, Catholic writings don't count.

---

Well if I can't use Catholic writings we need to throw the Bible out as well. What time period do you consider the 'Catholic period'

---

I respect you as a poster and person of faith, but I can't have a religious discussion with someone who thinks the Apostles were "catholic". We will never see eye to eye on this topic, but no ill will.

---

Okay, then you have an argument with around 75% of Christianity compromising the oldest Churches of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

In the book of ACTS why did the apostles nominate a replacement for Judas?

---

The OG churches were more akin to protestant Bible studies than modern Catholic church. In style and substance. There is zero doubt in my mind that Jesus would be much more repulsed by the modern Catholic church than he would be with any government in this world.

---

How were they more akin to Protestant Bible studies than the modern Catholic Church. He is a writing from St.Justin the Martyr describing the mass in 135 AD.

Quote:

---

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation.
Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands.
And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to ge'noito [so be it].
And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

---

That is the same format as the Mass I attend several times a week.

The Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom, still used in Eastern Catholic and Orthodox celebrations, was developed in the year 400.

You think Christ would recognize some sleeve tatted barista worker baptizing people in rose petals?

---

His main guy, the one who baptized him, was a rugged man who probably looked like an unclean hippie and wore clothes of camel hair and survived on locusts and wild honey. Modern closeted prissy robe and crown adorned priests would have scoffed at him for certain.

I do agree that the perversion of Christ's church began pretty early on, about a century or so after his death. original churches were gatherings in homes, town squares etc. They studied and discussed only the word, not man made traditions and practices with no biblical basis...like the concept of a pope etc.

---

So in your understanding, the true Church was the one from 33-A.D to the year 133; and then went off the rails for the next 1500 years?

The original churches didn't gather in town squares or homes; for the main reason that they were being hunted down. Also, how did these early churches have a biblical basis when the canon for scripture had not yet been assembled? Some of the books themselves hadn't even been written yet.

Who tells you these things?

---

The Bible tells me that apostles risked their lives sailing seas and traveling by foot to foreign lands to spread the word of God. Jesus also evangelized. Not surprised a Catholic wouldn't know this since some closeted gay man didn't tell them exactly this in Mass.

And yes, there were underground churches who had to hide from persecution...in homes, diff parts of towns etc. Again, the gay men running the Catholic church (prob 50-60%) apparently don't teach this.

---

This poor dude has to edit his posts to make himself sound tougher because he has no idea of what should be the most important thing in his life. Dude spends his entire time studying his Sporstman Bible and never gave a thought into how it came into being.

---

You aren't quite all there with your take as well. Might take a look in the mirror before spouting off.

---

Please tell me where. Thank you.

---

Maybe go read 1,2, and 3 John. That will enlighten you somewhat. Add the Book of Hebrews to the list as well.

---

Why don't you just tell me. In your own words. Just linking to the Bible isn't an argument.

---

Bible simply says that a church should have structure and "elders"...a few centuries later...



It's no wonder it attracts so many "totally celibate" homosexuals into leadership positions. Fancy duds.

---

And it's lucky for you that the Church did so, otherwise you wouldn't have the Bible; the canon for which wasn't established until the extremely late 4th century.

American Hardwood said:

---

These are emotional responses by you. It does a disservice to your more rational arguments.

---

Which rational arguments?

Please take this Protestant vs Catholic thing to the Religion and Philosophy board. It exists for that very reason and the debate can go on without sidetracking a pretty important POLITICAL discussion.

I realize and believe that Christian identity is very much more important than political affiliation and much more affecting eternal matters than the latest political outrage, but seeing page after page of a 500 year old debate is not why I opened this thread.

BTW, "Christianity" tried on the "convert or die" approach in the Crusades and European religious wars. Not a good look then, not a better one now under Putin.

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag-Yoakum95 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag-Yoakum95 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Seriously how does anyone reconcile "Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" with "God desires all men to be saved".

Jesus says he's the Way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through him, and desires that all men will be saved; but he's a fierce proponent of people not believing in him and going to hell?

---

Of course he desires it, but he will not force it on us. It is our choice.

We all know what you think about religion. You want a totalitarian Catholic state where pretty much any sin is a death sentence, and it would be convert or die.

---

How do you square that with my being against the death penalty?

Also, you've gone from Jesus would be very much in favor of freedom of religion" to "will not force it upon us". That's quite the walkback. Is that the end of your walkback or do you have more room to go?

---

Give me one piece of evidence that Jesus was against "freedom of religion". Bible only, Catholic writings don't count.

---

Well if I can't use Catholic writings we need to throw the Bible out as well. What time period do you consider the 'Catholic period'

---

I respect you as a poster and person of faith, but I can't have a religious discussion with someone who thinks the Apostles were "catholic". We will never see eye to eye on this topic, but no ill will.

