See No Evil Hear No Evil Christians

[Darrell C]

Maybe John the Apostle told him?
John 21
20Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” 21So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” 22Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!” 23Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?”

And you completely miss what we can learn from this: don't go around adding what you think the Lord said to what He actually said."

Simply amazing.

Now what, pray tell, have I added to what the Lord said? Which of us have a faith that allows for this?

Be honest.

I dare you.

John the Apostle is still alive, He said you folks got it all wrong.Laugh

And that's the problem, when we make Scripture mean something that is not there.

Justify Indulgences, Utilyan.

Do so and convince me that God has anything to do with that. Your faith taught it as within the authority of the "Church," so you tell me why you agree with them.

I dare you.


God bless.

 

[utilyan]

We can first start with the Canon Christ refers to:


Luke 24:44-45

King James Version (KJV)

44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

Then, we look at a statement you post to question the veracity of Scripture:


2 Peter 3:15-17

King James Version (KJV)

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.


So now we have in our Canon The Hebrew Scriptures, and all of Paul's Epistles.

That leaves the Gospels, the writings of John, Peter, and James.

Could you tell men which of these the Catholic Church denies as inspired Scripture?

Which do you deny as inspired, Utilyan?




According to Scripture there is.


Continued...

Circular Reasoning.

You can't look up LUKE or PETER because you haven't given cause as to why they are scripture.

A FINGER had to point at LUKE and PETER for you.

Get a child never heard the word of God. Put him in the room with the 66 books separated among the thousands of other Christian works, along with thousands of other religions.

He requires TRADITION to pick out those 66 books.

How do you know what collection of books is the bible?

"The historic Protestant position shared by Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and so on, has been that the canon of Scripture is a fallible collection of infallible books." -- R.C. Sproul.


^ I noticed your little bottom quote, You agree with this guy R.C. Sproul.

 

[Protestant]

One of the several issues surrounding the absurdity of the blasphemous RCC doctrine of Transubstantiation is that of a literalist interpretation of the phrases: “This is my body,” “This is my blood.”

There are numerous ways to prove the literalist interpretation impossible, not the least of which is the argument from common sense.

Common sense dictates that if the immutable God cannot be changed (Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8), He certainly cannot be changed into bread.

Nor can the creature allegedly create or re-create his Creator into bread…..no matter the ritual or incantation.

Neither can the sinful creature dictate to the sovereign holy God what He must do and when He must do it, no more than a husband can dictate to his wife what she must do and when she must do it.

Neither can Christ, who is the life (John 11:25), literally become bread which is lifeless.

The list goes on…..Christ is the rock, Christ is the door……metaphorically, not literally.

But let’s look at it from another vantage point.

Broken Leg - Fibula and Tibia Fractures

Scripture definitively declares Christ to have one body:

For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. (1 Cor. 12:12)

Scripture also declares the impossibility of Christ’s literal body being literally broken:

The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.

33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs (John 19:31-33).

This was, in fact, the fulfillment of prophecy:

For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken (John 19:36).

John is referencing the prophecies of Exodus 12:46 and Psalm 34:20.

In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof.

He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.

Therefore, when Paul states:

And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me (1 Cor. 11:24)......

.......Paul is not contradicting scriptural truth.

He is not claiming the bread to be Christ’s literal body.

Had he been speaking in literal terms, Paul would have contradicted Scripture, making him a false prophet.

For Christ’s literal body has never and will never be literally broken.

Of course, Jesus was not ignorant of this fact when He metaphorically declared:

This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me (Luke 22:19).

Neither Paul nor Jesus are false prophets.

The same cannot be said of the Roman Catholic priesthood.

 

[utilyan]

One of the several issues surrounding the absurdity of the blasphemous RCC doctrine of Transubstantiation is that of a literalist interpretation of the phrases: “This is my body,” “This is my blood.”

There are numerous ways to prove the literalist interpretation impossible, not the least of which is the argument from common sense.

Common sense dictates that if the immutable God cannot be changed (Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8), He certainly cannot be changed into bread.

Nor can the creature allegedly create or re-create his Creator into bread…..no matter the ritual or incantation.

Neither can the sinful creature dictate to the sovereign holy God what He must do and when He must do it, no more than a husband can dictate to his wife what she must do and when she must do it.

Neither can Christ, who is the life (John 11:25), literally become bread which is lifeless.

The list goes on…..Christ is the rock, Christ is the door……metaphorically, not literally.

But let’s look at it from another vantage point.

