Mary Queen of Heaven? What?

[annsni]

No I was NOT changing your words. Here is what you wrote.



OK. But then you wrote...



So we cannot pray to angels and they do not hear our prayers - UNLESS - (and that's the exceptional clause there) they are present with us and we PRAY aloud then they can hear us.

Hey - you wrote this not me.

No - you twisted my words. We see what I wrote and yet you wrote:

Hmmm...

Angels are NOT to be prayed to and they do not hear our prayers.
...BUT...
If angles are present with us, then we CAN pray to them and they can hear our prayers because we pray out loud.

Yet I never said that we can pray to them. If I am praying to God out loud and my children walk into the room, they will hear my prayers. If angels are present in the room, they will hear my prayers. If demons are present in the room, they will hear my prayers. Yet in not one of these cases are those people who verbally heard my prayers the one I directed my prayers to. So you see - you twisted.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Well I believe that the preponderance of evidence falls to the side of the Papacy. There are just too many writings to indicate that. I suppose we will just have to disagree on this point. However, thanks for the well thought out responses.

Peace!

I don't even get a smile for refering to Asterix, Oblix, and Getafix? :tear:

I thought it was very clever and funny of me. Especially, with the discussion of the patristics.

 

[BillySunday1935]

I don't even get a smile for refering to Asterix, Oblix, and Getafix? :tear:

I thought it was very clever and funny of me. Especially, with the discussion of the patristics.

Your historical knowledge is immense indeed. I'm not worthy - I'm not worthy.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your historical knowledge is immense indeed. I'm not worthy - I'm not worthy.

Are DHK and I the only who Read Asterix Comics as a kid? Lucky Luke? Tin Tin? I only mention DHK because he's canadian and may know what I'm talking about.

 

[BillySunday1935]

Are DHK and I the only who Read Asterix Comics as a kid? Lucky Luke? Tin Tin? I only mention DHK because he's canadian and may know what I'm talking about.

Sorry - when I was a kid it was Superman, Batman, Hulk, Fantastic Four, Sumariner, and some bad Harvey Comics. I wish I had those now.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Well I believe that the preponderance of evidence falls to the side of the Papacy. There are just too many writings to indicate that. I suppose we will just have to disagree on this point. However, thanks for the well thought out responses.

Peace!

Hi BillySunday...

I'm a converted Orthodox Christian after being raised an Independent Fundamental Baptist...I went through 9 months of Roman Catholic (RCIA) and a year of Orthodox Catechesis, before I settled upon converting to the Orthodox Church...

History reveals there were Five (5) Great Ecclesiastical Centers (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria). The Archbishops of these cities came to be known as Patriarchs. They presided over the synod of bishops in a particular area. Since the early Church was not monolithic, each center had its own theological style, customs, and liturgical traditions. Yet, all shared in the unity of the faith. However, a primacy of honor was accorded the Bishop of Rome, from early times. The Second Ecumenical Council (381) gave Constantinople a position of honor by stating, "The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishops of Rome, because Constantinople is New Rome."

Interestingly, Rome resented the Canon III which gave Constantinople second place in honor among the SEES...Looks to me if the Pope of Rome had the authority then (in 381) as he does today...this would've never happened, especially seeing that Rome finally rejected Canon III in 1215 after the Great Schism...

Today, in the Roman Catholic Church, when the Pope speaks "ex cathedra" (from the chair), in regard to faith or morals...why don't we see the Pope of Rome giving his stamp of approval "ex cathedra" at any of the Seven Ecumenical Counsels?

Also, in 1054 when the Pope of Rome excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, why didn't the other remaining Three (3) Ecclesiastical Centers of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandra fall under the Pope of Rome? It would make sense that if the Pope of Rome really carried the authority he claimed he had, and just excommunicated Constantinople from the Church, then the other remaining SEES would've continued under the authority of the Pope of Rome, but they didn't.

In XC
-

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Because they were all heretics and it didn't matter either way? :laugh: Or was it because muslims dominated their centers and they were more interested in survival from Islam, save Byzantium Which didn't last too much longer. And why was the patriarch of Constantinople in favor or Caesaro Papism?

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
If you look in the Bible for a reference to this queen of heaven thing - guess what you find the people of God doing?


Jeremiah 7:18
The children gather wood, the fathers light the fire, and the women knead the dough and make cakes of bread for the Queen of Heaven. They pour out drink offerings to other gods to provoke me to anger.

