ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Finish It Here May 2016

Finish some April-May Blogs here.

Join Our Christian Singles and Take The Relationships Quiz
 ---Trav on 5/9/16
     Helpful Blog Vote (2)

Post a New Blog



Kathr said, " Wycliffe didn't do that or put all 80 books together."

80? I thought that Protestants only believed there were 66 books in the Bible. So where does the 80 come from? The pre-reformation Churches all hold to 72 books. What are these extra-canonical books you're trying to accuse Wycliffe of adding.

BTW, if you look up "Wycliffe Bible" on Google, you will see plenty of images, all filled with illuminations.
---Monk_Brendan on 5/29/16


If one will look up Wycliffe's Bible on line, it will be discovered that these mss had all the bells and whistles of Latin mss, in particular illuminations and decorated initials.

And they were JUST AS HARD AND EXPENSIVE to produce in English as in Latin.

Before the invention of the printing press, devout laity who could read and could afford them had Books of Hours, which contained many Psalms and long passages from the Gospels.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/28/16


Kathr said, "The issue discussed, before you try to twist it, is that the COMMON PEOPLE had access PERIOD. and I'm sure they had less money than the wealthy RCC, who could afford to put a bible every home or even community seeing they didn't mind fleecing the poor sheep in the first place to fill their coffers and live luxuriously in their fancy robes and jeweled crowns. When you think in comparison to those in the early church selling everything to make sure people's needs were met."

Kathr, you really have a solid hate going on for what you think the Catholic Church has done. I could spend five or six posts on the above statement.
---Monk_Brendan on 5/28/16


BTW, were Bible manuscripts less expensive in English?
---Monk_Brendan on 5/28/16

I'm sure they were Monk, because the RCC expense included pages and pages of COLOR illustrations and probably very expensive binding.

Wycliffe didn't do that or put all 80 books together.
---kathr453 on 5/29/16


IF Wycliffe had a printing press in the 1300, when the printing press wasn't invented until the 1400 is amazing Monk. However, his bibles were transcribed by hand or maybe a rude form of mass printing. THAT wasn't the main issue being discussed. The issue discussed, before you try to twist it, is that the COMMON PEOPLE had access PERIOD. and I'm sure they had less money than the wealthy RCC, who could afford to put a bible every home or even community seeing they didn't mind fleecing the poor sheep in the first place to fill their coffers and live luxuriously in their fancy robes and jeweled crowns. When you think in comparison to those in the early church selling everything to make sure people's needs were met.

Want a round 4 Monk?
---kathr4453 on 5/28/16




Kathr said, "Monk, Wycliffe produced bibles in English in the 1300's long before a printing press."

Wrong. Wycliffe did have a press. It was printed one page at a time, and he had to carve each page in wood, in reverse.

"...And we" WHO'S WE?' know this infuriated the Pope and Rome who actually dug up Wycliffe's bones and burned them with his bible."

Which Pope? I'll bet you can't name him without doing some serious research.

BTW, were Bible manuscripts less expensive in English?
---Monk_Brendan on 5/28/16


Monk, Wycliffe produced bibles in English in the 1300's long before a printing press. Who,said it needed all the bells and whistles that made it so expensive? And we know this infuriated the Pope and Rome who actually dug up Wycliffe's bones and burned them with his bible. That was pretty Aweful, and sounds more like revenge and hate. Did Wycliffe's print lies? NO! He merely transcribed into English so the common people could read for themselves? So those common people could afford his bible. Or maybe he just gave them away.....
---kathr4453 on 5/28/16


Leon said, "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT ISSUE IN USA blog:

///Emma Lazarus, herself a European, wrote a beautiful sonnet, but it has no legal force, even though it's at the base of the Statue of Liberty...---Cluny on 5/7/16///

By the way Cluny, Ms. Lazarus was born in the USA (New York City, 1849)."