Broken Leg - Fibula and Tibia Fractures

Scripture definitively declares Christ to have one body:

For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. (1 Cor. 12:12)

Scripture also declares the impossibility of Christ’s literal body being literally broken:

The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.

33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs (John 19:31-33).

This was, in fact, the fulfillment of prophecy:

For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken (John 19:36).

John is referencing the prophecies of Exodus 12:46 and Psalm 34:20.

In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof.

He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.

Therefore, when Paul states:

And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me (1 Cor. 11:24)......

.......Paul is not contradicting scriptural truth.

He is not claiming the bread to be Christ’s literal body.

Had he been speaking in literal terms, Paul would have contradicted Scripture, making him a false prophet.

For Christ’s literal body has never and will never be literally broken.

Of course, Jesus was not ignorant of this fact when He metaphorically declared:

This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me (Luke 22:19).

Neither Paul nor Jesus are false prophets.

The same cannot be said of the Roman Catholic priesthood.

This theme is the number one reason the disciples left Jesus.

One of the common charges by the Romans against early Christians was Cannibalism because when it came to questioning They could not refuse that it was absolutely and completely Jesus Christ.
They could have said "Of course it is only bread and wine and not really Jesus." They went to their deaths on those charges.
You won't find the opposite. Folks saying "Of course it is only bread and wine and not really Jesus." Until 1500 years later.


You have a dilemma. Paul states when we are together eating communion it is not to eat the Lord's supper. They are not there to eat food or a meal. They are there to eat Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 10

20Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, 21for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.


1 Corinthians 10
27Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.


This is just common sense, If Paul agreed with you a person would only be guilty of the bread and wine rather then the body and blood. Or Kool-Aid and crackers in your case.





Other points of interest.
Paul is pleased because we hold firmly to the traditions exactly as he delivers them.

1 Corinthians 10
2Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

However Paul is a bit disappointed on how the Eucharist is being handled.

17But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse.

He goes on to explain how we handle the Eucharist will make it evident among divided factions as to who is the real deal.
When you get together to just eat crackers and Kool-Aid, it is evident this is not the real deal. You even say so yourself its not his body or blood its just crackers and Kool-Aid.


To recap. Paul praises for keeping the traditions AS DELIVERED (not in alternative method.)
"just as I delivered them to you."

He's disappointed in "GIVING THIS INSTRUCTION" particularly, The Eucharist. was done wrongly. It was not "just as I delivered them to you."

He then DELIVERS the TRADITION to them AGAIN.

23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;

And he goes over how its done PROPERLY.

Notice this line:
29For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.

Oh..... Do you judge the body rightly? Or do you Judge the CRACKERS rightly?

 

[Darrell C]

Circular Reasoning.

You can't look up LUKE or PETER because you haven't given cause as to why they are scripture.

Kind of forgetting the Hebrew Scriptures, aren't you?

How do you think Samuel knew that the Pentateuch was the Word of God, Utilyan?

You mock Biblical tradition, and you mock the word of God.

A FINGER had to point at LUKE and PETER for you.

Not really, my view of Scripture is a result of my own studies. There are a few Books of the Bible I don't care for very much. That doesn't mean I reject them as the Word of God, it just means I focus on that which has the focus of my studies at any given point.

But I am glad you have publicly made known your low estimate of Scripture. Is this a result of embracing Oral Tradition? Do you put more faith in men than you do in the Word of God?

And as usual, I see you are not able to respond to my posts, but pick a few statements you think you handle, and then respond in shallow fashion.

That's what oral tradition will get you.

Get a child never heard the word of God. Put him in the room with the 66 books separated among the thousands of other Christian works, along with thousands of other religions.

As long as he gets exposure he has a chance of being saved.

It is the consistency of Scripture that sets it apart from other so-called Scripture.

As far as a 66 Book Canon, not one of them leads to doctrine that conflicts internally among them.

If I ever get the time, I plan on a study of the Apocrypha, just to see if they have the conflicting doctrine I have heard they do. For now...got my hands full with 66, and I don't see the Lord being upset with me because I haven't studied them.

He requires TRADITION to pick out those 66 books.

He doesn't need to pick out 66 Books, Utilyan, he simply needs to understand the Gospel.

You're grasping at straws.

I guess the parts of my post you didn't respond to struck a nerve.

How do you know what collection of books is the bible?

The 66 Book Canon is the result of the work of former Theologians who, if nothing else, have complied a Canon that does not conflict. Start adding other books and that is not so sure.

