Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: Bonaventure on November 23, 2019, 10:08:16 AM

Title: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Bonaventure on November 23, 2019, 10:08:16 AM
Ok, I'm the first to admit that I'm not the most versed when it comes to theology and Catholic doctrine.  I therefore come here hat-in-hand.

On another (non-Catholic) forum, I came across a thread of Christian Zionists bashing anyone who does not show unwavering support for Israel as being "bigoted, anti-semitic," etc.  

One even quoted Genesis 12:3 in supporting modern-day Israel, and stated the following:

Quote
"And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."

I'll take my chances with the promise of Almighty God, . . . made to Abraham, . . . exercised thru Isaac and Jacob and his son Judah, . . . to the present day legitimate heirs of the promised land, . . . the Jєωs.

When the winds blow against them, . . . I'll stand with them, . . . and if we both die in a pile of empty brass, . . . we will have taken many of the enemy with us.

I know that a proper response to this would be along the lines of Jesus being the New Covenant, and that the "families" mentioned in the aforecited are now in fact Christians (i.e., members of the Catholic Church). 

However, can someone please supply me with a more authoritative basis and/or response?  My guess that somewheres in this forum there lies an answer, but my searching capabilities here are something to be desired.

Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on November 23, 2019, 10:26:34 AM
The short version:

(1) The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is the only true Israel today and practicing Catholics are the only true Jєωs today.
(2) "The ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan, those who say they are Jєωs, and are not, but do lie" is not true Israel.
(3) Hence, the promises of Genesis 12:3 apply to the Church, today's true Israel, not to  the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan's project in the Holy Land.

The longer version with Scriptural proof texts: http://judaism.is/covenants.html (http://judaism.is/covenants.html)

(http://judaism.is/images/understand%20the%20covenants.jpg?crc=209148039)
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Jaynek on November 23, 2019, 10:47:15 AM
I am assuming that since you are arguing with non-Catholics, you want proof from Scripture (and I'm giving quotes from Revised Standard Version, which is a version Protestants typically recognize).  Galatians 3:8,9 explicitly mentions the passage from Genesis:  

" 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” 9 So then, those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith."

St. Paul continues his train of thought in the following verses.  In verse 14 he clearly says that the blessing of Abraham comes to the Gentiles in Christ:  

"14 that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith."

St. Paul makes a similar point in verse 29:  

"29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise."

Other verses you may find useful are: Matt 3:9  Rom 4:13  Rom 9:8

So-called "Christian Zionism" is an incoherent position and is clearly opposed by Scripture.  Don't be intimidated by accusations of antisemitism.  The term is practically meaningless and is little more than a way to silence people.

(I see that Mark answered as I was writing this, but I will leave my answer too.)

Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Bonaventure on November 23, 2019, 01:36:18 PM
Thanks.

Would it also be correct to say that Genesis 12:3 is in reference to Abrahamic (and later Mosaic) judaism, whereas present day Israel is nothing of the such, it being post-Temple/Rabbinic/тαℓмυdic judaism? 
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on November 23, 2019, 03:51:29 PM
Genesis 12:3 is a promise to Abram (later Abraham) personally when he was still a Gentile, so properly the reference is to Abram's lineage. While it is true that, for a time, Mosaic Jєωs were in Abram's lineage, they are different covenants. I think mention of the Mosaic Covenant in this context confuses the issue, potentially conflating (in your listener) the unconditional Abrahamic Covenant and the conditional Mosaic Covenant—especially since God judged that, as a nation, the Jєωs had voided the Mosaic Covenant long before the Incarnation (see Deuteronomy 31:16 & 20; Ezechiel 20:23; Jeremias 31:31-32; Malachias 2:8-12).
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on November 23, 2019, 04:36:17 PM
To be a Zionist is to contradict Scripture. One cannot contradict Scripture and be Christian.

Here is the Abrahamic Covenant made by God unconditionally to Abram personally while he was still a Gentile, before there was a even one Jєω, before there was a Jєωιѕн nation:

And the Lord said to Abram: Go forth out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and out of thy father's house, and come into the land which I shall shew thee.  And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and magnify thy name, and thou shalt be blessed.  I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee, and IN THEE shall all the kindred of the earth be blessed: Genesis 12:1-3

God further elaborated His unconditional covenant in Genesis 17:4ff:

And God said to him: I AM, and my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.  Neither shall thy name be called any more Abram [high father]: but thou shalt be called Abraham [father of multitudes]:  because I have made thee a father of many nations.  And I will make thee increase, exceedingly, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.  And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and between thy seed after thee in their generations, by a perpetual covenant: to be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee.  And I will give to thee, and to thy seed, the land of thy sojournment, all the land of Chanaan for a perpetual possession, and I will be their God.  Again God said to Abraham: And thou therefore shalt keep my covenant, and thy seed after thee in their generations.  This is my covenant which you shall observe, between me and you, and thy seed after thee: All the male kind of you shall be circuмcised:…

God’s Word says twice that He fulfilled the land promises of Genesis 12:8, once in Josue 21:41-43:

“And the Lord God gave to Israel all the land that he had sworn to give to their fathers: and they possessed it and dwelt in it.... Not so much as one word, which he had promised to perform unto them, was made void, but all came to pass.”  

And again in 2 Esdras [Nehemiah] 9:7-8:

“Thou, O Lord God, art he who chosest Abram, and broughtest him forth out of the fire of the Chaldeans, and gavest him the name of Abraham. And thou didst find his heart faithful before thee: and thou madest a covenant with him, to give him the land of the Chanaanite, of the Hethite, and of the Amorrhite, and of the Pherezite, and of the Jebusite, and of the Gergezite, to give it to his seed: and thou hast fulfilled thy words, because thou art just.”

The promise of perpetual ownership of “all the land of Chanaan” passed to the lineage of Abraham at the moment of Christ’s death on His Cross.

“The ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan, those who say they are Jєωs, and are not, but do lie” (Apocalypse 3:9) have no claim to land and no claim to the spiritual lineage of Abraham. The ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan departed from Abraham’s lineage and forfeit the patrimony of Abraham when they voided the conditional Mosaic Covenant as God so many times accused them (see Deuteronomy 31:16 & 20; Ezechiel 20:23; Jeremias 31:31-32; Malachias 2:8-12).  God ridiculed the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan’s claim of a carnal connection to Abraham. The ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan has no legitimate claim to the land or spiritual promises of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Abraham’s patrimony and lineage passed to the Christians (but not to those who say they are Christians, but are not , who broke off and do butcher God’s Word and persecute the one Church God founded in Matthew 16:18 ) :

There is neither Jєω nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you be Christ’s, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise.  Galatians 3:28-29


God’s New Chosen People:

But you [speaking to the Christians] are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people: that you may declare his virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light: Who in time past were not a people: but are now the people of God. Who had not obtained mercy; but now have obtained mercy. 1 Peter 2:9-10



Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Bonaventure on November 23, 2019, 04:42:11 PM
Ok, thanks.

I went and read the link posted above.  I have to say, that was probably the most comprehensive and understandable piece I've ever read on the subject.  Unsurprisingly, this was never taught in the [C]atholic school I attended.

I may have relied upon it a bit in my response to the 'Christian' Zionists in the other forum.  :-X

I'll let you know if I get banned therefrom (wouldn't be surprised if I did).  :cowboy:
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on November 23, 2019, 04:49:57 PM
Ok, thanks.

I went and read the link posted above.  I have to say, that was probably the most comprehensive and understandable piece I've ever read on the subject.  Unsurprisingly, this was never taught in the [C]atholic school I attended.

I may have relied upon it a bit in my response to the 'Christian' Zionists in the other forum.  :-X

I'll let you know if I get banned therefrom (wouldn't be surprised if I did).  :cowboy:
From my home page:
"Please quote the materials here far and wide. Use this material to expose and defeat Satan and his ѕуηαgσgυє. Most importantly, pray the Rosary every day."

If you PM me with a link, I would be happy to join you in the melee!
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Bonaventure on November 23, 2019, 04:58:11 PM
From my home page:
"Please quote the materials here far and wide. Use this material to expose and defeat Satan and his ѕуηαgσgυє. Most importantly, pray the Rosary every day."

If you PM me with a link, I would be happy to join you in the melee!

Normally, I would.  However, in this particular forum, and more specifically the sub-forum of the forum where this thread lies, the sub-forum is only accessible by those who have been members of the general forum for at least three months, and made a minimum number of posts.  Sorry, but I don't make the rules over there.
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on November 23, 2019, 05:03:23 PM
Gut! Verstanden!  Be sure to throw in a few German words there, so they can also call you a nαzι! (laughing)

(http://judaism.is/images/facts%20are%20antisemitic.jpg?crc=85078862)

Hmmmm... perhaps i need to make a "The Bible is 'antisemitic'" meme.
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Bonaventure on November 23, 2019, 06:54:41 PM
Well... I already got at least one response, from the same guy who I copied above.  Here's all he wrote...

Quote
That is your opinion, . . . full of garbage, trash, innuendo, and outright lies, . . . but you didn't make em up, . . . you just follow em.

I would wish you good luck, . . . but since there is no such word in the Bible, . . . you're on your own pal.

I don't think the guy is playing with a full deck, or is so caught up in his own cognitive dissonance, the only thing he can rely upon is the baseless assertion that what was written (taken almost entirely from scripture, mind you) was nothing but "garbage, trash, innuendo, and outright lies...."

I think I'll end up responding with the Bible must be anti-semitic, too.
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on November 23, 2019, 06:57:52 PM
Very satisfying to see them apoplectic from Scripture. I'll bet Holy Water sizzles their flesh.
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Bonaventure on November 24, 2019, 08:07:40 AM
I got two more replies, each from different posters (I haven't yet responded to the last one quoted above as I was giving time for others to weigh in).

First response:

Quote
The New Covenant only means that the means of salvation is now through Christ, it does not mean that the Old Testament no longer has any meaning and it is to be disregarded, we are just not to follow the parts that have to do with salvation the old way, sacrifices and ritual, and it should still be known in historical context.

There are still many prophecies yet to unfold from the Old Testament, and ALL will come to pass.

To say we are to disregard God's commands regarding Israel in the Old Testament, would be to say we might as well disregard the Ten Commandments and just kill, worship other gods, lie, steal, screw everyone's wife and not go to church.

In Revelation 21:12–14 the names of the twelve tribes are on the gates of the New Jerusalem, and the names of the twelve apostles are on the foundations. There it signifies the unity of the Old Testament and the New Testament people of God in the New Jerusalem. In that time, the New Jerusalem will be a real place, not just some fantasy.

The nation for the sealing. “Of all the tribes of the children of Israel” (Revelation 7:4). Those sealed were Jєωs. There are many other references to Jєωs and their importance to God in the New Testament.

Ephesians 6:12 says, "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places". That doesn't have to do with Israel or Jєωs but it shows that every attack against them individually or as a nation is the work of Satan, plain and simple.

Not pointing to anyone on here individually, but in regards to the article, I would not want to have any anti-Semetic views when I am in front of God on my judgement day. If it hurts our heart, imagine how God feels about it...

Right off the bat, a huge bait-and-swtich, as no where was it stated in my response, explicitly or implicitly, that one simply ignores the Old Testament.  In fact, just the contrary was true.

Also, regarding the last sentence on the 'anti-semetic' views, the writer is again implicitly saying one's DNA is what determines salvation.  Up until yesterday, I had not understood how erroneous such an argument truly was.

One other thing that I've noticed while arguing these points with Protestants... aren't they simply just making the case that they should be converting to Judaism?

The second response:

Quote
[To the poster previously quoted twice above re: Genesis 12:3], both your posts are well stated. [Bonaventure] started this off with his reference to "Christian Zionists." Today's anti-Zionist movement uses terms like that in a thinly veiled attempt to conceal what is simply garden variety antisemitism, an outright hatred of Jєωs. The philosophy is indistinguishable from the tenets of either the muslim; the humanists; or certain twisted beliefs of some in the Roman church. It was merely a question of which of the three he subscribed too. I eliminated the muslim, since that was obviously not the case, though there is no distinction in the agenda of destruction of the Jєωιѕн race and faith. Since he brought up the SPLC [which I did because this particular poster immediately called me ignorant, bigoted, racist and anti-semtic, straight out of the SLPC's playbook], which is a humanist org of the most vile nature, I didn't really think it was that either. Besides, SPLC is equally antisemitic and supports the muslim's rights over those of both Christians and Jєωs. But now we have it in his own words. Fortunately, the Roman church, as a whole, is not on this kind of path anymore, with the exception of a few remaining branches of that particular ilk that allied even with the nαzιs, because they shared the same goals. [Bonaventure] would have fit right in.