And you had to look back almost a month to find ONE inaccuracy. So why did you dredge this up, Leon? Because Cluny hadn't said anything inaccurate in a while?---Monk_Brendan on 5/27/16


Just setting the record straight Monkman. Why is that a problem for you? SMH
---Leon on 5/28/16


Monk, people can accuse anyone of anything here on line. What we do is not accuse, but find the post with the persons name and date, and post it instead. I don't believe I have said much on avoiding traditions at ALL COST. Those are not words I would use. Please find the post I said that, and post it. Why would I say to avoid a custom of the firstborn daughter marrying first at all cost?

Secondly, whether people could or couldn't afford Bibles is not the issue. It was the absolute obligation of those Bishops and Elders to witness to the truth, and not take advantage of people's ignorance.
---kathr4453 on 5/27/16


Kathr said, "Now I will say, if the common people had a Bible at the time the RCC encouraged folks to buy loved ones out of pergetory and read this verse from Peter ....it never would have happened. We also see the RCC never gave much thought to Peters Epistles in the first place."

Didn't you get it? The common people were not kept from the Bible because of the Catholic Church, they couldn't afford the $8 million (today's prices) that it would cost to get one. And if you think that is chump change, do you have a spare million or two you could lend me?
---Monk_Brendan on 5/27/16




Leon said, "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT ISSUE IN USA blog:

///Emma Lazarus, herself a European, wrote a beautiful sonnet, but it has no legal force, even though it's at the base of the Statue of Liberty...---Cluny on 5/7/16///

By the way Cluny, Ms. Lazarus was born in the USA (New York City, 1849)."


And you had to look back almost a month to find ONE inaccuracy. So why did you dredge this up, Leon? Because Cluny hadn't said anything inaccurate in a while?
---Monk_Brendan on 5/27/16


Kathr, the common people could not afford to buy (or even rent) a Bible. In the times before the printing press, if someone wanted a Bible, they would have to commission one from the local monastery. Monks would then have to go back to the their library and copy out, by hand, the entire Bible. Such an undertaking was not cheap. Vellum, ink and feather quills cost money, and vellum was used in copious amounts.

Look up St. John's Bible in Wikipedia. In it you will find: The Bible is made of vellum, with 160 illuminations, and according to Abbot John Klassen has cost an estimated $8 million to produce.

The common people could not afford it.
---Monk_Brendan on 5/27/16


ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT ISSUE IN USA blog:

///Emma Lazarus, herself a European, wrote a beautiful sonnet, but it has no legal force, even though it's at the base of the Statue of Liberty...---Cluny on 5/7/16///

By the way Cluny, Ms. Lazarus was born in the USA (New York City, 1849).
---Leon on 5/27/16


Kathr speaking to Leon said, "I said it was CUSTOM Leon."on 5/25/16

When I asked her, on 5/26 "Kathr, aren't customs the traditions of man, which you keep telling me we should avoid at all costs?"

She answered, "FIrstly Monk, I don't believe I have ever made such a statement."

Kathr, you either have a very poor short term memory, or you are lying. Which?
---Monk_Brendan on 5/27/16


Yes yes the correct spelling is purgatory. Since the word has never been part of my life or vocabulary, or even in scripture, I do apologize to Monk and the RCC for the misspelling of a word in their doctrine. The main idea here was about indulgences. Where did this tradition and custom begin, and why did Luther have issues with it?
---kathr4453 on 5/27/16


Here's one Monk,
1 Peter 1:18-19

18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers, NOT LAW

19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

Now I will say, if the common people had a Bible at the time the RCC encouraged folks to buy loved ones out of pergetory and read this verse from Peter ....it never would have happened. We also see the RCC never gave much thought to Peters Epistles in the first place.
---kathr453 on 5/27/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers


Kathr, aren't customs the traditions of man, which you keep telling me we should avoid at all costs?
---Monk_Brendan on 5/26/16
FIrstly Monk, I don't believe I have ever made such a statement. However, what does that have to do with the FACT that it was their custom, not RELIGION? Monk, when scripture says not to follow traditions from your old manner of life, I believe what is meant is pagan or OT religious practices. Like not eating certain meats forbidden by the OT Law. Certainly it didn't mean the tradition of hospitality, marriage rituals, a hand shake for your word, or removing your shoes for example. Certainly you know the difference???
---kathr4453 on 5/26/16


Kathr said, "I said it was CUSTOM Leon. Lot was Abraham's nephew. So I'm sure the custom was true with Lot as well. Moses married Zephorra (sp.) whom the father gave to Moses out of 7 daughters. She was most likely the first born as well. Daughters were the property of the father. He decides who marries and in what order. So this CUSTOM was practiced by many."