I kind of wish they had left out Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes, myself.

But what does that matter? Just say it plainly...you reject the Word of God.

Why waste all this space with this tirade?

That's funny, because so far it seems you couldn't exegete your way out a peanuts cartoon, you revile the Word of God, and you embrace doctrine and practice that cannot be supported by the Word of God...

...and you say the Word of God is your ally? You are an enemy to the Word of God and subsequently the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

You are a sower of doubt, and you didn't get that from the Bible.

"The historic Protestant position shared by Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and so on, has been that the canon of Scripture is a fallible collection of infallible books." -- R.C. Sproul.

Do you even understand what he means when he says that?

^ I noticed your little bottom quote, You agree with this guy R.C. Sproul.

I agree with some of his teachings, yes, but as a whole R.C. and I have very different views on a number of issues.

Relevance?

There is none, because you do not even understand what he means, do you.

Thanks for revealing your heart, Utilyan. It's good to know where people stand, makes it easier when having a discussion with them.


God bless.

 

[Protestant]

SORCERER INVOKING A MAGICAL SPELL

POPE FRANCIS INVOKING A MAGICAL SPELL

Roman Catholicism is, essentially, religious sorcery consisting of wizards, costumes, incantations, altars, golden artifacts, candles and incense.

Despite the Lord’s absolute condemnation of sorcery (Deut. 18:10), Roman Catholicism is steeped in satanic deception through the conjuring of signs and lying wonders, prophesied beforehand in 2Thess. 2:7-12.

What is the doctrine of Transubstantiation but that of ‘legalized’ pseudo-Christian witchcraft?

And what is the sacrifice of the Mass but a pagan magical ritual believed only by those who have been placed under its hypnotic demonic spell?

The Roman Catholic Church and her Antichrists will never repent, to her everlasting regret, eternal weeping and gnashing of teeth.

And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:

21 Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts (Rev. 9:20-21).

A devil suddenly speaks through a Golden Idol taking Pope Francis’ breath away.

 

[utilyan]

Kind of forgetting the Hebrew Scriptures, aren't you?

How do you think Samuel knew that the Pentateuch was the Word of God, Utilyan?

You mock Biblical tradition, and you mock the word of God.




Not really, my view of Scripture is a result of my own studies. There are a few Books of the Bible I don't care for very much. That doesn't mean I reject them as the Word of God, it just means I focus on that which has the focus of my studies at any given point.

But I am glad you have publicly made known your low estimate of Scripture. Is this a result of embracing Oral Tradition? Do you put more faith in men than you do in the Word of God?

And as usual, I see you are not able to respond to my posts, but pick a few statements you think you handle, and then respond in shallow fashion.

That's what oral tradition will get you.




As long as he gets exposure he has a chance of being saved.

It is the consistency of Scripture that sets it apart from other so-called Scripture.

As far as a 66 Book Canon, not one of them leads to doctrine that conflicts internally among them.

If I ever get the time, I plan on a study of the Apocrypha, just to see if they have the conflicting doctrine I have heard they do. For now...got my hands full with 66, and I don't see the Lord being upset with me because I haven't studied them.




He doesn't need to pick out 66 Books, Utilyan, he simply needs to understand the Gospel.

You're grasping at straws.

I guess the parts of my post you didn't respond to struck a nerve.




The 66 Book Canon is the result of the work of former Theologians who, if nothing else, have complied a Canon that does not conflict. Start adding other books and that is not so sure.

I kind of wish they had left out Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes, myself.

But what does that matter? Just say it plainly...you reject the Word of God.

Why waste all this space with this tirade?



That's funny, because so far it seems you couldn't exegete your way out a peanuts cartoon, you revile the Word of God, and you embrace doctrine and practice that cannot be supported by the Word of God...

...and you say the Word of God is your ally? You are an enemy to the Word of God and subsequently the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

You are a sower of doubt, and you didn't get that from the Bible.




Do you even understand what he means when he says that?




I agree with some of his teachings, yes, but as a whole R.C. and I have very different views on a number of issues.

Relevance?

There is none, because you do not even understand what he means, do you.

Thanks for revealing your heart, Utilyan. It's good to know where people stand, makes it easier when having a discussion with them.


God bless.

Well I was hoping you thought R.C. is right bout it all. My guess now is no one on earth has better understanding of scripture then you do. Can't name one living person who has it right other then yourself.


Calling me enemy of the word means so much from someone who follows it backwards

24You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Yep .....can I get an AMEN!? nope

You see that a man is justified by faith alone and not by works. <--backwards. Don't you wish that trash was in the bible instead?