Jeremiah 44:17
We will certainly do everything we said we would: We will burn incense to the Queen of Heaven and will pour out drink offerings to her just as we and our fathers, our kings and our officials did in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. At that time we had plenty of food and were well off and suffered no harm.

I hope you're not saying that it was a good thing that these people were doing, are you??

No - I think that provoking God to anger by their burning incense to the "queen of heaven" was a "bad thing".

I am just pointing out that when you go to scripture to find some reference to the subject -- the one you find is this one listed above.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No - I think that provoking God to anger by their burning incense to the "queen of heaven" was a "bad thing".

I am just pointing out that when you go to scripture to find some reference to the subject -- the one you find is this one listed above.

in Christ,

Bob

Just to be fair these are the ancient writings associated with the Goddess known as "the Queen of Heaven" I've check and compared them and I don't see the comparisons here is what is writen about Isis which was a cult developed 100 years before christ

"You see me here, Lucius, in answer to your prayer. I am nature, the universal Mother, mistress of all the elements, primordial child of time, sovereign of all things spiritual, queen of the dead, queen also of the immortals, the single manifestation of all gods and goddesses that are, my nod governs the shining heights of Heavens, the wholesome sea breezes. Though I am worshipped in many aspects, known by countless names. . . some know me as Juno, some as Bellona . . . the Egyptians who excel in ancient learning and worship call me by my true name...Queen Isis."

I see no correlation with mary by this statement.

I am Inanna, Queen of Heaven,
On my way to the East.

Nothing here to related to mary. finally the goddess most problematic in Jaramiah Astarte. This is what wiki provides about this goddess

Astarte was connected with fertility, sexuality, and war. Her symbols were the lion, the horse, the sphinx, the dove, and a star within a circle indicating the planet Venus. Pictorial representations often show her naked. Astarte was accepted by the Greeks under the name of Aphrodite

again finding it hard to connect the dots.

 

[BobRyan]

Actually, this is incorrect. I will give you the rest of the information from the page that Lori was copying and pasting from:



from http://www.catholicdoors.com/misc/apologetics/solascriptura2.htm


Lori absolutely means the Roman Catholic church as we know it and not the church of the body of Christ.

I think she thinks those two things are the same thing.

But given the quotes you gave -

Saint Matthew wrote his Gospel about 7 years after Jesus was taken up to Heaven. Saint Mark was 10 years later; Saint Luke was 25 years after the Ascension of the Lord. The Gospel of John was written about 63 years after the Ascension.

The point above being that Christians "existed" prior to the writing of the first of the Gospel letters. And the hope of the RCC is that, purgatory, Mariology, prayers to the dead, magic powers of the priest to confect God etc were all being done in those 7 years before the first Gospel was written - yet innexplicably no Bible writer mentioned it.

I ask you, “How did the early believers become Christians?” “How did they save their souls?”.

The Bible writers say it was by reading the Bible (see Acts 17:1-3, 11).

In fact "studying the scriptures DAILY to see IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO" - Acts 17:11

It certainly was not by reading the Bible

Well there is a difference of opinion that is easily resolved by taking the time to read Acts 17. (Or Acts 13, or Luke 24 ... etc)

because there was no New Testament.

Well we can agree that there was no New Testament text until at least the first gospel was written. But that is a far cry from the wild claim that there "was no Bible" - no "scripture" for them to rely on in a true "sola scriptura" test of doctrine.

To the contrary - the inspired text of Acts 17 shows them doing the very thing that the RCC is not allowed for Christians much less non-Christians.

It was not until 397 A.D., under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, at the Council of Carthage, that the Catholic Church finally agreed on which writings should be part of the New Testament.

A few inconvenient details surface.

1. The 397 statement did not "produce a Bible" it did not "invent a Bible". it was dealing with written texts ALREADY accepted and read by Christians for centuries.

2. The first century NT Christians were not "refusing to read Paul's letters until three hundred years later when the council of Carthage told them to go ahead and read them". In fact in 1Thess 2 - Paul says that his letters were already being accepted as inspired writing.

Conclusion: nobody in the first and 2nd century A.D was waiting around for the RCC to tell them what to read 300 years later.