Kathr, aren't customs the traditions of man, which you keep telling me we should avoid at all costs?
---Monk_Brendan on 5/26/16


And true to form Kathr barks on & on & on...!!! Is there no end to her infernal racket?! If there's a Mr. Kathr (I seriously doubt it) I'd like to express my deepest sympathies to the poor man. Head for the roof dude!!! (Pv. 25:24) :)
---Leon on 5/25/16
---Leon on 5/26/16


I read no racket from kathr.

She presented her points and reasons coherently.

Agape
---Samuelbb7 on 5/26/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce


One last note here Leon. Just because people are dead, does not give you liberty to make false accusations against them seeing they are not here to defend themselves from vicious gossip and slander. The only soap opera here is you taking on the character of the evil Ms Murphy who goes around being a busy body in others lives planting seeds of evil and maybe's and what if's to put someone in a bad light. You actually slandered Lots daughters and planted seeds of lies with no backup but your own imagination. That's wrong Leon. And I hope others hold you accountable when you continue to do this. When you stop, you won't hear any argument from me...OK.
---kathr4453 on 5/26/16


It's only racket to you Leon , and I wonder why? Because it exposes your lack of doing a thorough search of scripture before posting an endless barking of your imaginary nonsense?

Deuteronomy 2:9King James Version (KJV)

Deut 2:9 And the Lord said unto me, Distress not the Moabites, neither contend with them in battle: for I will not give thee of their land for a possession, because I have given Ar unto the children of Lot for a possession.

There was never any secret that the Moabites are the descendants of Lot. Then or now. If the daughters tried to pass them off as another sect, they would have taken on the name of that sect through the FATHER. Or else they would have been killed for duplicity.
---kathr4453 on 5/25/16


Genesis 29:26 And Laban said, It must not be so done in our country, to give the younger before the firstborn.

This custom is still practiced today in many parts of the world. I believe many Hindu also still practice this. So it wasn't JUST a Jewish or Hebrew custom. Often times too, marriage contracts were made even while the children were still children without their consent. It was as binding as a marriage.
---kathr4453 on 5/25/16


And true to form Kathr barks on & on & on...!!! Is there no end to her infernal racket?! If there's a Mr. Kathr (I seriously doubt it) I'd like to express my deepest sympathies to the poor man. Head for the roof dude!!! (Pv. 25:24) :)
---Leon on 5/25/16


Send a Free New Year Ecard


The definition of Bogus is written below|


.......I wonder if Lot ever really knew he was the father of his "grandsons"? Maybe I'm taking this in the wrong direction, but the explanation may've gone like this: The Bible indicates Lot & girls lived amongst the Horites people, of Mt. Seir, who later were dominated by the Edomites. I suspect the daughters soon after moving into the mountain with Lot may've intentionally met & mated with two mountain men who didn't know they were pregnant. When they gave birth, the men thought the boys were their own seed, not knowing that Lot had "unknowingly" impregnated his daughters.

I know this sounds like a soap opera, but ijs. :)
---Leon on 11/22/15
---kathr4453 on 5/25/16


Leon your bogus fairy tail is amusing. If the daughters claimed men from another group of people, say the Hitites for example, MOAB would not have become a people of his own aka MOABITES. You also need to study the Hebrew definition of the meaning of MOAB. The word means from your mothers father.

Josephus knew Jewish history customs etc. so his take would be far superior than yours Leon.