I can literally put Jesus advice here and you would choke first before repeating it.

25And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” 27And he answered, “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” 28And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE.”


I got no problem repeating Jesus' advice, Do you hate Jesus?



"The 66 Book Canon is the result of the work of former Theologians who, if nothing else, have complied a Canon that does not conflict. Start adding other books and that is not so sure."

That's your authority that's your tradition. What faith are they? Jehovah's witness?
Are these actual people?

We going to see ancient documents where pastor bob says "faith alone"?


I'm fine with what you say you believe, Its just that you don't believe what you say you believe.

 

[utilyan]

Ask Jesus how to drive a Car.

Jesus says just believe in me, have faith in me and you will drive a car.

Someone asks Jesus what do I need to do to drive a car?

Jesus answers just put your foot on the gas pedal and the car will go.

Some of you would argue with putting your foot on the gas pedal won't make the car move swearing the only thing you have to do is believe in Jesus.


Luke 10 (gas pedal verse)

25And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” 27And he answered, “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” 28And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE.”

 

[Darrell C]

Well I was hoping you thought R.C. is right bout it all. My guess now is no one on earth has better understanding of scripture then you do. Can't name one living person who has it right other then yourself.

There is not one person or group that has everything right, Utilyan. And I am more than willing for you to show me where I am in error in my views. You aren't going to do it by dodging everything I say and going on to preach your gospel.

The glaring factor about you is that you claim allegiance to a group who would toss you out on your ear for heresy.

Calling me enemy of the word means so much from someone who follows it backwards

This coming from someone who thinks the Lord is teaching men can gain eternal life by keeping the Law.

Go figure, lol.

24You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

James speaks about the visible actions of men and the justification in view is not from God...but from men.

You would know that if you bothered to actually read the entire chapter, but, since the L.O.S.T. (loss of salvation teachers never do that (because it would mess up what they want to teach) I will help you with it.

Let's start in Chapter One:



James 1:22-26

King James Version (KJV)

22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.


Understand? He is speaking about what a man does in relation to the Word of God. The Word of God teaches that if any man say he has not sinned, and has no sin, he is a liar.

And here you are denying that you sin.

Strike one for you. You can recover, though, by learning how to study properly, instead of making it up as you go. Granted, the group you say you are a part of has teaching that will no doubt confuse their adherents, but, there is hope for you yet, Utilyan.

23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:

24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.

25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

What is the perfect Law of Liberty according to the gospel of Utilyan? Perhaps "...you have the liberty to be in bondage to the Law perfectly?"

The Word of God makes it clear that God's Law is for man's benefit, it is not a book of regulations meant to make men false religionists. You have the identical problem the Rich Young Ruler had...you both think you have kept the Law.


26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.


Now, who is in view here, Utilyan? Who do men "seem" to be religious before?

God? No, God knows the heart. It is before other men that men "seem" to be religious before.

I know you will reject this, because it interferes with the gospel of Utilyan, but this is the basic premise underlying James' teaching.

That is why, Utilyan, I can trust and teach the Word of God and say...there are no contradictions between James and Paul, both teach inspired truth. You, on the other hand, have called into question most of Paul's teachings.

And just a quick example of men "seeming" to be religious before other men:


James 2

King James Version (KJV)

1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.


First statement he makes has to do with men interacting...this is not about men interacting with God, or His perception of men, which is flawless.

Keep reading, Utilyan:


2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;

3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:

4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?


Now who is going to judge what is being done here? God? Sure, but, back up and remember that in view is a man "seeming" to be righteous...before other men.

Consider:


8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.


Of course this does not apply to Utilyan, who does not transgress a single point of the Law, but let's say hypothetically that James means what he says, and that his conclusion is that if men "seem" to be religious yet have respect of persons, they commit sin.

Understand yet, Utilyan? Rather, can you let the gospel of Utilyan go back into the farther reaches of your heart, from whence it came, and give heed to James' warning? Can you see that in view are the works of men before men, and that here the example of being a "Doer" rather than just a hearer has to do with man in the temporal?

James is not establishing how men are saved here. He is not establishing how men are justified before God...but before men.

Another quick example, one well known:


15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,


16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?


Can you understand that this to maintains the context? That James is again establishing that men be doers of the Law...not hearers only?

Remember his statement concerning the Royal Law? A man hears that, and outwardly professes his love, yet does nothing to show it?