I have encountered his arguments before, and they have their root only in deep seated hatred and the delusions that must accompany in order to justify the need to hate. If there is any monotheistic faith that has proven to rival islam in its cold-hearted butchery and debauchery, it is the Roman church of earlier ages. Even in modern times it has served as a purveyor of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ pedophilia, covering its tracks for decades until the secret could no longer be shielded from daylight. For all the many fine people of that religion, for all the fine priests, nuns and other leadership, the church has had a rotten core almost from its inception. The good it has done has come in spite of that. Thus it is with most institutions of mankind.

And make no mistake, all the Christian denominations are creations of mankind, made for this corporeal world. But inside all of them is the message of the Gospels, the universal truth of salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Christ was of the House of David, as Jєωιѕн as any man could be, who clearly stated that he had come to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. Which were of the Jєωs, by the way. His charge to His disciples and other followers- all Jєωs by the way- was to tell all the world, not to distinguish between any race. None of this changes who were God's chosen people, but the message of salvation is available to all. When we learn to disregard all the trappings of religion- Roman, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, what have you- we will see that the labels do not matter, only what is in our hearts and our witness to that.

It is worth noting that the word "catholic" has its roots in Greek, and it merely means "universal." The Roman "Catholic" church has, in some minds, a fallacious notion of exclusivity, which requires a deliberate ignorance of its root meaning.
Quote:

As a bit more background, what started this thread in the other forum (which is comprised of mainly Boomer men and whose topics are generally far, far from being religious ones) was a poster, whom I've come to realize is a Christian Zionist Evangelical out of Tennessee, who posted this article on how mean the European Court is to those poor, poor Jєωs (https://carolineglick.com/our-european-friends/). This particular poster is ALWAYS posting articles such as these, the purpose of which is to further garner U.S. support for the state of Israel, which I generally ignore.  But for some reason, several other posters commented in approval of the article, again with the poor-Jєω hand wringing and obvious virtue-signalling.  I let this get the best of me, and submitted a post which simply stated that the 'Christian' Zionism ran deep in that particular thread.  Yup, that was all it took for the calls of me being ignorant, racist and anti-semitic.

Now, regarding my 'Christian' Zionist comment, the second response above misses my point entirely.  For I know these posters are generally Protestants, and when they come out in full, unwavering support of the state of Israel/Judaism, they do so not for empathy/sympathy for the Jєωιѕн cause, but more because of their selfish belief that in doing so they will bring about the second coming of Christ, and thus will be bringing about their own salvation.  
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Jaynek on November 24, 2019, 10:06:04 AM
Now, regarding my 'Christian' Zionist comment, the second response above misses my point entirely.  For I know these posters are generally Protestants, and when they come out in full, unwavering support of the state of Israel/Judaism, they do so not for empathy/sympathy for the Jєωιѕн cause, but more because of their selfish belief that in doing so they will bring about the second coming of Christ, and thus will be bringing about their own salvation.  

What jumps out to me is the hypocrisy of lecturing you for being anti-semitic while they are displaying bigotry and hatred toward Catholics.  They are the actual bigots in the situation.

These people do not sound like they are capable of being reached with reason, but, at least, it seems like you are learning something from the process of standing against their errors.
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on November 24, 2019, 10:19:21 AM
These will really hit the mark with "Christian" Zionists.

(http://judaism.is/images/bible%20is%20antisemitic.jpg?crc=4247366117)

(http://judaism.is/images/god%20took%20the%20land%20away.jpg?crc=4025407857)
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on November 24, 2019, 10:21:20 AM


I think I'll end up responding with the Bible must be anti-semitic, too.
Ask him if God is "antisemitic."
(http://judaism.is/images/god-s%20judgments.jpg?crc=325831748)
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on November 24, 2019, 10:29:02 AM
That one poster uses such hackneyed tropes about Catholics, he can be answered by memes. Tell him so.


Are “Only Jєωs are human” and “Kill even the best of the Gentiles” hate?

Only Jєωs are human

“You are called men, but non-Jєωs are not called men.”
Bava Metzia 114b (http://judaism.is/assets/bava-metzia-114b.jpg)

Note Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai’s ruling: “…only ‘you,’ the members of the Jєωιѕн people, are called men, but non-Jєωs are not called men.”

(http://judaism.is/images/bava%20metzia%20114b.jpg?crc=342463783)
“Kill even the best of Gentiles”
(http://judaism.is/images/full%20size%20kill550x648.jpg?crc=3894507051)

(http://judaism.is/images/full%20size%20kill-crop-u7637.jpg?crc=441287918)
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on November 24, 2019, 10:33:14 AM
Regarding his claims about Novus Ordo sodomite presiders, I usually point out that when Catholics commit pedophilic rape they do so against Catholic morals. When rabbis commit pedophilic rape, they so with the encouragement of their "Torah" and give numerous examples from here:  http://judaism.is/pedophilia-and-sodomy.html (http://judaism.is/pedophilia-and-sodomy.html)  When they blather that the тαℓмυd and Kabbala aren't Torah, I quote the rabbis and Jєωιѕн Encyclopedia. You can use this material: http://judaism.is/torah.html (http://judaism.is/torah.html)


When he blathers about Protestantism, you can use any of this material on foolish Protestant theology: http://judaism.is/neo-pharisees.html (http://judaism.is/neo-pharisees.html)


(http://judaism.is/images/no%20rapture%20love%20the%20truth.jpg?crc=3879035906)
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on November 24, 2019, 10:35:51 AM
When he blathers about how many Catholics have killed… http://judaism.is/perpetrators.html (http://judaism.is/perpetrators.html)

(http://judaism.is/images/20th%20century%20perpetrators.jpg?crc=331480212)

(http://judaism.is/images/its%20ok%20to%20care%20about.jpg?crc=124981406)

(http://judaism.is/images/Jєωs%20kill%20more.jpg?crc=271066327)
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on November 24, 2019, 10:43:29 AM
Over 300 useful memes here: http://judaism.is/memes.html (http://judaism.is/memes.html)

(http://judaism.is/images/pagan%20judaism.jpg?crc=3762768403)

(http://judaism.is/images/noahide%20law.jpg?crc=3889932707)
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on November 24, 2019, 11:03:57 AM
And I am sure you already know about "Christian" Zionism: http://judaism.is/christian-zionism.html (http://judaism.is/christian-zionism.html)
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on November 24, 2019, 01:16:40 PM
Quote
The New Covenant only means that the means of salvation is now through Christ, it does not mean that the Old Testament no longer has any meaning and it is to be disregarded, we are just not to follow the parts that have to do with salvation the old way, sacrifices and ritual, and it should still be known in historical context.

As you said, a huge bait and switch.

There are still many prophecies yet to unfold from the Old Testament, and ALL will come to pass.

True, but Zionists pretend that prophesies that have been fulfilled (e.g., the Abrahamic Covenant's land promises) have not yet been fulfilled. Further, they also make up prophesies (e.g., the '1½ Coming' of the "rapture") and those nonexistent prophesies will never be fulfilled.

To say we are to disregard God's commands regarding Israel in the Old Testament, would be to say we might as well disregard the Ten Commandments and just kill, worship other gods, lie, steal, screw everyone's wife and not go to church.

Straw man argument.  With the authority that God gave Peter in Matthew 16:18, the Ten Commandments were incorporated into the New Law, so no Catholic "disregards" the Ten Commandments. Of course, like all sinners Catholics do sin, but do not disregard, the Ten Commandments.  That is one reason why God gave us confession (John 20:23).

In Revelation 21:12–14 the names of the twelve tribes are on the gates of the New Jerusalem, and the names of the twelve apostles are on the foundations. There it signifies the unity of the Old Testament and the New Testament people of God in the New Jerusalem. In that time, the New Jerusalem will be a real place, not just some fantasy.

тαℓмυdic Judaism teaches that the Old Testament is suitable for women and children, that their man-made тαℓмυd supersedes the Word of God in the Old Testament. (((They))) even teach that the rabbis "defeat" God. Ask those Zionists if the names of those who "defeat" God are written on those gates. Proof texts regarding the rabbis defeating, confusing, and commanding God here and sections that follow: http://judaism.is/torah.html#megalomania (http://judaism.is/torah.html#megalomania)

The nation for the sealing. “Of all the tribes of the children of Israel” (Revelation 7:4). Those sealed were Jєωs. There are many other references to Jєωs and their importance to God in the New Testament.

Smoke and noise only. The key fact is that God Himself damned the Pharisees and their followers (the "proselytes" of Matthew 23:15).  тαℓмυdic Jєωs boast of following the Pharisees, hence the тαℓмυdic Jєωs are "children of hell twofold more" than the Pharisees themselves. The Zionists pretend they absolve what God Himself damned. Proof texts that Judaism is Pharisaism here: http://judaism.is/torah.html#antibiblical (http://judaism.is/torah.html#antibiblical)
Quote
Ephesians 6:12 says, "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places". That doesn't have to do with Israel or Jєωs but it shows that every attack against them individually or as a nation is the work of Satan, plain and simple.

Do those Zionists pretend that "the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan" (Apocalypse 3:9) is not allied with principalities, powers, and the rulers of darkness?

Not pointing to anyone on here individually, but in regards to the article, I would not want to have any anti-Semetic views when I am in front of God on my judgement day. If it hurts our heart, imagine how God feels about it...

Ask them if God is antisemitic? After all we rely upon God's judgements, not our own judgements. It is God who judged their sins as a people. It is God who damned them for violating His Laws:

(http://judaism.is/images/god-s%20judgments.jpg?crc=325831748)

The real haters and antisemites are the people who praise and confirm тαℓмυdic Jєωs in their satanic anti-Christ religion and so consign тαℓмυdic Jєωs to hell for all eternity.


Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Bonaventure on November 24, 2019, 04:33:18 PM
Very satisfying to see them apoplectic from Scripture. I'll bet Holy Water sizzles their flesh.

What else would you expect form hard-core Boomer Protestants?
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Bonaventure on November 24, 2019, 04:38:38 PM
What jumps out to me is the hypocrisy of lecturing you for being anti-semitic while they are displaying bigotry and hatred toward Catholics.  They are the actual bigots in the situation.

Of course, you're absolutely correct. 

Quote
These people do not sound like they are capable of being reached with reason, but, at least, it seems like you are learning something from the process of standing against their errors.

No, the commentators are not within reason... but I know for a fact that there are others who are reading, and not commenting.  That is why I engage in this. 

There are a few Catholics on the forum, and truth be told, one of them reached out to me a few years ago, and through that, I was able to see the light and revert back to Catholicism after getting fed up with Novus Ordo antics wherein I just stayed home and sulked for a couple of years.
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Bonaventure on November 24, 2019, 04:58:59 PM
FWIW, I still haven't commented on the thread yet, primarily because it's Sunday.  But there have been a few more responses, each of which gives me a little chuckle.  But at the same time, I feel sad for some of them.

First, an agnostic piped up.  Also, Exhibit A as to why one shouldn't rely upon a science fiction writer in matters concerning the salvation of one's eternal soul.

Quote
"I've never been able to understand 'faith' myself, nor to see how a just God could expect his creatures to pick the one true religion out of an infinitude of false ones—by faith alone. It strikes me as a sloppy way to run an organization, whether a universe or a smaller one."
― Robert A. Heinlein

Next, the the original Genesis 12:3 poster adds more.

Quote
The Bible says that faith "is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".

To use a familiar story, . . . Noah was warned by God to build a boat, . . . because it was going to rain.

Keep in mind:

Rain had never fallen on the earth up until that time

There was no conceivable way he could have known about the enormity of the flood without God having given him a heads up.

He acted "by faith" on the information he had, . . . built a boat, got food together, and believed God for the information.

I like to use the story of Noah, . . . as it is found with minor variations in virtually all cultures that have a written history.

It happened.

Believing the Christian version, acting on it, accepting Christ thru faith is one option you have. Choosing one of the other versions is another option. Choosing not to believe any is also an option.