Leon the only bogus BEEFING UP is coming from you, with your wild soap opera story lines. I don't do that Leon. You're making a fool of yourself AGAIN.
---kathr453 on 5/25/16


Kathr: Because you & Josephus suspect the daughters were betrothed, that settles it, & I add to Scripture?! You're all over the place with bogus analogies about Lot, Abraham & even Moses's CUSTOMS being the same without a shred of supporting evidence. You really don't know if the betrothal procedure was being practiced in Abraham & Lot's day. You're grasping at straws, desperately trying to connect their marriage practices to that of Moses, Mary & Joseph.

Yes, you "made it up", but that's okay because "THE GREAT & POWERFUL KATHR" has spoken? You're a master at embellishment! :)

Here's your last chew stick. I agree, there's no agreeing with you in these matters. Okay, bark on!
---Leon on 5/25/16


Leon, even Josephus believed the daughters were betrothed, and to the ones called the sons in law. So this is not something I made up.

I said it was CUSTOM Leon. Lot was Abraham's nephew. So I'm sure the custom was true with Lot as well. Moses married Zephorra (sp.) whom the father gave to Moses out of 7 daughters. She was most likely the first born as well. Daughters were the property of the father. He decides who marries and in what order. So this CUSTOM was practiced by many.
---kathr4453 on 5/25/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry


Leon we can ask a lot of if and whys. The Angels told Lot to go not only to his SONS, but sons in law AND his daughters IF there were any. He found the sons in law IN THE CITY, it doesn't say...at home, most probably working, unless they were dead beat couch potatoes. And it doesn't say sons in law AND their wives which would be his daughters. And no mention of him going to any sons either. If there was a marriage contract, he was obligated to warn them.

We can do this till the cows come home Leon. We will just have to agree to disagree...RIGHT?
---kathr453 on 5/25/16


Remember guys TRADITION, not Scripture, says this happened even though the Bible is silent in the matter. It's kind of like what TRADITION also says about Mary's immaculate conception & her being a virgin her whole life. The Bible, again is silent regarding Mary's manner of birth, but does speak to the fact that she had other children other than Jesus.
---Leon on 5/25/16

I like your answer here Leon....so it is your TRADITION on filling in the blanks where scripture is SILENT concerning Lot, Mrs Lot etc. as we see above, the RCC also BEEFED UP a story not in scripture.....and what a mess!
---kathr4454 on 5/25/16


Why am I not surprised since you're such a "know it all" Kathr? Now you're trying to misdirect & compare Lot's daughters to Leah. smh

Like I said, people like you just don't get it even with the facts (proof) staring you straight in the face. All you see is trees, no forest. Scripture plainly says Lot had sons in law & "MARRIED" (not betrothed) daughters. Obviously, Lot spoke with the "sons in law" because his MARRIED daughters were living with them. Why else would he have gone & spoken with them?

What's that nonsensical spin about Lot's older of the two "live at home, SINGLE daughters"? Would Lot really have offered the girls to the mob if they were married?
---Leon on 5/25/16


Leon, I knew you would show up. You are such a mess when others don't agree with you. You just have to have the last say, even if you say nothing but insults.

There is no proof Lot had more daughters. Back in those days the first to marry was the oldest daughter...remember Leah... And look, Lots eldest daughter was with him. Also Leon, to be betrothed was a legal transaction. They may have been betrothed, but the marriages not yet consummated. They would be considered his sons in law. If Lot had other daughters in the city, he would have asked them to leave with him, not his sons in law.

Get a grip. Again no PROOF in scripture one way or the other. But people can see things differently than you do Leon. Get over yourself.
---kathr4453 on 5/24/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture


31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

Here Leon, we have something better. THE FIRST BORN. There is a 99% chance that the first born daughter is the first to marry. Laben would not give Jacob Rachael until Leah was first married. It was the custom. But who knows, maybe you have a VISION stating otherwise.
---kathr453 on 5/24/16


///...Is it because you asked the question you think you OWN it and we are all to submit to your suppositions or get off? Seems to be the motive for every blog you start. You don't want others opinions, you just want to grandstand your own...all puffed up claiming REVELATIONS FROM GOD.