What the gospel of Utilyan teaches is that James is here saying "Do good works and you will be saved!"

And you miss the entire point, thus you wrest the meaning, and lose the lesson to be learned here.



17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.


Just like "seeming" to religious means nothing, the outward profession of the mouth in regards to the destitute is nothing.

Now who is going to see those works? God? Sure, but, James has no doubt God already knows. The exhortation here is for men to actually...do. Not just hear.

The faith that is not outwardly expressed in obedience is a dead faith.

That is what you have, my legalistic friend. As I said, no-one is ever going to believe you do not sin, not even the church you claim to be a part of. No credible Catholic would claim your doctrine as Catholic, but as rogue as them Protest Ants.



18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Very simple statement, of which we pick up the context back in Chapter One, "Be ye doers of the Word, and not hearers only," which when kept in context, let's the reader/hearer understand...anyone can make claims of religious standing, of faith, but, if that profession is not openly and visibly correlating to what the Word actually teaches...

...it is dead.

Will you hear the Word of God, Utilyan?

Now the last thing I will ask you is, who is James going to show his faith to?

God?

Nope, God already knows the true condition of James' heart.

James is going to show his faith to other men, and thus be...

...justified before other men.

Context...context...context, Utilyan, can save you from the gospel of Utilyan. You will miserably and utterly fail in the religion you have adopted, because it cannot save you. It cannot even justify you before other men.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

"The 66 Book Canon is the result of the work of former Theologians who, if nothing else, have complied a Canon that does not conflict. Start adding other books and that is not so sure."

That's your authority that's your tradition.

Note-should read compiled, not complied.

Not really. It is just a basic fact which does not need verification. All men who deal with the Knowledge of God are Theologians, and we have enough historical verification that if nothing else, these men can be called Theologians.

Secondly, as I said before, we look at the consistency of the Books which they decided to canonize, and that is good enough for me.

Third, hardly seems to be worth the trouble to reiterate something when you ignore just about everything I have to say.

But that is typical of the L.O.S.T. (loss of salvation teachers).

What faith are they? Jehovah's witness?

Not even around when the Canon was formed, although I am sure we could find some sects that closely resemble them.

Who, just like you, reject the Word of God and create their own theologies. They give lip service to the Word of God but in truth they have "holy writings" that conform the Word of God to their own religion.

For them that would be the Watchtower and the New World Translation.

For you we can conclude a less involved approach...just pick out a few key verses and off you go, and behold! A new religion is born.

Are these actual people?

Well, go mingle with atheists if you want an answer of no.

You can start here and decide if there were actual people involved, or, as your atheist comrades would conclude, they are fairy folk.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Yep .....can I get an AMEN!? nope

No, actually your doctrine is ancient heresy, you are not the originator of the false notion of sinless perfection.

That is in fact the ancient heresy John addresses in his first epistle.

We see people like show up every now and then, persuaded they don't sin, and that is possible to go through life without ever sinning.

But you won't get an amen from Bible Students. Just the folk, who, like you...who only know a few verses from Scripture.

You see that a man is justified by faith alone and not by works. <--backwards. Don't you wish that trash was in the bible instead?

It is in the Bible:


Ephesians 2:8-9

King James Version (KJV)

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.


You just can't see it.

What does Paul add to faith here, Utilyan?

How can you miss that men are not saved by works of any kind? That is what "Not of works" means...men are not saved by works.

But you cannot understand justification before men and God. This is why you wrest James to suit your religion.

I can literally put Jesus advice here and you would choke first before repeating it.

25And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” 27And he answered, “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” 28And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE.”

This is spoken under Law, which sets a pretty simple principle in place...obey God and live, sin...and die.

You are exactly like the man in the teaching:


Luke 10:25-29

King James Version (KJV)

25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?


Great example of salvation through works you have here, Utilyan, a man willing to justify himself.

So you ignore Paul saying we are saved by grace through faith and specifically saying it is not of works, and you ignore Paul teaching...


Romans 3:20

King James Version (KJV)

20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.


Galatians 2:16

King James Version (KJV)

16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.


You see here that in view is justification from God's perspective, not the people we go to "church" with.

This is why you are a Bible Skeptic, Utilyan, a Practical Atheist.

You have to deny the Word of God for the gospel of Utilyan to seem reasonable, first to you, then those you preach to.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

I got no problem repeating Jesus' advice,

First, Jesus did not offer "advice." That is your first problem.

Second, you do not understand the significance of men being under Law, which Christ was (Galatians 4:4), and how His teaching fits into that framework.