I have chosen the Christian option because first, I have seen many personal miracles in my own life, . . . that were for me, . . . possibly me alone, . . . but were miracles in their own right.

It will be your choice to grab one or abstain. Abstention is an automatic doom for your eternity, . . . each of the others offers a better choice.

Choose wisely my friend.

Um, not sure about the "rain had never fallen on earth up until that time."  That may have been the first time "rain" was mentioned in Genesis, but I would think that after the fall of man, when Adam/Eve had to fend for themselves, there had to be rain to water crops they now had to toil over?  Dunno.  

Next, a lapsed Catholic, presumably one who fell victim to the Second Vatican Council / Novus Ordo... (to whom I can relate, but still feel sorry for...)

Quote
I'm a simple man who was brought up as Roman Catholic to me religion is a personal matter and I don't argue it with anyone. Religion or the various sects are as I see it man made I don't think God really cares which one you belong to but rather how you live your life and treat others. In many religions there are bad people and teachings you need to figure which are which. That's your struggle in life and the choices you make which makes you good or bad, it's that free will thing. Most of us our religion was a matter of birth or location .

Finally, someone responds to ---^

Quote
It's true. Remember the WWJD? Think about Jesus' example. If you can follow it he won't mind if you follow it in this Isreal or the other one.

What would Jesus do? That question or slogan if you will, it makes me think of Jesus as the example to measure my actions by. It reminds me how all the institutions are largely influenced by man and can include man's imperfections. So try to stay on course and focus on what Jesus was trying to accomplish.

So, as you can see, a real hodge-podge of what I believe each have been baptized Christian. 

And almost all of it is Happy-Dappy Jesus talk.
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on November 24, 2019, 04:59:45 PM


... but I know for a fact that there are others who are reading, and not commenting.  That is why I engage in this.  …
Precisely so! Reach the fence sitters — and even for the invincibly unconvincible the mere fact that they are meeting Scriptural resistance weakens them.
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on November 24, 2019, 05:06:22 PM
Your N.O. interlocutor seems to have edited a couple of verses from his Bible:

And He said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature shut up, don't say a word. Mark 16:15

"Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost keep quiet." Matthew 28:19
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Bonaventure on November 26, 2019, 02:38:18 PM
Well, nice to see that this site is back up.  Haven't been able to log on the past few days.

So, time for a little update.  I responded in kind, much along the same lines as was suggested here.  I won't post all of that, except where relevant. There have been a few responses.  And there seems to be a common theme tying them together: Willful ignorance.

The names of the ignorant have been redacted.

First one....

Quote
First off, just becuase you label something I said a fallacy, I know that is supposed to invalidate my argument (I got an A in debate in college, graduated with a 4.0), but in context my statements have validity.

I never that I'm aware of, gave any inclination that I boiled the entire New Testament down to sola fide , which means by faith alone for those reading that don't know. I am fully aware of when the verses are literal, figurative, historical, and prophecy. If I ever don't know, I own a Jack VanImpe bible that codes each verse for you. Plus I have a huge concordance that I can look up the original Greek and Hebrew to learn the direct translation, hence learning the proper meaning.

I do have to give you much credit being Catholic. My wife is also, and I have been attending Mass for years. The main gripe is they have only visited the book of Revelation once, and only two priests have talked about the rapture. I am not sure I am familiar of the 1 1/2 rapture theory you are talking about. Most Caltholics are disengaged to be completely honest regarding scripture, not a slam, just an observation in talking to them.

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), yes you are correct. The only problem I have heard in the Catholic church (from members) was you need a priest to talk to God on your behalf to deal with your sin, where the bible says, "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus Christ" (1 Tim 2:5). Now my wife says that is not the teaching, I don't know. She says the priest and confession is just for your benefit as a mortal person to deal with it.

I had religions of the world in college also, but I don't remember about modern-day тαℓмυdic Judaism, so I can only say in the future when that prophecy is going to come to pass, the rules will have to be different, as "Every word of God proves true" (Proverbs 30:5), so it will have to work somehow. Just because it won't right now does not invalidate my point.

Revelation 7:4 is not "smoke and noise". Since we already know every word of God is true, this will be true in the future also. What happened in the Old Testament, does not mean that God will do the same in the New Testament, or in the future. No, I do not believe the bible is anti-semetic. I don't know where that came from.

No, the "ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan" is of course any false professors of faith, in that time era. Just because I say something, doesn't mean it is exclusive from anything else.

That's ridicluous, God is not anti-semetic, he alone can judge.

So, in a nutshell, I am not slamming Catholocism, you brought it up, I merely was talking about the Jєωs in my original post, and the fact that the Old Testament will still have meaning and validity today and in the future, even if the way to salvation has changed.

Second one..

First, for the sake of context, my response to the WWJD comment in italics, and then the response:

Quote
Yes, what would Happy-Dappy Jesus do?

For example, let's say you're divorced, and remarried.

WWJD? He'd call you an adulterer, in violation of the Sixth Commandment.

"And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery." Matthew 19:9 (https://m14forum.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drbo.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fd%3Fb%3Ddrb%26bk%3D47%26ch%3D19%26l%3D9%23x)

Or what if you were to look at someone, not your wife, in a lustful manner?

WWJD? Again, he'd call you an adulterer.

"But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart." Matthew 5:28 (https://m14forum.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drbo.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fd%3Fb%3Ddrb%26bk%3D47%26ch%3D5%26l%3D28%23x)

And what if you died in the state of unrepentant mortal sin?

WWJD? He'd throw you outside the gates of heaven to the hell fires below.

"And the king went in to see the guests: and he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment (i.e., not in a state of grace at the time of his specific judgment). And he saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? But he was silent. Then the king said to the waiters: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness (i.e., hell): there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen." Matthew 22:11-14 (https://m14forum.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drbo.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fd%3Fb%3Ddrb%26bk%3D47%26ch%3D22%26l%3D11-%23x)

These are but just a few examples of the simplistic WWJD moniker that most people really do not completely think through, including all of the consequences thereof.


Quote
I don't know a 'happy dappy' Jesus. But the Jesus I know wouldn't just throw you into the gates of hell for some of the examples you would suggest. He does offer an unlimited amount if Mercy and forgiveness to all though.

Now sure it seems like the WWJD seems juvenile in its simplicity but at the same time not.

Third one... same format as the one immediately above.  My response, followed by his

Quote
And what if you died in the state of unrepentant mortal sin?


Quote
If a person hasn't accepted Jesus and that his blood sacrifice covers our sin in the eyes of God the Father, unfortunately then he is doomed.

If he is saved but sinned, then he is covered by the blood and therefore forgiven. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast". This means that God's gift of salvation is a gift, and cannot be taken back, also we did not do anything to earn it, work for it. It can only be had by faith that his blood covers you in front of God.

Not everyone gets divorced like you say. What if your wife "puts you away" and will not reconcile? You are then free to remarry because you did not want that, and you did no sin. Plain and simple. Sometimes things fall apart and it is the man that leaves his wife, yes it is a sin, but it is covered by the blood. If are sins could not be covered, no one could get to heaven, as everyone has sinned including everyone, from the Pope down to the most C & E churchgoer.


Doesn't get any more Protestant than that---^

Fourth one... this one again from the original 'Genesis 12:3' poster...

Quote
Islam as a form of religion, . . . disregards the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, . . . and his diety.

Buddhism follows the lead of Islam concerning Jesus.

Jєωs follow the old testament, and as well disregard the diety of Jesus Christ.

That leaves only Christianity as a means of salvation and attaining heaven for eternity.

Within Christianity, . . . there are denominations, . . . and one large one in particular, . . . takes the diety of Jesus Christ and the teachings of Moses and throws them totally under the bus.

1. They teach their adherents to pray to the saints, to Mary (Jesus' mother), and to disregard the following: Jesus said: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) Jesus also told his faithful apostles: “Most truly I say to you, If you ask the Father for anything he will give it to you in my name.”—John 16:23.

There is only one mediator between man and God, . . . Jesus. Not Mary, not Peter, not Jude, not Paul, . . . Jesus and Him alone.

2. They teach their women (with no scripture to back up their teaching) that they should abandon their woman hood, . . . instead they should become menial servants to the church, . . . and to the appointed human leaders of the church. This is in total disregard to the printed teaching: 1 Timothy 5:14 (KJV) 14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

3. They teach that it is more proper to speak in an unknown tongue during the whole service, . . . disregarding the scripture: 1 Corinthians 14:27-28 (KJV) 27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Without the interpretation, . . . every single latin service is in direct disregard to the commandment above.

4. The present figurehead of said organization has as well openly stated that the LGBTQ order has full and equal rights in the church as do "straight" people. That of course is in totoal opposition to this: Romans 1:26-28 (KJV) 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

I could go on, . . . why bother, . . . the organization is totally defunct in it's own supposition of superiority above all other gatherings of true Christians, . . .

Forgiveness of sin is the first priority of the church, . . . something Islam, Buddhism, and strict Judaism neglect by disassociating themselves with Jesus Christ.

The second thing is then continuing in the forgiveness that can only come thru a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, . . . not the pope, not a priest, not a pastor, not any man or woman on earth, . . . only Christ, Himself. To do that, means to from that day, . . . follow the commandments of God concerning life style, actions, and words.

Part of that life style is to obey the angels who told the disciples to quit gazing up in the sky, . . . that Jesus would come back, . . . and to be ready for His return.

Part of His return centers totally, un-equivocally, . . . and most certainly, . . . around the Holy Land, . . . where He is prophesied to return.

It is the Jєωs, . . . the final, natural, legal, and unmitigated human receivers of the rocks, dirt, rivers, and mountains Jehovah promised to Abraham and his heirs thru Isaac and Jacob and the 12 tribes of Israel.

The church has a spiritual inheritance, . . . the Jєωs have a natural inheritance, . . . nothing will ever change that, . . . not some dusty old Latin books, . . . Strongs concordance, . . . or the opinion of a man who accepts Islam and Buddhism as alternate paths to eternity.

It will be Israel and the Israelites who possess the Holy Land, . . . not some ecuмenical organization.

And finally, the fifth one... again, my comments followed in italics followed by the response...

Quote
Really? So, in your opinion, the unerring word of God as contained in the Holy Bible is simply... wrong?

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18 (https://m14forum.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drbo.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fd%3Fb%3Ddrb%26bk%3D47%26ch%3D16%26l%3D18%23x)

And Christ provided no instruction on how to conduct His church?

"Going therefore, teach ye all nations*; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." Matthew 28:19-20 (https://m14forum.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drbo.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fd%3Fb%3Ddrb%26bk%3D47%26ch%3D28%26l%3D19-%23x)

-----------------------------------------------

*Except the nation-state of Israel; no need to baptize them; they're already saved. <---Things found nowhere in the Holy Bible.


Quote
Never said the word of God is wrong, just the written word can be interpreted by different people and come up with a different meaning . Also can be taken out of context to fit a point of view. God is a forgiving God he made us all I might be wrong but the good will not be thrown into the pits of hell no mater what religion they are.

I've been too busy with work and other things to provide any comments.  Needless to say, I'm the only Catholic piping up on the conversation.  

Not sure if I'll continue or not.  I could provide a comment here and there.  The scriptural reference for the need to have a priest absolve you of your sins.  The errors of sola fide and sola scriptura.  Etc.
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on November 26, 2019, 04:08:06 PM
First off, just becuase you label something I said a fallacy, I know that is supposed to invalidate my argument (I got an A in debate in college, graduated with a 4.0), but in context my statements have validity.

Providing scriptural proof texts is not merely labeling something a fallacy. Today he gets an "F."

I never that I'm aware of, gave any inclination that I boiled the entire New Testament down to sola fide , which means by faith alone for those reading that don't know. I am fully aware of when the verses are literal, figurative, historical, and prophecy. If I ever don't know, I own a Jack VanImpe bible that codes each verse for you. Plus I have a huge concordance that I can look up the original Greek and Hebrew to learn the direct translation, hence learning the proper meaning.

On Jack Van Impe's (and Darby's and Scofield's) private interpretations: http://judaism.is/private-interpretation.html (http://judaism.is/private-interpretation.html)

I do have to give you much credit being Catholic. My wife is also, and I have been attending Mass for years. The main gripe is they have only visited the book of Revelation once, and only two priests have talked about the rapture. I am not sure I am familiar of the 1 1/2 rapture theory you are talking about. Most Caltholics are disengaged to be completely honest regarding scripture, not a slam, just an observation in talking to them.