I'm glad you finally agree with me that Lots wife instantly turned to a pillar of salt [?!]...

If Lot looked back at his wife, he would have LOOKED BACK. I'm sure the daughters screamed...MOTHER... [?!]

It's more insane to think like you that they said nothing JUST SO they could seduce their father [?!]...---kathr4453 on 5/24/16///

Kathr: You are one bona fide cuckoo bird! LOL
---Leon on 5/24/16


Wow!!! That was a slam dunk Monk! The all knowing Kathr never saw it coming. :)
---Leon on 5/24/16


Monk, firstly Paul was not a Bishop, he was an Apostle. Secondly, we don't know if Paul had ever been married, or even a widower. Maybe his wife left him when he was saved. By the time he went to Corinth, it is clear there was no wife with him, or traveling with him. What ever his state was then doesn't prove he never married. Maybe the thorn in his flesh was his wife leaving him. And he did not remarry.

I believe you will find this to be the general belief of Christians.

Paul never addressed himself as a Bishop. Apostles were hand picked by Jesus Christ. Bishops are placed by men with requirements. One is NOT TO LORD IT OVER OTHERS, but be an example to the flock. In other words Monk, they are not in authority over anyone.
---kathr4453 on 5/24/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops


1 Timothy 3:1

3 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

We see both in 1 Timothy 3 and in Titus the list of requirements if one desires the office of a bishop. . Anyone could be a bishop, if they so desired. And they were Bishops to churches, not cities. There were many Bishops in Philippi, so their must have been many churches in Philippi.
---kathr453 on 5/24/16


Here is the verse from Peter. Interestingly he says he too is an elder...not a Bishop. Therefore the whole idea of Peter being a Bishop or the first Pope lording it over , or acting as lord over....was against everything he believed. It's not an office of power over the Church.


1 Peter 5:1-3

5 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly, not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind,

3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.
---kathr4454 on 5/24/16


Kathr said, " And there is no proof Paul was single. We know Peter had a wife."

1 Cor 7:7-8 "For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I."
(KJV)

Don't you just hate it when Catholics know more about the Bible than you?
---Monk_Brendan on 5/24/16


The problem Monk is you get all your information and direction from the Vatican, not scripture. Is this why RCC don't read the Bible? Or put CANNON LAW above scripture? Again, that is a CULT. There is no such thing as CANNON LAW in scripture. That's the problem ...it' man made LAW. Just as the Pharisees ADDED to God's word and look what happened to them. God does not require a Bishop to be celebate. And there is no proof Paul was single. We know Peter had a wife. As far as the other apostles, scripture is silent. there was no requirement even in the OT for even Priests to be single. Otherwise how could the priesthood be carried down to the sons.
---kathr4453 on 5/24/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Lawyer


1 Corinthians 9:5

5 Dont we have the right to take a believing wife with us when we travel? The other apostles do. The Lords brothers do. Peter does.

Paul is writing this. So maybe Paul did have a wife. As well as the other Apostles. We do know that none of the apostles talk about their wives in their epistles. I'm sure some of the wives did TRAVEL with their husbands, and maybe some stayed at home. There is not one single verse stating Paul was single all his life. If Mrs Paul did not travel with him, yes Paul remained celebate on his travels.
---kathr453 on 5/24/16


Kathr said, "Bishops, are pastors of churches not CITIES. They were also required to have a wife....one."

Nowhere is it REQUIRED that a bishop must have a wife. After all, Paul was single.

Bishops are the head shepherd of a city or area, not a single community. (If you don't believe me, look up Code of Canon Law in the Vatican website.) Heading the particular community is the job of the pastor--priest.

I will say it again and hope you understand. In the Roman Church, clergy above a deacon must be celibate--unmarried! It is a rule of the Church, not a Scriptural commandment. In Eastern Catholic Churches, a married man may become a priest. Again, a bishop cannot, again, a ruling of the Church.
---Monk_Brendan on 5/23/16


So have I. I have studied very carefully. There was a Bishop of Rome. The first one was Peter, the same Peter that Jesus made the promise, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matt 16:18 KJV

The Bishop of Rome was called "Pope" from about the mid 11th century.
---Monk_Brendan on 5/23/16


Well then Monk, UNTWIST your own words. Peter was never a Bishop of Rome, or the first Bishop of Rome.