The strange thing about Sola Scriptura, those who claim that every word in the Holy Bible is the infallible word of God, they fail to affirm that God commissioned the Catholic Church, no other Church, to compile the Holy Bible. It was the Catholic Church that produced the Bible. It was not the Bible that produced the Church.

On the contrary. Paul was not a member of the Catholic Church - nor did any Catholic church entity tell Paul to write something. The same goes for all other NT writers.

2Tim 3:16 says that God is the one that produced the text - not the RCC.

Peter himself affirms that point 2Peter 1:21.

Now if faith is only obtained by reading the Holy Bible (Sola Scriptura) in order to be saved, than salvation comes from the invention of the printing press.

Wrong "again".

Paul says in 2Tim 3:15-17 that the scriptures that Timothy had available to him "as a child" were sufficient to lead him to salvation.

Oops! No RCC there either!

So you see my brothers and sisters in Christ, if we are to believe that we only need the Holy Bible in order to be saved, then most of the members of the Church during the past 1,500 years could not have been saved

That was just shown to be false in the points listed above.

, only those who owned a Bible. We know that this is not true, that an endless number of believers, saints and martyrs, were saved throughout the centuries because of their unity to the Catholic Church as commanded by Jesus.

There is no mention at all in scripture of Jesus ever saying that the "Catholic Church" even existed.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Jeremiah 7:18
The children gather wood, the fathers light the fire, and the women knead the dough and make cakes of bread for the Queen of Heaven. They pour out drink offerings to other gods to provoke me to anger.

Jeremiah 44:17
We will certainly do everything we said we would: We will burn incense to the Queen of Heaven and will pour out drink offerings to her just as we and our fathers, our kings and our officials did in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. At that time we had plenty of food and were well off and suffered no harm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by annsni
I hope you're not saying that it was a good thing that these people were doing, are you??

No - I think that provoking God to anger by their burning incense to the "queen of heaven" was a "bad thing".

I am just pointing out that when you go to scripture to find some reference to the subject -- the one you find is this one listed above.

Just to be fair these are the ancient writings associated with the Goddess known as "the Queen of Heaven" I've check and compared them and I don't see the comparisons here is what is writen about Isis which was a cult developed 100 years before christ I see no correlation with mary by this statement. .

My point above is that if the Bible is of interest to someone when thinking about burning incense "to the queen of heaven" - then looking at the book of Jeremiah would be the only place where the subject is explicitly addressed.

But your comments seems to focus on just what the RCC was thinking when 4 or 5 centuries after the time of Christ - it too decided to start burning incense to the "queen of heaven" but to then start calling her "Mary".

It gets to the whole discussion of just how paganism was adopted into the Catholic church system of communicating with the dead.

It is interesting to note how even RCC sources themselves will speak about this topic -

Catholics of the 20th century publish the connection to paganism for the world to see and understand. (Catholic Digest is the 2nd largest Catholic publication on the planet – though it is not written by the Vatican itself)

Pagan prayer methods.

Catholic Digest 12/1994 pg 129

“The Rosary is, unsurprisingly, Not mentioned in the Bible. Legend and history place its beginning in the 13th century long After the Bible was completed. As a Pagan practice, praying on counting beads goes back centuries before Christ…

Buddhists use prayer wheels and prayer beads for the same purpose… Counting prayer beads is common practice in religious cultures”.

Cath Digest 9/1993 pg 129
Question:
“My husband has been transferred to Japan and we have been here in Hiroshima for about two months. On a site seeing tour the Japanese guide brought me to a Buddhist shrine. There were statues of Buddha everywhere. The guide told me they represented different aspects of life and that the people offer food to the Buddhas and ask for Favors. It made me think of Our Catholic praying to the saints and wonder whether they have anything like the Ten Commandments to guide them.

There were fountains at the gate where pious visitors washed their hands before entering the shrine grounds. Could this be the same as our holy water?”

Ans:
“Very probably the physical washing signifies some kind of spiritual cleansing, AS it does with Us! Some Muslims say prayers on rosarylike beads Just as We do, so there is no copyright enforced on prayerful customs among the great world religions. [b]The Pagan Romans prayed, each family to its Own household gods, JUST as we do to our patron saints[/B]. In Old Testament times the gentile had local gods for their town or country, and our Christian Saints eventually supplanted Them!