Complete nonsense. Catholicism is the only religion true to Scripture. Practicing Catholics are taught and study the scriptural roots of Catholicism as early as grammar school.

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), yes you are correct. The only problem I have heard in the Catholic church (from members) was you need a priest to talk to God on your behalf to deal with your sin, where the bible says, "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus Christ" (1 Tim 2:5). Now my wife says that is not the teaching, I don't know. She says the priest and confession is just for your benefit as a mortal person to deal with it.

His wife is correct. He does not have a grip on the Divine origin or the role of the Sacrament of Penance.

I had religions of the world in college also, but I don't remember about modern-day тαℓмυdic Judaism, so I can only say …

So, he can "only say" nonsense about a subject on which he professes ignorance.

in the future when that prophecy is going to come to pass, the rules will have to be different, as "Every word of God proves true" (Proverbs 30:5), so it will have to work somehow. Just because it won't right now does not invalidate my point.

AND his private interpretations do not validate his point. Proverbs 30:5 does not guarantee that his misinterpretations are "fire tried" like gold.

"Every word of God is fire tried: he is a buckler to them that hope in him." Proverbs 30:5. His "Bible" can't even get the translation correct, but he will rely on his bogus concordances.

Revelation 7:4 is not "smoke and noise". Since we already know every word of God is true, this will be true in the future also. What happened in the Old Testament, does not mean that God will do the same in the New Testament, or in the future. No, I do not believe the bible is anti-semetic. I don't know where that came from.

If you do not believe the Bible is antisemitic, why is quoting the Bible antisemitic?

No, the "ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan" is of course any false professors of faith, in that time era. 

Rubbish. Apocalyse 3:9 specifies "the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan, those who say they are Jєωs, and are not, but do lie." That is not merely "any false professors."

Just because I say something, doesn't mean it is exclusive from anything else.

Incomprehensible out of context.

That's ridicluous, God is not anti-semetic, he alone can judge.

If you do not believe the Bible is antisemitic, why is agreeing with God and quoting God antisemitic?

So, in a nutshell, I am not slamming Catholocism, you brought it up, I merely was talking about the Jєωs in my original post, and the fact that the Old Testament will still have meaning and validity today and in the future, even if the way to salvation has changed.

The Old Testament has meaning AND the Mosaic Law is dead. What part of “made void,” “blotted out,” “set aside,” “taken away” doesn't he [want to] understand?


Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on November 26, 2019, 04:16:35 PM
He does offer an unlimited amount if Mercy and forgiveness to all though.

Oh really?  What about "…sin no more" (John 5:14, 8:11), axe laid to the root (Matthew 3:10), broken off (Romans 11:17-20), cast into the fire (Matthew 3:10; 7:19; Luke 3:9), condemned (Mark 16:16), cut down (Matthew 3:10), in vain do they worship me  (Matthew 15:9; Mark 7:7), judgment of Hell (Matthew 23:33), shall be broken (Matthew 21:44), shall be ground into powder (Matthew 21:44), the kingdom of God shall be taken from you (Matthew 21:43), woe (Matthew 23:13, 14, 15, 16, 23, 25, 27; Luke 11:42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 52), wrath (Matthew 3:7; Luke 3:7; 21:23; John 3:36; Romans 2:5; I Thessalonians 2:16), the Jєωs' house shall be left desolate (Matthew 23:3 ), the Jєωs do not enter the kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 23:13), et al.

Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on November 26, 2019, 04:24:25 PM
If a person hasn't accepted Jesus and that his blood sacrifice covers our sin in the eyes of God the Father, unfortunately then he is doomed. If he is saved but sinned, then he is covered by the blood and therefore forgiven. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast". This means that God's gift of salvation is a gift, and cannot be taken back, also we did not do anything to earn it, work for it. It can only be had by faith that his blood covers you in front of God.

The standard straw man of Protestant "once saved" heresy. God does not "take back" the merits of His Propitiation for our sons, but MANY reject His gift by their unforgiven/unrepented sins.

His "Bible" and "concordances" seem to be missing several dozen verses:

“But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar?” James 2:20-21

“Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 7:21

“…But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” Matthew 19:17

“And when he was gone forth into the way, a certain man running up and kneeling before him, asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may receive life everlasting?  And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God.  Thou knowest the commandments: Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, bear not false witness, do no fraud, honour thy father and mother.  But he answering, said to him: Master, all these things I have observed from my youth. And Jesus looking on him, loved him, and said to him: One thing is wanting unto thee: go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Mark 10:17-21

“And a certain ruler asked him, saying: Good master, what shall I do to possess everlasting life?  And Jesus said to him: Why dost thou call me good? None is good but God alone.  Thou knowest the commandments: Thou shalt not kill: Thou shalt not commit adultery: Thou shalt not steal: Thou shalt not bear false witness: Honour thy father and mother.  Who said: All these things have I kept from my youth.  Which when Jesus had heard, he said to him: Yet one thing is wanting to thee: sell all whatever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.” Luke 18:18-22

“Amen, amen I say to you: If any man keep my word, he shall not see death for ever.” John 8:51

“You are my friends, if you do the things that I command you.” John 15:14

“Wonder not at this; for the hour cometh, wherein all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God.  And they that have done good things, shall come forth unto the resurrection of life; but they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment” John 5:28-29

“For in Christ Jesus neither circuмcision availeth any thing, nor uncircuмcision: but faith that worketh by charity.” Galatians 5:6

“…and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.” 1 Corinthians 13:2

“Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation”  Phillipians 2:12

“But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.” Matthew 24:13

“What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food: And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith.” James 2:14-18

“…Who will render to every man according to his works.” Romans 2:6

“For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” Romans 2:13

“Know you not, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are whom you obey, whether it be of sin unto death, or of obedience unto justice.” Romans 6:16

“Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.  For if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live.… For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit, that we are the sons of God.  And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him.” Romans 8:12-17

“For if God hath not spared the natural branches, fear lest perhaps he also spare not thee.  See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards them indeed that are fallen, the severity; but towards thee, the goodness of God, if thou abide in goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.” Romans 11:21-22

“And being consummated, he became, to all that obey him, the cause of eternal salvation.” Hebrews 5:9

“Follow peace with all men, and holiness: without which no man shall see God.” Hebrews 12:14

“Take heed to thyself and to doctrine: be earnest in them. For in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee.” 1 Timothy 4:16

“For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will He render to every man according to his works.”  Matthew 16:27

“For we must all be manifested before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body, according as he hath done, whether it be good or evil.”  2 Corinthians 5:10

“And I saw the dead, great and small, standing in the presence of the throne, and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged by those things which were written in the books, according to their works.” Apocalypse 20:12

“There shall not enter into it [Heaven] any thing defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie, but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb.” Apocalypse 21:27

The unrighteous are condemned for failing to do good deeds. Matthew 25:31-46

“But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if a man be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he shall be compared to a man beholding his own countenance in a glass. For he beheld himself, and went his way, and presently forgot what manner of man he was. But he that hath looked into the perfect law of liberty, and hath continued therein, not becoming a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work; this man shall be blessed in his deed. And if any man think himself to be religious, not bridling his tongue, but deceiving his own heart, this man’ s religion is vain. Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation: and to keep one’s self unspotted from this world.” James 1:22-27

“Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, Envies, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.” Galatians 5:19-21

“Little children, let no man deceive you. He that doth justice is just, even as he is just.” 1 John 3:7

Whatever your opinion of the Dimond brothers, they do an excellent job of exposing the Protestant foolishness on justification:

Docuмentary: Protestantism's Big Justification Lie

a careful exposition of how the Protestant doctrine of justification is not only contradicted by Scripture,
but is also self-contradictory


https://youtu.be/L14UNjaZJm8
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Bonaventure on November 26, 2019, 04:29:27 PM
His "Bible" and "concordances" seem to be missing several dozen verses:

“But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar?” James 2:20-21

Was not the Book of James one of the books the arch-heretic Luther threw out? 
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on November 26, 2019, 04:33:26 PM
1. They teach their adherents to pray to the saints, to Mary (Jesus' mother), and to disregard the following: Jesus said: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) Jesus also told his faithful apostles: “Most truly I say to you, If you ask the Father for anything he will give it to you in my name.”—John 16:23.

There is only one mediator between man and God, . . . Jesus. Not Mary, not Peter, not Jude, not Paul, . . . Jesus and Him alone.

Extensive scriptural proof texts honoring Mary and praying for the intercession of the Angels and Saints: http://judaism.is/hating-mary.html (http://judaism.is/hating-mary.html)

Mimicking the тαℓмυdic hatred of the Mother of God (see Jesus in the тαℓмυd (http://judaism.is/ʝʊdɛօ-christian.html#jesus-in-the-тαℓмυd)), the most Biblically ignorant and vicious of Protestants insist that Catholics “worship” the Blessed Virgin Mary. We do not worship her, we honor her exactly as the Bible honors Mary in Luke 1:26-55 (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=1&l=26#x), the source of her titles, our “Hail Mary,” and Magnificat (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09534a.htm):
 
“And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth,  To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin' s name was Mary. And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.  Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be.  And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.  He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.  And of his kingdom there shall be no end.  And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?  And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren:  Because no word shall be impossible with God.  And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.  And Mary rising up in those days, went into the hill country with haste into a city of Juda.  And she entered into the house of Zachary, and saluted Elizabeth. And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:  And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.  And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?  For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.  And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord.
 
“And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord.  And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.  Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.” Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name.  And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him. He hath shewed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart.   He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble.   He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.   He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy:   As he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever.”

Psalms prefigure Mary as the “house” of the Lord (like the Ark), the “daughter of the King” (to be honored). Don’t be confused by the differences in Catholic and Protestant Psalm numbering.



There are other such examples.



See also: Can Mary's Sinlessness Be Defended?
http://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/2015/12/can-marys-sinlessness-be-defended.html (http://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/2015/12/can-marys-sinlessness-be-defended.html)
Archetypes and scriptural support for the Immaculate Conception of Mary
http://www.ccel.org/node/7738 (http://www.ccel.org/node/7738)
entry for “Immaculate Conception,” Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 edition
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm)
the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm)
 
The Bible and Apostolic Tradition both teach us that Mary and the Saints are our family:



Do you have pictures of your family?  We do.
Do you worship "graven images" of your mother?  Neither do we.
 
Dulia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm)
 
(Greek doulia; Latin servitus), a theological (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580a.htm) term signifying the honour (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07462a.htm) paid to the saints, while latria (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09036a.htm) means worship given to God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) alone, and hyperdulia the veneration offered to the Blessed Virgin Mary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm). St. Augustine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm) (City of God X.2 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120110.htm)) distinguishes two kinds of servitus: “one which is due to men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) . . . which in Greek is called dulia; the other, latria (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09036a.htm), which is the service pertaining to the worship of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm).” St. Thomas (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14663b.htm) (II-II:103:3 (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3103.htm#article3)) bases the distinction on the difference between God’s supreme dominion and that which one man may exercise over another. Catholic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm) theologians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580a.htm) insist that the difference is one of kind and not merely of degree; dulia and latria (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09036a.htm) being as far apart as are the creature and the Creator. Leibniz (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09134b.htm), though a Protestant (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm), recognizes the “discrimen infinitum atque immensum between the honour (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07462a.htm) which is due to God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) and that which is shown to the saints (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm), the one being called by theologians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580a.htm), after Augustine's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm) example, latria (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09036a.htm), the other dulia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm)”; and he further declares that this difference should “not only be inculcated in the minds (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10321a.htm) of hearers and learners, but should also be manifested as far as possible by outward signs (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm)” (Syst. theol., p. 184). A further distinction is made between dulia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm) in the absolute sense, the honour paid to persons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm), and dulia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm) in the relative sense, the honour paid to inanimate objects, such as images and relics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12734a.htm). With regard to the saints (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm), dulia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm) includes veneration and invocation; the former being the honour paid directly to them, the latter having primarily in view the petitioner's advantage. More detailed explanation of dulia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm) and the reasons for which it is shown to persons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) or things will be found in the articles IMAGES (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm), RELICS (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12734a.htm), SAINTS (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm). See also ADORATION (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01151a.htm) and WORSHIP (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15710a.htm).
 
from the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 edition
 
Intercession
 
The Bible gives an example of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s intercession in John 2:3-5 (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=2&l=3#x): “...And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine.  And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come.  His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.” This verse plainly shows that Mary knew of the miracle that he was to perform, and that it was at her request (intercession) He performed the miracle.
 