Third, you have to be absolutely ignorant of Scripture to think Christ was teaching that men could obtain eternal life through the Law. This is just a Bible Basic: man could not keep the Law, which was given for the time then present...because man sins:


Galatians 3:19-25

King James Version (KJV)

19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.


You should try reading the Word of God once in a while, my friend.

It will remove the self-imposed blindness you suffer from, and cleanse you of sin.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Do you hate Jesus?

No, I love Jesus in the capacity I am able, but do not profess it to be a worthy love.

But hey, I am a work in progress.

We going to see ancient documents where pastor bob says "faith alone"?

Sure, but we only need to be concerned with the ancient documents penned by the Writers of Scripture. We don't have to question Authorship.

I'm fine with what you say you believe, Its just that you don't believe what you say you believe.

On the contrary, you don't even know what I believe, because if you did, you would address the Scripture and points provided to you.

I know what I believe, and can support it with Scripture which cannot be argued, which is seen in the fact you always ignore Scripture, then add to that your skepticism of Scripture.

For you, if it doesn't support the gospel according to Utilyan, it can be thrown out.

Now, address the Scripture and points, and we will continue. If you continue preaching your gospel without discussion and debate that actually involves what your antagonist/s state, then it becomes clear you have no desire to test your doctrine, which makes it impossible to consider you someone interested in truth.

Step up Utilyan, address what I say, and leave off your false arguments and sidestepping of the issues.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Ask Jesus how to drive a Car.

Jesus says just believe in me, have faith in me and you will drive a car.

Someone asks Jesus what do I need to do to drive a car?

Jesus answers just put your foot on the gas pedal and the car will go.

Some of you would argue with putting your foot on the gas pedal won't make the car move swearing the only thing you have to do is believe in Jesus.


Luke 10 (gas pedal verse)

25And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” 27And he answered, “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” 28And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE.”

You do realize that you are not presenting Christ's teaching, right?

Of course you don't, so let me help you with that as well.

This...



Luke 10:25-29

King James Version (KJV)

25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.


...is the Lawyer's teaching as to how eternal life is gained.

Not Christ's. Christ states the man will live if he do this, which is the basic premise of the Law itself.

Now, let's see if the man has done this:


29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?


Not likely...this fellow isn't even sure about who his neighbor is.

Now let's see what Christ actually teaches:


30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.


31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.


32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.


33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,


34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.


35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.


36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?


37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.


Here's the question: was the man doing this before?

Not likely...he didn't even know who his neighbor was.

You are not presenting Christ teaching contrary to pretty much most of Scripture, which shows men did not keep the Law, could not keep the Law, and hence were in need of a Savior.

The gospel of Utilyan replaces the Savior of the Bible with works.

As far as how the Lord would instruct to drive a car, well, that would be lawfully. We do not eradicate the foundational teachings of the Law, but, we can be sure the Lord does not want us confused as to how we are justified in His sight, either.

Here's another picture of your gospel in Scripture, Utilyan:



Luke 18:9-14

King James Version (KJV)

9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.


Can you see yourself there, Utilyan? Scripture is a mirror we can look into, and it will do what it has always done...show us our sin.

You replicate the error of the Lawyer and the Pharisee, thinking you are justified by your works, which you see as fulfilling the Law. You don't have to confess your sin to God, simply declare to Him just how great you are, because you have chosen not to sin.

And there are few sins worse than adding and taking away from the Word of God as you do, and creating another gospel, which is no gospel.


God bless.

 

[utilyan]

There is not one person or group that has everything right, Utilyan. And I am more than willing for you to show me where I am in error in my views. You aren't going to do it by dodging everything I say and going on to preach your gospel.

The glaring factor about you is that you claim allegiance to a group who would toss you out on your ear for heresy.




This coming from someone who thinks the Lord is teaching men can gain eternal life by keeping the Law.

Go figure, lol.




James speaks about the visible actions of men and the justification in view is not from God...but from men.

You would know that if you bothered to actually read the entire chapter, but, since the L.O.S.T. (loss of salvation teachers never do that (because it would mess up what they want to teach) I will help you with it.

Let's start in Chapter One:



James 1:22-26

King James Version (KJV)

22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.


Understand? He is speaking about what a man does in relation to the Word of God. The Word of God teaches that if any man say he has not sinned, and has no sin, he is a liar.

And here you are denying that you sin.