The Hebrews, of Course, had the mission of Wiping Out such heathen worship[/b] with the worship of the one true God, and while they have always had great respect for spiritual heroes, they Never set up any of their own race as substitutes for the local pagan gods!!
They had no need to make distinctions between praying TO the saints for their intercession with god and total adoration of God as the source of everything, as we must!

And of course we already have that quote from the Catechism on communicating with the dead.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The Catholic historian Thomas Bokenkotter's best selling pro-Catholic book "a concise history of the Catholic church" makes it abundantly clear..

How much influence did Emperor Constantine have on the RCC “really”. How much of a role in moving it past the point of merely “Not persecuted” ?

Here we see an RC source - (A Catholic historian in this case) talking about the historic fact of paganism being incorporated into the RCC.

At first Constantine observed an attitude of formal correctness toward paganism. He remained its Supreme Pontiff, paid homage to the sun god on the official coinage, and in general was careful not to alienate the pagan masses…But he gradually revealed his true feelings. He imposed restrictions on pagan practice and publicly displayed the Christian symbols[/b] He attached the standards of the army to a cross emblazoned with the monograme of Christ and issued coins picturing himself wearing a helmet stamped with the same monogram…he increasingly identified the interests of the state with those of Christianity.
(Bokenkotter "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" page 38)

“The emperor showed great generosity to the Church in lavishing donations on it and erecting numerous sumptuous basilicas, including the magnificent one over the supposed site of the tomb of Peter at Rome and another over the tomb of Christ in Jerusalem. [b]He surrendered HIS Lateran palace in Rome to the bishop of Rome for a residence and it remained the Papal residence until 1308. When in 324 he moved the capital of the Empire to Byzantium, which was renamed Constantinople after him, he erected numerous churches there…

"This alliiance with the state profoundly influenced every aspect of the church's thought and life.[/b] It carried many advantages, but it also entailed some serious drawbacks; ... Mass conversions where social conformity was the chief motivating factor; the widening gap between clergy and laity thanks to the official status conferred on them; persecution of dissenters as a menace to the unity of the state. The church would never be the same again - for better and for worse - and so Constantine's conversion is certainly one of the greatest turning points in the history of the Catholic church and of the world." Ibid - Pg 39





Ibid -Pg 49 speaks of the change that occurred in the 4th century

"the clergy at first were not sharply differentiated from the laity..the clergy married, raised families, and earned their livelihood at some trade or profession. But as the practice grewof paying them..they withdrew more and more from secular pursuits, until by the fourth century such withdrawal was deemed obligatory"

"at first the Christian presbyter or elder (as they were really known) avoided any resemblance to the pagan or Jewish priests and, in fact even deliberately refused to be called a priest[/b]. He (the real Christian leader) saw his primary function as the ministry of the word. ..but the image of the Christian presbyter gradually took on a sacral character."

"[b]the more elaborate liturgy of the post-Constantinian era, with its features borrowed from paganism, enhanced the image of the minister[/b] as a sacred personage. The ministry of the word diminished in importance when infant baptism became the rule rather than the exception, for infants could not be preached to. "

And then of course there is the Catholic Catechism itself on the subject of communicating with the dead

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p5.htm

PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
SECTION TWO
THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

CHAPTER THREE
I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT

ARTICLE 9
"I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH"
Paragraph 5. The Communion of Saints
946 After confessing "the holy catholic Church," the Apostles' Creed adds "the communion of saints." In a certain sense this article is a further explanation of the preceding: "What is the Church if not the assembly of all the saints?"477 The communion of saints is the Church.
947 "Since all the faithful form one body, the good of each is communicated to the others.... We must therefore believe that there exists a communion of goods in the Church. But the most important member is Christ, since he is the head.... Therefore, the riches of Christ are communicated to all the members, through the sacraments."478 "As this Church is governed by one and the same Spirit, all the goods she has received necessarily become a common fund."479

948 The term "communion of saints" therefore has two closely linked meanings: communion in holy things (sancta)" and "among holy persons (sancti)."
Sancta sanctis! ("God's holy gifts for God's holy people") is proclaimed by the celebrant in most Eastern liturgies during the elevation of the holy Gifts before the distribution of communion. The faithful (sancti) are fed by Christ's holy body and blood (sancta) to grow in the communion of the Holy Spirit (koinonia) and to communicate it to the world.