The Bible exhorts us to honor Mary, prefigures and compares her to the honored Ark of the Covenant, and gives an example of her intercession:



The Bible esteems asking the angels and saints for their intercession:

Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on November 26, 2019, 04:34:24 PM
Was not the Book of James one of the books the arch-heretic Luther threw out?
Yes, precisely because it exposes Luther's "once saved" manure.
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on November 26, 2019, 04:39:50 PM
2. They teach their women (with no scripture to back up their teaching) that they should abandon their woman hood, . . . instead they should become menial servants to the church, . . . and to the appointed human leaders of the church. This is in total disregard to the printed teaching: 1 Timothy 5:14 (KJV) 14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

Do you have any idea what he is talking about above? I don't.

3. They teach that it is more proper to speak in an unknown tongue during the whole service, . . . disregarding the scripture: 1 Corinthians 14:27-28 (KJV) 27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Without the interpretation, . . . every single latin service is in direct disregard to the commandment above.

Firstly, [in better days] most Catholics studied Latin in grammar school and high school. Latin is our common tongue and has been so for millennia.

Secondly, for those weak in Latin the translation is provided in Latin-Vernacular Missals and the "interpretation" is provided in the sermon. This guy is reading too many Jack Chick Comics.
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on November 26, 2019, 04:52:32 PM
Never said the word of God is wrong, just the written word can be interpreted by different people and come up with a different meaning . Also can be taken out of context to fit a point of view. God is a forgiving God he made us all I might be wrong but the good will not be thrown into the pits of hell no mater what religion they are.

"…interpreted by different people…" The Bible rejects private interpretation: 2 Peter 1:20; Acts 8:26-31 Meanwhile self-proclaimed "Bible Believers" reject the Bible while embracing private interpretation http://judaism.is/private-interpretation.html (http://judaism.is/private-interpretation.html) , sola scriptura http://judaism.is/sola-scriptura.html (http://judaism.is/sola-scriptura.html) , sola fide http://judaism.is/once-saved.html (http://judaism.is/once-saved.html) , and the rest of ʝʊdɛօ-Protestant rubbish.

God gave teaching authority to the Apostles, not to every bonehead who thinks he is his own little pope:

"Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Matthew 28:19

Why do I say ʝʊdɛօ-Protestant? Because: 

How the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan “reformed” Christians out of the Church:
 
Jєωιѕн Influence on Christian Reform Movements
by Rabbi Louis I. Newman,
http://www.amazon.com/Jєωιѕн-Influence-Christian-Reform-Movements/dp/0404505139 (http://www.amazon.com/Jєωιѕн-Influence-Christian-Reform-Movements/dp/0404505139)
http://www.questia.com/library/book/Jєωιѕн-influence-on-christian-reform-movements-by-louis-i-newman.jsp (http://www.questia.com/library/book/Jєωιѕн-influence-on-christian-reform-movements-by-louis-i-newman.jsp)
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Bonaventure on November 26, 2019, 04:54:46 PM
2. They teach their women (with no scripture to back up their teaching) that they should abandon their woman hood, . . . instead they should become menial servants to the church, . . . and to the appointed human leaders of the church. This is in total disregard to the printed teaching: 1 Timothy 5:14 (KJV) 14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

Do you have any idea what he is talking about above? I don't.

He's talking about the Catholic Church, in general, and how they supposedly treat their women.

I'm sure he got this from his mother's milk, imbibed into him at a young age, sitting around the table after dinner, where pa told stories of the nasty Catholics, how they eat children, and worship Baal....  He's one of the those that are definitely not going to listen.  His own bigoted hatred has blinded him to anything but his own version of truth.
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on November 26, 2019, 04:58:34 PM
He's talking about the Catholic Church, in general, and how they supposedly treat their women.

I'm sure he got this from his mother's milk, imbibed into him at a young age, sitting around the table after dinner, where pa told stories of the nasty Catholics, how they eat children, and worship Baal....  He's one of the those that are definitely not going to listen.  His own bigoted hatred has blinded him to anything but his own version of truth.
When I have run into that type, I simply suggest putting down their Jack Chick comic books (https://chick.com/products/category?type=comics#&&Language=English&Status=All&SortBy=A-Z&PageNumber=1&Category=Catholicism&ShowCount=12) and instead checking authoritative Catholic sources of Catholic teaching. It's not like the Church has been secretive about our beliefs and disciplines.
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on November 26, 2019, 05:30:25 PM
1. They teach their adherents to pray to the saints, to Mary (Jesus' mother), and to disregard the following: Jesus said: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) Jesus also told his faithful apostles: “Most truly I say to you, If you ask the Father for anything he will give it to you in my name.”—John 16:23.

There is only one mediator between man and God, . . . Jesus. Not Mary, not Peter, not Jude, not Paul, . . . Jesus and Him alone.

Extensive scriptural proof texts honoring Mary and praying for the intercession of the Angels and Saints: http://judaism.is/hating-mary.html (http://judaism.is/hating-mary.html)

Mimicking the тαℓмυdic hatred of the Mother of God (see Jesus in the тαℓмυd (http://judaism.is/ʝʊdɛօ-christian.html#jesus-in-the-тαℓмυd)), the most Biblically ignorant and vicious of Protestants insist that Catholics “worship” the Blessed Virgin Mary. We do not worship her, we honor her exactly as the Bible honors Mary in Luke 1:26-55 (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=1&l=26#x), the source of her titles, our “Hail Mary,” and Magnificat (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09534a.htm):
 
“And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth,  To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin' s name was Mary. And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.  Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be.  And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.  He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.  And of his kingdom there shall be no end.  And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?  And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren:  Because no word shall be impossible with God.  And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.  And Mary rising up in those days, went into the hill country with haste into a city of Juda.  And she entered into the house of Zachary, and saluted Elizabeth. And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:  And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.  And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?  For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.  And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord.
 
“And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord.  And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.  Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.” Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name.  And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him. He hath shewed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart.   He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble.   He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.   He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy:   As he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever.”

Psalms prefigure Mary as the “house” of the Lord (like the Ark), the “daughter of the King” (to be honored). Don’t be confused by the differences in Catholic and Protestant Psalm numbering.



There are other such examples.



See also: Can Mary's Sinlessness Be Defended?
http://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/2015/12/can-marys-sinlessness-be-defended.html (http://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/2015/12/can-marys-sinlessness-be-defended.html)
Archetypes and scriptural support for the Immaculate Conception of Mary
http://www.ccel.org/node/7738 (http://www.ccel.org/node/7738)
entry for “Immaculate Conception,” Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 edition
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm)
the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm)
 
The Bible and Apostolic Tradition both teach us that Mary and the Saints are our family:



Do you have pictures of your family?  We do.
Do you worship "graven images" of your mother?  Neither do we.

Dulia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm)
 
(Greek doulia; Latin servitus), a theological (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580a.htm) term signifying the honour (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07462a.htm) paid to the saints, while latria (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09036a.htm) means worship given to God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) alone, and hyperdulia the veneration offered to the Blessed Virgin Mary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm). St. Augustine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm) (City of God X.2 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120110.htm)) distinguishes two kinds of servitus: “one which is due to men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) . . . which in Greek is called dulia; the other, latria (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09036a.htm), which is the service pertaining to the worship of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm).” St. Thomas (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14663b.htm) (II-II:103:3 (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3103.htm#article3)) bases the distinction on the difference between God’s supreme dominion and that which one man may exercise over another. Catholic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm) theologians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580a.htm) insist that the difference is one of kind and not merely of degree; dulia and latria (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09036a.htm) being as far apart as are the creature and the Creator. Leibniz (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09134b.htm), though a Protestant (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm), recognizes the “discrimen infinitum atque immensum between the honour (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07462a.htm) which is due to God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) and that which is shown to the saints (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm), the one being called by theologians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580a.htm), after Augustine's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm) example, latria (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09036a.htm), the other dulia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm)”; and he further declares that this difference should “not only be inculcated in the minds (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10321a.htm) of hearers and learners, but should also be manifested as far as possible by outward signs (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm)” (Syst. theol., p. 184). A further distinction is made between dulia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm) in the absolute sense, the honour paid to persons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm), and dulia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm) in the relative sense, the honour paid to inanimate objects, such as images and relics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12734a.htm). With regard to the saints (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm), dulia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm) includes veneration and invocation; the former being the honour paid directly to them, the latter having primarily in view the petitioner's advantage. More detailed explanation of dulia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm) and the reasons for which it is shown to persons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) or things will be found in the articles IMAGES (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm), RELICS (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12734a.htm), SAINTS (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm). See also ADORATION (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01151a.htm) and WORSHIP (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15710a.htm).
 
from the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 edition
 
Intercession
 
The Bible gives an example of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s intercession in John 2:3-5 (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=2&l=3#x): “...And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine.  And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come.  His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.” This verse plainly shows that Mary knew of the miracle that he was to perform, and that it was at her request (intercession) He performed the miracle.
 
The Bible exhorts us to honor Mary, prefigures and compares her to the honored Ark of the Covenant, and gives an example of her intercession:



The Bible esteems asking the angels and saints for their intercession:
Interesting that the scriptural references were stripped from the post.

Psalms prefigure Mary as the “house” of the Lord (like the Ark), the “daughter of the King” (to be honored). Don’t be confused by the differences in Catholic and Protestant Psalm numbering.

Psalms 44:14:  “All the glory of the daughter of the King is within…”

Psalms 83:3-5:  “My soul longeth and fainteth for the courts of the Lord. My heart and my flesh have rejoiced in the living God.  For the sparrow hath found herself a house, and the turtle a nest for herself where she may lay her young ones: Thy altars, O Lord of hosts, my king and my God.  Blessed are they that dwell in thy house, O Lord: they shall praise thee for ever and ever.”  Just as in Luke 1:48, “...henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.”

Numbers 9:15:  “Now on the day that the tabernacle [a tent used as a sanctuary for the Ark of the Covenant] was reared up, a cloud covered it...” prefigures Mary in Luke 1:35, “And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”

2 Kings 6:9-15 (2 Samuel for Protestants) repeatedly mentions the Ark and describes David’s joy dancing at the return of the Ark. This prefigures Mary as the Ark in Luke 1:44-56 when Elizabeth’s baby jumped in the womb in the presence of Mary, the New Ark, bearing Jesus in her womb, “… the infant in my womb leaped for joy.  And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord.”

The Bible and Apostolic Tradition both teach us that Mary and the Saints are our family:

Romans 12:5:  “So we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.”
No exception for the dead!

1 Corinthians 12:26:  “And if one member suffer any thing, all the members suffer with it; or if one member glory, all the members rejoice with it.”
We are one family in Jesus Christ, the living and the dead.

The Bible exhorts us to honor Mary, prefigures and compares her to the honored Ark of the Covenant, and gives an example of her intercession:

Luke 1:44-56  prefigured in Psalms 44:14 (Catholic numbering)
Luke 1:35  prefigured in Numbers 9:15
Luke 1:44-56  prefigured in 2 Kings 6:9-15
John 2:3-5

The Bible esteems asking the angels and saints for their intercession:

Apocalypse 5:8 (Revelation for Protestants):  “…and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.”
Tobias 12:12-15:  The archangel Raphael intercedes presenting Tobias and Sarah’s prayer to God.
Zacharias 1:12-16:  Guardian angels intercede with God on behalf of the living of Jerusalem and the cities of Juda.
2 Maccabees 15:7-16:  Jeremias appears alive with Onias to intercede for the people and the city.
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Bonaventure on December 02, 2019, 12:30:07 PM
Some time has passed, and the thread on the other forum has remained relatively quiet since I made my last volley of responses.  Until this morning, when the OP finally chimed in.  The OP has a tendency of simply posting articles without much comment, and does not generally engage in discussion.  Several times in the thread, though, I've called him out as a Christian Zionist and anti-Catholic.  I know that he is reading the thread as he has "liked" several of the antic-Catholic responses I've already reposted here. 