It's you who need to stop ranting on about things not in scripture. It's no different than what Joseph Smith did, starting his own cult.
---kathr4453 on 5/24/16


Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

Bishops deacons elders. So if we see bishops as in PLURAL in the verse above, Was Paul saying all the 12 Apostles were at Philippi? Would we not then see history showing 12 POPES? Where is Peter singled out? See Paul says all,the saints at Philippi WITH the Bishops and Deacons. He didn't say THE BISHOP ( single) of Philippi with all the saints. We see no such verbiage in scripture describing any single Bishop of any City.
---kathr453 on 5/24/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Dedicated Hosting


The church in Philippi was founded by the apostle Paul on his second missionary journey, recorded in Acts 16:1-40. Paul originally went to Macedonia because of a night vision described for us in Acts 16:9. In it Paul saw a man of Macedonia standing and asking that he come over to help them. Paul responded and so the gospel went triumphantly westward beginning in Philippi as the first city to be evangelized in Europe..

Yet Paul was not the BISHOP OF PHILIPPI or even called such a thing. He did however establish the churches with Bishops, deacons and elders. Therefore an Apostle is not or does not become a Bishop.
---kathr4454 on 5/24/16


Kathr said, " Monk, the church began in Jerusalem not Rome. And the Church is not an earthly building. Peter was an Apostle not a Bishop. There is a vast difference between the two offices..."

What, exactly, is the difference between Apostle and Bishop?

As far as the rest of your rants, I never said that the Church began in Rome, so don't twist my words. I have commented on Church not being a building before, but to remind you, the Church is the community of believers. If this is so, why do you worry about big buildings? I don't!
---Monk_Brendan on 5/23/16


Good points Kathyr and Cluny.

The problem with history is that when some write they leave out and change things.

For instance until the Great Schism in 1054 there was only one Church and the Bishop or Rome was never in charge of it. He was on the same level as the other Bishops.

Agape
---Samuelbb7 on 5/23/16


Monk_Brendan on 5/23/16

We see the requirements in scripture RE: Bishops, are pastors of churches not CITIES. They were also required to have a wife....one. I bet Rome like all big cities has/ had several churches. They also met in homes, not buildings. There also is no scripture from any of the apostles even mentioning Peter in their epistles to their churches. You would think if he were the high monkey monk of the whole organization, he'd have more epistles than Paul or John. Also Monk, the church God has designed are not men with titles and rank, but Gifts. Ephesians 4. No Cardinals, no Monks. No Mother Superior etc etc. all those things belong to CULTS. Just look at the structure of CULTS.
---kathr4453 on 5/23/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing


Monk, the church began in Jerusalem not Rome. And the Church is not an earthly building. Peter was an Apostle not a Bishop. There is a vast difference between the two offices. I'm sure Peter like Paul started many churches, as we see in the 7 letters in the Beginning of Revelation. And if there was a Mother Church, it again would have been in Jerusalem where James was the head of the council.

If Peter was a POPE, he sure got openly chewed out when he visited Pauls church with others in Galatia. Paul sure didn't see him as the Great PAPA POPE, but a two faced coward around Gentiles.
---kathr4453 on 5/23/16


Samuel BB said, "Monk Brendan. I study the Bible and History. The Rcc changed from the time when there was only one church. When there was no Pope."

So have I. I have studied very carefully. There was a Bishop of Rome. The first one was Peter, the same Peter that Jesus made the promise, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matt 16:18 KJV

The Bishop of Rome was called "Pope" from about the mid 11th century.
---Monk_Brendan on 5/23/16


\\Even within the bible itself you have many "Confessions of Faith." Paul cites a creed/confession 1 Cor 15:3-8, Phil 2:5-11, Jn 20:28 is also a confession...
---john9346 on 5/22/16\\

Good point, john9346.