958 Communion with the dead. "In full consciousness of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the Church in its pilgrim members, from the very earliest days of the Christian religion, has honored with great respect the memory of the dead; and 'because it is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins' she offers her suffrages for them."498 Our prayer for them is capable not only of helping them, but also of making their intercession for us effective.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Jeremiah 7:18
The children gather wood, the fathers light the fire, and the women knead the dough and make cakes of bread for the Queen of Heaven. They pour out drink offerings to other gods to provoke me to anger.

Jeremiah 44:17
We will certainly do everything we said we would: We will burn incense to the Queen of Heaven and will pour out drink offerings to her just as we and our fathers, our kings and our officials did in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. At that time we had plenty of food and were well off and suffered no harm.

[/I]









My point above is that if the Bible is of interest to someone when thinking about burning incense "to the queen of heaven" - then looking at the book of Jeremiah would be the only place where the subject is explicitly addressed.

But your comments seems to focus on just what the RCC was thinking when 4 or 5 centuries after the time of Christ - it too decided to start burning incense to the "queen of heaven" but to then start calling her "Mary".

It gets to the whole discussion of just how paganism was adopted into the Catholic church system of communicating with the dead.

It is interesting to note how even RCC sources themselves will speak about this topic -

Catholics of the 20th century publish the connection to paganism for the world to see and understand. (Catholic Digest is the 2nd largest Catholic publication on the planet – though it is not written by the Vatican itself)

Pagan prayer methods.







And of course we already have that quote from the Catechism on communicating with the dead.

in Christ,

Bob

I'm just trying to be fair. It seems to me that you're not being such with the RCC. I'll explain. Just because they give Mary the title "queen of heaven" you've made a correlation between the RCC and Pagan cult the Queen of heaven. My point is this is not necissarily so. For instance. I can draw correlations between Christianity and Demeter, Mythras, Horis, etc.... The fact that there are similar type themes does not necisarrily connect the dots. If what you say is true than I must state that using the same reasoning you've applied to Mary I can apply to Christ. And we must then admit that Jesus Christ is a Type of Demeterm, or a type of Mythras or a type of Horis. That the myths that permiated about these ancient mystery Gods became adopted and expressed about a Jewish Preacher named Jesus and that Christianity is not really a faith founded on the Blood of Jesus Christ but a purpetrated mythos going all the way back to Egypt. You must come up with a better correlation than just a name. You make an assumption that the people back in the 400 started with thinking Hey lets make Asthoreth in to Mary that way we don't feel bad. However, if you read the writings of Christians in those days this is far from their intent.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I'm just trying to be fair. It seems to me that you're not being such with the RCC. I'll explain. Just because they give Mary the title "queen of heaven" you've made a correlation between the RCC and Pagan cult the Queen of heaven. My point is this is not necissarily so. For instance. I can draw correlations between Christianity and Demeter, Mythras, Horis, etc.... The fact that there are similar type themes does not necisarrily connect the dots. If what you say is true than I must state that using the same reasoning you've applied to Mary I can apply to Christ. And we must then admit that Jesus Christ is a Type of Demeterm, or a type of Mythras or a type of Horis. That the myths that permiated about these ancient mystery Gods became adopted and expressed about a Jewish Preacher named Jesus and that Christianity is not really a faith founded on the Blood of Jesus Christ but a purpetrated mythos going all the way back to Egypt. You must come up with a better correlation than just a name. You make an assumption that the people back in the 400 started with thinking Hey lets make Asthoreth in to Mary that way we don't feel bad. However, if you read the writings of Christians in those days this is far from their intent.

I used to drink that cool-aid crap that Jack Chick would come up with...Catholicism and paganism connection...

Funny, as a former Baptist, shortly after 9/11, our Church started a weekly Wednesday night series on Islam...our pastor used the encyclopedia of History of Civilization (no longer in being printed, but is available at a library) as his source...I remember being at the library one Saturday afternoon with my family and running across this collection of books...

I was surprised to read where the same author linked many, if not all of mainline Christian beliefs...The Holy Trinity, birth from a Virgin, Son of God dying for the sins of the world...ect...all were taken from various Pagan practices and beliefs...

I told my pastor about his source he used for Islam also, slammed Christianity and how could I believe he was right about Islam, when the same source discredited Christianity?

He was surprised that I followed up with his source...even though I didn't go looking to follow-up, it was just by chance that I ran across his source he preached from...surprisingly he told me to keep it between himself and me and that he would look into it...