---

Okay, then you have an argument with around 75% of Christianity compromising the oldest Churches of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

In the book of ACTS why did the apostles nominate a replacement for Judas?

---

The OG churches were more akin to protestant Bible studies than modern Catholic church. In style and substance. There is zero doubt in my mind that Jesus would be much more repulsed by the modern Catholic church than he would be with any government in this world.

---

How were they more akin to Protestant Bible studies than the modern Catholic Church. He is a writing from St.Justin the Martyr describing the mass in 135 AD.

Quote:

---

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation.
Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands.
And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to ge'noito [so be it].
And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

---

That is the same format as the Mass I attend several times a week.

The Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom, still used in Eastern Catholic and Orthodox celebrations, was developed in the year 400.

You think Christ would recognize some sleeve tatted barista worker baptizing people in rose petals?

---

His main guy, the one who baptized him, was a rugged man who probably looked like an unclean hippie and wore clothes of camel hair and survived on locusts and wild honey. Modern closeted prissy robe and crown adorned priests would have scoffed at him for certain.

I do agree that the perversion of Christ's church began pretty early on, about a century or so after his death. original churches were gatherings in homes, town squares etc. They studied and discussed only the word, not man made traditions and practices with no biblical basis...like the concept of a pope etc.

---

So in your understanding, the true Church was the one from 33-A.D to the year 133; and then went off the rails for the next 1500 years?

The original churches didn't gather in town squares or homes; for the main reason that they were being hunted down. Also, how did these early churches have a biblical basis when the canon for scripture had not yet been assembled? Some of the books themselves hadn't even been written yet.

Who tells you these things?

---

The Bible tells me that apostles risked their lives sailing seas and traveling by foot to foreign lands to spread the word of God. Jesus also evangelized. Not surprised a Catholic wouldn't know this since some closeted gay man didn't tell them exactly this in Mass.

And yes, there were underground churches who had to hide from persecution...in homes, diff parts of towns etc. Again, the gay men running the Catholic church (prob 50-60%) apparently don't teach this.

---

This poor dude has to edit his posts to make himself sound tougher because he has no idea of what should be the most important thing in his life. Dude spends his entire time studying his Sporstman Bible and never gave a thought into how it came into being.

---

You aren't quite all there with your take as well. Might take a look in the mirror before spouting off.

---

Please tell me where. Thank you.

---

Maybe go read 1,2, and 3 John. That will enlighten you somewhat. Add the Book of Hebrews to the list as well.

---

Why don't you just tell me. In your own words. Just linking to the Bible isn't an argument.

---

Bible simply says that a church should have structure and "elders"...a few centuries later...



It's no wonder it attracts so many "totally celibate" homosexuals into leadership positions. Fancy duds.

---

And it's lucky for you that the Church did so, otherwise you wouldn't have the Bible; the canon for which wasn't established until the extremely late 4th century.

---

I am grateful for that. I do credit the earlier church (which was nothing like the behemoth we see today) for many of these things. If you know someone with a background in Greek who studies the Bible, they definitely got some of the translations wrong (bc man isn't perfect), but it doesn't at all take away from the essence or the important parts of the Bible.

Bulldog73 said:

---

Please take this Protestant vs Catholic thing to the Religion and Philosophy board. It exists for that very reason and the debate can go on without sidetracking a pretty important POLITICAL discussion.

I realize and believe that Christian identity is very much more important than political affiliation and much more affecting eternal matters than the latest political outrage, but seeing page after page of a 500 year old debate is not why I opened this thread.

BTW, "Christianity" tried on the "convert or die" approach in the Crusades and European religious wars. Not a good look then, not a better one now under Putin.

---

You mean the ones that saved Christendom from Islam?

My late father spoke both Koine Greek and could converse intellectually about Aramaic; he was a Catholic Deacon and lectured at St.Mary's Seminary in his retirement, I am lucky that I was able to attend his classes.

Again, the Biblical canon wasn't accepted until the year 400 or so (the Synod of Carthage actually has in the notes that the canon is only confirmed once the Church of Rome confirms), so it's well after the period of the Early Church you mentioned.

Bulldog73 said:

---

Please take this Protestant vs Catholic thing to the Religion and Philosophy board. It exists for that very reason and the debate can go on without sidetracking a pretty important POLITICAL discussion.

I realize and believe that Christian identity is very much more important than political affiliation and much more affecting eternal matters than the latest political outrage, but seeing page after page of a 500 year old debate is not why I opened this thread.

BTW, "Christianity" tried on the "convert or die" approach in the Crusades and European religious wars. Not a good look then, not a better one now under Putin.

---

If your Religions beliefs do not influence your political beliefs than you have no religious beliefs.

So this thread has devolved into a couple of posters trying to lecture each other over how to be a Christian by

1.) Condemning each other to hell
2.) Wanting to fold someone
3.) Challenging one to a boxing match

Yep, that is exactly what Jesus wanted us to do…