As a bit more background on this particular thread on the other forum, it was started when the OP posted this 'article' Our European 'Friends' (https://carolineglick.com/our-european-friends/) written by American-turned-Israeli Caroline Glick (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Glick). The 'article' is nothing more than the usual Israeli propaganda, bemoaning that some Israelis are having a difficult time slinging their wares because of the usual culprit, antisemitism.  Go figure. 

in any event, below is the OP's most recent post, wherein he attempts to defend himself as well as his Zionism:

Quote
...it always amazes me when someone else tells me what I think [I called him a Chrisitan Zionist and anti-Catholic]. Go back through all my posts and find one that belittles Catholics. Catholics are part of the people that make up Christians and while I disagree with them on some things they certainly are Christians.

Yes, Christians are killed everyday by Muslims. They are the most persecuted of all people. I've posted articles that tell this story but usually the stories come from third world countries that the media could care less about. The people attacked on the London Bridge Friday were probably Christians along with the people in The Hague in Holland the same day. Try to find a news story that states their faith.

I post a lot of articles about anti-semitism because it is a growing problem. Even in Europe anti-semitism has had a huge revival. When the chips are down Israel can only depend on support from the USA. I'm proud that my country feels this way and for all the other "underdogs" in the world.

So, as you can see, it's the usual "I supply plenty of good stuff so please disregard my poison-pills."

The OP also deflects my strongest allegation against him, in that his Christian Zionism comes from the crazy Protestant belief that giving the land of Israel to the modern-day Jєωs is a prerequisite to the Second Coming of Christ, which the C-Z's are, for some crazy reason, champing at the bit to get to.

BTW, those two who were recently stabbed in London by the jihadi... I read that they were both left-winger Londoners.  So, my guess is that they were either lapsed Anglicans (still Protestants) and/or atheists.  What the OP above confuses, though, is that they were not killed because of their beliefs in Christianity (or subsequent lack thereof), but because they weren't muslim.  Big difference. 

Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on December 02, 2019, 01:29:03 PM
Challenge him on his land promise heresy.

"Isn't the Word of God enough for you? The Word of God says He fulfilled His land promises already. Who are you to contradict God?"

“And the Lord God gave to Israel all the land that he had sworn to give to their fathers: and they possessed it and dwelt in it.... Not so much as one word, which he had promised to perform unto them, was made void, but all came to pass.” Josue 21:41-43 (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=6&ch=21&l=41#x)
 
“Thou, O Lord God, art he who chosest Abram, and broughtest him forth out of the fire of the Chaldeans, and gavest him the name of Abraham. And thou didst find his heart faithful before thee: and thou madest a covenant with him, to give him the land of the Chanaanite, of the Hethite, and of the Amorrhite, and of the Pherezite, and of the Jebusite, and of the Gergezite, to give it to his seed: and thou hast fulfilled thy words, because thou art just.” 2 Esdras [Nehemiah] 9:7-8 (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=16&ch=9&l=7#x)
 
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on December 02, 2019, 01:34:27 PM
Here is Sungenis's excellent scriptural debunking of "rapture": http://judaism.is/assets/rapture.pdf (http://judaism.is/assets/rapture.pdf)

It is worth having some familiarity with that to nail Mr. C-Z if he pulls any of that rubbish.  Also, it wouldn't hurt to summarize Scofield's criminality, womanizing, and collaboration with God's most organized opposition on earth: http://judaism.is/christian-zionism.html (http://judaism.is/christian-zionism.html)
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Bonaventure on December 02, 2019, 03:05:59 PM
Challenge him on his land promise heresy.

I most definitely could.  But my guess is that he'll just disregard any such argument, instead claiming that it's really all about purging 'antisemitism' (ya know, the greatest crime humanity has ever known).  If so, this points to a much larger beef I have with him, and many like him, namely that they treat any criticism of the modern, nation-state of Israel as de facto antisemitism.  Don't like Israeli policies? Well then, you're an antisemite. That's precisely the gist of Glick article posted above.  
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on December 02, 2019, 05:19:14 PM
Well… You could simply concede that…

(http://judaism.is/images/facts%20are%20antisemitic.jpg?crc=85078862)
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Bonaventure on December 02, 2019, 08:07:13 PM
I'll be sure to throw that in if it becomes necessary.  

I just spent more time than I'd like to admit composing a response to a (new) poster who stated the following:

Quote
Quote
The New Covenant only means that the means of salvation is now through Christ, it does not mean that the Old Testament no longer has any meaning and it is to be disregarded, we are just not to follow the parts that have to do with salvation the old way, sacrifices and ritual, and it should still be known in historical context.

There are still many prophecies yet to unfold from the Old Testament, and ALL will come to pass.

To say we are to disregard God's commands regarding Israel in the Old Testament, would be to say we might as well disregard the Ten Commandments and just kill, worship other gods, lie, steal, screw everyone's wife and not go to church.
I have read, and am in full agreement, that one must know, and understand the the Old Testament, and the Law of the Old Testament, in order to fully, and properly, understand the New Testament and what it is saying.
Unfortunately, most ignore the OT, and focus on strictly the NT, and in doing so lose much valuable information and insight.

Again, my response was heavily influenced by the judaism.is sight, but it still takes time to put all of it together.  

Adding to that, it's me versus five or more Protestants at the moment (only one of my co-religionists has dared stick his head up, but he abruptly left).  I'll let you know if/when I convert any of them.  :laugh1:

One thing that occurred to me... the way these Protestants refer to "Israel" when talking about both the modern-day nation state founded in 1948, is the same as that as found in the Old Testament.  It's like naming a privately-owned reserve bank the Federal Reserve; for the most part, people just think that since it's got the word "Federal" in it, and it prints the cash, it MUST be run by the government.  Same concept applies to naming the modern-day nation-state 'Israel'.
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on December 02, 2019, 08:21:11 PM
I'll be sure to throw that in if it becomes necessary.  

I just spent more time than I'd like to admit composing a response to a (new) poster who stated the following:
I have read, and am in full agreement, that one must know, and understand the the Old Testament, and the Law of the Old Testament, in order to fully, and properly, understand the New Testament and what it is saying.
Unfortunately, most ignore the OT, and focus on strictly the NT, and in doing so lose much valuable information and insight.

Again, my response was heavily influenced by the judaism.is sight, but it still takes time to put all of it together.  

Adding to that, it's me versus five or more Protestants at the moment (only one of my co-religionists has dared stick his head up, but he abruptly left).  I'll let you know if/when I convert any of them.  :laugh1:

One thing that occurred to me... the way these Protestants refer to "Israel" when talking about both the modern-day nation state founded in 1948, is the same as that as found in the Old Testament.  It's like naming a privately-owned reserve bank the Federal Reserve; for the most part, people just think that since it's got the word "Federal" in it, and it prints the cash, it MUST be run by the government.  Same concept applies to naming the modern-day nation-state 'Israel'.
Exactly so! Call it "Counterfeit Israel" and they will go apoplectic. I rather like referring to "The ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan's MidEast Project."

You have to force them to keep their eye on the ball. No sane Christian (= Catholic) says "disregard" the Old Testament, but one must unequivocally state the Mosaic Covenant is dead; it cannot save. Don't let them get away with their "disregard" straw man argument.
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Bonaventure on December 05, 2019, 08:46:56 AM
The thread on the other forum has been quiet these past few days.  Until today.  Which is a bit unusual, as threads over there either burn strong and suddenly die out, or don't burn at all.

This, which was not responsive to any particular post I had made, is from the guy who bragged he got an "A" in debate (and therefore you should listen to him!):

Quote
The whole underlying problem here with you, Mr. [Bonaventure] trying to devoid my statements, is that just because the word of God said one thing, it doesn't mean it has one meaning and that's it, it is to be taken in context of other scriptures and to be interpreted in light of other scriptures.

A perfect example, when it is written that salvation is a GIFT and without works, and seems to be contradictory to other verses that say works are important - Yes works are important and they are a sign of believers. But they are not required to go to heaven.

Take the two thieves that were on the cross with Jesus, he told one that today he will be in paradise (heaven) with Jesus. He had NO TIME to unhook himself, go do a bunch of works and guess that it will be enough, and he didn't have time to go be baptized. So that shatters all of that. And I could post examples that shatter everything you post but I don't have that kind of time. It is not going to glorify Christ, or do any good really.

So Mr. [Bonaventure],
I have no problem with you, I am not angry with you, I can go to another thread and still laugh at your pics, or give you a thanks.

What this all is, is mental masturbation. I do not wish to continue some fruitless argument with you and I'm not saying the scriptures you post do not say what they mean.

But they, and all scripture is to be interpreted in light of other scriptures.

The only thing I have to say is your interpretation of Matthew 24 is not correct by any standard. Even though there was "destruction" in the area, the whole chapter is a prophecy of the last days when Jesus would return. He did not return "a few decades" after his Crucifixion. It is said in Mark 13:29, "So Ye in like manner, when Ye shall see these things come to pass (all events together in all writings of the apostles in the books I mention, Matt 24, Mark 13, Luke 21), know that it (his return) is nigh, even at the doors". Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 are all parallel texts of the same last days events. Some things are found in others, they need each other to paint the complete picture, they are not wrong on their own, but they are also not complete on their own either. One event happening, or even several or many events happening at a time does not necessarily mean a prophecy is fulfilled, and certain prophecies need to be fulfilled before others can be, every event written has to be done for a prophecy to be fulfilled. The "abomination of desolation" was not in the temple "a few decades after his Crucifixion so it was not a possible fulfillment of Matthew 24. Another perfect example of scripture needing to be interpreted in light of other scripture.

From the KJV bible, translated directly from the Greek and Hebrew:

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their faith in him." Proverbs 30:5

Yes, I am guilty of using some garbage translation off the internet when talking to you late at night that I Googled, and I didn't get my bible, sorry. The KJV version by the way is a direct translation from the Greek/Hebrew, any word not found in the original scriptures is in italics. There are no verses missing in it, or my Strong's concordance.

But by now I know you, your interpretation against me is, I am a lazy protestant, don't know scripture, don't know jack [censored] don't take the time to do it right, etc lol. Doesn't mater if I worked 14 hours that day, have a migraine, have a pet dying, making other life changing decisions, I could be in the ER with minutes to live and typing something, etc, you will always manipulate some minor detail not in it's absolute completeness or context to try and slam me. Your twisting scripture in this thread arguing against me in my opinion, are exactly like the impeachment trial going on, it's a freaking joke lol. I'm out.

I like that last paragraph.  First, he's taken my responses to his less-than-adequate posts as a personal attack.  Second, he attempts to diffuse his prior, inadequate comments by introducing a several excuses as to why they were inadequate, but of course none of them apply as he clearly admitted he was just being lazy from the get-go. 

Also note... he now refers to me with the 'Mr.' suffix! 

Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on December 05, 2019, 09:40:38 AM
First, the context of the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments is the faithlessness of the Jєωs who repeatedly voided the Mosaic Covenant, rejected their Messiah and His New Covenant, and killed Him.

Your interlocutor perverts and weaponizes "context" as Hoffman so perfectly encapsulated here:

“‘Context’ is everything for the defenders of the тαℓмυd. Fair enough. But by ‘context’ they do not mean taking into account the surrounding text, but rather submitting to Judaism’s own narrative about itself, which includes how it presents problem texts to non-Judaic audiences.... The rabbis even deny in many cases that there is a plain meaning.... It is enough that [the rabbi] states it and gentiles believe it; anything else is ‘antisemitic.’ This pattern of intimidation and thought control is repeated with monotonous effect, by thought cops and apologists for Judaism. It is a stock response intended to frighten off the opposition, premised mainly on the moral authority of the declarative sentences used by the ‘expert’ on Judaism. Debate (‘polemic’) on the part of informed skeptics is not permitted, since it constitutes the ‘misuse’ of a scholar’s knowledge of rabbinic texts. Debating tactics and polemical tools are reserved solely for rabbis and their allies, along with just a dash of permissible dissimulation to leaven the burden of swallowing the pottage. And when deception and ‘out of context’ statements serve to advance Judaism, they are all well and good....”

Michael Hoffman, Judaism Discovered: A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition, and Deceit. ISBN 13: 9780970378453 pages 137-138
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on December 05, 2019, 09:56:30 AM
Second, his sola fide heresy.