Strike one for you. You can recover, though, by learning how to study properly, instead of making it up as you go. Granted, the group you say you are a part of has teaching that will no doubt confuse their adherents, but, there is hope for you yet, Utilyan.

23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:

24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.

25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

What is the perfect Law of Liberty according to the gospel of Utilyan? Perhaps "...you have the liberty to be in bondage to the Law perfectly?"

The Word of God makes it clear that God's Law is for man's benefit, it is not a book of regulations meant to make men false religionists. You have the identical problem the Rich Young Ruler had...you both think you have kept the Law.


26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.


Now, who is in view here, Utilyan? Who do men "seem" to be religious before?

God? No, God knows the heart. It is before other men that men "seem" to be religious before.

I know you will reject this, because it interferes with the gospel of Utilyan, but this is the basic premise underlying James' teaching.

That is why, Utilyan, I can trust and teach the Word of God and say...there are no contradictions between James and Paul, both teach inspired truth. You, on the other hand, have called into question most of Paul's teachings.

And just a quick example of men "seeming" to be religious before other men:


James 2

King James Version (KJV)

1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.


First statement he makes has to do with men interacting...this is not about men interacting with God, or His perception of men, which is flawless.

Keep reading, Utilyan:


2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;

3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:

4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?


Now who is going to judge what is being done here? God? Sure, but, back up and remember that in view is a man "seeming" to be righteous...before other men.

Consider:


8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.


Of course this does not apply to Utilyan, who does not transgress a single point of the Law, but let's say hypothetically that James means what he says, and that his conclusion is that if men "seem" to be religious yet have respect of persons, they commit sin.

Understand yet, Utilyan? Rather, can you let the gospel of Utilyan go back into the farther reaches of your heart, from whence it came, and give heed to James' warning? Can you see that in view are the works of men before men, and that here the example of being a "Doer" rather than just a hearer has to do with man in the temporal?

James is not establishing how men are saved here. He is not establishing how men are justified before God...but before men.

Another quick example, one well known:


15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,


16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?


Can you understand that this to maintains the context? That James is again establishing that men be doers of the Law...not hearers only?

Remember his statement concerning the Royal Law? A man hears that, and outwardly professes his love, yet does nothing to show it?

What the gospel of Utilyan teaches is that James is here saying "Do good works and you will be saved!"

And you miss the entire point, thus you wrest the meaning, and lose the lesson to be learned here.



17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.


Just like "seeming" to religious means nothing, the outward profession of the mouth in regards to the destitute is nothing.

Now who is going to see those works? God? Sure, but, James has no doubt God already knows. The exhortation here is for men to actually...do. Not just hear.

The faith that is not outwardly expressed in obedience is a dead faith.

That is what you have, my legalistic friend. As I said, no-one is ever going to believe you do not sin, not even the church you claim to be a part of. No credible Catholic would claim your doctrine as Catholic, but as rogue as them Protest Ants.



18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Very simple statement, of which we pick up the context back in Chapter One, "Be ye doers of the Word, and not hearers only," which when kept in context, let's the reader/hearer understand...anyone can make claims of religious standing, of faith, but, if that profession is not openly and visibly correlating to what the Word actually teaches...

...it is dead.

Will you hear the Word of God, Utilyan?

Now the last thing I will ask you is, who is James going to show his faith to?

God?

Nope, God already knows the true condition of James' heart.

James is going to show his faith to other men, and thus be...

...justified before other men.

Context...context...context, Utilyan, can save you from the gospel of Utilyan. You will miserably and utterly fail in the religion you have adopted, because it cannot save you. It cannot even justify you before other men.


Continued...

Even if all of James applies to fakers or "false religionists" it still sounds like you better your chances not being a "false religionists".

Your the believer that doing wrong is of no consequence.

Assume I am for Faith Alone. I certainly wouldn't whine about those who sin let alone write an entire book on how they should better their behavior.......Because THEY CAN'T DO IT.

They can't do it!
I can't do it!

It has to be a God given faith, so God has to grace them first.

But you think James is an idiot.


This added with your impossible to stop sinning. All James had to write is "hey hows it hanging".
Faith alone is faith alone therefore James can't contribute anything.


Suppose someone in your group says to himself I'm a false religionist. Can you better his situation?
The minute you have concern or want to give advice, you are in the WORKS zone.
Gonna have him do the good works of prayer or grovel to God? those are all works.

Get it through your head You can't neither He can't DO, DO WORKs to better his himself.

Even like how we debate. Works has no bearing?