In XC
-

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I used to drink that cool-aid crap that Jack Chick would come up with...Catholicism and paganism connection...

Funny, as a former Baptist, shortly after 9/11, our Church started a weekly Wednesday night series on Islam...our pastor used the encyclopedia of History of Civilization (no longer in being printed, but is available at a library) as his source...I remember being at the library one Saturday afternoon with my family and running across this collection of books...

I was surprised to read where the same author linked many, if not all of mainline Christian beliefs...The Holy Trinity, birth from a Virgin, Son of God dying for the sins of the world...ect...all were taken from various Pagan practices and beliefs...

I told my pastor about his source he used for Islam also, slammed Christianity and how could I believe he was right about Islam, when the same source discredited Christianity?

He was surprised that I followed up with his source...even though I didn't go looking to follow-up, it was just by chance that I ran across his source he preached from...surprisingly he told me to keep it between himself and me and that he would look into it...

In XC
-

Yes I believe we can be disingenuous with our understanding of the Traditions of the Catholic Church. And its fun to buy into Jack Chick's weird world view when it comes to correlations that aren't really there save in his mind. However, to the few people abused with in the Catholic church there must be some comfort to read Jack Chick and see that "Holy Men" will be judged for their hypocracy. And unfortunately, Chick gets a lot of membership because he is sensational. He believes in demons turning people into werewolves and that black magic works an on many levels is superstitious. Why the high readership as well. Because the Christian churches fail to teach their followers what is right and true and if someone agrees with me no matter how strange he becomes a credible source. Its a shame that aspect anyway.

 

[BillySunday1935]

Yes I believe we can be disingenuous with our understanding of the Traditions of the Catholic Church. And its fun to buy into Jack Chick's weird world view when it comes to correlations that aren't really there save in his mind. However, to the few people abused with in the Catholic church there must be some comfort to read Jack Chick and see that "Holy Men" will be judged for their hypocracy. And unfortunately, Chick gets a lot of membership because he is sensational. He believes in demons turning people into werewolves and that black magic works an on many levels is superstitious. Why the high readership as well. Because the Christian churches fail to teach their followers what is right and true and if someone agrees with me no matter how strange he becomes a credible source. Its a shame that aspect anyway.

Jack Chick is famous for being the most successful underground cartoonist in history. That he is (over 1 billion tracts printed to date) – however, most of his colleagues agree that his religious views are absolutely ludicrous.

I concur!

 

[DHK]

Jack Chick is famous for being the most successful underground cartoonist in history. That he is (over 1 billion tracts printed to date) – however, most of his colleagues agree that his religious views are absolutely ludicrous.

I concur!

And when Agnus doesn't have any argument left he always refers to Jack Chick for his lame argument (which is a really moot point) because he knows full well that none of us use Jack Chick in our research.

It is Agnus's way of throwing a temper tantrum.

 

[lori4dogs]

And when Agnus doesn't have any argument left he always refers to Jack Chick for his lame argument (which is a really moot point) because he knows full well that none of us use Jack Chick in our research.

It is Agnus's way of throwing a temper tantrum.

Agnus's positions are far from lame, DHK. Yours, on the other hand . . . .

 

[DHK]

Agnus's positions are far from lame, DHK. Yours, on the other hand . . . .

Don't throw a fit Lori. I have quoted to you from a Catholic Encyclopedia, the RCC Catechism. In the past I have quoted articles from Vatican II. I have quoted from reliable history sources. I have done much more than you have.

Salvation is by grace through faith. But you don't believe that. You believe salvation is by works which Paul condemns.

Jesus said you must be born again to enter into the Kingdom of heaven, but you don't even know what that means, do you?

 

[lori4dogs]

Don't throw a fit Lori. I have quoted to you from a Catholic Encyclopedia, the RCC Catechism. In the past I have quoted articles from Vatican II. I have quoted from reliable history sources. I have done much more than you have.

Salvation is by grace through faith. But you don't believe that. You believe salvation is by works which Paul condemns.

Jesus said you must be born again to enter into the Kingdom of heaven, but you don't even know what that means, do you?

We have been through this numerous times, DHK. I insist that the Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by grace, through faith. You just come back with 'the Catholic Church doesn't have a clue what grace means'. I don't find your position convincing nor one that has existed in the early Church.