That the Good Thief showed remorse and was forgiven and in Heaven the same day does not negate the faith and works required. Neither does the example of the Good Thief negate the existence of Purgatory.

The Good Thief not only showed remorse, but while in his own agony showed kindness towards Jesus Christ, God. Quite evidently, that act earned unique merit. Who among us today has the opportunity to give succor to Our Redeemer in His very moment of agony? One other person, the Bad Thief, had the same opportunity, but choose to abuse Our Redeemer. God may have judged the Good Thief sufficiently "clean" (no defiled thing enters Heaven) to enter Heaven immediately OR God may have judged the Good Thief needed the rest of the day in Purgatory (after all, we have reports that an hour in Purgatory seems as 30 years). We do not know which way God judged (Purgatory or not) except that same day the Good Thief deserved to be in Heaven for his act of kindness and succor.

Hence, the example of the Good Thief reinforces (1) the special circuмstance of the Good Thief's act and (2) the normative way to Heaven indeed requires good acts and faith:

“But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar?” James 2:20-21

“Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 7:21

“…But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” Matthew 19:17

“And when he was gone forth into the way, a certain man running up and kneeling before him, asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may receive life everlasting?  And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God.  Thou knowest the commandments: Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, bear not false witness, do no fraud, honour thy father and mother.  But he answering, said to him: Master, all these things I have observed from my youth. And Jesus looking on him, loved him, and said to him: One thing is wanting unto thee: go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Mark 10:17-21

“And a certain ruler asked him, saying: Good master, what shall I do to possess everlasting life?  And Jesus said to him: Why dost thou call me good? None is good but God alone.  Thou knowest the commandments: Thou shalt not kill: Thou shalt not commit adultery: Thou shalt not steal: Thou shalt not bear false witness: Honour thy father and mother.  Who said: All these things have I kept from my youth.  Which when Jesus had heard, he said to him: Yet one thing is wanting to thee: sell all whatever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.” Luke 18:18-22

“Amen, amen I say to you: If any man keep my word, he shall not see death for ever.” John 8:51

“You are my friends, if you do the things that I command you.” John 15:14

“Wonder not at this; for the hour cometh, wherein all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God.  And they that have done good things, shall come forth unto the resurrection of life; but they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment” John 5:28-29

“For in Christ Jesus neither circuмcision availeth any thing, nor uncircuмcision: but faith that worketh by charity.” Galatians 5:6

“…and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.” 1 Corinthians 13:2

“Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation”  Phillipians 2:12

“But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.” Matthew 24:13

“What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food: And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith.” James 2:14-18

“…Who will render to every man according to his works.” Romans 2:6

“For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” Romans 2:13

“Know you not, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are whom you obey, whether it be of sin unto death, or of obedience unto justice.” Romans 6:16

“Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.  For if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live.… For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit, that we are the sons of God.  And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him.” Romans 8:12-17

“For if God hath not spared the natural branches, fear lest perhaps he also spare not thee.  See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards them indeed that are fallen, the severity; but towards thee, the goodness of God, if thou abide in goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.” Romans 11:21-22

“And being consummated, he became, to all that obey him, the cause of eternal salvation.” Hebrews 5:9

“Follow peace with all men, and holiness: without which no man shall see God.” Hebrews 12:14

“Take heed to thyself and to doctrine: be earnest in them. For in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee.” 1 Timothy 4:16

“For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will He render to every man according to his works.”  Matthew 16:27

“For we must all be manifested before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body, according as he hath done, whether it be good or evil.”  2 Corinthians 5:10

“And I saw the dead, great and small, standing in the presence of the throne, and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged by those things which were written in the books, according to their works.” Apocalypse 20:12

“There shall not enter into it [Heaven] any thing defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie, but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb.” Apocalypse 21:27

The unrighteous are condemned for failing to do good deeds. Matthew 25:31-46

“But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if a man be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he shall be compared to a man beholding his own countenance in a glass. For he beheld himself, and went his way, and presently forgot what manner of man he was. But he that hath looked into the perfect law of liberty, and hath continued therein, not becoming a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work; this man shall be blessed in his deed. And if any man think himself to be religious, not bridling his tongue, but deceiving his own heart, this man’ s religion is vain. Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation: and to keep one’s self unspotted from this world.” James 1-22-27

“Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, Envies, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.” Galatians 5:19-21

“Little children, let no man deceive you. He that doth justice is just, even as he is just.” 1 John 3:7

Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on December 05, 2019, 10:03:46 AM
Third, I have no idea what he is driving at in his Matthew 24 digression.

Fourth, it is amusing how quickly he excuses himself from the discussion.
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: klasG4e on December 06, 2019, 01:09:14 AM
 Who among us today has the opportunity to give succor to Our Redeemer in His very moment of agony?

Actually, since our omniscient Saviour has transcended time ever since time was created, we arguably have the wonderfully blessed opportunity of offering consolation to His most Sacred Heart whenever we in good faith meditate on His cruel passion and ignominious death.  Who can say that Christ did not, much less could not, receive succor by such meditation at the very moment of His agony?  Something to ponder -- especially during a holy hour in front of the Blessed Sacrament!
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Bonaventure on December 06, 2019, 08:45:30 AM
So, got up this morning, and found that someone had sent me this private message over on the other forum in relation to the 'Christian Zionist' thread:

Quote
Keep on keeping on there, [Bonaventure]; I've fought a bit with the forum on the same topic, and now pretty much just spectate.  People have been so brainwashed into the Darby/Scofield ideology that they can't see the obvious, even when written in Scripture.  I'm just slightly to the Christian side of Agnostic, but the warnings in the Bible are pretty plain to see, to me.  I've got good money on the fact that none of these worshipers of the State of Israel know anything of the "Seven Noahide Laws", who would be affected by them, and the punishment for breaking them, either.  And the fact that they've already been mentioned in our Congress - unlike "Sharia Law" which everyone thinks is the real threat. Too many Christians I know are far more apt to become angry over criticism of Israel than they do over someone criticizing their own Christ.  The complete Zionist education since WWII is amazing.

(emphasis mine)

So, I've got at least one admirer watching from the sidelines.  However, as shown in the emphasized above, he's still not fully on board with the One True Faith.  My response to him will be along the lines that it's time to get off the sidelines (with his agnosticism), and join the team, which is the first step (of many) to setting things right.
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on December 06, 2019, 09:26:00 AM
Good work! Bring him into the fold.

If you need anything on "The 'Seven' (actually 620) Noahide Laws"… http://judaism.is/noahide-deceit.html (http://judaism.is/noahide-deceit.html)

(I recently added some scans from Pike's Morals and Dogma, 1871 edition)

(http://judaism.is/images/noahide%20law.jpg?crc=3889932707)

(http://judaism.is/images/beit%20din%20halakah%20psak.jpg?crc=3888387035)

(http://judaism.is/images/decapitation%20by%20Jєωs.jpg?crc=434071564)

(http://judaism.is/images/noahide%20law2.jpg?crc=483712628)
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Bonaventure on December 06, 2019, 03:30:52 PM
Third, I have no idea what he is driving at in his Matthew 24 digression.

So I went through the thread again to see what he's complaining of the citation of "Matthew 24."  I made reference to it in only two places, the second of which he seems to have latched onto, which was itself a continuing thought on Joshua 23:16 alluding to the Jєωs being "...taken away from this excellent land..." when they "...shall have transgressed the covenant...," to which I added:

Quote
And that's precisely what happened a few decades after Christ's crucifixion, with the fall of the Second Temple. Which Jesus too said would come. ("Amen I say to you there shall not be left here a stone upon a stone that shall not be destroyed." Matthew 24:2 (https://m14forum.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drbo.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fd%3Fb%3Ddrb%26bk%3D47%26ch%3D24%26l%3D2%23x)

Now, I believe his complaint was that it wasn't the destruction of the temple that was being discussed in Joshua 23:16, but the falling of the Second Temple was the most proximate cause as to why the Jєωs physically left Jerusalem/Judea, regardless of them had having it spiritually taken from them a few decades earlier at the time of the Crucifixion.

But even then, his response is not even on point.  I think he's just rambling to make himself sound like he knows what he's talking about.  I mean, he did get an "A" in debate class, so he's always go that going for him. 
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on December 06, 2019, 03:41:38 PM
…I mean, he did get an "A" in debate class, so he's always go that going for him.
I hope you told him that. Priceless.
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Bonaventure on December 07, 2019, 04:07:56 PM
One other thing... the guy above makes note of the fact that he's now using a KJV Bible (after I pointed out a poor translation he made prior), with the qualification "...translated directly from the Greek and Hebrew...."  The inference being that the KJV is superior.  So what is the argument that it is not, especially vis-a-vis the D-R based off of the Latin Vulgate?  I looked online to see if I could find an answer, most especially from a traditional Catholic standpoint, but there's a lot of noise out there on the subject. 

So, in other words, what would be a Catholic traditionalist's response when someone cites the KJV as being superior to the D-R?  Other than point to the Council of Trent, of course.
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on December 07, 2019, 06:04:25 PM
Other than relying upon the fraudulent Masoretic "Hebrew Bible (instead of the canonical Greek Septuagint)? dumping 7+ books from the Bible? making ~30,000 changes of convenience to Protestant innovations (heresies)? that King James himself was an uncloseted fαɢɢօt?

Other than those "little" things, not much is wrong with the KJV.  Laugh in his face next time he crows about his KJV! :laugh1:

The "Hebrew Bible" Fraud
http://judaism.is/hebrew-bible.html (http://judaism.is/hebrew-bible.html)


Problems with the King James Version
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scripture/translations/kjversion.htm (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scripture/translations/kjversion.htm)
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Bonaventure on December 14, 2019, 09:08:46 PM
So... some more time has passed with not much going on in the thread on the other forum. So I made a comment there today to bump the thread, and it got the following two more responses:

Quote
[Bonaventure!!]  I have gone through this thread and I will add the following!!

I just got home from Virginia where I laid my Mother to Rest next to my father at Quantico  National Cemetery..  That in its self means nothing, but being the good christian that I think I am here goes!!

My hat is off to you as a devote Catholic.  Your ability to quote the bible and its meaning is well above  me.    But I believe with my heart of hearts that when our Lord and Savior does come back to this earth he will not worry about who could quote the bible and its scriptures as you have done so well.  But I must believe that he will judge us my our deeds and how we treated our fellow man.  I hope and pray that it will not be on if we are Catholic or Protestant .. Jєω or some other religion..  

I may be wrong in this thought but I will place my faith in the Lord that if I follow he's teachings as best I can when the Book of Lambs is opened my name will be in that book..  for my actions not not my ability to quote the scriptures..
Carry On!!

My initial reaction to this: I have thus relied heavily upon quoting scripture because my perceived audience is Protestants who have been brought up in their mother's milk under the heresy of sola scriptura. I can, however, start going beyond scripture, quoting Church magisterium, as well as doctors and saints, if he should desire.  But, being that most Protestants automatically discredit such sources, I have yet to quote/rely upon them.

I also got this from the Happy-Dappy Jesus guy who didn't think Jesus would send anyone to Hell for committing adultery (whom I believe is a N.O. Catholic):

Quote
[Bonaventure], what was the act of kindness of the good thief?  I've always viewed that scene as one of an example of Jesus bestowing his Devine Mercy upon another who asks for it sincerely even just before their earthly end.

I... see it more as a conversion in the good thief and he just reaches out to Jesus in that conversation they had since he could not go out and do acts.  Acts are important of course, though people can be saved at any time.

Now, this was in response to essentially what Mark 79 previously stated, namely that the Good Thief not only showed remorse, but while in his own agony showed kindness towards Jesus, and that that act earned unique merit. The thief just didn’t think to himself “I believe” and was thus saved. It was through his act of kindness, in connection with his belief, that saved him.  Nonetheless, the above poster is still having questions as to what 'act' the Good Thief committed. I'm not sure how to more succinctly state what has already been stated.

Regardless, it appears the hard-core Protestants are now sitting back in the weeds.  However, none of my co-religionists have jumped in to the thread to offer any help.  

Best part?  Thread hasn't been closed, and no warnings from the admins that I'll be banned.  Result?  Carry on!
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on December 15, 2019, 10:19:27 AM
Knowing you as best I do, I doubt that you have ever claimed that your ability to quote Scripture can save you, so you should state that his "Scripture saves" tangent is a straw man argument, then I would stick with Scripture as deeply into the discussion as you can. Only after they have been beaten by Scripture into accepting Tradition can you use the Fathers and Magisterium against their ʝʊdɛօ-Protestant heresies.