Don't forget St. Peter's, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

And St. Mary of Bethany's similar words, "I believe that You are the Messiah, He Who was to come into the world."

Creeds and confessions of faith are a RESPONSE to the Word of God, as it is written, "I believed, and therefore I spoke."

They are summaries for BELIEVERS, not non-believers.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/23/16


Kathr:

You said:

"John, confessions of faith are NOT the WORD OF GOD."

Ma'am, with respect to you, none of the confessions ever claimed to be the Word of God this is why I asked if you had taken the time to read them...

So you understand the confessions serve to enabled the believers to know and understand, "The why, and The What) they believe... The goal is clarity

"confession of faith does NOTHING for the believer."

Incorrect, ever heard of the Shema?

Even within the bible itself you have many "Confessions of Faith." Paul cites a creed/confession 1 Cor 15:3-8, Phil 2:5-11, Jn 20:28 is also a confession...
---john9346 on 5/22/16


Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service


\\The Rcc changed from the time when there was only one church.\\

That's why I'm Orthodox.

When you're not going to change anything, NOBODY has to be infallibile.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/22/16


Cluny Luther has James in the Bible. He just thought it stressed works too much.

Monk Brendan. I study the Bible and History. The Rcc changed from the time when there was only one church. When there was no Pope.
---Samuelbb7 on 5/21/16


John, confessions of faith are NOT the WORD OF GOD. In the WORD of God, is the truth, WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. Do you pick and choose chapters of scripture you believe, and throw away the rest? False doctrine also has mingled with it LIES. I don't need someone else's confession of faith. I have my own, called a personal relationship with the Lord. Agreeing to someone else's confession of faith does NOTHING for the believer.

We have so much MORE light now than when these were written. How may times has the Westminster been revised??????

These are CALVINISTS / REFORMED confessions of faith. I'm neither.

Paul or any of the apostles DID NOT HAVE confessions of faith. They are not scriptural. 1 Cor 3.
---kathr4453 on 5/17/16


Kathr,


Ma'am, can you help us all to understand how much of these confessions have you read?

Are you saying you don't agree with chapter 1 and 2 of the Westminster Confession?
---john9346 on 5/16/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Settlements


John, I showed you one instance why the Westminster is false doctrine, and RCC. If you didn't get it the first time, you never will. Sacraments is RCC. The word is not even in scripture. We are saved by Grace through faith ALONE. baptism does not ADD Grace, nor does infant baptism save.
---kathr4453 on 5/16/16


Kathr states, "John, the Westminster confession of faith is false doctrine written by man, not God, and very CATHOLIC."

Ma'am, tell us, what makes the Westminster Confession False Doctrine?

Do you know the Original Meaning of the word catholic?

Kathr states, "Just read this one....what a mess."

Tell us, how is the Augsburgh Confession a mess??
---john9346 on 5/15/16


cluny said, "And you certainly can't claim people who lived and died BEFORE Chauvin of being Calvinists!"

Well sir when you read the writings of Hus, Wycliffe, and Luther then I will be happy to have a Substantive Dialog with you.
---john9346 on 5/15/16


Dear Monk Brendan

As a child the masses I went to were in latin. But I have attended masses and funerals since then.

I also taught my niece her Catechism.

True I know a lot less about the orthodox. But I am more interested in doctrine.

Which is why I listen to you and Cluny.

I am currently reading a little about Julian of Norwich and Maximos the confessor. But I just started them. So not much read yet.
I also want to read about Hildegard of Vingen and Elisabath of Schoau.
agape
---Samuelbb7 on 5/15/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services


Samuel BB said, "If you don't listen to those you disagree with how can you be sure you know they are wrong.

I have read books by Roman catholic writers and others to know what they actually teach instead of just going by what others say...."


Forgive me, Samuel, but are you reading with an open mind when you read books by RCC writers?

Have you ever attended a Byzantine Liturgy? Especially in English? The whole of the salvation story is there, in the Liturgy.