If I was "faith alone" I would not debate. God has it covered. Even if I "worried" about you that would be hitting up a mistrust against God.

You can't even follow your own rules. Good Works remains minimum requirement.

 

[Darrell C]

Even if all of James applies to fakers or "false religionists" it still sounds like you better your chances not being a "false religionists".

I did not say it applied only to false believers, it applies to born again believers as well.

It is instruction in regards to religious practice that is all for show.

And that's the only false argument in your post I will address.

Address the posts and the Scripture. I have no intention on staying on the merry-go-round you're on.


God bless.

 

[Protestant]

Yet another proof against the wicked doctrine of Transubstantiation is found in the words of Christ:

Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Behold, I have told you before.

Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.(Matt. 24:23-26)

According to the infallible teachings of the Roman Catholic Church the consecrated wafer is literally the same Jesus Christ sent by the Father, adored by the Magi, angels and disciples.

Antichrist, the false Christ, holds another false Christ for the strongly deluded masses to worship.

The strongly deluded masses delight in unrighteousness as they willfully worship their false Christ.

As promised by the Lord who cannot lie, the elect of God, even those temporarily residing within the Catholic Church, will ultimately discern the deception of the Mass, coming out from her, while publicly repudiating her false teachings.

The non-Catholic elect of God will never be deceived by her false Christs and false prophets.

Thus, it is impossible for any Christian leader, no matter how famous and beloved by the populace, to insinuate a Pope or any of his false prophets may be a Christian brother in the Lord.

For should the beloved Christian leader hold this anti-biblical view unto death, he would then prove to be no Christian, but rather a deceiver and a liar.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Yet another proof against the wicked doctrine of Transubstantiation is found in the words of Christ:

Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Behold, I have told you before.

Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.(Matt. 24:23-26)

According to the infallible teachings of the Roman Catholic Church the consecrated wafer is literally the same Jesus Christ sent by the Father, adored by the Magi, angels and disciples.

Antichrist, the false Christ, holds another false Christ for the strongly deluded masses to worship.

The strongly deluded masses delight in unrighteousness as they willfully worship their false Christ.

As promised by the Lord who cannot lie, the elect of God, even those temporarily residing within the Catholic Church, will ultimately discern the deception of the Mass, coming out from her, while publicly repudiating her false teachings.

The non-Catholic elect of God will never be deceived by her false Christs and false prophets.

Thus, it is impossible for any Christian leader, no matter how famous and beloved by the populace, to insinuate a Pope or any of his false prophets may be a Christian brother in the Lord.

For should the beloved Christian leader hold this anti-biblical view unto death, he would then prove to be no Christian, but rather a deceiver and a liar.

 

[utilyan]

The #1 Reason a Disciple of Christ would leave him. REAL PRESENCE.

John 6

52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 53So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55“For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57“As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58“This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”


1 Corinthians 10

16Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

Protestant answer: ^No sireee......its just Kool-aid and crackers ! yuk yuk yuk!

 

[Protestant]

The website, Canon Law M-a-d-e Easy, was presented with a question by Natalie, a Roman Catholic concerned when her priest ran out of consecrated Eucharists to distribute among the congregation because he then performed a hurried ‘mini-mass’ on the unconsecrated wafers remaining.

Her question involved the validity of the consecration: Did those who received the second batch of wafers eat the same authentic Jesus as did those who ate the first batch which were properly consecrated?

The authors of the website expressed their utter dismay and disapproval of such an illicit consecration since Canon Law expressly forbids it. The Mass follows a prescribed liturgy of holy prayers and rituals in order to effectuate the miracle of Transubstantiation.

The website authors offered a solution to this momentous problem: break the consecrated hosts in pieces.

Apparently, though some of the spiritually-hungry faithful would not receive the whole Eucharist, there is still enough of Jesus left to eat - whether it be a foot, leg, hand or arm – to perform the miracle of remission of sins.

As to the question pertaining to those who ate the second batch of illicitly consecrated wafers, the website authors determined that the hosts were validly consecrated due to “the immense power of a Catholic priest, who is able to change bread and wine into Christ’s Body and Blood even when he really shouldn’t!”

Now this present author has a similar question.

Suppose Priest Alpha has just sodomized altar boy Johnny Beta prior to performing Mass.

And suppose Priest Gamma has just raped little Mary Delta who was visiting the priest in his office before he performed Mass.

Now multiply these events by tens of thousands worldwide.

Will the same wicked priests who violated innumerable innocent children still retain the power to effectually consecrate Eucharists?