Worth noting by "Bible Believers" who reject God's judgment regarding His Church when he spoke to the 72 disciples:
"He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me." Luke 10:16 …then you can cite the Scripture showing thta God invested Peter with the authority to govern (Matthew 16:19 & 18:18), teach (Matthew 28:19-20), and sanctify (Matthew 28:18-19; John 20:23). Divinely and logically consistent with His commissions, Jesus founded one Church, singular, with one central authority (Matthew 16:19 & 18:18), a visible organized society (Mark 4:11), and called for oneness of doctrine (John 17:11, 21-23).

Worth noting by "Bible Believers" who think the unbaptised have a normative path to Heaven:
"He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned." Mark 16:16
Of course, you will need to point out that the verse does not read "only faith" and adduce the three dozen verses that teach good acts are necessary for salvation.

You can point out the absolute necessity of receiving the true sacramental Body and Blood of Jesus Christ:
"Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you [a marker for a teaching that must be taken literally]: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day." John 6:54-55

“And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy:…” Colossians 1:18

“And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” Mark 16:15-16

“Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ.  Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord:  Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body.  Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things.  Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it: That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life:  That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish.  So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself.  For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church:  Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.” Ephesians 5:21-30

“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” 1 Timothy 3:15

“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” Matthew 16:18-19

“Let us be glad and rejoice, and give glory to him; for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife [The Church is the Bride of Christ] hath prepared herself.” Apocalypse (Revelation) 19:7

“He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.” Luke 10:16

“Not forsaking our assembly, as some are accustomed; but comforting one another, and so much the more as you see the day approaching. For if we sin willfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins,  But a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries.” Hebrews 10:25-27 [Commentary from the Douay-Rheims translation: “If we sin willfully”: He speaks of the sin of willful apostasy from the known truth; after which, as we can not be baptized again, we can not expect to have that abundant remission of sins, which Christ purchased by his death, applied to our souls in that ample manner as it is in baptism: but we have rather all manner of reason to look for a dreadful judgment; the more because apostates from the known truth, seldom or never have the grace to return to it.”]

“Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you [a marker for a teachung that must be understood literally]: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.” John 6:54-55 His Body and Blood is available only in His Church.

“And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.  In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.” Luke 22:19-20 His Body and Blood is available only in His Church. [Commentary from the Douay-Rheims translation: “Do this for a commemoration of me”: This sacrifice and sacrament is to be continued in the church, to the end of the world, to shew forth the death of Christ, until he cometh. But this commemoration, or remembrance, is by no means inconsistent with the real presence of his body and blood, under these sacramental veils, which represent his death; on the contrary, it is the manner that he himself hath commanded, of commemorating and celebrating his death, by offering in sacrifice, and receiving in the sacrament, that body and blood by which we were redeemed.]
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: klasG4e on December 15, 2019, 09:10:24 PM
You may wish to refer them to this link: The Catholic Religion Proved by the Protestant Bible (https://olrl.org/apologetics/cathprot.shtml)
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on December 16, 2019, 01:02:40 AM
You may wish to refer them to this link: The Catholic Religion Proved by the Protestant Bible (https://olrl.org/apologetics/cathprot.shtml)
As succinct as it is excellent!  I had to add it here: http://judaism.is/neo-pharisees.html (http://judaism.is/neo-pharisees.html)
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Bonaventure on December 16, 2019, 03:54:56 PM
I again provided a response to HappyDappyJesusCatholic-guy (HDJCG) who still cant' wrap his head around St. Dismas, the Good Thief.  Here's what I posted:

Quote
[As previously mentioned], the Good Thief not only showed remorse, but while in his own agony showed kindness towards Jesus Christ, God. That was an act.  He also rebuked the Bad Thief.  That too was an act.  Nor did he ask to be saved: He knew who he was. He knew he was a sinner and did not deserve heaven. He defended Christ (an act) and all he asked for, while he is burning in hell, is for Christ to just remember him. What humble thing to ask God. The thief just didn’t think to himself or say out loud “I believe” and was thus saved.  In addition to him recognizing Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, he succored our Lord at the time of his agony, a time where all but one of his disciples had abandoned Him.  Evidently, it was through these acts of kindness, in connection with his belief, that saved him. ... Bear in mind, also, that the Good Thief was in a very unique situation.  

I then relayed the story of St. Dismas as told by St. Anslem.

Apparently, that still wasn't enough.

Mind you, the only reason why we're even talking about the Good Thief in the thread is because it was brought up as an example of faith without works will lead to salvation.  Putting aside, again, the unique circuмstances surrounding the Good Thief, HDJCG clings to this, along with 'Divine Mercy'.  HDJCG's response:

Quote
Now as I  read your explanation it seems like anything can be an act or works when done in the name or recognition of the Lord or thusly following his teachings.

Since you say acts were done by the good thief and he did not ask for forgiveness are you saying that the Saviour will save those that have done good acts but not necessarily ask to be saved?  

Sounds like in this case Jesus figured out that the good thief wanted to be saved or wanted to receive His Mercy.

I believe he gets the first part mostly correct, but at the same time, I do not think he fully comprehends the sola fide heresy, and how he's prancing around it.

As to the second part, he is again not taking into account the very unique situation the Good Thief found himself in, and is applying story of the Good Thief as a general matter.  His conclusion appears to be that of a Universalist/Agnostic who believes "All Good Dogs Go To Heaven."  Obviously, that's in error.

As for the third part, I think he's finally touching on something truthful.  But the whole "Divine Mercy" seems to smack of presumption, and I think way too many--including Catholics--rely on it as a means to justify their lack of following the true faith.  The presumption of God's mercy, up or down, is a sin against the Holy Ghost. 

I suppose this could be a time to bring up Baptism-by-Desire, but I'm not sure if I want to delve into that as it is a whole other discussion (and one I do not feel competent in having).  
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Bonaventure on December 16, 2019, 04:59:00 PM
AND... things just got lit up.

The guy who I first quoted to start this thread--the one who would go down in a pile of empty brass defending the Jєωs--finally chimed back in.  And what a Duesy it was!

Quote
I had thought I would just leave this thread alone, . . . as the asinine ignorance I have seen promulgated here just borders on the edge of plain old common place stupidity.

Anyone who has so deeply embroiled themselves into the catholic church as it has been presented here only needs two things: prayer and pity.

Prayer so that he/they will see the error of the way, . . . and pity simply because they will most likely not.

It is well docuмented throughout history that the catholic church is a church in name only, . . . much deeper embroiled in theft, murder, pedophilia, and human atrocities second only to Islam, . . . and at times, . . . that is indeed in debate.

Popes, cardinals, priests, bishops, sisters and more have been accused of just about any lawbreaking imaginable only to find them transferred out of the area before the law can be brought to bear on them. Oh, . . . excuse me, . . . I forgot, . . . popes are infallible, . . . yeah, . . . give me a break. They are sinners no less than Hitler, Stalin, Osama Bin Laden, . . . and kissing their own ring will not buy them absolution for their sins.

Yes, . . . there are good Christians in the catholic church, . . . but it is not because of the church as much as it is in spite of the church.

There is not one, . . . not one single solitary priest, bishop, cardinal, pope, . . . or whatever other line office in the "church" that even begins to follow the rudimentary and elementary qualifications laid down by the Holy Spirit and penned by the Apostle Paul. The very first requirement is that they each, all, every one, . . . must be blameless, . . . and then the husband of one wife. Later the Word of God demands of that same individual "having his children in subjection.

Ah, . . . and yes, . . . the priest is supposed to be THE final local authority on how good catholics should treat their wives or husbands, . . . and how they should rear their children. Never having ever had any experience in any of these matters is a total shipwreck of idea to think that they are capable of being able or qualified to give any guidance whatsoever in those matters.

Add to that, . . . the scores of books, pamphlets, missals, poems, etc. handed down by the "fathers" as though they were inspired by God, Himself.

Again, . . . the Word of God addressed that trash in it's closing remarks: Revelation 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

AND, . . . then to purport that the catholic church is indeed the one and only body of believers fit for heaven, . . . as well as being the final true "Israel", . . . I've heard truer stories in bar rooms where the soldier starts out with "This is no...........".
Whoa.  This guy sure has some hatred in his heart.  Maybe I should suggest an exorcism? :incense:
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on December 16, 2019, 07:39:02 PM
Ask him for verifiable evidence of his hyperbolic claims.  Ask him if the sinfulness of Protestants discredits Protestantism.

Then offer a counter-claim with evidence.

(http://judaism.is/images/20th%20century%20perpetrators.jpg?crc=331480212) (http://judaism.is/images/Jєωs%20kill%20more.jpg?crc=271066327)
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: klasG4e on December 16, 2019, 10:14:48 PM
And it would be interesting if we could get some stats on the number of Jєωιѕн abortionists compared with abortionists from any other category.

I imagine the Jєωs played a major role in sanitizing and then getting rid of altogether the Hippocratic Oath --just as I'm sure they played at least some significant role in getting rid of the Oath against Modernism!
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Bonaventure on December 17, 2019, 09:00:53 AM
Ask him for verifiable evidence of his hyperbolic claims.  Ask him if the sinfulness of Protestants discredits Protestantism.

I may end up doing that.  For the time being, though, I'm going to let the above diatribe sink in a bit as an example of how hateful/bigoted 'Christian' Zionists (and some Prots) really are.  If you recall, the author of the above diatribe, who considers himself to be 'Christian', is the same one who said that he would stand with the Jєωs, "and if we both die in a pile of empty brass, . . . we will have taken many of the enemy with us."  I had made a follow-up comment to this, stating that this same guy (and those like him) wouldn't take the time to walk across the street to relieve himself on a Catholic if the Catholic were on fire.  I think many found that comment of mine to be bombastic; not so much anymore, as this devil has shown his true colors.  
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on December 17, 2019, 10:50:50 AM
(((They))) and their minions will use every lie, deceit, and fallacy available.

Tricks of the rabbis
 
Cognitive Infiltration
https://outlandersystemsblog.wordpress.com/2016/07/28/cognitive-infiltration/ (https://outlandersystemsblog.wordpress.com/2016/07/28/cognitive-infiltration/)
 
The 25 Rules of Disinformation
http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-25-rules-of-disinformation/ (http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-25-rules-of-disinformation/)
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Bonaventure on December 17, 2019, 10:54:14 AM

Cognitive Infiltration
https://outlandersystemsblog.wordpress.com/2016/07/28/cognitive-infiltration/ (https://outlandersystemsblog.wordpress.com/2016/07/28/cognitive-infiltration/)
 

^--- Linky no worky.
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: Mark 79 on December 17, 2019, 06:51:19 PM
^--- Linky no worky.
Alas, not even found on archive.org.
Title: Re: Response to Genesis 12:3
Post by: klasG4e on December 17, 2019, 10:40:45 PM
I may end up doing that.  For the time being, though, I'm going to let the above diatribe sink in a bit as an example of how hateful/bigoted 'Christian' Zionists (and some Prots) really are.  If you recall, the author of the above diatribe, who considers himself to be 'Christian', is the same one who said that he would stand with the Jєωs, "and if we both die in a pile of empty brass, . . . we will have taken many of the enemy with us."  I had made a follow-up comment to this, stating that this same guy (and those like him) wouldn't take the time to walk across the street to relieve himself on a Catholic if the Catholic were on fire.  I think many found that comment of mine to be bombastic; not so much anymore, as this devil has shown his true colors.  

If the issue has not been brought up yet you may want to ask him about incorrupt bodies.  Ask him where you can go view a single long deceased Jєω or Prot or member of any other false religion for that matter whose body lies incorrupt without any artificial means to keep it that way.

The history of incorrupt bodies remains one of the most remarkable ongoing miraculous testimonies to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.  It's no wonder that when the issue comes up in the public square (although not surprisingly it almost never does), the most vehement anti-Catholics start blowing all kinds of smoke in their attempts to discredit this heavenly Catholic phenomenon.

I'd love to see some anti-Catholic try to take on someone like Sungenis in a public debate as regards the authenticity/truth of Catholic incorrupt bodies being preserved without any valid explanation from the natural sciences to explain this phenomenon.