As I recall, you have Sundays off. Look for an Orthodox or Byzantine Catholic Church, and go in, sit in the back, and listen with an open mind. You might learn something.
---Monk_Brendan on 5/14/16


The Augsburg Confession

The Confession of Faith which was submitted to His Imperial Majesty Charles V at the Diet of Augsburg in the year 1530.

Just read this one....what a mess.

Has anyone found the confession of faith Paul submitted to Rome? Oh, yea, I think that was what we call the Book of Romans.

Can anyone see the difference between night and day between a God breathed document and a man made document?
---kathr4453 on 5/14/16


John, the Westminster confession of faith is false doctrine written by man, not God, and very CATHOLIC.

Baptism is not a sacriment, and infant baptism is not scriptural and in no way ADDS GRACE to anyone.

It's the reformed confession of faith. Reformed Catholicism, not reformed scripture. Scripture needs no reforming.
---kathr4453 on 5/13/16


john9346, believe in predestination is NOT the same thing as Calvinistic--or to be precise Dodrectian--double predestination.

And you certainly can't claim people who lived and died BEFORE Chauvin of being Calvinists!

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/12/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores


If you don't listen to those you disagree with how can you be sure you know they are wrong.

I have read books by Roman catholic writers and others to know what they actually teach instead of just going by what others say. One of the reasons I like you to be here is that you bring a viewpoint that I read very little about.

Iron sharpens iron.

Agape
---Samuelbb7 on 5/12/16


Cluny ask, "john, why should I read things written by heretics?"

Sir, because you made a Historical Fallacy which when research by all prooves, "YOU ARE WRONG."

I believe the question you need to answer is "Do I care about my credibility."

whether or not you disagree with a Theological Position it is vital to be truthful in stating facts...

Brendan had it right when he said, "If one thing that you have said is wrong, then how can I trust the others?"
---john9346 on 5/12/16


john, why should I read things written by heretics?

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/12/16


I'd invite those seeking the truth on what protestants really believe and taught on Calvinism/Augustinianism/predestination to read the following Confessions of Faith:

The Augsburg Confession of Faith,

The Belgic Confession of Faith,

The London Baptist Confession of faith of 1689,

The Westminster Confession of Faith,

The New Hampshire Confession of Faith.

The Philadelphia Confession of Faith.
---john9346 on 5/12/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Business Training


Why do you call me "sir," john9346?

Sir is short for "sire", which means "father."

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/12/16


Cluny sir,

When you read Hus and Wycliffe's Writings on Calvinism/predestination, then we can engage in Substantive dialog...


Kathr,

Ma'am, with respect to you, how much do you understand about Calvinism and church history??

I had to seriously ask because Calvinists do not hate Spurgeon "He is a hero." of the faith and Calvinists only recognize 1 predestination this is clearly stated in history...
---john9346 on 5/11/16


Rob I will be praying for you,may God touch you ,heal you,and give you peace in your body so you may go to bed.
---Darlene_1 on 5/10/16


\\Kathr, please note that Wycliffe and Hus died some 100-plus years before Calvin was born.
---john1944 on 5/9/16\\

john1944, I've been trying to get that across to john9346 for some time now.

Rob, may God have mercy upon you and heal you.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/10/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Software


I can really use prayer. I have arrhythmia and a thick heart muscle.

The past two weeks, I been very close to being taken back to the Emergency Room.

Today, I experienced the most severe episode that I can remember.

Because of my condition, since February, I have only slept in my bed twice I can't lay down, and must sleep sitting in a chair.
---Rob on 5/10/16


Kathr, please note that Wycliffe and Hus died some 100-plus years before Calvin was born.
---john1944 on 5/9/16


I would like to thank Monk Brendan for giving the correct name of the article, THE TULIP IS PLUCKED, to which I referred john9346.

The only institution qualified to speak for the entire Orthodox Church is an Ecumenical Council. We have not had one since the 8th century, hence you will not find one addressing a Protestant error that rose 7 centuries later.

Of course, as I've said many times before, when you're not going to change anything, NOBODY has to be infallible.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/9/16


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.